In article <3fov84$9...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu (Joe Cochran) writes:>>Don't read into the press release what's not there. Here's what the
>>release said exactly:>>>"Despite the changes, Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
>>rules will be 100% playable with Jyhad cards. The game will also keep the
>>green marble look and the Jyhad symbol.">>>That says nothing about the card backs. The symbol is that tri-sided
>>round thing. The green marble look is the look that has been with
>>Vampire ever since White Wolf released it. The rules will be playable
>>with Jyhad cards, but there's no mention either way as to whether the
>>cards themselves will match Jyhad cards.>
>That "Marbled look and the Jyhad symbol *is* the card back.
>Also, to be playable with Jyhad Cards, the backs have to be the same.
No, there's also the word "Jyhad" printed on the back of the card. That's
the main concern, whether or not that word will change to another such as
"Vampire".
Who says that the backs have to be the same for Vampire *rules* to be
playable with Jyhad cards? The wording may implicate a minimal change,
but it *does* stop short of saying anything about the cards specifically.
Richard Garfield, in one of the early Duelist interviews, said that
playtesting had determined that card backs weren't important to play
(regarding making Arabian Knights' backs different from Gathering), but
that it was only popular demand that made them keep the backs. That
could mean that Wizards feels cards with different backs are playable
with new cards.
I'm not offering judgement on it, I'm just saying that the press release
is vague on this point, and nobody should bet money on what the card
backs will look like.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3fm7ud$r...@news.bu.edu>, James Falco <ed...@bu.edu> wrote:
>Sheesh...does anyone ever read posts anymore, or just type first and ask
>questions later? If any had bothered to read the official posted press
>release, they would have seen that the card backs WILL NOT CHANGE. Drop it
>already, my Methuselahs.....:)
Don't read into the press release what's not there. Here's what the
release said exactly:
"Despite the changes, Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
rules will be 100% playable with Jyhad cards. The game will also keep the
green marble look and the Jyhad symbol."
That says nothing about the card backs. The symbol is that tri-sided
round thing. The green marble look is the look that has been with
Vampire ever since White Wolf released it. The rules will be playable
with Jyhad cards, but there's no mention either way as to whether the
cards themselves will match Jyhad cards. It's fine to say that WotC
may not change the backs, but there is no reason to believe that from
the press release.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sheesh...does anyone ever read posts anymore, or just type first and ask
questions later? If any had bothered to read the official posted press
release, they would have seen that the card backs WILL NOT CHANGE. Drop it
already, my Methuselahs.....:)
Falcon
js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu (Joe Cochran) writes:
>In article <3fm7ud$r...@news.bu.edu>, James Falco <ed...@bu.edu> wrote:>>Sheesh...does anyone ever read posts anymore, or just type first and ask
>>questions later? If any had bothered to read the official posted press
>>release, they would have seen that the card backs WILL NOT CHANGE. Drop it
>>already, my Methuselahs.....:)>Don't read into the press release what's not there. Here's what the
>release said exactly:>"Despite the changes, Vampire: The Eternal Struggle
>rules will be 100% playable with Jyhad cards. The game will also keep the
>green marble look and the Jyhad symbol.">That says nothing about the card backs. The symbol is that tri-sided
>round thing. The green marble look is the look that has been with
>Vampire ever since White Wolf released it. The rules will be playable
>with Jyhad cards, but there's no mention either way as to whether the
>cards themselves will match Jyhad cards.
That "Marbled look and the Jyhad symbol *is* the card back.
[ quoted text not captured ]
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>That "Marbled look and the Jyhad symbol *is* the card back.
No, there is the word, "Jyhad". One would assume the Jyhad _symbol_ is the
circle with the snake designs in it.
>Also, to be playable with Jyhad Cards, the backs have to be the same.
Ahh - by whose definition? Don't forget, WotC will tell you that Alpha
magic cards are "playable with" the other editions. This may just mean that
they'll provide interpretation of Jyhad cards under the new game's rules.
That will allow you to play a deck made up purely of Jyhad cards against
a deck of purely Vampire cards. Or you can intermix the two if you (and
your opponents) don't mind being about to tell whether the next card coming
up is old or new, similar to the Alpha Magic card problem.
Fred
P.S. I surely hope you're right and I'm wrong, though. This is one case
where I love being wrong...
After reading all this broohaha about the name change, I
tossed a mail to wizards, in which I pleaded for the backs to
stay the same. I received a very prompt reply that assured me
the talk was true. In the message "dorian" made reference to my
plea; he said that if you think about it, withy your hand
fanned out, you would not be able to distinguish one design
from the other (assuming only the name had changed). This works
fine and dandy, except for the bottom card in your hand and the
top of your library.
It appears this will just be something we will have to
deal with. We, the holders of cards from B.V.(before Vampire),
may just have to keep a Magic card on top of our library, a
hand against our cards, and our heads on straight.
ahPookTheDestroyer963
ptd...@delphi.com wrote:
: After reading all this broohaha about the name change, I
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thank You for this Post fellow netter, after reading this I have decided to Quit Jyhad. I request 2 people to confirm this and I'm out.
C-ya,
Michael Jeung
There is also another solution, which has been used at conventions when
people are playing with alpha cards. Put a card face up on the top of
your library and draw from under it. Then niehter you nor your opponent
know what the next card is. I'd rather they not change the backs, but
They'll do what they want.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ted Cabeen cab...@netcom.com
Finger for PGP Public Key 7312...@compuserve.com
"Be Yourself" cococ...@aol.com
Why can't they just call it "Vampire: The eternal Jyhad", which would allow
them to leave the backs like they always were, and accomplish their
objective of letting people know what the game is about?
My $0.02.
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
In article <hKy7KkK...@delphi.com>, <ptd...@delphi.com> wrote:
> After reading all this broohaha about the name change, I
>tossed a mail to wizards, in which I pleaded for the backs to
>stay the same. I received a very prompt reply that assured me
>the talk was true. In the message "dorian" made reference to my
>plea; he said that if you think about it, withy your hand
>fanned out, you would not be able to distinguish one design
>from the other (assuming only the name had changed). This works
>fine and dandy, except for the bottom card in your hand and the
>top of your library.
And _all_ your cards in your uncontrolled region, and the top of your crypt.
I've mentioned Brainwash and Betrayer, how about this :
For my small (4 or less) vampires, I use old Jyhad cards. Now, later in the
game, when blood is tight, I know beforehand whether or not it's worth it to
spend the one blood to bring the top crypt card into my uncontrolled region.
Whee. I hate scams.
Alec
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
NEWS FLASH----
According to the mailing list today, the carbacks will be identical,
on the library cards. Also, the rules will not change. I quote:
And please read it carefully....
------------------------------
X-Topic-No: 3
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 08:40:01 PDT
From: dor...@wizards.com (Matthew P. Burke)
byte 36596
To: jyh...@wizards.com
Subject: The new rules for V:TES
Message-ID: <297837...@dominia.wizards.com>
Clarification: The rules of Jyhad are not going to change in the unlimited
version (V:TES). Rather, they are simply being rewritten and reformatted so
that they are easier to comprehend and read like plain English. The wonderful
complexity of the game will remain.
------------------------------
X-Topic-No: 4
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 11:40:03 PDT
From: dor...@wizards.com (Matthew P. Burke)
To: jyh...@wizards.com
Subject: Jyhad name change question
Message-ID: <297928...@dominia.wizards.com>
OK folks, lately we've been receiving some very mixed feedback about the name
change. Some like it, others do not.
SO what it WotC was to do this:
We'll keep the back of the library cards (the green marble ones) with the name
"Jyhad" on them. Jyhad cards will be listed in the rulebook as the cards you
hold in your hand. Jyhad cards comprise your library.
The vampire cards, which have no rarity (and no collectability) will have the
V:TES logo on the backs since, after all, they're vampires.
This would present our devoted Jyhad players and WotC with a win-win
situation..\ We get to change the name on the box and players can continue to
play with "Jyhad" cards. This would also make tournaments alot easier.
What do you think? Let me know.
------------------------------
Sounds OK to me, but maybe vamps should keep the backs too.
--
___
,-~~~ ~-.
/ \ ca...@skatter.usask.ca
| |
| | Carl Norum GU d? H s++: g+ p? !au a14 w+++ !v C++ X++++
| \_(\_, | P+ L- 3- E--- N++ K- W--- M-- V-- -po+ Y t 5 !j R++
\_| .\ /|) / G++++:Jyhad(':Magic) tv b+++ D+ B- e* u+ h! f+ !r n+ !y
)`' \|\ \ _
\ ` ~-_ \ ( ~.
~---'\_-\ \ `-._//~`
>- `.`-.__/ -Ranma 1/2 Art by Dov Sherman
/
On 22 Jan 1995, Robert Hubby wrote:
> Why can't they just call it "Vampire: The eternal Jyhad", which would allow
> them to leave the backs like they always were, and accomplish their
> objective of letting people know what the game is about?
News Release: Apparently, according to WotC rep dor...@wizards.com, the
green library cards will continue to say "Jyhad" on the backs, but the
orange crypt cards will be changed to bear the "V:TES" logo. So, only the
actual vampire cards will change their backing. No further panties in
wad are neccessary... thank you.
Judas Iscariot |ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
In article <3fuc7j$m...@tribune.usask.ca> ca...@skatter.usask.ca (Carl Norum) quotes:
>
>X-Topic-No: 4
>Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 11:40:03 PDT
>From: dor...@wizards.com (Matthew P. Burke)
>To: jyh...@wizards.com
>Subject: Jyhad name change question
>Message-ID: <297928...@dominia.wizards.com>
>
>>SO what it WotC was to do this:
>
>We'll keep the back of the library cards (the green marble ones) with the name
>"Jyhad" on them. Jyhad cards will be listed in the rulebook as the cards you
>hold in your hand. Jyhad cards comprise your library.
>
>The vampire cards, which have no rarity (and no collectability) will have the
>V:TES logo on the backs since, after all, they're vampires.
I'm glad to hear that the Library card backs will be kept, but
if they change the Vampire card backs, I think it would
be a good idea to publish Vampire-card-exclusive boosters.
After all, the boosters now are overpriced. Sell
Vampire-card exclusive boosters, say 19 Vampires for
a quarter the price of a starter (not more!)
Alan.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
In article <3frulv$q...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, Perry Jeung <pe...@scd.hp.com> wrote:
>ptd...@delphi.com wrote:
>Thank You for this Post fellow netter, after reading this I have decided to Quit Jyhad. I request 2 people to confirm this and I'm out.
Who cares what the card backs look like? Even if I had "Jyhad" and
"Vampire" cards in the same deck, there's no way to tell what the
"Jyhad" card on the top of your library is unless you purposely stacked
your deck. Unless you regularly play with people who cheat, I suggest
you have no reaason to stop playing such a good game. Besides, such a
name change is likely to increase the monetary value of Jyhad cards
vis'a'vis Vampire cards.
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com
>>That says nothing about the card backs. The symbol is that tri-sided
>>round thing. The green marble look is the look that has been with
>>Vampire ever since White Wolf released it. The rules will be playable
>>with Jyhad cards, but there's no mention either way as to whether the
>>cards themselves will match Jyhad cards.>That "Marbled look and the Jyhad symbol *is* the card back.
>Also, to be playable with Jyhad Cards, the backs have to be the same.
Hmmmm. The marbled back, the Jyhad symbol, and one other thing make up the
card back. The word Jyhad will probably NOT be on the new card backs as the
name of the game is no longer Jyhad, nor does the word Jyhad largely figure in
to it. And to be playable, by strict definition, means that the rules make
allowances for limited cards. As has been said so often, Alpha Magic cards are
playable with Revised, but they still are not elegant.
******************************************************************************
* /\ Heute Die Welt From The Pineal Gland Of *
* /<>\ FNoRD? Johan M. Andersen IV *
* /____\ Morgen Das Sonnensystem jo...@columbia.edu *
******************************************************************************
Some of this is true.....Some of this is BETTER! --TMJ
In article <3g4g1j$4...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>It is not, repeat not, known yet whether or not the card backs will
>change. Several people favor (or at least can live with) the change
>described above, but there is nothing definite as yet.
Okay, now we're confused. Matthew Burke <dor...@wizards.com> *did*
post that the library cards would stay the same. He is the project
director for Jyhad. You say that WotC has not made a decision about
this yet. You're the NetRep. Who do we believe?!?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Judas Iscariot <ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>News Release: Apparently, according to WotC rep dor...@wizards.com, the
>green library cards will continue to say "Jyhad" on the backs, but the
>orange crypt cards will be changed to bear the "V:TES" logo. So, only the
>actual vampire cards will change their backing. No further panties in
>wad are neccessary... thank you.
It is not, repeat not, known yet whether or not the card backs will
change. Several people favor (or at least can live with) the change
described above, but there is nothing definite as yet.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Joe Cochran (js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu) wrote:
: In article <3g4g1j$4...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,: Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
: >It is not, repeat not, known yet whether or not the card backs will
: >change. Several people favor (or at least can live with) the change
: >described above, but there is nothing definite as yet.: Okay, now we're confused. Matthew Burke <dor...@wizards.com> *did*
: post that the library cards would stay the same. He is the project
: director for Jyhad. You say that WotC has not made a decision about
: this yet. You're the NetRep. Who do we believe?!?
No, maybe you should go read that announcement again... the message I was
sent, as well as the one that has been posted numerous times on this
newsgroup and in the jyhad-l list, stated: "What it (I believe they meant
if) WotC were to do this...". It was a proposal, not an announcement of
their definite plans...
In article <3g65gk$5...@news.rain.org>, <joe...@rain.org> wrote:
>No, maybe you should go read that announcement again... the message I was
>sent, as well as the one that has been posted numerous times on this
>newsgroup and in the jyhad-l list, stated: "What it (I believe they meant
>if) WotC were to do this...". It was a proposal, not an announcement of
>their definite plans...
Yeah, I just noticed that. Screwed by a typo. I'm sure I'm not the
only one who didn't read that as a "what if." I would be a lot less
disappointed right now if I had known that WotC had no idea what they
were going to do...
Well, in that case, KEEP THE BACKS THE SAME!!!! PLEASE!
[ quoted text not captured ]
> rah...@sonic.net (Robert Hubby) writes:
> Why can't they just call it "Vampire: The eternal Jyhad", which would allow
> them to leave the backs like they always were, and accomplish their
> objective of letting people know what the game is about?
>
I think the whole problem is with people complaining about the word
"JYHAD". If this is the reason, then the backs cannot remain the same.
Unfortunately there is no cost-effective, user-friendly solution. Trade in
vampire cards maybe?
In article <3gbdi5$b...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Ted Badiuk <umba...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>In <3gacv5$l...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>dk...@cco.caltech.edu (David Michael Kass) writes:
[deleted article on changing only Crypt cards]
>>I would much prefer to have it the other way around. Since there are
>>only around 12 crypt cards, it is much more useful information can be
>>conveyed by a binary marking (which two types of backs will give). I
>>can think of several desireable binary ways of separating the cards
>>(by size, by clan, by discipline...). Since there is a high cost to
>>get the next crypt card, this information is very useful. Also, with
>>the commonality of the vampires, it is easy to get enough to mark the
>>crypt.>
>BUT, in the long run, you can pretty easly replace your vamp cards with
>new ones. Would you like to try and replace all your library cards with
>new ones??!?!?!? If WOTC are going to make a change, I'd like it to be
>on that has the least impact on my collection. I'D SOONER REPLACE ALL MY
>VAMPS WITH THE NEW TYPE THEN HAVE TO REPLACE ALL MY LIBRARY CARDS!
>Whew...That's better. :-) Basically vamps are cheap as dirt, rares (and
>some uncommons) aren't. Also, 12 vamps is of questionable rarity are
>easier to replace than X rares, Y uncommons, Z commons where X+Y+Z is
>much greater than 12.
NO I cannot replace all my vamps. I currently have, after lots of
trading, a complete set of vampries (and very few duplicates).
Someone indicates that vamprires are going for $.30 each. This sounds
about right. At that price, it would cost me over $35 to replace all
of my vampires. That's over half of what I payed for all of my cards
initially. The problem is that it is not 12 vampires, but 111 (at
least) that need to be replaced. I try to change my vampires (if not
my entire deck) every two or three games.
>I know, I know, we SHOULDN'T have to replace any of our cards. It's WOTC
>fault. It's not fair. Tough. Life isn't fair. WOTC are going to have
>to make a change one way or another, so we might as well deal with it and
>get on with the game.
I can't afford (and see no reason to) to repace any of my cards. Thus
if the backs have to change, I'd prefer to see the library cards
change, I would feel much more comfortable mixing library cards than
crypt cards. Any further Jyhad I purchase will be expansion sets, and
I want to be able to purchase, trade and use them.
>>It is also useful to mark the library cards, but since card flow is
>>easy and the deck is much larger, it is less useful (not to say that
>>it isn't useful in certain decks--especially political ones).>
>Oh ya???? Let me mark all of my stealth cards in my stealth deck and
>we'll see how a game goes...
I'd love to play against such a deck. It would take one or two
stealth bleeds to guess how you'd marked your deck, then I could read
the cards you had in your hand almost as well as you could. Free uses
of the monicle:-) But, the information is not that useful to you,
you're going to get that card real soon anyways and there aren't that
many ways to force additional cardflow (and a well built deck doesn't
need or want the flow--the only decks that really need and use the
card flow cards are oddly built non-overlapping capability decks--say
Tremere Gangrel).
On the other hand, if you only see the backs of two or three vampires,
you will not know how I marked my vampires (is it size, clan, some
skill?) . The other important factor is that it costs a blood to look
at the next card in my crypt. Say I need a small vampire late in the
game since I'm down to 7 blood. I look and see that my next vampire is 5
or larger and don't bother wasting the blood to bring him out. I've
seen many games where that one blood was the differece between victory
and defeat (the extra vampire would have worked just as well as the
extra blocker). This information is much less useful to my opponent
(unless maybe they were playing Brainwashes).
>>The ideal solution is for none of the backs to change, but the more
>>important of the two backs is the crypt.>
>The Crypt is more important, but less $$$. You can replace 12 Vamps a
>lot easly (trade for them) than X+Y+Z (above) other lib. cards.
The fallacy you and others are making is that I only have to replace
12 Vamps (actually I usually play with a 15 vamp crypt). That isn't
sufficient, In our group, any deck that is good and doesn't change in
four games gets a counter deck built against it. The easiest way
being to contest vampires...
--
David Kass Caltech Grad
E-Mail: dk...@portia.caltech.edu Planetary Science
Research: dk...@venus1.gps.caltech.edu