In my post of a few days ago about Jyhad's upcoming name change, I said
that the card backs would be changed to read Vampire: The Eternal
Struggle instead of Jyhad. As it turns out, this is incorrect.
The V:TES team has decided that only the Vampire card backs will change.
The green library cards will continue to say "Jyhad," and will therefore
be indistiguishable from cards being sold now.
This is a compromise between people who felt that the card backs should
be changed, and people who felt that the change would be too disruptive.
Since it is a compromise, I expect that no one will be completely happy
with it, but I hope that most players will find it a reasonable solution.
Thanks for your continued patience.
Kathy Ice
Cyberspace Liaison
Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
lia...@wizards.com
ki...@wizards.com
[ quoted text not captured ]
Let me ask the question: How much do any of you out there believe that
a compromise between player/collectors (who said, "hey, don't change
the card backs") and WotC (who said first, "The game isn't selling well
so we are changing the name," and then said, "The name Jyhad is so
offensive that we must change the name") is to only rename the
vampire card backs?
Here's how I see it. Players will still have to replace some (not all,
which i guess is a compromise) of their cards. WotC on the other
hand gains nothing. I'm not sure how cards inside a package
are going to change buying habits. I also see how the word is any
less offesive if it only appears on vampire cards. Give me a break.
Since WotC gets nothing by changing the backs and the players get
the benifit of only having to re-purchase a portion of their decks,
a better compromise is not to change the backs at all & only
chage the boxes and booster decks. WotC gains whatever marketing
edge they think a name change will bring. They don't get the moral
high ground by still using the word Jyhad, but they don't get that
in the current compromise anyway. The players get to keep all
their cards that they have already purchased without having
to reinvest more to get what they already own. Hmmm...may not sound
like much of a compromise, but changing only the vampire card backs
doesn't even count as eye wash on this farce that has become Jyhad.
Sign me as one disillusioned former customre of WotC. (Yes, I
actually do give my money to companies I like and withhold it from
ones that shaft me)
Ned
Ned Flanders (trip...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:: Sign me as one disillusioned former customre of WotC. (Yes, I: actually do give my money to companies I like and withhold it from
: ones that shaft me): Ned
I for one am very content with the change made. I'm looking at the situation
from a different angle: What if they decided to rename the library cards, too?
Then the games would be really screwed. Whereas the crypt cards aren't that
big of a deal. Think about it: Seeing as how I can buy the new boosters knowing
that the library cards will be identical to the old, I'm probably going to buy
quite a bit. And I'm sure these new boosters will have the usual vampires in
them. And these vampires will most likely be new ones. But, my point is- how
much can they change the actual vampires so that the player using them has
an advantage over someone who isn't? Yes, there might be new special abilities,
and the clans might have different disipline combinations, but as far as the
vampires go, there will be no drastic changes. I'd be happy to use these marked
crypt cards in exchange for usable library cards.
Yes, this is a compromise, but I think it's one I can live with.
Andy
In article <3gpi6u$e...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, lia...@wizards.com wrote:
> In my post of a few days ago about Jyhad's upcoming name change, I said
> that the card backs would be changed to read Vampire: The Eternal
> Struggle instead of Jyhad. As it turns out, this is incorrect.
>
> The V:TES team has decided that only the Vampire card backs will change.
> The green library cards will continue to say "Jyhad," and will therefore
> be indistiguishable from cards being sold now.
This completely blows away any credibility WotC might have had in saying
that the name change is being prompted by a need to get rid of an
"offensive" word.
> This is a compromise between people who felt that the card backs should
> be changed, and people who felt that the change would be too disruptive.
> Since it is a compromise, I expect that no one will be completely happy
> with it, but I hope that most players will find it a reasonable solution.
Some compromise! You still screw your current customers, AND you continue
to use an "offensive" word. The only gains made by this compromise is
that the product gains recognition from the word "Vampire" being in the
title; a word that the general public is more familiar with that Jyhad.
That gain could be made without changing ANY of the cards.
> Thanks for your continued patience.
Don't thank me; I'm losing my patience.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Some compromise! You still screw your current customers, AND you continue
> to use an "offensive" word. The only gains made by this compromise is
> that the product gains recognition from the word "Vampire" being in the
> title; a word that the general public is more familiar with that Jyhad.
> That gain could be made without changing ANY of the cards.
Get over it. Be thankful they didn't change all the card backs. Find something
new to grumble about.
Thanks, WotC, for listening to your audience and accepting a decent
compromise!
In article <3h5kcq$d...@news.mtu.edu>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Get over it? Be Thankful? Thanks?
What the hell are you talking about. What part of 'Service Industry"
dont you understand. WotC will do it our way or no way at all. As a
consumer I am not here to 'compromise' with WotC. I am here to demmand from
WotC. If the new Jyhad expansion does not meet all of my requirements then
I will not spend one red cent on it, and suggest no one else does either.
Think about what you are suggesting. Its like going to McDonnalds
and thanking some 15 year old for giving you a 1/2 cooked BigMac. I mean
after all he could have given it to you raw.
Rob Farallo
Ned Flanders (trip...@access.digex.net) wrote:
:
: Here's how I see it. Players will still have to replace some (not all,: which i guess is a compromise) of their cards. WotC on the other
: hand gains nothing. I'm not sure how cards inside a package
: are going to change buying habits. I also see how the word is any
: less offesive if it only appears on vampire cards. Give me a break.:
Ok, I admit it, I haven't been following this thread too closely, but
anyway I wonder: Why do you have to replace your cards ? Have WotC said
that the 'old' cards are illegal in tournament play ? I can't understand
that they should be. WotC still accept Magic Alpha cards in tournament
play even though they are distinguishable from the rest of the cards.
You may say that playing with only SOME 'old' cards, or specifically
playing with only ONE 'old' card will be the same as playing with marked
cards. I will agree with that, but the same counts for Magic Alpha cards.
I can understand that WotC can rule that you have to use EITHER 'old'
cards, OR 'new' cards, but not mix them. This is the strictest ruling I
can understand should ever be nessecary. I would rather have a ruling that
if you use a mix of 'old' and 'new' cards, there should be at least
something like 40% of each, or in other words, an even distribution.
If you ask me (which you don't, but anyway) I assume the 'old' cards will
be worth more to a collector, simply because of this namechange. Hang on
to your cards for a year or two, and THEN see if you are sorry for the
change. If they had changed the back of the library cards too, I would
have considered it identically to the change between Magic Alpha and Beta
cards. And since they so far have not banned Magic Alpha cards from
tournament play, I can see no reason why they should have banned the
Jyhad Alpha cards either.
If you desparately want to, you can try to make me change my mind, but I
don't recomend it.
Jon Inge Teigland, who loves Jyhad, and don't give a damn about the
namechange.
I agree, If they try to sucker us into buying more cards, I'm out. I'll
just start The Masquerade, Dice games are much cheaper and ya' can't
change mid-stream and screw all the customers... I've already dumped too
much into Jyhad and Magic to even think about and if I have to re-buy
cards, forget it! From what I have gathered, WotC is planning on changing
the backs of the Vampires to say "Vampire" and not "Jyhad" becuase Jyhad
is offensive. Wouldn't this make it easier to tell what cards the payer
had coming out of the uncontrolled region? I personally think it will take
some of the uniqueness out of the game...
l8r
Peaco...@aol.com
> Ok, I admit it, I haven't been following this thread too closely, but
> anyway I wonder: Why do you have to replace your cards ? Have WotC said
> that the 'old' cards are illegal in tournament play ? I can't understand
> that they should be. WotC still accept Magic Alpha cards in tournament
> play even though they are distinguishable from the rest of the cards.
The problem is the risk of "marked" or "semimarked" cards. Essentially,
you're now allowed to mark the backs of all your vampire cards with one
of two symbols (i.e. two distinguishing backs). I can think of many
ways I can use those marks. Perhaps in my Toreador/Brujah deck, all
my Toreador are marked with one, and all my Brujah with another; then
I know what's coming.
Perhaps more abusively, what if I mark all my low-weight vampires (those
with capacity 4 or less) with one back, and all my higher-weight
vampires with another? Not only can I tell what's coming in my crypt,
but when I shuffle my cards, I can make sure that I end up with
a low-weight vampire on top, so I know I can bring out at least one
minion quickly (let me tell you about the time the top four vampires
of my crypt were all my biggest vampires: 3 10-pointers and an 8-pointer...
my predator didn't even *need* stealth to bleed the crap out of me in
the first few rounds). With markings like this, you can also tell
whether, late in the game, it might be worth the effort to pull out
a new vampire...
Some people don't think this is much of an advantage. But every little
bit counts. If my opponents don't mind me playing with marked cards,
great! :-) If they do, and I have to stick with one set of backs or
the other, either I won't be able to use my vast collection of old
vampire cards, or I won't be able to use expansion vampires. I'm not
thrilled with either option.
> If you desparately want to, you can try to make me change my mind, but I
> don't recomend it.
:-) No, that's not my goal. I just want you to understand *mine*.
I think you've expressed your opinion very well, very completely; I
think I have a good "handle" on it. I hope I've done the same.
papillo the master debater
joni...@pvv.unit.no (Jon Inge Teigland) writes:
>Ned Flanders (trip...@access.digex.net) wrote:
>:
>: Here's how I see it. Players will still have to replace some (not all,
>: which i guess is a compromise) of their cards. WotC on the other
>: hand gains nothing. I'm not sure how cards inside a package
>: are going to change buying habits. I also see how the word is any
>: less offesive if it only appears on vampire cards. Give me a break.
>:
>Ok, I admit it, I haven't been following this thread too closely, but
>anyway I wonder: Why do you have to replace your cards ? Have WotC said
>that the 'old' cards are illegal in tournament play ? I can't understand
>that they should be. WotC still accept Magic Alpha cards in tournament
>play even though they are distinguishable from the rest of the cards.
That may be but that doesn't make the concept of mixing card backs what I'd
call a "good thing", (tm). Actually, it pretty much ruins the game. Is
this not obvious? It seems obvious to me.
Try to keep in mind, here, that for many, Convocation tournaments are not
the important thing. Even for those to whom they are important, there is no
such thing as a Jyhad Convocation tournament and very few Jyhad tournaments
are even WotC-sponsored. (Or if there are, I'm not hearing about them.)
So the fact the WotC says that "it's OK to play with mixed card-back decks"
is of little account.
>If you ask me (which you don't, but anyway) I assume the 'old' cards will
>be worth more to a collector, simply because of this namechange. Hang on
>to your cards for a year or two, and THEN see if you are sorry for the
>change.
Another thing you should keep in mind is that many of those complaining are
NOT collectors and couldn't care less about the card's value. They're gamers.
They want cards you can play the game with. So this is yet another moot point
to many.
>If you desparately want to, you can try to make me change my mind, but I
>don't recomend it.
It may well be that you have good reasons to be complacent and can't be
persuaded this is bad deal for you, particularly if you like the idea of
of your cards increasing in market value (and you're convinced they well).
On the other hand, you're not going to change anyone else's mind with these
kinds of arguments, either - because they don't really address our concerns.
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]>Ned
Ned,
Let me ask this: How many vampires are you going to need to replace?
It is fairly easy to get one of every vampire in the current Jyhad printing.
And the vampires would be the only cards you would need to replace if the
crypt cards still say "Jyhad". So I think you're blowing things out of
proportion.
Now if WoTC said they would change the backs of the crypt cards while keeping
the backs of the vampire cards the same, I think you'd have a valid point.
Thanks,
The Bomb
>The problem is the risk of "marked" or "semimarked" cards. Essentially,>Perhaps more abusively, what if I mark all my low-weight vampires (those>with capacity 4 or less) with one back, and all my higher-weight
>vampires with another? Not only can I tell what's coming in my crypt,>Some people don't think this is much of an advantage. But every little>bit counts. If my opponents don't mind me playing with marked cards,
>great! :-) If they do, and I have to stick with one set of backs or
You can already do this with the cards as they are. Simply put all
vampires of one type facing one way and all vampires of the other type
facing the other way.
The point being, if you want to cheat, I don't want to play with you.
If I must because of, say, a tournament, well that's what tournament
directors are for.
Don Sowell
In article <3h5kcq$d...@news.mtu.edu>, "James M. Leithead"
<jmle...@mtu.edu> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
This is about the 5th post I've read where someone is telling us to be
thankful, or to feel lucky. This is business; I pay money, I receive a
product. I don't owe any thanks because I paid money. Likewise, they owe
no thanks, because they delivered a product. This "grumbling," as you
call it, is feedback which WotC values. It lets them know which customers
they stand to gain, and which they stand to lose.
Neil Clennan
ncle...@umich.edu
I guess my only real question in this is, will there be Vampire only boosters?
If so, the compromise will be 'adequate' in my opinion. I am willing to make
the trade off to get a better game out of the whole deal...
> >>The problem is the risk of "marked" or "semimarked" cards. Essentially,
>> > You can already do this with the cards as they are. Simply put all
> >vampires of one type facing one way and all vampires of the other type
> >facing the other way.
>> And after the name change, you'll be able to use both methods, (card rotation
> and card back) to mark you crypt cards. Considering that you can have a minimum
> of 12 vamps in the crypt, and that there is a workable 4 category marking scheme
> people will _be_able_to_ abuse it. I'm not sayint that they will, its just that
> around here, we'll be wanting everybody to have one type of card in their crypt
> just to keep them honest.
I'm truely sorry that you play in such a crowd. But I must ask, what
do you do right now to keep people from cheating in the way I mentioned?
And most specifically, what will change with that method when the card
back of the vampires are changed?
Don Sowell
Don Sowell <que...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I'm truely sorry that you play in such a crowd. But I must ask, what
>do you do right now to keep people from cheating in the way I mentioned?
>And most specifically, what will change with that method when the card
>back of the vampires are changed?
Card rotation is an easy one. You're allowed to shuffle the other guy's deck
before play starts. Just demand your right to shuffle if you think that the
other guy's pulling this, and mix it up for him.
Alec
--
Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics
aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Don Sowell <que...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> I'm truely sorry that you play in such a crowd. But I must ask, what
>do you do right now to keep people from cheating in the way I mentioned?
>And most specifically, what will change with that method when the card
>back of the vampires are changed?
Quite simply, we make sure that all their crypt cards are facing the same
driection. The crypt is small enough to easily shuffle and keep the cards
oriented properly. We've also gotten in the habit of shuffling our libraries
in such a way that they're all the same direction. Simple solution. (Unlike
the problem with different crypt cardbacks)
-- Paul Gettle (pge...@hubcap.clemson.edu)
tidl...@sj.unisys.com (The Bomb) writes:
>Ned,>Let me ask this: How many vampires are you going to need to replace?>It is fairly easy to get one of every vampire in the current Jyhad printing.
>And the vampires would be the only cards you would need to replace if the
>crypt cards still say "Jyhad". So I think you're blowing things out of
>proportion.>Now if WoTC said they would change the backs of the crypt cards while keeping
>the backs of the vampire cards the same, I think you'd have a valid point.>Thanks,
>The Bomb
Since I collect as well as play, I will need to get a full set
of new vamps plus a playing set...if they have just the
same old vamps thats 121 (I think that's all but I don't recall)
plus the 30-ish that rotate thru the crypt. at four per pack
(assuming the ratios stay the same and we ignore the non-vamp
vamp cards) that is approx. 37 packs (assuming I can trade all dups
to get a complete set, a reasonable assumption) at $2.75 per pack
comes to just over $100
Admittedly, I will also be getting a bunch of presumably new library
cards in the process so the full $100 is not just for vamps. Let's just
call it 4/19 of the total for $21 for new vamps. My question is why
should i pay $21 for something I already own that WotC has chosen to
make obsolete? It's not the end of the world, and you may consider
it to be blown out of proportion, but I don't like to be shafted by
companies in what appears to be no more than a shameless attempt
to get more money FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BOUGHT INTO THE GAME.
There have been numerous post going into why chaning card backs inside
packs do nothing to boost new sales (inside the pack = no visibility,
new name = visibility) while a new name seems like a good idea or at
least not objectionable.
Hope that clears up why I think it is something worth sounding off
about.
Ned
> > I'm truely sorry that you play in such a crowd. But I must ask, what
> >do you do right now to keep people from cheating in the way I mentioned?
> >And most specifically, what will change with that method when the card
> >back of the vampires are changed?> Quite simply, we make sure that all their crypt cards are facing the same
> driection. The crypt is small enough to easily shuffle and keep the cards
> oriented properly. We've also gotten in the habit of shuffling our libraries
> in such a way that they're all the same direction. Simple solution. (Unlike
> the problem with different crypt cardbacks)
When my group is feeling particularly anal-retentive... we require that
the prey shuffles his predator's cards for him, both vampires and library.
That fixes most any possibility of card cheating.
Fortunately, we don't do this much (i.e. at all!). Cheating's no fun.
Except for my brother-in-law, who once started a game with 40 blood and
I never noticed. Still beat him. :-)
papillo the mandrake
I'm sure someone else has said this by now... but I wanted to say it as
well. Why doesn't Wotc initate a trade in program for Jyhad like they
did with Legends. Send in all your Jyhad cards and get them replaced
with V:TES cards. That would seem to make most everyone happy... then
the only thing you'd have to spend is postage.
Joel
Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote:
: Card rotation is an easy one. You're allowed to shuffle the other guy's deck: before play starts. Just demand your right to shuffle if you think that the
: other guy's pulling this, and mix it up for him.
Ummmm.... Just a minor point. If ANYONE shuffles my deck but
me, I'll kill 'em. They can cut the deck, but not shuffle. If, in their
exuberant shuffling, someone bent or ripped my $7.00 Ivory Bow, I would
exact the price in blood...
- Andrew
"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor.
You cannot pass."
On 14 Feb 1995, Andrew Arcand - ACPS/W94 wrote:
> Ummmm.... Just a minor point. If ANYONE shuffles my deck but
> me, I'll kill 'em. They can cut the deck, but not shuffle. If, in their
> exuberant shuffling, someone bent or ripped my $7.00 Ivory Bow, I would
> exact the price in blood...
>
>
> - Andrew
>
> "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor.
> You cannot pass."
>
I understand where you are coming from, but the cut in Jyhad and MtG is
not exactly hoyle. Opponents are allowed to shuffle each other's deck.
It cuts down on stacking. People are careful when shuffling, because
they have good cards in the deck you are shuffling too.
>
esli...@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu
)____(
( oo )
/-----(..)
* | | moo
+||-||
~~ ~~
Kevin S. Thompson <edu...@cabell.vcu.edu> wrote:
>Eric Eslinger <esli...@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu> writes:
>>>I understand where you are coming from, but the cut in Jyhad and MtG is
>>not exactly hoyle. Opponents are allowed to shuffle each other's deck.
>>It cuts down on stacking. People are careful when shuffling, because
>>they have good cards in the deck you are shuffling too.>>I don't know who you play with, but I have never heard of
>shuffling someone else's deck during the cut. The rules state
>that after you deal, your opponent is allowed to cut the
>cards. I have seen somewhere that if you suspect the guy of
>stacking, you can ask HIM/HER to shuffle again, but not you
>shuffle another's deck.
If this is the way you play, then you can still screw up someone who is trying
to mark things using card orientation. Cut the deck, rotating the cut 180
degrees. Then ask the player to shuffle again. That destroys and such marking
scheme, and you don't have to worry about harming each other's cards.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Keith A. Arner (kra...@keystone.westminster.edu) wrote:
: Well, to throw the idea onto the table, is it feasible that WotC would be
: comsumer friendly (such as they were with the Legends mix-up) and offer
: to replace Vampires with the Jyhad card back for Vampires with the
: V:tES card back on a one-for-one basis?
Dream on, they'd lose money then.
: If WotC made such an offer, I don't see how anyone could accuse them of
: being anything but fair in this matter, even if the consumer had to pay
: a very nominal fee (nothing much more than SASE or similar).
Just remember you said 'if'.
Oh another thing, WotC says Jyhad isn't very popular now, so they
don't care about those 'few' that have bought it so far.
They expect to get so many new customers they don't need them.
Over here, in Groningen, The Netherlands, we intend to boycot any
cards that don't have a 'Jyhad' back, or for that matter a different
edge then the current black one. (we'd hate white or yellow the most)
I hope they change their mind and just change the packaging and the
name of the game.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
D.O.Kip | The Doctor. (Igor, HallOfFame, Kisc's
Planetenlaan 76 | MUD and many more.)
9742 JC Groningen | Trinity. (Wherever Doctor isn't
The Netherlands | allowed as name.)
Europe |
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-