In case anyone is interested, reprinting cards that have never been printed with
art commissioned by White Wolf is harder than reprinting cards that have art
commissioned by White Wolf. The degree of this difficulty increased markedly
around the time of Sword of Caine.
This fact naturally influences selecting reprints.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Does this mean that to get cards reprinted from the WotC time, there
are some copyright issues involved which makes it easier to get new
art commissioned to get reprints done?
On Jan 7, 9:25 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does this mean that to get cards reprinted from the WotC time, there
> are some copyright issues involved which makes it easier to get new
> art commissioned to get reprints done?
I imagine both options cost money, in comparison to simply re-using
art one has commissioned oneself and already has the rights to use.
[ quoted text not captured ]
So, hypothetically, if fans were to donate art for particular cards
that have had issues being reprinted for that reason, as well as to
explicitly donate the rights to that art, would that ease the
selection of reprints? Not that it's likely to help with, say, Parity
Shift, until another set with Cam starters rolls around. (No matter
what's coming this spring, chances are good it won't have starters.)
- D.J.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thanks for the information.
So it's by Wotc just enforcing some obscure copyright issue in recent years
(around sword of caine) ?
Sounds really weird.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think Emiliano, that usually, the artist has the copyright, and it
requires negotiating with the artist directly. Sword of Caine was the
first set after CCP took over, and it may be a CCP directive to cut costs...
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ, you probably cannot talk about this, but I will ask anyway. Will
CCP/White Wolf continue to license the Deckmaster name and the VTES rules?
best -
chris
On Jan 7, 4:22 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> I think Emiliano, that usually, the artist has the copyright, and it
> requires negotiating with the artist directly. Sword of Caine was the
> first set after CCP took over, and it may be a CCP directive to cut costs...
If so, I have noticed no drop in quality of new art. Anyway, I can
think of other explanations.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris, here is the the Deckmaster patent:
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATRE37957
How could they *not* license it from WOTC and continue to produce VTES?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
[ quoted text not captured ]
If the issue is one of copyright around the artwork, is not the
solution to simply commission new art?
For example, instead of creating "Murmur of the False Will" and having
new art drawn for it, simply reprint Deflection with new art, as has
been done for Spirit's Touch, Conditioning, Cloak the Gathering,
Swallowed by the Night, Fata Morgana, and probably dozens of others?
Sorry, but I don't really find this a valid reason to not reprint
staples like Deflection, Parity Shift, Sense Dep, Magnum, etc, when a
solution exists and has already been used with the abovementioned
cards.
Unless I'm misunderstanding and it's not simply an issue of artwork,
but somehow the actual cardtext/card itself?
On Jan 7, 6:52 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> > In case anyone is interested, reprinting cards that have never been printed with
> > art commissioned by White Wolf is harder than reprinting cards that have art
> > commissioned by White Wolf. The degree of this difficulty increased markedly
> > around the time of Sword of Caine.
>
> > This fact naturally influences selecting reprints.
>
> If the issue is one of copyright around the artwork, is not the
> solution to simply commission new art?
Well, he did not say precisely whether or in what respect the issue
was copyright. But as for commissioning new artwork, they've been
doing exactly that.
> For example, instead of creating "Murmur of the False Will" and having
> new art drawn for it, simply reprint Deflection with new art, as has
> been done for Spirit's Touch, Conditioning, Cloak the Gathering,
> Swallowed by the Night, Fata Morgana, and probably dozens of others?
I don't think anyone seriously wanted the new set to contain fewer new
cards.
Obviously, if the budget for the set allows for a certain number of
items of new art, then the new cards are obviously going to get
priority. But Murmer is no longer a new card with new art - using its
artwork for deflection would only cause confusion.
> Sorry, but I don't really find this a valid reason to not reprint
> staples like Deflection, Parity Shift, Sense Dep, Magnum, etc, when a
> solution exists and has already been used with the abovementioned
> cards.
Presumably, the next set will also have a budget for new artwork, some
of which will be devoted to reprints with new art, just like this one
was.
librarian wrote:
> Sword of Caine was the
> first set after CCP took over, and it may be a CCP directive to cut
> costs...
Also no. Nothing so nefarious.
> Well, he did not say precisely whether or in what respect the issue
> was copyright
Rather than trying to read the winds, divine spirits, or otherwise
deflect, let's look at the facts. As it stands now, belonging grants
protection in the aspects where new sets are senselessly deprived. If
WW was to show some mercy for the weak, it would end these murmurs of
the false will and *show* some hospitality. Empowering the ancilla is
the most sure-fire way to avoid anachronism. I intend not to be a
slasher, merely find some respite for these dead eyes.
Brandon
> Well, he did not say precisely whether or in what respect the issue
> was copyright. But as for commissioning new artwork, they've been
> doing exactly that.
Yes this is my point. If it is simply an issue of copyright, that fact
that WW have already commissioned new artwork for old cards makes
LSJ's initial post seem somewhat redundant.
It's hard to reprint old cards with artwork not commissioned by WW.
So they're reprinting old cards with new artwork that WW *did*
commission.
Yet still, no Deflection, no Parity Shift since Cam Ed, no Sense Dep
since 2001, and no real explanation as to why.
> Obviously, if the budget for the set allows for a certain number of
> items of new art, then the new cards are obviously going to get
> priority. But Murmer is no longer a new card with new art - using its
> artwork for deflection would only cause confusion.
I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting they obviously have a budget
for new artwork for Deflection alternatives like Murmur, and submit
that this money would be better spent on artwork for reprints of
highly desirable, staple cards like Deflection.
> Presumably, the next set will also have a budget for new artwork, some
> of which will be devoted to reprints with new art, just like this one
> was.
If past patterns continue, the new set will not be a base set - it
will be a limited 60 card expansion without reprints as per Sword of
Caine/TR. In other words, no new Deflection/Parity Shift/Sense Dep
until at least 2010.
jase
<jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:dfd3b2a6-5f10-4716-8b34->fd4833...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>If past patterns continue, the new set will not be a base set - it
>will be a limited 60 card expansion without reprints as per Sword of
>Caine/TR. In other words, no new Deflection/Parity Shift/Sense Dep
>until at least 2010.
3rd Edition was released Sept 2006
Sword of Caine Early 2007?
Lords of the Night Oct 2007
Twilight Rebellion Spring 2008
Keepers of Tradition Nov 2008
This suggests that like previous years there will be two expansions in 2009,
one of which will include starters, so we may not need to wait until 2010
as you suggest.
Further, unless I've screwed up the order its been sabbat,sabbat,
indy,indy,cam
That suggests to me that there will be another cam set this year. Perhaps
not the next expansion, but in the next 2.
If the first of 2009 is 60 cards then we'll likely see starters in the
autumn.
They could always alter the pattern.
John P.
Winnipeg
On Jan 7, 10:38 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> > Well, he did not say precisely whether or in what respect the issue
> > was copyright. But as for commissioning new artwork, they've been
> > doing exactly that.
>
> Yes this is my point. If it is simply an issue of copyright, that fact
> that WW have already commissioned new artwork for old cards makes
> LSJ's initial post seem somewhat redundant.
I don't see the redundancy.
> It's hard to reprint old cards with artwork not commissioned by WW.
> So they're reprinting old cards with new artwork that WW *did*
> commission.
Right.
> Yet still, no Deflection, no Parity Shift since Cam Ed, no Sense Dep
> since 2001, and no real explanation as to why.
The likely explanation: Instead of printing Parity Shift, Deflection
and Sense Dep, they printed some other cards which inevitably someone
would be bitching about, if they had printed Parity Shift, Deflection
and Sense Dep instead.
> I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting they obviously have a budget
> for new artwork for Deflection alternatives like Murmur, and submit
> that this money would be better spent on artwork for reprints of
> highly desirable, staple cards like Deflection.
If it is really so desirable that, with thousands of other cards
available, it is necessary to get that outraged about it, perhaps it
really should get a "fix" at the same time as it gets new art.
Kevin M. wrote:
> librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote:>> LSJ wrote:>>> In case anyone is interested, reprinting cards that have never been
>>> printed with art commissioned by White Wolf is harder than reprinting
>>> cards that have art commissioned by White Wolf. The degree of this
>>> difficulty increased markedly around the time of Sword of Caine.
>>>
>>> This fact naturally influences selecting reprints.>> LSJ, you probably cannot talk about this, but I will ask anyway. Will
>> CCP/White Wolf continue to license the Deckmaster name and the VTES
>> rules?>
> Chris, here is the the Deckmaster patent:
> http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATRE37957
>
> How could they *not* license it from WOTC and continue to produce VTES?
>
Deckmaster is different than Trading card game (I think). Deckmaster is
a trademark, while Trading cArd game is a patent. But yes, WW would
also need to renew the license for Deckmaster too.
Check this page out:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=WO1996004968&DISPLAY=DESC
It's all about VTES.
best -
chris
> I don't see the redundancy.
Alright. I won't bother to explain why I do.
> The likely explanation: Instead of printing Parity Shift, Deflection
> and Sense Dep, they printed some other cards which inevitably someone
> would be bitching about, if they had printed Parity Shift, Deflection
> and Sense Dep instead.
Deflection has not been printed in boosters since 2002.
Sensory Deprivation has not been printed since 2001.
These are staple cards, used almost every deck that runs the
disciplines.
Parity Shift is the single most powerful voting card at the
Camarilla's disposal. No other action comes close in terms of a pool
shift. It is a defining card of the sect's politics. It hasn't been
printed since 2002, and KoT was a Camarilla focused set.
So whilst someone else might "bitch" about Deflection being reprinted
instead of, say Serenading the Kami, I'd venture it wouldn't be quite
as justified.
Wouldn't you?
> If it is really so desirable that, with thousands of other cards
> available, it is necessary to get that outraged about it, perhaps it
> really should get a "fix" at the same time as it gets new art.
Firstly, nobody is "outraged". Your hyperbole is misplaced and
unnecessary.
Secondly, there are not thousands of replacements for the cards I am
talking about. In theory there are a couple - Redirection, Murmur of
the False Will for Deflection, and Reality for Sensory Deprivation.
However, these are inferior options, certainly in the case of MotFW
and Reality. Again, your talk of "thousands" is simply hyperbole.
Thirdly, this discussion was not about the need for these cards to be
nerfed. This is simply muddying the waters. It began as a question as
to why these cards were not being reprinted, despite the apparent
prime opportunity to do so in KoT/LotN, in light of the fact they are
staple cards, and cornerstones of many archetypal decks, and that new
players are being sorely disadvantaged by their rarity.
To which, despite the reprinting of Spirit's Touch, Taste of Vitae,
Cloak the gathering, Fata Morgana, and dozens of others with new
artwork, the official response seems to have been "it's hard".
librarian wrote:
>
> Do we really want Eyes of the Dead reprinted?
yes. but with new updated text to make it useful.
and a pony.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'll guess "At that point, the master WotC files/hardcopies etc. were
accidentally lost. Oops."
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sounds much more like: "Our license to print these old pieces has run
out. Renewing costs money, as does commissioning new art. Let's spend
some time and energy determining which is more cost-effective (and
best fits our art direction, and whatever other considerations)."
-witness1
On Jan 8, 12:57 am, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> So whilst someone else might "bitch" about Deflection being
> reprinted instead of, say Serenading the Kami, I'd venture it
> wouldn't be quite as justified.
Why did you pick Serenading the Kami as an example? First off,
Serenading the Kami is a card which still has its original art, which
was originally commissioned by WW and not by WotC. Hence, any
preference for such cards does not render LSJ's explanation
"redundant". Secondly, a Base set like KoT should be balanced from
discipline to discipline, and I don't recall you complaining about any
other Thaumaturgy card that should have been reprinted and was not.
From the little I have seen of KoT, it seems to me they have invested
quite alot of money into getting new art onto WoTC era cards. To take
just one example (for the dominate discipline): Seduction got
reprinted with new art.
If your argument is that Deflection should have got reprinted
*instead* of Seduction, such a complaint might make sense in light of
LSJ's explanation -- but I'm not sure everyone would have agreed with
that preference. I know I don't.
On the other hand, if your argument is "They reprinted Seduction with
new art, so they should have done Deflection and Govern TOO", I would
say this fails to take into account possible available limits in time,
energy, resources and budget.
<snip>
> Firstly, nobody is "outraged". Your hyperbole is misplaced
> and unnecessary.
In that case, I'm unsure why LSJ's explanation does not satisfy.
> Secondly, there are not thousands of replacements for the
> cards I am talking about. In theory there are a couple -> Redirection, Murmur of the False Will for Deflection, [...]
If bounce does not need to form a part of every strategy, then yes,
there are thousands of replacements. On the other hand if bounce IS
essential to every competitive strategy, this suggests that bounce is
overpowered. Furthermore, if Redirection and Murmer are not good
enough compared to Deflection, then this suggests that Deflection
might be a particularly overpowered example of an overpowered bounce
card.
> [...]and Reality for Sensory Deprivation.> However, these are inferior options, certainly in the case of
> MotFW and Reality. Again, your talk of "thousands" is
> simply hyperbole.
No. I meant it. Either there are thousands of alternatives (in the
broad sense), or deflection is too powerful.
> Thirdly, this discussion was not about the need for these
> cards to be nerfed. This is simply muddying the waters. It
> began as a question as to why these cards were not being
> reprinted, despite the apparent prime opportunity to do so
> in KoT/LotN, in light of the fact they are staple cards, and
> cornerstones of many archetypal decks, and that new
> players are being sorely disadvantaged by their rarity.
>
> To which, despite the reprinting of Spirit's Touch, Taste of
> Vitae, Cloak the gathering, Fata Morgana, and dozens of
> others with new artwork, the official response seems to
> have been "it's hard".
Most of these are also "staples".
In short, the harder they work at a given task, the less you are
satisfied. If they bring you the moon in an hour, you see it as proof
that they could have gotten you three moons during the same time
period.
On Jan 8, 2:45 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> If your argument is that Deflection should have got reprinted
> *instead* of Seduction, such a complaint might make sense in light of
> LSJ's explanation -- but I'm not sure everyone would have agreed with
> that preference. I know I don't.
I think the argument (including Serenading the Kami) was:
If they can print Serenading the Kami (or whatever) with any art, they
could have used that art slot to not have printed Serenading the Kami
(or whatever) and instead printed Deflection with new art.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with this argument in a general
sense--I like new cards, and wouldn't want the existence of new cards
compromised by the need to reprint old cards, and I'm totally happy
that Murmur was printed and would not have wanted Murmur to not exist
because the art that could have been used to print that was used for
Deflection instead.
> If bounce does not need to form a part of every strategy, then yes,
> there are thousands of replacements. On the other hand if bounce IS
> essential to every competitive strategy, this suggests that bounce is
> overpowered. Furthermore, if Redirection and Murmer are not good
> enough compared to Deflection, then this suggests that Deflection
> might be a particularly overpowered example of an overpowered bounce
> card.
This is all true. But it does not make it ok to not reprint Deflection
if it is still legal for play.
> No. I meant it. Either there are thousands of alternatives (in the
> broad sense), or deflection is too powerful.
Deflection is too powerful. But not reprinting it doesn't make it any
less too powerful. And leaves new players without access to a very
important card that is too powerful.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> If they can print Serenading the Kami (or whatever) with any art, they
> could have used that art slot to not have printed Serenading the Kami
> (or whatever) and instead printed Deflection with new art.
Serenading was printed in Gehenna, a "no reprints" set.
On Jan 8, 11:45 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:57 am, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
>
> > So whilst someone else might "bitch" about Deflection being
> > reprinted instead of, say Serenading the Kami, I'd venture it
> > wouldn't be quite as justified.
>
> Why did you pick Serenading the Kami as an example? First off,
> Serenading the Kami is a card which still has its original art, which
> was originally commissioned by WW and not by WotC. Hence, any
> preference for such cards does not render LSJ's explanation
> "redundant".
snip a bunch of other maypole dancing
Now I know why you give other people shit about using strawman
arguments and other misleadings and twistings of points. It's because
they are just not as good at it as you are. You are the Master, Troll
of the highest grade. Hats off to you.
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Serenading was printed in Gehenna, a "no reprints" set.
No, no, I realize that. Serenading the Kami was, I'm pretty sure, just
a random card that had art on it, that Jason used as a random example
of (I don't want to speak for him, but this is how I took it) "Here is
a card that got printed that could have been, one way or the other,
Deflection instead", and if you turn "Serenading the Kami" into "Any
card that isn't Deflection and has art on it that would have been
resources better used reprinting Deflection", it kind of makes more
sense.
If the issue in not reprinting Deflection (or whatever) is that there
needs to be new art made for it (which may or may not actually be the
case, but just following the train of thought), and no money has made
itself available for that purpose yet, an argument could certainly be
made that one less new card (with new art) is easily worth reprinting
Deflection (with new art).
-Peter
On Jan 8, 4:04 pm, Robert Scythe <tbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip a bunch of other maypole dancing
>
> Now I know why you give other people shit about using
> strawman arguments and other misleadings and twistings of> points. It's becausethey are just not as good at it as you> are. You are the Master, Troll of the highest grade. Hats off
> to you.
You are too modest. A lesser Troll, like myself, might have made some
pretense of to wanting to discuss V:tES.
On Jan 8, 3:11 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > Serenading was printed in Gehenna, a "no reprints" set.
Real simply I guess what I would like to know is:
Does it cost more to reprint a card from the WOTC era (such as
deflection) with new art than
print a new card with new art?
Are there costs outside of commissioning new art associated with
reprinting WOTC era cards?
(not including normal preparations for printing any card such as
typesetting or whatever)
John P
Winnipeg
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Serenading was printed in Gehenna, a "no reprints" set.>
> No, no, I realize that. Serenading the Kami was, I'm pretty sure, just
> a random card that had art on it, that Jason used as a random example
> of (I don't want to speak for him, but this is how I took it) "Here is
> a card that got printed that could have been, one way or the other,
> Deflection instead", and if you turn "Serenading the Kami" into "Any
> card that isn't Deflection and has art on it that would have been
> resources better used reprinting Deflection", it kind of makes more
> sense.
Perhaps. But there aren't any random drive-by printings.
Points are best made with something more than foggy hand waving.
On Jan 8, 5:03 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Perhaps. But there aren't any random drive-by printings.
> Points are best made with something more than foggy hand waving.
That is true. Yet I'm not the one making the point here. I was just
trying to help John understand what Jason was talking about.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
So it's not sinister, nefarious, or negligent. Can you give us more
details than what you've already given? Perhaps you've already said
as much as you can.
Either way, thanks for shedding some light onto the reprint question,
because I know it was confusing to many players.
Ira
> Why did you pick Serenading the Kami as an example?
It is a reprinted common of dubious worth. Your arguement was that
people would "bitch" no matter what WW reprinted. The fact is that
you're wrong. Nobody is going to "bitch" if certain cards are never
reprinted again. Your entire troll is alledging that certain people,
namely myself, would complain no matter what WW did.
This is simply wrong. I have endorsed and supported this game for 15
years, and seldom, if ever "bitch" about it. A recent influx of new
players to my city has brought this issue to my attention, and so I've
brought it here.
> If bounce does not need to form a part of every strategy, then yes,
> there are thousands of replacements. On the other hand if bounce IS
> essential to every competitive strategy, this suggests that bounce is
> overpowered. Furthermore, if Redirection and Murmer are not good
> enough compared to Deflection, then this suggests that Deflection
> might be a particularly overpowered example of an overpowered bounce
> card.
This is all pointless midirection. It is irrelevant whether Deflection
is too powerful. It is irrelevant whether bounce is too powerful. All
that *is* relevant is that these cards exist within the game, people
with access to them play them with remarkable frequency, and by not
reprinting them, all WW achieves is disadvantaging newer players who
don't have access to older sets.
Newer players are vital to the future of this game. We should all be
bending over backwards to accomodate them, the producers of the game
most of all.
> No. I meant it. Either there are thousands of alternatives (in the
> broad sense), or deflection is too powerful.
Irrelevant.
> In short, the harder they work at a given task, the less you are
> satisfied. If they bring you the moon in an hour, you see it as proof
> that they could have gotten you three moons during the same time
> period.
Foolishness.
jase
> Perhaps. But there aren't any random drive-by printings.
> Points are best made with something more than foggy hand waving.
The point has already been made. Trolls aside, we all understand it.
These cards should be banned or reprinted. Every release that goes by
without a decision being made either way disadvantages new players,
and *only* new players.
It's as simple as that.
On 8 Jan, 22:03, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Perhaps. But there aren't any random drive-by printings.
> Points are best made with something more than foggy hand waving.
In which case, to avoid further foggy hand waving, I propose
explaining in clear format why the cards the concerned parties refer
to were not reprinted, rather than just telling them which reasons
they guess at are wrong. (If nothing else, it might get everyone to
stop moaning about Parity Shift, and I don't own many of the damn
things!)
That said, I quite like the idea of a drive-by printing.
- Dave
Shockwave wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 22:03, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps. But there aren't any random drive-by printings.
>> Points are best made with something more than foggy hand waving.>
> In which case, to avoid further foggy hand waving, I propose
> explaining in clear format why the cards the concerned parties refer
> to were not reprinted, rather than just telling them which reasons
> they guess at are wrong. (If nothing else, it might get everyone to
> stop moaning about Parity Shift, and I don't own many of the damn
> things!)
The part that matters is already in a clear format: around SoC, it became much
more difficult to reprint WotC-commissioned VTES art.
No foggy. No hand wavy.
On Jan 8, 8:02 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> The part that matters is already in a clear format: around SoC, it became much
> more difficult to reprint WotC-commissioned VTES art.
I happily volunteer to create new art for Deflection, completely free
of charge. I'm even actually pretty good at this sort of thing :-)
-Peter
On Jan 8, 7:33 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> > Why did you pick Serenading the Kami as an example?
>
> It is a reprinted common of dubious worth. Your arguement
> was that people would "bitch" no matter what WW reprinted.
Given the context, I assumed it would be understood that I was
referring to cards with WotC-era art, a significant number of which
might be in demand, but a limited number of which might be within the
set's new art budget (or whatever the difficulty is).
For instance, it was probably more important to reprint Seduction than
to reprint Deflection and Govern. Deflection and Govern have rough
equivalents (such as Murmer and Scouting) whereas Seduction does
not.
> The fact is that
> you're wrong. Nobody is going to "bitch" if certain cards are
> never reprinted again.
You misunderstood me. I never suggested that any possible card that
the design team chose not to reprint with new art would inevitably be
the subject of bitching.
As far as I can tell, all of cards with WotC era art, that were
reprinted with new art in the new set, were all in-demand cards.
Quite a few down; quite a few to go.
> Your entire troll is alledging that certain people,
> namely myself, would complain no matter what WW did.
Absolutely incorrect. I said nothing about YOU inevitably bitching.
I merely said that people would bitch. I merely tried to express the
idea that different people want different things, and given limited
resources, it is hard to make everybody happy.
For example, I would like to bitch right now that Murder of Crows was
not reprinted. But I accept LSJs explanation, and I am sure WW will
get around to it eventually.
> This is simply wrong. I have endorsed and supported this
> game for 15 years, and seldom, if ever "bitch" about it.
It was not intended as a personal insult.
> Given the context, I assumed it would be understood that I was
> referring to cards with WotC-era art, a significant number of which
> might be in demand, but a limited number of which might be within the
> set's new art budget (or whatever the difficulty is).
>
> For instance, it was probably more important to reprint Seduction than
> to reprint Deflection and Govern. Deflection and Govern have rough
> equivalents (such as Murmer and Scouting) whereas Seduction does
> not.
WW has already reprinted WotC cards in both lotN and KoT with new
artwork that have rough equivalents (Torn Signpost - Increased
Strength, Preternatural Str, Spirit's Touch - Precognition, Cloak the
Gathering - Veil the Legions, Conditioning - Threats, Bonding,
Foreshadowing).
But this argument ultimately falls down when you consider the lack of
Parity Shift in KoT. This is a card which, like Seduction, has no
comparible card in print, yet WW has failed to reprint it. It's the
vote that virtually defines Camailla politics, and yet it's not
reprinted in the first Camarilla focused set since 2002.
> Absolutely incorrect. I said nothing about YOU inevitably bitching.
> I merely said that people would bitch. I merely tried to express the
> idea that different people want different things, and given limited
> resources, it is hard to make everybody happy.
It's impossible, in fact. However, I would venture that more people
would have been content with a reprinting of Sensory Dep rather than,
say, Ravnos Carnival. I'd even venture that people would rather have
seen a reprinted Deflection rather than the creation of Murmur. I'm
guessing here in regards to the wider VTES community, but it's
certainly true of my playgroup.
> For example, I would like to bitch right now that Murder of Crows was
> not reprinted. But I accept LSJs explanation, and I am sure WW will
> get around to it eventually.
The "eventually" part is the problem. Prime opportunity to reprint
Sense Dep (Lords) and Parity Shift (Keepers) has been and gone. Along
with the Traditions, Parity Shift is probably the most important card
the Camarilla has. It's absence is baffling to me. Similar with Sense
Dep, especially in light of the reprint of a new Temptation (which is
to Serpentis what Sense Dep is Chimerstry - a discipline defining
card)
> It was not intended as a personal insult.
Fair enough, play on.
jase
James Coupe wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>librarian wrote:>>> Sword of Caine was the first set after CCP took over, and it may
>>>be a CCP directive to cut costs...>>
>>Also no. Nothing so nefarious.>
> I'll guess "At that point, the master WotC files/hardcopies etc. were
> accidentally lost. Oops."
>
i seem to recall when SW first came out WW didn't have access to
originals for a lot of old card art, and had to scan them in or
something? which is why a bunch of that era's reprints look a bit fuzzy.
perhaps after SW, WotC found the originals and licensed them to WW for a
fee for a certain time period (ie: however long it was between SW and
SoC), with WotC never thinking the game would ever live anyway or that
WW would ever need to renew the art license. Then X years on WW does
want to renew the license, and WotC sees how well VtES is doing, so
wants to charge 1000x as much as last time or something...
that's my baseless speculation, anyway. :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
as long as it somehow involves two naked pale blood-soaked lesbian
vampires, I fully support Peter's proposal.
[ quoted text not captured ]
It's always worth considering that there's always the possibility that
the next Booster-only release might be a Camarilla supplement a la SoC
or TR, and we might get a Parity Shift (or equivalent 'power vote') in
there? We might even get variety! I'd certainly be happy to see more
'Sect defining' cards, especially for the big two.
On Jan 9, 4:31 am, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> as long as it somehow involves two naked pale blood-soaked lesbian
> vampires, I fully support Peter's proposal.
"You! Get those two naked pale blood-soaked lesbian vampires over
there!"
I'm on it!
-Peter
LSJ wrote:
> Pity Salem forgot to mention "non-Nosferatu". [dancing naked and blood soaked around a pole]
I don't know. Petra's pretty hot, and already one third of the way
there. Or does she possess some sort of hideous deformity that very
tight clothing covers up?
Jesse
On Jan 9, 10:52 am, jcrossnicker...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't know. Petra's pretty hot, and already one third of the way
> there. Or does she possess some sort of hideous deformity that very
> tight clothing covers up?
Forget Petra! I want to see Selma and Lucretia!
On Jan 9, 12:24 am, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> > Given the context, I assumed it would be understood that I was
> > referring to cards with WotC-era art, a significant number of which
> > might be in demand, but a limited number of which might be within the
> > set's new art budget (or whatever the difficulty is).
>
> > For instance, it was probably more important to reprint Seduction than
> > to reprint Deflection and Govern. Deflection and Govern have rough
> > equivalents (such as Murmer and Scouting) whereas Seduction does
> > not.
>
> WW has already reprinted WotC cards in both lotN and KoT with new
> artwork that have rough equivalents (Torn Signpost - Increased
> Strength, Preternatural Str, Spirit's Touch - Precognition, Cloak the
> Gathering - Veil the Legions, Conditioning - Threats, Bonding,
> Foreshadowing).
>
> But this argument ultimately falls down when you consider the lack of
> Parity Shift in KoT. This is a card which, like Seduction, has no
> comparible card in print, yet WW has failed to reprint it. It's the
> vote that virtually defines Camailla politics, and yet it's not
> reprinted in the first Camarilla focused set since 2002.
It was an example, not an argument. Apparently, it was a good
example, since you don't seem to be actually arguing that Seduction
should have been removed from the set, in order to make room for
Parity Shift.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Too bad, they have OBF. (pictures LARP'ers with their arms crossed in
front of their face to indicate stealth...)
best -
chris
On Jan 9, 10:38 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> It was an example, not an argument. Apparently, it was a good
> example, since you don't seem to be actually arguing that Seduction
> should have been removed from the set, in order to make room for
> Parity Shift.
Yes, yes, Jason you're argument should be that Parity Shift should've
replaced Seduction and not anything you actually said up to this
point, what're ya thinkin'.....DOH! Another billygoat gone by.
[ quoted text not captured ]
For the record, I never said, or meant, anything of the sort. I
merely indicated that "my argument" that he referred to was an
argument I never made, and the only point of my example did not in
fact appear to be in dispute.
Unless YOU are going to dictate to ME what my argument was, or should
have been.
In article
<36e44afe-4eea-4743...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
jcrossn...@gmail.com wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmmmmm. Hot Petra on Agatha action....
Ahem. In any case, I'm totally serious. If y'all need free art for
Deflection, let me know.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
On Jan 9, 4:17 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> In article
> <36e44afe-4eea-4743-8776-930693254...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,>
> jcrossnicker...@gmail.com wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Pity Salem forgot to mention "non-Nosferatu". [dancing naked and blood
> > > soaked around a pole]
>
> > I don't know. Petra's pretty hot, and already one third of the way
> > there. Or does she possess some sort of hideous deformity that very
> > tight clothing covers up?
>
> Hmmmmm. Hot Petra on Agatha action....
>
> Ahem. In any case, I'm totally serious. If y'all need free art for
> Deflection, let me know.
>
Peter,
I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't hurt to actually draw new art for
Deflection and then mail it to White Wolf care of LSJ. I guess it
would hurt your available free time if it never gets used, but new
Deflection art sitting on LSJ's desk is better than LSJ (or whomever)
having to ask someone to create said art.
Everyone,
Now seems like an excellent time for my missing Deflection theory,
which is completely unfounded (well, maybe not completely, I believe
my logic is sound). I think Deflection will be banned, but it can't be
banned until there are enough bounce alternatives that bazooka bleed
won't become the best deck ever in a world without Deflection. I
actually believed in this a lot more before LSJ started this WotC art
thread.
Later,
~Rehlow
On Jan 9, 5:36 pm, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> Now seems like an excellent time for my missing Deflection theory,
> which is completely unfounded (well, maybe not completely, I believe
> my logic is sound). I think Deflection will be banned, but it can't be
> banned until there are enough bounce alternatives that bazooka bleed
> won't become the best deck ever in a world without Deflection. I
> actually believed in this a lot more before LSJ started this WotC art
> thread.
Well, I had a similar theory, except I merely suspected he was merely
considering a slight fix. But then, when LSJ posted his artwork
explanation, I supposed he intended to put such rampant and baseless
speculation to rest.
On Jan 9, 2:11 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> For the record, I never said, or meant, anything of the sort. I
> merely indicated that "my argument" that he referred to was an
> argument I never made, and the only point of my example did not in
> fact appear to be in dispute.
Okay, I'll let another billygoat go, not that it'll do any good. You
stated that maybe WW may have a limited budget for reprinting WotC-era
art and that a card like Seduction with no current rough equivalents
may be more important for them to reprint instead of Govern or
Deflection. In that valid point you used an 'argument by example'.
Jason points out that WW already has reprinted WotC-era art cards with
new art that have rough equivalents. And that your 'argument (by
example)' doesn't hold up because they did not reprint Parity Shift
that also has no rough equivalents. (All this is done in mind that
Govern, Deflection and PS are important tournament staples that new
players will have a harder time aquiring.)
Your response was to say that it wasn't an argument but an example and
a good one since he is not "arguing that Seduction should have been
removed from the set, in order to make room for Parity Shift." There
is no dispute there since he has shown in previous arguments that
cards like "Spirit's Touch, Conditioning, Cloak the Gathering,
Swallowed by the Night, Fata Morgana, and probably dozens of others"
would make better choices to replace with.
You're just larking along looking for attention via circular
arguments, twists, turns and meandering meanings.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Lol, bazooka bleed is funny.
However, good thing, imho, is that there's no reason at all to ban a base
card such deflection.
We even got a deflection (as well as redirection) counter in KoT.
Do we want s&b deck have the final word on the game at all cost ?
I really hope not so.
On Jan 9, 6:39 pm, Robert Scythe <tbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:11 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For the record, I never said, or meant, anything of the sort. I
> > merely indicated that "my argument" that he referred to was an
> > argument I never made, and the only point of my example did not in
> > fact appear to be in dispute.
>
> Okay, I'll let another billygoat go, not that it'll do any good. You
> stated that maybe WW may have a limited budget for reprinting WotC-era
> art and that a card like Seduction with no current rough equivalents
> may be more important for them to reprint instead of Govern or
> Deflection. In that valid point you used an 'argument by example'.
More or less correct. My point was that a number of such cards were
in demand, and, due to various difficulties, not all could be printed
at once. I gave specific reasons why Seduction might be comparable,
in priority, to Govern and Deflection and even (though it was not
necessary for my argument or my position) even preferable. I gave a
specific reason why, in this specific case, it was comparable and
preferable.
> Jason points out that WW already has reprinted WotC-era art cards with
> new art that have rough equivalents. And that your 'argument (by
> example)' doesn't hold up because they did not reprint Parity Shift
> that also has no rough equivalents. (All this is done in mind that
> Govern, Deflection and PS are important tournament staples that new
> players will have a harder time aquiring.)
Which was not really relevant, since I never took the position that
such cards whose demand level is comparable to Govern, Deflection or
Parity Shift will be comparable for the same reasons every time. He
made the mistake of assuming an example offered as an aside in
comparing three common dominate cards was intended by me to represent
some kind of universal principle or rule. The lack of rough
equivalents, which I did mention in support of the idea that this
*particular* card had a comparable demand level to Govern and
Deflection, was merely one of many factors that go into that equation.
Since he did not (as far as I could tell) disagree with me that
Seduction was comparable in priority to Govern, there was little or no
point in disputing with me one minor point that I offered in support
of the idea that the card was comparable in priority in terms of
needing to be reprinted with new art.
> Your response was to say that it wasn't an argument but an example and
> a good one since he is not "arguing that Seduction should have been
> removed from the set, in order to make room for Parity Shift." There
> is no dispute there since he has shown in previous arguments that
> cards like "Spirit's Touch, Conditioning, Cloak the Gathering,
> Swallowed by the Night, Fata Morgana, and probably dozens of others"
> would make better choices to replace with.
I was not aware that he ever took the position that the above-listed
cards were cards with WoTC era art, being printed with new art in KoT
for the first time. I don't know that such would be true. It is
certainly not true of Fata Morgana. If he had said that, and if it
were true, I would have pointed out that all of the above cards are
staple cards, which are in very high demand.
It is true that IN THESE PARTICULAR CASES, the reason the cards are in
high demand has nothing to do with their not having rough
equivalents. But that *particular* bit of analysis was only intended
to apply to Seduction. That was merely a factor I happened to mention
as a possible explanation for a difficult decision made in this case,
where, I argued, LSJ may be in a damned-if-you-do / damned-if-you-
don't position
Moreover, we do not know the nature of the difficulties LSJ
encountered. The difficulties with reprinting one WoTC era card may
not have been identical to the difficulties faces in another case.
Maybe certain artwork did not get turned in on time, forcing a change
of plans as to certain cards. So I see no reason not to take his word
for it that it is not some scheme to screw the newbies, or half-ban
the card.
> It was an example, not an argument. Apparently, it was a good
> example, since you don't seem to be actually arguing that Seduction
> should have been removed from the set, in order to make room for> Parity Shift.- Hide quoted text -
No. It was a pointless example, since this was never the topic under
discussion?
> More or less correct. My point was that a number of such cards were
> in demand, and, due to various difficulties, not all could be printed
> at once. I gave specific reasons why Seduction might be comparable,
> in priority, to Govern and Deflection and even (though it was not
> necessary for my argument or my position) even preferable. I gave a
> specific reason why, in this specific case, it was comparable and
> preferable.
Yet this specific reason has demonstrably not been applied in regards
to reprint policy across the entire set. The specific reason is either
invalid and pointless, or clearly domonstrates inconsistency in WW's
reprint policy. You provide supposition about why one particular card
could have been reprinted over another to support your point of view,
yet ignore the fact that this supposition in fact ONLY works in
regards to that one card (seduction) and clearly has not been applied
in regards to others (parity shift).
> Which was not really relevant, since I never took the position that
> such cards whose demand level is comparable to Govern, Deflection or
> Parity Shift will be comparable for the same reasons every time. He
> made the mistake of assuming an example offered as an aside in
> comparing three common dominate cards was intended by me to represent
> some kind of universal principle or rule.
I assumed your point was supposed to be relevant to the overall
discussion yes, rather than be a cornercase straw man that only
applied to Seduction (and is still completely invalidated by the
absence of Parity Shift).
> The lack of rough equivalents, which I did mention in support of the idea that this
> *particular* card had a comparable demand level to Govern and
> Deflection, was merely one of many factors that go into that equation.
Yet it was the only example you offered in your post?
> Since he did not (as far as I could tell) disagree with me that
> Seduction was comparable in priority to Govern, there was little or no
> point in disputing with me one minor point that I offered in support
> of the idea that the card was comparable in priority in terms of
> needing to be reprinted with new art.
It was the *only* point you offered in support. And it was simple
misdirection, as evidenced that the point cannot be applied to the
other cards under discussion. And for the record, no I certainly don't
agree Seduction should have priority over Deflection. I simple browse
of the TWDA should tell you which is the more utilised and desireable
card. Ditto for Govern, though Govern was rperinted three years ago,
so is not in as dire demand as Deflection.
You intimate that I misunderstand your arguments - I understand them
and their intent perfectly and I'm afraid Robert has the right of it.
Your arguements are circular and twisting, with no real intent or
purpose beyond perpetuating themselves.
The only mistake that I seem to have made was assuming that you were
talking with an intent beyond reading yourself doing so.
> I was not aware that he ever took the position that the above-listed
> cards were cards with WoTC era art, being printed with new art in KoT
> for the first time. I don't know that such would be true. It is
> certainly not true of Fata Morgana. If he had said that, and if it
> were true, I would have pointed out that all of the above cards are
> staple cards, which are in very high demand.
These cards are all examples of old era WotC cards that have been
reprinted post SoC with new artwork that have "rough equivalents",
which I mentioned to dispute your supposition about Seduction.
You can't have it both ways - either WW should be giving priority to
reprinting cards that have no rough equivalents (but in this case,
they should have reprinted Parity Shift) or they should be reprinting
old staple cards "which are in very high demand" despite alternatives
(in which case, they should have reprinted Deflection and Sensory
Deprivation).
Check the eBay prices for Spirit's Touch pre-KoT and try to tell me it
was in more demand than Deflection. Ditto Cloak, Conditioning or any
of the other cards I mentioned. Only Torn Signpost comes close to
Deflection in terms of demand and price.
> So I see no reason not to take his word for it that it is not some scheme to screw the newbies, or half-ban
> the card.
Regardless of intent, this is exactly what's happening. And this is
the heart of the matter.
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> I happily volunteer to create new art for Deflection,
> completely free of charge. I'm even actually pretty good
> at this sort of thing :-)
Any examples of your art online?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter, if you can make it out to the LVNAQ, there are several clubs which
I can take you to that have several ladies who I AM QUITE SURE will be
willing to model for your nude art. ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jan 11, 8:46 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Any examples of your art online?
Not that are particularly good. Or remotely close to realistic
illustration.
-Peter
jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> > More or less correct. �My point was that a number of such cards were
> > in demand, and, due to various difficulties, not all could be printed
> > at once. �I gave specific reasons why Seduction might be comparable,
> > in priority, to Govern and Deflection and even (though it was not
> > necessary for my argument or my position) even preferable. �I gave a
> > specific reason why, in this specific case, it was comparable and
> > preferable.
>
> Yet this specific reason has demonstrably not been applied in regards
> to reprint policy across the entire set.
Of course not. That would be absurd.
It was a factor to be considered that might have been applied in this
case. This is a base set, in which all the disciplines must be
functional. A factor can have weight without being, by itself,
completely decisive in all cases.
> The specific reason is either
> invalid and pointless, or clearly domonstrates inconsistency in WW's
> reprint policy.
I suggested no policy. I had in mind a factor, which might have been
a decisive factor in one particular instance. A factor can have
weight, and still not be the deciding factor in all cases.
> You provide supposition about why one particular card
> could have been reprinted over another to support your point of view,
> yet ignore the fact that this supposition in fact ONLY works in
> regards to that one card (seduction) and clearly has not been applied
> in regards to others (parity shift).
As already explained, this objection misses my point.
> > Which was not really relevant, since I never took the position that
> > such cards whose demand level is comparable to Govern, Deflection or
> > Parity Shift will be comparable for the same reasons every time. �He
> > made the mistake of assuming an example offered as an aside in
> > comparing three common dominate cards was intended by me to represent
> > some kind of universal principle or rule. �
>
> I assumed your point was supposed to be relevant to the overall
> discussion yes, rather than be a cornercase straw man that only
> applied to Seduction (and is still completely invalidated by the
> absence of Parity Shift).
My point was that LSJ was in a position where, given limited
resources, there might have been complaints no matter what he did. I
can easily imagine that, if LSJ had printed Deflection with new art
instead of Seduction, people would have complained that dominate was
left without one of its basic support cards. Standalone sets are
designed to stand alone. This is primarily for the benefit of
newbies.
> > The lack of rough equivalents, which I did mention in support of the idea that this
> > *particular* card had a comparable demand level to Govern and
> > Deflection, was merely one of many factors that go into that equation.
>
> Yet it was the only example you offered in your post?
It was.
> > Since he did not (as far as I could tell) disagree with me that
> > Seduction was comparable in priority to Govern, there was little or no
> > point in disputing with me one minor point that I offered in support
> > of the idea that the card was comparable in priority in terms of
> > needing to be reprinted with new art.
>
> It was the *only* point you offered in support.
Right.
> And it was simple
> misdirection, as evidenced that the point cannot be applied to the
> other cards under discussion.
A factor can have considerable weight, and still not be the deciding
factor in all cases. It is really not a difficult concept. I can
prefer blue cars to red cars, and still not choose a blue Rolls Royce
over a red Honda Civic.
You and Robert have tried to make far too much of my little example.
> And for the record, no I certainly don't
> agree Seduction should have priority over Deflection. I simple browse
> of the TWDA should tell you which is the more utilised and desireable
> card. Ditto for Govern, though Govern was rperinted three years ago,
> so is not in as dire demand as Deflection.
Perhaps. But having a base set that is functional and "stand-alone"
in nature is also a factor to be considered.
> You intimate that I misunderstand your arguments - I understand them
> and their intent perfectly and I'm afraid Robert has the right of it.
> Your arguements are circular and twisting, with no real intent or
> purpose beyond perpetuating themselves.> The only mistake that I seem to have made was assuming that you were
> talking with an intent beyond reading yourself doing so.
I have tried to stick to the subject, and steer clear of ad
hominems.
> > I was not aware that he ever took the position that the above-listed
> > cards were cards with WoTC era art, being printed with new art in KoT
> > for the first time. �I don't know that such would be true. �It is
> > certainly not true of Fata Morgana. �If he had said that, and if it
> > were true, I would have pointed out that all of the above cards are
> > staple cards, which are in very high demand.
>
> These cards are all examples of old era WotC cards that have been
> reprinted post SoC with new artwork that have "rough equivalents",
> which I mentioned to dispute your supposition about Seduction.
>
> You can't have it both ways - either WW should be giving priority to
> reprinting cards that have no rough equivalents (but in this case,
> they should have reprinted Parity Shift) or they should be reprinting
> old staple cards "which are in very high demand" despite alternatives
> (in which case, they should have reprinted Deflection and Sensory
> Deprivation).
It is a factor that could reasonably be weighed. That's how factors
work. They are considered together with other factors, and, hence,
are not decisive in every single case.
Another factor to be weighed is the difficulties encountered in
obtaining the artwork in question. Since you know nothing about this,
you should give the benefit of the doubt, and simple accept the
explanation offered. This is what our disagreement was, if you
recall.
> Check the eBay prices for Spirit's Touch pre-KoT and try to tell me it
> was in more demand than Deflection. Ditto Cloak, Conditioning or any
> of the other cards I mentioned. Only Torn Signpost comes close to
> Deflection in terms of demand and price.
Conditioning is important to the functionality of in a Camarilla base
set - far more so than Govern (which the Ventrue don't need -- they
have Presence and can use Entrancement or Legal Manipulations). Any
functional base set is going to need a number of different obfuscate
stealth cards and Auspex intercept cards, because that is how
obfuscate and auspex are supposed to function.
> > So I see no reason not to take his word for it that it is not some scheme to screw
> > the newbies, or half-ban the card.
>
> Regardless of intent, this is exactly what's happening. And this is
> the heart of the matter.
Sure. And I think by now LSJ is aware of your concerns. However, our
disagreement arose when he explained that difficulties obtaining
artwork had effected his decisions, and you, as I recall, rejected
this explanation as unreasonable. At any rate, that 's what I
*thought* we were arguing about.
On 12 jan, 05:29, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sure. And I think by now LSJ is aware of your concerns. However, our
> disagreement arose when he explained that difficulties obtaining
> artwork had effected his decisions, and you, as I recall, rejected
> this explanation as unreasonable. At any rate, that 's what I
> *thought* we were arguing about.
not really.
the disargument arose when you started posting straw arguments out of
your rear exit.
and when lsj started the little riddle phantastique instead of giving
a valid answer.
is new art difficult to obtain ? experience proved that it is not.
is reprinting of old card impossible ? experience proved that it is
not.
is choosing wisely what should or should not be reprinted difficult ?
maybe, and experience proved that the design team often does bad
choices in that particular matter. See for instance, say, parity shift
and sensory deprivation ? *rolleyes*
now if you can please stop your trolling in disguise and let the
gentlemen talk, that would be much appreciated.
r.
Reyda ! wrote:
> On 12 jan, 05:29, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Sure. �And I think by now LSJ is aware of your concerns. �However, our
> > disagreement arose when he explained that difficulties obtaining
> > artwork had effected his decisions, and you, as I recall, rejected
> > this explanation as unreasonable. �At any rate, that 's what I
> > *thought* we were arguing about.
>
> not really. the disargument arose when you started posting straw arguments out
> of your rear exit. and when lsj started the little riddle phantastique instead of
> giving a valid answer.
>
> is new art difficult to obtain ? experience proved that it is not.
> is reprinting of old card impossible ? experience proved that it is
> not.
You are assuming that difficulties involved are identical in all
cases. As I see it, LSJ is the one with "experience" in this issue.
He says difficulties involving artwork effected choices. I'm taking
his word for it.
> is choosing wisely what should or should not be reprinted difficult ?
> maybe, and experience proved that the design team often does bad
> choices in that particular matter.
Perfect decision-making is rarely possible. In the case of this set,
it is clear that not everything went precisely as planned.
> See for instance, say, parity shift
> and sensory deprivation ? *rolleyes*
>
> now if you can please stop your trolling in disguise and let the
> gentlemen talk, that would be much appreciated.
My real name is John Whelan. New York City, New York. VEKN #
2240007. I'm not sure that we've ever met.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I agree that ambiguous answers are not particularly helpful, that new
art shouldn't be particularly hard to obtain, and that there have been
some glaring vacancies in the reprint scheduling. I wonder if a large
part of what's going on is confounding speculation on what will be
printed in the secondary market. Is LSJ the Alan Greenspan of VTES? Is
he Alan Greenspan in disguise? I've never met him, but I have to
wonder ;P
Brandon
On Jan 16, 2:40 pm, brandonsantac...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I agree that ambiguous answers are not particularly helpful, that new
> art shouldn't be particularly hard to obtain, and that there have been
> some glaring vacancies in the reprint scheduling.
It is evident that this set did not go precisely as planned:
-- One planned new card did not get printed, so we got fewer than the
announced number of new cards.
-- One clan hunting ground did not get printed.
-- A damage-dealing animal did not get printed (to go with Tainted
Spring in a ostensibly "standalone" set)
-- Spoiler list did not get released in advance (perhaps due to last
minute changes being made).
-- The rulebook did not get updated (someone was too busy trying to
solve other last-minut problems perhaps).
Arguably, the release date should have been postponed so all the kinks
could be worked out. But if we accept that WW was committed to the
deadline and/or placed a cap on the artwork budget, then LSJ's
explanation that artwork problems affected choices is perfectly
plausible.
But I think its a pretty good set nonetheless.