Just got my 10th anniversary sets tonight, and overall I love them; some
of the art, cleared and brightened up, looks better than it originally did (or
brings out things I hadn't noticed before).
And I think the clarified card texts are great, even where it has to go a
little out of its way in verbosity to describe the exact effect.
But of course I was scanning with a fine toothed comb, for non-mentioned
changes to card text.. and I noticed 3 very minor "typos", other than the
aforementioned Antoinette du Champ mishap -- and I don't mean to sound too
negative, because these are truly inconsequential points:
1) Anneke has a } curly brace at the beginning of her last line of text.
2) Tatiana Romanov. In the VTES printing her last name was corrected to
"Romanova", which is grammatically more correct in Russian. But in the
Anniversary set her name is back to Romanov (the masculine form). This
could be an "in-character" reason, where Romanov is actually correct.
3) Andrei Puxon has become Andrei Puxton.
Anything else people have noticed?
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:52:06 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> 1) Anneke has a } curly brace at the beginning of her last line of text.
>
> 2) Tatiana Romanov. In the VTES printing her last name was corrected to
> "Romanova", which is grammatically more correct in Russian. But in the
> Anniversary set her name is back to Romanov (the masculine form). This
> could be an "in-character" reason, where Romanov is actually correct.
>
> 3) Andrei Puxon has become Andrei Puxton.
>
> Anything else people have noticed?
It has been noted that Antoinette DuChamps has her group and capacity
mixed up.
--
Bye,
Daneel
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:opsjasj0...@news.chello.hu...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:52:06 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>
wrote:
> > 2) Tatiana Romanov. In the VTES printing her last name was corrected
to
> > "Romanova", which is grammatically more correct in Russian. But in the
> > Anniversary set her name is back to Romanov (the masculine form).
This
> > could be an "in-character" reason, where Romanov is actually correct.
Hmm. Other than your post, Joz, I hadn't heard anyone mention the change
before. I just checked Google, and there is no post ot this group with
both "Romanova" and "Romanov" in it. The 10th anniversary used the
"official"
card lists at the time, and the official list has always listed "Romanov",
even the 1995 VTES spoiler list released by WotC. Apologies for the
oversight.
Along those lines, if anyone knows of any other naming differences
not reflected in the card lists on the WW web site, post them (*before*
they get reprinted :-).
> > Anything else people have noticed?
>
> It has been noted that Antoinette DuChamps has her group and capacity
> mixed up.
From Joz's post: "other than the aforementioned Antoinette du Champ
mishap"
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, LSJ wrote:
> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
> news:opsjasj0...@news.chello.hu...
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:52:06 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>
> wrote:
> > > 2) Tatiana Romanov. In the VTES printing her last name was corrected
> to
> > > "Romanova", which is grammatically more correct in Russian. But in the
> > > Anniversary set her name is back to Romanov (the masculine form).
> This
> > > could be an "in-character" reason, where Romanov is actually correct.
>
> Hmm. Other than your post, Joz, I hadn't heard anyone mention the change
> before. I just checked Google, and there is no post ot this group with
> both "Romanova" and "Romanov" in it. The 10th anniversary used the
> "official"
> card lists at the time, and the official list has always listed "Romanov",
> even the 1995 VTES spoiler list released by WotC. Apologies for the
> oversight.
If she's meant to be Tatiana Nicolaievna Romanov (daughter of the last
tsar of Russia), then Romanov is probably correct. It seems the practice
of adding a feminine ending to a surname was more common among married
women.
Tatiana Romanov - Tatiana, daughter of Romanov
Tatiana Romanova - Tatiana, wife of Romanov
And of course there'd be a patronymic usually taken from the father's
first name.
Someone more expert than I could easily point out how I'm wrong I suppose,
but I do recall being taught this is how things usually worked.
Matt Morgan
Not related to the 10th Anniversary release, but speaking of the WW web
site: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/downloads/Cardlist.txt appears to
be missing the entry for Spiritual Protector. The HTML pages are
correct. I noticed this because Vamp draws its card information
directly from the text listings.
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 07:55:11 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> > Anything else people have noticed?
>>
>> It has been noted that Antoinette DuChamps has her group and capacity
>> mixed up.>
> From Joz's post: "other than the aforementioned Antoinette du Champ
> mishap"
Hmm... Did he really say that? Odd I wouldn't notice. I need a vacation.
--
Bye,
Daneel
On 12/20/04 12:52 AM, in article 6Mtxd.223998$V41.162510@attbi_s52,
"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not a typo, but one of my tins was missing Carlton (Your Doorman) Van Wyk.
- Pat
You didn't get an extra card in its place, did you?
Eye of Hazimel got put in starters accidentally before its release.
Also, local player Fletcher got a copy of Jorge de la Muerte in his
Camarilla starter deck at the prerelease.
So did you end up getting 100 cards in that starter? Count carefully!
Maybe you have a Red List spoiler! Or better, another copy of Ravnos
Acceptance!!!
-- Brian
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 07:55:11 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
[snip]
>Hmm. Other than your post, Joz, I hadn't heard anyone mention the change
>before. I just checked Google, and there is no post ot this group with
>both "Romanova" and "Romanov" in it. The 10th anniversary used the
>"official"
>card lists at the time, and the official list has always listed "Romanov",
>even the 1995 VTES spoiler list released by WotC. Apologies for the
>oversight.
so i guess checking against the actual WotC printed cards was out of
the question? :D
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo7gs0h1ra9pvu62m...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 07:55:11 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:
>
> [snip]
> >Hmm. Other than your post, Joz, I hadn't heard anyone mention the change
> >before. I just checked Google, and there is no post ot this group with
> >both "Romanova" and "Romanov" in it. The 10th anniversary used the
> >"official"
> >card lists at the time, and the official list has always listed
"Romanov",
> >even the 1995 VTES spoiler list released by WotC. Apologies for the
> >oversight.
>
> so i guess checking against the actual WotC printed cards was out of
> the question? :D
Seems like, having not heard that it was.
I didn't. Did you? :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > so i guess checking against the actual WotC printed cards was out of
> > the question? :D
>
>
> Seems like, having not heard that it was.
> I didn't. Did you? :-)
>
Yes, I did. As a manager of a trade site, it is more important for my card
lists to match the card title printed on the card than to match the title
listed in the Database.
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in
message news:2004122109...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm. I can't find any mention of it, still.
Did you post it when you found the discrepancy?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:13:30 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in
> message news:2004122109...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...>> > > so i guess checking against the actual WotC printed cards was out of
>> > > the question? :D
>> >
>> > Seems like, having not heard that it was.
>> > I didn't. Did you? :-)
>>
>> Yes, I did. As a manager of a trade site, it is more important for my> card>> lists to match the card title printed on the card than to match the
>> title
>> listed in the Database.>
> Hmm. I can't find any mention of it, still.
> Did you post it when you found the discrepancy?
Okay, I'll be the ass.
Is it now Gregory's fault? I mean, this is a collectible _card_ game
(emphasis
mine). Checking actual cards might not be too far-fetched, not when they
are
reprinted, not when they are printed, not when they are brought on to the
digital medium.
There. Trolling on... ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:opsjc43o...@news.chello.hu...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:13:30 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > "Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in
> > message news:2004122109...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
> >> > > so i guess checking against the actual WotC printed cards was out
of
> >> > > the question? :D
> >> >
> >> > Seems like, having not heard that it was.
> >> > I didn't. Did you? :-)
> >>
> >> Yes, I did. As a manager of a trade site, it is more important for my
> > card
> >> lists to match the card title printed on the card than to match the
> >> title
> >> listed in the Database.
> >
> > Hmm. I can't find any mention of it, still.
> > Did you post it when you found the discrepancy?
>
> Okay, I'll be the ass.
>
> Is it now Gregory's fault?
I don't think so. I'm fairly sure it's not his responsibility.
The point was that unknown problems are rarely addressed, and then only
by coincidence. Read the above again to see.
For instance, it came to my attention after the Tenth Anniversary
set was printed and released that one of the DS vampires had been
misprinted with the wrong capacity. If I had known it was misprinted,
it would have been fixed (see also Caitlin). But I didn't, so the
opportunity passed.
>I mean, this is a collectible _card_ game
> (emphasis
> mine). Checking actual cards might not be too far-fetched, not when they
> are
> reprinted, not when they are printed, not when they are brought on to the
> digital medium.
Hindsight is wonderful, I agree.
Given this group's penchant for unearthing minutia, especially in
"discovering" errors (see this thread, for instance), it "might not
be too far-fetched" to think that errors in the card list may
have been pointed out over the years, as well.
I for one didn't have access to the actual printed card in question,
regardless of any assumptions made on that score, however, even
if I had thought that the time and effort would have been justified
and not merely a case of reinventing the wheel.
Those that did, apparently, either didn't check or checked and
didn't catch the change, or caught it and didn't pass it along.
And so here we are.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Hmm. I can't find any mention of it, still.
> Did you post it when you found the discrepancy?
>
As far as the 10th Anniversary Set goes, Joz beat me to it. As for others,
I haven't gone back and checked to see that the title from the most recent
editions matches that of the card list. Mostly I've been tweaking things
like the Jyhad hyphenated crypt cards and cards with accent marks. Since I
don't have a complete set of anything past Dark Sovereigns (except the
10th Anniversary, Promos, and Demo Decks), I couldn't speak with 100%
authority anyway.
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in
message news:2004122112...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net...
> > Hmm. I can't find any mention of it, still.
> > Did you post it when you found the discrepancy?
>
> As far as the 10th Anniversary Set goes, Joz beat me to it.
Sorry for not being clear. The question was in reference to the
discrepancy at hand: the 1995 or later version of the card list
vs. the 1995 printed card for Ms. Romanov(a):
salem: So no one checked the card list against the cards?
LSJ: I guess not.
GSP: I did.
I assumed by "I did" that you meant you had checked the list against
the cards and, therefore, had found the Romanov(a) mistake.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Sorry for not being clear. The question was in reference to the
> discrepancy at hand: the 1995 or later version of the card list
> vs. the 1995 printed card for Ms. Romanov(a):
>
> salem: So no one checked the card list against the cards?
> LSJ: I guess not.
> GSP: I did.
>
> I assumed by "I did" that you meant you had checked the list against
> the cards and, therefore, had found the Romanov(a) mistake.
>
I meant that I checked the actual cards before using any electronic
cardlist, not that I had necessarily used *that* list. I came into the
project when Anarchs came out, I have no idea where the existing cardlist
came from. I do recall finding her migration odd, but did not make a note
of it.
If you'd like a copy of the list, I'm sure The Enlightened Penguin could
send you one. I believe it to be accurate, even for those pesky Cats'
Guidance apostrophes.
http://trade.mahasamatman.com/
-Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote in
message
> If you'd like a copy of the list, I'm sure The Enlightened Penguin could
> send you one. I believe it to be accurate, even for those pesky Cats'
> Guidance apostrophes.
Not necessary, thanks.
I've already got a list I believe to be accurate. :-).
Anyone who points out an inaccuracy in that list is free to do
so, of course. I get an email every month or so tweaking it
to be more accurate, and I appreciate it. Especially if it
gets to me in time to correct a possible future mistake or
oversight. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:27:56 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> For instance, it came to my attention after the Tenth Anniversary
> set was printed and released that one of the DS vampires had been
> misprinted with the wrong capacity. If I had known it was misprinted,
> it would have been fixed (see also Caitlin). But I didn't, so the
> opportunity passed.
Isn't there a "to be sent to print" final rough printing? I always do
that with company material. It helps to unravel lots of small mistakes
(as I've found that my perception is more limited through a digital
medium than when observing a tangible material product).
I understand your situation here, you represent a company and that
implies certain obligations. I don't want to stress the matter any
further, as I suspect you are not responsible for everything WW
does with VTES.
> Hindsight is wonderful, I agree.
We're close freinds, hindsight and I. ;)
> Given this group's penchant for unearthing minutia, especially in
> "discovering" errors (see this thread, for instance), it "might not
> be too far-fetched" to think that errors in the card list may
> have been pointed out over the years, as well.
While your statement is undoubtedly not without its basis, I must point
out that the various reprints and card text migrations do not facilitate
(or warrant) double-checking the contents of the digital medium with the
actual tangible product in many cases.
> I for one didn't have access to the actual printed card in question,
> regardless of any assumptions made on that score, however, even
> if I had thought that the time and effort would have been justified
> and not merely a case of reinventing the wheel.
>
> Those that did, apparently, either didn't check or checked and
> didn't catch the change, or caught it and didn't pass it along.
>
> And so here we are.
Would it be a bad idea to employ fan proofreaders? I seem to gather that
WW uses fans to playtest sets. Maybe if a coupla of keen-eyed folks got
some pre-print rough prints... I don't wan't to invent the wheel, but
there may be options. I don't seriously expect a single person to assemble
190 cards and not make a single mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. It is
inevitable...
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:27:56 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> For instance, it came to my attention after the Tenth Anniversary
>> set was printed and released that one of the DS vampires had been
>> misprinted with the wrong capacity. If I had known it was misprinted,
>> it would have been fixed (see also Caitlin). But I didn't, so the
>> opportunity passed.>
> Isn't there a "to be sent to print" final rough printing? I always do
> that with company material. It helps to unravel lots of small mistakes
> (as I've found that my perception is more limited through a digital
> medium than when observing a tangible material product).
? Of course.
A "final rough" won't reveal what the original design intent was for a
card that had been misprinted in its only printing by a different company
many years ago, however.
> I understand your situation here, you represent a company and that
> implies certain obligations. I don't want to stress the matter any
> further, as I suspect you are not responsible for everything WW
> does with VTES.
>>> Hindsight is wonderful, I agree.>
> We're close freinds, hindsight and I. ;)
>>> Given this group's penchant for unearthing minutia, especially in
>> "discovering" errors (see this thread, for instance), it "might not
>> be too far-fetched" to think that errors in the card list may
>> have been pointed out over the years, as well.>
> While your statement is undoubtedly not without its basis, I must point
> out that the various reprints and card text migrations do not facilitate
> (or warrant) double-checking the contents of the digital medium with the
> actual tangible product in many cases.
?
I don't see what this has to do with unknown errors.
The actual, official card list is available in a single file.
It represents exactly what any new printing of a card will be
(barring intentional changes or new misprinting, of course).
>> I for one didn't have access to the actual printed card in question,
>> regardless of any assumptions made on that score, however, even
>> if I had thought that the time and effort would have been justified
>> and not merely a case of reinventing the wheel.
>>
>> Those that did, apparently, either didn't check or checked and
>> didn't catch the change, or caught it and didn't pass it along.
>>
>> And so here we are.>
> Would it be a bad idea to employ fan proofreaders? I seem to gather that
> WW uses fans to playtest sets. Maybe if a coupla of keen-eyed folks got
> some pre-print rough prints... I don't wan't to invent the wheel, but
> there may be options. I don't seriously expect a single person to assemble
> 190 cards and not make a single mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. It is
> inevitable...
I just invited proofing of all for the online official card texts, yes.
That's the nature of the problem at hand.
Pre-print roughs that match the online card text are what is expected.
The problem lies in the online card texts not matching the previously
printed cards they purport to represent (barring errata and migration,
of course).
Like (formerly) with Romanov.
Now, of course, the online card text of Romanov does match her most
recent printing. "Problem" solved. :-)
--
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/
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:55:27 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> I just invited proofing of all for the online official card texts, yes.
>
> That's the nature of the problem at hand.
>
> Pre-print roughs that match the online card text are what is expected.
I wanted to say that since the online versions often differ from the actual
cards (the "latest text" phenomenon), I for one saw no point in comparing
them. Whatever comes up, rule number one is to check the online texts,
because chances are it is different from the printed one.
--
Bye,
Daneel
i'll just sort of jump in here with a bit of semi irrelevant..stuff.
so, was Antionette duChamp supposed to be a 2 cap all along? cause i
always though she should have been, considering her 'special' ability
can be totally ignored if you're only using her for pre.
...and if you were using old WotC lists for the 10th anniversary
reprint run, how come we didn't see Vial of Methuselah Vitae? :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> ....and if you were using old WotC lists for the 10th anniversary> reprint run, how come we didn't see Vial of Methuselah Vitae? :)
Smilie noted.
?
I wasn't. I was using the current WW "official" texts, as noted.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:57:16 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> ....and if you were using old WotC lists for the 10th anniversary
>> reprint run, how come we didn't see Vial of Methuselah Vitae? :)>
>Smilie noted.
>
>?
>I wasn't. I was using the current WW "official" texts, as noted.
ok...then:
>For instance, it came to my attention after the Tenth Anniversary
>set was printed and released that one of the DS vampires had been
>misprinted with the wrong capacity. If I had known it was misprinted,
>it would have been fixed (see also Caitlin). But I didn't, so the
>opportunity passed.
so this DS vampire is not Antoinette then? and it came to your
attention from some other source than official WW texts?
and it might have been kinda cool to finally see the vial of
methuselah vitae..
[ quoted text not captured ]
salem wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:57:16 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
> scrawled:>>For instance, it came to my attention after the Tenth Anniversary
>>set was printed and released that one of the DS vampires had been
>>misprinted with the wrong capacity. If I had known it was misprinted,
>>it would have been fixed (see also Caitlin). But I didn't, so the
>>opportunity passed.>
> so this DS vampire is not Antoinette then? and it came to your
Correct. She had not been misprinted in her only pre-TenthAnniv
outing (AFAIK).
Contrast Caitlin, who was misprinted in her only pre-SW outing
before being "fixed" in SW (and she was fixed because the error
came to my attention prior to SW).
> attention from some other source than official WW texts?
Correct. The official WW text had Antoinette as she should be (should
have been, whatever) when it was time to make TenthAnniv.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:55:04 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
scrawled:
>salem wrote:>> so this DS vampire is not Antoinette then? and it came to your>
>Correct. She had not been misprinted in her only pre-TenthAnniv
>outing (AFAIK).
so who was the previously misprinted DS vampire then!?!?!
really, LSJ, sometimes you do frustrate me so, even in this holiday
season! :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 13:38:46 +1100, salem
<salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>so who was the previously misprinted DS vampire then!?!?!
Blythe Candelaria.
Blythe Candeleria [DS:V, CE:PTr]
Cardtype: Vampire
Clan: Tremere
Group: 2
Capacity: 3
Discipline: aus THA
Camarilla: Blythe gets -1 strength when in combat with a Malkavian.
Changed from superior Auspex to inferior Auspex.
[sarcasm]
Because she was clearly too strong and destroying the harmony of the
game in much the same way Caitlin was.
[/sarcasm]
http://texas.vekn.org/vtes/MK8_final.mov
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:26:17 -0500, The Lasombra
<TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 13:38:46 +1100, salem
><salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>so who was the previously misprinted DS vampire then!?!?!>
>Blythe Candelaria.
no, the one he referred to with this:
">>For instance, it came to my attention after the Tenth Anniversary
>>set was printed and released that one of the DS vampires had been
>>misprinted with the wrong capacity."
blythe's capacity was fine.
hmmm....maybe arika was supposed to be a 12 cap. :)
[ quoted text not captured ]