hey --
well, let me start by saying thanks for all the email i've received
[both encouraging and disparaging]... i'm convinced now that i was
right in treading the fine line i did when i made my initial posts
yesterday...
this, in spite of the fact that pretty much the entire boston area
play group wants to see me strangled with my own steaming entrails...
so i've chosen my path, irrevocably: even if i were to change my
mind, i'd probably have to relocate to get a game in... s'okay --
that would have been the case eventually, anyway: you think i'm a
dick out here...? you should see me in a v:tes game... but i NEVER
break a deal...
please, world at large, lsj, and ww: let it be known that nobody else
in that group of players should be held accountable for my words and
actions -- i chose to stand alone on this one... given the chance,
i'd do it precisely the same [only a little smarter-sounding]...
in response to a significant number of requests for more and specific
information [most of which were from persons concerned as to whether
or not they should pre-order healthy amounts of this set before
knowing the full score], i can only say: i cannot and will not
directly violate the NDA... i do not believe i have violated it at
this point, and i cannot see my way clear to doing so, no matter what
my feelings about the situation, and regardless of my plans to put
this game down...
so, please stop asking... it makes me feel bad to have to refuse...
if my hostile and abrasive posting style offends anyone [with the
exception of the intended targets], i apologize... those of you who
know me know i'm a right raw bastard... too late to change that now
-- it's how i'm wired... you'll never wonder where you stand with me,
though... minor consolation, at best...
what i'm on about now, though, is this: why hasn't there been any
kind of response out of the powers that be...? confirm, deny, send
assassins to kill me, something...?! this is your chance to salvage
some kind of respectability out of this situation... please take
it...
your silence damns you...
-- khs
> what i'm on about now, though, is this: why hasn't there been any
> kind of response out of the powers that be...? confirm, deny, send
> assassins to kill me, something...?! this is your chance to salvage
> some kind of respectability out of this situation... please take
> it...
Kevin,
I am not associated with White Wolf in any way. I think that you should be
able to blow off some steam. Whether the perceived wrong is real or not, I
am glad you got your greivance out on the table. Personally, I am not
worried about it. I have done several analysis, and discovered that under
each and every one of the theories posted about what that 3 means, It still
would not affect my decision to purchase the new set. If you think about
it, it really isn't that big of a deal. I am going to buy quite a few boxes.
I am totally looking forward to a new set of Camrilla vampires.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
On 2 Jul 2002 16:27:58 -0700, kevins...@airbridge.net (kevin
scribner) wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Kevin,
Silence about these things are pretty much the norm. Back when there
were other issues to complain about (7/7) all we received was a lot of
newsgroup static and no real response from the -then- RulesTeam.
Times have changed some. Since the game returned to WW, I honestly get
the feeling that VTES is being developed methodically rather than kluged
together. VTES is still behind in terms of evolution, but change never
comes easy.
What hasn't changed is that you never hear any explanation for WHY
something has been implimented. We're just supposed to suck it up when
the RulesTeam decides something needs fixing. Fortunately, as was shown
from the May 31 rulings the RuleTeam is willing to redirect an issue
which they may not have given enough thought to (the Ally/Agg. issue).
Unfortunately, any redress takes monumental effort to gain their
attention. I recall earlier this year when Noal made a suggestion to
better a small portion of the tournament seating chart. There was a
thread of at least 47 messages before a change was considered.
I can respect the game designers & rules team for sticking to their
guns. Once in awhile though, they need to accept that others have the
ability to contribute good ideas. If it was up to me I'd elect Josh
Duffin to the Rules Team as he's the one making the most sense around
here lately.
Okay, I'm done rambling now :-)
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
"kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message
news:67327703.0207...@posting.google.com...
> what i'm on about now, though, is this: why hasn't there been any
> kind of response out of the powers that be...? confirm, deny, send
> assassins to kill me, something...?! this is your chance to salvage
> some kind of respectability out of this situation... please take
> it...
>
> your silence damns you...
Kevin, it seems to me that White Wolf is communicating quite well through the
"previews". So far, we've seen the new look and, from the look of the previews
page, it will be an extensive preview and will reveal lots about the new set.
Certainly WW has a right to release information, especially information that you
feel is important, in the manner of their choosing. It doesn't make sense to me
to demand that they abandon their marketing plan to answer your accusations.
Frankly, you aren't even sharing any tangible information so all you are doing
is stirring negative reactions. Maybe its because you are a relative newcomer
but Kevin, let me assure you, we can all get riled-up on our own. :)
-Robert
berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
> Unfortunately, any redress takes monumental effort to gain their
> attention. I recall earlier this year when Noal made a suggestion to
> better a small portion of the tournament seating chart. There was a
> thread of at least 47 messages before a change was considered.
47 messages is monumental?
How many of those messages were from WW, and how many of the non-WW messages
had to be made before WW made its first response (i.e., before WW attention
was gained)?
Try that with any other TCG-tournament-governing body.
FWIW: Most of the messages were spent bringing Noal et al. up to speed
on what the seating chart criteria were (since they had up until that
not been completely and clearly stated in a public forum).
After that, Noal's very good (or, at the very least, non-harmful, for
those who wish to argue the point) suggestion about equalizing starting
transfers in a manner that didn't sacrifice any of the other criteria
was quickly adopted and implemented.
Ask Noal.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
kevins...@airbridge.net (kevin scribner) wrote in message news:<67327703.0207...@posting.google.com>...
> why hasn't there been any
> kind of response out of the powers that be...?
Maybe because they don't give a damn what you say? I know I don't. A
playtester doesn't like a new rule, boo hoo hoo. That's worth
sacrificing the goodwill of your friends in your local gaming group
and any reputation for professional ethics you had? Whatever. I would
be greatly surprised if anyone changed their card order plans based on
your little tantrum.
Robert is correct. We have shown a plan for releasing the Camarilla preview
information and we're following through with it. An acerbic post or two
isn't enough to change our minds on that roll-out of information. Also, I
prefer to answer e-mails that offer constructive criticsim or pose
non-rhetorical questions. Replying to rants usually gets you another rant in
my experience, so why bother?
Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
constructive criticism about it?
Signal vs. Noise
Steve Wieck
White Wolf
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2dxU8.225$pp3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<2dxU8.225$pp3....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> "kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message
> news:67327703.0207...@posting.google.com...
>
> > what i'm on about now, though, is this: why hasn't there been any
> > kind of response out of the powers that be...? confirm, deny, send
> > assassins to kill me, something...?! this is your chance to salvage
> > some kind of respectability out of this situation... please take
> > it...
> >
> > your silence damns you...
>
> Kevin, it seems to me that White Wolf is communicating quite well through the
> "previews". So far, we've seen the new look and, from the look of the previews
> page, it will be an extensive preview and will reveal lots about the new set.
i can't believe you actually believe that... i've never met you, but
i've heard a lot about you, and none of it led me to expect quite so
obtuse a response from you...
you call this communicative...?!
> Certainly WW has a right to release information, especially information that you
> feel is important, in the manner of their choosing. It doesn't make sense to me
> to demand that they abandon their marketing plan to answer your accusations.
> Frankly, you aren't even sharing any tangible information so all you are doing
> is stirring negative reactions. Maybe its because you are a relative newcomer
> but Kevin, let me assure you, we can all get riled-up on our own. :)
you are correct... and it is obvious that they do not want to let
their customer base know before the pre-ordering deadline has passed,
that the product they are putting forward bears perilously little
relationship to the product they have marketed for the last 8 years...
the layout is changed...
there is a SIGNIFICANT new rules thing that will rock this game to its
core...
everything from bloodlines back to jyhad was one game... this is
essentially a totally different product, but they don't want that made
known until the pre-orders are done... which means they want everyone
to think they're ordering the same game -- which is definitely not the
case...
that's why i've alienated all of my friends, and essentially made it
so that even if i wanted to continue playing, i'd be hard pressed to
find a tqable of players that will allow me to sit with them after all
of this...
because i think what they're doing is tantamount to fraud... and i
think a lot of people are going to agree with me, when everything is
out on the table...
the ~other thing~ should have been mentioned in the initial press
release... or when wieck posted about the set... or at the beginning
of the preview... for christ's sake, they could have dropped enough
spin on it to make it a selling point, if they tried hard enough...
the fact that they haven't should be telling you all something...
and since it strikes me as truly despicable, i posted... lsj has
replied to side topics, but won't go near the main issue... ever stop
to wonder why...?
i'll tell you why... because it's not just players who pre-order...
it's stores... and that piece of their pie is a lot bigger than the
player pre-order slice, for sure...
and if the truth gets out too soon, their set goes down the shitter
before it even hits the public...
isn't a preview supposed to generate excitement...? then why is this
one being used for damage control...?
with bloodlines, they were throwing information around like candy...
scare, infernal, sterile, disciplines, cards, art, the works... the
individual bloodlines were released over time, yes, but the important
information was put out fast to get everyone hot for the set...
this is the opposite exactly... they're not kicking in the poop
becasue they know it's gonna kill them...
this is where i'm operating from... if you still have a hard time
understanding why i have the bends so bad, i can't do much more for
you...
sorry to get off on a foot like this -- i was hoping to just be
kicking your ass at the next championbships... :) [i can't go this
year, and i won't be playing this game when the next one rolls around
-- you got off easy...]
> -Robert
>"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:75bdf7ed.02070...@posting.google.com...>
>Whatever. I would be greatly surprised if anyone changed their card order
plans based on
>your little tantrum.
Some already have.
Steve Wieck wrote:
> Robert is correct. We have shown a plan for releasing the Camarilla preview
> information and we're following through with it. An acerbic post or two
> isn't enough to change our minds on that roll-out of information. Also, I
> prefer to answer e-mails that offer constructive criticsim or pose
> non-rhetorical questions. Replying to rants usually gets you another rant in
> my experience, so why bother?> Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
> constructive criticism about it?
You're not going to get a pat on the back for what is perceived to be
royally fucking up a product. Slapping an outright ban on 100 vampires
interacting with 112 other vampires, without any consultation of the fan
base, is never going to go over well. By closing the doors and not
soliciting the opinions of more than the handful that playtest, there
can be no "constructive criticism" until after the rule books and cards
are already printed. You have to know this.
The official reason for the ban is balance. No vampire has ever been
banned before, because they were not powerful enough to warrant a ban.
Now, at the 11th hour, it's decided that 100s need to be banned. The
theory is that the additional cammarilla vampires would upset balance by
giving decks the ability to play tight discipline matches without the
disability of doubling up in the crypt. However, this isn't serious
problem, and less drastic measures could have been taken even if it was.
First, if you're building a deck based on cammarilla disciplines you
can already find enough vampires for a viable deck. New cammarilla
vampires might reduce the amount of duplication in your crypt, but it is
very seldom that this is an earth shattering thing. Even in decks with
only six different vampires, you tend to get at least 3 different ones
in the opening uncontrolled region. Secondly, this could have been
remedied by reprinting the existing cammarilla vampires in this set.
Third, there seems to be a sentiment that you are concerned with
cammarilla being overpowered with respect to the other sects and clans.
They are, but it doesn't affect the game negatively. They are
balanced not against the other sects, but rather cammarilla decks are
balanced with respect to the game as a whole.
Being able to add a new set's cards to existing decks is fundamental of
trading card games. This rule breaks that fundamental. While a set
containing mostly or even all reprinted vampires may not have been very
attractive to older players, one that contains vampires that most of
their decks cannot use by rule is even less appealing.
If you want actionable criticism, it's going to be "don't implement a
stupid rule," "don't use a hideous layout," and "don't errata the cards
listed in the 'More cam set controversy' thread." As I mentioned above,
it's surely too late to reprint older vampires in this set, which is/was
the easiest solution for all sides.
> Signal vs. Noise
profit vs loss.
> Steve Wieck
> White Wolf
Shaun McIsaac wrote:
> The official reason for the ban is balance. No vampire has ever been
> banned before, because they were not powerful enough to warrant a ban.
> Now, at the 11th hour, it's decided that 100s need to be banned. The
No vampires are on the banned list, and none are slated for consideration
for the banned list.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Kevin,
We are proceeding with our roll-out of information/preview materials just as
we have done for every other set we have produced, just as we do for almost
any game we produce. Remember the Bloodlines web preview, where a new
Bloodline was discussed every few days?
I'm starting to go beyond annoyed to insulted with your constant, baseless,
and ambiguously stated accusations that we are deviously witholding
information from the players in order to trick them into buying product.
If you feel ignored, it is because you offer nothing of substance in your
posts, no specifics, just diatribe. If you would like to offer criticism
that is both 1) specific and 2) constructive, then I'll listen, until then
you won't hear from me again.
Steve Wieck
White Wolf
"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:75bdf7ed.02070...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have and based on "rumors" I will be holding out purchasing anything until
all is revealed, mabe you think I am not worth counting but the $14,000USD I
spent last year alone will mabe make you think twice.
Errol
Immortalgrapplecards
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:27:38 -0400, "Steve Wieck"
<steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
>constructive criticism about it?
>Signal vs. Noise
>
>Steve Wieck
>White Wolf
>
Okay, Steve. I'll bite.
On the whole, I think the Group mechanic is a fairly decent solution
to a problem that frankly worried me, as an "old-timer". The two
things I thought of immediately once I read the rule were:
(1) I can still play any deck I play now. I have not _lost_ anything.
(2) If I never bought another pack of VTES, I can still be on an even
crypt-construction footing with somebody who has all the old vamps
_and_ all the new ones who complement them. Without the Group Rule,
I'd need to accumulate new vampires in order to have a highly focused
crypt. More than that, the new player who started playing with CE
would need to haunt ebay and trade like a madman to get all the old
vampires. The parallel is the smaller but significant difference in
vampire efficiency between the "Jyhad Formula" and "post-Sabbat
Formula" vampires.
So I'm really fairly satisfied with the rule.
OTOH, I think I would have tried something more in line with the
Scarce mechanic... say, "Taking control of a vampire with a different
Group number than any vampire you currently control costs 1 additional
pool for each point of difference in group number between the new
vampire and the closest group number of any vampire you already
control." That way, you could play the focused/redundant supercrypt
if you wanted, but you would pay more for your minions.
This is very off the top of my head, and I'm sure wiser heads (Noal,
who's obviously thought about this issue a lot more than I have, for
one) can and will blow lots of little holes through it.
On a slight variation of the topic, two questions:
(1) If LSJ or another designer/playtester is willing to comment on it,
were the new Cam vamps in general designed with the "Camarilla" point
scale (generally fewer disciplines for capacity) or the "New" point
system, or neither?
(2) Are there any plans to extend the Group mechanism into Group 4+
with future sets, and if so, is there any consensus on approximately
how many sets/vampires would fall into a group? I would think that
each "cycle" through the Cam/Sabbat/Independents/Bloodlines mix would
warrant a Group, thus we would see Camarilla Edition, Anarchs, and at
least one more (probably Sabbat-focused) set in Group 3. Am I even
close?
Mark Woodhouse
Prince of Minneapolis
(who's off to Potomac to pre-order my Camarilla Edition... POT/SER/PRE
= yummy!)
Yeah, please dont top post. I am not sure why LSJ didn't give you a bitch
slap like me does when everyone else top posts?
Here is my criticism:
Jyhad/VTES are basically the same old set. With the difference of what, 1
vampire?
Let me break it down for you by the types you created:
#1 = a total of 112 different camarilla only vampires
#2 = 372 different vampires, mixed liberally of 1/3 each independent,
camarilla, and sabbat
#3 = 100 different camarilla only vampires
So what makes camarillas so different? why does sabbat mix freely with
everything? Why is #2 such a broad range? It includes WAY more vampires
then even both the camarilla sets combined!
Wouldn't it have made more sense to choose:
#1 = jyhad/VTES
#2 = sabbat/sabbat war
#3 = dark sovereigns/ancient hearts/final nights/bloodlines
#4 = camarilla 2002
And make it so you can only mix 2 sets? Just seems like all you are really
saying with this whole stupid mechanic is no more using your old VTES cards.
I imagine that you are reprinting any worthy vampire, or a reasonable
likeness. 2 caps with single in clan disciplines etc. They will replace, 1
for 1, old VTES guys. The larger VTES vampires on a whole are less valuable
then their sabbat counter parts because they were based on a different point
scale. So the new CE will undoubtedly be better.
So what that means is old vampires wont be, overall, as good as the new
ones. So the only real worry is what happens when you combine the few old
vampires that are good with the new ones which are also good. Answer?
Nothing more sinister then when you combine then with the Sabbat vampires
which we imagine the CE vampires will mimic rather closely. Just that now
you would be able to combine all 3 and that would, somehow, be too broken(or
at some point in the near future it would be too broken)
Also, you have listed no criteria as to why or how sets will be assigned a
#. Will there ever be #1 printed again? Will every set from now on get its
own #? Will there be "blocks," trying to be a MTG clone? Such as "year of
the nastys" consisting of 3 different releases of cards all #3? No
communication. No information about what happens or how you will decide.
We are just supposed to believe that you know best, because you are perfect
white wolf.
Think about what happens when a #4 comes out. Assume it is a set like Dark
Ages. Needs 100 new vampires for 6 clans, mimicking the ones already in the
cam/sabbat. Are you telling me that it will come out, and only be usable
with the CE2002 vampires? thats total BS. Now I have no way for them to
ever combine with bloodlines. You literally will be unable to use the cards
from #2 because they are all about clan specifics. Sabbat and Dark Ages
will just not mix at all? Isn't there something wrong when you are forced
to play <new set> camarilla over sabbat? Suddenly you are favoring the
camarilla. They get the benifit of touching all the sabbat, independent,
and new Dark Ages. While you can mix sabbat and independent, camarilla and
sabbat, independent and camarilla, or camarilla and dark ages. You some
how are banned from mixing dark ages with independent or sabbat, or
bloodlines for that matter. See how your system starts to break down after
the #3?
So while you may tout that you can use your old cards flawlessly, its a lie.
By virtue of the disciplines, you will make old cards useless. With a #3 &
#4 configuration I would have no vampires that have temporis. So while it
they aren't banned, they are useless to me. You are making a type 2 and
wrapping it up in a new package. The vampires will be better so no one
wants to play with VTES ones anymore.
As soon as you release all the information I can give you a more detailed
analysis.
Card games are an investment. I invest money, and expect to get fun and
enjoyment out of them over time. If instead all I get is useless paper I'm
sure not going to invest. In fact I sell off to recoup my losses. So tell
me, president of the company, why does this sound like a good investment?
One thing you guys just dont seem to get is that alot of us have been
playing this game, longer then you have been making it. This is a unique
situation as far as I know. I truly think that the players know more about
the game then you do, and you just aren't bothering to ask.
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
"Steve Wieck" <steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:dbIU8.28809$wj4.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Shaun McIsaac wrote:
>>> The official reason for the ban is balance. No vampire has ever been
>>banned before, because they were not powerful enough to warrant a ban.
>>Now, at the 11th hour, it's decided that 100s need to be banned. The>
>
> No vampires are on the banned list, and none are slated for consideration
> for the banned list.
>
Sure they are. They are banned from being in the same crypt as vampires
from a "number" 2 or more away.
In article <h9MU8.116709$Lf2.8...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Cap'n Errol:
If you buy 'em, I'll make a point of buying singles I need off of you.
Just a data point for your consideration.
gomi
--
Blood, guts, guns, cuts
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts
Shaun McIsaac wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
So you mean it is ok to have a base of 200+ vamps to choose from when
playing Camarilla but not as many when playing Sabbat?
I know the amount of Sabbat are supposed to be less but that much less?
Talk about creating an unbalanced game where most people will consider
long and hard before playing much else then Camarilla because they are
so much better.
And I know someone will respond by saying "I won't play Camarilla
because of it" but that won't work. I know everyone doesn't think that
way and will continue to play whatever clans or discipline combos they
like best.
But wake up and forget about our hurt pride or whatever for not being
consulted. WW is doing what we must assume to be the best for the game
and the players. Everyone can't like it. Either you accept it or not.
Archibald Zimonyi
Malkavian Prince of Gothenburg
The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> Yeah, please dont top post. I am not sure why LSJ didn't give you a
bitch
> slap like me does when everyone else top posts?
Hey, Aaron, could you not top-post? 'Preciate it.
> I truly think that the players know more about
> the game then you do, and you just aren't bothering to ask.
Regardless of how much you know about political
theory, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll get consulted
before the next election. White Wolf is running a company,
not a democracy. They've done pretty well by us in the past,
and I haven't seen or heard anything yet about Camarilla that
would countermand that assessment.
Keep it up, Scott and Steve.
--heslin
In message <ag0lp7$iall0$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de>,
"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about:
>One thing you guys just dont seem to get is that alot of us have been
>playing this game, longer then you have been making it. This is a unique
>situation as far as I know. I truly think that the players know more about
>the game then you do, and you just aren't bothering to ask.
I can confirm here that this is 100% incorrect.
Steve (as well as a couple others from WW) has spent an enormous amount
of his own time learning about this game, learning to play it, and
actually playing it with us. He did this not long after WW picked up
the license from WotC, because he realized exactly what you claim he
didn't; that we've been playing it for a long time now.
Don't assume decisions get made in a vacuum just because you don't like
them. I'm not enthralled with the set grouping myself because it paints
us with a badge we've been able to avoid forever -- the type 1/type 2
stigma from Magic, and we will have to explain that to new players. But
aside from that, ...all your old decks will continue to work.
As far as the other rumor about card changes, I have one thing to say:
You are ALL pathetic.
I have been on the "majesty ain't broke" side of that argument for a
long time, and I distinctly recall an awful lot of people howling at me
about how "Majesty IS broken, S:CE is a terrible thing, ruins the game,
blah blah". And now this rumored change hits the table and ... everyone
is shrieking and crying about it?
What the fuck? Come on, kids, get it together. It's like the little
boy who cried (white?) wolf. After a certain point, you end up not
being worth listening to anymore.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
Archibald Zimonyi wrote:
> Shaun McIsaac wrote:>> Sure they are. They are banned from being in the same crypt as
>> vampires from a "number" 2 or more away.> So you mean it is ok to have a base of 200+ vamps to choose from when
> playing Camarilla but not as many when playing Sabbat?
Yes.
> I know the amount of Sabbat are supposed to be less but that much less?
> Talk about creating an unbalanced game where most people will consider
> long and hard before playing much else then Camarilla because they are
> so much better.
When the new vampires come out, show me a mixed deck that will that much
better. You can't, they won't make that big a deal. It's the base
set... most of these vampires will be the "standard" vampires.. 4 cap
with all inclans at inferior, etc.. Yuri the Talon doesn't scare me
away from playing Lambach.
> WW is doing what we must assume to be the best for the game
> and the players.
Why the fuck would you assume that? I'll bet you're a communist too.
"The State knows what is best for me, for I am a mindless sheep." Try
having an independent thought.
> Either you accept it or not.
Last I checked I was a paying customer. So kindly STFU.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:27:38 -0400, "Steve Wieck"
<steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
>constructive criticism about it?
>Signal vs. Noise
Ok...why is it on the card? The set symbol should suffice.
T
[ quoted text not captured ]
So you don't have to memorize which sets (and thus which set symbols)
belong to which group. Nor which groups are consecutive to one
another.
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
Gosh, sorry to strain your brain there Fred but I think most of us can
remember that non-symbol cards don't go with the ankh symbol cards. =]
T
[ quoted text not captured ]
No vampired are banned.
Please name a single vampire that is banned if you wish to refute this fact.
If you wish to argue/complain seriously, you might do better to learn the
terminology.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"W. Mark Woodhouse" wrote:
> On a slight variation of the topic, two questions:
>
> (1) If LSJ or another designer/playtester is willing to comment on it,
> were the new Cam vamps in general designed with the "Camarilla" point
> scale (generally fewer disciplines for capacity) or the "New" point
> system, or neither?
The "New" one.
> (2) Are there any plans to extend the Group mechanism into Group 4+
> with future sets, and if so, is there any consensus on approximately
> how many sets/vampires would fall into a group? I would think that
> each "cycle" through the Cam/Sabbat/Independents/Bloodlines mix would
> warrant a Group, thus we would see Camarilla Edition, Anarchs, and at
> least one more (probably Sabbat-focused) set in Group 3. Am I even
> close?
The whole point of the group rule is to provide a foundation for
future expansions, so the idea of 4+ is inherent in there. The current
Camarilla counts should give a rough idea of what the mix methodology is.
(But that isn't set in stone).
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Because "group number" is not a function of "set".
(Although it is for vampires with no group number printed on them.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 20:23:29 GMT, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote:
>
> >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:27:38 -0400, "Steve Wieck"
> >> <steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
> >> >constructive criticism about it?
> >> >Signal vs. Noise
> >>
> >> Ok...why is it on the card? The set symbol should suffice.
> >
> >So you don't have to memorize which sets (and thus which set symbols)
> >belong to which group. Nor which groups are consecutive to one
> >another.
>> Gosh, sorry to strain your brain there Fred but I think most of us can
> remember that non-symbol cards don't go with the ankh symbol cards. =]
Well, sorry to strain your brain there, but you might want to try thinking
forward for a change. Like when the group number gets up to 6 or 8
or something. Then memorizing these little things might not seem so trivial.
...um, you _did_ realize they meant to continue with the group numbers past
three, didn't you?
Fred
LSJ wrote:
> Shaun McIsaac wrote:>>LSJ wrote:>>>Shaun McIsaac wrote:>>>> The official reason for the ban is balance. No vampire has ever been
>>>>banned before, because they were not powerful enough to warrant a ban.
>>>>Now, at the 11th hour, it's decided that 100s need to be banned. The>>>No vampires are on the banned list, and none are slated for consideration
>>>for the banned list.>>Sure they are. They are banned from being in the same crypt as vampires
>>from a "number" 2 or more away.> No vampired are banned.
> Please name a single vampire that is banned if you wish to refute this fact.
Sir Ralph Hamilton is banned from being in a crypt with Sir Walter Nash.
Now I'm sure the response is that "he's not banned, you just can't have
him in there."
I would say that the "tournament rules prevent you from playing it" are
a pretty good definition of "ban." Any further distinction is a word
game, which you're free to play. Just don't think it will change anything.
"Immortalgrapplecards" <immorta...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<h9MU8.116709$Lf2.8...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Same here. I will not only not order any of the new set, I will advise
my local gaming franchises (6 stores in the franchise I have the most
contact with, and that trust my judgement, and 3-4 others that might
change their orders based on what I say) to reduce their orders as
well. Not to cancel, because we could all be surprised and the Cam set
will sell well. But I will advise them to be cautious, and not order
too much of it until it becomes clear what the future of VTES is going
to be.
Certainly the 14 players in my core group aren't buying any of them,
not now.
Thank you, Kevin Scribner. I do not condemn White Wolf for their
business decisions, but I do appreciate full disclosure on a product
before it is ordered.
JSpektr
>Certainly the 14 players in my core group aren't buying any of them,
not now.
I also am not going to buy these cards. If White Wolf has to lose money to get
the point - then so they shall. I sincerely think that production should be
immediately halted - and an accurate poll needs to assess the profitability of
this product. People who want to wait until the set is out to see if they want
to buy it are crazy - let's get this thing nipped ASAP!!!
Sam
Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> wrote:
:>Certainly the 14 players in my core group aren't buying any of them,
: not now.
[ quoted text not captured ]
You must be kidding, really :)
Just because a couple of people bang their heads against a wall and have
more energy to rant about the injustice their violated human rights than
those who remain cool and say "well, these are changes. changes happen.
some I like, some I don't" doesn't mean that you have any right spoil my
fun of getting more CE than I would need (considering that I have
already problems storing my cards in any usable way :)).
I'm pretty sure that WW has internally considered the impact of the
changes. Maybe in some margin it says "ok, 20 active players will fuss
about it, yell and scream and claim that thousands will quit. It'll pass
in 1 month after the release. Rest, and especially new players, will be
happy."
//T
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D24BF7A...@white-wolf.com>...
> Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:27:38 -0400, "Steve Wieck"
> > <steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
> > >constructive criticism about it?
> > >Signal vs. Noise
> >
> > Ok...why is it on the card? The set symbol should suffice.
>
> Because "group number" is not a function of "set".
> (Although it is for vampires with no group number printed on them.)
Does that mean that in the future, sets may contain vampires with
differing group numbers?
Does it mean that the current set also has other group numbers than
'3' for the vampires?
Thank you
Tobias
In article <20020705023944...@mb-bh.aol.com>,
Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Certainly the 14 players in my core group aren't buying any of them,>not now.
>
>I also am not going to buy these cards. If White Wolf has to lose money to get
>the point - then so they shall. I sincerely think that production should be
>immediately halted - and an accurate poll needs to assess the profitability of
>this product.
The ultimately accurate poll to assess the product's profitability will take
place on August 19, when the set is released, and will continue for some time
after.
Duh.
[ quoted text not captured ]
awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020705023944...@mb-bh.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
If you are serious on these points - then I think you are mistaken.
If you are trolling, I hope I am the last one feeding you.
Tobias
Deventer
[ quoted text not captured ]
Please cite the rule that forces you to play with Sir Walter Nash.
Or, better, stop being intentionally dense.
[ quoted text not captured ]
awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020705023944...@mb-bh.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I WILL buy the cards. I've been playing this game for far to long to
not give it the benefit of the doubt. And I have witnessed a lot of
the things that have happened/ are happening now.
Aren't those that are complaining about every expansion tyred of being
proven wrong all the time?
Games are NOT a democracy, deal with it. I-for one- trust the
judgement of WW and LSJ in particular. If you don't like it: quit the
game. I won't lose a minute of sleep of losing people like you to, eg
Pokemon.
Except for the (rumored) changes to Hostile Takeover and TOGP, I have
yet to see something that doesn't deserve a big round of applause.
Jeroen
Teemu T Vilen <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message news:<ag3i3n$7o9$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>...
> I'm pretty sure that WW has internally considered the impact of the
> changes. Maybe in some margin it says "ok, 20 active players will fuss
> about it, yell and scream and claim that thousands will quit. It'll pass
> in 1 month after the release. Rest, and especially new players, will be
> happy."
I believe that the changes will cause ongoing difficulties. Already,
every single player I've spoken to personally has been irritated about
it. Some more than others, but the fact is that none of them have
reacted positively. NONE.
Will I never buy these cards? I didn't say that. But with this much
potential for turmoil, I think it is wise to take a "sit back and
wait" approach, and not buy them until the impact becomes clear. If it
turns out this is all just noise, and the new set improves the game,
I'll buy it. If the new set causes problems, I won't.
JSpektr
On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 21:34:51 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:>>
>> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:27:38 -0400, "Steve Wieck"
>> <steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
>> >constructive criticism about it?
>> >Signal vs. Noise
>>
>> Ok...why is it on the card? The set symbol should suffice.>
>Because "group number" is not a function of "set".
>(Although it is for vampires with no group number printed on them.)
>
Wait a second. The rules clearly state that you vampires from the
jyhad/vtes set are group 1, expansions between that and Camarilla
group 2, and Camarilla set group 3.
So I'd say that group numbers are clearly divided by set.
The number is not necesary, and is just more card clutter.
T
[ quoted text not captured ]
Entirely possible, but hopefully not. We have one expansion to go
currently and that should be a #3 set as well.
This group division could be better presented in the rulebook, and
thats where it should stay, as opposed to cluttering up the cardfaces
further.
T
<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d26515a.252654516@news...
[ quoted text not captured ]
But the preview states nothing about the possibility of there being mixed
numbers in future expansions. What if the Anarch set or some set in the
future were to contain 3 and 4 vampires? Then group number would certainly
not be a function of set. By stating that group and set aren't one and the
same, White-Wolf is thinking long term.
Peteo
> T
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 21:34:51 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>Because "group number" is not a function of "set".
>>(Although it is for vampires with no group number printed on them.)>
> Wait a second. The rules clearly state that you vampires from the
> jyhad/vtes set are group 1, expansions between that and Camarilla
> group 2, and Camarilla set group 3.
No, the rule says _unmarked_ vampires from Jyhad/VtES are group 1,
expansions between that and Camarilla are group 2, and all other
vampires are whatever number's on them. It's very likely that the Sabbat
vampires from the CE are group 2, and not 3 as you assume.
> So I'd say that group numbers are clearly divided by set.
>
> The number is not necesary, and is just more card clutter.
Even if they did make all the CE vampires group 3, the possibility is
there for them to make a mixed group expansion eventually.
Flux
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 21:34:51 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:27:38 -0400, "Steve Wieck"
> >> <steve...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Now that the "3" issue is revealed perhaps you would like to offer some
> >> >constructive criticism about it?
> >> >Signal vs. Noise
> >>
> >> Ok...why is it on the card? The set symbol should suffice.
> >
> >Because "group number" is not a function of "set".
> >(Although it is for vampires with no group number printed on them.)
> >
>
> Wait a second. The rules clearly state that you vampires from the
> jyhad/vtes set are group 1, expansions between that and Camarilla
> group 2, and Camarilla set group 3.
You have misread what the rules "clearly" say.
The rules describe group numbers for vampires WITHOUT PRINTED GROUP
NUMBERS to be a function of set. They also make no mention of a
"Camarilla Edition => Group 3" rule (since there is no such rule,
since vampires in the CE will have group numbers printed on them).
> So I'd say that group numbers are clearly divided by set.
I believe you would, yes.
More study might bring you around, however.
[ quoted text not captured ]
joen...@hotmail.com (Jeroen) wrote in message news:<5f0d2397.02070...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Personally I could have done without the layout changes, as I am sure
many will agree, this is only going to make life more difficult for
those of us trying to draw people into the game.."2 types of cards?
and a Magic grouping type system?"
As of this moment with very little to go on, I am not going to jump to
conclusions, but needless to say this is not looking to good..
PS: I have always been among those who felt that Magesty was a
perfectly fine card...nor have I ever had a problem with 5th Trad or
2nd Trad, and dont see much need to update these cards...like I need
to hear more about what certain cards used to do and why were they
changed...But I think this may very start to kill what tiny little
meta group we have in vancouver..(and that one was hard enough to
build)
On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 04:31:56 GMT, "Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu>
wrote:
>> >Because "group number" is not a function of "set".
>> >(Although it is for vampires with no group number printed on them.)
>> >
>>
>> Wait a second. The rules clearly state that you vampires from the
>> jyhad/vtes set are group 1, expansions between that and Camarilla
>> group 2, and Camarilla set group 3.
>>
>> So I'd say that group numbers are clearly divided by set.
>>
>> The number is not necesary, and is just more card clutter.
>>>
>But the preview states nothing about the possibility of there being mixed
>numbers in future expansions. What if the Anarch set or some set in the
>future were to contain 3 and 4 vampires? Then group number would certainly
>not be a function of set. By stating that group and set aren't one and the
>same, White-Wolf is thinking long term.
>
>Peteo
I suppose so, but if an entire set of vampires are all group 3, why
not just state that in the rules? Does it really have to be printed
on the card? I for one don't think so. At least not until a set does
have vampires designated for one group and another.
T
On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:43:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> So I'd say that group numbers are clearly divided by set.>
>I believe you would, yes.
>
>More study might bring you around, however.
>
So are there vampires in CE with a different group # than 3 or not?
That answer would simplify this greatly.
T
Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:43:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >I believe you would, yes.
> >
> >More study might bring you around, however.
>
> So are there vampires in CE with a different group # than 3 or not?
Yes, there are or not.
> That answer would simplify this greatly.
Hope that that helps.
Stay tuned to the *scheduled* release of information via the web preview
for actual information (or wait until the set is released, of course).
[ quoted text not captured ]
<Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com> wrote in message news:3d289803.2744754@news...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm starting to wonder if you are just looking for stuff to complain about
now. Why is it such a problem that there is a little 3 printed on the card?
Are you worried that newbie players will find that to be the last straw,
causing them not to play the game?
"What's this 3 on here mean?"
"Oh that's the designation for vampire groupings, to prevent custom crypting
so that one sect doesn't have an advantage over another."
"Why is it on the card?"
"Oh so that you don't have to remember which expansion belongs to which
numbered group. Its to make things easier for you. Plus, future expansions
could have mixed numbers."
"But why is it on the card? *Cries* That's it I'm not playing this game
anymore."
Do you forsee this as a legitimate problem? You let me know if you ever
witness the above exchange when you play. I'll come over and personally
beat down said newbie with a shovel.
Come on.
Peteo
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:29:21 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:>> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:43:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> >I believe you would, yes.
>> >
>> >More study might bring you around, however.
>>
>> So are there vampires in CE with a different group # than 3 or not?>
>Yes, there are or not.
>>> That answer would simplify this greatly.>
>Hope that that helps.
>
>Stay tuned to the *scheduled* release of information via the web preview
>for actual information (or wait until the set is released, of course).
>
>--
And if you can't wait, try logic.
If there are any reprinted vampires (say, in the pre-cons), they will
retain their group number of 1 or 2. We do not know if there will be
any reprinted vampires - I suspect that there will NOT be, since there
are more than enough new vamps to fill out complete crypts.
Mark Woodhouse
Prince of Minneapolis
(who now has 1 small problem with the grouping rule - I can't use
Black Cat & Jaroslav Pascek together :( Idalia & Jaroslav, now....)
On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:37:59 GMT, shan...@tcinternet.net (W. Mark
Woodhouse) wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:29:21 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:>>> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:43:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> >I believe you would, yes.
>>> >
>>> >More study might bring you around, however.
>>>
>>> So are there vampires in CE with a different group # than 3 or not?>>
>>Yes, there are or not.
>>>>> That answer would simplify this greatly.>>
>>Hope that that helps.
>>
>>Stay tuned to the *scheduled* release of information via the web preview
>>for actual information (or wait until the set is released, of course).
>>
>>-->And if you can't wait, try logic.
>
>If there are any reprinted vampires (say, in the pre-cons), they will
>retain their group number of 1 or 2. We do not know if there will be
>any reprinted vampires - I suspect that there will NOT be, since there
>are more than enough new vamps to fill out complete crypts.
I'm perfectly happy to wait until the CE edition is released before
biting off heads. Wish others felt the same.
One great hope is that Blythe Candelaria gets printed in the Tremere
starter with the corrected discipline spread. WW has done a great job
(so far) in getting corrected cards into print, but if Blythe isn't
going to be reprinted then WW should have her played as printed.
Yes, she'd be way undercosted but I get tired of telling people that a
card doesn't work as seen in print.
While others are griping about potential changes to old/great cards
(like 5th Tradition), I'm still in "wait and see" mode.
At the end of the day, my true concern is whether there was enough
playtesting to ensure that the new Camarilla Edition balances out with
the old Jyhad/VTES vamps if placed head to head. And that I cannot tell
until the cards are readily available.
>Mark Woodhouse
>Prince of Minneapolis
>(who now has 1 small problem with the grouping rule - I can't use
>Black Cat & Jaroslav Pascek together :( Idalia & Jaroslav, now....)
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message
news:3d292a8d...@netnews.attbi.com...
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:37:59 GMT, shan...@tcinternet.net (W. Mark
> Woodhouse) wrote:
[re: will there be non-group-3 vampires in the Camarilla Edition]
> >And if you can't wait, try logic.
> >
> >If there are any reprinted vampires (say, in the pre-cons), they will
> >retain their group number of 1 or 2. We do not know if there will be
> >any reprinted vampires - I suspect that there will NOT be, since there
> >are more than enough new vamps to fill out complete crypts.
There will (IMO) almost certainly be reprinted vampires. They
will probably be starter-only, since they're not on the checklist.
They will almost certainly include the Inner Circle members, since
we've seen a picture on Ken Meyer Jr's website for a "Leandro".
They will almost certainly be printed with a "2" for their group
number, since that's what old copies of the same vampires will
be.
Not that I have any inside info, but as you say, logic is often
a useful tool. :-)
> I'm perfectly happy to wait until the CE edition is released before
> biting off heads. Wish others felt the same.
>
> One great hope is that Blythe Candelaria gets printed in the Tremere
> starter with the corrected discipline spread. WW has done a great job
> (so far) in getting corrected cards into print, but if Blythe isn't
> going to be reprinted then WW should have her played as printed.
Indeed. A reprinted correct Blythe in the Tremere starter would
be great. Maybe they'll reprint Muaziz too. :-) (Then again
maybe they won't; it probably depends on how many of the old Cam
vamps they want to reprint for each clan.)
Josh
l to the o to the g to the i to the c
On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:39:09 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:>> Unfortunately, any redress takes monumental effort to gain their
>> attention. I recall earlier this year when Noal made a suggestion to
>> better a small portion of the tournament seating chart. There was a
>> thread of at least 47 messages before a change was considered.>
>47 messages is monumental?
47 is the count of that one thread, I didn't care to spend the time
seeing if it spilled over for more discussion in other threads (via
google). They often do however.
>How many of those messages were from WW, and how many of the non-WW messages
>had to be made before WW made its first response (i.e., before WW attention
>was gained)?
>
>Try that with any other TCG-tournament-governing body.
Don't think I ever said you folks were doing a bad job, but it does take
a lot of effort to get a point across (also not necessarily a bad thing,
just frustrating at times). As far as the newsgroup goes, your
involvement (and WW staff) is exceptional.
There are times however, where some additional info would probably
alleviate some of the flaming BS that rampages on the NG..
>FWIW: Most of the messages were spent bringing Noal et al. up to speed
>on what the seating chart criteria were (since they had up until that
>not been completely and clearly stated in a public forum).
>
>After that, Noal's very good (or, at the very least, non-harmful, for
>those who wish to argue the point) suggestion about equalizing starting
>transfers in a manner that didn't sacrifice any of the other criteria
>was quickly adopted and implemented.
>
>Ask Noal.
Not necessary. End results are what really matter, and the result of
the thread in question ended up with a better seating chart.
I was chatting with Robyn at Origins about number of rounds per
qualifier, whereby she mentioned that statistically there are more
tourneys holding [2 rounds + Final] than [3 rounds + Final].
That being the case, wonder if there shouldn't be a seperate seating
chart for the 2+F format to maximize randomness.
However that's a topic for a whole different thread (and y'all seem busy
enough lately). Maybe I should bring it up on the prince list, as it
should be an "on-topic" thread??
>LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 07:39:09 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, any redress takes monumental effort to gain their
> >> attention. I recall earlier this year when Noal made a suggestion to
> >> better a small portion of the tournament seating chart. There was a
> >> thread of at least 47 messages before a change was considered.
> >
> >47 messages is monumental?
>
> 47 is the count of that one thread, I didn't care to spend the time
> seeing if it spilled over for more discussion in other threads (via
> google). They often do however.
>
> >How many of those messages were from WW, and how many of the non-WW messages
> >had to be made before WW made its first response (i.e., before WW attention
> >was gained)?
> >
> >Try that with any other TCG-tournament-governing body.
>
> Don't think I ever said you folks were doing a bad job, but it does take
> a lot of effort to get a point across (also not necessarily a bad thing,
> just frustrating at times). As far as the newsgroup goes, your
> involvement (and WW staff) is exceptional.
Yeah, sometimes people get upset over changes being done lightly.
Other times they get upset that changes are weighed too heavily.
I certainly wouldn't classify the changes to the VEKN seating
chart criteria in the latter, however. The change was implemented
very quickly - even by Noal's account:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C9CB5D9.70508%40yahoo.com
If you're trying to illustrate that monumental effort is required
to achieve change, perhaps a better example should be used.
> I was chatting with Robyn at Origins about number of rounds per
> qualifier, whereby she mentioned that statistically there are more
> tourneys holding [2 rounds + Final] than [3 rounds + Final].
>
> That being the case, wonder if there shouldn't be a seperate seating
> chart for the 2+F format to maximize randomness.
Sure.
Anyone with such a seating chart is welcomed to submit it for inclusion
in the Archon to the maintainer of the Archon.
(Oops - that was my attention after only 1 message. Should I stonewall
a bit first before agreeing to the inclusion of a 2+F seating chart :-)
> However that's a topic for a whole different thread (and y'all seem busy
> enough lately). Maybe I should bring it up on the prince list, as it
> should be an "on-topic" thread??
Nah.
Seating Charts are more properly discussed here.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ha! You bad!
>> However that's a topic for a whole different thread (and y'all seem busy
>> enough lately). Maybe I should bring it up on the prince list, as it
>> should be an "on-topic" thread??>
>Nah.
>Seating Charts are more properly discussed here.
If you say so. Would have thought if it impacted tournament structure
that the prince list would be a good place to start.
>LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
> >Seating Charts are more properly discussed here.
>
> If you say so. Would have thought if it impacted tournament structure
> that the prince list would be a good place to start.
The seating charts existence won't change the tournament structure
- each round will still have to meet VEKN tournament rules for seating.
The Archon merely facilitates that (at for 3+F tournaments in which
no one drops).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:29:21 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:>> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:43:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> >I believe you would, yes.
>> >
>> >More study might bring you around, however.
>>
>> So are there vampires in CE with a different group # than 3 or not?>
>Yes, there are or not.
>>> That answer would simplify this greatly.>
>Hope that that helps.
Ah, no. A simple yes or no would help. But the answer you gave is
ambiguous.
T
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iur8iu8j63mt9o0eo...@4ax.com...
> As far as the other rumor about card changes, I have one thing to say:
>
> You are ALL pathetic.
Kinda true. I don't exclude myself. :-)
> I have been on the "majesty ain't broke" side of that argument for a
> long time, and I distinctly recall an awful lot of people howling at me
> about how "Majesty IS broken, S:CE is a terrible thing, ruins the game,
> blah blah". And now this rumored change hits the table and ... everyone
> is shrieking and crying about it?
>
> What the fuck? Come on, kids, get it together. It's like the little
> boy who cried (white?) wolf. After a certain point, you end up not
> being worth listening to anymore.
Well, in all fairness to the whiners (both sets), I don't think
it's many of the same people who were whining then that are
whining now. We just have so many whiners that we can whine for
any and all changes/rumors/etc. ;-)
Personally, for example, I have claimed in the past that S:CE
is overpowered, and I have no problem whatsoever with Majesty
and Catatonic Fear costing a blood (if in fact it turns out
that they do in Camarilla Edition).
Josh
oh, somebody call the waaaaaambulance
"Shaun McIsaac" <mpm...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D23CB38...@attbi.com...
> Archibald Zimonyi wrote:
>
> > WW is doing what we must assume to be the best for the game
> > and the players.
>
> Why the fuck would you assume that? I'll bet you're a communist too.
> "The State knows what is best for me, for I am a mindless sheep." Try
> having an independent thought.
Try accepting your fate. You don't own WW, and until you do,
you don't get to make the decisions.
And I think you'll find that it's capitalism where the owners
of businesses make decisions and don't go around asking everyone
in the population whether that's okay with them.
> > Either you accept it or not.
>
> Last I checked I was a paying customer. So kindly STFU.
When was the last time Coca Cola wanted to know what you thought
about their latest ad campaign? They hire people to tell them
what the masses think, but they don't listen to just anybody
with an opinion and a Usenet account. Sheesh.
Josh
will try to be less irritable next time
[ quoted text not captured ]
Heh. Your question cannot be meaningfully served by a "yes" or "no".
The question was "Is Y true or not?". The answer must be yes. A
"no" answer is impossible, since Y is either true or not.
As I belabored to ensure that you would not misinterpret my answer.
Stay tuned to the *scheduled* release of information via the web preview
for actual information (or wait until the set is released, of course).
(Any reply from you which clips that will not be answered, BTW).
[ quoted text not captured ]
shan...@tcinternet.net (W. Mark Woodhouse) wrote:
> On the whole, I think the Group mechanic is a fairly decent solution
> to a problem that frankly worried me, as an "old-timer". The two
> things I thought of immediately once I read the rule were:
>
> (1) I can still play any deck I play now. I have not _lost_ anything.
>
> (2) If I never bought another pack of VTES, I can still be on an even
> crypt-construction footing with somebody who has all the old vamps
> _and_ all the new ones who complement them. Without the Group Rule,
> I'd need to accumulate new vampires in order to have a highly focused
> crypt. More than that, the new player who started playing with CE
> would need to haunt ebay and trade like a madman to get all the old
> vampires. The parallel is the smaller but significant difference in
> vampire efficiency between the "Jyhad Formula" and "post-Sabbat
> Formula" vampires.
Excellent points. The first has been covered ad nauseum, but I think
the second hasn't really been considered by many and it is _very_
true.
> OTOH, I think I would have tried something more in line with the
> Scarce mechanic... say, "Taking control of a vampire with a different
> Group number than any vampire you currently control costs 1 additional
> pool for each point of difference in group number between the new
> vampire and the closest group number of any vampire you already
> control." That way, you could play the focused/redundant supercrypt
> if you wanted, but you would pay more for your minions.
>
> This is very off the top of my head, and I'm sure wiser heads (Noal,
> who's obviously thought about this issue a lot more than I have, for
> one) can and will blow lots of little holes through it.
I can think of a couple. Bloat angles can certainly compensate for it
and Uriah Winter and Parity Shift style decks actually depend on
losing pool early in the game to get an advantage over their prey.
Given time, I could probably think of others.
Hurdles can be overcome or even turned into advantages. Limitations,
however, usually cannot. As a method for dealing with long term
product growth, this method is actually quite brilliant when you think
about it. I know of know other CCG that has (or could have) backwards
compatibility while encouranging new sales.
> (1) If LSJ or another designer/playtester is willing to comment on it,
> were the new Cam vamps in general designed with the "Camarilla" point
> scale (generally fewer disciplines for capacity) or the "New" point
> system, or neither?
Based on the web site and the Marcus Vitel promo card (for a total of
3 vamps) that was distributed at Origins, I'd have to guess the "new"
poinmt system.
> (2) Are there any plans to extend the Group mechanism into Group 4+
> with future sets, and if so, is there any consensus on approximately
> how many sets/vampires would fall into a group?
Well, if sales plummet and everyone stops playing the game en masse,
there may not be a 4th group. :-D Short of that, I think Scott has
stated there would be. Based on the number of vampires in existing
clans, I'd guess that a Camarilla set and a "miscellaneous" set would
make up the odd numbered sets, while a Sabbat set and an Independent
set would make up even numbered ones. Obviously, there would be some
random vampires from the other side of the fence, so to speak, in each
set to help flesh them out. There are some Sabbat vampires in the
upcoming Camarilla set, by way of example.
Excellent post, Mark.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit
Shaun McIsaac <mpm...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3D23CB38...@attbi.com>...
> Archibald Zimonyi wrote:> > Shaun McIsaac wrote:
> > WW is doing what we must assume to be the best for the game
> > and the players.
>
> Why the fuck would you assume that? I'll bet you're a communist too.
> "The State knows what is best for me, for I am a mindless sheep." Try
> having an independent thought.
>
According to communism, the state is the represeantation of the
majority's interests. On the other hand you could argue that in
capitalism, the corporations wellfare is a resault of their consumers
satisfaction and thus WW wants us to consume their products and so
keeps the MAJORITY satisfied.
This might be IMHO true in a long term, but judging from the
complaints it certainly isn't now.
On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:34:49 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
>Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:29:21 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> >Tal...@nodamspamhotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:43:35 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> >> >I believe you would, yes.
>> >> >
>> >> >More study might bring you around, however.
>> >>
>> >> So are there vampires in CE with a different group # than 3 or not?
>> >
>> >Yes, there are or not.
>> >
>> >> That answer would simplify this greatly.
>> >
>> >Hope that that helps.
>>
>> Ah, no. A simple yes or no would help. But the answer you gave is
>> ambiguous.>
>Heh. Your question cannot be meaningfully served by a "yes" or "no".
>
Yes, true.....or No, not true. Pretty simple.
T