Reasons Why We Don't Like The Changes

Some people are wondering why various players and Princes don't like these changes. I will attempt to address that. There are various reasons why a lot of the veteran players are upset about some if the changes in this new set. But, the basic reason is that they believe a lot of the changes are not good changes. White Wolf and LSJ and others have done some great things with the last three expansions and with their player support on many levels. And they deserve full credit for all of that. But here are some specific reasons that I can see: The new card layout is a bit too different than the V:tES layout. The symbols are bigger, but they are in a different location. They could have just stayed about where they were and been made a bit bigger. The green stripe does look cool and artistic, but it looks awkward and strange when put next to cards from all the other sets. Also, it blocks some of the background colors and background art and makes it a bit harder to identify card type. The card text is smaller than the V:tES set card text. The new background art for the combat card doesn't look as good as the old. Changing the clan background art and the location of the clan symbol makes it a bit harder to quickly identify the clan - we are used to the V:tES layout. And the new players that we've gotten with the last three expansions are also used to the previous set layouts and the changes make it a bit harder for them. That pesky little "3". Now players can't use any of the Jyhad or V:tES vampires with the new set's vampires. (And some of the Jyhad/V:tES vamps were good and you'd want some of them in a deck with new vamps.) Segregating various groups of vampires is just one more somewhat complicated rule we would have to explain to new players. If a group 4 is ever introduced, then none of the vamps we have from Jyhad, V:tES, AH, DS, Sabbat, SW, FN, or BL could be used with them. Being able to combine vampires from all the sets has been something players have enjoyed, and now that will be removed. If there were too many new vampires and the Camarilla clans would have been too powerful because of that, then just introduce less new vampires. Redundancy would not be a problem if there were less new vampires. And redundancy would not be a major problem anyways. Many big vampires from each clan have three superior disciplines and nobody has complains about that redundancy. That's partly because a variety of non-clan disciplines and special vampire abilities were included for each vampire. The fact that they have the same clan disciplines is not a problem. Various card text and card cost changes I think are mainly just rumors at this point, but players fear having to explain to new players that a card from a previous set doesn't mean what it says any more. Some card changes I'm sure will be very good, but other changes players will wonder why it was done because the card was fine the way it was. Also, there have been too many rarity changes. Why change Freak Drive to Uncommon? If they wanted it to be more availiable to new players, just print it as a rare in more sets. It could have been a rare in Bloodlines and a rare in the new Camarilla set. We wouldn't have to explain to new players that yes it's a rare card, but it's uncommon in this set. Also, it devalues the card, which upsets players that just traded or paid a lot to get the rare Freak Drive. Just gradually add it as a rare to more sets and you avoid all this. I didn't like the new look of the cards, but I was willing to accept it anyways and buy them. But now I can't add the new vampires to decks with Jyhad or V:tES vampires. For me, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I was planning on ordering about 6 boxes of the new set, but now I will order none of them. All they had to do was add about 40 new vampires -- that's about 6 per Camarilla clan. And add about 40 new library cards also. Now there's 100 new vampires that I can't use (unless I segragate my decks -- and I'm not doing that.) And there's very few new library cards. A lot of major changes were made. If they had just added the right amount of new cards and made moderate changes the set would have been anticipated with a lot of positive responces. But now many players and Princes are unhappy about different aspects of the new set. Wishing things were different, but not this different.... -Kevin J. Wiebe Prince of Edmonton (Alberta, Canada)

>Some people are wondering why various players and Princes don't like >these changes. I will attempt to address that. Of course, they can't please everyone. They'd love to. But, no matter what they did, they would have annoyed someone. >But here are some specific reasons that I can see: > >The new card layout is a bit too different than the V:tES layout. <snip> I can't say whether the card layout is okay or not until I see it in use, so I'll pass on this. >That pesky little "3". Now players can't use any of the Jyhad or >V:tES vampires with the new set's vampires. (And some of the >Jyhad/V:tES vamps were good and you'd want some of them in a deck with >new vamps.) Segregating various groups of vampires is just one more >somewhat complicated rule we would have to explain to new players. If >a group 4 is ever introduced, then none of the vamps we have from >Jyhad, V:tES, AH, DS, Sabbat, SW, FN, or BL could be used with them. >Being able to combine vampires from all the sets has been something >players have enjoyed, and now that will be removed. If there were too >many new vampires and the Camarilla clans would have been too powerful >because of that, then just introduce less new vampires. Redundancy >would not be a problem if there were less new vampires. And >redundancy would not be a major problem anyways. Many big vampires >from each clan have three superior disciplines and nobody has >complains about that redundancy. That's partly because a variety of >non-clan disciplines and special vampire abilities were included for >each vampire. The fact that they have the same clan disciplines is >not a problem. Reasons have been given for why it's a good thing to prevent being able to play two base sets' worth of vampires. I'm sure WW would have prefered to be able to come up with a way for people to mix all of the vampires. Further, I'm sure they realized this sort of grouping would cause a furor. This is the lesser of two evils and opens up possibilities in the future for keeping the game under control. As for printing less vampires, get to that in a moment. >Various card text and card cost changes I think are mainly just rumors >at this point, but players fear having to explain to new players that >a card from a previous set doesn't mean what it says any more. Some >card changes I'm sure will be very good, but other changes players >will wonder why it was done because the card was fine the way it was. I'm kind of worried about this, but besides Concealed Weapon, there's no known changes. >Also, there have been too many rarity changes. Why change Freak Drive >to Uncommon? If they wanted it to be more availiable to new players, >just print it as a rare in more sets. It could have been a rare in >Bloodlines and a rare in the new Camarilla set. We wouldn't have to >explain to new players that yes it's a rare card, but it's uncommon in >this set. Also, it devalues the card, which upsets players that just >traded or paid a lot to get the rare Freak Drive. Just gradually add >it as a rare to more sets and you avoid all this. Maybe they changed Freak Drive to uncommon because most people want it to be uncommon? But, they didn't add it to more sets. And, V:TES sets aren't coming out all that often. And, the Cam set is a *base* set. >I didn't like the new look of the cards, but I was willing to accept >it anyways and buy them. But now I can't add the new vampires to >decks with Jyhad or V:tES vampires. For me, this was the straw that >broke the camel's back. > >I was planning on ordering about 6 boxes of the new set, but now I >will order none of them. Regarding this whole "I need to know XYZ to decide how much I'm going to order" stuff, I either play a CCG or I don't. Whether I do or not depends on whether I have people to play against, not whether I don't like the latest set. Admittedly, if no one in my group liked the latest set and everyone quit, that would be meaningful; never seen that happen. If I play a CCG, I will buy every expansion. Falls in the no brainer category as far as I'm concerned. >All they had to do was add about 40 new vampires -- that's about 6 per >Camarilla clan. And add about 40 new library cards also. Now there's >100 new vampires that I can't use (unless I segragate my decks -- and >I'm not doing that.) And there's very few new library cards. New *base* set. They can't print only 40 vampires. It seems to me that you are overlooking that new(ish) players will only be playing Cam decks with the Cam set vamps. Sure, Jyhad/V:TES isn't that hard to get ahold of if you are so motivated, but the impression is all wrong if you tell someone "well, you can play with these cards, but you can only build a good deck if you get a bunch of out of print stuff". Base sets are annoying. If they don't reprint any cards and the old cards are good, new players are screwed by virtue of having to hunt down the old cards. If they don't reprint and the new cards are superior to old cards, veteran players will be pissed. So, they reprint cards, lots of them. Now, just reprints makes the set undesirable to veterans, so new cards are usually introduced. But, too few new cards and players moan about how uninteresting the set is; too many and the set has a limited form of the don't reprint problem; too weak, complaints; too powerful, complaints. Nobody likes new base sets. But, they are necessary to enable new players to get in. What's interesting about V:TES is that NCL means that having a bunch of reprints isn't nearly as bad as it could be. >A lot of major changes were made. If they had just added the right >amount of new cards and made moderate changes the set would have been >anticipated with a lot of positive responces. Doubt it. People will always complain, just be different people. Nowadays, I try to focus my complaints on what I consider really important. >But now many players and Princes are unhappy about different aspects >of the new set. Hardly a surprise for the reasons I mentioned above. >Wishing things were different, but not this different.... Yeah, like not seeing Personal Scourge get reprinted ...

> >All they had to do was add about 40 new vampires -- that's about 6 per > >Camarilla clan. And add about 40 new library cards also. Now there's > >100 new vampires that I can't use (unless I segragate my decks -- and > >I'm not doing that.) And there's very few new library cards. > > New *base* set. They can't print only 40 vampires. It seems to me that you > are overlooking that new(ish) players will only be playing Cam decks with the > Cam set vamps. Sure, Jyhad/V:TES isn't that hard to get ahold of if you are so > motivated, but the impression is all wrong if you tell someone "well, you can > play with these cards, but you can only build a good deck if you get a bunch of > out of print stuff". I didn't suggest that the new Camarilla set should have just 40 vampires in the whole set. I suggested 40 new vampires. Obviously, they would also choose a selection of classic vampires to reprint and add in the set. Wouldn't it be cool for each starter deck to have about 6 new vamps and about 6 classic vamps reprinted? Each starter deck might include an Inner Circle member, a Justicar, and some Princes and Primogens. And all the new vamps could be played with any other vamp in your deck. That would have been sweet. [ quoted text not captured ]

Another thing about the 3. There are only seven Daughters of Caucaphony. For this "balance" of vampires that LSJ claims he wants to create - we should be limited to only playing with 7 Brujah? Does this mean that everytime a new clan comes out it needs 30+ vampires? Will there be more type 2 daughters in upcoming sets? Will this cause vampires to be in the same set that will not be able to be played together (ie Type 2 dauhters with Type 4 Gangrels?) Inquiring minds want to know.

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020707231237...@mb-fk.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Probably not. Remember that all Bloodlines clans were created to play a supportive role. They will probably be exempt from some if not all custom crypting considerations. Now, assuming that the game is still around by the time that there are 30+ Daughters or Salubri Antis or whatever, then there might be some sort of grouping for them as well, but I doubt that WW plans to release that many blood line vamps in the near future. Also remember, there are no clans left to cover in the World of Darkness (unless WW decides to go to Kindred of the East, God forbid). All that remains to be covered are various obscure bloodlines such as the Serpents of Light ect. So yeah, for all Bloodlines vamps it would be safe to assume that they will be Group 2 vamps, even in upcoming expansions. Peteo

"Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:GN7W8.85258$UT.57...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Also remember, there are no clans left to cover in the World of Darkness Assamite Antitribu beg to differ =) (but I do get your point) -JP

>> Also remember, there are no clans left to cover in the World of Darkness >Assamite Antitribu beg to differ =) >(but I do get your point) >-JP Don't forget, Olde Clan Tzicsme, Lasombra Antitribu, Ravnos Antitribu, or perhaps - Cappadocians? Which brings me to another point - Dark Ages. Since we are not going to limit ourselves to 7 Brujah - clan balance is not a real reason for the new crypt restrictions, what is it? Some have said that we need to keep vampires separate for reasons of keeping separations of time. For instance - Gangrels are no longer Camarilla, Having new Gagrels be type 4 prevents them from being used with camarilla gangrels, and is also proposed fix fo that perhaps a Dark Ages set could be made. But Crypt separation would only effect each crypt. Would my Dark Ages Vamps have to worry about playing against decks with sub-machineguns? Basically, the new rules don't prevent new gangrels to be in the same game with Cam gangrels. Is Time Machine going to be a new equipment card? believe me, i do not want to see V:TES turn in to STAR TREK!! If there is going to be a Dark Ages set, it needs to be a seperate game. So, again, why crypt restrictions? I don't know - could be a marketing scheme to try and get people to only play with new cards.

[ quoted text not captured ] No. -- 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/

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020708025448...@mb-fk.aol.com... > >> Also remember, there are no clans left to cover in the World of Darkness > >Assamite Antitribu beg to differ =) > >(but I do get your point) > >-JP > > Don't forget, Olde Clan Tzicsme, Lasombra Antitribu, Ravnos Antitribu, or > perhaps - Cappadocians? Old Clan Tzimisce: Last I checked, not really enough of these around to consider them a real clan. Lasombra Antitribu: Ditto Ravnos Antitribu: Okay, you may have me on this one, but I still would consider them a bloodline Cappadocians: The Cappadocians have most likely come back as the HoS and even if they haven't, WW wouldn't dispell that rumor by introducing them into the card game. Peteo

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D29824A...@white-wolf.com... > Awazzzz wrote: > > > > Another thing about the 3. There are only seven Daughters of Caucaphony. For > > this "balance" of vampires that LSJ claims he wants to create - we should be > > limited to only playing with 7 Brujah? Does this mean that everytime a new > > clan comes out it needs 30+ vampires? Will there be more type 2 daughters in > > upcoming sets? Will this cause vampires to be in the same set that will not be > > able to be played together (ie Type 2 dauhters with Type 4 Gangrels?) > > Inquiring minds want to know. > > No. Sorry to continue on this hostile line of questioning, but: is that "No, I won't tell you", or "No, there won't be vampires in a single set that can't be played together"? Presumably you weren't answering any of the first three questions, but if you were, please specify that too. :-) Josh still looking forward to camarilla edition (and all future editions)

[ quoted text not captured ] The questions were: "For balance, we should be limited to only 7 Brujah?" A: No (we shouldn't be limited) "This means that each new set needs 30+ vampires?" A: No (this doesn't mean that) "Will there be more type [sic] 2 daughters in upcoming sets?" A: undisclosed (sorry, I missed that one buried in there the first time) "Will this cause vampires to be in the same set that will no be able to be played together?" A: No (the new rule won't cause any vampire to be included in any set) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin J. Wiebe wrote: > Why change Freak Drive > to Uncommon? If they wanted it to be more availiable to new players, > just print it as a rare in more sets. It could have been a rare in > Bloodlines and a rare in the new Camarilla set. We wouldn't have to > explain to new players that yes it's a rare card, but it's uncommon in > this set. Also, it devalues the card, which upsets players that just > traded or paid a lot to get the rare Freak Drive. This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Changing Freak to uncommon is as good as changing Immortal Grapple to Uncommon was, and that was freaking brilliant. Freak is a very powerful card (but not overly powerful, due to the NRA rules), and currently, really hard to get. The only players who have enough to me a real menace of themselves are those who spent a billion dollars on cards. Freak is a card you need a lot of to make use of, as generally, a deck is built around them. So you make them uncommon--everyone can get lots of them, everyone can make Freak decks, everyone is happy. Explain to new players that it was rare once? That is a problem? How? It has no effect on game play, or anything for that matter. It devalues the card? Who cares? The cards have a completely artificial value. I'd *much* rather have 20 Freak Drives than have the 8 I currently own be worth $7.00 each. I wasn't selling them anyways. Making Freak uncommon is a brilliant move from pretty much every standpoint. New players will have access to them in amounts that they will want them. Old players will buy up packs in droves to get more Freaks. Win/Win. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "I am the autumn in the scarlet I am the make-up on your eyes" -Kim Deal

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20020707123433...@mb-mw.aol.com... > >Some people are wondering why various players and Princes don't like > >these changes. I will attempt to address that. > > Of course, they can't please everyone. They'd love to. But, no matter what > they did, they would have annoyed someone. No, they could have done better. > >But here are some specific reasons that I can see: > > > >The new card layout is a bit too different than the V:tES layout. This is the only reason I will certainly quit buying anything starting with the Cam edition: I already own 7 albums worth of cards and it's more or less a playable collection. Mixing the card layouts just looks ugly. Johan (collector)

In previous message, LSJ answers: >"For balance, we should be limited to only 7 Brujah?" >A: No (we shouldn't be limited) > >"This means that each new set needs 30+ vampires?" >A: No (this doesn't mean that) > >"Will there be more type [sic] 2 daughters in upcoming sets?" >A: undisclosed (sorry, I missed that one buried in there the first time) > >"Will this cause vampires to be in the same set that will no be able >to be played together?" >A: No (the new rule won't cause any vampire to be included in any set) Okay, if there will be no vampires a single set that will not be able to mix with one another, then any set (like the anarchs) which has type 4 gangrels could not have any type 2 vamps in it. So, if there are any Ravnos or Daughters of caucaphony in the set, they would have to be type 3 or 4 or 5. It therefore seems unlikely then that any type 2 vamps would be in anyset that is coming in the near future (beyond CE). Obviously, we cannot limit ourselves to 7 Brujah - but will the new type of Daughters be limited to only 7 vampires? You see, if there are 20 daughters of caucaphony in type 5 - it is a much better grouping for building a clan deck from. So, either there must be only 7 daughters in any given group or we must then print more of groups that have fallen behind in power. I can see someone saying, well the best for Brujah is Group 3-4, while the best group for followers of set is group 2-3. Does this mean we need to make more group 2 Brujahs to balance the group 3-4 Brujahs? Of course this is a hypothetical question, but if we do not keep re-balancing the groups, one grouping will be the better choice, and once that's a group that contains a 4+, the old group isn't woth playing anymore.

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020707231237...@mb-fk.aol.com... > Another thing about the 3. There are only seven Daughters of Caucaphony. Five, sir. > For this "balance" of vampires that LSJ claims he wants to create - > we should be limited to only playing with 7 Brujah? No, seven vamps is a long long way from being able to "dial a vamp". Five, even more so. :-) There could be quite a few more Daughters without making crypt selection "too easy", I think. But probably not as many as, say, fifty. > Does this mean that everytime a new clan comes out it needs > 30+ vampires? Obviously not. It won't hurt the game nearly as much to have underpowered clans as overpowered ones. > Will there be more type 2 daughters in upcoming sets? We can only guess. It'd be nice, but I imagine any kind of "Bloodlines 2: Electric Boogaloo" is a long long way from seeing print; they probably have plenty of other ideas to pursue first. Josh change or die

Josh wrote: >Sorry to continue on this hostile line of questioning, but: is >that "No, I won't tell you", or "No, there won't be vampires in >a single set that can't be played together"? > >Presumably you weren't answering any of the first three questions, >but if you were, please specify that too. :-) IANLSJ, but if nobody minds, I will have a go at answering your questions myself. Q: Another thing about the 3. There are only seven Daughters of Caucaphony. For this "balance" of vampires that LSJ claims he wants to create - we should be limited to only playing with 7 Brujah? A: No. Comment: Bloodlines Clans were specifically designed to be balanced, as cards, and playable despite their fewer numbers. 23 Daughters of Cacophany would be unbalanced Q: Does this mean that everytime a new clan comes out it needs 30+ vampires? A: No. Comment: Actually, the grouping rule tends to ensure that "New Clans" will NOT need more members in order to be balanced. With vampires limited to 15 (or less) per group, the maximum number of vampires a new non-bloodline-style clan would need, to be balanced numerically, would be 30 (or less). Currently (before the CE release) most mainstream clans have 23 or 24 vampires, and this is the number required for balance. The whole point to the grouping scheme is probably to keep the "balance target" at about this level, or not too much higher. Of course, any "new clan" released at this point will almost certainly be a bloodline-style setup, and therefore will require fewer vamps for "balance." Q: Will there be more type 2 daughters in upcoming sets? A: Dunno Comment: It actually does not matter if new Daughters are group 1 or 2 or 3. They will still be combinable with those that exist currently. Only if group 4s were introduced would they be incompatible. I would suspect that, for thematic reasons, the goal would be to keep the number of co-grouped Daughters less than the number of co-grouped Toreadors, because of their much lesser availability in the WoD. So if the number of Co-grouped Toreadors is kept limited to under 30, then I think it is doubtful that the number of Con-Grouped Daughters will be allowed to rise above, say, 10 [substitute whatever limit you feel is more appropriate]. Therefore, it seems to me unlikely that designers till add to the current 5 group 2s, but might conceivably add (at most) 5 group 3s to go with them, and maybe, down the road, 5 group 4s. Q: Will this cause vampires to be in the same set that will not be able to be played together (ie Type 2 daughters with Type 4 Gangrels?) A: Dunno Comment: I really doubt it. A set should be as compatible with itself as possible. In short, it seems to me perfectly plausible that the answer to all your questions may be "no"

Peter Oh wrote: >Old Clan Tzimisce: Last I checked, not really enough of these around to >consider them a real clan. Last time I checked, they were not considered a clan, irrespective of their numbers. Indeed, the phrase "Old Clan Tzimisce" is no longer used, except to point out that it is a misleading misnomer. Instead, we have "Old World Tzimisce", some of whom are Independent, perhaps one or two who don't practice vicissitude, but all of whom consider themselves just "Tzimisce". If they were adapted to the card game, the best way would be to print a Tzimisce with the word "Independent" on it. >Lasombra Antitribu: Ditto Ditto again. >Ravnos Antitribu: Okay, you may have me on this one, but I still would >consider them a bloodline We already have a Sabbat Ravnos who is "Priestess of Thorns". If I am not mistaken, the "Council of Thorns" was something in the WoD that related to the Ravnos Antitribu. This strongly implies to me that that Anka is thematically supposed to represent a Ravnos Antitribu. >Cappadocians: The Cappadocians have most likely come back as the HoS and >even if they haven't, WW wouldn't dispell that rumor by introducing them >into the card game. Nonetheless, it is theoretically possible we might see the Cappodocians in a future Dark-Ages expansion.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20020707123433...@mb-mw.aol.com... > > > >I was planning on ordering about 6 boxes of the new set, but now I > >will order none of them. > > Regarding this whole "I need to know XYZ to decide how much I'm going to order" > stuff, I either play a CCG or I don't. Whether I do or not depends on whether > I have people to play against, not whether I don't like the latest set. > Admittedly, if no one in my group liked the latest set and everyone quit, that > would be meaningful; never seen that happen. If I play a CCG, I will buy every > expansion. Falls in the no brainer category as far as I'm concerned. > as a old school gamer i own a lot of jyhad/vtes cards. therefore i need to know some things in advance in order to buy the right amount of new cards. like how many vamps are in a booster or how many new rares. > >All they had to do was add about 40 new vampires -- that's about 6 per > >Camarilla clan. And add about 40 new library cards also. Now there's > >100 new vampires that I can't use (unless I segragate my decks -- and > >I'm not doing that.) And there's very few new library cards. > > New *base* set. They can't print only 40 vampires. It seems to me that you > are overlooking that new(ish) players will only be playing Cam decks with the > Cam set vamps. Sure, Jyhad/V:TES isn't that hard to get ahold of if you are so > motivated, but the impression is all wrong if you tell someone "well, you can > play with these cards, but you can only build a good deck if you get a bunch of > out of print stuff". > new players won´t mind if they don´t get hold on the old (jyhad/vtes) cards because the don´t need them in order to have the same chance in tourney, while old players still can use their old cards. i find the grouping of the vamps a smart idea as long as the don´t introduce more groups (4,5,6,7 etc). and don´t complain that it does not make any sense story wise, it is a ccg not a rpg. > > >But now many players and Princes are unhappy about different aspects > >of the new set. > i would say untill now only few players are really complaining. stefan...

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20020709023028...@mb-bj.aol.com... > In previous message, LSJ answers: > Okay, if there will be no vampires a single set that will not be able to mix > with one another, then any set (like the anarchs) which has type 4 gangrels > could not have any type 2 vamps in it. who told you that the gangrel in the next expansion would be group four, who knows if ther is even a group four planned at this time. i doubt that. group 3 was created in order to seperate the two base sets. this is better than reprinting the old vamps or banning the old vamps from tourney play (like it was done in magic or l5r). >So, if there are any Ravnos or > Daughters of caucaphony in the set, they would have to be type 3 or 4 or 5. It > therefore seems unlikely then that any type 2 vamps would be in anyset that is > coming in the near future (beyond CE). Obviously, we cannot limit ourselves to > 7 Brujah - but will the new type of Daughters be limited to only 7 vampires? man i wish i had bought your boosters of BL because i only got 5 different DoC and would gladly have two more. > You see, if there are 20 daughters of caucaphony in type 5 - it is a much > better grouping for building a clan deck from. i guess there are no more groups planned in the near future. stefan

"Johan M." <zilver...@at.h-otmail.com> wrote in message news:agcvek$a1g$1...@reader08.wxs.nl... > "Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message > news:20020707123433...@mb-mw.aol.com... > > >Some people are wondering why various players and Princes don't like > > >these changes. I will attempt to address that. > > > > Of course, they can't please everyone. They'd love to. But, no > matter what > > they did, they would have annoyed someone. > > No, they could have done better. In your opinion they could have done better. Of course, how could you POSSIBLY have an opinion about a set that you haven't even seen in its entirety. A first impression I'll grant you...but an opinion of the whole thing? You haven't even played with the cards yet. And he's right...no matter what they would have released, someone would have bitched. Seriously...look at the the postings immediately after the release of Sabbat War, Final Nights and Bloodlines. Some people just complain to hear themselves sometimes...trust me...I've encountered it plenty of times. In fact, my first impression of you is that you are one of these people. > > >But here are some specific reasons that I can see: > > > > > >The new card layout is a bit too different than the V:tES layout. > > This is the only reason I will certainly quit buying anything starting > with the Cam edition: I already own 7 albums worth of cards and it's > more or less a playable collection. Mixing the card layouts just looks > ugly. So purchase a separate album and put CE and post CE expansions in it. Is it really that big of a deal? Maybe if you've got a completely anal-retentive personality... How often do you invite guests over to peruse your collection of VTES cards? Do you have them on display for people to come and look at? Are you taking reservations for viewings? Didn't think so... This is quite possibly the most trite reasoning I've ever seen anyone give for why they wouldn't buy a card set...even from a collector viewpoint which often-times varies wildly from the player viewpoint. If you don't want to collect it, that's your business. But basing that decision solely on aesthetics seems very arbitrary in light of your already expansive card collection and investment in the game...its almost equilavent to someone saying that they wouldn't buy any Bloodlines despite the fact that they've collected complete sets of every other expansion PURELY based on the fact that they don't like the blood-splotch ankh being used as the set symbol. Sorry...I'm just appauled that anyone who loves this game would actually not buy this set based on this reason alone...geesh! > Johan (collector and most likely an anal retentive ass-master virgo) > > >

"Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:B94F72DA.54A1%PD...@bigplanet.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Here here! Well stated... [ quoted text not captured ]

I think that the changes in the cards look is simply disgusting... and, please, show everybody a "non-anal" point of view... tell us why the WW done it !?! ...couse this is the question ! not the meaning of player's dislike, but the meaning of the change itself !!! Sam "Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio news:mnHX8.3740$m7.3...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu... [ quoted text not captured ]

Samuele wrote: > I think that the changes in the cards look is simply disgusting... and, > please, show everybody a "non-anal" point of view... tell us why the WW done > it !?! > ...couse this is the question ! not the meaning of player's dislike, but > the meaning of the change itself !!! The card changes are completely cosmetic. They don't change the functioning of the game, and as cosmetic changes go, they are pretty minor. Why did they do it? I dunno--maybe someone thought the new layout made more "sense". Maybe someone simply felt like changing stuff. Things change. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Samuele" <sam-ga...@libero.it> wrote in message news:_ClY8.47981$K_4.9...@twister1.libero.it... > I think that the changes in the cards look is simply disgusting... and, > please, show everybody a "non-anal" point of view... tell us why the WW done > it !?! Ok...here it is...ready: I like the new design. I think it is much more functional and it gives a new look to the game and don't agree that it looks horrible next to the old stuff. There...that's a pretty non-anal point of view of the whole situation. As for why WW "[sic] done it" well, that's a question better left for someone who actually works at White Wolf. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Sam Sam, In the future, could you please not top-post. Just reply to the section that you are addressing and snip the rest. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp