Card backs

I don;t see the big fuss about the new backs.. Tom' press release said that the cards will be allowed in combination for tournaments and that the change shoudl not affect the compatability. For everyday playing, who cares if the cards are mixed? And with tournaments, it is said that judges will be looking for people who mark cards by using the backs to their advantage. If you have hundreds of dollars or other currency imnvested in the game, you still can play with what you have so get over it. If they wanted you to have to buy more cards then WotC would have made them incompatible qith the new cards. And if you're so anal retentive that all of your backs must match....tough!

Charles Richard Robb (cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu) wrote: : I don;t see the big fuss about the new backs.. Let me explain... : Tom' press release said that the cards will be allowed in combination for : tournaments and that the change shoudl not affect the compatability. WotC has changed their minds ( or lied? ) about the card back issues before, so the fact that they _said_ that the cards would be usable in tournaments does not mean they _will_ be usable in tournaments. Think about it this way: There are people who will take advantage of the ability to mark their cards, because there are people who suck. People who run tournaments will be far too busy to check every crypt and library for certain patterns of cards that might be contrued as cheating. Therefore, if cards are allowed to be mixed in tournaments, the cheaters will an advantage. : For : everyday playing, who cares if the cards are mixed? How about this: We are both playing Tremere, you have Bob, a Dark Soveriegns Tremere in play, as well as Sarah Cobbler. I play Betrayer. All my crypt cards are Jyhad cards. Guess you know who the traitor is. In general you will always know which cards are _not_ expansion set cards, even in friendly games. It's even worse for people like me, who have enough Jyhad cards, and was only planning on bying the expansions. With me you'll know it's an expansion card, just from the card backs ( he can't be holding any wakes, those are all V:TES cards. ). : And with tournaments, : it is said that judges will be looking for people who mark cards by using : the backs to their advantage. If you have hundreds of dollars or other : currency : imnvested in the game, you still can play with what you have so get over it. If you have hundreds of dollars invested in alpha cards, you still don't have a mana drain, which is a very useful tournament card. The same will be true for V:TES. : If they wanted you to have to buy more cards then WotC would have made them : incompatible qith the new cards. They already did that. None of my Jyhad cards are compatible with my Magic: the Gathering cards. The problem is not them releasing a new game ( V:TES ), the problem is, they will no longer be supporting an old game ( Jyhad ). I can still buy Magic expansion sets now that Jyhad has come out. If I was able to buy Dark Soveriegns with the Jyhad back, I would care less is they replaced all the Jyhad vampires with movie shots from Interview with the Vampire when they relaesd V:TES. : And if you're so anal retentive that all of : your backs must match....tough! This many people don't post about a subject if their only desire is to be neat. Mabybe you don't expect respect from WotC, because you have no respect for other people. Larrx...

Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: : : And if you're so anal retentive that all of : : your backs must match....tough! : This many people don't post about a subject if their only desire is to be : neat. Mabybe you don't expect respect from WotC, because you have no respect : for other people. Respect? Where's repsect when it comes to selling more of your product for capital gain? This is capitalism. That's the way things work. If you don't like changes to a product, don;t buy it. I might buy the expansions just to make straight expansion decks and not mix them with other 'alpha' cards. Many who want alpha cards will trade beta cards to get alpha with those who need betas so that their decks will be indistinguishable from the rest of the cards.

In article <3o5lrm$4...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >If they wanted you to have to buy more cards then WotC would have made them >incompatible qith the new cards. As stated my other post, the V:tES psuedo-compactability scheme is exactly to force players to buy more cards. Players with a large Jyhad collection can't really do as well as players with marked backs; you'll be forced to buy lots of new cards for the marked backs, no matter how good your collection already is. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3o64qa$c...@NNTP.MsState.Edu> cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: > >: This many people don't post about a subject if their only desire is to be >: neat. Mabybe you don't expect respect from WotC, because you have no respect >: for other people. >Respect? >Where's repsect when it comes to selling more of your product for capital gain? >This is capitalism. That's the way things work. If you don't like changes to a >product, don;t buy it. It's capitalism; so what? No one has proven that capitalism is right. (I'm not communist; I'm unificationist.) I _may_ (not so humbly) blame players who support a company's immoral practices; such support tends to encourage such practices, and may be partially responsible as one of the causes of such practices. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3o5lrm$4...@NNTP.MsState.Edu>, Charles Richard Robb <cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote: >I don;t see the big fuss about the new backs.. >Tom' press release said that the cards will be allowed in combination for >tournaments and that the change shoudl not affect the compatability. For It will. Whether or not there *is* a difference in the play, people *perceive* a difference, and in a game, that purely cosmetic difference is sometimes critical. After all, wasn't it for cosmetic reasons that the name was changed? >everyday playing, who cares if the cards are mixed? And with tournaments, >it is said that judges will be looking for people who mark cards by using >the backs to their advantage. Good grief. As a tournament judge (and I've lost count of how many I've run), I have a hard enough time checking *Magic* decks for everything obvious. Jyhad is a pure joy to run in comparison; no limits, no restricted list no banned list (just cautious reminders about a few cards), just let it play itself. As a tournament coordinator, I am not happy about having to suddenly worry about deck stacking. Not one bit. >If they wanted you to have to buy more cards then WotC would have made them >incompatible qith the new cards. And if you're so anal retentive that all of >your backs must match....tough! Nope, just unlucky for WotC. I still play with only black bordered Magic cards, because I think the white bordered ones look ugly. I've made my Magic investment, and I don't see the need to dip into my wallet for 4E. V:tES will be the same. After I see the cards, I'll decide whether or not it's worth my investment to collect Dark Sovereigns (sp). | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

Charles Richard Robb (cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu) wrote: : I don;t see the big fuss about the new backs.. : Tom' press release said that the cards will be allowed in combination for : tournaments and that the change shoudl not affect the compatability. For : everyday playing, who cares if the cards are mixed? And with tournaments, : it is said that judges will be looking for people who mark cards by using : the backs to their advantage. If you have hundreds of dollars or other currency : imnvested in the game, you still can play with what you have so get over it. : If they wanted you to have to buy more cards then WotC would have made them : incompatible qith the new cards. And if you're so anal retentive that all of : your backs must match....tough! I made a simple mistake in missing the part about ALL card backs being changed I thought they were still only changing the vamp backs. Now I see how this could prove to be an abusive bad thing for play and an attempt to get more people to buy cards,

Larry Harriman <la...@bu.edu> wrote: >WotC has changed their minds ( or lied? ) about the card back issues before, Yes, we changed our minds before setting the final policy on the card backs. The only firm policy released on the card backs was the one recently announced, saying that the card backs will change. >so the fact that they _said_ that the cards would be usable in tournaments >does not mean they _will_ be usable in tournaments... I have seen the Convocation rules for Jyhad/V:TES, and they explicitly allow mixing the card backs. I see no reason for this to change before those rules are released. >...People who run tournaments will be far too >busy to check every crypt and library for certain patterns of cards that might >be contrued as cheating... We never expect the judges to policy each and every deck for cheating. We don't expect them to check each and every deck to make sure it meets the deck construction rules, for example. It is left up to the player to spot potential cheating, and to bring it to the attention of a referee or judge. >How about this: We are both playing Tremere, you have Bob, a Dark Soveriegns >Tremere in play, as well as Sarah Cobbler. I play Betrayer. All my crypt >cards are Jyhad cards. Guess you know who the traitor is... OK, so you find out in one turn instead of two. What's the big deal? >It's even worse for people like me, who have enough Jyhad cards, and >was only planning on bying the expansions. With me you'll know it's an >expansion card, just from the card backs ( he can't be holding any wakes, >those are all V:TES cards. ). Well, is there anything that says you have to show them the backs of the cards in your hand? It's not clear what the answer to this would be in official tournament play, so it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to disallow that sort of examination, especially in non-tournament play. >The problem is not them releasing a new game ( V:TES ), >the problem is, they will no longer be supporting an old game ( Jyhad )... V:TES is Jyhad, just repackaged. By supporting V:TES we are supporting Jyhad. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >Respect? >Where's repsect when it comes to selling more of your product for capital >gain? This is capitalism. That's the way things work. Or 'don't work,' as the case may be. 'Respect' from a capitalistic viewpoint is an intangible quality which may have a dollar value placed on it or not, at your discretion. If customers demand 'respect', then it's profitable to offer it. If they'll buy from you no matter what, screw 'em. >If you don't like changes to a >product, don;t buy it. I might buy the expansions just to make straight >expansion decks and not mix them with other 'alpha' cards. Then you're a fool, since it's highly unlikely that 'all expansion' decks will work. So you'll be left with marked expansion cards which you can't really play with. It's people like you who turn capitalism into a self-serving dickensian hell. >Many who want alpha >cards will trade beta cards to get alpha with those who need betas so that >their decks will be indistinguishable from the rest of the cards. *Why* would anyone in their right mind trade betas for alphas? Players, I'm talking about here, since collectors can hardly support everyone's need for a good mix of betas. If you offer a player with all betas an alpha sengir dagger for a pair of beta wolf-claws, he'd be a fool to accept since he couldn't use it. Or, assuming that the people he knows aren't fools, trade it for anything beta which he could use. You'll either be buying your betas or doing without, or finding some idiot to be dragged down into marked-back hell with you to get halfway out. Good luck. -- Aaron Mandelbaum

cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu (Charles Richard Robb) writes: >Larry Harriman (la...@bu.edu) wrote: >: : And if you're so anal retentive that all of >: : your backs must match....tough! >: This many people don't post about a subject if their only desire is to be >: neat. Mabybe you don't expect respect from WotC, because you have no respect >: for other people. >Respect? >Where's repsect when it comes to selling more of your product for capital gain? >This is capitalism. That's the way things work. If you don't like changes to a >product, don;t buy it. That's exactly what I plan to do. It's WotC's product, they do have the right to change it. I have the right to burn my money too, it's just dumb. I won't burn any more of my money buying WotC product. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > Larry Harriman <la...@bu.edu> wrote: > >so the fact that they _said_ that the cards would be usable in tournaments > >does not mean they _will_ be usable in tournaments... > > I have seen the Convocation rules for Jyhad/V:TES, and they explicitly > allow mixing the card backs. I see no reason for this to change before > those rules are released. Peace Tom, The point isn't "will the first Convocation tourney rules allow mixed decks", it is "when mixed decks are shown to provide an unfair advantage to those who would cheat to win, _will mixed decks be banned in the future_?" Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3o8l51$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: > >Larry Harriman <la...@bu.edu> wrote: >>WotC has changed their minds ( or lied? ) about the card back issues before, > >Yes, we changed our minds before setting the final policy on the card >backs. The only firm policy released on the card backs was the one >recently announced, saying that the card backs will change. You did see the post from Matt Burke on Jan. 31 that was reposted here, didn't you? The one which said in no terms indicating tentativeness that the library would stay the same? Care to respond to that? > >>so the fact that they _said_ that the cards would be usable in tournaments >>does not mean they _will_ be usable in tournaments... > >I have seen the Convocation rules for Jyhad/V:TES, and they explicitly >allow mixing the card backs. I see no reason for this to change before >those rules are released. How about afterward? A year down the road? Watch your MAgic history and learn. Don't repeat it. >>...People who run tournaments will be far too >>busy to check every crypt and library for certain patterns of cards that might >>be contrued as cheating... > >We never expect the judges to policy each and every deck for cheating. >We don't expect them to check each and every deck to make sure it meets >the deck construction rules, for example. It is left up to the player to >spot potential cheating, and to bring it to the attention of a >referee or judge. Too bad you don't tell judges about that. Many's the time I've seen decks checked at a tournament to make sure nothing obvious or accidental is wrong. >>How about this: We are both playing Tremere, you have Bob, a Dark Soveriegns >>Tremere in play, as well as Sarah Cobbler. I play Betrayer. All my crypt >>cards are Jyhad cards. Guess you know who the traitor is... > >OK, so you find out in one turn instead of two. What's the big deal? It only breaks the game a little. Who cares? Certainly not the people who want to sell you more cards. ?!? >>It's even worse for people like me, who have enough Jyhad cards, and >>was only planning on bying the expansions. With me you'll know it's an >>expansion card, just from the card backs ( he can't be holding any wakes, >>those are all V:TES cards. ). > >Well, is there anything that says you have to show them the backs of >the cards in your hand? It's not clear what the answer to this would be >in official tournament play, so it strikes me as perfectly reasonable >to disallow that sort of examination, especially in non-tournament play. Yes, folks, it's attack of the munchkins! All I have to do is remember your draw and I know what the backs in your hands are. If you won't let me look at them, I can certainly write them down as you draw them and cross them off as you play them. That's not illegal either. >>The problem is not them releasing a new game ( V:TES ), >>the problem is, they will no longer be supporting an old game ( Jyhad )... > >V:TES is Jyhad, just repackaged. By supporting V:TES we are supporting Jyhad. Why, then, do your customers feel that you are abandoning them? [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Larry Harriman <la...@bu.edu> wrote: : >How about this: We are both playing Tremere, you have Bob, a Dark Soveriegns : >Tremere in play, as well as Sarah Cobbler. I play Betrayer. All my crypt : >cards are Jyhad cards. Guess you know who the traitor is... : OK, so you find out in one turn instead of two. What's the big deal? I cannot believe that you said that. "What's the big deal?" Are you being deliberately obtuse? Can't you extrapolate just a little bit and see what a problem this would cause, maybe not in this situation, but in similar ones? Fine. Let's say that you have TEN vampires out, not three. So you find out in one turn instead of nine. Is that a big enough deal? "What's the big deal?" It's not just one card, like Betrayer, not just one example that you can find a way to discredit. It's a whole range of unbalancing situations. It's dozens of new ways for unscrupulous players to cheat. It's total lack of respect for your existing customer base. THAT'S the big deal. Since it's clear that you'd rather dismiss our concerns rather than address them, try using this phrase next time: "So what?" It means the same thing as "what's the big deal", but it's a bit more honest. Bye now. -- br...@iglou.com "Shake a person up enough and what they thought was a --------------- personality starts to separate. We can be *anything*." - Grant Morrison

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Larry Harriman <la...@bu.edu> wrote: >>How about this: We are both playing Tremere, you have Bob, a Dark Soveriegns >>Tremere in play, as well as Sarah Cobbler. I play Betrayer. All my crypt >>cards are Jyhad cards. Guess you know who the traitor is... >OK, so you find out in one turn instead of two. What's the big deal? Sorry Tom but it can and will be a big deal. What if instead of 2 Vamps he has 4 out there? So instead of the player losing 3 pool if he guesses really bad the player will only lose 1. It will become a very very big deal especially with Dark Sovereigns cards. I myself would have only bought the expansions and then I would have known that every card with a Vampire logo would be a Dark Sovereigns card. Therefore, I had some future knowledge of what type of card it could be. And that goes double with Vampires. I could know if I should spend a pool trying to get out a certain vamp or not. >>It's even worse for people like me, who have enough Jyhad cards, and >>was only planning on bying the expansions. With me you'll know it's an >>expansion card, just from the card backs ( he can't be holding any wakes, >>those are all V:TES cards. ). >Well, is there anything that says you have to show them the backs of >the cards in your hand? It's not clear what the answer to this would be >in official tournament play, so it strikes me as perfectly reasonable >to disallow that sort of examination, especially in non-tournament play. Hmm I can just picture it now. Could you close your eyes? I'm about to play a card. *grin* Todd -- "So what if God is a lie? What would you do then?" "If it is necessary to choose between God and the truth I will always pick God." -Crimes and Misdemeanors

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: > >>V:TES is Jyhad, just repackaged. By supporting V:TES we are supporting Jyhad > > Why, then, do your customers feel that you are abandoning them? > > There are probably several reasons for it. The most prevalent one seems to > be that by not strictly following the feedback from the customers, we > demonstrated that we don't have any respect for them, don't care what they > think, etc. This is simply not true. We collected feedback from the customers > to help us decide what to do; that does not mean we were simply leaving the > issue up to a vote by whoever responded. Peace Tom, As far as I can tell, whatever feedback was collected by WotC about card back changes must have been ignored (note: I am not an impartial observer). The decision to change cards backs is contrary to 90% of the responses I have seen (net & face-to- face). I realize that this is not a representative servey (sp), but when an overwhelming majority of yor customers are opposed to a change you probably shouldn't make that change (unless you are the US congress). [ quoted text not captured ]

Karl J. Hiller <br...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote: >Are you being deliberately obtuse? Can't you extrapolate just a little >bit and see what a problem this would cause, maybe not in this situation, >but in similar ones? >Fine. Let's say that you have TEN vampires out, not three. So you find >out in one turn instead of nine. Is that a big enough deal? I considered situations where more than two vampires in play, but how many more vampires is the person really likely to have? How often do you see people with ten vampires in play? Three to five is probably the average range, once the game gets going. >It's not just one card, like Betrayer, not just one example that you can >find a way to discredit. It's a whole range of unbalancing situations. By and large, these unbalancing situations only seem that way if you don't consider how the knowledge can be used against you. In another post, someone suggested having your untap cards marked. Great, so you know when your untap cards are going to come up. This can easily lead to taking actions prematurely just so you can get to your untap cards, taking bleed actions that just get bounced and allow your prey to whack your grandprey that much sooner, falling into a combat deck waiting to cycle its hand, etc. >Since it's clear that you'd rather dismiss our concerns rather than >address them... The fact that we are changing the card backs does not mean that we ignored the feedback from the customers. We considered the feedback carefully, along with our own thoughts, and decided to change the card backs anyway. This is hardly what I'd call "dismissing" the concerns, but maybe I just have a skewed defintion of "dismiss". >It means the same thing as "what's the big deal"... "What's the big deal" (while not a great thing to post) was specifically referring to the Betrayer example, not to the issue in general. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>We never expect the judges to policy each and every deck for cheating. >>We don't expect them to check each and every deck to make sure it meets >>the deck construction rules, for example. It is left up to the player to >>spot potential cheating, and to bring it to the attention of a >>referee or judge. > Too bad you don't tell judges about that. Many's the time I've >seen decks checked at a tournament to make sure nothing obvious or >accidental is wrong. If the judge *wants* to check all the decks, he or she can go right ahead and do so. That doesn't mean we expect them to. >>V:TES is Jyhad, just repackaged. By supporting V:TES we are supporting Jyhad > Why, then, do your customers feel that you are abandoning them? There are probably several reasons for it. The most prevalent one seems to be that by not strictly following the feedback from the customers, we demonstrated that we don't have any respect for them, don't care what they think, etc. This is simply not true. We collected feedback from the customers to help us decide what to do; that does not mean we were simply leaving the issue up to a vote by whoever responded. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ocgs7$8...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Karl J. Hiller <br...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote: >>Fine. Let's say that you have TEN vampires out, not three. So you find >>out in one turn instead of nine. Is that a big enough deal? > >I considered situations where more than two vampires in play, but how many >more vampires is the person really likely to have? How often do you see >people with ten vampires in play? Three to five is probably the average >range, once the game gets going. From my net survey, the average is 5-6 vampires. A little higher in weenie decks, up to about 8. But even with only 4 vampires, that's 8 blood from the Betrayer instead of 2. 6 blood is a big deal. At least, I think it is. That's why I go after my prey, you know. >>Since it's clear that you'd rather dismiss our concerns rather than >>address them... > >The fact that we are changing the card backs does not mean that we ignored >the feedback from the customers. We considered the feedback carefully, >along with our own thoughts, and decided to change the card backs anyway. >This is hardly what I'd call "dismissing" the concerns, but maybe I just >have a skewed defintion of "dismiss". Okay, I've seen dismiss, disgreard, set aside, and ignored among the more polite terms as to what your customers feel you have done. You can't really sugar-coat the fact that you did what you pleased, despite the feedback. You're not going to get back lost respect by dickering semantics. We all know the score here. [ quoted text not captured ]

>We collected feedback from the customers >to help us decide what to do; that does not mean >we were simply leaving the >issue up to a vote by whoever responded. >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. The feedback was extremely negative, with virtually everyone against it and a number of boycott threats. What feedback would have made you leave the backs alone? Threats from the Unibomber? We responded very negatively, and you did it anyway. My conclusion is that what we said clearly had no influence on the decision. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

> >The fact that we are changing the card backs does not mean that we ignored >the feedback from the customers. We considered the feedback carefully, >along with our own thoughts, and decided to change the card backs anyway. >This is hardly what I'd call "dismissing" the concerns, but maybe I just >have a skewed defintion of "dismiss". > > >Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for >aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > What was were your carefull considerations based upon if it wasn't game play/balance? -Jasper

On 3 May 1995, Thomas R Wylie wrote: -snip > >so the fact that they _said_ that the cards would be usable in tournaments > >does not mean they _will_ be usable in tournaments... > > I have seen the Convocation rules for Jyhad/V:TES, and they explicitly > allow mixing the card backs. I see no reason for this to change before > those rules are released. Usually nobody means the Convocation rules when they make a statement like this. The rules say its okay, but the expected reaction is that the mixed decks will be outlawed "...to make my life easier as a tournament sponsor..." > >...People who run tournaments will be far too busy to check every > >crypt and library for certain patterns of cards that might > >be construed as cheating... And so they will do away with the "problem" that they see, which is mixed decks. > >How about this: We are both playing Tremere, you have Bob, a Dark Soveriegns > >Tremere in play, as well as Sarah Cobbler. I play Betrayer. All my crypt > >cards are Jyhad cards. Guess you know who the traitor is... > > OK, so you find out in one turn instead of two. What's the big deal? Well in just about any game, if you lose an amount of blood that is half as much as I intended, you are much better off. I have lost an advantage that I hoped to gain by playing the card in the first place. (If you did not know which was Betrayed, you would have to guess the second time as well as the first, in order to remove the Betrayer. With a difference in backs, that cannot happen.) > >It's even worse for people like me, who have enough Jyhad cards, and > >was only planning on bying the expansions. With me you'll know it's an > >expansion card, just from the card backs ( he can't be holding any wakes, > >those are all V:TES cards. ). > > Well, is there anything that says you have to show them the backs of > the cards in your hand? It's not clear what the answer to this would be > in official tournament play, so it strikes me as perfectly reasonable > to disallow that sort of examination, especially in non-tournament play. In all the rules I have seen the Convocation come up with, (as well as other non-santioned tourneys) you are required to keep your cards (and your hands) above the level of the table, or risk disqualification. Thus your cards are visible. And if you want to look at them yourself, your opponant will see the backs. (Unless you want to look silly trying to hide the front AND the back of each card while you look at them.) > >The problem is not them releasing a new game ( V:TES ), > >the problem is, they will no longer be supporting an old game ( Jyhad )... > > V:TES is Jyhad, just repackaged. By supporting V:TES we are supporting Jyhad. > > > Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc. > > As often as you try to sell us the "same game" story, you will be contradicting yourself. They have the same rules (if the new players use all the rules, not just the Magic:tG rules), but they are distinct in their presentation. This unfortunately makes them different enough to make mixing them problematic at best. Remy leb...@u.washington.edu | It's not my fault! Gambit at the U.W. | Laugh it up fuzzball! | - Han Solo "I don't want the world, I just want your half." "Life is like a riddle, and I'm really stumped."

Tom.... Have you and all of the others sold out to White Wolf? I thought you had these newsgroups to get feedback from the PLAYERS?! You change the cardbacks you change the game....Why did you have to go and ruin a good game just for a few extra bucks??? P.S. here's a small example of the cardback problem: I have a magic deck with all the jewlery in it, all alpha the rest of my cards are normal...cut my deck for me. You see now? -- Jef Lepine jle...@monaco.diag.stratus.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- " I am all man as I am no man, and therefore I am...A god!" -Caligula-