The Next VTES set is named....

The latest White Wolf Quarterly lists the name of the next VTES set; "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. Boosters are listed on the preorder form, starters are not. Begin Wild Conjecture Ready...Steady...GO! Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Atom Weaver" <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1134004792.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] IT"S ABOUT VAMPIRES1111 brokenstep

> "Atom Weaver" <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:1134004792.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > The latest White Wolf Quarterly lists the name of the next VTES set; > > > > "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. Boosters are > > listed on the preorder form, starters are not. > > > > Begin Wild Conjecture > > > > Ready...Steady...GO! I think it sounds like more Gehenna related stuff. Since it was the Year of Reckoning and all. My guess. Neil

Atom Weaver wrote: > The latest White Wolf Quarterly lists the name of the next VTES set; > > "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. Boosters are > listed on the preorder form, starters are not. God I hate Gehenna. And Caine. It was a very, very useful little bit of stupidity back inna date, but WW simply doesn't have a handle on the concept of a myth. Do you realize that Dark Ages was a *better* sourcebook because even though Caine's myth was omnipresent, Caine himself was *not* so the game was playable without vast amounts of inane plot devices and sanctimonious bs? But I digress. The Reckoning line in WW was about Hunters. The line presented Hunters in a rather implausible way as they never had the wherewithal to organize formally. They were a recent phenomenon, I think brought on by Gehenna. There is no good reason why they were isolated from Mages as they have similar abilities -- I think they are all Awakened beings. (If you don't know WW canon, feel free to ignore this). It made up many stupid powers for them that did not in any way flow in harmony with any other systems in WW, but that's how they always work. But the premise was good: mortals destroying kindred because kindred were bad. Sometimes they destroy other stuff too, but mostly kindred. (N.B. The Hunter book, though awful, did kill Wraith, I understand it, and Wraith was a paragraph's worth of premise then thousands of pages of suckage, so Hunter did have something going for it.) Actually, I think this could be a very good set. If the set is about hunters, it's about allies. Allies could use more support, imo, and offer a variety of interesting concepts. And mortals really should be slapping down kindred more often in game; we wouldn't even need the Masquerade if mortals couldn't do that. A repeated note to WW: create a way, availible via multiple methods (Master, action, etc.) to rid the world of an in-play Event. We already need this, but if the next set *is* about allies, The Unmasking is going to go from interesting to goddamn nightmare. Of course, that can be fun in its own right. -- DoR

> Atom Weaver wrote: > The latest White Wolf Quarterly lists the name of the next VTES set; > > "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. You gotta be kidding. 6 months from LoB, which is larger set than the previous two, and there has been 9 months between the previous expansions. It has kind of twisted logic, though. Make expansions half as big as previous, and make the time between expansions percentually that much shorter. ...I guess that the next set after Nights of Reckoning will be the The Hour of Gargantuan, release in July 2006, having 900 or so cards in it :(

In April 2006 ?! So early? What are the reasons of prining a new expansion only 6 months after another (very big) set ?? What about 9 months period? ? I don't really like this :(

I'm very VERY dissappointed in this case :(((( Previously when the new Vtes' expansion was printed EVERYBODY were waiting and enjoyin' with "Uff MAN! We'll have the NEW expansion !!! Uaa I can't wait any longer!! " and right now I'm affraid it's gonna be more and more similiar to Lo5R or Magic ( due not the unbalance but the seriously cash-powering effects ) HEY YOU GUYS ABOVE !!! MANY PLAYERS ARE ANGRY!!!!

DamselO...@interia.pl napisal(a): [ quoted text not captured ] Sure they are!! I am :(

Here´s my guess: Hunter is new type of minion. It´s not a vampire, it´s not a ally, it´s a hunter. They may also be a new way to put these into play. /Mathias

[ quoted text not captured ] The nine months window is the period between full expansions. For instance, the 10th anniversary tins were a "between full expansions" release.

Defender of Ra wrote: > Atom Weaver wrote: > > The latest White Wolf Quarterly lists the name of the next VTES set; > > > > "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. Boosters are > > listed on the preorder form, starters are not. > > God I hate Gehenna. And Caine. It was a very, very useful little bit of > stupidity back inna date, but WW simply doesn't have a handle on the > concept of a myth. Do you realize that Dark Ages was a *better* > sourcebook because even though Caine's myth was omnipresent, Caine > himself was *not* so the game was playable without vast amounts of > inane plot devices and sanctimonious bs? But I digress. Do you think so? Dark Ages (at least in its first edition) had not one, but two books of myth (Erciyes Fragments and Revelations of the Dark Mother, as opposed to the Book of Nod). Most of the plots used in Vampire Revised has its roots there. Both the Giovanni and Transilvania Chronicles beginned around the Dark Ages release, and had the first two books based on the Dark Ages plotlines - not to mention that they set stage for future plot devices used in Revised as well. I didn't read the *revised* Dark Ages line (that one who expanded into Inquisitors and such), but all I read *about* the line mentions a new plot device, the War of Princes. Admitelly, it seems to have far more supplements on Roads and Citybooks than plot-driven books, so maybe your take on the matter is the fairest. But speaking of the early Dark Ages line, I see it as the main pool from which most of Gehenna plots were spawned. > The Reckoning line in WW was about Hunters. The line presented Hunters > in a rather implausible way as they never had the wherewithal to > organize formally. They were a recent phenomenon, I think brought on by > Gehenna. Hunter: the Reckoning is like that. The Year of the Reckoning books presented at least one book for each gameline (even Wraith: the Oblivion) detailing how mortals deal with the monsters. In some, the mortals are mostly of the "gifted" sort, but the general stance is that each book will not cover hunters only. Up to this moment, we don't know if the set will be based on Hunter: the Reckoning or the Year of the Reckoning line in general. I hope it's the latter case - I'm not too fond of god-imbued Hunters spawned from nowhere as a plot device either. Though one could argue that this does little difference in light of VTES rules; any ally released will be far from powerful anyway (if for nothing else, because they *are allies*, not regular crypt cards), no matter if it's based on Hunters as in H:tR or regular mortals/mediums/government goons etc. as in previous supplements. (from now on, I'll use Hunters with capital H to refer to the latter case). There is no good reason why they were isolated from Mages as > they have similar abilities -- I think they are all Awakened beings. > (If you don't know WW canon, feel free to ignore this). It made up many > stupid powers for them that did not in any way flow in harmony with any > other systems in WW, but that's how they always work. But the premise > was good: mortals destroying kindred because kindred were bad. > Sometimes they destroy other stuff too, but mostly kindred. I recall H:tR had a supplement on each supernatural type as the Hunters view them. Walking Dead for wraiths/risen, Moonstruck for the werewolves and so on. But everyone I know that played H:tR seems to believe that the most common foe for the Hunters are the walking dead. Maybe it's just a personal preference these players/Storytellers share in common, but I the impression stuck on me. > Actually, I think this could be a very good set. If the set is about > hunters, it's about allies. Allies could use more support, imo, and > offer a variety of interesting concepts. And mortals really should be > slapping down kindred more often in game; we wouldn't even need the > Masquerade if mortals couldn't do that. I don't know if this conforms to existing Masquerade canon. The Masquerade exists not because any mortal can "slap down" Kindred at will; it exists because mortals are out there in far superior numbers - at a 1:10.000 ratio if I remember correctly. Once you get the whole humanity to set about finding and hunting vampires, then there'll be no Kindred to tell the tale. The Inquisition worried the Kindred not because any given individual Inquisitor could enter town and slay alone every vampire he'd encounter, but because the mere presence of officials from the order would inspire the locals to search, pinpoint and set fire on their kindred masters' bodies and havens. And even then, most of the time it was a result of other vampires' betrayals - elders throwing neonates "into the fire" so they could gain time to relocate/reform their ways with more subtetly. Even the Hunters on H:tR were not that powerful or efficient. Most of their tactics involve gathering together and striking a single target a time. They couldn't deal with a horde of Sabbat war cannon fodder, per example. Or even a single Black Hand or Assamite assassin. I prefer VTES to abide to that notion - I'm pretty happy with the power level assinged to most allies in the CCG so far. > A repeated note to WW: create a way, availible via multiple methods > (Master, action, etc.) to rid the world of an in-play Event. We already > need this, but if the next set *is* about allies, The Unmasking is > going to go from interesting to goddamn nightmare. > Of course, that can be fun in its own right. > -- DoR I don't think it would make that much sense. Gehenna Events are there to represent global issues that affect anyone and are, for the most part, cosmic shifts. I don't think any vampire, minion or Methuselah, should have the power to get rid quickly and easily of such situations. If he or she could, he or she should be able to win the Jyhad with no more than a couple of gestures with his or her hand. You could argue that Events should not have been released at all, but that's another issue. Going back to power level and playability, I find the Unmasking to be a poor example of how game-shattering an Event could be. It grants fixed intercept for more than one minion, sure - but it gives that permacept to minions which, for the most part, can't get it transient intercept anywhere else. Not to mention that they are way easier to get rid of in general (let's forget the dedicated War Ghoul deck for a while). All the other potentially game-shattering events require either a heavy setup or concede its benefits to all players. So most of the time, I see event-based decks backfiring due to multiple events hard requirements and extra clauses; decks which include a couple of events for enhancing the main strategy, but that sometimes end up being foiled by their own cards (Anthelios and Conquest of Humanity are good examples of this); or decks relying on one event but that require even further setup (such as a Wormwood-based Corruption deck, which ends up needing tons of event just to remove counters from Wormwood). In all the games I've seen events played, if someone got too screwed up by them, it was clear that deckbuilding issues were also to blame (such as a deck that depends too often on hunting to recoup blood being foiled by Restricted Vitae); when not, focus choice were key to the problem, and that deck would be screwed up anyway if he had a different predator (such as weenie vote decks hosed by Nightmares Upon Nightmares, but they could be screwed up by a number of cards/strategies anyway, from heavy stealth bleed to Cryptic Mission Machines to other weenie decks). That noted, let's remember in-play Events have an "easy", global way to leave the table: oust the player controlling them. If the player manages to put Events in the table and survive any onslaught, you can't blame the Events on that. Blame his or her predator's poor ousting power. :D best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Giovanni Newsletter Editor in absentia

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Defender of Ra wrote: > > Atom Weaver wrote: > > > The latest White Wolf Quarterly lists the name of the next VTES set; > > > > > > "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. Boosters are > > > listed on the preorder form, starters are not. > > > > God I hate Gehenna. And Caine. It was a very, very useful little bit of > > stupidity back inna date, but WW simply doesn't have a handle on the > > concept of a myth. Do you realize that Dark Ages was a *better* > > sourcebook because even though Caine's myth was omnipresent, Caine > > himself was *not* so the game was playable without vast amounts of > > inane plot devices and sanctimonious bs? But I digress. > > Do you think so? Dark Ages (at least in its first edition) had not one, > but two books of myth (Erciyes Fragments and Revelations of the Dark > Mother, as opposed to the Book of Nod). Most of the plots used in > Vampire Revised has its roots there. Both the Giovanni and Transilvania > Chronicles beginned around the Dark Ages release, > I didn't read the *revised* Dark Ages line (that one who expanded into > Inquisitors and such), AAAGH. "used in... has", "beginned", "line who expanded"... Forgive me for the awful lot of errors. :P Hope I could get my point of view across anyway. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > I recall H:tR had a supplement on each supernatural type as the Hunters > view them. Walking Dead for wraiths/risen, Moonstruck for the > werewolves and so on. But everyone I know that played H:tR seems to > believe that the most common foe for the Hunters are the walking dead. > Maybe it's just a personal preference these players/Storytellers share > in common, but I the impression stuck on me. This is quite accurate. By far, risen and wraiths were the most common H:tR foes, primarily because the Hunters were of sufficient power to actually handle them, whereas it took a particularly lucky and skilled group of Hunters to tackle a vampire of even moderate power, but also because thematically the game needed cannon fodder for the Hunters to fight before they could deal with the arch-nemesis and his foul plot. > I don't know if this conforms to existing Masquerade canon. The > Masquerade exists not because any mortal can "slap down" Kindred at > will; it exists because mortals are out there in far superior numbers - > at a 1:10.000 ratio if I remember correctly. Once you get the whole > humanity to set about finding and hunting vampires, then there'll be no > Kindred to tell the tale. The Inquisition worried the Kindred not > because any given individual Inquisitor could enter town and slay alone > every vampire he'd encounter, but because the mere presence of > officials from the order would inspire the locals to search, pinpoint > and set fire on their kindred masters' bodies and havens. And even > then, most of the time it was a result of other vampires' betrayals - > elders throwing neonates "into the fire" so they could gain time to > relocate/reform their ways with more subtetly. Quite right. Mortals can't take vampires in anything close to a fair fight, but they *can* tear down your haven at noon and watch you fry. They don't, because they don't believe in vampires. > Even the Hunters on H:tR were not that powerful or efficient. Most of > their tactics involve gathering together and striking a single target a > time. They couldn't deal with a horde of Sabbat war cannon fodder, per > example. Or even a single Black Hand or Assamite assassin. > I prefer VTES to abide to that notion - I'm pretty happy with the power > level assinged to most allies in the CCG so far. True in general, though vampires do tend to underestimate Imbued Hunters, primarily because the Imbued didn't exist prior to the Reckoning. It gave an in-game excuse for the villains to make classic villain mistakes - they simply didn't know what they were dealing with. John

DamselO...@interia.pl wrote: > and right now I'm affraid it's gonna be more and more similiar to > Lo5R or Magic ( due not the unbalance but the seriously cash-powering > effects ) > > HEY YOU GUYS ABOVE !!! MANY PLAYERS ARE ANGRY!!!! Oh, for the love of punk rock. It is likely a small expansion, and it is coming out 6 months after the last expansion. Why are we freaking out? -Peter

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1134045732....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I seem to recall you or someone else at WW talking about the difficulty of keeping VTES on the distributor and retailer's "radar" with a 9 month release schedule... If the alternating product is something modest in size, I think all is good. I was having a bit of a tough time considering another product release so close to the 900 pound gorilla that is LoB. A little hunter/ally addendum expansion sounds tasty... DaveZ Atom Weaver

What do you mean? Day of reckoning isn't a full expansion? Maybe it's a half expansion? No? A third? AFAIK 10th was a bunch of reprints, not new stuff...

[ quoted text not captured ] Not to mention that maybe it's good to review one's own notions of "many". *And* speaking on others' behalf (many others or not, all angry or not) is hardly a good tactic to get a point considered. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Oh. We are a legion. I bet he was speaking on behalf of those many who are furious, and not on behalf of those who do not give a damn, or, actually, love the idea. Let us not be formal in this area.

k .. many is not 'all' .. after all ;) I've meant few of our local playgroups .. And I've talked about this with lots of other players right now and not even one of them was happy or even neutral about the new expansion .. and I know it'll never be a representative group and that wasn't my intention to speak for players as a whole .. I was just posting opinions gathered about the new expansion .. and the thing I'm concerned with is that they were not divided ..

And he meant quite a few, I bet.

ANCILLA wrote: > Oh. We are a legion. As you wish. I don't doubt that. I just don't think that numbers are all-important. Even statistics can be misinterpreted, what about *supposed* numbers. > I bet he was speaking on behalf of those many who are furious, and not > on behalf of those who do not give a damn, or, actually, love the idea. Two camps where I don't belong (three counting with the "furious" one), in case it was not clear enough yet. I just prefer to wait for more information before crying out and pointing to real or imaginary friends who would supposedly think as I do, and claim I'm their spokesperson. > Let us not be formal in this area. Again, as you (and the supposed legion) wish. I just doubt that it is an efficient way to get a point across. Not to mention I don't think it is wise to hurry against something we don't know jack about. Let the info build up on the issue. A name and a "not full expansion" official seal can mean a lot of things still. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

"Again, as you (and the supposed legion) wish. I just doubt that it is an efficient way to get a point across. " and again that was not my intention .. it was just trying to show our opinion ( maybe 'caps lock' lead to that ]; ) .. and the legion ;D is a really big part of our vtes national scene .. de gustibus non disputandum est either ;) And I don't want to convince anyone just trying to point that not every one is ntr or happy :) "Not to mention I don't think it is wise to hurry against something we don't know jack about." Yes you are correct in here .. but I thought about the general idea of printing new stuff in such a short period of time ( even I'm not a collector I know few of my pals who were stunned ;) )

> I just doubt that it is an efficient way to get a point across. It would definitely be much better if they come, and swarm the group them-selves. >A name and a "not full expansion" official seal can mean a lot of things still. It can, in deed.

Atom Weaver wrote: > The latest White Wolf Quarterly lists the name of the next VTES set; > > "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. Boosters are > listed on the preorder form, starters are not. NOR, huh? I doubt the truth of this. I mean, its only true in the rare occasion when both A and B are false. ~SV

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1134050323.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Umm... Because its teh Inturweb? Seriously, though, Peter. You know as well as I that there are a *legion* of people who are competing to be the first to bitch about this, that, or the other thing, whenever _anything_ about VTES is announced. However, I believe that comments about VTES becoming more like Magic should be treated the same as citing Hitler in any other usenew argument; the person who mentions it first, automatically loses. ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

ANCILLA wrote: > > I just doubt that it is an efficient way to get a point across. > > It would definitely be much better if they come, and swarm the group > them-selves. Still, even this group is hardly an accurate representation of what all the player base thinks. See, I don't want to be neither devil's advocate NOR a troll about the news :D. Count on me to publicly complain a little if NOR is to be a 150-card set with mostly new cards - I didn't even receive the new Legacies cards yet, and I doubt I'll have used half of the new ones up to April. But not now - it could be anything from a 150-card set with 100 reprints I don't need to a 100-card set with 50 reprints where all cards are common or Rares and not a single new vampire, which makes it easier to dig in short time. Either way, we'll know it soon. > >A name and a "not full expansion" official seal can mean a lot of things still. > It can, indeed. That's what bothers me. Why bother about something we don't know jack about yet? Speculation on the contents are expected by fans, but otherwise it seems like building a nuclear shelter below home because Bush said India has weapons of mass destruction ;D best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Nyateneri wrote: > "Again, as you (and the supposed legion) wish. > I just doubt that it is an efficient way to get a point across. " > > and again that was not my intention .. it was just trying to show > our opinion ( maybe 'caps lock' lead to that ]; ) .. and the legion ;D > is a really big part of our vtes national scene .. As said, I don't doubt it. And I must admit I have a bias against anything expressed in caps ;D So don't mind if I sound a little harsh. That's not the outright intention, I can assure. > "Not to mention I don't think it is wise to hurry against something > we > don't know jack about." > > Yes you are correct in here .. but I thought about the general idea of > printing new stuff in such a short period of time ( even I'm not a > collector I know few of my pals who were stunned ;) ) That I concur. Personally, I know I won't have the money to spend in a full-fledged set so soon. Maybe if it is something small you can complete by splitting a box, as DaveZ suggested on WW's forums. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Seriously speaking, there is far too little of those ready to bitch, whine, and moan. Let's wait for more data from White Wolf. But let us be full of expectations, and demanding to get only the best of the best.

"Defender of Ra" <rules...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1134016836.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > (N.B. The Hunter book, though awful, did kill Wraith, I understand it, > and Wraith was a paragraph's worth of premise then thousands of pages > of suckage, so Hunter did have something going for it.) > wrong forum for it, but I disagree: Wraith's setting and background was, IMO, the best of the OWOD. It had playability issues, though.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:1134045732....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] So this one's going to be a small expansion? That means we'll have to wait longer for the Group 4 Sabbat clans to be filled out? :(

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1134050323.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't know about 'freaking out'. But six months is too soon to be pushing a new expansion after Legacies. Hell, nine months is too soon but it seemed like a reasonable enough compromise. I wish they'd stick to it and not print things faster than players can buy them and absorb them into collections and playing strategies. People have a right to be angry. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1134045732....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > [ quoted text not captured ] Could you explain the nature of the hair that's being split here? I don't recall the use of "full" as an adjective in describing the window between expansions. I suppose I could have missed it or perhaps missed an element in the discussion of this over the years but this is the first time I've seen anyone use that distinction. I suppose if this is going to be some very limited expansion like TAE***, that might mitigate things somewhat. But I'd like to understand exactly what White Wolf is thinking before making up my mind. (*** - Using the definition that if a product expands the number of different named cards available for play, it's an 'expansion'.) Fred

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:24:04 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >People have a right to be angry. People have a right to be stupid. Anyone getting angry at this point is also taking advantage of that other right.

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:vkYlf.3472$fO5...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > Umm... Because its teh Inturweb? Seriously, though, Peter. You know as well as I that there are a *legion* of people who are > competing to be the first to bitch about this, that, or the other thing, whenever _anything_ about VTES is announced. Huh?!? I thought that was our job. > However, I believe that comments about VTES becoming more like Magic should be treated the same as citing Hitler in any other > usenew argument; the person who mentions it first, automatically loses. ;-) I don't know. It's not the same thing. I can see where people would think it's an overused argument but, unlike fears of Hitler's reanimation, it's not a totally groundless fear. Some of us love to hate Magic because it has certain obvious problems as a CCG and for whatever reasons, stupidity or commercial strategy, WotC refuses to fix them. So it seems to me that at least a little bit of paranoia that White Wolf is moving VtES towards the same practices that will duplicate some of the Magic's problems is in order. And pumping out too many cards too quickly is one of the prime ones. Fred

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:t7ogp1t9801joogu8...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:24:04 -0700, "Fred Scott" wrote: > >>People have a right to be angry. > > People have a right to be stupid. > > Anyone getting angry at this point is also taking advantage of that > other right. And people have a right to their opinions as well. But it makes for more interesting discussion when they give reasons for their opinions instead of just posting them as groundless assertions. Fred

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:24:04 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >But six months is too soon to be >pushing a new expansion after Legacies. Hell, nine months is too soon >but it seemed like a reasonable enough compromise. I cannot disagree more. VTES sales are flat for an expansion after 4-5 months. New expansions are required to rekindle interest and purchases. White Wolf is a business, I am a business. We must make money to continue to be in business. Product sitting on shelves does not make money. Cycling inventory (selling out and replenishing) is the key to making money in retailing. When your inventory stops cycling, you must introduce new products. I would have welcomed Legacies of Blood 2 months earlier. I look forward to April with hope and pleasure. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Now also featuring individual card sales and sales of booster and starter box displays.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for your appreciation. I really could not care more.

The Lasombra wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:24:04 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > >But six months is too soon to be > >pushing a new expansion after Legacies. Hell, nine months is too soon > >but it seemed like a reasonable enough compromise. > > I cannot disagree more. > > VTES sales are flat for an expansion after 4-5 months. > > New expansions are required to rekindle interest and purchases. > > White Wolf is a business, I am a business. > > We must make money to continue to be in business. > Players are not business, however. They are those who decide whether those businesses continue or not. And they might simply get tired of new expansions. So better be nice to them, or they will help your business end.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:50:49 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>>People have a right to be angry. >> People have a right to be stupid. >> Anyone getting angry at this point is also taking advantage of that >> other right. >And people have a right to their opinions as well. But it makes >for more interesting discussion when they give reasons for their >opinions instead of just posting them as groundless assertions. Investing negative emotions in something that will not affect you in any way for 6 more months and will then only affect you if you choose to invest in it (or your competition does) is stupid. I am not really interested in the discussion, only in stopping the stupidity. Rejoice that the card designers had enough material to think they could put another set together so quickly! Rejoice that the game company is advertising product for your game to retailers so that new players can get interested in the game by product being on store shelves! Rejoice that the game company is making enough money on their products that they are willing to gamble on an additional expansion at all! Rejoice that members of the online community brought this wonderful news to your attention! (Thanks AtomWeaver!) Carpe noctem. Lasombra Archivist to great deck builders. http://ArchonOfTheSwamp.tripod.com http://BlueDevilVTES.tripod.com http://ColumbusVTES.tripod.com http://Legbiter.tripod.com http://UniqueMasterOfVTES.tripod.com http://VTESOrgPlay.tripod.com http://www.TheLasombra.com/decks.htm http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/rgtcjdeckarchive/

On 8 Dec 2005 09:03:37 -0800, "ANCILLA" <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote: >Players are not business, however. >They are those who decide whether those businesses continue or not. >And they might simply get tired of new expansions. >So better be nice to them, or they will help your business end. Adding new expansions is being nice to them. Providing continued support for the game is the ultimate gamble for the game company and the card designers. They believe you will buy some of the new set, regardless of when it is released. I agree with them. It is my experience that people like new things, and will like this new expansion when it is in their hands. Alternately, you will quit buying cards for 1 set and continue to play the game. You are never harmed by new cards being introduced. Anger is stupid. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best online source for information about V:TES. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:50:49 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Investing negative emotions in something that will not affect you in > any way for 6 more months and will then only affect you if you choose > to invest in it (or your competition does) is stupid. > > I am not really interested in the discussion, only in stopping the > stupidity. > > Rejoice that the card designers had enough material to think they > could put another set together so quickly! > > Rejoice that the game company is advertising product for your game to > retailers so that new players can get interested in the game by > product being on store shelves! > > Rejoice that the game company is making enough money on their products > that they are willing to gamble on an additional expansion at all! > > Rejoice that members of the online community brought this wonderful > news to your attention! (Thanks AtomWeaver!) > > > > > Carpe noctem. > > Lasombra > Archivist to great deck builders. > Your attitude is so instrumental. And where is the romaticism? Those long periods of waiting and thinking what the next set will be like. Those hours-long divagations. Those plans for things unimaginable. And, as it is, I have not even managed to grasp the last expansion, and they come out with something new. It's visible business, indeed. And I'd like it to have some facade, something which would make the players forget it's all about the money.

ANCILLA wrote: > And, as it is, I have not even managed to grasp the last expansion, and > they come out with something new. ??? They aren't coming out with somthing new for *five months*. Which is a pretty long time, really. You'll have managed to grasp the last expansion by then. > It's visible business, indeed. And > I'd like it to have some facade, something which would make the players > forget it's all about the money. ??? You can forget anything you want. This game is a buisness. They need to make money for it to be viable. If the buisness model they need to sustain buisness includes a major expansion every 9 months and a minor expansion every 6 months, then that is what they need to do. Luckily, however, the buisness that is this game is a good one, so it all works out. -Peter

p...@lightlink.com wrote: > Which is a > pretty long time, really. You'll have managed to grasp the last > expansion by then. I will, yes. But I would like to have to wait. > You can forget anything you want. This game is a buisness. They need to > make money for it to be viable. If the buisness model they need to > sustain buisness includes a major expansion every 9 months and a minor > expansion every 6 months, then that is what they need to do. Luckily, > however, the buisness that is this game is a good one, so it all works > out. > > -Peter Well, I do not want to remember this on buying my cards. I want it to be a spiritual adventure. Not an exchange - my money for some pleasure from WW.

ANCILLA wrote: > Well, I do not want to remember this on buying my cards. > I want it to be a spiritual adventure. Uhhh, ok? > Not an exchange - my money for some pleasure from WW. But that is exactly what you are doing--giving someone money for entertainment. Would you somehow be fooled that this was not the case if you gave them more money in 8 months instead of 6 months? Like, I wouldn't want another huge exapansion in 6 months, no. But it seems perfectly reasonable for there to be a wee one in 6 months. -Peter

A bonny wee one in six months, and then a huge one in the next nine. This might do. But I'm afrid they want to make it two a year, indeed. And I do not like the idea. (Yes, it's all up to liking or not, after all.) The slower it goes, the longer VTES will stay around, and I want it to last as long as possible. I fear the downpour. It showers the players with even more they might need, but disappears shortly after.

unforgiver wrote: > In April 2006 ?! So early? What are the reasons of prining a new > expansion only 6 months after another (very big) set ?? What about 9 > months period? ? I don't really like this :( Then just wait until July to buy cards from the NoR set. Voila! A nine months' delay between sets. Then wait until the April following to by cards from the post-NoR set. Voila! Another nine months' delay. The only reason to object to a quick release of the next set is if there's not enough time to design and playtest it properly. We won't know if that's the case until the set is release. Until then...

On 8 Dec 2005 10:10:16 -0800, "ANCILLA" <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote: >The slower it goes, the longer VTES will stay around, This is unsupported bullshit. VTES will stay around as long as there are players, either new ones or old die hards. Expansion speed can help gain new players. In the long run, new players are more important to the health of the game.

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:qhpgp1h96jc9ri2l7...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:50:49 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >>>>People have a right to be angry. > >>> People have a right to be stupid. > >>> Anyone getting angry at this point is also taking advantage of that >>> other right. > >>And people have a right to their opinions as well. But it makes >>for more interesting discussion when they give reasons for their >>opinions instead of just posting them as groundless assertions. > > Investing negative emotions in something that will not affect you in > any way for 6 more months and will then only affect you if you choose > to invest in it (or your competition does) is stupid. Sure. But this doesn't qualify as that. It seems to be a common mistake to think that CCG products are like other game products but that's not so. If Milton Bradley comes out with a new version of "Clue" with a few changes two months after I bought their latest version, I don't have to care. That doesn't affect me or the value of the game set I bought. But if White Wolf comes out with new cards in their CCG a few months after I just got done sinking money into their last expansion, that DOES affect me. I may not be forced to buy the new cards myself, but I have to play the guys who bought the new cards - unless I want to consign myself and the collection of cards I've invested in up to this point to some dead-end house-rules version of the game. Pretending a new expansion is all opportunity and no downside is complete bullshit. You have the option to ignore new cards but to do so places you at a disadvantage. I'm not saying this is a reason there should never be expansions. But don't pretend it makes no difference to people who don't choose to buy in. > Rejoice that the card designers had enough material to think they > could put another set together so quickly! I won't comment on design issues in VtES. But this was exactly the reason I quit spending a ton of money on Magic cards every year. Not only did they pump out new cards faster than was any fun to try integrating in a game sense, but BECAUSE they pumped out cards so fast, the card design sucked. Not enough real origianl ideas, not enough time to play test, not enough time to turn around mistakes that had to be redesigned so that the redesigned versions could be properly play tested. The lack of time to market showed. > Rejoice that the game company is advertising product for your game to > retailers so that new players can get interested in the game by > product being on store shelves! > > Rejoice that the game company is making enough money on their products > that they are willing to gamble on an additional expansion at all! Yes, I understand their upsides. But at what point is it too much? And the pretension that people don't have a right to have an honest negative reaction about this is just wrong. Fred

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mbpgp1po56q5u87em...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:24:04 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >>But six months is too soon to be >>pushing a new expansion after Legacies. Hell, nine months is too soon >>but it seemed like a reasonable enough compromise. > > I cannot disagree more. > > VTES sales are flat for an expansion after 4-5 months. > > New expansions are required to rekindle interest and purchases. I'm not sure what your argument is suppose to be. That the measure of what's best for the game is to keep sales, dollar-for-dollar on some kind of constant level as the weeks and months go by? Is so, that is naive on a bunch of different levels. If you publish so many cards, players can't keep up and feel bled for money, you're going to drive frustated players out of the game. It happens. It's why I'm not giving WotC any of my money for Magic cards any more. The only issue is, how much is too much. IMHO, every six months is too much. Your milage may vary, I'm sure. But that's what I think. > I would have welcomed Legacies of Blood 2 months earlier. ...and I would have preferred it three months later at a minimum. How many different strategies and themes I haven't had a chance to play myself or against is just insane. More new cards far sooner than we've had a chance to play the old cards we already own. For my purposes, there's nothing good about another new expansion just six months from now. Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1134065969....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > unforgiver wrote: >> In April 2006 ?! So early? What are the reasons of prining a new >> expansion only 6 months after another (very big) set ?? What about 9 >> months period? ? I don't really like this :( > > Then just wait until July to buy cards from the NoR set. Voila! A nine > months' delay between sets. Cool. That'll work. Except of course, we need everybody else's agreement not to play the cards for another three months as well. Otherwise, it's not really like a nine month delay. So...can we get that agreement? Everybody?

[ quoted text not captured ] ...no, there wouldn't be any longer wait, since the wait for such a full expansion would be identical before this set or after it - 9 months from the last full expansion (or 9 months after that, maybe). If this is a small release, that's just a few cards in the interim of the schedule, not a push-back of future expansions (since LSJ is reiterating 9 months between full expansions, and implying this doesn't count as one.) -John Flournoy

David Zopf wrote: > Umm... Because its teh Inturweb? Seriously, though, Peter. You know as > well as I that there are a *legion* of people who are competing to be the > first to bitch about this, that, or the other thing, whenever _anything_ > about VTES is announced. However, I believe that comments about VTES > becoming more like Magic should be treated the same as citing Hitler in any > other usenew argument; the person who mentions it first, automatically > loses. ;-) Hitler _was_ pro expansion.... Think about it. Cecil PS: I am looking forward to the new set, just not looking forward to justifying another large purchase of them with my wife.

unforgiver wrote: > In April 2006 ?! So early? What are the reasons of prining a new > expansion only 6 months after another (very big) set ?? What about 9 > months period? ? I don't really like this :( 6 Months is WAY too soon to release ANY expantion. There was never any distintions made like "execept small expantions" when we were told WW schedule for releasing expantions were going to be 9 month periods. I beleive this puts a tremendious strain on a majority of players, both $ and absorbtion of previous material. But I understand that WW is a company that wants to make money and so they will continue selling to it's market, 9 month statment or not. I'm sure they have the right to change there release scheudle at will, but I believe they should tell us without the flim/flam. One new card expands the game, SELL me that card and I'll call it an expantion. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for WW keeping our game alive, I just know I won't be able to fully ingest this last expantion for at least 9 months. That said, Jeff preorder me 4 boxes! ***JediMike***

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:5g%lf.1135$Ev.100@fed1read06... > > "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1134065969....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> >> unforgiver wrote: >>> In April 2006 ?! So early? What are the reasons of prining a new >>> expansion only 6 months after another (very big) set ?? What about 9 >>> months period? ? I don't really like this :( >> >> Then just wait until July to buy cards from the NoR set. Voila! A nine >> months' delay between sets. > > Cool. That'll work. Except of course, we need everybody else's > agreement not to play the cards for another three months as well. Why is that? There's been a near-zero escalation across all of the VTES product released. We can safely assume that this trend will continue. If someone has the coconuts available to buy a new set, and you don't, its not like you're going to win less as a result... > Otherwise, it's not really like a nine month delay. > Its Better(tm)... Its a product release which is Individually Customized to the exact economics of each consumer! Wow!!! Thats service for you! ;-) DZ AW

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:4f0mf.3553$4o7...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:5g%lf.1135$Ev.100@fed1read06... >> "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1134065969....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>> Then just wait until July to buy cards from the NoR set. Voila! A nine >>> months' delay between sets. >> >> Cool. That'll work. Except of course, we need everybody else's >> agreement not to play the cards for another three months as well. > > Why is that? There's been a near-zero escalation across all of the VTES > product released. So what? It's the real world, we're talking about here. It doesn't matter what the "escalation" is, other peoples' cards affect my play. They affect the metagame and the additional choice allows for improvement in certain types of decks. Cut it any way you like, "waiting until July to buy the new cards" is NOT like pretending there's a nine-month delay unless everybody doesn't play the new cards. So let's stick to the real issues and not some pretentious, make-believe way of looking at things. Fred

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:48:12 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I would have welcomed Legacies of Blood 2 months earlier. >...and I would have preferred it three months later at a >minimum. How many different strategies and themes I haven't >had a chance to play myself or against is just insane. And three more months would have changed all of that for you? Doubt walks in doing jumping jacks. New strategies stopped being explored in Kindred Most Wanted 3 months after it was released. Trophy? Dismissed as to much work for no increased winning. Weenie independents? Embraced wholeheartedly. Other new things? Not so much really. As a player, I would have welcomed Legacies 6 months earlier. As a business owner, I would have welcomed it 4 months earlier when sales of KMW singles disappeared. When people are buying singles from a set, they are still actively exploring it. When that dries up, on a global scale, then it is time for something new. I sell over 70% of my singles to players in other countries. When the whole world stops investing in a set, it tells you something about the set. It also tells you it is time for a new one. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best online source for information about V:TES. [ quoted text not captured ]

I can't see why people should follow the 'give my more' path you are refering to. I want time to have a look at everything in detail. I do not want to devour the cards and the ideas. I want it to be a step-by-step process. And you are approaching the whole thing purely from the perspective of a salesman who wants a profit - the higher the better.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, he's not really. Not that it bothers you to say so.

[ quoted text not captured ] I would like to hope he is not, but I can see his conclusions are not one of a person willing to celebrate every encounter of his life. And I would like to celebrate each and every card, and I won't have the time necessary. Don't know about you, but I am taking cards from boosters one after another, just to make the moment last longer. I do not want to have fun, and return to the real life. I want to be able to think about the new ideas day after day. It might take three months in the net, it might take three months for the serious customers buying plenty of cards before the release or immediately afterwards, but there are some who would like to perform the very same reseach for nine months, but at a much slower pace. And I can see plenty of people rioting, for diverse reasons, though, probably. But still.

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0h8hp1hvq3770o6hv...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:48:12 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >>> I would have welcomed Legacies of Blood 2 months earlier. > >>...and I would have preferred it three months later at a >>minimum. How many different strategies and themes I haven't >>had a chance to play myself or against is just insane. > > And three more months would have changed all of that for you? Over multiple expansions, yes. It adds up. > Doubt walks in doing jumping jacks. Well, doubt's pretty flabby and probably needs the exercise anyway. > New strategies stopped being explored in Kindred Most Wanted 3 months > after it was released. Is this the same game we're talking about where I'm constantly reminded that new and killer uses for cards are invented years after those cards came out? You know, the Succubus Club, Temptation of Greater Power and all that. Doubt is frenetically doing jazzercise, now. > As a player, I would have welcomed Legacies 6 months earlier. > As a business owner, I would have welcomed it 4 months earlier when > sales of KMW singles disappeared. > > When people are buying singles from a set, they are still actively > exploring it. When that dries up, on a global scale, then it is time > for something new. Single sellers - at least the ones I deal with - sell singles from every expansion. I see plenty of KMW singles get auctioned off and some of them go for plenty. Granted, it isn't the feeding frenzy that occurs in the first couple of months but if it weren't profitable, they wouldn't do it. > I sell over 70% of my singles to players in other countries. When the > whole world stops investing in a set, it tells you something about the > set. It also tells you it is time for a new one. Oh, gawd, where do I start? No. It just means that there's some market for the game and that you're a more economical and/or complete seller than is available in their own country. Really, I'm not sure what this statistic has to do with anything. You could have sold three cards in three months to Americans and seven cards to customers outside the U.S. That would give the same result. Of course, I expect there to be _some_ singles sales and I'm glad you do good business, inside or outside the U.S. But how popular singles sales are in a CCG is function of a lot of things, of which the overall popularity of the game is also a big one. I would hope you can see past the notion that what's good your singles sales at any given moment is necessarily good for the game in the long run. It might or might not be. Singles sales will always peak within a couple months of an expansion and then fall off but that doesn't mean it's a good thing for there to be a peak going on during every minute of every day. If you drive two-thirds of the population out of the game by overprinting, there will still be peaks. Would you like there to be constant single sales peaking out if the peak was one third of what a peak is now? Is that helpful in the grand scheme of things? Fred

"ANCILLA" <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote in message news:1134079295.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > jnewqu...@difsol.com wrote: >> ANCILLA wrote: >> > And you are approaching the whole thing purely >> > from the perspective of a salesman who wants a profit - the higher the >> > better. >> >> No, he's not really. Not that it bothers you to say so. > > I would like to hope he is not, but I can see his conclusions are not > one of a person willing to celebrate every encounter of his life. Trust me, Jeff does enough to promote the game that I wouldn't believe his opinions are profit-motivated. And if they were, he does so much to promote the game that I wouldn't begrudge him that kind of an interest, anyway. Fred

In message <1134039147.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, DamselO...@interia.pl writes: > and right now I'm affraid it's gonna be more and more similiar to >Lo5R or Magic ( due not the unbalance but the seriously cash-powering >effects ) > > HEY YOU GUYS ABOVE !!! MANY PLAYERS ARE ANGRY!!!! Hint: you don't know any of the contents of the set. It's quite possible that White Wolf aren't "cash-powering" anything. Because, you know, you don't know anything other than the name of the expansion and a release date. Why get angry when you know nothing? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1134071608.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, ***JediMike*** <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> writes: >6 Months is WAY too soon to release ANY expantion. There was never any >distintions made like "execept small expantions" when we were told WW >schedule for releasing expantions were going to be 9 month periods. Actually, consider the full meaning of: <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5741c8 0b54f703f5> It's not an "expansion" in fact. We will announce the details of this small, celebratory release after Gehenna's release. Whilst it goes on to re-confirm the standard nine months pattern for expansions, it is clear that some things deviate from this and are not counted as "proper" expansions. [ quoted text not captured ]

> God I hate Gehenna. And Caine. It was a very, very useful little bit of > stupidity back inna date, but WW simply doesn't have a handle on the > concept of a myth. Do you realize that Dark Ages was a *better* > sourcebook because even though Caine's myth was omnipresent, Caine > himself was *not* so the game was playable without vast amounts of > inane plot devices and sanctimonious bs? But I digress. I have to agree with you here, though only in part. I began playing V:tM during its second edition, during which time Gehenna was still thought of as a prophecy. Different groups had their own interpretations of when Gehenna would come, what the signs of it would be, if those signs were present, or if Gehenna was a ridiculous myth altogether. I personally liked this take on the World of Darkness much more than what WW did in 3rd edition. The situation in Mage was even worse IMO. > (N.B. The Hunter book, though awful, did kill Wraith, I understand it, > and Wraith was a paragraph's worth of premise then thousands of pages > of suckage, so Hunter did have something going for it.) Maybe I'm way too goth for my own good, because I really liked Wraith. The trouble with Wraith is that required a very serious, intelligent group of roleplayers who know each other well. I'm not aware of many such role playing groups existing, which explains the widespread popularity of games like Dungeons and Dragons.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:17huI75o...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1134071608.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > ***JediMike*** <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> writes: >>6 Months is WAY too soon to release ANY expantion. There was never any >>distintions made like "execept small expantions" when we were told WW >>schedule for releasing expantions were going to be 9 month periods. > > Actually, consider the full meaning of: ... # It's not an "expansion" in fact. We will announce the details of # this small, celebratory release after Gehenna's release. > > Whilst it goes on to re-confirm the standard nine months pattern for > expansions, it is clear that some things deviate from this and are not > counted as "proper" expansions. Sure. I'm not sure what your point is. They first suggested there would be a nine-month window and then - with this post - they carved out an exception to that rule. I'm sure Nights of Reckoning will be some other exception to the rule or maybe it will turn out to be the same one, I don't know. Either way, it's not what they originally said they'd said they'd do and that, I think, is the point. To be clear, I'm not all that pissed (and I'd guess Mike isn't, either) about what amounts to be a 10-card expansion. I just think it's a little more straightforward to just admit, "OK, it's a tiny little expansion that wasn't really what we were talking about when we agreed to go nine months between expansions." That, to me, is better than the 1984-ish, "this-is-not-an-expansion" way of handling the matter. Now, all of sudden, the distinction is being between a "full" and (presumably) a not-so-full expansion. That's seems a bit lame considering they haven't even brought in Bill Maher yet to formally announce to announce the new rule. (AFAIK.) Fred

> Rejoice that the card designers had enough material to think they > could put another set together so quickly! > > Rejoice that the game company is advertising product for your game to > retailers so that new players can get interested in the game by > product being on store shelves! > > Rejoice that the game company is making enough money on their products > that they are willing to gamble on an additional expansion at all! > > Rejoice that members of the online community brought this wonderful > news to your attention! (Thanks AtomWeaver!) > For the Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:14:26 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I sell over 70% of my singles to players in other countries. When the >> whole world stops investing in a set, it tells you something about the >> set. It also tells you it is time for a new one. >Oh, gawd, where do I start? Phoenix would be good. >No. It just means that there's some market for the game and that >you're a more economical and/or complete seller than is available in >their own country. Absolutely. >Really, I'm not sure what this statistic has to do with anything. >You could have sold three cards in three months to Americans and seven >cards to customers outside the U.S. That would give the same result. I sell over $2,000 worth of cards every week. I have a very good idea of what sells and where. Welcome to my world. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, agzocgud wrote: > Here´s my guess: > > Hunter is new type of minion. It´s not a vampire, it´s not a ally, > it´s a hunter. > > They may also be a new way to put these into play. > "Hunter" is already a (potential) subtype of "Mortal" Allies, comprised of Carlton Van Wyck, Gregory Winter, Jake Washington, Muddled Vampire Hunter, Neighborhood Watch Commander, and Wendell Delburton. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:hhihp1da7sbji7va4...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:14:26 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >>> I sell over 70% of my singles to players in other countries. When the >>> whole world stops investing in a set, it tells you something about the >>> set. It also tells you it is time for a new one. ... >>No. It just means that there's some market for the game and that >>you're a more economical and/or complete seller than is available in >>their own country. > > Absolutely. > >>Really, I'm not sure what this statistic has to do with anything. >>You could have sold three cards in three months to Americans and seven >>cards to customers outside the U.S. That would give the same result. > > I sell over $2,000 worth of cards every week. > > I have a very good idea of what sells and where. Fine. That's great! But it still doesn't mean what you're claiming it means: that "it's time for a new one." It just means you sell $2,000 worth of cards every week. (Pause. Damn, that IS pretty good!) It means there's a huge cluster-fuck of people wanting singles, especially after a new release. That says nothing whatsoever about the optimal way of timing releases, though. Fred

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:48:31 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: >So it seems to me that >at least a little bit of paranoia that White Wolf is moving VtES towards >the same practices that will duplicate some of the Magic's problems is in >order. And pumping out too many cards too quickly is one of the prime ones. I seem to recall many a long thread on the timing of expansions over the years WW has had the game, and the majority of players seemed to want 8-12 month gaps between sets. And WW (steve maybe?) agreed and said that was going to be their plan (i think they settled on "about 9 months", or something like that). Now they've apparently dropped that plan (at least for this expansion), and are yet to tell us why. Perhaps we should be waiting for some sort of statement/media release, rather than just looking at a catalog, and _then_ bitch and moan about how it's not long enough to digest all the LoB cards/strategies, etc. :) salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:34:42 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: >I suppose if this is going to be some very limited expansion like >TAE***, that might mitigate things somewhat. Tenth Anniversary .......Egads? [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > And WW (steve maybe?) agreed and said that was going to be their plan > (i think they settled on "about 9 months", or something like that). > > Now they've apparently dropped that plan (at least for this > expansion), and are yet to tell us why. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4d1249d18ed9ca81 The nine months window is the period between full expansions. For instance, the 10th anniversary tins were a "between full expansions" release. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

The Lasombra wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:24:04 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > >People have a right to be angry. > > People have a right to be stupid. > > Anyone getting angry at this point is also taking advantage of that > other right. I completely agree with this! Complaining about VTES expansions that come out "too often" is incredibly stupid. Personally, I would be happy to see a new set every six months without any restrictions on its size. New sets demonstrate players that the game is alive, and bring new opportunities. Eeach pre-release is a holiday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To the complaining people: Honestly, guys, you'd better think twice before posting such complains. What did somebody say about Magic? Hey guys, I'm a person that wasted 7 years trying to spread Magic in Belarus, so I know better why it's still in miserable state here. There are only two reasons: constant "rotations" (read "robbing players") and printing a tremendous percentage of crap cards. Nobody ever complained about too many new sets! These two reasons forced me to stop playing Magic at all, and I moved to VtES. Look, are you going to lose any cards you have? No. Are you going to be robbed with the completely unusable crap in your boosters? I don't think so. What the hell are you complaining about, then? Sure, you can't just ignore the new set, and you're likely to be "forced" to purchase some boosters and/or singles. Is there anything to complain about? Our players are the most poor in the world, but we're always happy to know about the new VtES set. Why? Because each player has a fixed sum of money he can spend on the cards, and the new sets just provide him more choices. Remember, we AREN'T talking about Magic or some other "super-mega-professional" game where you simply MUST have some cards to be competitive - almost any player can choose one viable deck theme and build the deck. The difference between rich players and poor players is that rich players can build MORE different decks. Most our players have just one "tournament" deck and some "funny" decks, and they are happy. If somebody won't be able to afford all the cards he'd like to have - well, he would have to choose the cards he would need most, and the apperance of the new set would provide him more choices. There is absolutely nothing to complain about! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there is something to complain about the new sets, it's the absence of many commons from Legacies in TheLasombra's inventory :) We failed to get precious cards for the Gargoyles twice, alas, and many our players still want more Majesties :) Yours, Ector

ANCILLA wrote: > Oh. We are a legion. A legion of exactly how many? Three? Four? Ten? > I bet he was speaking on behalf of those many who are furious, and not > on behalf of those who do not give a damn, or, actually, love the idea. > Let us not be formal in this area. No, LET us be formal. Because otherwise all we are doing is listening to some fucking whiners. If the fucking whiners think they have an actual valid complaint, let them try to articulate it coherently, and state it in a fully described manner; at that point, if it is valid, it can then be addressed. However, if we are only to be subjected to fucking whining without any specifics, then the fucking whiners can go fuck themselves. Let's go over the announcement again: "Nights of Reckoning" is listed for release in April 2006. Boosters are listed on the preorder form, starters are not." What does this announcement tell us? -- It will be named Nights of Reckoning. -- It will be released in April 2006. -- It will contain booster packs. What does this announcement NOT tell us? -- Size of the expansion -- Number of new cards in the expansion -- Number of reprints in the expansion -- Clans/sects that will be included in the expansion -- Effect of the expansion on gameplay So wouldn't you, given these FACTS, be forced to admit that breaking into hysterical fears over this announcement is, in fact, a little premature and entirely overdone? Of course you would. All the crying I've seen on this thread from the fucking whiners is based on ASSUMPTIONS about things that were not stated in the announcement. So get bent and for godsake, SHUT UP. Nobody really wants to listen to all the fucking whining. -- Derek

LSJ wrote: > salem wrote: > > And WW (steve maybe?) agreed and said that was going to be their plan > > (i think they settled on "about 9 months", or something like that). > > > > Now they've apparently dropped that plan (at least for this > > expansion), and are yet to tell us why. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4d1249d18ed9ca81 > > The nine months window is the period between full expansions. > > For instance, the 10th anniversary tins were a "between full > expansions" release. LSJ we know your mantra already but you don't quote the topic Salem mentions just redirect us to your mantra. It hardly brings anything constructive to the discussion. Sathriel

Derek Ray wrote: > ANCILLA wrote: > > Oh. We are a legion. > > A legion of exactly how many? Three? Four? Ten? > > > I bet he was speaking on behalf of those many who are furious, and not > > on behalf of those who do not give a damn, or, actually, love the idea. > > Let us not be formal in this area. > > No, LET us be formal. Because otherwise all we are doing is listening > to some fucking whiners. If the fucking whiners think they have an > actual valid complaint, let them try to articulate it coherently, and > state it in a fully described manner; at that point, if it is valid, it > can then be addressed. > > However, if we are only to be subjected to fucking whining without any > specifics, then the fucking whiners can go fuck themselves. Pissed or not I don't think you should call anyone bad names Derek, especially here. Just a thought. Sathriel

Ector wrote: > I completely agree with this! Complaining about VTES expansions that > come out "too often" is incredibly stupid. Personally, I would be happy > to see a new set every six months without any restrictions on its size. > New sets demonstrate players that the game is alive, and bring new > opportunities. Eeach pre-release is a holiday. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > To the complaining people: > Honestly, guys, you'd better think twice before posting such complains. > What did somebody say about Magic? Hey guys, I'm a person that wasted 7 > years trying to spread Magic in Belarus, so I know better why it's > still in miserable state here. There are only two reasons: constant > "rotations" (read "robbing players") and printing a tremendous > percentage of crap cards. Nobody ever complained about too many new > sets! These two reasons forced me to stop playing Magic at all, and I > moved to VtES. Ector look at the Split-Personality in your post: Expansions that come "too often" are not bad for VTES but MtG scene is not developing in Belarus because of rotation and crap cards (caused by expansions that come out "too often"). And once again to Derek I think: Those who coplain do not complain about any of the unstated facts. There are just complaining about the one stated fact - the nesxt expansion is coming out in April. With respect Sathriel

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eudip1h683b339hbg...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:48:31 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >>So it seems to me that >>at least a little bit of paranoia that White Wolf is moving VtES towards >>the same practices that will duplicate some of the Magic's problems is in >>order. And pumping out too many cards too quickly is one of the prime >>ones. > > I seem to recall many a long thread on the timing of expansions over > the years WW has had the game, and the majority of players seemed to > want 8-12 month gaps between sets. > > And WW (steve maybe?) agreed and said that was going to be their plan > (i think they settled on "about 9 months", or something like that). > That was true, at one point in time... > Now they've apparently dropped that plan (at least for this > expansion), and are yet to tell us why. Steve Wieck offered some reasons two years ago; http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a165fadcff7b49da?dmode=source > Perhaps we should be waiting for some sort of statement/media release, > rather than just looking at a catalog, and _then_ bitch and moan about > how it's not long enough to digest all the LoB cards/strategies, etc. > ..? But that would be the reasonable, rational, and fair thing to do. and this is the Interweb. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:qhpgp1h96jc9ri2l7...@4ax.com... > Rejoice that members of the online community brought this wonderful > news to your attention! (Thanks AtomWeaver!) > Aiding my VTES bretherin Infuses my Being with Purpose... ;-) DZ AW

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:Gl0mf.1141$Ev.452@fed1read06... > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:4f0mf.3553$4o7...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... >> "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >> news:5g%lf.1135$Ev.100@fed1read06... >>> "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1134065969....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>>> Then just wait until July to buy cards from the NoR set. Voila! A nine >>>> months' delay between sets. >>> >>> Cool. That'll work. Except of course, we need everybody else's >>> agreement not to play the cards for another three months as well. >> >> Why is that? There's been a near-zero escalation across all of the VTES >> product released. > > So what? It's the real world, we're talking about here. It doesn't > matter what the "escalation" is, other peoples' cards affect my > play. Accomodating that effect can be done by reading this newsgroup and the online card text, if you choose not to invest in a set. You buying the cards yourself isn't necessary (assuming a continued trend of no escalation). Therefore, waiting until a time when buying the next set is a convenience is certainly a reasonable thing to do. > They affect the metagame and the additional choice allows for > improvement in certain types of decks. Cut it any way you like, > "waiting until July to buy the new cards" is NOT like pretending > there's a nine-month delay unless everybody doesn't play the new > cards. So let's stick to the real issues and not some pretentious, > make-believe way of looking at things. Don't pretend like you didn't recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of my "customized release" comment, Fred. You cannot fool me anymore...you are waaay smarter than that. DZ AW

sath...@o2.pl wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> >> However, if we are only to be subjected to fucking whining without any >> specifics, then the fucking whiners can go fuck themselves. > > Pissed or not I don't think you should call anyone bad names Derek, > especially here. Just a thought. This is funny on a number of levels. "Especially here"? What's so special about here? But frankly, there's too much mollycoddling of the fucking whiners happening in this world today anyway. Slap those bitches upside the head and let 'em rough it out -- AS IF something not perfect with the latest expansion of your favorite CCG was anything remotely resembling "rough". Tell that to the guy behind the counter at McDonald's, or stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, and see how much sympathy you get. If the naughty words get his attention and/or hurt his feelings, GOOD. He's long overdue for a backhanded dose of reality anyway. -- Derek insert clever quotation here

sath...@o2.pl wrote: > Those who coplain do not complain about any of the unstated facts. > There are just complaining about the one stated fact - the nesxt > expansion is coming out in April. But is there anything inherently wrong with that? So we get new cards in April. So what? What's the problem here? Until you know something, ANYTHING else about the contents of the expansion, all yours or anyone's complaints are is just a bunch of hot air based on assumptions. [ quoted text not captured ]

sath...@o2.pl wrote: > And once again to Derek I think: > > Those who coplain do not complain about any of the unstated facts. > There are just complaining about the one stated fact - the nesxt > expansion is coming out in April. > > With respect With equal respect: Nothing has been stated factually (yet) to indicate that "Nights of Reckoning" is an "expansion" - it _is_ some sort of release for VTES that comes in boosters, and LSJ has implied that it is not a "full expansion". But neither the original post about the info in the quarterly, nor any comment from a person in a position to know, has said factually that NoR has anything new and/or expanding in it. For all we know factually at this point, it could be a collection of nothing but reprints. > Sathriel -John Flournoy

<sath...@o2.pl> wrote in message news:1134141818....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> Those who coplain do not complain about any of the unstated facts. > There are just complaining about the one stated fact - the nesxt > expansion is coming out in April. > You comment doesn't address Derek's point, which (without the explitives) was; Complaints based on a release date _alone_ are baseless. Without having a clue as to the content of Nights of Reckoning, complaining is premature. Is NoR ten new cards? Is it fifty? Is it five hundred? We don't know. If the issue you raise is being unable to integrate new cards into game play, because of their rate of release, then one would presume that knowing the _quantity_ of new cards would be a necessary and critical piece of knowledge in supporting your objections... The number of new cards, (and the plans for how many additional new cards will appear in the near future after NoR) is the best (only?) direct measure of the magnitude of your issue. You simply don't have that piece of information, which is a key reason why all of this complaining looks so spurious to your detractors. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Derek Ray wrote: > But is there anything inherently wrong with that? So we get new cards > in April. So what? What's the problem here? Well, I can see the different sides of this discussion. If WW wants to pump out more cards on a shorter time frame (and you do not agree with this release schedule), I can only see one option available to players. Don't buy any. Derek is right that when April arrives with a new set, there is no law that says you have to buy any. No sense to worry about it now. Personally, I have to agree with some of the previous posters that I am starting to feel the MTG "funk" starting to creep into VTES. It started back with KMW and the CE changes in reprint "policies". Plus LoB did not reduce my worries. What I wonder is if the constantly used rationale of "new sets bring new players into the game" is actually working? In my limited corner of the world, I do not see an increase of new players. In fact, I believe any increase in new players is balanced by a fading out of older ones (and I do consider myself an older player). Personally, I was/am not happy with the release schedule and contents of LoB. Therefore I did not purchase my normal order of a new VTES set (typically a box of starters and four booster boxes). Thus I wonder how many new players this order represents? Maybe an average of three new players would order that amount of product, total? Plus what about the loyalty factor? How many new players turn into longer term players? To me most new players show up, perhaps purchase $100 worth of cards and usually fade away after a couple of months. Meanwhile, the veteran players drop $250 each expansion year after year as long as they don't fade away. I guess that my math may be off but I just don't see the logic in the more expansions = more new players. I also look at some numbers from the last five years and wonder when we are going to see the results of all these new sets, when it comes to an increased player base. It seems to me the year after year this game just slides along. Never growing to large numbers yet never fully fading away. But perhaps I only have a limited perspective and things are different somewhere around the country/globe. Finally, the part I find most funny is when previous posters complain that the time between releases is too short-but then want to preorder four boxes of it anyways. It must be that evaporating UV coating smell that is so addicting... Ben Spaulding NorthEast Region, USA

sath...@o2.pl wrote: > Ector look at the Split-Personality in your post: > > Expansions that come "too often" are not bad for VTES but MtG scene is > not developing in Belarus because of rotation and crap cards (caused by > expansions that come out "too often"). > Where do you see any "split-personality"? Does "rotation" mean the same as "new sets" for you? Please think a bit. If WotC tell you that each large set means a rotation, would you struggle against printing new sets to avoid the rotation? They could print their sets without any rotations and still have a good profit. Don't tell me they couldn't. Yours, Ector

bspaul wrote: > Personally, I have to agree with some of the previous posters that I am > starting to feel the MTG "funk" starting to creep into VTES. It > started back with KMW and the CE changes in reprint "policies". Eh? What MtG creep was found in KMW? What changes in reprint quote-policies-unquote were made in CE?

bspaul wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> But is there anything inherently wrong with that? So we get new cards >> in April. So what? What's the problem here? > > Well, > > I can see the different sides of this discussion. What sides? There's the side that says "There will be cards available in boosters in April for a set called Nights of Reckoning". We can safely assume at least some of those cards will be new. That's one side. There's also a side tilting at windmills they themselves have set up in order to push themselves further into hysterics. I guess that yes, technically, that's a different side, but it's not one I ever want to be associated with. I prefer rational people. > If WW wants to pump > out more cards on a shorter time frame (and you do not agree with this > release schedule), ...Of course, there's nothing to currently agree or disagree with, other than "Some cards will come out in April. They have a name." I suppose you can choose to disagree that ANY number of cards greater than 0 should come out in April. You are welcome to that opinion; just let me know when the sky finishes falling. > Don't buy any. Derek is right that when April arrives with a new set, > there is no law that says you have to buy any. No sense to worry about > it now. That was Peter Bakija who said that, actually. > Personally, I have to agree with some of the previous posters that I am > starting to feel the MTG "funk" starting to creep into VTES. It Yeah, me too. Except I'm starting to smell it on the players, instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

"bspaul" <bspa...@excite.com> wrote in message news:1134146034.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Derek Ray wrote: >> But is there anything inherently wrong with that? So we get new cards >> in April. So what? What's the problem here? > > Well, > > I can see the different sides of this discussion. If WW wants to pump > out more cards on a shorter time frame Are they doing this? How do you conclude that from the information we have? Lets bring some facts to this, shall we? Here is the release schedule, and number of new cards, going back to Final Nights: Date Number of New Cards Expansion 6/2001 162 FN 12/2001 196 BL 8/2002 115 CE 5/2003 128 AN 11/2003 146 BH 5/2004 150 GH 12/2004 10 TAE 2/2005 162 KMW 11/2005 200 LoB *4/2006 ? NoR Number of new cards, by year of release 2001: 358 2002: 115 2003: 274 2004: 160 2005: 362 Looks pretty tame to me. LoB puts us up to the level of release that we saw back in 2001 (appropriate, considering how much extra you have to make in order to have enough for each Bloodline). Note, too, that the time spread between KMW and LoB is 3 months _longer_ than that between FN and BL. Each year with significant new card releases ('01, 03, 05) is followed by a somewhat lighter year of releases ('02, 04). Time between releases in months FN -> BL 6 BL -> CE 8 CE -> AN 9 AN -> BH 6 BH -> GH 6 GH -> TAE 7 TAE -> KMW 3 (*GH -> KMW 10) KMW -> LoB 9 LoB -> NoR 5 If trends continue, then the set after NoR will appear sometime in the August-October '06 timeframe, and when the new card count of _that_ set is combined with NoR, it will amount to (I'll forecast) 120 to 175 new cards, total. Frankly, I can see the problem, too, with inconsistent releases. If WW can settle this down to an "exery six months" release, and smooth out the number of cards per year (say to around 200-250), I think we'd all be a bit better off, retailers and players alike. I recognize, though, that the needs of each expansion can impact this, along with things like Gehenna, where they wanted to time the release with other product lines. > (and you do not agree with this > release schedule), I can only see one option available to players. > Don't buy any. Derek is right that when April arrives with a new set, > there is no law that says you have to buy any. No sense to worry about > it now. > "This release schedule" has not yet shown itself to be any different than the release schedule under which we've been currently been buying for at least 5 years. > Personally, I have to agree with some of the previous posters that I am > starting to feel the MTG "funk" starting to creep into VTES. Hitler liked MtG... > It started back with KMW and the CE changes in reprint "policies". That timeframe covers three years of releases... > Plus > LoB did not reduce my worries. > > What I wonder is if the constantly used rationale of "new sets bring > new players into the game" is actually working? The argument is "regular release of new sets keeps VTES on game store shelves". The 'bringing new players into the game' is an indirect consequence of that, which hopefully holds true. > In my limited corner > of the world, I do not see an increase of new players. In fact, I > believe any increase in new players is balanced by a fading out of > older ones (and I do consider myself an older player). This is because the growth of the game relies so heavily on volunteer advocates, such as the VEKN Princes. In places without a VEKN Prince, there is usually an informal "ring leader" in the same role. I'd rather this burden were shifted back to the retailers somewhat. If a different release schedule helps to do that, it should be done. Someday, i'd like to stroll into a town, and pick up a game of VTES with the locals. > Personally, I > was/am not happy with the release schedule and contents of LoB. Please be more specific. Release schedule; LoB came nine months after KMW, which in turn was released 10 months after Gehenna. By content, are you referring to the reprint policy, or the new cards? > Finally, the part I find most funny is when previous posters complain > that the time between releases is too short-but then want to preorder > four boxes of it anyways. It must be that evaporating UV coating smell > that is so addicting... > Arrgh! "Evaporating" and "UV coating" are mutually exclusive terms... Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

bspaul wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > > But is there anything inherently wrong with that? So we get new cards > > in April. So what? What's the problem here? > > Well, > > I can see the different sides of this discussion. If WW wants to pump > out more cards on a shorter time frame (and you do not agree with this > release schedule), I can only see one option available to players. > Don't buy any. Derek is right that when April arrives with a new set, > there is no law that says you have to buy any. No sense to worry about > it now. You may refuse to buy new cards, but I'll try to get the best of them, as the most players will do. Again, new card sets are never "offending" to me, and I will never complain about them. BTW, I'm completely sure that most of the complaining people will WAIT for the new set a few months later :) > Personally, I have to agree with some of the previous posters that I am > starting to feel the MTG "funk" starting to creep into VTES. It > started back with KMW and the CE changes in reprint "policies". Plus > LoB did not reduce my worries. Looks like you've missed the major point of creating new cards in VtES. New cards are usually designed for the new clans or new game strategies, without making the existing strategies "too good". If you don't like to play something new and just trying to enhance existing decks, you are likely to overlook most benefits. Actually, KMW and LoB are quite good sets (though I wasn't too happy about reprinting old cards as Rares), and I'm completely sure that we'll see many Tier 1 decks using these cards. > What I wonder is if the constantly used rationale of "new sets bring > new players into the game" is actually working? In my limited corner > of the world, I do not see an increase of new players. But I expect a lot of new players in MY limited corner of the world :) Starter decks from Legacies are so good that our players are waiting for months to get them! > In fact, I > believe any increase in new players is balanced by a fading out of > older ones (and I do consider myself an older player). Personally, I > was/am not happy with the release schedule and contents of LoB. > Therefore I did not purchase my normal order of a new VTES set > (typically a box of starters and four booster boxes). Thus I wonder > how many new players this order represents? Maybe an average of three > new players would order that amount of product, total? Plus what about > the loyalty factor? How many new players turn into longer term > players? Trust me, they are doing their job right. We are all novices in Minsk, Belarus, and we were jumping for joy when we got the first info about the Legacy Starters. Now we'll finally get some Parthenons, Guardian Angels, Freak Drives, and a lot more! The new clans are very interesting, too. Speaking about the 'loyalty factor': the most 'loyal' newbie is a newbie that can win at least sometimes and has clear plans about upgrading his deck or building another deck. New starters are going to attract a lot of newbies, for sure. > To me most new players show up, perhaps purchase $100 worth > of cards and usually fade away after a couple of months. Meanwhile, > the veteran players drop $250 each expansion year after year as long as > they don't fade away. I guess that my math may be off but I just don't > see the logic in the more expansions = more new players. Well, there is no straight logic in it :) But newbies really like new expansions. They don't feel themselves "obliged" to buy any cards, but the new opportunities are great for them. And let me tell you that your math is flawed. Real fanatics (like me) spend on the cards all money they can! "Investing" in VtES is similar to keeping your money in a Swiss bank - no rotations, no robbery, your cards are going to play FOREVER. Investing in Magic, for instance, is similar to spending money on the vacations: you just lose them for the short period of joy :) > I also look > at some numbers from the last five years and wonder when we are going > to see the results of all these new sets, when it comes to an increased > player base. It seems to me the year after year this game just slides > along. Never growing to large numbers yet never fully fading away. > But perhaps I only have a limited perspective and things are different > somewhere around the country/globe. VtES is a game for clever people, and most 'common' people just find it 'too complicated'. Unfortunately, percentage of clever people isn't likely to grow :) > Finally, the part I find most funny is when previous posters complain > that the time between releases is too short-but then want to preorder > four boxes of it anyways. It must be that evaporating UV coating smell > that is so addicting... > Now you've got the REAL point of their complain: they cannot even think about missing a new VTES set! :) Though purchasing more cards in shorter period of time may be difficult for some players, most of them will be happy to get such opportunity. Yours, Ector

> LSJ we know your mantra already but you don't quote the topic Salem > mentions just redirect us to your mantra. > > It hardly brings anything constructive to the discussion. I would tell you to "SHUT YER PIE HOLE!" because you're bitching for no apprent reason is in no way constructive. So...."TAKE YOUR PIE GRUBBING FINGERS OFF THE KEYBOARD!"

Derek Ray wrote: > ANCILLA wrote: > > Oh. We are a legion. > > A legion of exactly how many? Three? Four? Ten? A legion of exactly 5 battalions. People in Poland are not that obsessed with exact numbers and points of reference. > > I bet he was speaking on behalf of those many who are furious, and not > > on behalf of those who do not give a damn, or, actually, love the idea. > > Let us not be formal in this area. > > No, LET us be formal. Because otherwise all we are doing is listening > to some fucking whiners. If the fucking whiners think they have an > actual valid complaint, let them try to articulate it coherently, and > state it in a fully described manner; at that point, if it is valid, it > can then be addressed. Let me remind you what The Lasombra wrote yesterday. He wrote: Anger is stupid. You missed that, did you.

In message <1134140606.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, sath...@o2.pl writes: >LSJ wrote: >> The nine months window is the period between full expansions. >> >> For instance, the 10th anniversary tins were a "between full >> expansions" release. > >LSJ we know your mantra already but you don't quote the topic Salem >mentions just redirect us to your mantra. > >It hardly brings anything constructive to the discussion. In fact, it indicates that the set isn't intended to be a full expansion and so the "OMG THEY'RE FLOODING THE MARKET WITH CARDS OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG THEY'RE SO EVIL OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG THE WORLD ENDS TOMORROW OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG LSJ IS SATAN" line of thinking is deeply misguided. Since the Tenth Anniversary tins are given as an example of a not full expansion, one could surmise that a similar (but potentially different) sort of release is planned. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1134141818....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, sath...@o2.pl writes: >Expansions that come "too often" are not bad for VTES but MtG scene is >not developing in Belarus because of rotation and crap cards (caused by >expansions that come out "too often"). You're confusing M:tG with V:TES too easily. - Set rotations force you to buy new sets to remain competitive. Your old cards stop being playable. - Set rotations often introduce a new mechanic(s) that you must master to remain competitive. - New mechanics are often explorer over several releases for the same set, so you have to buy each of several sets to explore that new mechanic properly. In short, you have to buy cards if you want to carry on playing under the set rotation rules. In V:TES, that's almost never been the case. Yes, there have been a couple of occasions where a specific card existed that you really had to have to compete well - most of which are limited to Ancient Hearts / Dark Sovereigns. Specifically, I'd list Tomb of Rameses III, Thoughts Betrayed and Return to Innocence as killer "YOU MUST BUY THIS SET" cards, once the true abuses of them were well-understood. And each of these cards was handled once LSJ and WW were able to do so. Now, assume that you're a player who has a competitive set of decks from back in the day when you only had Jyhad/V:TES, Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts and Sabbat to choose from. Can you name any set from White Wolf that has forced you to buy new cards to remain competitive? Not a set that has provided new options that could make another strategy more competitive, just one that you would absolutely need to buy cards from or DIE IN A HEAP. Whilst there has been a little tinkering with the rules, the only substantial new addition is Events and - due to their nature - many, many decks have trouble coping with them. (This is such that a number of us have requested new and versatile ways of handling them, myself included.) And a good number of truly strong decks from the WotC sets can stand up to decks even today. Malk Stealth and Bleed has many good options, as does a solid Ventrue Law Firm, or a Ventrue Obfuscate deck. I've seen [1/2] Nosferatu Prince decks do very well, and Toreador intercept / gun decks do rather nicely. Anson heavy master decks are still possible. The Gangrel Domi/Protean Stanislava / Ingrid Rossler Mind Rape / Grave Robbing / Bleedzooka Claw deck is still a very strong deck, without too much modification. You could still put together a strong weenie deck with Caitiff, Pander and any 2 or 3 cap vampires you had lurking around, depending on what you wanted to do - weenie vote, weenie bleed etc. What sets have you been forced to buy to keep up? What decks that you have have suddenly become worthless due to White Wolf printing new expansions? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Now, you did some vital research. Let's skip the periods and do it your way. In fact, we can already see an increase in cards released. But, yes, there is the year 2001. A huge amount of cards was released those days. And there are those inconsistances you mention, which can hardly be avoided. Agreed. But wouldn't you agree that anything more than the said 175 for 2006 would be a visible sign that WW is actually deliberately increasing the annual number of cards released? I am sure this is exactly the case. Besides a 7-10-9 structure is what I managed to get used to, and what I like. While now the players are about to experience a new 9-5-5, or so, structure. Not a good idea; and why? Because I would simply like to see less cards being released. I feel better with the slow pace of life.

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eoeip1d9k3vhhcfju...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:34:42 -0700, "Fred Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >>I suppose if this is going to be some very limited expansion like >>TAE***, that might mitigate things somewhat. > > Tenth Anniversary .......Egads? Tenth Anniversary Edition. Fred

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:JAhmf.3649$nA2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:Gl0mf.1141$Ev.452@fed1read06... >> "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message >> news:4f0mf.3553$4o7...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... >>> "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:5g%lf.1135$Ev.100@fed1read06... >>>> "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1134065969....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Then just wait until July to buy cards from the NoR set. Voila! A nine >>>>> months' delay between sets. >>>> >>>> Cool. That'll work. Except of course, we need everybody else's >>>> agreement not to play the cards for another three months as well. >>> >>> Why is that? There's been a near-zero escalation across all of the VTES >>> product released. >> >> So what? It's the real world, we're talking about here. It doesn't >> matter what the "escalation" is, other peoples' cards affect my >> play. > > Accomodating that effect can be done by reading this newsgroup and the online card text, if you choose not to invest in a set. I think you're missing the point. This is just bickering over the claim that waiting until July to buy the cards is "just like a nine months' delay between sets". I posted to say that was bullshit and it is bullshit. So I don't see why it makes a difference to start discussing how people can adapt. Each person already knows how he or she prefers to adapt to increasing numbers of cards in the game without others paternalistically listing all the options. The issue is whether it's a good thing that they be forced to adapt sooner rather than later. It would be more constructive to stick to that issue rather than trying to change it. >> They affect the metagame and the additional choice allows for >> improvement in certain types of decks. Cut it any way you like, >> "waiting until July to buy the new cards" is NOT like pretending >> there's a nine-month delay unless everybody doesn't play the new >> cards. So let's stick to the real issues and not some pretentious, >> make-believe way of looking at things. > > Don't pretend like you didn't recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of my "customized release" comment, Fred. You cannot fool me > anymore...you are waaay smarter than that. Actually, I was more responding to Emmit's comment than your's. In any case, humor or not, both comments seem pointed and it was the point to which I was responding. Fred

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, James Coupe wrote: > What sets have you been forced to buy to keep up? What decks that you > have have suddenly become worthless due to White Wolf printing new > expansions? > I'm not among the Doomsayers, but I too feel that April is too early. Part of that is play reasons, I've only really been able to explore one new card from KMW - True Love's Face. Now, I have ideas for several things I could do with LoB at our tournament next week, but for metagame reasons, I'm unsure if I'll be able to use any of them. So for cardbase reasons, I feel that April is too early. Then there's the matter of cost. The number of cards I want per set is fixed. The more sets that come out, the more cards I want. The faster the sets come out, the less likely it is that I'll be able to buy the amount I want, the more likely it is I'll stop playing altogether. So for money reasons, I feel that April is too early. Unless LSJ wants to come up and join our picket line. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:47:02 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote: >The faster the sets come out, the less likely it is that I'll be able to buy the amount I >want, the more likely it is I'll stop playing altogether. You can't buy cards, so you will stop playing with cards you have already spent money on? Ironic consumerism, in the flesh (or the aether).

ANCILLA wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> ANCILLA wrote: >>> Oh. We are a legion. >> A legion of exactly how many? Three? Four? Ten? > > A legion of exactly 5 battalions. > > People in Poland are not that obsessed with exact numbers and points of > reference. So you mean it's only you. I understand now. >>> I bet he was speaking on behalf of those many who are furious, and not >>> on behalf of those who do not give a damn, or, actually, love the idea. >>> Let us not be formal in this area. >> No, LET us be formal. Because otherwise all we are doing is listening >> to some fucking whiners. If the fucking whiners think they have an >> actual valid complaint, let them try to articulate it coherently, and >> state it in a fully described manner; at that point, if it is valid, it >> can then be addressed. > > Let me remind you what The Lasombra wrote yesterday. > He wrote: Anger is stupid. > You missed that, did you. Strike: Dodging the issue? I expected nothing more. -- Derek insert clever quotation here

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, The Lasombra wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:47:02 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew > <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote: > >> The faster the sets come out, the less likely it is that I'll be able >> to buy the amount I want, the more likely it is I'll stop playing >> altogether. > > You can't buy cards, so you will stop playing with cards you have > already spent money on? > If I stop being happy with a game, I put it away. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

sath...@o2.pl wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > salem wrote: > > > And WW (steve maybe?) agreed and said that was going to be their plan > > > (i think they settled on "about 9 months", or something like that). > > > > > > Now they've apparently dropped that plan (at least for this > > > expansion), and are yet to tell us why. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4d1249d18ed9ca81 > > > > The nine months window is the period between full expansions. > > > > For instance, the 10th anniversary tins were a "between full > > expansions" release. > > LSJ we know your mantra already but you don't quote the topic Salem > mentions just redirect us to your mantra. Eh? salem says that "apparently" WW has dropped the plan. I respond by pointing out a post which he evidently missed or misunderstood that addressed exactly that point. > It hardly brings anything constructive to the discussion. A statement that is perhaps true or perhaps not, but which is more interesting for its self-reflective nature than for its truth value.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1134159644....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> LSJ we know your mantra already but you don't quote the topic Salem >> mentions just redirect us to your mantra. > > Eh? > > salem says that "apparently" WW has dropped the plan. > > I respond by pointing out a post which he evidently missed or > misunderstood that addressed exactly that point. That post is still kind of problematic to people who are striving to understand White Wolf's current position on release timing. It suggests a few critical questions and no one seems to be offering any answers to those questions: 1. What is White Wolf's distinction between a "full release" vs. a product containing new cards but isn't a "full release? 2. Although the post David Zopf provided a link to suggests that two previous releases were timed for shorter windows than nine months due to their size, no indication was made that this would become a future policy. So when did the "full release" distinction become relevant? 3. Why did the "full release" distinction become relevant? (It's easy to speculate about the things Steve Wieck has said in the past concerning the need for faster releases, but I'm not going to assume anything.) 4. How many new cards does Nights of Reckoning actually contain? (Possibly something White Wolf hadn't intended to specify just yet but since I'm listing critical questions, this surely qualifies.) Not intending to bash you for information you personally may not have or may not allowed to give just yet. But I think these are the sorts of questions the previous poster was hoping to have answered. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > That post is still kind of problematic to people who are striving > to understand White Wolf's current position on release timing. > It suggests a few critical questions and no one seems to be offering > any answers to those questions: > > 1. What is White Wolf's distinction between a "full release" vs. a > product containing new cards but isn't a "full release? Can't answer that. > 2. Although the post David Zopf provided a link to suggests that > two previous releases were timed for shorter windows than nine > months due to their size, no indication was made that this would > become a future policy. So when did the "full release" distinction > become relevant? > > 3. Why did the "full release" distinction become relevant? (It's easy > to speculate about the things Steve Wieck has said in the past > concerning the need for faster releases, but I'm not going to assume > anything.) 2 and 3: When and why? Because (and when) people tried to claim that the world was ending because this impending product release somehow constituted White Wolf 'lying' about the 9-month release schedule. This prompted LSJ's rebuttal: the 9-month release schedule doesn't apply to every release, only those that constitute 'full expansions', and thus people over-reacted based on their assumptions about what sort of release Nights of Reckoning is or will be. > 4. How many new cards does Nights of Reckoning actually contain? > (Possibly something White Wolf hadn't intended to specify just yet > but since I'm listing critical questions, this surely qualifies.) 4. Oscar has indicated on IRC that a full 'this is what the set will be' statement hasn't been made yet because WW isn't ready to give details yet - because the last few details aren't finalized yet, and they want to give an accurate statement once they are. > Not intending to bash you for information you personally may not > have or may not allowed to give just yet. But I think these are > the sorts of questions the previous poster was hoping to have > answered. > > Fred -John Flournoy

I remeber this: WHITE WOLF ACQUIRES VAMPIRE CCG FROM WIZARDS OF THE COAST ATLANTA, Ga. æ White Wolf, best known for its roleplaying game Vampire: The Masquerade, has acquired the license for production of its collectible card game Vampire: The Eternal Struggle from former licensee Wizards of the Coast. Designed by Magic: The Gathering creator Richard Garfield, Vampire: The Eternal Struggle adapts White Wolf¹s popular roleplaying game to the CCG format with over 1,000 cards depicting various aspects of the World of Darkness. The advanced strategy and social elements of Vampire: The Eternal Struggle earned it a 1999 selection as one of the ten best CCGs by InQuest Magazine. [continues, but you've got the point] And how happy I was reading that, after a vacuum of a couple of years with NOTHING being printed. I still am excited to know everytime a new expansion is announced, whatever it is, I love this game, and I can only thank WW for bringing it back to life. But hey, that's just me and I would be foolish to say that I speak for anyone else... About being too early or too expensive having it released in April, I really would need more info to decide...from all I know, it could be an expansion of 11 cards, reprints only and all boosters come with the same content... Dan, www.dominiosp.hpg.com.br

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1134164999.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> 2. Although the post David Zopf provided a link to suggests that >> two previous releases were timed for shorter windows than nine >> months due to their size, no indication was made that this would >> become a future policy. So when did the "full release" distinction >> become relevant? >> >> 3. Why did the "full release" distinction become relevant? (It's easy >> to speculate about the things Steve Wieck has said in the past >> concerning the need for faster releases, but I'm not going to assume >> anything.) > > 2 and 3: When and why? Because (and when) people tried to claim that > the world was ending because this impending product release somehow > constituted White Wolf 'lying' about the 9-month release schedule. > > This prompted LSJ's rebuttal: the 9-month release schedule doesn't > apply to every release, only those that constitute 'full expansions', > and thus people over-reacted based on their assumptions about what sort > of release Nights of Reckoning is or will be. It's not a question of lying. It's a question of trying to figure out if the 9-month release promise actually means anything. Although WW can certainly be forgiven for not wanting to be tied to a 9-month schedule on (what amounts to) a 10-card release, if they're going to start cutting themselves significantly larger exemptions, then it may not really mean anything depending on what reasoning they present to justify it (should they ever choose to present any). And what LSJ said is not a "rebuttal" as far as I know. A rebuttal is a counterargument that is presumably based on known facts. What LSJ did, as far as I know, is suddenly present a new reason no one had ever head of before to explain the situation. And the explanation was missing a lot relevant supporting information. Fred

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 12:30:36 -0700, "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:eoeip1d9k3vhhcfju...@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:34:42 -0700, "Fred Scott" >> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: >> >>>I suppose if this is going to be some very limited expansion like >>>TAE***, that might mitigate things somewhat. >> >> Tenth Anniversary .......Egads? > >Tenth Anniversary Edition. Hmm. I thought that, but then thought that might imply it was a new base set or something. Maybe TAT, for Tenth Anniversary Tins? salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Defender of Ra wrote: > > God I hate Gehenna. And Caine. It was a very, very useful little bit of > > stupidity back inna date, but WW simply doesn't have a handle on the > > concept of a myth. Do you realize that Dark Ages was a *better* > > sourcebook because even though Caine's myth was omnipresent, Caine > > himself was *not* so the game was playable without vast amounts of > > inane plot devices and sanctimonious bs? But I digress. > > Do you think so? Dark Ages (at least in its first edition) had not one, > but two books of myth (Erciyes Fragments and Revelations of the Dark > Mother, as opposed to the Book of Nod). Most of the plots used in > Vampire Revised has its roots there. The myths existed, but the plots were local and immediate. The myths were not the plot itself. Gehenna was an entire plot built around a creation story that made no sense -- in fact, the FoS clanbook made fun of how it made no sense. "Gee, what you did to your brother was naughty, so I'm going to make you live forever and give you supernatural powers, but you have to keep being naughty to survive." I found this laughable in VtM 1st ed. . . but WW loved it, and it became the metaplot. An "end times" exclusively for a bunch of amoral parasites is similarly uncreative and paradoxical. You want an end-times? In the better games I saw run, "Gehenna" was what happened when some dumbass Sabbat broke the Masquerade in front of a couple of government agencies and vampires were, within a decade, rounded up or destroyed. . . and humanity gained access to supernatural powers en masse as a result of studies upon their captives. Failure to use these powers wisely starts a thaumaturgical cataclysm that threatens to destroy Earth. THAT'S Gehenna. But I digress. > Though one could argue that this does little difference in light of > VTES rules; any ally released will be far from powerful anyway (if for > nothing else, because they *are allies*, not regular crypt cards),. . . Noticed that. I am still amused at the fragility of werewolves in this game. Lupines in the RPG are the GM's way of saying, "You did something impossibly stupid so now you die." A race of nigh-indestructible, teleporting, super-strong wizards with invisible allies and free elder-level Celerity that understands you better than you understand them and, as it happens, hates you. Meanwhile, a Renegade Garou in the CCG is a speed bump for a competent combat deck. I'd say allies are a lot less powerful. But I understand the mechanical reasons why, and I think that's a lesser theme issue for Jyhad. I don't expect the next set will "break" allies. It might be fun if it tried. > I recall H:tR had a supplement on each supernatural type as the Hunters > view them. Walking Dead for wraiths/risen, Moonstruck for the > werewolves and so on. But everyone I know that played H:tR seems to > believe that the most common foe for the Hunters are the walking dead. > Maybe it's just a personal preference these players/Storytellers share > in common, but I the impression stuck on me. They are the most common foe, generally. The Risen was an invented monster that should have never been invented. But Kindred are the default "problem" in the WW universe. They come up more often than any other supernatural in the other books because a) they live where you live and b) they meddle constantly in mortal affairs. And Hunters should be concentrating on Kindred nearly exclusively. Garou don't need to kill people -- they can, but it's frowned upon. Kindred kill people out of hand. > >And mortals really should be > > slapping down kindred more often in game; we wouldn't even need the > > Masquerade if mortals couldn't do that. > > I don't know if this conforms to existing Masquerade canon. The > Masquerade exists not because any mortal can "slap down" Kindred at > will; it exists because mortals are out there in far superior numbers - > at a 1:10.000 ratio if I remember correctly. That is somewhat incorrect. Do recall that the Inquisition was not about Europe rising up against Cainites. It was about a small, dedicated group burning out established vampires with terrifying accuracy, especially considering their ignorance about their quarry. A small group of hunters can wipe out the vampires in a city, easily, with modern weaponry. More importantly, a *rich* group of hunters can locate those kindred with some hard work (violence is the easy part). Daylight is a big help in these endeavors. Kindred physical prowess, by the way, is overrated in the modern day. A kid with a AK and a decent willpower can torporize most Kindred. Violence is what happens when you screw up the Jyhad. The CCG is much more violent than the RPG (when the latter isn't played by munchkins). Kindred power is in hiding. If a vampire can't hide, 10 guys with a shovel can drag him screaming into the sun. Of course, you're right in that if Earth discovers vampires en masse, they are doomed to scientist cages. Serves them right. :-) And one more problem: the holy. True Faith is a big deal in Dark Ages, mostly because there aren't guns. But True Faith humans with guns would be a bigger threat than Garou for vampires. And if people start to realize there are vampires about, they might start to believe. That's what scared the elders in Dark Ages in the old sourcebooks: True Faith mortals rising up and burning them. > > A repeated note to WW: create a way, availible via multiple methods > > (Master, action, etc.) to rid the world of an in-play Event. > I don't think it would make that much sense. Gehenna Events are there > to represent global issues that affect anyone and are, for the most > part, cosmic shifts. They are shifts so dramatic that it takes a whole discard phase action to put them into play. Please. The low-level Gehenna Events can be more devastating to the table than some of the high-level ones. So long as the cost of an anti-Event card is balanced, it is fine mechanically. Thematically speaking, if one wanted to be rigid about flavor, Gehenna Events should develop over the course of a game AND be impossible to get rid of once in play -- pushing a Methuselah out of the Jyhad will not stop the Wrath of God. Of course, Gehenna is a poor theme, anyway, like the insane street preacher with a 10-year old sign reading, "the world ends this Thursday!" (In fact, one wonders why one of the Gehenna Events wouldn't end the game.) It is good that the theme is not done to completiong, both because it's a theme that doesn't deserve support and because of the obvious mechanical flaws. The notion that Gehenna Events need to be strong is silly to me. > I don't think any vampire, minion or Methuselah, > should have the power to get rid quickly and easily of such situations. > If he or she could, he or she should be able to win the Jyhad with no > more than a couple of gestures with his or her hand. Right, so what of the power of a Methuselah who *starts* Gehenna with a wave of its hand? You already have that absurdity in-game. Gehenna cannot mean the end of the world -- it can represent strife and tribulation, but it's as stupid an armageddon in the CCG as it is in the RPG, if not more. > Going back to power level and playability, I find > the Unmasking to be a poor example of how game-shattering an Event > could be. That was my point. I was tongue-in-cheek there. There is no way for the Unmasking to be broken. I was hoping WW would try in amusement. > That noted, let's remember in-play Events have an "easy", global way to > leave the table: oust the player controlling them. That's hardly an interesting in-game dynamic. That's not a counter at all. If I can oust you, I will. If I can't, I don't. I've played in other multiplayer games where there was a card type that couldn't be removed easily. . . but its player could. It led to stupid, uninteresting situations where you'd throw the balance of power out the window and eliminate someone because one global effect they threw out, offhand, was ruining your day. Global effects need to be checked far more than, say, Locations, because of their ability to shape the table. (Of course, Locations with global effects can be easily checked.) -- DoR

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "Defender of Ra" <rules...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:1134016836.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > (N.B. The Hunter book, though awful, did kill Wraith, I understand it, > > and Wraith was a paragraph's worth of premise then thousands of pages > > of suckage, so Hunter did have something going for it.) > > > > wrong forum for it, but I disagree: Wraith's setting and background was, > IMO, the best of the OWOD. It had playability issues, though. Yeah, like no geography for the world or motivation characters to do anything. If by setting and background you mean "premise," as I did, then we don't disagree much. The *idea* was good. The execution was beyond awful -- it was worth a book return. VtM had some play problems ("Um, if the only thing keeping humans from wiping us out is the Masquerade, what's with the Sabbat?"), but those were fixable with moderate work. Wraith was something you pretty much had to make up yourself. One Wraith sourcebook had the best rant I've ever read in a WW book, though. In any event, VtM's background is a lot more interesting, imo. I just wish that the CCG and the RPG both would involve itself in real-worldish issues to control discernable resources (Herds, political power, money) than over McGuffins (magical human eyeballs or enchanted leg bones, for example). Instead of a nod to D.C. with a powerbase, I'd rather see expansions based on locations as important as that. A game where geography mattered -- the opposite of Wraith. Can't go wrong. -- DoR

CthuluKitty wrote: > Different groups had their own > interpretations of when Gehenna would come, what the signs of it would > be, if those signs were present, or if Gehenna was a ridiculous myth > altogether. I personally liked this take on the World of Darkness much > more than what WW did in 3rd edition. The situation in Mage was even > worse IMO. Mage's problems was far mor basic: · Magick, if used intelligently, had no discernable limits for even a starting character. · Vampires couldn't exist. I'll leave the first point out as a naked, unsubstantiated assertion since it gets us more off-topic than normal. But the latter was more telling. The Technocracy hates vampires. The Technocracy pretty much controls the world. (Please don't post examples of where it's weak, etc. -- I know it isn't absolute -- the premise is that it is running the show and the Traditions are rebels.) Kindred want and need power for fun and survival. They control governments. The Technocracy needs to control humanity to succeed. It controls governments. And, finally, the Technocracy has better super-powers than the Kindred. There's simply no reason why the Camarilla, et. al., would be around in Mage. If I give Technocrat players five minutes they're whuppn' up on elder vampires in no time. After all, Tradition mages sit on their asses complaining about the good old days. Methselahs make countries go to war with each other over spite. Kindred would be purged. Easily. VtM, for all its faults, was simply the best sourcebook WW put out. Instead of having to invent stuff to explain stupidity, you could just throw stupidity out. Didn't like a clan? Throw it out. Mage, on the other hand, had concept problems at its core that you couldn't get past. . . unless your players were twits who wanted to blow stuff up and/or have sex with whatever didn't get blown up. Five minutes of thought broke that game down. I watched it happen. -- DoR

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Defender of Ra wrote: >> Though one could argue that this does little difference in light of >> VTES rules; any ally released will be far from powerful anyway (if for >> nothing else, because they *are allies*, not regular crypt cards),. . . > > Noticed that. I am still amused at the fragility of werewolves in this > game. Lupines in the RPG are the GM's way of saying, "You did something > impossibly stupid so now you die." A race of nigh-indestructible, > teleporting, super-strong wizards with invisible allies and free > elder-level Celerity that understands you better than you understand > them and, as it happens, hates you. Meanwhile, a Renegade Garou in the > CCG is a speed bump for a competent combat deck. > Yeah. The Renegade Garou says to himself, "Wait, why am I helping these vampires again?" and leaves. Oh, and about the Technocracy. The Technocracy doesn't really care about Vampires because Vampires don't, as a rule, make war on reality. As a matter of fact, most Vampires, particularly the Camarilla, help enforce it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Defender of Ra wrote: > Yeah. The Renegade Garou says to himself, "Wait, why am I helping these > vampires again?" and leaves. . . . but not before taking a Gangrel's head as a souvenir. It *is* a servant of the Wyrm, after all. > Oh, and about the Technocracy. The Technocracy doesn't really care about > Vampires because Vampires don't, as a rule, make war on reality. As a > matter of fact, most Vampires, particularly the Camarilla, help enforce > it. Vampires are Reality Deviants. Though they do help maintain the Paradigm in their own way, they still violate the same by merely existing. Worse, within their circles, they commit a variety of vulgar activities. (The fact that they kill and abuse humans is also mildly troubling, I'm sure.) And do keep in mind not all vampires uphold the Masquerade -- which, of course, is a serious plot problem, as I mentioned. More important are issues of *control.* You are right in that Kindred seem less threatening than, say Changlings (God I hate tho -- eh, we'll save that rant). But Kindred commit the unthinkable sin of being active. There is no good reason why a vampire wouldn't try to blood bond every senator, the president, and all of the supremes if he could. The only forces who would be able to stop him are a) other Kindred (who are doing the same thing) and b) Technocrats. The Technocracy isn't as concerned with vampiric vulgarity as it is with vampiric activities. As soon as you run a game with both factions acting intelligently, you end up with an all-out war. And the Kindred will lose. Nothing counters Prime 5. I do think that non-Mage magicians of the more conventional sort add a lot to the background of Vampire. Competent mortals are neat. I felt the same way about Lupines -- Garou were simply too much for a game of Vampire, but powerful, enigmatic Lupines (sans teleportation, etc.) were fine. Great, even. Another reason to join the Cam -- they might help protect you from random Lupine assaults. (That was how it was in games I influenced, at least.) (Garou bring up another problem in WW canon, btw: there's virtually no stopping an intelligent Glass Walker from annihilating the Kindred, especially with help from friends. A race of invisible allies that can follow vampires around and manipulate them is a bit much. The games worked better as stand-alone than as cosmopolitan affairs.) -- DoR

> To be clear, I'm not all that pissed (and I'd guess Mike isn't, either) > about what amounts to be a 10-card expansion. Nope, not pissed. Happy the game continues to grow. Overwhelmed (and surprised) by the frequency. Thats all. ***JediMike***

Changing subject since it's so off-topic. Defender of Ra escreveu: > Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > > Defender of Ra wrote: > > Do you think so? Dark Ages (at least in its first edition) had not one, > > but two books of myth (Erciyes Fragments and Revelations of the Dark > > Mother, as opposed to the Book of Nod). Most of the plots used in > > Vampire Revised has its roots there. > The myths existed, but the plots were local and immediate. The myths > were not the plot itself. Local and immediate? I believe you are referring to Gehenna plots within the books released near the end of Revised. That I understand. But even then, a good number of them were related to myths as they've shown up in these two books I've mentioned, written on Dark Ages vampires' perspective and readings on the Book of Nod. Usually I'd say that one could saw that coming since 2nd edition at least - once the setting came closer to Gehenna, obviously some things would get strange just so players and Storytellers alike would be caught off balance, and it could lead to a few exaggerations. But the core problem was there since 1st Edition. No matter how personal most books from the beginning were, the concept of Gehenna and impending doom was released there. > Gehenna was an entire plot built around a creation story that made no > sense -- in fact, the FoS clanbook made fun of how it made no sense. > "Gee, what you did to your brother was naughty, so I'm going to make > you live forever and give you supernatural powers, but you have to keep > being naughty to survive." I found this laughable in VtM 1st ed. . . > but WW loved it, and it became the metaplot. Oh, so you're talking about metaplot as a whole. I understand that, and we both know you're not the only one. I do liked metaplot, but mostly didn't use it. I saw it as a side bonus I'd get when buying gaming books - so if I never used metaplot content, it would made for something interesting to read at least. Of course, that tidbit is a matter of preference. Some plots I liked, some not. And we can safely say that even WW knew it got a little over the top, since the nWoD doesn't have metaplot at all. > An "end times" exclusively for a bunch of amoral parasites is similarly > uncreative and paradoxical. "Uncreative" is a matter of opinion. But how paradoxical? One could argue that the mere existence of a good bunch of parasites inbetween humanity for so much time without being discovered is paradoxical. I see this as poetic liberty necessary for a little fun in the stories - to make players never feel truly safe no matter how many contacts, allies and raw power the acquire during play. Sounds fair. But then again, nWoD is there to offer an alternative. No end times. No fixed myth of creation and such. You want an end-times? In the better games > I saw run, "Gehenna" was what happened when some dumbass Sabbat broke > the Masquerade in front of a couple of government agencies and vampires > were, within a decade, rounded up or destroyed. . . and humanity gained > access to supernatural powers en masse as a result of studies upon > their captives. Failure to use these powers wisely starts a > thaumaturgical cataclysm that threatens to destroy Earth. THAT'S > Gehenna. I believe one or two Gehenna scenarios in the last book offered such a story, if you drop down the "humanity with supernatural powers due to post research" part. That means the designers considered this possibility, even when metaplot began its course. > > I recall H:tR had a supplement on each supernatural type as the Hunters > > view them. Walking Dead for wraiths/risen, Moonstruck for the > > werewolves and so on. But everyone I know that played H:tR seems to > > believe that the most common foe for the Hunters are the walking dead. > > Maybe it's just a personal preference these players/Storytellers share > > in common, but I the impression stuck on me. > > They are the most common foe, generally. The Risen was an invented > monster that should have never been invented. It seems that the Orpheus designer thought similarly to you. There's no Risen unless one or two clever Spectre goes down on a projectors' empty body and went on a rampage. (in case you don't know Orpheus, projectors are mortals who can will their souls to travel to the afterlife, much like astral projection). Have you checked on that line? Orpheus has a very, very different take on the afterlife even if the line ends has some ties to Wraith (and none of these is related to political issues). It trimmed down the original setting to the basics and added a good x-files feel to it, since it deals with mortals approaching the afterlife and not the other way round. I loved it, even as I loved Wraith - it's good to have a very different take to play with ghosts. But Kindred are the > default "problem" in the WW universe. They come up more often than any > other supernatural in the other books because a) they live where you > live and b) they meddle constantly in mortal affairs. And Hunters > should be concentrating on Kindred nearly exclusively. Garou don't need > to kill people -- they can, but it's frowned upon. Kindred kill people > out of hand. b) is nice and I can see how Kindred *should* be the main antagonist. But in practice it wasn't, and a) seems to me a somewhat hindsight reasoning. Risen live where mortals live. Mages and Wraiths (for the most part) too, even Mummies. Changelings and Werewolves are the exception, and even a portion of them live with humans. The issue is what they can face, not what should be the first or second target for them (Hunters). They are as ignorant about the supernatural as any non-Imbued mortal can be. > > I don't know if this conforms to existing Masquerade canon. The > > Masquerade exists not because any mortal can "slap down" Kindred at > > will; it exists because mortals are out there in far superior numbers - > > at a 1:10.000 ratio if I remember correctly. > > That is somewhat incorrect. Do recall that the Inquisition was not > about Europe rising up against Cainites. It was about a small, > dedicated group burning out established vampires with terrifying > accuracy, especially considering their ignorance about their quarry. It depends on the take a Storyteller chooses on the issue. We have hints that vampires guided the Inquisition at some point, though obviously not much (due to reasons you point out, like True Faith's dangers and such). A > small group of hunters can wipe out the vampires in a city, easily, > with modern weaponry. More importantly, a *rich* group of hunters can > locate those kindred with some hard work (violence is the easy part). > Daylight is a big help in these endeavors. > Kindred physical prowess, by the way, is overrated in the modern day. A > kid with a AK and a decent willpower can torporize most Kindred. > Violence is what happens when you screw up the Jyhad. The CCG is much > more violent than the RPG (when the latter isn't played by munchkins). > Kindred power is in hiding. If a vampire can't hide, 10 guys with a > shovel can drag him screaming into the sun. It still has to do with numbers. The same Kid can't do the same to all vampires in his city, and you'd still need 10 Hunters with weaponry to take down all of them - provided they *can locate all of them and approach in a one-by-one basis*. I didn't read the Hunter gameline, but all the references to (imbued) Hunters in vampire books made that clear - they have to fear Hunters because (a) they can attack you in groups (b) you Kindred don't really know what they are and (c) they have daylight to act. If you Kindred don't stroll alone, don't leave your Haven unguarded by ghouls or traps or something and take measures to not be found, you're safe for the most part. If it was so easy to hunt vampires, even for the Imbued, how come the Inquisition/Society of Leopold didn't wipe them out of existence before? I believe most of the time, this approach on Hunters (even the Imbued ones) has much to do with storytellers' and players' expectations that hunting Kindred would be too much fun. This leads to a somewhat optimistic take on what hunters can do, and to an unrealistic view - as unealistic and uncreative as any plot WW has ever released. > Of course, you're right in that if Earth discovers vampires en masse, > they are doomed to scientist cages. Serves them right. :-) Of course :) > And one more problem: the holy. True Faith is a big deal in Dark Ages, > mostly because there aren't guns. But True Faith humans with guns would > be a bigger threat than Garou for vampires. And if people start to > realize there are vampires about, they might start to believe. That's > what scared the elders in Dark Ages in the old sourcebooks: True Faith > mortals rising up and burning them. But even at that time True Faith was all so rare. People could be superstitious, but they were living a harsher life than we have today. But again, I believe it's a matter of what take a Storyteller wants to have on the subject. Myself, I never used a NPC with True Faith because none of the stories I've ran had a situation where a character with True Faith appearing would've made sense. They're rare, so if I was to use them, I'd better include some plot where the Inquisition was involved, or that happened in a major european city, which was not the case. > Thematically speaking, if one wanted to be rigid about flavor, Gehenna > Events should develop over the course of a game Most do. To get the full reward of a Gehenna event, usually you have to build a deck toward the goal of building up events over gameplay. You say that even the ones that do not require Gehenna events in the table to function can be game-shattering. I'm still not convinced of that. Blood Trade only affects decks that play Boons. Restricted Vitae only affects decks that *depend* on hunting, and there's plenty of other effects that give you blood (I personally think that decks that *depend* on hunting have serious problems, even when no Gehenna event is in play). Thirst needs more events in play to be effective, otherwise it affects 1-caps only. The same goes for Nightmares Upon Nightmares. And Anthelios is strong, but it also helps your opponents. A single Minion Tap brought back by your prey can save him or her from ousting, and if you've played Anthelios, it's your responsability. The only exception is Unmasking, but I've already talked about it. AND be impossible to > get rid of once in play -- pushing a Methuselah out of the Jyhad will > not stop the Wrath of God. That's why I mentioned the 'oust them' possibility. If even ousting a Methuselah would not be thematically apropriate, how come a mere master or library card would be enough? We already gained Not to Be, which I find to be the most appropriate way to represent such an endevour - the event was bound to happen, but by some strange twist of fate, it didn't. I'd say that the designers already had made quite a stretch by creating ADV Jan's special, Black Hand Ritual, Emergency Preparations and Not to Be as means to deal with Events. Of course, Gehenna is a poor theme, anyway, > like the insane street preacher with a 10-year old sign reading, "the > world ends this Thursday!" (In fact, one wonders why one of the Gehenna > Events wouldn't end the game.) It is good that the theme is not done to > completiong, both because it's a theme that doesn't deserve support and > because of the obvious mechanical flaws. The notion that Gehenna Events > need to be strong is silly to me. But they aren't. They have serious playability issues, they require quite a setup, and if you use them in a drop-one-or-two basis, they aren't more game-shattering than, say, you sitting next to a combat deck when you have only 5x Dodges as combat defense. I would like to see someone providing a good example on how a single event can be game-shattering without a careful setup. In my playgroup, few people use them for playability reasons. Everytime I saw a deck being hosed by Events, usually that was because the Event in question just brought up a vey serious deckbuilding flaw - like a Tremere deck with not enough combat trying to push actions at 1-stealth only facing a Shambling Hordes or War Ghoul deck with Unmasking in play. I wouldn't blame the Unmasking on this case. Of course, one could argue that Events affect *everyone* on the table, not just you if you sit next to the *wrong* deck. But even then, the flaws on deckbuilding are there. Sometimes the same problems could arise from a cross-table deal or other card that goes around the table, from Anarch Troublemaker or Millicent Smith. That's why I ask of all of you who feels Events are bad for the game to tell me your stories. Maybe I'm doubtful because not many people play Events in here... > Right, so what of the power of a Methuselah who *starts* Gehenna with a > wave of its hand? You already have that absurdity in-game. No, no vampire starts the Event. Otherwise they would be Master cards. That's why a new cardtype was invented - to represent a situation no methuselah or minion in the game could handle alone. That's why the counter-events are quite a stretch, moved by game rules issues, moreso than the Events themselves. > > That noted, let's remember in-play Events have an "easy", global way to > > leave the table: oust the player controlling them. > > That's hardly an interesting in-game dynamic. That's not a counter at > all. If I can oust you, I will. If I can't, I don't. But this game in particular has other in-game mechanics to help you with that: its multiplayer-oriented nature. Usually, when a player affects the whole table with a host of events, it will get way easier to amass allies to gang on the event player. I've played in > other multiplayer games where there was a card type that couldn't be > removed easily. . . but its player could. It led to stupid, > uninteresting situations where you'd throw the balance of power out the > window and eliminate someone because one global effect they threw out, > offhand, was ruining your day. I don't see a problem with that. How different it is from 3 players ganging up on the one who has vote lock, or when he or she is playing sneak bleed and they don't have enough intercept? On the other hands, how many times a War Ghoul deck with Unmasking is left alone because any other player has some means to deal with it? (blocking the recruiting of the WGs, lots of Fortitude, ally-stealing cards, ousting the player before he could torporize all your vampires etc.) > Global effects need to be checked far more than, say, Locations, > because of their ability to shape the table. (Of course, Locations with > global effects can be easily checked.) I still need an example to be convinced... Sure there's more ways to burn/steal a location than there is to get rid of Events, but they don't show up that often. Some locations can be key for the GW a player acquires, specially votey ones. How come an Event that usually affects its wielder as much as the rest of the table can be worse? best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

The Lasombra wrote: > On 8 Dec 2005 09:03:37 -0800, "ANCILLA" > <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote: > > >Players are not business, however. > >They are those who decide whether those businesses continue or not. > >And they might simply get tired of new expansions. > >So better be nice to them, or they will help your business end. > > Adding new expansions is being nice to them. > > Providing continued support for the game is the ultimate gamble for > the game company and the card designers. > > They believe you will buy some of the new set, regardless of when it > is released. I agree with them. It is my experience that people like > new things, and will like this new expansion when it is in their > hands. > > Alternately, you will quit buying cards for 1 set and continue to play > the game. Danger. If I quit buying cards for one set, I've just missed out on 100 or so G4 vampires. Now, if I'm interested in the next set, I'll have these huge gaps of vampires with which crypt construction will be more difficult. If I miss a set significantly, I'll probably drop out of the game for a good long while. I don't know, as I haven't missed a set yet. We'll see. (april's going to be tough... at least my gas bill will be down by then). > You are never harmed by new cards being introduced. No, but a play group could be. New cards that are overly complex, or does not contain anything relevent for newer players that become purchased become a useless and frustrating purchase for new players. I'm having this problem now with trying to get new players to buy cards (all they want to buy right now are Sabbat, Cam LoB and Starters. So our stores Anarch stock is sitting there, doing nothing). ~SV

On 10 Dec 2005 07:04:18 -0800, "Screaming Vermillian" <alexand...@gmail.com> wrote: >Danger. If I quit buying cards for one set, I've just missed out on 100 >or so G4 vampires. No, you visit a singles dealer and buy a complete set of vampires for $15. Or multiple sets for multiples of $15. Buying sets in standard boosters boxes is not required for continued playability.

In message <1134156117.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, ANCILLA <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> writes: >Because I would simply like to see >less cards being released. Hello. Please sit down and read the following carefully: This is not a full expansion. It is possible to release something more frequently without upping the number of cards being released signficantly. If either of these things cause you trouble to understand, stop posting. YOU DON'T HAVE DETAILS. PLEASE STOP INVENTING SPURIOUS DETAILS BASED ON THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Changing subject since it's so off-topic. > Local and immediate? I believe you are referring to Gehenna plots > within the books released near the end of Revised. That I understand. > But even then, a good number of them were related to myths as they've > shown up in these two books I've mentioned, written on Dark Ages > vampires' perspective and readings on the Book of Nod. Ah, but relationship is not *determinative*. Sure, plots involved old vampires screwing around, but they were specific vampires living in specific, geographical locales involved in local politics with a consistent history associated with that area. . . You see the difference between that and "Antedeluvian X wakes up and, generically, many vampires in a generic location are agitated"? The former is a gamebook. The latter is an internet discussion that was passed off as a gamebook. And, in the latter, the only two options for the WW writers were to a) reestablish the status quo or b) change the line forever. They were never willing to do (b) and so (a) was inevitable. One of the reasons why the line was uncreative when Gehenna came in. I recall the Nosferatu Antie waking up and nuclear weapons getting involved. Don't worry: it was all settled by the end of the scenario, like a Simpsons episode (which parodies normal sitcoms). Calling vampires Cainites can add flavor. Having vamires deal with fallout from Caine's activities is dumb. Flavor is fine, so long as it doesn't eat immediate plotlines. > Oh, so you're talking about metaplot as a whole. I understand that, and > we both know you're not the only one. I do liked metaplot, but mostly > didn't use it. I saw it as a side bonus I'd get when buying gaming > books - so if I never used metaplot content, it would made for > something interesting to read at least. After a point, the metaplot began to eat up resources better used to establish world depth. Dark Age worldbooks gave you a better feel and presence in the geographical climes described because, I argue, in part, Caine wasn't the point. > "Uncreative" is a matter of opinion. Not completely. A sufficient degree of imitation can be deemed "uncreative". In fact, if you're stepping on someone's copyrights in a genre, uncreativity can have legal effect. (Games Workshop once sued Blizzard over Orcs.) Though I'll concede it's a very fuzzy thing. > But how paradoxical? One could > argue that the mere existence of a good bunch of parasites inbetween > humanity for so much time without being discovered is paradoxical. "Good" parasites? I think you're referring to a part of Gehenna's story that I missed. > I > see this as poetic liberty necessary for a little fun in the stories - > to make players never feel truly safe no matter how many contacts, > allies and raw power the acquire during play. Sounds fair. I did that by having humans rise up and kill them. Then, to keep the knowlege of Kindred existence from spreading, a Camarilla "cleanup crew" (a concept that I never saw in the books but might have been written about in some of the later stuff) would show up and burn out any sign of vampiric activity, up to and including destruction of financial and political entities backed by Kindred. All mortals involved would be killed (rare -- this aggravates the problem) or bought off for huge sums and/or mind controlled. Kindred found to be a threat to the Masquerade were summarially executed by terrified and terribly strong Archons backed by two to three Justicars. Screw Gehenna. You put the threat of death before a vampire at the hands of the entire planet, and they'll toe the line. > But then again, nWoD is there to offer an alternative. No end times. No > fixed myth of creation and such. And nWoD has its own problems that we need not get into. > You want an end-times? In the better games > > I saw run, "Gehenna" was what happened when some dumbass Sabbat broke > > the Masquerade in front of a couple of government agencies... > I believe one or two Gehenna scenarios in the last book offered such a > story, if you drop down the "humanity with supernatural powers due to > post research" part. That means the designers considered this > possibility, even when metaplot began its course. If they had taken the Sabbat seriously, that scenario would have happened before 1400 AD. > It seems that the Orpheus designer thought similarly to you. There's no > Risen unless one or two clever Spectre goes down on a projectors' empty > body and went on a rampage. (in case you don't know Orpheus, projectors > are mortals who can will their souls to travel to the afterlife, much > like astral projection). > > Have you checked on that line? Orpheus has a very, very different take > on the afterlife even if the line ends has some ties to Wraith (and > none of these is related to political issues). It trimmed down the > original setting to the basics and added a good x-files feel to it, > since it deals with mortals approaching the afterlife and not the other > way round. I loved it, even as I loved Wraith - it's good to have a > very different take to play with ghosts. Orpheus actually sounds more like Delta Green. That's a modern-day Call of Cthulhu line. > But Kindred are the > > default "problem" in the WW universe. They come up more often than any > > other supernatural in the other books because a) they live where you > > live and b) they meddle constantly in mortal affairs. > b) is nice and I can see how Kindred *should* be the main antagonist. > But in practice it wasn't, and a) seems to me a somewhat hindsight > reasoning. Risen live where mortals live. Mages and Wraiths (for the > most part) too, even Mummies. Changelings and Werewolves are the > exception, and even a portion of them live with humans. Garou and Changelings have their own, introverted societies. (The former shouldn't, really, but that's a different rant.) It's back to what I said before: taking WW canon at face value, a Kindred should have the POTUS Dominated and Blood Bonded. A Kindred should have the same done to your mayor. Hell, to many on the city council. The Bloods and the Crips should probably be a front for a couple of Kindred. They're a conspiracy made plausible (using the term loosely) via super powers. Hunters will deal with Kindred more often b/c Kindred interefere more with human lives than Garou et. al. This actually happens in tabletop. Werewolf games often involve no Sleeper contact of significance _at_all_. Mage society is fairly insular -- you can spend all your time in the Umbra just to avoid paradox. And Mages don't want to eat people. They don't commit assault, battery, rape, and grand larceny just to survive. Their conspiracy looks more like a social club. We can agree to disagree -- I admit this is a fuzzy concept. But from both canon AND the way an average game is run, vampire is going to have a player deal with mortals day in and day out. The other games might not even find you on Earth. > The issue is what they can face, not what should be the first or second > target for them (Hunters). They are as ignorant about the supernatural > as any non-Imbued mortal can be. Built-in supernatural senses will fix that, won't it? What happens when a race of mortals learns how to tell vampires in a crowd, unerringly? You get a massacre (of mortals) or a war. > > That is somewhat incorrect. Do recall that the Inquisition was not > > about Europe rising up against Cainites. It was about a small, > > dedicated group burning out established vampires with terrifying > > accuracy, especially considering their ignorance about their quarry. > > It depends on the take a Storyteller chooses on the issue. We have > hints that vampires guided the Inquisition at some point, though > obviously not much (due to reasons you point out, like True Faith's > dangers and such). We are both right. It's not a hint, either; the old Ventrue clanbook mentions a Kindred starting the Inquisition to get at his foes. The Lasombra were WAAAAY to close to the church. It backfired. A bunch of guys with True Faith burned them out (iirc) in the church, and then used their newfound knowledge from tortured vamps to go on a rampage or two. You are right that True Faith's power is dependent on the Storyteller. . . but it's also dependent upon players. A smart player who realizes that Faith can be developed and supported by exposure to the supernatural could seek to "harvest" Faith by encouraging some mortals to believe. This is doable under WW mechanics. The results would be. . . unpleasant for Kindred. So it's player and Storyteller, both. > It still has to do with numbers. The same Kid can't do the same to all > vampires in his city, and you'd still need 10 Hunters with weaponry to > take down all of them - provided they *can locate all of them and > approach in a one-by-one basis*. Not a problem. The strength of the Kindred is in ghouls and retainers. If we "real world" this, you always end up with groups fighting groups. The Kindred have another problem: the Masquerade. If a Hunter is a part of a government agency, they have problems. If Hunters make a lot of noise, they have problems. The Hunters just need to make noise. Blow up a building, get vampires on tape, show anomalous patterns of blood-borne disease spread. . . an individual Kindred who survives a Hunter attack may be taken down by Archons for being too "noisy." > If you Kindred don't stroll alone, don't leave your > Haven unguarded by ghouls or traps or something and take measures to > not be found, you're safe for the most part. I agree. Again, Kindred are strong because they *hide*. Presence and Auspex are the power Disciplines. Potence is a sucker's bet. > If it was so easy to hunt vampires, even for the Imbued, how come the > Inquisition/Society of Leopold didn't wipe them out of existence > before? Kindred did what they did best: manipulate. They bribed and influenced the powers that be through mortal agents. (You don't want to get too close to Inquisitors b/c of possible True Faith.) They created mundane fallout to the Inquisition: do recall that it existed to stamp out heresy, and that ruffled feathers (and started wars). They purged their ranks of "noisy" kindred. Then they went balls-to-the-wall: they created a massive, worldwide conspiracy dedicated to encouraging *secularism* AND forced every one of their kind to hide in the shadows upon pain of death. That's a pretty big reaction to the Society of Leopold. An effective one, too. There was fallout from that decision. Emphasis on science has given the kine the ability to slaughter them more effectively than ever before. That's the irony of modern VtM: the Kindred have mopped themselves into a corner. > I believe most of the time, this approach on Hunters (even the Imbued > ones) has much to do with storytellers' and players' expectations that > hunting Kindred would be too much fun. This leads to a somewhat > optimistic take on what hunters can do, and to an unrealistic view - as > unealistic and uncreative as any plot WW has ever released. Optimistic. . . ummmm. . . okay, you will take out the first couple of Kindred, probably neonates -- maaaybe a Prince or ancilla, but I doubt it. Nevertheless, you will get in some kills. You're unexpected. Then the Prince has exactly two options (if he's alive): Eliminate the Hunters or run for his life. The latter is required because if he doesn't solve the problem, he has failed the Masquerade. . . and the Archons will NOT be forgiving. The Cam will come in and ruin credit card ratings, screw up mortgages, blood bond, dominate, blackmail, assassinate, intimidate, bribe, kidnap and extort their way through the Hunter ranks. Look, it's not "Hunter v. the Prince." Hunters can actually win that war. Princes are really, really strong in many cases, but smart Hunters want to blow the lid on vamps -- and the NSA and the CDC are all ears. The Hunters have the initiative, though they are ignorant and crunchy. AND the Society of Leopold may catch up with noisy Hunters and start to clue them in. . . the Prince has a serious problem. Very serious. The Camarilla, a worldwide conspiracy with assets in the trillions, has an annoyance. They can solve the problem. And if the Prince can't solve the problem, he, too, can be solved. That isn't optimistic. That's a cycle of despair. If I'm running a Hunter game, I HAVE to clue the PCs into vampiric society early. If I don't, and I even roughly follow canon, the Cam will come down on the PCs. And they will lose. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. The Cam cannot allow Hunters a foothold. If it means they have to spend $100k for every dollar of Hunter equipment and effort, they'll do it in a heartbeat. Smart Hunters would be forced to act quietly enough to keep the Illuminati (that's what we're talking about here) from slaying them. Then they have to blow the lid on vamps without getting intercepted by a Kindred pawn in government. It would be a high-stakes, tense thriller. I wouldn't call it optimistic, though. > > And one more problem: the holy. True Faith is a big deal in Dark Ages, > > mostly because there aren't guns. But True Faith humans with guns would > > be a bigger threat than Garou for vampires. And if people start to > > realize there are vampires about, they might start to believe. That's > > what scared the elders in Dark Ages in the old sourcebooks: True Faith > > mortals rising up and burning them. > > But even at that time True Faith was all so rare. People could be > superstitious, but they were living a harsher life than we have today. > But again, I believe it's a matter of what take a Storyteller wants to > have on the subject. You're right in that it's Storyteller fiat. The reason for that is the canon *changed*. True Faith was a detail, a sidenote in VtM. In Dark Ages it developed systems, systems that made Faith reliable and replicable, in essence. That's a big, big difference. > Restricted Vitae > only affects decks that *depend* on hunting, and there's plenty of > other effects that give you blood (I personally think that decks that > *depend* on hunting have serious problems, even when no Gehenna event > is in play). Not in my experience. The point of RV is to *force* hunting. I've only seen it used in FoS and Tremere blood assault decks. Trust me, the entire table had to hunt after getting a workover from those. RV dooms some players to ouster when one of those decks hits. If you "splash" RV in, sure, it's a detail. But if you're already hurting blood supply. . . > We already gained Not to Be, which I find to be the most appropriate > way to represent such an endevour - the event was bound to happen, but > by some strange twist of fate, it didn't. No thematic reason for its existance. Methuselah shouldn't be able to trigger the Wrath of God. They certainly shouldn't be able to stop it. > I'd say that the designers already had made quite a stretch by creating > ADV Jan's special, Black Hand Ritual, Emergency Preparations and Not to > Be as means to deal with Events. Limited to very narrow decktypes or low playability, all. > > The notion that Gehenna Events > > need to be strong is silly to me. > > But they aren't. They have serious playability issues, they require > quite a setup. . . Not all, I think. Uncanceallbility is strong in and of itself. I think that the key to using Events is to have a strong, core concept that uses Events to aggravate one's advantage. The Unmasking is weak because allies are weak. It's only good as an enabler, imo. Knocking out the Cam or Sabbat or, as I mentioned above, using Restricted Vitae well can boost an already decent or strong deck. It's a low-cost play with broad effects. Again, I don't think Gehenna Events are *too* powerful. I think: 1) They would have to be more significant and less controllable to be thematic and 1a) it's good that they are weak, thematically, or they'd hurt the game if they were stronger and 1b) it's a stupid theme, anyway, so good riddance. 2) Because they are a strong (not overstrong) game concept, and are pretty generically playable, they should have more generic counters. > No, no vampire starts the Event. Otherwise they would be Master cards. Actions aren't Master cards but represent Methuselah manipulations. "Hm," says Nefertiti. "I think I shall use Legal Manipulations to screw up those bank records. I don't know why, but it sounds fun." > That's why a new cardtype was invented - to represent a situation no > methuselah or minion in the game could handle alone. Methuselah put Events into play with less effort than used to play actions. They can handle them fine. > > > Events have an "easy", global way to > > > leave the table: oust the player controlling them. > > > > That's hardly an interesting in-game dynamic. That's not a counter at > > all. > > But this game in particular has other in-game mechanics to help you > with that: its multiplayer-oriented nature. We will have to agree to disagree. I've played LOTS of multiplayer games and I find vampire politics to be unsophisticated compared to some of those -- gauche in a few cases. Vampire has a better multiplayer mechanic than most -- pred-prey is an innovation. But INWO, for example, is a much more terrifying of players cooperating to beat another down. I've played games where deals are essential to victory. I could be mute all game in Jyhad and sweep. > > I've played in > > other multiplayer games where there was a card type that couldn't be > > removed easily. . . but its player could. It led to stupid, > > uninteresting situations where you'd throw the balance of power out the > > window and eliminate someone because one global effect they threw out, > > offhand, was ruining your day. > > I don't see a problem with that. How different it is from 3 players > ganging up on the one who has vote lock, or when he or she is playing > sneak bleed and they don't have enough intercept? You are confusing cardtype with deck strategy. If I put out ONE card and now I must die because of that ONE card, it is a vastly different situation than where I must die because my deck is an Unholy Overpowered Designer-Loves-Me Cheese, for example. The latter is acceptable. The former is not. > > Global effects need to be checked far more than, say, Locations, > > because of their ability to shape the table. (Of course, Locations with > > global effects can be easily checked.) > > I still need an example to be convinced...How come an Event that usually affects > its wielder as much as the rest of the table can be worse? You really haven't seen Restricted Vitae work well, have you? :-) If an Event is used well, it doesn't affect its controller at all. -- DoR

James Coupe wrote: > ANCILLA <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> writes: > >Because I would simply like to see > >less cards being released. > > Hello. > > Please sit down and read the following carefully: > > This is not a full expansion. > > It is possible to release something more frequently without > upping the number of cards being released signficantly. > > If either of these things cause you trouble to understand, stop posting. Of course I am over-reacting. It can be nothing else, since I do not know enough to make fully valid conclusions. But I ain't gonna stop complaining. If one can predict problems, the sooner one starts shouting the better. Everybody has the right to have his voice heard, and it always happens at the expense of those unwilling to listen.

In message <1134241053.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, ANCILLA <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> writes: >Of course I am over-reacting. Then please stop spewing bullshit nonsense until you have some details. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Defender of Ra" <rules...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1134182042.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... [snip] > In any event, VtM's background is a lot more interesting, imo. I just > wish that the CCG and the RPG both would involve itself in > real-worldish issues to control discernable resources (Herds, political > power, money) than over McGuffins (magical human eyeballs or enchanted > leg bones, for example). Instead of a nod to D.C. with a powerbase, I'd > rather see expansions based on locations as important as that. Total agreement. Bumpity bump! Definitely one of several reasons why I'm waiting before buying into Legacies. The background just doesn't capture my interest. I like the design from what I've seen in terms of card interactions, mechanics, etc., but the backstory doesn't interest me. I will eventually buy the set in order to maintain a collection, but I'm not as excited as I have been in the past, although the Bloodlines aspect definitely compensates enough for me. The other reasons why I'm waiting is that I haven't fully explored the last expansion yet. Of course, now that I'm behind, I'll have just started exploring LoB when the Nights of Reckoning comes out. But I also know that it doesn't really matter. I'll just buy (from The Lasombra, of course) when I'm good and ready. But I'm not going to stop playing because of it. I might agree with some of the people complaining about the schedule, but I hate the way some of them are arguing about it. Sidenote: C'mon people, how many times do we have to bitch about top-posting and non-quoting? Ultimately, I would rather WW keep supporting the game than not. If it requires the current schedule, fine. I'm happier with the stuff Oscar Garza and Robert Goudie and Ben Swainbank and Josh Duffin and Ben Peal and friends are doing (Championships, Nergal, BYO Storylines, Create-A-Clan, Draft while Drinking etc.) then having new cards every 6-9 months. On the other hand, if buying the new set is required to stay competitive (like other CCGs with fabulous cash prizes at huge tournaments with lavish extravagant statues and playing areas), then I'll probably put my cards into a small dark box because they'll be worthless anyway. But I don't see that happening. Elephant Guardians get KRC'ed just as good as Wolf Companions. They're just cooler to look at. I'm not advocating a boycott or anything else. I'm also not mad. I'm just stating what's best for me. My preference is a slower production schedule. But I'm not going to firebomb LSJ because of it. I'm going to firebomb LSJ because it's EXCITING! -- Mike Ooi "You have left the world. Click to continue." PS Other reasons I'm not buying yet: 1. No money. 2. Current organization of my inventory cannot handle an influx of new cards yet. 3. No time. Only enough time to waste it on this post. 4. No Kisha no justice. No Bimji, no peace. 5. There is no 5. 6. It makes Oscar nervous, so nervous he might make a mistake. And then I will seize him. PPS I would advise against firebombing LSJ. LSJ doesn't sleep; he waits. In the Dark.

When a relic nuke detonated in Enoch, and a second in the Labyrinth, the last Great Maelstrom in the Shadowlands shunted hundreds upon thousands of Wraiths back into the skinlands -- this is chronicled in Ends of Empire, the last book in the Wraith line. Some beings who work for the Powers That Be looked down shortly after, said "holy shit, when did that happen?" and bonked a number of mortals with somewhat-divine powers to find and destroy these anomalies. They had the somewhat unanticipated effect of allowing them to also find and harm vampires, shapeshifters, mages, and the like. Thi is chronicled in the book that came with the Hunter Storyteller Screen (or maybe the Storytellers guide, i can't remember). Thus, the reason most players assume the Hunter's primary role is the hunt the walking dead is, well, because it is. Hunter: The Reckoning is Army of Darkness the RPG, as written (poorly) by White Wolf. Interesting notes about the crappiness that was Hunter: 1) Each groups line of powers had an uber-cheesy fifth dot that, by the rules presented in the core book, could not ever be attained. I heard that a book eventually did come out saying how these powers were learned two years later, but by then I had long given up on the line. 2) The guidlines for making baddies for your Hunters to kill pretty much limited baddie power levels to a rank one (two at best) werewolf, or a 10th gen vampire. Yeah, those are the real hosses of the world of darkness, all right. I used to thing Hunter was the worst thing to happen to the World of Darkness. Then I read Demon.

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:jalmf.1457$Ev.401@fed1read06... > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:JAhmf.3649$nA2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >> news:Gl0mf.1141$Ev.452@fed1read06... >>> "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message >>> news:4f0mf.3553$4o7...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... >>>> "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >>>> news:5g%lf.1135$Ev.100@fed1read06... >>>>> "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1134065969....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> Then just wait until July to buy cards from the NoR set. Voila! A >>>>>> nine >>>>>> months' delay between sets. >>>>> >>>>> Cool. That'll work. Except of course, we need everybody else's >>>>> agreement not to play the cards for another three months as well. >>>> >>>> Why is that? There's been a near-zero escalation across all of the >>>> VTES >>>> product released. >>> >>> So what? It's the real world, we're talking about here. It doesn't >>> matter what the "escalation" is, other peoples' cards affect my >>> play. >> >> Accomodating that effect can be done by reading this newsgroup and the >> online card text, if you choose not to invest in a set. > > I think you're missing the point. This is just bickering over the claim > that waiting until July to buy the cards is "just like a nine months' > delay between sets". I posted to say that was bullshit and it is > bullshit. OK. I'll concede that it isn't "just" (=exactly) like a nine month delay between sets. Is it identical and ideal? No, certianly not. But mentioning the possible adaptations needed is relevant (and wasn't offered paternalistically, or pretentiously), since they are relatively trivial adjustments to make... > So I don't see why it makes a difference to start > discussing how people can adapt. Each person already knows how he or > she prefers to adapt to increasing numbers of cards in the game without > others paternalistically listing all the options. The issue is whether > it's a good thing that they be forced to adapt sooner rather than later. > It would be more constructive to stick to that issue rather than trying > to change it. > OK. An issue, then, which I'd like to explore is this; What is the salient negative impact (after 18 months) of releasing, for example, 100 cards at a time in 6 month releases, vs. releasing 150 cards at a time in 9 month releases? TTBOMK, this is what people who have a complaint are complaining about, and I don't understand why. I don't see a salient difference, since you end up with new 300 cards being released in the same 18 month timeframe. If there is a temporary upward drift in the number of cards that WW is releasing due to LoB, then it could be because of several possible reasons, only one of which is "WW suxx0rs, and wants to take more of my hard-earned money" (key in my mind; bloolines take a larger number of cards to make a viable release, since they cover a lot of ground, both in terms of number of clans, and unique disciplines). >>> They affect the metagame and the additional choice allows for >>> improvement in certain types of decks. Cut it any way you like, >>> "waiting until July to buy the new cards" is NOT like pretending >>> there's a nine-month delay unless everybody doesn't play the new >>> cards. So let's stick to the real issues and not some pretentious, >>> make-believe way of looking at things. >> >> Don't pretend like you didn't recognize the tongue-in-cheek nature of my >> "customized release" comment, Fred. You cannot fool me anymore...you are >> waaay smarter than that. > > Actually, I was more responding to Emmit's comment than your's. OK. I recognize that not buying in isn't ideal or identical to a longer release schedule. OTOH it is fairly easy to not buy a set, and still remain competitive. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:rthnf.3704$fO5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > OK. An issue, then, which I'd like to explore is this; > > What is the salient negative impact (after 18 months) of releasing, for > example, 100 cards at a time in 6 month releases, vs. releasing 150 cards at > a time in 9 month releases? TTBOMK, this is what people who have a > complaint are complaining about, and I don't understand why. I don't see a > salient difference, since you end up with new 300 cards being released in > the same 18 month timeframe. Actually, if that's all it is, I'd have to agree...more or less. I'm sure there are a few differences but I can't think of anything that really bothers me. If that's what all this boils down to, this may just amount to lousy public relations management on White Wolf's part. At one point, Steve said they'd refrain from putting out expansions faster than every nine months, without regard to how many cards every nine months that meant. So sue our simplistic asses, most of us innocently assumed that meant one expansion every nine months. But you're right. It would be more meaningful to get an idea of how many new cards every time-period-of-some-sort will get released, assume that approximately one third will be rares, one third vampires or uncommon type of rarity, and one third commons. And who cares how many expansions that boils down to? But I don't understand why you assume that this is what people are complaining about. LSJ's comments about the "full release" are so cryptic and lacking in detail that no one knows what the justification for releasing after 6 months boils down to. Less cards per expansion? How would we know that if we don't know: 1) What the original intent of Steve Wieck's minimum-9-month guarantee meant in terms of new cards printed; 2) What is meant by a "full expansion"; and 3) How many new cards would get printed in 18 months if they printed by less-than-full expansions. I think people are complaining because they truly suspect that White Wolf is going to wind up printing more new cards in the end than they otherwise would have, had they religiously stuck to their guarantee. Myself, I guess it's not worth worrying about until we know more. I hope they ultimately clarify their guarantee so we know what it really means. (Or if they don't intend to abide by any guarantee, just admit that and we can proceed accordingly.) > OK. I recognize that not buying in isn't ideal or identical to a longer > release schedule. OTOH it is fairly easy to not buy a set, and still remain > competitive. Sure. I'll concede that. I wouldn't concede competitiveness is necessarily the only objective some of us care about where buying cards is concerned, but you are surely right about this. Fred

Defender of Ra wrote: > Mage's problems was far mor basic: > Magick, if used intelligently, had no discernable limits for even a > starting character. Wrong. > Vampires couldn't exist. Wrong. > I'll leave the first point out as a naked, unsubstantiated assertion > since it gets us more off-topic than normal. And because you can't back it up. > But the latter was more > telling. The Technocracy hates vampires. The Technocracy pretty much > controls the world. (Please don't post examples of where it's weak, > etc. -- I know it isn't absolute -- the premise is that it is running > the show and the Traditions are rebels.) Unless the Technocracy and the Camarilla were in cahoots at the highest levels. Or unless the Technocracy had a long-term plan to eliminate vampirism without mass destruction. Or unless the...whatever, dude. Your failures of imagination are not the game's problem. > Kindred want and need power for fun and survival. They control > governments. > The Technocracy needs to control humanity to succeed. It controls > governments. Religions promote spiritual values. They control governments. Capitalism promotes materialistic values. It controls governments. These are not necessarily contradictions. The World of Darkness got pretty cluttered if you wanted to use every system and every splatbook, but creative Storytellers could make the conspiracies and mysteries twist around each other like a pit full of snakes. They can fit together. > And, finally, the Technocracy has better super-powers than the Kindred. Or they didn't. Depending on whether in your game, the Techs were running the show, the Meths were running the show, or they were running each others' shows. > There's simply no reason why the Camarilla, et. al., would be around in > Mage. If I give Technocrat players five minutes they're whuppn' up on > elder vampires in no time. Wow, you play those elder vampires stupid. Which is one way to run them. But not the only way, obviously. > After all, Tradition mages sit on their > asses complaining about the good old days. Methselahs make countries go > to war with each other over spite. Kindred would be purged. Easily. So that's the only scenario you can think of? Failure. Of. Imagination. > VtM, for all its faults, was simply the best sourcebook WW put out. > Instead of having to invent stuff to explain stupidity, you could just > throw stupidity out. Didn't like a clan? Throw it out. God forbid we should have to invent anything. > Mage, on the > other hand, had concept problems at its core that you couldn't get > past. . . unless your players were twits who wanted to blow stuff up > and/or have sex with whatever didn't get blown up. Five minutes of > thought broke that game down. I watched it happen. And did nothing about it. Congratulations. Now would you take it to a RPG forum already?

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Defender of Ra wrote: > > Mage's problems was far mor basic: > > Magick, if used intelligently, had no discernable limits for even a > > starting character. > > Wrong. Fine, I'll back that. (And I note that you did not back your own assertion. If you wished to contradict, why not give evidence as support?) As one can enchant any one-turn effect, via rotes, into objects, and as the costs and paradox effects, if any, of the rotes are assessed when the item is created, a day's worth of preparation allows a competent mage to develop an arsenal of effects via small objects carried on his person, each instantly useable, sans paradox. All you need is a paradox-free space (Sanctuary, the Umbra, or any paradigm-aligned area). Came up in the very first game I ran. All a player did was use a rote from a supplement. Second, proper use of a Node and Sancturary to create long-ranged effects (simply add a Cor 3 effect or a Spirit 3+ effect to reach targets) basically allows for a variety of high-powered effects either a) very quickly (since standard magick effects take naught but a turn to resolve) or b) with amazing efficacy (since slower magickal effects allow for build-ups of successes). The Sancturary and Node backgrounds, a bit like Allies/Herd in Vampire, was startling efficient to boosting character prowess, but with far greater effect. Without direct GM intervention or a change to canon, a competent player can pull off staggering effects without incurring paradox using only a bit of creativity. (Spirit and Mind both afford opportunities to do this very uncreatively, as a matter of fact.) > > But the latter was more > > telling. The Technocracy hates vampires. The Technocracy pretty much > > controls the world. (Please don't post examples of where it's weak, > > etc. -- I know it isn't absolute -- the premise is that it is running > > the show and the Traditions are rebels.) > > Unless the Technocracy and the Camarilla were in cahoots at the highest > levels. That assertion is a drastic and incomprehensible change to canon. Every single aspect of the Technocratic psychology would have to be changed. You could do it, but you'd be proving my point: the canon, as written, contains contradictions. Actually, that's a response to every one of your assertions (can't call them arguments because they are unsupported by logic -- some even lack coherence). If you say "well make something different up" then you're proving my point: the sourcebooks contain background concept contradictions that can only be resolved by significant changes. Vampire, the best game in the series, imo, contains the fewest of these and makes for the most elegant games. >Or unless the Technocracy had a long-term plan to eliminate > vampirism without mass destruction. Completely uneccessary. Spirit 3 Mind 3 Entropy 3 effects can easily, systematically eliminate each and every vampire on the planet sans paradox (it is coincidental as its subject is itself a reality deviant) without venturing out of one's home. There is no method of retailiation from any society of vampires that could counter prepared mages. >Or unless the...whatever, dude. > Your failures of imagination are not the game's problem. The above reflects your failure of imagination -- and logic. Mage is a game defined to maximize the efficacy of player imagination. Vampire is a game of power and majesty -- with limits. Vampires are bound by their natures. Mages are known for their nigh-limitless potential. And what justified the ad hominem attack? How sick is it to tie one's ego to the quality of a roleplaying game? If you're one of the writers, I suppose there's an excuse, but the WW writers I've talked to are significantly less immature. . . > > Kindred want and need power for fun and survival. They control > > governments. > > The Technocracy needs to control humanity to succeed. It controls > > governments. > > Religions promote spiritual values. They control governments. Complete non-sequitor. Whereas the methods of Kindred and Technocratic control of governments are both paranormal, the methods of religion are not. And the promotion of "spiritual values" is in no way a driving necessity of the subject (as "need to control humanity" is to Technocracy, etc.), so there is no parallel to my comparison. The response "Religions promote spiritual values. They control governments." was specious. > Capitalism promotes materialistic values. It controls governments. > These are not necessarily contradictions. The World of Darkness got > pretty cluttered if you wanted to use every system and every splatbook, > but creative Storytellers could make the conspiracies and mysteries > twist around each other like a pit full of snakes. They can fit > together. A bald assertion with nothing to back it up save a unwillingness to think logically. I actually ran games with competent players, human beings who wanted their characters to succeed. When given the responsibilities and powers of a Technocrat, they did not sit pat. Nothing short of completely rewriting vampiric abilities -- or rewriting magickal ones -- saved vamires from their agenda. > > And, finally, the Technocracy has better super-powers than the Kindred. > > Or they didn't. Magick >> Disciplines. If you wish to ignore systems printed in WW core books, we have nothing to discuss and should agree to disagree. There is no Discipline that cannot be nullified without application of Prime. > Wow, you play those elder vampires stupid. Which is one way to run > them. And you would have to play Technocrats as imbeciles. Many mages are older than elder vampires, and are much more mentally stable since they don't have the Beast in their heads. Mages also have access, to some degree, to Oracles. > > After all, Tradition mages sit on their > > asses complaining about the good old days. Methselahs make countries go > > to war with each other over spite. Kindred would be purged. Easily. > > So that's the only scenario you can think of? Failure. Of. Imagination. It is the result of the premises given by the games. Your armchair analysis would be more impressive it included, well, an analysis instead of mere insults. > > VtM, for all its faults, was simply the best sourcebook WW put out. > > Instead of having to invent stuff to explain stupidity, you could just > > throw stupidity out. Didn't like a clan? Throw it out. > > God forbid we should have to invent anything. Ah, more pointless insults. Disatisfaction with a concept in no way suggests a lack of invention. A disliked concept more often than not interferes with invention. I ran and played excellent games of Vampire where various parts of WW canon were removed because they made better games, and better ideas, possible. If a bad idea in canon contradicts a good idea (in canon or otherwise), one throws it out to make a better game. But then, there's nothing to indicate that you have any notion that some propositions prevent the existence of others. For us, if x = 2 then x cannot equal 3. You think you can have it both ways, fine. > > Mage, on the > > other hand, had concept problems at its core that you couldn't get > > past. . . unless your players were twits who wanted to blow stuff up > > and/or have sex with whatever didn't get blown up. Five minutes of > > thought broke that game down. I watched it happen. > > And did nothing about it. Congratulations. Now would you take it to a > RPG forum already? Actually, I fixed the game up nice, but had to toss a lot of canon. And if you didn't like this discussion, why reply? Too much time on your hands? Nothing wrong with being an illogical twit, but it's another thing to be a venal illogical twit. Do you cherish these WW products so much that you found my criticism of them a personal attack -- how pathetic do you have to be to place your personal value on someone else's gamebook? This is one of the few reasons I can come up with for a wave of pointless ad hominem attacks that result. (And my ad hominems were in response to the aforementioned ones.) Twits aside, the experience in the RPG I had with other players led me to favor less powerful magic in games with vampires. Actually, I hope this next set features mortals that have better access to ritual-style magic (though the "bang! you're on fire" effects of Thaum are cool). When you take wizards out of the reality-control business, they make excellent foils/allies of vampires: formidible mortals that you can't just Discipline your way past. I know Hunters weren't really into the formal magic thing, but since the WoD story is no longer completely binding VtES (since WoD "alpha" is discontinued), maybe there's a chance for additions. Here's hoping Rafiasto Ghoul gets new friends.

Howdy, Let me start out by saying that I know nothing whatsoever about the Mage RPG. And very little about V:tM. So I don't really have an opinion on one's playability vs. the other, or on their interaction with each other. Why am I replying, then? 'Cause I hate to see such vitriol arising over what looks like nothing. If, of course, you're happy with the flameage, you can safely ignore me. (I know I got into trouble for trying to straighten out a Daneel-off-meds vs. Derek-being-smartass conflict once before, so I should know better. Call me hopelessly optimistic, and watch people who know me laugh.) > >Or unless the...whatever, dude. > > Your failures of imagination are not the game's problem. > > The above reflects your failure of imagination -- and logic. Mage is a > game defined to maximize the efficacy of player imagination. Vampire is > a game of power and majesty -- with limits. Vampires are bound by their > natures. Mages are known for their nigh-limitless potential. > > And what justified the ad hominem attack? How sick is it to tie one's > ego to the quality of a roleplaying game? If you're one of the writers, > I suppose there's an excuse, but the WW writers I've talked to are > significantly less immature. . . Ra, do you really not see how saying that there's no way to play Mages and Vampires together using the rules would upset someone who apparently had a lot of fun playing Mages and Vampires together using the rules? Your hostile tone in the original post goes a long way towards discouraging a polite response. And do you really think that responding to fairly mild 'ad homina' with much stronger ones is going to help with your stated aim of a 'logical', or at least reasoned, discussion? Especially when your argument is that 'imaginative' players can break the system while Emmit's is that 'imaginative' GMs can keep it working? > > > Kindred want and need power for fun and survival. They control > > > governments. > > > The Technocracy needs to control humanity to succeed. It controls > > > governments. > > > > Religions promote spiritual values. They control governments. > > Complete non-sequitor. Whereas the methods of Kindred and Technocratic > control of governments are both paranormal, the methods of religion are > not. And the promotion of "spiritual values" is in no way a driving > necessity of the subject (as "need to control humanity" is to > Technocracy, etc.), so there is no parallel to my comparison. The > response "Religions promote spiritual values. They control > governments." was specious. It's not actually a nonsequitur. You parsed it wrong. Emmit is using the line above and the one below as a parallel to your argument (you know, logic, and all). It's actually a reasonable argument. > > Capitalism promotes materialistic values. It controls governments. > > These are not necessarily contradictions. The World of Darkness got > > pretty cluttered if you wanted to use every system and every splatbook, > > but creative Storytellers could make the conspiracies and mysteries > > twist around each other like a pit full of snakes. They can fit > > together. > > A bald assertion with nothing to back it up save a unwillingness to > think logically. Actually, not a bald assertion - see above. If you read Emmit's whole reply a little more dispassionately (I know, it's tricky, 'cause he is clearly annoyed by your tone/attitude, and so being narky himself.), you'll probably be able to see several fairly well reasoned responses (different perspectives) to your 'arguments'. (Opinions, really, right? It's not like either of you is going to 'prove' that Mage and/or Vampire are good or bad games to one another - it's an almost entirely subjective topic.) Anyway, hope that helps, Alex

wumpus wrote: > Anyway, hope that helps, Well, it certainly doesn't hurt, but does add more to a lengthy and fairly off topic thread that has nothing to do with VTES... -Peter

Defender of Ra wrote: > As one can enchant any one-turn effect, via rotes, into > objects, and as the costs and paradox effects, if any, of the rotes are > assessed when the item is created, a day's worth of preparation allows > a competent mage to develop an arsenal of effects via small objects > carried on his person, each instantly useable, sans paradox. All you > need is a paradox-free space (Sanctuary, the Umbra, or any > paradigm-aligned area). Wrong. No place is "paradox-free". Some areas have different standards for what is vulgar and what is coincidental. > Came up in the very first game I ran. All a player did was use a rote > from a supplement. > > Second, proper use of a Node and Sancturary to create long-ranged > effects (simply add a Cor 3 effect or a Spirit 3+ effect to reach > targets) basically allows for a variety of high-powered effects either > a) very quickly (since standard magick effects take naught but a turn > to resolve) or b) with amazing efficacy (since slower magickal effects > allow for build-ups of successes). Sanctuary? Do you mean Sanctum? Mages accumulate paradox based on where a magic effect triggers. Using Correspondence to work vulgar magic outside your Sanctum while holed up inside it would still slap you with the outside world's paradox. > Without direct GM intervention or a change to canon, a competent player > can pull off staggering effects without incurring paradox using only a > bit of creativity. So you're the kind of Storyteller who doesn't "intervene" with his players. Great. No wonder your campaign tanked. One premise of Mage is that paradox limits magic. Generations of brilliant mages were limited by paradox's effect. If your player thinks he or she has found a way around that premise, then it's your job to keep the premise intact. This may involve actual refereeing. > > Unless the Technocracy and the Camarilla were in cahoots at the highest > > levels. > > That assertion is a drastic and incomprehensible change to canon. Every > single aspect of the Technocratic psychology would have to be changed. > You could do it, but you'd be proving my point: the canon, as written, > contains contradictions. So very, very wrong. Whitewolf canon has always been flexible enough to contain a lot of buried secrets, even enormous ones. > Actually, that's a response to every one of your assertions (can't call > them arguments because they are unsupported by logic -- some even lack > coherence). If you say "well make something different up" then you're > proving my point: the sourcebooks contain background concept > contradictions that can only be resolved by significant changes. Rasputin was listed as a member of several different vampire clans in several different sourcebooks, and as other supernatural types too, I believe. That and other "contradictions" aren't actually problems. They are mysteries. The players *shouldn't* be able to resolve them by reading the sourcebooks. It's one way Whitewolf made the canon flexible. > >Or unless the Technocracy had a long-term plan to eliminate > > vampirism without mass destruction. > > Completely uneccessary. Spirit 3 Mind 3 Entropy 3 effects can easily, > systematically eliminate each and every vampire on the planet sans > paradox (it is coincidental as its subject is itself a reality deviant) > without venturing out of one's home. There is no method of retailiation > from any society of vampires that could counter prepared mages. Really? So please tell us all the powers of the Inconnu. Oh, wait, you can't, can you? Because they're undefined in the game. So you really have no idea. So you can't say for sure whether or not, for example, the Technocracy is controlled by them. Or whether the Technocracy is afraid to move against them. Or whether the Technocracy is aligned with them. Or whether the Technocracy IS them, controlling the vampires. Four scenarios in one paragraph. I got them from a special place called my imagination. One premise of a WoD game with both mages and vampires is that neither has wiped the other out. If your player thinks he or she has found a way around that premise, then it's your job to keep the premise intact. This may involve actual refereeing. > >Or unless the...whatever, dude. > > Your failures of imagination are not the game's problem. > > The above reflects your failure of imagination -- and logic. Mage is a > game defined to maximize the efficacy of player imagination. Vampire is > a game of power and majesty -- with limits. Vampires are bound by their > natures. Mages are known for their nigh-limitless potential. Wrong. Mage is not just one game. Vampire is not just one game. Mage can be a game about unfulfilled potential or the impotence of force. Vampire can be a game about frailty and squalor relieved only by one's will to love. The game is what you put into it. > And what justified the ad hominem attack? How sick is it to tie one's > ego to the quality of a roleplaying game? If you're one of the writers, > I suppose there's an excuse, but the WW writers I've talked to are > significantly less immature. . . Your tone annoyed me. It still annoys me. I suspect it will continue to annoy me. Being wrong is one thing--I'm wrong ten times a day--but being arrogant and wrong calls for smiting. I have never written a RPG. I will never write an RPG. I have no financial investment in Whitewolf. The game itself is out of print. I have no emotional investment in this issue at all other than you are annoying me by saying incredibly incorrect things in the wrong forum. > > > Kindred want and need power for fun and survival. They control > > > governments. > > > The Technocracy needs to control humanity to succeed. It controls > > > governments. > > > > Religions promote spiritual values. They control governments. > > Complete non-sequitor. I'm sorry you can't understand my arguement. I'll put it into a simpler form. Since the real world has huge, powerful institutions with conflicting goals that have not destroyed each other, it is believable that the WoD would have huge, powerful institutions with conflicting goals that have not destroyed each other. > Whereas the methods of Kindred and Technocratic > control of governments are both paranormal, the methods of religion are > not. But all three use coersion, and all three use violence. The analogy is apt. > And the promotion of "spiritual values" is in no way a driving > necessity of the subject (as "need to control humanity" is to > Technocracy, etc.), so there is no parallel to my comparison. Please explain that to crusaders and fanatics the world over. > > Capitalism promotes materialistic values. It controls governments. > > These are not necessarily contradictions. The World of Darkness got > > pretty cluttered if you wanted to use every system and every splatbook, > > but creative Storytellers could make the conspiracies and mysteries > > twist around each other like a pit full of snakes. They can fit > > together. > > A bald assertion with nothing to back it up save a unwillingness to > think logically. I see the problem here. You ran a game of Mage and blew it. Rather than believe you ran a crappy game, you decided the game itself had a problem. But of course lots of people ran terrific long-term Mage games. The existence of such games, run by good Storytellers and populated by brilliant and creative players, backs me up. The conspiracies worked fine in those games. > I actually ran games with competent players, human beings who wanted > their characters to succeed. When given the responsibilities and powers > of a Technocrat, they did not sit pat. Nothing short of completely > rewriting vampiric abilities -- or rewriting magickal ones -- saved > vamires from their agenda. Understanding the rules might have helped some too. "Paradox-free space". Yeesh. > > > And, finally, the Technocracy has better super-powers than the Kindred. > > > > Or they didn't. > > Magick >> Disciplines. If you wish to ignore systems printed in WW core > books, we have nothing to discuss and should agree to disagree. There > is no Discipline that cannot be nullified without application of Prime. I see you have trouble understanding the crossover stuff. "Can be nullified with Prime" <> "Mages have better super-powers than Kindred." If in one game. Arete and Spheres > 4 were rare in the Technocracy and Disciplines > 6 common, then the vampires in that game clearly had better superpowers. If in another game high disciplines were rare and high Arete common, then in that game the Technocrats had better superpowers. And of course the powers of the most ancient vampires and the oracles were undefined, so when you say the one overpowers the other you're just stating your opinion as fact. You do that a lot. > > Wow, you play those elder vampires stupid. Which is one way to run > > them. > > And you would have to play Technocrats as imbeciles. "Attention: Junior Technocrats. We will now attempt to piss off an unknown population of indeterminately powerful ancient killers by waging war on their childer, thereby revealing our own strengths and limitations in the process. Good luck." That would be imbicilic, all right. Oh, wait, that's what *you're* saying is the one, inexcapable way the Technocrats would approach the vampire problem. Failure. Of. Imagination. > Many mages are older than elder vampires.... But not the ones you were talking about, right? The starting characters that you said were wiping out elder vampires? So you're basically shifting the goalposts here? > ,...and are much more mentally stable since they > don't have the Beast in their heads. Yeah, that's right...the mages in your campaign don't suffer from hobgoblins or the quiet because they live in "paradox-free space". > Mages also have access, to some degree, to Oracles. Presumably to the same degree that elder vampires have access to Methuselahs. > > > Kindred would be purged. Easily. > > > > So that's the only scenario you can think of? Failure. Of. Imagination. > > It is the result of the premises given by the games. Your armchair > analysis would be more impressive it included, well, an analysis > instead of mere insults. An analysis of what? Two imaginary forces' relative strengths? The strengths of the two imaginary forces are what the storyteller decides they are to make the game run the way he wants it to. Want to run a game where the vampires are being "...purged. Easily"? The system allows for that. Want to run a game where they and mages are largely unknown to each other? The system allows for that. Want to run a game where vampires control mage society? They system allows for that. Your opinion about how the two must interact is just one scenario of many. > > > VtM, for all its faults, was simply the best sourcebook WW put out. > > > Instead of having to invent stuff to explain stupidity, you could just > > > throw stupidity out. Didn't like a clan? Throw it out. > > > > God forbid we should have to invent anything. > > Ah, more pointless insults. Disatisfaction with a concept in no way > suggests a lack of invention. No, the failure of your Mage campaign suggests a lack of invention. > A disliked concept more often than not > interferes with invention. I ran and played excellent games of Vampire > where various parts of WW canon were removed because they made better > games, and better ideas, possible. Yes. That's how it's supposed to work. > But then, there's nothing to indicate that you have any notion that > some propositions prevent the existence of others. For us, if x = 2 > then x cannot equal 3. You think you can have it both ways, fine. But the game does not define x as 2 or 3. It doesn't even say x is an integer, or a real number. Many games are possible within the one game. > ...if you didn't like this discussion, why reply? Too much time on your > hands? Yes, as it happens. Which is, of course, the same reason you're inflicting your ill-thought opinions on the newsgroup. Plus the whole "God, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" thing. > Nothing wrong with being an illogical twit, but it's another > thing to be a venal illogical twit. Right. You should get that looked at.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Well, it certainly doesn't hurt, but does add more to a lengthy and > fairly off topic thread that has nothing to do with VTES... Apologies. I should have changed the subject and newsgroup, or taken it to e-mail. Color me repentant.

wumpus wrote: > Howdy, > > Let me start out by saying that I know nothing whatsoever about the > Mage RPG. And very little about V:tM. S > Ra, do you really not see how saying that there's no way to play Mages > and Vampires together using the rules would upset someone who > apparently had a lot of fun playing Mages and Vampires together using > the rules? That is not what I said. You misread my post. I said it is impossible to use WW canon without changes without enduring contradiction. If you are imaginative and change canon, you prove my point. Your hostile tone in the original post goes a long way > towards discouraging a polite response. You didn't find the following hostile? > > >Or unless the...whatever, dude. > > > Your failures of imagination are not the game's problem. I do not know this person from Adam and he came out hostile. > And do you really think that responding to fairly mild 'ad homina' with > much stronger ones is going to help with your stated aim of a > 'logical', or at least reasoned, discussion? I do not believe mine to be the stronger. His were uncalled for. > Especially when your argument is that 'imaginative' players can break > the system while Emmit's is that 'imaginative' GMs can keep it working? You have completely misrepresented my argument. > It's not actually a nonsequitur. You parsed it wrong. Emmit is using > the line above and the one below as a parallel to your argument (you > know, logic, and all). It's actually a reasonable argument. No, it's not, and just saying it is does not make it so. You ignored the fact that the comparisons were not valid. Just because the structrure is the same does not make the argument valid. > If you read Emmit's whole > reply a little more dispassionately (I know, it's tricky, 'cause he is > clearly annoyed by your tone/attitude, and so being narky himself.), How could he be annoyed with my tone/attitude when I never, ever spoke to him before this point? I in no way insulted anyone with my original post and merely stated my conclusions. I don't know what you are talking about at all. > you'll probably be able to see several fairly well reasoned responses > (different perspectives) to your 'arguments'. (Opinions, really, > right? Um, no. That, for example, countermagick can cancel disciplines is not an opinion; it's canon. Do recall you know nothing about Mage -- I'm not being snarky, I am stating why you have misjudged this. When I say VtM is better put together than Mage, that's opinion. When I say magick does X as a general rule, I am declaring a fact and am right or wrong. > It's not like either of you is going to 'prove' that Mage > and/or Vampire are good or bad games to one another - it's an almost > entirely subjective topic.) That was never the point. The point was to discuss interactivity in WW and then express how the CCG can take advantage of the fact that the original WoD is no longer supported. -- DoR

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Defender of Ra wrote: > No place is "paradox-free". Some areas have different standards for > what is vulgar and what is coincidental. Wrong. If I can use magick without incurring paradox in an area, that area is paradox-free for me. It is subjective because Mage is subjective. I am using a keyboard. This is an derivation of Technocratic magick. Its use would not incur paradox when use by a mage because this room, in the Mage rubric, is aligned to the Technocratic paradigm. If removed to an area aligned to a style associated with the Dreamspeakers, it may well cease operations entirley. > Mages accumulate paradox based on where a magic effect triggers. Using > Correspondence to work vulgar magic outside your Sanctum while holed up > inside it would still slap you with the outside world's paradox. If the magick is coincidental in the first place or if aspects of the magick are *vulgar at their source*, there is no paradox to incur in the first place. A dozen vampires wasting away and dying due to an effect used remotely would not necessarially incur paradox, especially since the targets are themselves paranormal. > > Without direct GM intervention or a change to canon, a competent player > > can pull off staggering effects without incurring paradox using only a > > bit of creativity. > > So you're the kind of Storyteller who doesn't "intervene" with his > players. Great. No wonder your campaign tanked. Who the hell said that? I stated in my post that I did change the canon. You're still willing to accuse me of something that you couldn't possibly know about me. Your rotten childhood or whatever is causing your aggression is not my fault. My campaigns were fun, with changes to canon. > > That assertion is a drastic and incomprehensible change to canon. Every > > single aspect of the Technocratic psychology would have to be changed. > > You could do it, but you'd be proving my point: the canon, as written, > > contains contradictions. > > So very, very wrong. Whitewolf canon has always been flexible enough to > contain a lot of buried secrets, even enormous ones. Nice -- completely ignored the argument with a non sequitor. Have you thought about a future position as a press secretary for a politician? Secrets, buried or otherwise, do not address whether or not canon must be changed in order to incorporate Mages and Vampires en massee. (And in games I ran/played in, there were plenty of added facts, some secret, that made this possible -- which proves my point.) > That and other "contradictions" aren't actually problems. They are > mysteries. The players *shouldn't* be able to resolve them by reading > the sourcebooks. It's one way Whitewolf made the canon flexible. You are conflating deliberate differences in plot with the unforseen implicaitons of systems. These things have nothing to do with one another. At the beginning of this thread, I was praising the alternative theories of vampiric origin. > Really? So please tell us all the powers of the Inconnu. > > Oh, wait, you can't, can you? Because they're undefined in the game. So > you really have no idea. So you can't say for sure whether or not, for > example, the Technocracy is controlled by them. Or whether the > Technocracy is afraid to move against them. Or whether the Technocracy > is aligned with them. Or whether the Technocracy IS them, controlling > the vampires. > > Four scenarios in one paragraph. I got them from a special place called > my imagination. Thank you, O.G. Readmore. I should also note that several of the scenarioes would warrant substantial changes to canon, proving my point yet again. And saying "the Technocracy controls vampires" or vice-versa is boring and predictable, imo, so I hardly think it the hieght of imagination. Our method of incorporating both was much more enjoyable. > One premise of a WoD game with both mages and vampires is that neither > has wiped the other out. If your player thinks he or she has found a > way around that premise, then it's your job to keep the premise intact. No. I am in no way bound by the books. I can make any changes to the books I wish in my games. If I do make changes, those changes are changes to canon. If my players or I have found a contradiciton or a more fun aspect of the game than what the premises suggest, we can do as we please. I am not obligated to keep a premise intact, and if I do wish to keep that premise intact (because it is enjoyable) I am still going to do so by changing the plot. > This may involve actual refereeing. No, it involves development of world background by the GM. > > Mage is a > > game defined to maximize the efficacy of player imagination. Vampire is > > a game of power and majesty -- with limits. Vampires are bound by their > > natures. Mages are known for their nigh-limitless potential. > > Wrong. Mage is not just one game. Vampire is not just one game. WW was surely confused when they sold them in separate books. You do realize the games had deliberately separate themes, right? The games were given deliberately different flavors, though they can be combined. Many essays in WW sourcebooks talk about the different themes the games were ment to invoke. > Your tone annoyed me. It still annoys me. I suspect it will continue to > annoy me. Being wrong is one thing--I'm wrong ten times a day--but > being arrogant and wrong calls for smiting. Right -- smiting is a term used for a god who harms a mortal, and I'm the arrogant one. My "tone," if it annoyed you, would have warranted a note. I saw nothing annoying about it. Instead, your words are unambiguously aggressive, unlike the more subjective tone. You began by being a jerk, and will likely end the thread this way. > I > have no emotional investment in this issue at all other than you are > annoying me by saying incredibly incorrect things in the wrong forum. And there you have it. It wasn't "tone." You simply didn't like my content. And you're not concerned at all about forum or you wouldn't have given a long reply. Hypocrisy. > I'm sorry you can't understand my arguement. I'll put it into a simpler > form. "argument." > > Whereas the methods of Kindred and Technocratic > > control of governments are both paranormal, the methods of religion are > > not. > > But all three use coersion, and all three use violence. The analogy is > apt. Again, a non-sequitur. Just because the methods are similar in no way means the concepts are. And these forces DO destroy each other in the real world -- or have you met any members of the cult of Mithras, lately? > > And the promotion of "spiritual values" is in no way a driving > > necessity of the subject (as "need to control humanity" is to > > Technocracy, etc.), so there is no parallel to my comparison. > > Please explain that to crusaders and fanatics the world over. They aren't interested in the promotion of "spiritual values" first and foremost, but power. And they do destroy each other -- quite well, actually. It is natural to conclude some factions are stronger than others. > I see the problem here. You ran a game of Mage and blew it. I see your problem here. Because you have serious issues you refuse to read what you do not want to see. I stated several times before that my game went well -- with changes to canon. > If in one game. Arete and Spheres > 4 were rare in the Technocracy and > Disciplines > 6 common, then the vampires in that game clearly had > better superpowers. If in another game high disciplines were rare and > high Arete common, then in that game the Technocrats had better > superpowers. Any game involving the Technocracy acting as a body to remove a population of reality deviants will involve the highest levels of Technocratic abilities -- or the Technocracy is stupid for ignoring their own strengths. > And of course the powers of the most ancient vampires and the oracles > were undefined, The former were not always. 10th level Disciplines were aptly described. And it would not matter if they were further described as Prime still offers a counter. > "Attention: Junior Technocrats. We will now attempt to piss off an > unknown population of indeterminately powerful ancient killers by > waging war on their childer On the *childer*? Who said anything about that. Again, you put words in my mouth. > But not the ones you were talking about, right? The starting characters > that you said were wiping out elder vampires? So you're basically > shifting the goalposts here? No, starting characters are working for older, more experienced characters. The Technocracy's canon has that it is a sophisticated organization. > Yeah, that's right...the mages in your campaign don't suffer from > hobgoblins or the quiet because they live in "paradox-free space". Prime rotes can dismiss accumulated Paradox -- the method is in the core book. And skilled Technocrats have little call to incur much in the first place. > An analysis of what? Two imaginary forces' relative strengths? The > strengths of the two imaginary forces are what the storyteller decides > they are to make the game run the way he wants it to. I reacted only to the mechanics given in both games. When I wanted a cosmopolitan game, I changed the mechanics (and plot) to balance out the factions. This was a change in canon. > > Ah, more pointless insults. Disatisfaction with a concept in no way > > suggests a lack of invention. > > No, the failure of your Mage campaign suggests a lack of invention. Once again. I have no idea where this grudge comes from, but my games were fine. > > ...if you didn't like this discussion, why reply? Too much time on your > > hands? > > Yes, as it happens. Which is, of course, the same reason you're > inflicting your ill-thought opinions on the newsgroup. > > Plus the whole "God, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" > thing. No, it's basically that. You're simply being a jerk. You don't want to disagree, you want to throw put-downs to feel better about yourself, which is why you're ignoring parts of my posts. If this sort of thing is important to you, fine. I leave you to it. I reiterate, though, I caused you no initial harm and I do hope you work out whatever personal problems you may have, honestly.You may have the last word on this, as you seem to need it; I hope it fills whatever void you have. In any event, the initial reason for all the posting was to segue into allies. I am hoping that the next set has a body of cards specific for ally types -- ghoul-only actions, mage-only actions (especially those), werewolf-only. It does run the risk of overpowering allies (as these are minions from the Library, an already strong concept), but it would be neat. Plus, there's plenty that already hose them. WoD original has plenty of powers and concepts that can be thrown in. And if it does put allies a bit over the edge, more anti-ally stuff wouldn't be bad; vampires interact with mortals all the time, so it would be natural to have a more diverse body of ally-affecting cards. I'm pretty interested to see what will come out. -- DoR

Defender of Ra wrote: > Wrong. If I can use magick without incurring paradox in an area, that > area is paradox-free for me. It is subjective because Mage is > subjective. Hey--did you miss the comment about the "wildly off topic" aspect of this discussion that has nothing at all to do with VTES, and as such should probably move somewhere else? -Peter

> Hey--did you miss the comment about the "wildly off topic" aspect of > this discussion that has nothing at all to do with VTES, and as such > should probably move somewhere else? Well...it is related to the World of Darkness, which is the source material for VTES. So maybe it's not "wildly off topic"; just alot off topic, and rather irritating at that. I mean, they could be arguing over primate mating habits or something, and that would be wildly off topic.

You sound like an asshole, Emmit Just FYI Frede

CthuluKitty wrote: > Well...it is related to the World of Darkness, which is the source > material for VTES. So maybe it's not "wildly off topic"; just alot off > topic, and rather irritating at that. Sure. Ok. Just a lot off topic. Like, personally, I have no problem with the reasonable tangental conversation, but, like, this one has become a very lengthy treatise on, like, RPG related paradox spell casting or whatever. Which is pretty far off base. And long. So probably shouldn't be going on so much. Which is why the friendly reminder. > I mean, they could be arguing > over primate mating habits or something, and that would be wildly off > topic. True. But the difference between whatever RPG minutae is being discussed and primate mating habits, at least in my mind, isn't really that big... -Peter

<snip inane baffling arguement about how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, and leaving only the remaining material that relavent to VTES> Wow! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"unforgiver" <unfor...@go2.pl> wrote in message news:1134038807.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > In April 2006 ?! So early? What are the reasons of prining a new > expansion only 6 months after another (very big) set ?? What about 9 > months period? ? I don't really like this :( Ditto, and its why I'm spending far far less on cards these days. Raille

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:6vZlf.1113$Ev.908@fed1read06... > "The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:t7ogp1t9801joogu8...@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:24:04 -0700, "Fred Scott" wrote: >> >>>People have a right to be angry. >> >> People have a right to be stupid. >> >> Anyone getting angry at this point is also taking advantage of that >> other right. > > And people have a right to their opinions as well. But it makes > for more interesting discussion when they give reasons for their > opinions instead of just posting them as groundless assertions. > > Fred Reasons?? if reason was required then flame wars and troll bait would never be posted or replied to. Why to people reply to those, while its simply due to the fact it makes for A more interesting discussion. do recall intersting does not imply any sort of imbued intelligence. its just fun! ;) Raille

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:rtpgp1dhcg7c7nbm1...@4ax.com... > On 8 Dec 2005 09:03:37 -0800, "ANCILLA" > <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote: > > You are never harmed by new cards being introduced. Tell that to me again when I'm ousted by some new cards that my old cards are unable to deal with. > Anger is stupid. People are irrational Anger is irrational Therefor its rational to assume people will be angry. You can't please most of the people most of the time Matter of fact you can't please some of the people most of the time. Don't try so hard. Raille

Raille wrote: > "The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:rtpgp1dhcg7c7nbm1...@4ax.com... > > On 8 Dec 2005 09:03:37 -0800, "ANCILLA" > > <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote: > > > > You are never harmed by new cards being introduced. > > Tell that to me again when I'm ousted by some new cards that my old cards > are unable to deal with. ? Please give us one single example. I can help you and give you a close one: Disengage/Groundfighting. Your old Grapple deck can sink if facing it at the right times (for your targets, of course). But then, a gun deck could outmaneuver you and do the same. Or you could be completely hosed by lots of Fortitude. And you could modify your Brujah deck to include old good Psyche! and let the opponents stuck with their Groundfightings and Disengages. So provide some situation when you need *new* cards to counter other new cards, and only *new* cards will do - then we're good to go on this debate. > > Anger is stupid. > > People are irrational > Anger is irrational > Therefor its rational to assume people will be angry. > You can't please most of the people most of the time > Matter of fact you can't please some of the people most of the time. > Don't try so hard. > Raille I believe that's exactly why the design team / WW is going for a not-full-expansion after 6 months. Since the whining will show up anyway, better to capitalize on the part of the player base who *will* buy it if they find it useful. At least, that you can have some sort of control by careful design / reprints choosing. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1134144658....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > sath...@o2.pl wrote: > >> And once again to Derek I think: >> >> Those who coplain do not complain about any of the unstated facts. >> There are just complaining about the one stated fact - the nesxt >> expansion is coming out in April. >> >> With respect > > With equal respect: Nothing has been stated factually (yet) to indicate > that "Nights of Reckoning" is an "expansion" - it _is_ some sort of > release for VTES that comes in boosters, and LSJ has implied that it is > not a "full expansion". But neither the original post about the info in > the quarterly, nor any comment from a person in a position to know, has > said factually that NoR has anything new and/or expanding in it. > > For all we know factually at this point, it could be a collection of > nothing but reprints. That would be good. But any 'new' cards create expansion by the very fact they are new cards. The Player Base was promised 9 month between expansions, and most have been willing to over look the Promo cards that pop up, making the time frame something very much less than 9 months. In any case I cannot spend more money that I am, so quicker turn around time on when new expansions (as opposed to reprints) mean I am no longer doing my best to promote the game. I can't keep up with the changes. Raille

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:24ojp1l9be2sttbl6...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:47:02 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew > <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote: > >>The faster the sets come out, the less likely it is that I'll be able to >>buy the amount I >>want, the more likely it is I'll stop playing altogether. > > You can't buy cards, so you will stop playing with cards you have > already spent money on? > > Ironic consumerism, in the flesh (or the aether). > Actually this is the flip side of keeping a game in the face of gamers and on thegame shelves. Some people become overloaded with the notion of new cards and the very human nature of wanting. Its a know mental state and in an overload situation a certain fraction confront this overload by withdrawing from the source of the simuli. So, Yea,, he can't buy cards so he will stop playing. I don't expect to buy, but it depends on just what the set is being offered as. Even if I stop buying, I figure I have a few years of exploration left in my current cards before I stop playing. Raille

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:33:52 +0000, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >The Player Base was promised 9 month between expansions, I do not believe this was ever true. Steve said it was too long, volunteer promoters complained that it was too short. There were no promises about every expansion ever being 9 months apart. There was agreement that overloading the players with new sets would have an adverse effect on the play environment, and thus on the sales environment.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:WVVGDyT4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1134156117.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > ANCILLA <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> writes: >>Because I would simply like to see >>less cards being released. > > Hello. > > Please sit down and read the following carefully: > > This is not a full expansion. > > It is possible to release something more frequently without > upping the number of cards being released signficantly. > > If either of these things cause you trouble to understand, stop posting. > > YOU DON'T HAVE DETAILS. PLEASE STOP INVENTING SPURIOUS DETAILS BASED ON > THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD. But I have to listen to the voices in my head since its overly apparent that your NOT doing it for me. :) Raille

"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1134733124....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Raille wrote: >> "The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:rtpgp1dhcg7c7nbm1...@4ax.com... >> > On 8 Dec 2005 09:03:37 -0800, "ANCILLA" >> > <anc...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote: >> > >> > You are never harmed by new cards being introduced. >> >> Tell that to me again when I'm ousted by some new cards that my old cards >> are unable to deal with. > > ? Please give us one single example. > > I can help you and give you a close one: Disengage/Groundfighting. Your > old Grapple deck can sink if facing it at the right times (for your > targets, of course). But then, a gun deck could outmaneuver you and do > the same. Or you could be completely hosed by lots of Fortitude. And > you could modify your Brujah deck to include old good Psyche! and let > the opponents stuck with their Groundfightings and Disengages. > > So provide some situation when you need *new* cards to counter other > new cards, and only *new* cards will do - then we're good to go on this > debate. I cannot do what you ask, as I have not seen the new cards. Perhaps you know something I do not. My post mentioned a theoretical new card trumping old cards. Raille

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m8a7q195utouk5ibo...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] It was brought up on the conclave and after a long debate the time frame was tossed out that 12 months was far to long for WW and the player base said that 6 months was far to short a cycle. Steve sought compromise and suggested an approximate 9 month time frame for release's. Unfortunately this was prior to the creation of the conclavemonitor yahoo group and the original conclave had no archival records. I didn't bother to save the few gigabites of low info high bandwith conversations on the conclave. But I agree that no promise was made. Raille

In message <1134864959.4f2e397be4...@roc.usenetexchan ge.com>, Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> writes: >It was brought up on the conclave and after a long debate the time >frame was tossed out that 12 months was far to long for WW and the >player base said that 6 months was far to short a cycle. Steve sought >compromise and suggested an approximate 9 month time frame for >release's. > >Unfortunately this was prior to the creation of the conclavemonitor >yahoo group and the original conclave had no archival records. I >didn't bother to save the few gigabites of low info high bandwith >conversations on the conclave. Doing a naive search for Author: "Wieck" and body-text "months", I turn up three posts relating to the time-frame for expansions. (And about thirty posts in total - several of which are quoting the word "months" from other people, or other people's sig files/email provider adverts, and so forth.) Taking out the relevant portions: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:01:09 -0400 Given the overall mixed response we will proceed with Bloodlines as a December release and a Camarilla base set around July- August of next year as after Bloodlines we will probably move to about 8 months spacing between sets. Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:05:55 -0400 However, we have said that each V:TES expansion will now be coming out about 8 months after one another, so that will give you an idea of when to expect it. Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:56:15 -0800 You can share with your players that the next full expansion is scheduled for February 2005 (about 9 months after Gehenna). There will also be a smaller release this October/November that celebrates VTES's 10th anniversary. The phrasings of "probably" and "an idea" appear to have been missed by people in favour of the specific numbers given. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> The phrasings of "probably" and "an idea" appear to have been missed by > people in favour of the specific numbers given. Look! The voice of reason! Quick, Kill It! Blah! Blah! Blah! I know you are but what am I? I can't hear you! [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m8a7q195utouk5ibo...@4ax.com... > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:33:52 +0000, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>The Player Base was promised 9 month between expansions, > > I do not believe this was ever true. It was. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/67b7e317d264fdad/a165fadcff7b49da?lnk=st&q=between+expansions+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3Awieck&rnum=1&hl=en#a165fadcff7b49da

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:hhmL+iGI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > The phrasings of "probably" and "an idea" appear to have been missed by > people in favour of the specific numbers given. Neither of those words were used when Steve Wieck stated there would be 9 months between future expansions after Kindred Most Wanted. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] He wrote "After these next two expansions we expect to resume a nine month interval between expansions." This is not quite a promise. It would have been wise to issue a similar statement with the catalog, however. J

<jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message news:1135026401.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:m8a7q195utouk5ibo...@4ax.com... >> > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:33:52 +0000, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >>The Player Base was promised 9 month between expansions, >> > >> > I do not believe this was ever true. >> >> It was. >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/67b7e317d264fdad/a165fadcff7b49da?lnk=st&q=between+expansions+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3Awieck&rnum=1&hl=en#a165fadcff7b49da > > He wrote "After these next two expansions we expect to resume a nine > month interval between expansions." > > This is not quite a promise. Oh, for crying out loud. I knew somebody would to try to split insane hairs in a feeble attempt to avoid conceding a fact. (Bleh. It's just the nature of the medium, I realize. But still...) Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > "The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m8a7q195utouk5ibo...@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:33:52 +0000, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>The Player Base was promised 9 month between expansions, > > > > I do not believe this was ever true. > > It was. Fred, doesn't the Steve W. quote make it clear that Steve differentiated between "full expansions" and a "smaller release"? "You can share with your players that the next full expansion is scheduled for February 2005 (about 9 months after Gehenna). There will also be a smaller release this October/November that celebrates VTES's 10th anniversary. " We probably all assumed that 10th Anniversary as a "small release" was a one-time exception but Steve certainly didn't say that. If NoR turns out to be (I have no advance knowledge!) something similar in size or scope to 10th Anniversary then I personally won't see this release as a change of policy. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1135031508.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m8a7q195utouk5ibo...@4ax.com... >> > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:33:52 +0000, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >>The Player Base was promised 9 month between expansions, >> > >> > I do not believe this was ever true. >> >> It was. > > Fred, doesn't the Steve W. quote make it clear that Steve > differentiated between "full expansions" and a "smaller release"? > > "You can share with your players that the next full expansion is > scheduled for February 2005 (about 9 months after Gehenna). > There will also be a smaller release this October/November that > celebrates VTES's 10th anniversary. " I can't say. For the life of me, I can't find a quote like that from Steve on Usenet anywhere, at least using the Google search tool. Could you help me search it out? If he did, I'd guess from the context of the post I provided a link to, I would speculate that it had something to do with one of the consolations he proffered to the players for running six month periods between Anarchs and Black Hand and between Black Hand and Gehenna (I think I referred to Kindred Most Wanted earlier but that wasn't right): that Black Hand and Gehenna would be "relatively small" expansions. But that was only supposed to be for those two expansions. If you read that post, the clear statement was that a 9 month interval was the intent for all releases after Gehenna. > We probably all assumed that 10th Anniversary as a "small release" > a one-time exception but Steve certainly didn't say that. Actually, the company line we heard from Steve about 10th Annisversary Edition at the time of its release (post-9-month-interval statment) was it was "not an expansion": http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/e5d45116c7797491/5741c80b54f703f5?lnk=st&q=%22not+an+expansion%22+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3Awieck&rnum=1&hl=en#5741c80b54f703f5 To me, that's kind of a lame semantic excuse. But as I've stated before a couple times recently, I don't think anyone is inclined to feel particularly betrayed about 10 new cards. The way we were forced to buy old cards to get them might be more arguable but I liked the new layout reprints and especially the card tins anyway, so I wasn't kicking. In any event, 10 new cards isn't much so 'we- knew-what-he-meant' was a reasonable attitude to take about it at the time, IMO. Still waiting for more details about this one... Fred

In message <AiDpf.1041$_L5.961@fed1read06>, Fred Scott [ quoted text not captured ] A search for Wieck and "KMW": Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 20:37:27 -0800 KMW pre-release end of February, perhaps pushing into early March if it doesn't get to the printer pretty soon...We will, as usual, announce the date for these and begin organizing these events around the end of January. Yet to Be Announced Expansion X to follow KMW will release in a 9 month interval so that will be around November 2005 for its pre-release. And that's pretty much true. Legacies of Blood did release after a 9 month interval. But note that only talks about the next expansion (was became LoB), not some nebulous "future expansions". A search for Wieck and "nine" turns up one post that's not relevant. I can't find anything relevant on a search for Wieck and 9 and "month" (slimmed down from just 9, because that hits huge amounts of quotes). Could you provide a reference to the post you're thinking of? I can't find any references to a fixed nine month interval after Kindred Most Wanted. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <wvIpf.1064$_L5.620@fed1read06>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message >news:1135031508.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> Fred, doesn't the Steve W. quote make it clear that Steve >> differentiated between "full expansions" and a "smaller release"? >> >> "You can share with your players that the next full expansion is >> scheduled for February 2005 (about 9 months after Gehenna). >> There will also be a smaller release this October/November that >> celebrates VTES's 10th anniversary. " > >I can't say. For the life of me, I can't find a quote like that from >Steve on Usenet anywhere, at least using the Google search tool. Could >you help me search it out? From: "Steve Wieck" <ste...@white-wolf.com> To: "'Conclave'" <conc...@list.white-wolf.com> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:56:15 -0800 Message-ID: <001101c4053f$08b3dbe0$424e...@bims.bellsouth.net> Body text as quoted by Robert above. It is also worth noting, however, that relying solely on posts to Usenet is going to miss, for example, statements made on the White Wolf forums, extracts from catalogues, interviews with anyone who cares to arrange one (subject to Steve's acceptance, of course!), any posts made on ThePathofBlood (to pick just one popular other website) and so on by anyone involved with White Wolf. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Fyuy6UFr...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <AiDpf.1041$_L5.961@fed1read06>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >>news:hhmL+iGI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >>> The phrasings of "probably" and "an idea" appear to have been missed by >>> people in favour of the specific numbers given. >> >>Neither of those words were used when Steve Wieck stated there would >>be 9 months between future expansions after Kindred Most Wanted. > > Could you provide a reference to the post you're thinking of? I can't > find any references to a fixed nine month interval after Kindred Most > Wanted. I did provide it in my response to Jeff and assumed you would see it. But it's easy enough to cut-n-paste: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/67b7e317d264fdad/a165fadcff7b49da?lnk=st&q=between+expansions+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3Awieck&rnum=1&hl=en#a165fadcff7b49da Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:holbMuNJ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <wvIpf.1064$_L5.620@fed1read06>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message >>news:1135031508.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> Fred, doesn't the Steve W. quote make it clear that Steve >>> differentiated between "full expansions" and a "smaller release"? >>> >>> "You can share with your players that the next full expansion is >>> scheduled for February 2005 (about 9 months after Gehenna). >>> There will also be a smaller release this October/November that >>> celebrates VTES's 10th anniversary. " >> >>I can't say. For the life of me, I can't find a quote like that from >>Steve on Usenet anywhere, at least using the Google search tool. Could >>you help me search it out? > > From: "Steve Wieck" <ste...@white-wolf.com> > To: "'Conclave'" <conc...@list.white-wolf.com> > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:56:15 -0800 Ah, I wondered if it wasn't from somewhere else. > It is also worth noting, however, that relying solely on posts to Usenet > is going to miss, for example, statements made on the White Wolf forums, > extracts from catalogues, interviews with anyone who cares to arrange > one (subject to Steve's acceptance, of course!), any posts made on > ThePathofBlood (to pick just one popular other website) and so on by > anyone involved with White Wolf. Sure. The only point I'd make is that if someone on this forum doesn't specify, it's kind of natural to assume they were talking about something posted on tihs forum. Anyway, it's not important. I shouldn't have bothered to respond to Robert's post at all. I missed his point. What he's speculating about is completely reasonable and I shouldn't have given the impression I was disputing it somehow. Fred.

In message <gLYpf.4151$_L5.2172@fed1read06>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:Fyuy6UFr...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> Could you provide a reference to the post you're thinking of? I can't >> find any references to a fixed nine month interval after Kindred Most >> Wanted. > >I did provide it in my response to Jeff and assumed you would see it. >But it's easy enough to cut-n-paste: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thr >ead/thread/67b7e317d264fdad/a165fadcff7b49da?lnk=st&q=between+expansion >s+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3Awieck&rnum=1&hl=en#a16 >5fadcff7b49da Since that doesn't specify a fixed nine month interval after Kindred Most Wanted, I wasn't counting it as relevant. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:nPBqFDYb...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <gLYpf.4151$_L5.2172@fed1read06>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >>news:Fyuy6UFr...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >>> Could you provide a reference to the post you're thinking of? I can't >>> find any references to a fixed nine month interval after Kindred Most >>> Wanted. >> >>I did provide it in my response to Jeff and assumed you would see it. >>But it's easy enough to cut-n-paste: >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thr >>ead/thread/67b7e317d264fdad/a165fadcff7b49da?lnk=st&q=between+expansion >>s+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3Awieck&rnum=1&hl=en#a16 >>5fadcff7b49da > > Since that doesn't specify a fixed nine month interval after Kindred > Most Wanted, I wasn't counting it as relevant. I'm confused about what distinction you're making. I was responding to your suggestions that Steve Wieck had referred to 9 months between expansions as "probably" or "an idea". I'm not sure what "fixed" has to do with anything: Steve Wieck said they'd adopted the 9 month time frame without any wiggle words that I can see so it sounds relavant to me. Fred

In message <q9%pf.4155$_L5.783@fed1read06>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:nPBqFDYb...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> Since that doesn't specify a fixed nine month interval after Kindred >> Most Wanted, I wasn't counting it as relevant. > >I'm confused about what distinction you're making. I was responding to >your suggestions that Steve Wieck had referred to 9 months between >expansions as "probably" or "an idea". The distinction that in Message-ID: <2gGpf.1056$_L5.49@fed1read06> you derided as a feeble attempt to split insane hairs. This is what other people (such as myself) regard as reading what Steve Wieck wrote, and not what Fred Scott hopes he wrote, by the way. Consider the reverse of your perception of a "feeble attempt" - that other people see you finding one post from Steve which doesn't say what you claim it does, and looks like clutching at straws on your part, especially given the mountain of evidence of Steve saying "maybe", "probably", "about" and so forth on multiple separate occasions before and since. Okay, so they expected to resume a given schedule. And over two and a half years later, one could reasonably expect that expectations may have changed due to one of any number of factors. Such factors might include: - availability of printers who, when White Wolf went to start booking the next print-run, said they were booked up at that time and this is the most convenient free time - LSJ, as lead designer, had warned White Wolf that he wouldn't be available at crucial times for that release schedule for things like editing, proofing, testing - if the set is, as some of us (including me) have suggested, a heavily reprinted set, they decided that no-one would honestly care since it's just the same as them reprinting Final Nights or Sabbat War or whatever. (Okay, it might be booster only or whatever, but it's largely the same cards being made available in a different way - long-standing players don't care, since they've already got them, new players already have the problem of facing those cards in tournaments so the difference = low.) - they had no idea how successful (or not) V:TES would be at this point - they've gone touting round some magazines for coverage (promo- inclusions, articles, interviews etc.) and they're booked up in the summer period for some other massive release so Nights of Reckoning would be almost entirely ignored - if, again as has been suggested, it's a significant art change for cards which haven't been in the CE and later format (such as cards only in Final Nights, Sabbat War, Bloodlines etc. - flick through the Players' Guide for obvious examples), the reason the art change is now significant is as Matt Green suggested - V:TES Online from CCGWorkshop will work significantly better for the clans/strategies most heavily affected by those cards who would otherwise be missing cards, if this is an issue for them - they decided that, just as with the Tenth Anniversary Edition, the expectations that they have of the set are that it's a small release and they've had no trouble slipping one in before. (Note that TAE wasn't actually small in comparison (by card numbers) to the 150 or so expansions we've had, since TAE had 190 cards.) - the new World of Darkness has taken off in some way (or not in some other way) and the White Wolf release schedule for RPG books has been altered to coincide with some major announcement at a convention, or a Camarilla players' group meeting/roleplay session, or whatever. Something had to give, so V:TES was shifted a couple of months early. Two and a half years ago, they'd have no reasonably based expectations of what it would do, at all. What expectations did you have two and a half years ago that turned out to be wrong? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:NapwA1B7...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <q9%pf.4155$_L5.783@fed1read06>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >>news:nPBqFDYb...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >>> Since that doesn't specify a fixed nine month interval after Kindred >>> Most Wanted, I wasn't counting it as relevant. >> >>I'm confused about what distinction you're making. I was responding to >>your suggestions that Steve Wieck had referred to 9 months between >>expansions as "probably" or "an idea". > > The distinction that in Message-ID: <2gGpf.1056$_L5.49@fed1read06> you > derided as a feeble attempt to split insane hairs. This is what other > people (such as myself) regard as reading what Steve Wieck wrote, and > not what Fred Scott hopes he wrote, by the way. What he wrote in that message *is* what he wrote and not just what I hope he wrote. Nine months between expansions are words he used and not with the qualifier "probably" or "an idea". Talk all you want about people hoping, one read of the article dispels such notions. > Consider the reverse of your perception of a "feeble attempt" - that > other people see you finding one post from Steve which doesn't say what > you claim it does, I don't know what article you're reading. But the one I quoted says what I claimed it did. Period. Sheesh. Some people just can't admit they missed something. Fred

In message <xzeqf.6023$_L5.5114@fed1read06>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Nine months between expansions are words he used and not with >the qualifier "probably" or "an idea". You seem to have completely overlooked that he expected to do that, not that it was promised or guaranteed or anything else. Picking on the fact that he said "nine months" and ignoring the rest of what he said is just feeble bullshittery on your part, Fred. From, <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/brow se_thread/thread/67b7e317d264fdad/a165fadcff7b49da?lnk=st&q=between+expa nsions+group%3Arec.games.trading-cards.jyhad+author%3Awieck&rnum=1&hl=en #a165fadcff7b49da> After these next two expansions we expect to resume a nine month interval between expansions. That is not saying "WE WILL RELEASE AT EXACTLY NINE MONTH INTERVALS". >Sheesh. Some people just can't admit they missed something. Like the fact that "we expect to" is not the same as Steve saying "This is what's going to happen, because I've got a magic crystal ball" ? If you'd like, I can explain the difference between "we expect to" and "this will happen" with flash cards, diagrams and branded merchandise if it will help. They expected to. Something changed. Get over it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > > I don't know what article you're reading. But the one I quoted says > what I claimed it did. Period. > You claimed it was a promise. It was not. Period. > Sheesh. Some people just can't admit they missed something. > Like 3rd grade English class?

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1135183640.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> >> I don't know what article you're reading. But the one I quoted says >> what I claimed it did. Period. >> > You claimed it was a promise. It was not. Period. *SPLITTING*...*INSANE*...*HAIRS* Period.

In message <Pfhqf.6770$_L5.526@fed1read06>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >*SPLITTING*...*INSANE*...*HAIRS* > >Period. See Fred, when someone says it was a promise and someone else points out that it wasn't, that's not an insane hair being split. That's finding out that, oh, it wasn't promised. What colour is the sky on your planet, by the way? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:e0VUL6dK...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <Pfhqf.6770$_L5.526@fed1read06>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>*SPLITTING*...*INSANE*...*HAIRS* >> >>Period. > > See Fred, when someone says it was a promise and someone else points out > that it wasn't, that's not an insane hair being split. The issue was originally whether the thing was said or not. Jeff wasn't questioning whether Steve had said, "cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die- stick-a-needle-in-my-eye". Jeff was questioning whether anyone at White Wolf had ever said anything at all to the effect that they intended to wait 9 months between expansions. The answer is clearly yes. Suddenly switching gears and attacking my response on the grounds that he didn't actually use the word 'promise' in so pledging is splitting hairs, yes. ...as is pretending people are being starry-eyed optimists when they read something into, "We listened to you and adopted that time frame between expansions..." Fred

Personally, I don't find it so bad that it's being released so soon. I buy most of my cards online so it gives me some time to wait before the hype dies down and the prices come down. VTES seems to be one of the things White Wolf is doing correctly, in that it's a fun competitive game where you can sink no more than 30 dollars and have a perfectly competitive deck very very easily. You can grab VP's with the STARTERS if you're a good enough diplomat. So I don't see where this notion that you need to buy new cards to stay competitive comes from.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:hhmL+iGI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Taking out the relevant portions: > > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:01:09 -0400 > Given the overall mixed response we will proceed with Bloodlines > as a December release and a Camarilla base set around July- > August of next year as after Bloodlines we will probably move to > about 8 months spacing between sets. > > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:05:55 -0400 > However, we have said that each V:TES expansion will now be > coming out about 8 months after one another, so that will give > you an idea of when to expect it. > > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 10:56:15 -0800 > You can share with your players that the next full expansion is > scheduled for February 2005 (about 9 months after Gehenna). > There will also be a smaller release this October/November that > celebrates VTES's 10th anniversary. > > > The phrasings of "probably" and "an idea" appear to have been missed by > people in favour of the specific numbers given. > Good stuff, thanks. I actually didn't think about searching the NG, since I don't hang out here as much and I do get all the conclave stuff. Still it does seem like a precident was established, unintentionally or not, for a 9 month time frame. Raille