I bought a Jyhad starter 1 week after the release and I immediately
shelved my Magic cards 3 months later and on my way to a complete Jyhad
set I sold my magic cause I lnew I would never play it again. I got lucky
I hit the second or third wave of new magic players the bought my cards
like heroin addicts,$1300 dollars later(after a 20% cosign cost) I had
paid for my Jyhad plus some then Rage came out and I have since then
completed 2 sets of them. Only spending a few hundred extra on the Rage
for speculation purposes. So yes I don't like the card back change but I
guess I'm not that upset cause Magic players actually paid for them.
I have a complete Jyhad set the cost of this set $450 Canadian which to
you americans is around $300. So I'm sorry if i don't have any sympathy
for the people who are whining about card prices come up here and see the
outrageous prices, $55 for 1 Legend booster,(sure glad I bought them for
$4.50). Now the only thing I am interested in is the DS Expansion. Now
you might say that my cards will stand out like a sore thumb,but oh well
my opponents won't be bothering watching them because there's will look
the same as mine, and I know we just don't care about card marking etc.
Mabe I'll get a few common cards from the new Vtes to throw off any
players that think they Know my Expansion cards.
As for tournaments I don't really care this is a card game not a
professional sport.
Now judging from Tom W post all your whining is not changing anything and
never will a big company like WotC Does'nt care, we are talking
about a company that just mass marketed ASSHOLE but named it the
Great Dalmuty. Boycott you say no thanx I like Jyhad to much Besides
Boycotting is for Granola eating tree huggers.
So I guess I'll close by saying sit back smoke one and relax. After all
its only a game right!
Errol
This is not a big a deal as everyone is making
As for seaching for a replacement for Jyhad,I don't think its possible
but I have found Rage to be very enjoyable, and the new ShadowFist has
for sure struck an interest in my card addiction vein.
Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>As for tournaments I don't really care this is a card game not a
>professional sport.
Peace Errol,
Unfortunately, tournaments shape the daily playing environment. [when was the
last time you say someone playing a non-tourny legal Mt$ deck?] What happens
in official tournaments will affect how Jyhad is played.
>Now judging from Tom W post all your whining is not changing anything and
>never will a big company like WotC Does'nt care, we are talking
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about a company that just mass marketed ASSHOLE but named it the
>Great Dalmuty. Boycott you say no thanx I like Jyhad to much Besides
>Boycotting is for Granola eating tree huggers.
You've just hit the nail on the head! "WotC doesn't care" You are right,
they don't care what their consumers think, that's why I'm not buying any
more WotC products. Why should I give my money to a company which doesn't
care about its customers? Why should I spend money on a game when the
company is going to wreck it, over the strenuous objections of its consumer
base?
>So I guess I'll close by saying sit back smoke one and relax. After all
>its only a game right!
No, it is a matter of principle. If you don't stand for something, you'll
fall for anything. FWIW, I don't smoke, either.
>This is not a big a deal as everyone is making
>As for seaching for a replacement for Jyhad,I don't think its possible
>but I have found Rage to be very enjoyable, and the new ShadowFist has
>for sure struck an interest in my card addiction vein.
Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to kill
it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
Empires (from Companion Games).
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>
>Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to kill
>it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
>Empires (from Companion Games).
I have heard some good things about GE, although I find much of the art
atrocious. Could you post a description of the game, James, and how you
think it achieves the same benefits as Jyhad?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>
wrote:
>Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:>>As for tournaments I don't really care this is a card game not a
>>professional sport.>
>Peace Errol,
>
>Unfortunately, tournaments shape the daily playing environment. [when was the
>last time you say someone playing a non-tourny legal Mt$ deck?] What happens
>in official tournaments will affect how Jyhad is played.
>
How Jyhad is played is decided by the players, my group decides whats fun
for us. If you play tournament then this affects you.
>No, it is a matter of principle. If you don't stand for something, you'll
>fall for anything. FWIW, I don't smoke, either.> ????
Unfortunatly this is a matter of principal for you I am a pretty
principiled guy but this issue is not one of them.
Errol
"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes:
>Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:>>As for tournaments I don't really care this is a card game not a
>>professional sport.>
>Peace Errol,
>
>Unfortunately, tournaments shape the daily playing environment. [when was the
>last time you say someone playing a non-tourny legal Mt$ deck?] What happens
>in official tournaments will affect how Jyhad is played.
Actually, this probably doesn't have to be. In Magic, it's just because the
official rules (minimum 40 card decks) are seen as totally unbalanced by most
players. The only answer WotC has for this is, "Sportsmanship - don't build
degenerate decks and don't play against people who build degenerate decks."
Gamers, being gamers for the most part, don't trust such a subjective answer.
As it turns out, however, neither does the Convocation because they can't.
Tournaments ruled by degenerate decks wouldn't sell. So the players wind up
having to follow Convocation rules. If, OTOH, WotC simply printed a set of
rules in the rulebook that were basically usable and play-balanced, I suspect
players would be more than happy to use them and wouldn't care so much about
what the DC sez...
By the way, I haven't really noticed Jyhad players accepting the DC's no-limits
policy for decks any more than they did before Jyhad tournament rules came out.
I suspect this is because the DC does not represent any great improvement over
the original construction rules for Jyhad.
Fred
CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote:
: "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>: >Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to kill: >it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
: >Empires (from Companion Games).: I have heard some good things about GE, although I find much of the art
: atrocious. Could you post a description of the game, James, and how you
: think it achieves the same benefits as Jyhad?
Motion seconded! I would also like to see a review of this game, about
which I know next to nothing. Our group has been playing Jyhad for quite
some time, and while we still enjoy it, it may be nice to have an option
once in a while. Please James, post away.
Shane H.W. Travis | Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for
tra...@duke.usask.ca | thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Hebrews 13:2
Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:>>Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:>>>As for tournaments I don't really care this is a card game not a
>>>professional sport.>>>>Unfortunately, tournaments shape the daily playing environment. [when was the
>>last time you say someone playing a non-tourny legal Mt$ deck?] What happens
>>in official tournaments will affect how Jyhad is played.
>>>How Jyhad is played is decided by the players, my group decides whats fun
>for us. If you play tournament then this affects you.
Peace Errol,
If you have any intention of playing outside your immediate gaming group,
tournaments affect you, as tournaments affect WotC's perception of how the
game is/should be played. If you will only ever play within your group, then
you can play anyway you want.
>>No, it is a matter of principle. If you don't stand for something, you'll
>>fall for anything. FWIW, I don't smoke, either.
>> ????>Unfortunatly this is a matter of principal for you I am a pretty
>principiled guy but this issue is not one of them.
The principle of the matter is not accepting lies as truth nor buying from
a company that won't accept responsibility for its mistakes.
For What It's Worth . . . .
[ quoted text not captured ]
James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>You've just hit the nail on the head! "WotC doesn't care" You are right,
>they don't care what their consumers think, that's why I'm not buying any
>more WotC products. Why should I give my money to a company which doesn't
>care about its customers? Why should I spend money on a game when the
>company is going to wreck it, over the strenuous objections of its consumer
>base?
Why do you insist on saying that we don't care just because things didn't
go as you would have liked them to? We have to think about *all* customers,
and there will periodically be problems that come up where one set of
customers is going to lose. This doesn't mean we don't care about that
group of customers; it just means that some problems don't have a solution
that is acceptable to everyone.
>Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to kill
>it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
>Empires (from Companion Games).
Great, so go play Galactic Empires. Nobody is forcing you to play Jyhad
or V:TES, so why are you, if you hate the game and the company that much?
Nothing can be done at this point to change the situation with the name
change or the card backs. Either learn to accept that, or move on and let
those of us who still care about and support the game do so. But if all
you do is grouse about the changes and refuse to play with anything besides
Jyhad cards and berate anyone who plays with the new cards, then you are
only helping to aim the bullet you see pointed at the game's brain.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote:
>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:>>You've just hit the nail on the head! "WotC doesn't care" You are right,
>>they don't care what their consumers think, that's why I'm not buying any
>>more WotC products. Why should I give my money to a company which doesn't
>>care about its customers? Why should I spend money on a game when the
>>company is going to wreck it, over the strenuous objections of its consumer
>>base?>
>Why do you insist on saying that we don't care just because things didn't
>go as you would have liked them to? We have to think about *all* customers,
>and there will periodically be problems that come up where one set of
>customers is going to lose. This doesn't mean we don't care about that
>group of customers; it just means that some problems don't have a solution
>that is acceptable to everyone.
Peace Tom,
Because WotC is acting like it doesn't care. Do a card exchange. Prove me wrong.
I'll happily retract all the negative things I've said if WotC shows that it
is willing to be responsible. Yes, there is a solution acceptable to everyone:
card exchange.
>>Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to kill
>>it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
>>Empires (from Companion Games).>
>Great, so go play Galactic Empires. Nobody is forcing you to play Jyhad
>or V:TES, so why are you, if you hate the game and the company that much?
>Nothing can be done at this point to change the situation with the name
>change or the card backs. Either learn to accept that, or move on and let
>those of us who still care about and support the game do so. But if all
>you do is grouse about the changes and refuse to play with anything besides
>Jyhad cards and berate anyone who plays with the new cards, then you are
>only helping to aim the bullet you see pointed at the game's brain.
As if I needed more evidence of WotC lack of caring. . . . This "go away, we don't
need you" and "accept it or go away" stuff just proves my point. No, I'm not
forced to play Jyhad. I chose to start playing Jyhad because it looked like an
interesting game (with a great name) and once I read the rules, I recognized that
WotC really had a terrific game on their hands. I convinced several Magic players
at the game store I go to to try Jyhad and they liked it too. They introduced some
more people (and so on). I'm passionate about the problem for reasons similar to
you, Tom; I love the game and don't want to see it die. Unfortunately, WotC's actions
are going to kill Jyhad/VtES. That's why I'm foaming and spassing. If I have to be
a plump bird with mottled brown or grey feathers to save the game, I can do that.
When have I ever said "I hate Jyhad" or "I hate WotC" or "people who play with the
new cards suck?" Don't put words in my mouth (I'm quite capable of saying assinine
(sp) things w/o your help). If I see that someone is doing the wrong thing, why
shouldn't I point that out? If that person disagrees with my view, why shouldn't we
discuss it? That's what I'm doing. WotC has made a mistake (changing the card backs)
and I'm pointing that out. I've presented a solution (card exchange) and haven't
heard anything definitive from you up or down. We both want the same thing, Tom,
(Jyhad-wise), we're just on opposite sides of the counter.
[ quoted text not captured ]
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:>>Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to kill
>>it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
>>Empires (from Companion Games).>
>Great, so go play Galactic Empires. Nobody is forcing you to play Jyhad
>or V:TES, so why are you, if you hate the game and the company that much?
I expect the answer is that he has spent a fairly large sum of money on
Jyhad components by board game standards.
>Nothing can be done at this point to change the situation with the name
>change or the card backs.
That is most assuredly not true. WotC can print new cards using the old Jyhad
card backs any time you please - the mere announcement of which would end the
controversy instantly. Whether that's a realistic expectation or not depends
on what one believes, I suppose. However, this situation does not reduce to
people like James and I and others here playing the role of "dogs in the
manger", ruining a good thing for everyone else - even if we had it in our
power to. You are not the final judge of whether we have a chance of
accomplishing anything positive or not.
Fred
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>>Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to kill
>>it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
>>Empires (from Companion Games).>Great, so go play Galactic Empires. Nobody is forcing you to play Jyhad
>or V:TES, so why are you, if you hate the game and the company that much?
James hates the game? Did you read his paragraph? Do you read his posts?
>Nothing can be done at this point to change the situation with the name
>change or the card backs.
WotC can not print the cards. WotC can refrain from distributing the
suckers, even if they've been printed. Even after they've been released,
you can print more cards with Jyhad backs. WotC is hardly powerless.
Don't pretend the devil made you do it.
(I know that you, personally, may have little control - but WotC as a
company does have control)
>Either learn to accept that, or move on and let
>those of us who still care about and support the game do so. But if all
>you do is grouse about the changes and refuse to play with anything
besides
>Jyhad cards and berate anyone who plays with the new cards, then you are
>only helping to aim the bullet you see pointed at the game's brain.
Well, if there's no bullet, why do you care where James aims it?
As I've pointed out before, the opinions of old players and the supply of
Jyhad cards basically doom V:tES. Certain DT rulings are, IMO, going to
create big trouble too. Personally, I'm doing my best to separate Jyhad
and V:tES, so the failure of V:tES doesn't bring Jyhad down with it.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>
>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>
wrote:
>>You've just hit the nail on the head! "WotC doesn't care" You are
right,
>>they don't care what their consumers think, that's why I'm not buying
any
>>more WotC products. Why should I give my money to a company which
doesn't
>>care about its customers? Why should I spend money on a game when
the
>>company is going to wreck it, over the strenuous objections of its
consumer
>>base?aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:>
>Why do you insist on saying that we don't care just because things
didn't
>go as you would have liked them to? We have to think about *all*
customers,
>and there will periodically be problems that come up where one set of
>customers is going to lose. This doesn't mean we don't care about
that
>group of customers; it just means that some problems don't have a
solution
>that is acceptable to everyone.
WOTC's action (or lack of action, i.e. a card exchange program) thus
far shows that you guys do not care at all about the serious "first
wave Jyhad" customers.
As one card dealer I've talked to said, "Wizards have pretty much
decided to tell the Jyhad customers to take a hike". Please go beyond
just trying to convince us to just live with mixed Jyhad/VTES decks and
do something to demonstrate that you do care for your unsatisfied Jyhad
customers. After all, your company have done it before (Antiquities
refund & Legends uncommon cards exchange).
>>Yes, Jyhad is/was the best game on the market, but WotC is going to
kill
>>it, so finding a replacement is necessary. Already have. Galactic
>>Empires (from Companion Games).>
>Great, so go play Galactic Empires. Nobody is forcing you to play Jyhad
>or V:TES, so why are you, if you hate the game and the company that much?>Nothing can be done at this point to change the situation with the name>change or the card backs. Either learn to accept that, or move on and let>those of us who still care about and support the game do so. But if all
>you do is grouse about the changes and refuse to play with anything besides
>Jyhad cards and berate anyone who plays with the new cards, then you are
>only helping to aim the bullet you see pointed at the game's brain.
Tom, if James simply hates the game and your company, he wouldn't waste his time
campaigning on this newsgroup. He is not trying to change the situation with the
name change or the card backs since all of us realizes that the first batch of
V:TES cards have already been printed (unless you guys are delaying the VTES
release yet again...) If you read his other postings, you should realize that
James care about the game, as do I and others who share his viewpoint. While he
may get a bit too passionate at times, he is speaking for a lot of Jyhad
players/collectors.
While grousing about the change, refusing to play with anything besides Jyhad
cards, or berating anyone who plays with the new cards are not very constructive,
you can bet that many of us will at least try to take some of these actions
because your company have (thus far) done nothing to counteract the bad feeling
that was created by the card backs change decision. Personally I will probably
just grouse about the change. I'm also holding firm on my boycott of V:TES
products and any non-MTG products that WOTC puts out (BTW, I buy a lot of
games...) Oh, I can also point out to anyone interested in buying V:TES that
it's much cheaper to buy Jyhad cards (since mixed decks won't matter, right ?) as
well as steer them toward other CCGs.
C'est la vie,
Montri
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Why do you insist on saying that we don't care just because things didn't
: go as you would have liked them to? We have to think about *all* customers,
: and there will periodically be problems that come up where one set of
: customers is going to lose. This doesn't mean we don't care about that
: group of customers; it just means that some problems don't have a solution
: that is acceptable to everyone.
Tom, it seems to me that WotC must beleive that it can sell alot more
cards to NEW PLAYERS with the name change, because MANY OLD PLAYERS are
not going to bother spending any more money on the game. Its ashame too,
I was looking foward to the expansion set, but not anymore. I hope that
WotC realizes what it is doing to its image.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Ah, the CHAOTIC FURY of a distant voice,
Michael Bist | "No Mr. Policeman, I didn't run over your
sid...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu | donut on purpose" :-p>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Why do you insist on saying that we don't care just because things didn't
: go as you would have liked them to? We have to think about *all* customers,
: and there will periodically be problems that come up where one set of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: customers is going to lose. This doesn't mean we don't care about that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your spin control is slipping. Can you imagine McDonalds or WalMart
telling their customers, "sorry, but some of you are periodically going
to get the short end of the stick"?
The biggest slap in the face to those of us who are against the change is
this:
You are not merely choosing between satisfying one set of customers and
another; you are choosing to satisfy a set of customers *who do not exist
yet*. Current Jyhad players are less important to you than potential
future V:teS players. Admit it.
WotC expects that new players will make up for the loss of the old
players, or you wouldn't bother printing the new edition. If the old
players were integral to the survival of the game, we wouldn't be
getting the message, "love it or leave it." Therefore, current Jyhad
players are less important to you than potential future V:teS players.
And that's why we feel shabbily treated.
And there are a lot of us. My group contains seven Jyhad players. We
intended to get at least one box apiece when Dark Sovereigns comes out.
Not to mention that we were three players when we started, and loved the
game so much that we pulled the other four in. Now, we're playing On the
Edge, and none of us is particularly interested in buying any more WotC
product, even when DS comes out. Why? Because you care more about
currently nonexistent players than us.
I happen to be the only one in the group with net access. Maybe seven
boxes is not much of a sales loss to WotC, but I'm just one voice here.
Consider this: there are a lot of Jyhad players out there who are still
unaware of the controversy. When V:teS comes out, they're going to pick
up a pack, realize that it's the same cards (basically), and realize that
their decks will be mixed if they include them. What do you think their
reaction is going to be? Even without reading this newsgroup, even
without one of us telling them how inconsiderate the change is, many of
them are going to be turned off by the new backs.
I'll be watching with a sort of horrified fascination as the new game
crashes and burns. And it won't be our fault, and (for all our
invective) we will be saddened.
Brand
(Disclaimer: You *have* convinced me that changing the name of the game is
a good idea. I do not care to be told (again) that it was necessary,
that "Jyhad" is offensive or too obscure, or any of that. I support the
changing of the name, the packaging, the marketing, etc. I just feel
that the library card backs should have stayed the same, and that WotC's
line that "mixed backs don't affect the game" is bullsh*t.)
--
br...@iglou.com Vice Pope of Dogbert's New Ruling Class
--------------- The unexamined life is not worth living;
the unexamined reality is not worth inhabiting.
Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
>Now judging from Tom W post all your whining is not changing anything
I suspect Tom pretty much has to say that. At this point, I'm sure WotC would
like nothing better than for players to accept the change and drop the issue.
If they (through their Netreps) can encourage people to do that by advancing
the notion that complaining will get us nowhere, I'm sure they will. Whether
that is, in fact, true or not is still debatable.
So, no, this is one situation where it doesn't make much sense to "judge from
a Netrep's postings".
>So I guess I'll close by saying sit back smoke one and relax. After all
>its only a game right!
Wrong. As I continually remind people, CCGs do not qualify for the "it's only
a game" attitude since a considerably larger amount of money gets spent on
them than most games. That tends to make people a bit more sensitive about
things and justifiably so, in my book.
Fred
br...@iglou.iglou.com (Karl J. Hiller) wrote:
>Consider this: there are a lot of Jyhad players out there who are still
>unaware of the controversy. When V:teS comes out, they're going to pick
>up a pack, realize that it's the same cards (basically), and realize that
>their decks will be mixed if they include them. What do you think their
>reaction is going to be? Even without reading this newsgroup, even
>without one of us telling them how inconsiderate the change is, many of
>them are going to be turned off by the new backs.
>
>I'll be watching with a sort of horrified fascination as the new game
>crashes and burns. And it won't be our fault, and (for all our
>invective) we will be saddened.
But, Brand, do you realize the Plot Sinister here? The first step in the plan is "to
pick up a pack." Now, think about how many Jyhad players without 'Net
access there are. That means each of those persons will be contributing to
V:TES. WotC will still recoup some of the cost on those uninformed Jyhad
players alone! They don't care about their reactions _after the fact_! Plus,
throw in the gamble on new players, and WotC thinks it'll come out smelling
like a rose! We, those of us that put our faith in Jyhad because the game
concept was so overwhelmingly fresh and exciting, are now burnt hard-core
because of this devious brainstorm. That is why I am just getting out of it
altogether, and I hope that V:TES crashes and burns like WotC's plans.
(Ahhhh, maybe I've been playing V:TM too long. I seem to see a plot
everywhere now.... =])
Lorne Richardson
Agents of Fortune Enterprises
James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:
>As if I needed more evidence of WotC lack of caring. . . . This "go away, we>don't need you" and "accept it or go away" stuff just proves my point...
My point was only that there is little point in continuing to play a game
and yet spend a large amount of time complaining about something that
certainly isn't going to change. The tone of the post I responded to struck
me as "this card back change is ruining my enjoyment of Jyhad". If that's
true, then why play?
We do care about customer input, and we do collate that input and take that
into consideration when making decision. *But*, with just about any decision,
there comes a time when that decision has to be made. If someone doesn't
like the change, complaining about it afterwards is fine and acceptable,
but one has to wonder whether months of complaining about something that isn't
going to change is a reasonable use of time and energy.
>When have I ever said "I hate Jyhad" or "I hate WotC" or "people who play>with the new cards suck?" Don't put words in my mouth...
Well, I may have been lumping you in with several people who post here
and do say that, and have that attitude. If I did so inaccurately, then
I'm sorry.
>If I see that someone is doing the wrong thing, why
>shouldn't I point that out? If that person disagrees with my view, why>shouldn't we discuss it? That's what I'm doing...
Fair enough, but the majority of the "discussions" these days, on this group,
are just people rehashing the same arguments and counterarguments over and
over again, with neither side showing any indiciation of giving ground.
I'm doing this just as much as anyone else, but that's because I *can't*
really give any ground. We can't change the decision on changing the card
backs, and I'm presenting the situation as accurately as I can.
>I'm pointing that out. I've presented a solution (card exchange) and haven't>heard anything definitive from you up or down...
Only because there's nothing definite to give. I don't know what the holdup
is, but then, I'm not on the product team.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote:
>That is most assuredly not true. WotC can print new cards using the old Jyhad
>card backs any time you please - the mere announcement of which would end the
>controversy instantly. Whether that's a realistic expectation or not depends
>on what one believes, I suppose. However, this situation does not reduce to
>people like James and I and others here playing the role of "dogs in the
>manger", ruining a good thing for everyone else - even if we had it in our
>power to. You are not the final judge of whether we have a chance of
>accomplishing anything positive or not.
I can't tell anyone what their definition of "accomplishing anything positive"
is or should be, but I can interpret that definition based on someone's posts,
and give the chances of that definition being met. For example, any definition
which includes printing any more cards with Jyhad on the backs has no chance
of being accomplished.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Karl J. Hiller <br...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>: Why do you insist on saying that we don't care just because things didn't
>: go as you would have liked them to? We have to think about *all* customers,
>: and there will periodically be problems that come up where one set of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: customers is going to lose. This doesn't mean we don't care about that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Your spin control is slipping. Can you imagine McDonalds or WalMart
>telling their customers, "sorry, but some of you are periodically going
>to get the short end of the stick"?
Industries such as mass retail and fast food have the advantage of history.
These industries have had decades of experience, and their role in the
consumers' minds is largely defined, and everyone has basically the same
expectations for such companies. This is not true of the trading card game
industry, which is only a couple of years old. Should expansion sets always
be limited? Should they always be unlimited? Should there be some of one
kind and some of the other? The customer base is probably divided among
all three camps, because most people just haven't had the chance to decide
what the long-term solution "ought" to be.
It also depends on how harsh a definition one gives to "is going to lose".
If General Motors just stops making cars of a given color, then any customer
that really likes that color loses, in a certain sense. Similarly, if a card
gets rotated out for a new edition of a game, anyone who liked that old card a
lot, or hates its replacements, loses in some sense. If you define "is going
to lose" loosely enough to include such situations, then most if not all
industries have this aspect built in almost by definition. It's a fact of
life of just about any industry with a wide customer base that has varied
interests in mind.
>You are not merely choosing between satisfying one set of customers and
>another; you are choosing to satisfy a set of customers *who do not exist
>yet*. Current Jyhad players are less important to you than potential
>future V:teS players. Admit it.
I am not going to admit it because it isn't true.
>WotC expects that new players will make up for the loss of the old
>players, or you wouldn't bother printing the new edition. If the old
>players were integral to the survival of the game, we wouldn't be>getting the message, "love it or leave it."...
The message I'm trying to convey is "It's too late to change the situation,
therefore you are going to have to accept it or leave it."
[ quoted text not captured ]
Frederick Scott <fre...@anthrax.cisco.com> wrote:
>I suspect Tom pretty much has to say that. At this point, I'm sure WotC
>would like nothing better than for players to accept the change and drop the
>issue. If they (through their Netreps) can encourage people to do that by
>advancing the notion that complaining will get us nowhere, I'm sure they
>will. Whether that is, in fact, true or not is still debatable.
Just to make one thing clear: Nobody has instructed me to put any particular
spin on the messages I post on this topic. I am saying that debating the
card back change will not affect the decision to change them because, quite
simply, it won't.
>Wrong. As I continually remind people, CCGs do not qualify for the "it's
>only a game" attitude since a considerably larger amount of money gets spent
>on them than most games. That tends to make people a bit more sensitive about
>things and justifiably so, in my book.
Trading card games should be able to fit the needs of both camps of players:
the ones who just want to play, and the ones who want to take it to a serious
(maybe even professional) level. The original release of Magic may have
poisoned this particular part of the overall vision, but it remains
part of our goal when producing such games.
[ quoted text not captured ]
We are going to implement a deal from the bottom rule as soon as any of us actually get any V:tes cards. That, to me fixes the problem. The only possible
way then to read from the cards is to know what the last card your going to get
will be which is usually of little or no help at all in games.
IMHO Everyone needs to take a pill that will wake them up next tuesday.
Stu
--
This is the official account of the Let's Try This Player's, DramaTech's Own
Improvisational Comedy Troupe. Performing random acts of spontaneity at MaTech
We are dedicated to the discovery of theraputic humor through spontaneous
characterization and organized Chaos. We do not underestimate uses of Duck Tape
Yes, it's been too many postings about the complaints on such subject. But
you have to understand (aiming at the company and its representatives) that
your company relies on the views of the customers. I'm not saying that the
customers are always right, but hell, if no one buys your cards, can you
take the heat? I doubt it. Just look at baseball. Who's sufferring the most?
You tell me. No money, no business, that's my philosophy of business. So
before you start complaining about too many complaints, you might as well
look at the dangerous situation of the switch. I personally have invested over
$200 worth of Jyhad, and I don't think I'll be able to afford buying the
new cards, unless I start selling some of my other cards. I love this game
but I love basketball as well, and if the lockouts continue, I doubt I'll
love watching basketball and will protest by not buying anymore tickets for
the games. I think I can afford protesting the switching to Vamp:TES by not
'buying' any of those cards. Think about it, Did Jyhad make lots of profit?
Will the loyal customers pay more for a different format game?
---jAMES---
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
>James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote:>>As if I needed more evidence of WotC lack of caring. . . . This "go
away, we
>>don't need you" and "accept it or go away" stuff just proves my point...>My point was only that there is little point in continuing to play a game
>and yet spend a large amount of time complaining about something that
>certainly isn't going to change.
Heck, if somebody had told me a year ago that WotC would change the
cardbacks, I would have said "You've GOT to be kidding - they'd never try
such a boneheaded stunt!". So WotC does do things that offhand seem
ridiculous. Changing back would be distinctly less boneheaded (not to say
it wouldn't create a host of problems). Printing BOTH Jyhad and Vampire
cards would create few problems indeed (the print runs would be plenty
large enough to sustain 2 different backs), save for the chance that the
pro-Vampire folks would be embarrassed by a strong market preference for
Jyhad.
It's very much in WotC's best interests to respect the wishes of the core
Jyhad/Vampire audience - experienced gamers entranced by a well-balanced
and strategic game. Even after V:tES hits the shelves, it will STILL be
in your best interests to print (at the very least) future expansions with
Jyhad backs, regardless of the number of Vampire cards that actually see
play.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Greetings and Salutations, Honorable Kindred....
I have become a GREAT fanatic of Jyhad... It requires a GREAT deal of
strategy and tactics... I plan to continue playing, regardless of the
card backs... I have watched all the nonsense and whining far too
long... After following the MtG newsgroups, you see a lot of messages
from "Biffy@<generic_online>", who proves, by word, to be about 12, if
not by age. In Jyhad, you'll find
"DRso_and_so@<college_or_research_facility>", I was hoping we could
resolve this in a much more mature manner...
I don't think the card backs are REALLY going to change the game that
much. Here's my solutions:
1) Require a 10-20% rule, where, if your'e going to mix backs the
minority has be at least 10-20% of the deck. This can be verified
WITHOUT comprimising the secrecy of the Library.
2) Ok, so what if Mr.Toreador has 8 VTES backs in his 80-card deck and
you have reason to beleive that these are his 8 best... Where we play,
in the beginning, the Prey cuts his Predators decks... There are many
ways to cut a deck, just don't get carried away with it... One way is to
fan the deck out on the table and cut the deck to place the majority his
marked cards at the bottom... Here the marking sword cuts both ways...
Just my opinions...
-Wulf
... a simple Gangrel.
"T. S. A. Rule" <tar...@hamlet.uncg.edu> wrote:
> I don't think the card backs are REALLY going to change the game that
> much. Here's my solutions:> 1) Require a 10-20% rule, where, if your'e going to mix backs the
> minority has be at least 10-20% of the deck. This can be verified
> WITHOUT comprimising the secrecy of the Library.> 2) Ok, so what if Mr.Toreador has 8 VTES backs in his 80-card deck and
> you have reason to beleive that these are his 8 best... Where we play,
> in the beginning, the Prey cuts his Predators decks... There are many
> ways to cut a deck, just don't get carried away with it... One way is to
> fan the deck out on the table and cut the deck to place the majority his
> marked cards at the bottom... Here the marking sword cuts both ways...
Or cut the deck so that one of the 8 cards is his ante...
---
Eric Pettersen
pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
>Karl J. Hiller <br...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:>>: Why do you insist on saying that we don't care just because things
didn't
>>: go as you would have liked them to? We have to think about *all*
customers,
>>: and there will periodically be problems that come up where one set of> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>>: customers is going to lose. This doesn't mean we don't care about
that
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Your spin control is slipping. Can you imagine McDonalds or WalMart
>>telling their customers, "sorry, but some of you are periodically going
>>to get the short end of the stick"?>Industries such as mass retail and fast food have the advantage of
history.
Although they make mistakes too. Remember New Coke?
>The message I'm trying to convey is "It's too late to change the
situation,
>therefore you are going to have to accept it or leave it."
May I remind you of what happened with New Coke?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
T. S. A. Rule (tar...@hamlet.uncg.edu) wrote:
: Greetings and Salutations, Honorable Kindred....
Good evening to you, honorable brother in blood.
: I don't think the card backs are REALLY going to change the game that: much. Here's my solutions:: 1) Require a 10-20% rule, where, if your'e going to mix backs the
: minority has be at least 10-20% of the deck. This can be verified
: WITHOUT comprimising the secrecy of the Library.: 2) Ok, so what if Mr.Toreador has 8 VTES backs in his 80-card deck and
: you have reason to beleive that these are his 8 best... Where we play,
: in the beginning, the Prey cuts his Predators decks... There are many
: ways to cut a deck, just don't get carried away with it... One way is to
: fan the deck out on the table and cut the deck to place the majority his
: marked cards at the bottom... Here the marking sword cuts both ways...: Just my opinions...
And an excellent one, IMHO.
What this shows is simply that: whatever is the outcome of the debate on
V:tES and Jyhad backs, it doesn't matter. They're hundreds of ways to go
around the problem, no, to NEGOTIATE a solution to this "problem".
Because that's what it is in fact. We have two camps trying to make the
other side change its viewpoint. And obviously, nobody is winning.
But this isn't a binary situation (where there is only two positions in
the debate). There are a lots of solutions, and for one, I intend to
find one, because I have no intention of buying another 2000+ cards to
replace those I already have, and I intend to play with DS. Conclusion,
I must find a middle ground where me and my friend can play with mixed
decks and still have a lot of fun.
Because this is what it is: a GAME, meant to have fun with, not fun of.
: -Wulf
: ... a simple Gangrel.
Just my opinion.
And many bravos to you Wulf, for your attempt in putting some sense over
here. ;)
--
Karrde
kar...@step.polymtl.ca
"I've found that what people call luck if often little more than raw
talent combined with the ability to make the most of opportunities."
Talon Karrde to Mara Jade, "The Heir to the Empire"
I'm sure someone or multiple people have suggested this, but are there
any plans to issue card sleeves with opaque backs (probably with V:TES
printed on them, though I wouldn't mind Jyhad or no logo.)
WoTC could give them out to encourage people to buy DS (hint, hint.)
Or they could be sold for a modest price, which would not turn away too
many people, but still justify their manufacture (as if letting people
play both versions at once isn't enough.)
"T. S. A. Rule" <tar...@hamlet.uncg.edu> writes:
>I don't think the card backs are REALLY going to change the game that
>much. Here's my solutions:>1) Require a 10-20% rule, where, if your'e going to mix backs the
>minority has be at least 10-20% of the deck. This can be verified
>WITHOUT comprimising the secrecy of the Library.
This I don't expect to be relevant. For a worthwhile marking scheme, you
will want to mark a fundamental aspect of the deck, (like stealth or +
bleed for a Malk) and that will typically be 20% or more of a deck. Cards
present in small numbers but still useful tend to be permanents; with
those cards timing is not so critical and marking distinctly less
advantageous than with action modifiers or combat cards.
>2) Ok, so what if Mr.Toreador has 8 VTES backs in his 80-card deck and
>you have reason to beleive that these are his 8 best...
Again, not relevant. Fundamental (and thus marking target) deck aspects
are almost always composed of common cards - Flash, Bum's Rush, steath, +
bleed, etc (one of the more inspired aspects of Jyhad). It will be rare
for the marked cards to be valuable. (Freak Drive is the only obvious
one). You could cut for the unmarked cards (the rest of the deck), which
would give you a somewhat better chance of drawing a rare card. It's not
much, though.
> Where we play,
>in the beginning, the Prey cuts his Predators decks... There are many
>ways to cut a deck, just don't get carried away with it... One way is to>fan the deck out on the table and cut the deck to place the majority his
>marked cards at the bottom... Here the marking sword cuts both ways...
I've seen two suggestions like this -the sort shuffle (where you pull out
all the V:tES cards and put them on top of the library) - and the
selective cut (your idea). Now the sort shuffle will obviously hose any
mixed deck - whether the mixer is honest or not, his deck will almost
certainly end up unplayable. If you permit this, the common idea to
supplement Jyhad cards with the (V:tES marked) DS cards is obviously not
viable. This fits my concept - no mixing permitted.
Selective cut is interesting. Now somebody taking advantage of marking
will indeed mark both his library and his crypt. However, it is very
unlikely that the most useful marking for vampires will be whether they
can use DS cards. Much more useful, for example, would be size marking,
where small vampires get one back and large another. Hence your idea,
when applied to a "cheater" would associate not his non-DS clans with DS
disciplines, but, say, associate his small vampires with his stealth
cards, which frequently won't be a big disadvantage at all.
Of course, agains an HONEST Jyhad/DS mixer, this could indeed be a lethal
cut. So you've come up with a technique to destroy honest uses of DS
cards while leaving the dishonest uses relatively viable.
This just reflects the kind of fundamental problem card marking introduces
to the game. Any anti-mixing strategy applies to both honest and
dishonest mixers, so the honest mixers may well end up hosed even while
dishonest ones maintain a clear advantage. Certainly if you can handle
dishonestly mixed decks, honestly mixed ones will be unviable and everyone
wishing to play DS will have to shell out for V:tES.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
I like the Black plastic back idea sounds like the best solution I,ve
heard yet! I buy plastic covers anyway and there dirt cheap so sounds
good.
Errol
Hello. Im just getting started in Jyhad. I decided to play
a game of Jyhad at the local gaming store one night.
This was due to the fact magic is starting to make me
physically ill-but I could go on forever about Magic
and how much of a nose dive thats taken.
The point is this: I bought Jyhad cards now before
V;TES came out. I only want to get the old Jyhad cards.
Why? EVERYONE I know has tons of the old cards.
I seriously doubt they will buy any new Vampire cards.
(I know Im not going to fall into another WOTC screw-over)
My friends who are the die hard loyal fans of Jyhad
have invested to much money in the old Jyhad. I just
dont see them spending more cash on cards they probably
already have in their collection.
I was thinking about getting some Dark Sov. but if the
backs dont match-forget it. Im getting the old Jyhad
cards and I dont want 2-3 cards sticking out like a sore
thumb. I know my Jyhad friends wont cheat and Im not
going to use different card backs to cheat. But,
it just seems that the loyal Jyhad fans (like the
loyal magic fans) are fields of money to be
harvested and nothing more.
From a guy whos glad he got into Jyhad now,
BEN.S.
BSPA...@MAINE.maine.edu
>This just reflects the kind of fundamental problem card marking introduces
>to the game. Any anti-mixing strategy applies to both honest and
>dishonest mixers, so the honest mixers may well end up hosed even while
>dishonest ones maintain a clear advantage. Certainly if you can handle
>dishonestly mixed decks, honestly mixed ones will be unviable and everyone
>wishing to play DS will have to shell out for V:tES.
>
>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
I disagree- I don't think that having the backs changed makes all that
big a deal. If your opponent is playing a mixed deck, (and you are
worried about honesty), have him draw solely off of the bottom of his
deck. However, I don't see where knowing the next card is such a big
deal. What I mean is, if a sufficient number of your cards are marked,
you still won't know what the next card is specifically. If (for example)
you were being dishonest, and had all of your vote cards as V:tES and all
the rest Jyhad, you would know that a vote card was on top of your
library. Big deal. I don't think it makes that big of a difference. It
won't change how you play the current round to any great extent. If you
had your stealth cards marked, for example, it may affect things a
little, but it still won't help you know whether or not your opponent has
enough intercept. I suppose maybe I'm just spoiled by playing with honest
people, but when I play, I find that if I try and play so that I'm
counting on certain cards (or kinds of cards for that matter) to come up,
I've set myself on a course early on that leads to losing. I try and play
so that I constantly ask the question, "what can I do with what I have
right now." This is a more aggressive form of tactics, but it seems to work.
--FW
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> "It's about how we live | Tracy Lauricella | *** <>
<> in captivity- we must escape, | is | * | * <>
<> or die trying... | Fenris Wolfe | * | * <>
<> vampires and humans alike." | | *---+---* <>
<> -Nick Knight "Forever Knight"| fen...@wolfe.net | * | * <>
<>-------------------------------|------------------| * | * <>
<> mitakuye oyasin - all of my relations *** <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
What, did I miss a post? I didn't see a black plastic idea.
Opaque (on the back only :-) card sleeves obviously pretty much solve any
card back problem.
WotC would be well advised to give away opaque V:tES-backed sleeves as
promotions rather than additional Jyhad cards, whether their motivation
was financial or ethical.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) writes:
> Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
>>>I like the Black plastic back idea sounds like the best solution I,ve
>>heard yet! I buy plastic covers anyway and there dirt cheap so sounds
>>good.>> Opaque (on the back only :-) card sleeves obviously pretty much solve any
> card back problem.
I just jumped into this thread, but I noticed that this idea sort of
follows along one I thought off the other day.
What originally got me thinking was a TV show on gambling. In it they
showed a game of some sort in Monte Carlo. The card decks were stored on
the playing table in a wood box which the players would draw from. The
box was sealed and only gave out one card at a time, and only showed a bit
of the top of that card. Now I don't know the name of this rather bulky
contraption, but I had seen it before (James Bond Movies seem to ring a bell).
Anyways, I was thinking, how about this simple solution for mixed decks.
Everyone still has their original starter box right?
Why not just turf the deck into that box? You could use pretty much any
cardboard box that is small and convient, but the starter box should be
pretty good.
the top would be open, the flap resting ing on the table, sort of covering
the openinglike, well, a garage door, or flap, or whatever. The point is,
you would not be able to see the cards (at least the tops). You would
still be able to draw easily, and it would hide the card backs, and thus
prevent cheaters. It also keeps the cards in a happy rectangular pile,
provides easy storage for your decks, and makes shuffling a deck MUCH
easier that with sleeves.
Well, that is just my idea to beat the card back idea. It is cheap,
simple, and will probably work well.
What do you guys think?
-Chris
In article <DD4v4...@freenet.carleton.ca> ce...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Chris Mascotto) writes:
>From: ce...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Chris Mascotto)
>Subject: Re: Solution to card back change (was: Vtes, my 2 cents...)
>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 06:24:27 GMT[ quoted text not captured ]>-Chris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Andrews
S2...@nmu.edu
In article <40d8cp$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>
>Opaque (on the back only :-) card sleeves obviously pretty much solve any
>card back problem.
>>WotC would be well advised to give away opaque V:tES-backed sleeves as
>promotions rather than additional Jyhad cards, whether their motivation
>was financial or ethical.
>
I second this motion heartily. All my cards are sheathed anyway, and
I was planning on stuffing any new cards (Dark Sovs, etc.) in a sleeve
with a real Jyhad card behind it. I think special Jyhad sleeves
provided by WotC would be fantastic. ARE THEY LISTENING???? Couldn't
you do this one small favor for us? Please?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Now, I've never used any such sleeves so forgive me for my ignorance,
but doesn't this make a playdeck a bit thick and cumbersome?
Clarendon
Very creative, you sould expand on this further by decorating boxes or
having one designed to suit your needs. Design could reflect your
favorite clan\character etc.
The opaque backed sleeves idea sounds wonderful, but there is one big problem.
Us Jyhad players are the only ones with the problem. Jyhad hasn't sold very
well. We have been screwed once already by the only people who would possibly
produce something so specialized (WotC). I don't think we'll see opaque backs
of sleevs unless we make 'em ourselves. But pulling from a starter sounds just
fine, so don't worry. Except about the cards in your hand giving an advantage
to you opponent ( who can see the backs as you fan them.) Huh, never thought
about that before.
" I vant to suck your blood "
gnfnrf
ce...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Chris Mascotto) wrote:
>What originally got me thinking was a TV show on gambling. In it they
>showed a game of some sort in Monte Carlo. The card decks were stored on
>the playing table in a wood box which the players would draw from. The
>box was sealed and only gave out one card at a time, and only showed a bit
>of the top of that card. Now I don't know the name of this rather bulky
>contraption, but I had seen it before (James Bond Movies seem to ring a bell).
Peace Chris,
The device to which you refer is called a "shoe."
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peace be with you all,
I don't like the idea of opaque sleeves. I don't play with my cards sleeved and
I don't wish to. Sleeved cards slide around too much and can obviously lead to
problems as WotC limits thier use in tournaments. I still believe that a card
exchange is a better solution.
As far as pulling from a starter box (pseudo-shoe) is concerned, what if your
deck won't fit into a starter box?? I've got several decks that won't. Just
more hoops that I shouldn't have to jump through to play the best TCG on the
market (though not for long, the way things are going).
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
I use card them on my cards and have no problem. The stack does get a
bit larger. But, not so large that you can't manage it.
In article <405oj2$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com
(CurtAdams) writes:
>May I remind you of what happened with New Coke?
I know this is coming a bit late, curt, but I haven't been keeping up on
the newsgroup as of late, but I have one thing to say about this:
Yes, I remember New Coke, and guess what? It was the_best_marketing move
Coca-Cola could ever make. It brought so much attention to Coke that when
they rereleased Coke "Classic" more people than ever started to drink it.
Who knows, maybe this is what WoTC is going to do. Jyhad "classic". :-)