New Preview

is up. Comments: * The background for the text box on the vampires is see through while the BG on the library cards is not. Looking at the text for Esau, it's difficult to read what it actually says because of the BG of the card itself. It's the same on Sir Ralph and Ellison but because of their backgrounds, it's not as hard. Why'd it have to be see through in the first place? Seems lame. Good: * New Rule: Allies -> Torpor -> burns instead. Much better way of handling it, IMO. * The art is getting alot better. Bad: * Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in newbies... *sigh* Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the getting is good... Sorrow --- "I'll be watching the news. If anything is vandalized or explodes or catches on fire, 'X' is going to equal me kicking your ass!" - Red Forman

> * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? Does this matter one way or the other? If nobody wants to call the Blood Hunt, you'll just all abstain from the vote. > * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but > in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in > newbies... Hmm.. Patagia's cost is now a red drop in the lower left hand corner. Does this mean that Patagia costs a pool instead of a blood? Or does it mean that "red drop" now means "costs blood" and "black drop" (or some other color scheme) now means "costs pool"? Or did it cost a pool before? I might just be remembering wrong :) And should Ellison's ability be assumed to be "Once", by the "During X, do Y" template?

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:35:00 GMT, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >is up. > >Comments: > >* The background for the text box on the vampires is see through >while the BG on the library cards is not. Looking at the text for >Esau, it's difficult to read what it actually says because of the BG >of the card itself. It's the same on Sir Ralph and Ellison but because >of their backgrounds, it's not as hard. Why'd it have to be see >through in the first place? Seems lame. > >Good: > >* New Rule: Allies -> Torpor -> burns instead. Much better way of >handling it, IMO. > >* The art is getting alot better. > >Bad: > >* Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? There was a thread about this awhile back subject: "Retainers Revisited" Could someone send me an e-mail me how to post a direct link to an article on google? >* Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? > >* The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but >in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in >newbies... > >*sigh* Waiting to see what a Pool cost will look like. Might have a different symbol entirely? If it uses a color change (black v. red), I hope that there was a lot time proofing the cards (no more V:TES boo-boo's please). >Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the getting >is good... > >Sorrow You can run and you can hide, that doesn't mean we want to find you. Um, that's not what I meant ;-) I still need to come down your way one of these days to play some V:TES. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:EYBY8.369$7t.3...@newshog.newsread.com... > is up. > > Comments: > > * The background for the text box on the vampires is see through > while the BG on the library cards is not. Looking at the text for > Esau, it's difficult to read what it actually says because of the BG > of the card itself. It's the same on Sir Ralph and Ellison but because > of their backgrounds, it's not as hard. Why'd it have to be see > through in the first place? Seems lame. Yeah. I don't think LSJ has any substantial control over art direction, though. > Good: > > * New Rule: Allies -> Torpor -> burns instead. Much better way of > handling it, IMO. I agree. Less frustrating to people who care about these things, hopefully. > * The art is getting alot better. I'm liking it. I even like Ellison Humboldt's Christopher Shy picture. ;-) > Bad: > > * Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? Presumably, for consistency with "out of combat" damage. I think a lot of people don't even know the "heal at end of combat" rule exists. And, it's at least a reasonable guess that the rule existed originally so that people wouldn't have to track their retainers' life with counters. Since they do now have to track life with counters, because there are ways to do damage outside combat which won't be healed (there always were, but maybe they didn't think of it at the time), there's no reason to heal them at the end of combat. It's not like it makes any particular amount of sense for a Raven Spy to instantly heal after getting shot in combat if it lives to the end of the fight, but not heal if it gets Cryptic Missioned. > * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? Easier that way, probably. It doesn't make much difference in game play; no one has to vote in the Blood Hunt referendum if they don't want to. Plus, it lets them remove a "step" of diablerie, which is probably a good thing. :-) > * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but > in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in > newbies... I don't think it will cause confusion in newbies, no. The rulebook will doubtless explain it to them. In oldbies, maybe. For a minute or two. > *sigh* > > Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the getting > is good... Is the getting going to get worse later? :-) Josh clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right

>> * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? > Does this matter one way or the other? If nobody wants to call the > Blood Hunt, you'll just all abstain from the vote. It was unnecessary so why add it? That's the point. >> * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but >> in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause >> confusion in newbies... > Hmm.. Patagia's cost is now a red drop in the lower left hand corner. > Does this mean that Patagia costs a pool instead of a blood? Yes. > Or does it mean that "red drop" now means "costs blood" and "black > drop" (or some other color scheme) now means "costs pool"? This is addressed on the page in the updated "New Look" page. > Or did it cost a pool before? I might just be remembering wrong :) No. Pool and Blood costs are now in the same location (bottom left). They now just look different. > And should Ellison's ability be assumed to be "Once", by the "During > X, do Y" template? Yes. Sorrow --- "Our fathers were our models for God. If they bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to be prepared for the possibility that God does not like you." - Tyler Durden

>> * Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? > There was a thread about this awhile back subject: "Retainers > Revisited" > Could someone send me an e-mail me how to post a direct link to an > article on google? Cut and paste the URL... >> * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? >> * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but >> in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause >> confusion in newbies... > Waiting to see what a Pool cost will look like. Might have a > different symbol entirely? If it uses a color change (black v. red), > I hope that there was a lot time proofing the cards (no more V:TES > boo-boo's please). It's already up on the page. Take a look at the updated "New Look" page. The cost of the card is now in the same location (bottom left) for both blood and pool casts. It's just that now, one looks completely different from the other. Talk about major confusion with regards to the new cards v. the old. >> Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the >> getting is good... > You can run and you can hide, that doesn't mean we want to find you. Exactly. > Um, that's not what I meant ;-) heh. > I still need to come down your way one of these days to play some > V:TES. Well, barring special occasions, I'm no longer going to be playing. I'm going to start moving more towards Rage (2nd Ed) and Netrunner. Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remorse and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

> > Hmm.. Patagia's cost is now a red drop in the lower left hand corner. > > Does this mean that Patagia costs a pool instead of a blood? > > Yes. No, it still costs a blood. Look at WW site, if it costed a pool, it should be a "diamond with a vampiric skull"

Sorrow wrote: > > is up. > > Comments: > > * The background for the text box on the vampires is see through > while the BG on the library cards is not. Looking at the text for > Esau, it's difficult to read what it actually says because of the BG > of the card itself. It's the same on Sir Ralph and Ellison but because > of their backgrounds, it's not as hard. Why'd it have to be see > through in the first place? Seems lame. > > Good: > > * New Rule: Allies -> Torpor -> burns instead. Much better way of > handling it, IMO. Good, but I'm still confused if the Rafastio Ghoul striking with Burst of Sunlight burns in the end or not. The suspense is killing me! > > * The art is getting alot better. > > Bad: > > * Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? Consistency with allies, I guess. And non-combat damage, like Cryptic Mission. Having them heal is a little cooler because it makes the difference between 1 and 2 life (or between 2 and 3, etc.) much more meaningful. It actually made a slight difference whether a Murder of Crows or a Raven Spy got retained by someone with superior Animalism. In the end, however, the difference seldom ever matters and the new rule is much easier to explain and remember. (I just wish they'd keep putting a priority on simplicity when the alternative doesn't make much difference in other rules and rulings.) > * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? Again, simplicity. If people don't want a Blood Hunt, they just vote no. Having a rule that someone has to "call" it, when anyone can freely call it, is redundant. Fred

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:44:15 GMT, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> * Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? >> There was a thread about this awhile back subject: "Retainers >> Revisited" >> Could someone send me an e-mail me how to post a direct link to an >> article on google? > >Cut and paste the URL... Well yeah, but I thought there might be a better way as a google URL string can get quite lengthy. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

Sorrow wrote: > > >> * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? > > Does this matter one way or the other? If nobody wants to call the > > Blood Hunt, you'll just all abstain from the vote. > > It was unnecessary so why add it? That's the point. The "may" was removed. Simpler this way (and people don't get confused about who can call it - if a Cam diablerizes a Cam, can a Methuselah who controls only Sabbat vampires call a blood hunt?). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > Could someone send me an e-mail me how to post a direct link to an > article on google? When you're looking at the article, click on "Original Format" (if you're buried in a thread, you may have to click "View this article only" first). Then grab the resulting URL, except leave off the "&output=plain" part. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > Good, but I'm still confused if the Rafastio Ghoul striking with > Burst of Sunlight burns in the end or not. The suspense is killing > me! If the ally inflicts agg damage on himself "as a vampire", he burns life as normal. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> * New Rule: Allies -> Torpor -> burns instead. Much better way of >> handling it, IMO. > Good, but I'm still confused if the Rafastio Ghoul striking with > Burst of Sunlight burns in the end or not. The suspense is killing > me! From what I understand, no. This is apparently a reversal of the May rulings. The ally burns a life but remains in the ready region. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

[ quoted text not captured ] You are right. My bad. I misread his question. I meant to answer that "yes, it costs a blood". Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:agutq3$on9qs$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > Sorrow wrote: > > * New Rule: Allies -> Torpor -> burns instead. Much better way of > > handling it, IMO. > > I agree. Less frustrating to people who care about these > things, hopefully. Heh. Probably true. I like it. I also like the clarification on aggravated damage to allies. > > * The art is getting alot better. > > I'm liking it. I even like Ellison Humboldt's Christopher > Shy picture. ;-) Same here. I was pleasantly shocked to realize that it *was* Shy's work. And I actually had to have it pointed out to me, I didn't realize it upon first looking at the picture. Then again, the first thing on the card that my eyes were drawn to was that shiny new bar with the ANI OBF POT PRE pro. Oh yeah, and the *amazing* specials. I like how the special abilties (verified and rumored) for the Nosferatu have seemed very "in-flavor" for the clan, so far. > > Bad: > > > > * Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? > > Presumably, for consistency with "out of combat" damage. > > I think a lot of people don't even know the "heal at end of > combat" rule exists. I had to explain it to a long-time player last Thursday. And now I'm going to have to say, "oh, by the way, this is all changing, so forget what I said." Heh. Funny. > It's not like it makes any particular amount of sense for a > Raven Spy to instantly heal after getting shot in combat if > it lives to the end of the fight, but not heal if it gets > Cryptic Missioned. Makes sense to me. :) I mean, Thaumaturgy *is* the ultimate discipline, right? > > * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but > > in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in > > newbies... > > I don't think it will cause confusion in newbies, no. The > rulebook will doubtless explain it to them. In oldbies, maybe. > For a minute or two. Yah. I think the skull is a little over-the-top, but I like that the symbols are *totally* different. > > Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the getting > > is good... Sorry to hear that, Christoph. Was looking forward to playing with you one of these days. :) Xian stuck in the middle with you?

> Bad: SNIP > * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but > in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in > newbies... Actually in my experience this will entirely benefit newbies. Every single new player I've tried to teach the game to has consistently screwed up where they pay blood/pool for a card. Having a completely different icon will fix this very easily and I will certainly have an all Camarilla deck for newbies to play until they're used to the game - a good idea IMHO. Its a pity I can't transmogrify my existing cards to the new format..... :-)

>> * New Rule: Allies -> Torpor -> burns instead. Much better way of >> handling it, IMO. > >I agree. Less frustrating to people who care about these >things, hopefully. > This (in addition to the discipline-playing allies) clears things up a bit. I like it a bit better now (no lame Talaq going to torpor from his own Burst, though he does take a damage now. I can accept that). But while I like this better than that last ruling (which would of sent him to torpor), after reading the text, I can't help but feel that the entire system for allies using disciplines is much more like a patchwork pastiche as opposed to a clear logical system. Too many excepts - some attempting to preserve the old system (which is good IMO) but some trying to update it (which isn't necessarily bad either) but when you put the two together, it just doesn't seem to meld very well... >> * The art is getting alot better. > >I'm liking it. I even like Ellison Humboldt's Christopher >Shy picture. ;-) Thank god he didn't turn out to be blue! When I first learned Ellison was going to be in the set, I began to worry that the Nosferatu might end up influencing out a smurf! >> Bad: >> >> * Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? > >Presumably, for consistency with "out of combat" damage. > >I think a lot of people don't even know the "heal at end of >combat" rule exists. And, it's at least a reasonable guess >that the rule existed originally so that people wouldn't have >to track their retainers' life with counters. Since they do >now have to track life with counters, because there are ways >to do damage outside combat which won't be healed (there >always were, but maybe they didn't think of it at the time), >there's no reason to heal them at the end of combat. > >It's not like it makes any particular amount of sense for a >Raven Spy to instantly heal after getting shot in combat if >it lives to the end of the fight, but not heal if it gets >Cryptic Missioned. I like this. Anyway, if Weather Control (the ultimate retainer killer) is indeed limited to once a turn, it makes sense to actually make it useful in hurting retainers (damage isn't healed). Overall, I don't think it'll make much of a difference because #1.) most people still forget that they can hurt retainers, and #2.) as others have noted, most people forget that on the off chance a retainer is hurt but not killed during combat, they heal up. Anyway, the old system made it virtually impossible to kill those 4 life retainers. Ugh! >> * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but >> in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in >> newbies... > >I don't think it will cause confusion in newbies, no. The >rulebook will doubtless explain it to them. In oldbies, maybe. >For a minute or two. I like the color of the blood cost. But I do think the diamond and skull is kinda lame... Halcyan 2 >clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right How about forward and behind? Up and down? Before and after?

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<zZCY8.384$7t.3...@newshog.newsread.com>... > >> * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but > >> in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause > >> confusion in newbies... > > Waiting to see what a Pool cost will look like. Might have a > > different symbol entirely? If it uses a color change (black v. red), > > I hope that there was a lot time proofing the cards (no more V:TES > > boo-boo's please). > > It's already up on the page. Take a look at the updated "New Look" page. > The cost of the card is now in the same location (bottom left) for both > blood and pool casts. It's just that now, one looks completely different > from the other. Talk about major confusion with regards to the new cards > v. the old. I know that other people's experiences may differ, but I have had quite a bit of trouble trying to explain "well, blood's white and pool's black" to new players, and the difference in location on the card is not actually terribly helpful to many people. Yes, there will be some confusion when new players look at the old cards, but that's because the OLD look was badly designed. My conclusion is - if it's broke, FIX IT! Don't continue with a bad design just because "that's the way it's always been". > >> Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the > >> getting is good... And yet so many people who have said this are still sitting around on these boards trying to get everyone to believe the way they do. I would like to say to everyone who feels this way - if you're leaving, DO SO. If you want to stick around and whine for a while and then you end up coming back and playing the game anyway, then the REST of us get to say we told you so. And if you are so absolutely sure you won't come back, what the heck are you still doing here? > > I still need to come down your way one of these days to play some > > V:TES. > > Well, barring special occasions, I'm no longer going to be playing. I'm > going to start moving more towards Rage (2nd Ed) and Netrunner. I find it utterly ironic that you are quitting the game that was very careful to make sure old cards are still playable and going to a game that totally hosed old players and their collections. I absolutely DETESTED how Rage 2nd Ed was handled, and yes I quit because of it (though I did so quietly). The changes to V:TES - as with every major update the game has gone through - are controversial, but their heart's in the right place dammit. Volya42

> > >> Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the > > >> getting is good... > And yet so many people who have said this are still sitting around on > these boards trying to get everyone to believe the way they do. I > would like to say to everyone who feels this way - if you're leaving, > DO SO. Just because I'm still reading/posting on the NG doesn't mean squat wrt whether or not I'm playing IRL. > If you want to stick around and whine for a while and then you > end up coming back and playing the game anyway, then the REST of us > get to say we told you so. Yup. You can. But again, barring special occasions, I'm putting V:tes aside. > And if you are so absolutely sure you won't come back, what the heck are > you still doing here? Because whether I like it or not, when/if they do end up getting together and playing, ppl are going to be coming to me for rules questions and/or clarifications. I used to be Prince of the area, after all. Again, just because I'm here doesn't mean I'm playing. > > Well, barring special occasions, I'm no longer going to be playing. I'm > > going to start moving more towards Rage (2nd Ed) and Netrunner. > I find it utterly ironic that you are quitting the game that was very > careful to make sure old cards are still playable and going to a game > that totally hosed old players and their collections. That's not why I'm leaving. I've gotten used to the new layout. And while I may not necessarily like the segregation rule, I'm cool with it. As people have stated, and it's something I completely agree with, it's a necessary evil. So find it ironic all you want. > I absolutely DETESTED how Rage 2nd Ed was handled, Well, I know nothing of 1st Ed Rage because I didn't start playing Rage until Legbiter introduced me to 2nd Ed last summer. 2nd Ed is all I know and all I play. > because of it (though I did so quietly). The changes to V:TES - as with > every major update the game has gone through - are controversial, but their > heart's in the right place dammit. Yeah, ok. Whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

"swcrusader" <swcru...@crownambassador.com> wrote in message news:95cd23dc.02071...@posting.google.com... > SNIP > Having a completely > different icon will fix this very easily and I will certainly have an > all Camarilla deck for newbies to play until they're used to the game > - a good idea IMHO. Its a pity I can't transmogrify my existing cards > to the new format..... :-) Yeah ! can't somebody make a plug-in to update all the old cards into new ones ?? =D

Halcyan 2 wrote: > I can't help but feel that the entire system for allies using > disciplines is much more like a patchwork pastiche as opposed to a clear > logical system. Too many excepts - some attempting to preserve the old system > (which is good IMO) but some trying to update it (which isn't necessarily bad > either) but when you put the two together, it just doesn't seem to meld very > well... Players didn't like the uniform system (in which allies went to torpor). The current system is as uniform as possible. The only "excepts" are for things that arguably come after resolution of the card play. Could've allowed the ally to go to torpor before burning to complete the picture, but that "uniformity" would've caused more confusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

> From what I understand, no. This is apparently a reversal of the May > rulings. The ally burns a life but remains in the ready region. > The way it appears to read is that: A) Ghoul attempts to strike with burst of sunlight during choose strike phase using Tham B) During Strike resulution phase Ghoul and everything else in combat takes applicable sum of agg damage. At this point the Vamp acting ghoul would attempt to go to Torpor, then fail and burn. Is this correct LSJ?

"Sacha" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:818c06e0.02071...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] NO ! as stated at least thrice in various other threads, the rafastio would take th agg damage, but since it is an ally, and the allies by their very nature treat aggaravated damage as normal damage, it would not put the rafastio in torpor. She would just take one damage. Not that now it's important to be at long range to play burst with a Rafastio ghoul.... Before : Julius vs Rafastio : julius hits rafastio for one, rafastio plays Burst. Rafastio takes the damage from Julius but not from the burst, thus staying alive with one life. Julius hits torpor and burns. May rulings : Julius vs Rafastio : julius hits rafastio for one, rafastio plays Burst. Rafastio takes the damage from Julius, plus one agg from the burst (because she is treated like a vampire). Julius is burned, and Rafastio goes to the torpor region with one life. (Rant , rant, rant...) And NOW, ladies and gentlemen, the final round : Julius vs Rafastio : julius hits rafastio for one, rafastio plays Burst. Poor Julius burns as usual, but takes the Ghoul with him ! Rafastio takes one from julius, plus 1 normal damage from the burst (treated like a vamp but still an ally for the purpose of damage handling) so dies with her victim. i think it's clear with this demo ;) reyda

[ quoted text not captured ] TA-LAQ, TA-LAQ !!!

[ quoted text not captured ] "... plus 1 agg damage from the burst, for which he must burn 1 life ..." The damage is *not* converted to normal nor treated as if it were normal. It is (and is treated as) aggravated damage. Allies handle aggravated damage by burning life. Otherwise correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3d32f6f9....@netnews.attbi.com>, berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM writes: >Waiting to see what a Pool cost will look like. Might have a different >symbol entirely? If it uses a color change (black v. red), I hope that >there was a lot time proofing the cards (no more V:TES boo-boo's >please). If it were to be solely a colour change (the site suggests it isn't), this would be pretty crap for anyone who's colour blind. Visual indicators which change in meaning *only* because of their colour are usually pretty bad. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

In message <3d330804....@netnews.attbi.com>, berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM writes: >>Cut and paste the URL... > >Well yeah, but I thought there might be a better way as a google URL >string can get quite lengthy. Cut the parameters down to selm=<message@ID> and it still works. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <agvjve$p1e0p$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes: >Same here. I was pleasantly shocked to realize that it *was* Shy's work. And I >actually had to have it pointed out to me, I didn't realize it upon first >looking at the picture. When I saw it in the thumbnail preview, I was expecting someone like Drew Tucker. (I really did actually wonder who the artist was, honest!) Seeing that it was Chris Shy was a nice surprise. He's certainly a good artist - it was such a pity that he chose fairly similar models for a lot of his Giovanni (I appreciate that backstory does support this, of course) and so on, as his art can be good. From the *functional* point of view, having similar looking art is a pain as it's an easy way to identify a card long range. This is why I support good art, but with a variety of inspirations and styles. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D340915...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Does this mean the Rotschrek is being re-written so that 1.) its playable against allies and 2.) allies will automatically burn? Just curious... [ quoted text not captured ]

Jon Stahler wrote: > Does this mean the Rotschrek is being re-written so that 1.) its playable > against allies and 2.) allies will automatically burn? Just curious... No, this means nothing at all w.r.t. any reprinting or rewriting of any card. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:13:31 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: >> * Blood Hunt is automatic now. Why? > >Does this matter one way or the other? If nobody wants to call the >Blood Hunt, you'll just all abstain from the vote. > >> * The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but >> in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in >> newbies... > >Hmm.. Patagia's cost is now a red drop in the lower left hand corner. >Does this mean that Patagia costs a pool instead of a blood? >Or does it mean that "red drop" now means "costs blood" and "black >drop" (or some other color scheme) now means "costs pool"? > >Or did it cost a pool before? I might just be remembering wrong :) > Oh yeah thats another thing...pool and blood costs are both in the bottome left now. Why not confuse everything while they're at it? *sigh* T

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:35:00 GMT, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >* Retainers no longer heal damage after combat. Huh? I don't understand why this was necesary either. > >* The pool and blood cost icons have changed. Not only in color but >in look. As if the different layouts aren't going to cause confusion in >newbies... > >*sigh* This is a huge one imo. I saw the red blood drop on Patagia and thought ok, maybe thats a new blood cost symbol....makes sense. But why the heck didnt they leave the pool cost as a black teardrop? That would've been simple and elegant. But a diamond skull symbol? wtf?? Pretty stupid and pointless move imo. T

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 13:52:42 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3d32f6f9....@netnews.attbi.com>, >berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM writes: >>Waiting to see what a Pool cost will look like. Might have a different >>symbol entirely? If it uses a color change (black v. red), I hope that >>there was a lot time proofing the cards (no more V:TES boo-boo's >>please). > >If it were to be solely a colour change (the site suggests it isn't), >this would be pretty crap for anyone who's colour blind. > >Visual indicators which change in meaning *only* because of their colour >are usually pretty bad. > So make it a black diamond then. Another skull symbol we don't need. T

In message <3d345d1c.91360137@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com writes: >This is a huge one imo. I saw the red blood drop on Patagia and >thought ok, maybe thats a new blood cost symbol....makes sense. > >But why the heck didnt they leave the pool cost as a black teardrop? Because some people are colour-blind. This is not a difficult concept. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<uj6pn96...@corp.supernews.com>... > > > >> Now I'm even more reassured in my decision to get out while the > > > >> getting is good... > > And yet so many people who have said this are still sitting around on > > these boards trying to get everyone to believe the way they do. I > > would like to say to everyone who feels this way - if you're leaving, > > DO SO. > > Just because I'm still reading/posting on the NG doesn't mean squat wrt > whether or not I'm playing IRL. Erm, that's my point. Keep in mind that this wasn't just directed at you. This is a general frustration at all the people who have been saying much the same. However, I responded specifically to your post because of the contrast of your desire to "get while the getting's good" vs. the failure to actually "get". > > And if you are so absolutely sure you won't come back, what the heck are > > you still doing here? > > Because whether I like it or not, when/if they do end up getting together > and playing, ppl are going to be coming to me for rules questions and/or > clarifications. I used to be Prince of the area, after all. > Again, just because I'm here doesn't mean I'm playing. Well, I personally don't understand why new players would seek out rules clarifications from someone who isn't playing and doesn't want to play the current rules, but fine. I'm not going to try to be the lurker who tells the regular to go away. I know that particular argument isn't productive and degenerates rather quickly. I am simply trying to express honest confusion and frustration about everyone who seems to only stick around to complain, despite repeated protestations that they're leaving. > > > Well, barring special occasions, I'm no longer going to be playing. I'm > > > going to start moving more towards Rage (2nd Ed) and Netrunner. > > I find it utterly ironic that you are quitting the game that was very > > careful to make sure old cards are still playable and going to a game > > that totally hosed old players and their collections. > > That's not why I'm leaving. I've gotten used to the new layout. And while I > may not necessarily like the segregation rule, I'm cool with it. As people have > stated, and it's something I completely agree with, it's a necessary evil. > So find it ironic all you want. Well then, at this point I don't really understand why you ARE leaving. I suppose all that's left are the new rules (minor changes and fixes) and the card updates. So, okay. Not sure I understand why that's such a big deal, but okay. > > I absolutely DETESTED how Rage 2nd Ed was handled, > > Well, I know nothing of 1st Ed Rage because I didn't start playing Rage > until Legbiter introduced me to 2nd Ed last summer. 2nd Ed is all I know > and all I play. Then I understand why you don't see my point about WW having their heart in the right place. My point was, they could have done a LOT worse to players. They really are trying, and you may not agree with their decisions (and I'm not trying to change your mind about that) but there is at least effort, particularly when compared to what other companies have done to games that I loved. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. I'll just drop back out of your way into lurk mode. :) Volya42

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<oLcutgmi...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <3d345d1c.91360137@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com writes: > >This is a huge one imo. I saw the red blood drop on Patagia and > >thought ok, maybe thats a new blood cost symbol....makes sense. > > > >But why the heck didnt they leave the pool cost as a black teardrop? > > Because some people are colour-blind. Whether to pay pool or blood is one of the more difficult things for a newbie to grasp. Hell, not newbies, everybody. :) And, since we're on the subject, I am colored-blind. That makes Hero-clix and Mage Knight virtually unplayable--and color-coded pool/blood symbols unpleasant. -Robert

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<oLcutgmi...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <3d345d1c.91360137@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com writes: > >This is a huge one imo. I saw the red blood drop on Patagia and > >thought ok, maybe thats a new blood cost symbol....makes sense. > > > >But why the heck didnt they leave the pool cost as a black teardrop? > > Because some people are colour-blind. > > This is not a difficult concept. Yes, but the idea of someone being light/dark blind *is.* Several of my friends are color blind, one of them plays VTES. No matter how color-blind you are, you can tell the difference between a solid black and a red, because they have different tonal values. If the drops were green and red, or orange and blue, or any two colors of similar tone, you might have a point. Even if the colors did have similar tones, the old system of having the drops in different places would have taken care of the problem. JSpektr

vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote in message news:<6f81fa2c.02071...@posting.google.com>... > I know that other people's experiences may differ, but I have had > quite a bit of trouble trying to explain "well, blood's white and > pool's black" to new players, and the difference in location on the > card is not actually terribly helpful to many people. Yes, there will > be some confusion when new players look at the old cards, but that's > because the OLD look was badly designed. My conclusion is - if it's > broke, FIX IT! Don't continue with a bad design just because "that's > the way it's always been". Can't say I've ever seen anyone have trouble with it, and we just trained half a dozen new players. On the other hand, having two sets of symbols, in different places, seems more likely to cause confusion to me. For all the talk of keeping old cards compatible, they certainly seem to be doing their best to make it as annoying as possible to use them with the new cards. JSpektr

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<vHivOnJa...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > If it were to be solely a colour change (the site suggests it isn't), > this would be pretty crap for anyone who's colour blind. As pointed out elsewhere, as long as the tonal value (how light or dark it is) is significantly different, such as in red vs. black, it's just as clear to the color-blind as to anyone else. > Visual indicators which change in meaning *only* because of their colour > are usually pretty bad. Ones that change in meaning based on location sure seem to work well. JSpektr

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:49:06 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3d345d1c.91360137@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com writes: >>This is a huge one imo. I saw the red blood drop on Patagia and >>thought ok, maybe thats a new blood cost symbol....makes sense. >> >>But why the heck didnt they leave the pool cost as a black teardrop? > >Because some people are colour-blind. > >This is not a difficult concept. > Neither is a clear or non-clear teardrop, colour blindness notwithstanding. The skull just makes no sense at all. T

[ quoted text not captured ] I see newbies getting pool and blood mixed up all the time. Sometimes even veteran players get it wrong, the only reason it doesn't happen more often is because you already know the card's cost without looking. The skull makes as much sense as a drop of blood, and it's much easier to differentiate the two different costs. Flux

In message <196f2577.0207...@posting.google.com>, jspektr <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<vHivOnJa...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... >> If it were to be solely a colour change (the site suggests it isn't), >> this would be pretty crap for anyone who's colour blind. > >As pointed out elsewhere, as long as the tonal value (how light or >dark it is) is significantly different, such as in red vs. black, it's >just as clear to the color-blind as to anyone else. You'd be surprised just how subtle some colour vision problems can be. Certainly in England, the various disabilities regulations make *only* varying something based on colour a big no-no, and it is certainly deprecated by institutions such as the RNIB (who are responsible for partial sight defects too). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3d35071a.38787700@news>, Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com writes: >Neither is a clear or non-clear teardrop, colour blindness >notwithstanding. This is *not* differentiated based solely on colour. Have a look at some of your cards sometime. You'll note that colour is not the only factor. Where that particular style of differentiation is changed, using something such as shape or design is another obvious tool to use as well as colour. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote in message news:<3d35071a.38787700@news>... > > The skull just makes no sense at all. > I couldn't disagree more. Having both be teardrop symbols made no sense. They are confusing and frankly I still have trouble remembering which is which. Even though I've learned on a card by card basis which are blood and which are pool, when someone asks which means which I have to stop and think about it. Who needs that?

>> Just because I'm still reading/posting on the NG doesn't mean squat >> wrt whether or not I'm playing IRL. > Erm, that's my point. Then you didn't make your point at all clear and perhaps you should reiterate/elaborate. > Keep in mind that this wasn't just directed at you. Ok, I guess. Seemed as if it was. > This is a general frustration at all the people who have been saying much > the same. However, I responded specifically to your post because of the > contrast of your desire to "get while the getting's good" vs. the failure to > actually "get". "Getting" = not playing the game. >> Because whether I like it or not, when/if they do end up getting >> together and playing, ppl are going to be coming to me for rules >> questions and/or clarifications. I used to be Prince of the area, >> after all. Again, just because I'm here doesn't mean I'm playing. > Well, I personally don't understand why new players would seek out > rules clarifications from someone who isn't playing and doesn't want > to play the current rules, but fine. I never said "new players", though perhaps I could have clarified my statement a bit more. What I meant was existing players, players who I used to play against. When/if they play, they are going to be coming to me, to be sure. > argument isn't productive and degenerates rather quickly. I am simply > trying to express honest confusion and frustration about everyone who > seems to only stick around to complain, despite repeated protestations > that they're leaving. It doesn't necessarily follow that leaving (not playing) the game = leaving the NG. >> That's not why I'm leaving. I've gotten used to the new layout. >> And while I may not necessarily like the segregation rule, I'm cool >> with it. As people have stated, and it's something I completely >> agree with, it's a necessary evil. So find it ironic all you want. > Well then, at this point I don't really understand why you ARE > leaving. I suppose all that's left are the new rules (minor changes > and fixes) and the card updates. So, okay. Not sure I understand why > that's such a big deal, but okay. I'm ok with the new rules, for the most part. Still kinda iffy on the new NRA. It's a little too lax. My reason is card text changes, mostly. My feelings regarding this are well documented on google and I won't repeat them here lest some people think I'm only sticking around on the NG to complain. Search for it if you care. >> Well, I know nothing of 1st Ed Rage because I didn't start playing >> Rage until Legbiter introduced me to 2nd Ed last summer. 2nd Ed is >> all I know and all I play. > Then I understand why you don't see my point about WW having their > heart in the right place. My point was, they could have done a LOT > worse to players. Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't it FRPG who controlled and changed 2ndEd Rage? And WW didn't have much, if anything to say about the changes? How are you using that to say that WW had it's heart in the right place? From what I understand, 1stEd Rage was horribly broken and unbalanced. FRPG sought only to balance it out. I don't see that the changes to the cards for CE are doing that. It's just needless tinkering. > They really are trying, and you may not agree with their decisions (and > I'm not trying to change your mind about that) but there is at least effort, > particularly when compared to what other companies have done to games > that I loved. I can say the reverse is true, for me, in the case of V:tes. Sorrow --- My dreams erupt while in my bed Innocence is innocence is innocence is dripping red In dreams I'll walk with you In dreams I'll talk with you In dreams you're mine All of the time

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<RSAwrzIS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <196f2577.0207...@posting.google.com>, jspektr > <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: > >As pointed out elsewhere, as long as the tonal value (how light or > >dark it is) is significantly different, such as in red vs. black, it's > >just as clear to the color-blind as to anyone else. > > You'd be surprised just how subtle some colour vision problems can be. I suppose I might be, but in this case I know for a fact that all forms of color-blindness can see tonal differences. On the other hand, I also know that how tones and intensity and all that work isn't exactly common street knowledge. No harm no foul. > Certainly in England, the various disabilities regulations make *only* > varying something based on colour a big no-no, and it is certainly > deprecated by institutions such as the RNIB (who are responsible for > partial sight defects too). That could be. I don't understand how that affects the reality of whether color-blind people can see the difference between red and black? Unless the RNIB would restrict VTES cards from being sold in England due to it? JSpektr

In message <196f2577.02071...@posting.google.com>, jspektr <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: >> You'd be surprised just how subtle some colour vision problems can be. > >I suppose I might be, but in this case I know for a fact that all >forms of color-blindness can see tonal differences. Across the other side of a table, with people smoking, with light bouncing across cards at all sorts of odd angles? Do bear in mind that we don't play in sterile environments where all the cards are shown to everyone, directly in front of their faces. People are playing in bars and cafes and pubs and people's houses. Long range - and especially in sleeves - a lot of things can be distorted by light bouncing off cards. (I recall one game I played in the middle of summer once, where no-one knew what anyone else had out most of the time.) I know I have problems working out what the hell a card is in that sort of situation sometimes, and my vision is just a fraction off 20:20. (I'm ever so slightly short sighted, but not sufficient for my optician to want me to wear glasses.) I don't think that compounding such problems by keeping things the same shape in the same location is a good idea, when a simple, effective redesign is possible which prevents newbies from confusing blood and pool also. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D You don't need to hear it but I'm dried up EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 and sick to death of love. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

On 17 Jul 2002 23:20:56 -0700, jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<RSAwrzIS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... >> In message <196f2577.0207...@posting.google.com>, jspektr >> <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: > >> >As pointed out elsewhere, as long as the tonal value (how light or >> >dark it is) is significantly different, such as in red vs. black, it's >> >just as clear to the color-blind as to anyone else. >> >> You'd be surprised just how subtle some colour vision problems can be. I'm also thinking that by having a symbol change for Pool (instead of just color) it would also make the task of proofing the card sheets going to print less likely to have errors. Really dislike misprints (blech!) <Snip the rest> BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<u9eZ8.538$7t.5...@newshog.newsread.com>... Okay, I'll just bounce back out of LURK to at least clarify this... > >> Well, I know nothing of 1st Ed Rage because I didn't start playing > >> Rage until Legbiter introduced me to 2nd Ed last summer. 2nd Ed is > >> all I know and all I play. > > Then I understand why you don't see my point about WW having their > > heart in the right place. My point was, they could have done a LOT > > worse to players. > > Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't it FRPG who controlled and changed > 2ndEd Rage? And WW didn't have much, if anything to say about the > changes? How are you using that to say that WW had it's heart in the > right place? From what I understand, 1stEd Rage was horribly broken > and unbalanced. FRPG sought only to balance it out. I don't see that > the changes to the cards for CE are doing that. It's just needless > tinkering. No no, I was saying WW had their hearts in the right place with regards to V:TES, as contrasted with the way FRPG abandoned and hosed 1st ed Rage players (like me). They did not balance in the way that WW attempts to - by fixing gameplay and updating card text - instead they declared 1st ed null and void and started over. You can not use any old cards with 2nd ed, so I felt cheated of my money (after two years of solid collecting, my V:TES collection has only recently exceeded my Rage stock), and WW at least has avoided that. But anyway this is more of a response to the grouping thing, so since that's not your main issue this is largely irrelevant. I just wanted to clarify what I was saying for you. Volya42

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <196f2577.02071...@posting.google.com>, jspektr > <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: > >> You'd be surprised just how subtle some colour vision problems can be. > > > >I suppose I might be, but in this case I know for a fact that all > >forms of color-blindness can see tonal differences. > > Across the other side of a table, with people smoking, with light > bouncing across cards at all sorts of odd angles? Do bear in mind that > we don't play in sterile environments where all the cards are shown to > everyone, directly in front of their faces. People are playing in bars > and cafes and pubs and people's houses. Long range - and especially in > sleeves - a lot of things can be distorted by light bouncing off cards. > (I recall one game I played in the middle of summer once, where no-one > knew what anyone else had out most of the time.) Across the other side of a table, with people smoking, with light bounce across cards at all sorts of odd angles I can't even see what a card *is*, let alone worry how much it costs. If a person can see the other things on the card, I can't believe he couldn't be able to tell red from black no matter how color-blind. None the less, I think I agree with Bernie's point: differing symbols may prevent really annoying typos and that's definitely a good thing. (Though I'm not in favor of a redesign at all because one wasn't necessary and in the matter of card layout, change per se is always bad no matter that some of the individual aspects of it may be good. Like the grouping thing, however, we weren't asked and now we have it. bleh. Bad show, White Wolf.) Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:RSAwrzIS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <196f2577.0207...@posting.google.com>, jspektr > <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: > >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<vHivOnJa...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > >> If it were to be solely a colour change (the site suggests it isn't), > >> this would be pretty crap for anyone who's colour blind. > > > >As pointed out elsewhere, as long as the tonal value (how light or > >dark it is) is significantly different, such as in red vs. black, it's > >just as clear to the color-blind as to anyone else. > > You'd be surprised just how subtle some colour vision problems can be. > > Certainly in England, the various disabilities regulations make *only* > varying something based on colour a big no-no, and it is certainly > deprecated by institutions such as the RNIB (who are responsible for > partial sight defects too). I understand but i doubt v:tes was changed only to help colour blind people (*) So what's the next step ? are we going to make the card redable by blind people ? or really big, big cards for poeple who have vision length problem ? i 'm still puzzled ! (notice the "u" in colour here)

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<PSg3rP6R...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <196f2577.02071...@posting.google.com>, jspektr > <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: > >> You'd be surprised just how subtle some colour vision problems can be. > > > >I suppose I might be, but in this case I know for a fact that all > >forms of color-blindness can see tonal differences. > > Across the other side of a table, with people smoking, with light > bouncing across cards at all sorts of odd angles? Do bear in mind that *other examples of unfavorable visual conditions snipped for space* Sure. I agree that there are many instances when it is hard to see what is on a card. I was just pointing out that red vs. black does not specifically impede someone that is color blind any more than anyone else, which is what you were claiming. Anyone would have difficulty in the conditions you described, regardless of their color-blindness or lack thereof. > > I don't think that compounding such problems by keeping things the same > shape in the same location is a good idea, when a simple, effective > redesign is possible which prevents newbies from confusing blood and > pool also. They weren't in the same location before, they were in different locations. Unless you are suggesting that the *change* to putting them in the same location is bad? I agree that using the same shape isn't the most clear, but in my experience no one has had a problem with it past their first game. Obviously, your experience may be different. JSpektr

In message <3d3757c9$0$25678$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >I understand but i doubt v:tes was changed only to help colour blind people There is a difference between "was changed only to..." and "during the change, such issues were thought about". Issues of colour blind users or partially sighted users are certainly things that designers have to think about during design of 'user interfaces'. -- James Coupe [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <196f2577.02071...@posting.google.com>, jspektr <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: >> I don't think that compounding such problems by keeping things the same >> shape in the same location is a good idea, when a simple, effective >> redesign is possible which prevents newbies from confusing blood and >> pool also. > >They weren't in the same location before, The keeping was (meant to be) referencing the "same shape" only. >they were in different >locations. Unless you are suggesting that the *change* to putting them >in the same location is bad? Having one form of differentiation that isn't based on colour is good - in the previous layout, it was position, in the new layout, it is shape. Having one or the other is pretty much essential, but which one you do is partly a matter of personal preference, aesthetically. As others have pointed out, however, putting all the costs in the same place but making them very visually distinct is likely to make life easier for verification and newbies. ("Cost goes here. The red blood is vampire blood, so comes from a vampire. The black diamond comes from your pool. Done.") [ quoted text not captured ]