Best card never reprinted?

Off the top of my head, I'd give Carlton the award for best card only printed once, with Baltimore Purge coming in 2nd. Am I missing a good one that has only appeared in one set, or as only a promo? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Villein? Target: Vitals? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I'd put Villein as 2nd, with Carlton as 1st. T:V is pretty good, and would beat out the Purge. That said, Villein hasn't really had a chance to be reprinted yet, since EK was all new cards. Hopefully in the starters for HttB. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Anthelios? -Teeka Still hoping for a 10th Anniversary-style all-promo reprints gift set

[ quoted text not captured ] Teeka> Hopes it also includes the "Magazine-Only" Cards...

How is Baltimore Purge even on the list?

[ quoted text not captured ] Carlton, Target Vitals, Fee Stakes and any of the good cards that came out (reprinted or not) before Anarchs Edition. To many players pre-Anarchs stuff counts as non-available. Parity Shift and the like... Cheers, Tiago

librarian wrote: > Off the top of my head, I'd give Carlton the award for best > card only printed once, with Baltimore Purge coming in 2nd. The not-reprinted-enough cards I'd like to see, in order: 1. Carlton van Wyk 2. Police Department 3. Movement of the Mind 4. Alamut 5. Homunculus 6. Voter Captivation 7. All the SW-only vampires 8. All the SW-only Crusades and all the DS-only Praxis Seizures 9. Fort.Library, Anthelios, and other Gehenna events in a starter 10. Catatonic Fear & Target Vitals in a starter Oh, and NOT Parity Shift and NOT Direct Intervention and NOT Sensory Deprivation, because I want those cards gone forever and ever, Amen. </bait> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

On 12 Jan, 06:35, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > 2. Police Department Eh what? I think you need to explain this a bit :)

alex fnurp wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> 2. Police Department > > Eh what? I think you need to explain this a bit :) Police Department (and Movement of the Mind, also) are useful for their 'press to end' feature, which gets you out of a Trap, IG, etc. They are for decks that do not want to fight or are more defensive. Instead, the choice has been made to reprint Mob Connections and Apportation -- the 'press to continue' variants of PD and MotM. What this tells you about VTES is left as an exercise for the reader. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'd have to agree with Kevin, first thing that came to mind for me were the DS Praxis Seizures.

On Jan 12, 5:35 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Oh, and NOT Parity Shift and NOT Direct Intervention and NOT Sensory > Deprivation, because I want those cards gone forever and ever, Amen. > > </bait> > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/ Oh yeah. Because having them in the hands of a few players is really the way to go. Elitism and ignorance is exactly what this game needs. I prefer to have these cards out so lots of people learn to play against them. Or enjoy them. That is why I've talked about the lost chance of the 15 years of VtES in 2009. They could have launched something special for the players, but instead we got something for a minority: Ebony Kingdom. Thank God the 2009 Promos were nice. I'm with you on your list, although I'd add Deflection to the mix and I wouldn't stop at SW Kindred. Tiago

> Police Department (and Movement of the Mind, also) are useful for > their 'press to end' feature, which gets you out of a Trap, IG, etc. > They are for decks that do not want to fight or are more defensive. Yeah, I get that - But I've never in my life assembeled a deck, playtested it some and thought: "OMFG this deck needs the Police department!". Ever. Not once. If you want defence theres most likely better slots. I dunno. Never struck me as a great deal. > Instead, the choice has been made to reprint Mob Connections and > Apportation -- the 'press to continue' variants of PD and MotM. > > What this tells you about VTES is left as an exercise for the reader. That bad cards hopefully wont get reprinted? =)

[ quoted text not captured ] You mean Mariana Gilbert and Dan Murdock? Of course! I want *all* promo's evah, twice, together in one set with new layout and a nice shiny logo like 10th had. \wishful thinking

Brum wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> Oh, and NOT Parity Shift and NOT Direct Intervention and NOT >> Sensory Deprivation, because I want those cards gone forever and >> ever, Amen. > > Oh yeah. Because having them in the hands of a few players is > really the way to go. Elitism and ignorance is exactly what this > game needs. Parity Shift is ridiculously overpowered, Direct Intervention is the very definition of anti-fun (perhaps anti-GAME is a better term) and Sensory Deprivation has a special place in my heart for awful, unimaginative card design. I don't want to see these cards ever again, for those reasons. That isn't elitist in any way. The fact that they AREN'T being banned doesn't change my rationale on those cards in any way. > I prefer to have these cards out so lots of people learn to play > against them. Or enjoy them. If you are saying that YOU believe they will never be banned and therefore we should reprint them, that doesn't make ME ignorant in some way, it just makes both of our attitudes consistent. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

> > </bait> > > Oh yeah. Because having them in the hands of a few players is really > the way to go. Elitism and ignorance is exactly what this game needs. > > Tiago Many snips later.... See the </bait> there? Hook, line & sinker, methinks.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/ Kevin, I didn't say you were ignorant. What I wanted to say was: With elitism: few (older / with more money) players have those powerfull cards, thus being unfar to those that would like to use them but can't. You may choose to dislike those cards. I dislike Imbued. That doen't make either of us elitists for having an opinion. With ignorance: those cards being in the hands of few gives them an extra advantage because many players aren't used to see them. Most have only heard of them, thus most players don't really know how to play against them. How do you fight this? Ban the cards (not gonna happen) or make them more common. Do you see any other workable solution? I meant no disrespect to you. Sorry dude. Tiago

[ quoted text not captured ] I didn't were he opened that tag and since many other things there seemed perfectly reasonable I chose to answer. Anyway, I think the subject of reprints is a good one, so... Tiago

On Jan 12, 8:56 am, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin, I didn't say you were ignorant. What I wanted to say was: > With elitism: few (older / with more money) players have those > powerfull cards, thus being unfar to those that would like to use them > but can't. You may choose to dislike those cards. I dislike Imbued. > That doen't make either of us elitists for having an opinion. I'm pretty sure his point (Man. I spend a lot of time clarifying Kevin's points these days...) is that he'd like to see the cards vanish into the ether and never be seen again by anyone. Which likely means the cards being banned. Which does not give older players an elite advantage, as *no one* uses the cards in question. Not reprinting them is just the start of that. > How do you fight this? Ban the cards (not gonna happen) or make them > more common. > Do you see any other workable solution? Clearly you ban them. I don't think "(not gonna happen)" prevents one from thinking that the game would be better if they were banned. I tend to agree with Kevin here. I mean, if they aren't going to be banned, reprint them. But if they aren't reprinted ever, maybe they can get banned. -Peter

Brum wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Brum wrote: >>> "Kevin M." wrote: >>>> Oh, and NOT Parity Shift and NOT Direct Intervention and NOT >>>> Sensory Deprivation, because I want those cards gone forever and >>>> ever, Amen. >> >>> Oh yeah. Because having them in the hands of a few players is >>> really the way to go. Elitism and ignorance is exactly what this >>> game needs. >> >> Parity Shift is ridiculously overpowered, Direct Intervention is the >> very definition of anti-fun (perhaps anti-GAME is a better term) and >> Sensory Deprivation has a special place in my heart for awful, >> unimaginative card design. I don't want to see these cards ever >> again, for those reasons. That isn't elitist in any way. The fact >> that they AREN'T being banned doesn't change my rationale on those >> cards in any way. >> >>> I prefer to have these cards out so lots of people learn to play >>> against them. Or enjoy them. >> >> If you are saying that YOU believe they will never be banned and >> therefore we should reprint them, that doesn't make ME ignorant in >> some way, it just makes both of our attitudes consistent. > > Kevin, I didn't say you were ignorant. What I wanted to say was: > With elitism: few (older / with more money) players have those > powerfull cards, thus being unfar to those that would like to use them > but can't. You may choose to dislike those cards. I dislike Imbued. > That doen't make either of us elitists for having an opinion. > With ignorance: those cards being in the hands of few gives them an > extra advantage because many players aren't used to see them. Most > have only heard of them, thus most players don't really know how to > play against them. > How do you fight this? Ban the cards (not gonna happen) or make them > more common. > Do you see any other workable solution? I think those cards are so bad that any solution isn't good. I hate banning cards, but the other options are disgusting. > I meant no disrespect to you. Sorry dude. Thanks, I think we both misunderstood the other. :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jan 12, 11:11 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > legacy of pander ... was reprinted in SW.

Teeka schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Even Marcus Vitel?

[ quoted text not captured ] Great, where can I get a box of Sabbat War?

[ quoted text not captured ] > Even Marcus Vitel?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > Ah. :-) Well, no. I meant the ones that haven't been printed in a regular set. So also no Duality, Kestrelle, Fatima, etc.

> Oh, and NOT Parity Shift and NOT Direct Intervention and NOT Sensory > Deprivation, because I want those cards gone forever and ever, Amen. > > </bait> Direct Intervention was in Sabbat, Sabbat War, and Third Edition Parity Shift was in Jyhad, VTES, and Camarilla Edition Sensory Deprivation was in Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts How is this anything other than an attempt to derail the thread? Your views on the subject are well known and not relevant to the discussion of cards that have only been printed once and are really good? No disrespect, but there are other threads for this. Brandon

On Jan 12, 4:37 am, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Police Department (and Movement of the Mind, also) are useful for > > their 'press to end' feature, which gets you out of a Trap, IG, etc. > > They are for decks that do not want to fight or are more defensive. > > Yeah, I get that - But I've never in my life assembeled a deck, > playtested it some and thought: "OMFG this deck needs the Police > department!". Ever. Not once. > If you want defence theres most likely better slots. I dunno. Never > struck me as a great deal. I've got PD in two different decks currently, and it has been critically useful more than once. (And we don't even have anyone playing Trapparition or Undead Persistence right now.) My Carna defensive module doesn't want to go to the second round, especially when the Samedi are Lurking. And if Rabbat's first round didn't work out right, the second round isn't likely to be better (and the dom/for weenies she's Lurking behind don't really want a second round either). > > Instead, the choice has been made to reprint Mob Connections and > > Apportation -- the 'press to continue' variants of PD and MotM. > > > What this tells you about VTES is left as an exercise for the reader. > > That bad cards hopefully wont get reprinted? =) Having just purged the last of my Jyhad, I actually needed 'new' Police Departments just a couple weeks ago. And Movement of the Mind is a very useful card - it's hard to believe it hasn't been reprinted. I'm guessing Kevin meant that V:tES has been encouraging combat, which is certainly something my rush decks have been noticing - very few soft targets left anymore... Alex

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:%ST2n.2208$Mv3...@newsfe05.iad... > The not-reprinted-enough cards I'd like to see, in order: ... > Oh, and NOT Parity Shift and NOT Direct Intervention and NOT Sensory > Deprivation, because I want those cards gone forever and ever, Amen. > > </bait> (You forgot the "<bait>" line. An oversight, I'm sure.) <takebait> To make an attempt to understand your position, I'd REALLY like to know how it is you expect that WotC's non-reprinting of a card will remove the in-print copies from the extant card population. Failing this, your final comment was a total non-sequitar, AFAICS. Such cards would not be gone "forever and ever". </takebait>

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps in a thread labeled "best card not currently in print" instead of this one? -John Flournoy

On Jan 12, 3:41 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <takebait> > > To make an attempt to understand your position, I'd REALLY like to know > how it is you expect that WotC's non-reprinting of a card will remove > the in-print copies from the extant card population. > > Failing this, your final comment was a total non-sequitar, AFAICS. Such > cards would not be gone "forever and ever". > > </takebait> <obvious answer> If you never reprint them, and then ban them, the issue is solved. </obvious answer> Like, if you aren't going to ban these cards, they need to be reprinted liberally. If you aren't going to reprint them liberally, ban them. -Peter

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Z__2n.12484$YP1....@newsfe15.iad... > Parity Shift is ridiculously overpowered, Direct Intervention is the > very definition of anti-fun (perhaps anti-GAME is a better term) and > Sensory Deprivation has a special place in my heart for awful, > unimaginative card design. I don't want to see these cards ever > again, for those reasons. That isn't elitist in any way. The fact > that they AREN'T being banned doesn't change my rationale on those > cards in any way. ... > If you are saying that YOU believe they will never be banned and > therefore we should reprint them, that doesn't make ME ignorant in > some way, it just makes both of our attitudes consistent. That fact that you can't grasp the independence of these two situations is irrelevant. They are, in fact, independent - and need to be. To treat them otherwise just causes unnecessary problems. If a card is broken, ban it (or issue errata or reprint it in non- broken form). This fixes the entire game independent of who owns what - including in places where virtual forms of the game are played, such as JOL. If a card is not broken, don't ban it, and don't worry about how many copies are in peoples' hands. It's bad - and I don't want a play a CCG - when a metagame hinges on containing older and/or richer players who can get the "good, old" cards vs. only newer and less well off players who will have to pay hell to ever obtain such cards. I believe WW has eschewed this, for the most part and thankfully so! (The exception may be promo cards, if WW viewed the promotional nature of such cards as a de facto promise not to reprint.) Even WotC understood the negative impact this causes a CCG and they realized it relatively soon after they first printed Magic. If those imbeciles could figure it out, you can too. If a card is broken, then it's banned so obviously you would not reprint it. Banned cards should not be part of the physical product for which people pay money. Given that a card is not broken, it should be reprinted under "normal" circumstance when it gets too rare. If it's a highly useful card, it should ABSOLUTELY be reprinted - see above reasoning. Card reprinting is about allowing new players the chance to play the same game that the old players get to play, within the realm of maybe making them do some work to develop their collections. If you cause them too much frustration, they'll quit the game without really getting to know it at all and we'll have fewer new players. If we have fewer new players, I'll get very upset and post lots of rants about this on Usenet. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:60c62fb2-04c3-4cea...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... On Jan 12, 8:56 am, Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Kevin, I didn't say you were ignorant. What I wanted to say was: > > With elitism: few (older / with more money) players have those > > powerfull cards, thus being unfar to those that would like to use them > > but can't. You may choose to dislike those cards. I dislike Imbued. > > That doen't make either of us elitists for having an opinion. > > I'm pretty sure his point (Man. I spend a lot of time clarifying > Kevin's points these days...) is that he'd like to see the cards > vanish into the ether and never be seen again by anyone. Which likely > means the cards being banned. Which does not give older players an > elite advantage, as *no one* uses the cards in question. Not > reprinting them is just the start of that. If that's what he meant, then he's passed up a lot of chances to clarify this. He keeps bring this subject up again and again in the context of reprinting cards - which is going to be understood as a desire merely to not reprint the card. If his point is that the card should be banned, and if he doesn't wish it to be misunderstood, what's wrong with saying, "I want this card banned." We already understand that a banned card won't be reprinted. You don't need to talk about reprinting a card that's banned. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I think that Kevin would be almost as happy if they banned the cards he doesn't like and also reprinted them liberally. For my part, I agree with you, Peter. It's interesting to try to spit up cards that have *never* been reprinted from those that have not seen a reprint in a long time. Jyhad cards were reprinted in VTES and (many) in 10th edition, both of which were no more recent than the beginning of 2005, 5 years ago, much longer in the case of the good reprints. I've been trying for a while to get a hold of PB:LA and would really like Carlton and Liquidation. Those would be my votes. Brandon

Liquidation should be mentioned in this thread.

On Jan 12, 10:52 pm, Orange Devil <orangede...@home.nl> wrote: > Liquidation should be mentioned in this thread. And ofcourse the post right above mine mentions it but I read over it. :( I'll just mention Puppeteer then. TTC Master ranked it as the 4th best ally in the game, yet I've seen a grand total of 0 played (then again I don't play in France, which seems to be the only place this ally keeps popping up).

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:d4587ac4-8a6e-44d5...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 12, 3:41 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > <takebait> > > > > To make an attempt to understand your position, I'd REALLY like to know > > how it is you expect that WotC's non-reprinting of a card will remove > the in-print copies from the extant card population. > > > > Failing this, your final comment was a total non-sequitar, AFAICS. Such > > cards would not be gone "forever and ever". > > > > </takebait> > > <obvious answer> > > If you never reprint them, and then ban them, the issue is solved. > > </obvious answer> That would be obvious if that had been the thing that was said. I believe that when a poster can make a point in a straightforward manner but chooses not to, then it's fair to assume that it wasn't the point he was trying to make. This is a thing *I* consider to be obvioius. Fred

Heh. I made my own list a few months back. These are the cards which I was surprised haven't been printed (or reprinted) in a while. They are organized by the set they were last printed in: [VTES] Conquer the Beast Consanguineous Condemnation Malkavian Time Auction Movement of the Mind Police Department Praxis Solomon [Dark Sovereigns] Shackles of Enkidu [Ancient Hearts] Burnt Offerings Eyes of the Serpent [Sabbat] Camarilla Vitae Slave Goth Band Lyndhurst Estate, New York Passion [Sabbat War] Arms of the Abyss Blanket of Night Blood of Acid Blood Siege Bloodform Entombment Eyes of the Night Legacy of Pander Preternatural Evasion Shadow Body Shadow Twin Twisted Forest Walk through Arcadia [Final Nights] Alamut Ambrosius, the Ferryman Ghouls of Plaza Moreria Horrid Reality Illusions of the Kindred Mass Reality Mythic Form Path of Typhon Powerbase: Rome Sensory Deprivation [Bloodlines] Bond with the Mountain Contagion Draught of the Soul Elemental Stoicism Madman's Quill Martyr's Resilience Shroud of Absence [Camarilla] Baltimore Purge Fear of Mekhet Parity Shift Shotgun Ritual [Anarchs] Brinksmanship Cry Wolf Earth Meld Sunset Strip, Hollywood [Black Hand] Dia de los Muertos Powerbase: Madrid [Gehenna] Carver's Meat Packing and Storage Centralized Background Check Fortschritt Library Kaymakli Nightmares [10th Anniversary] Brujah Debate Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter) Liquidation Spiritual Intervention [Kindred Most Wanted] Dual Form So there's my list.

Currently, the best card never reprinted is Villien. my apologies, Matt

On Jan 13, 8:03 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Fred, I read KJM's statement as being a binary choice... 0: Reprint those old cards until they become as common as Enchant Kindred & WWEF in people's collections. 1: Ban them, so that the new guys don't have to deal with a card where there are 8 copies owned by 50 players with $$ or Old Card Collections. I think that someone should make the decision, I too don't care which is chosen. 0 = Everybody owns 4+ Sense Deps 1 = Nobody gets to USE Sense Deps in Tourneys...

"Juggernaut1981" <brassc...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f174e0f7-9b11-48d9...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > Fred, > I read KJM's statement as being a binary choice... > > 0: Reprint those old cards until they become as common as Enchant > Kindred & WWEF in people's collections. > 1: Ban them, so that the new guys don't have to deal with a card where > there are 8 copies owned by 50 players with $$ or Old Card > Collections. > > I think that someone should make the decision, I too don't care which > is chosen. > 0 = Everybody owns 4+ Sense Deps > 1 = Nobody gets to USE Sense Deps in Tourneys... Well, setting aside the issue of what Kevin may or may not have meant, I suspect you and I agree in the main about this. I don't think the situations are quite as binary as all that, however. Consider, for instance, Mind Rape: a card that was once considered broken until it got errated and then reprinted with altered text. Even so, it's still a powerful chase card and it has never been particularly easy to obtain. In my world, I'd love it if it were easy to get anything that's really good so if MRs were as common as Enchant Kindred, I'd be fine with that. But the reality is, a lot of the demand for purchasing randomized card packs is the point that some cards exist which are powerful and hard to find. I believe it's how White Wolf makes money from the game. So, OK. That's a fair reason to make a card rare and not reprint it often - so long as it never gets beyond a certain level of demand-to-availability ratio. "Because-I-don't-like-it", OTOH, is a really crappy reason. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Kevin, I didn't say you were ignorant. What I wanted to say was: >>> With elitism: few (older / with more money) players have those >>> powerfull cards, thus being unfar to those that would like to use >>> them but can't. You may choose to dislike those cards. I dislike >>> Imbued. That doen't make either of us elitists for having an >>> opinion. >> >> I'm pretty sure his point (Man. I spend a lot of time clarifying >> Kevin's points these days...) is that he'd like to see the cards >> vanish into the ether and never be seen again by anyone. Which likely >> means the cards being banned. Which does not give older players an >> elite advantage, as *no one* uses the cards in question. Not >> reprinting them is just the start of that. > > If that's what he meant, then he's passed up a lot of chances to > clarify this. "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." These aren't clear statements that I want them banned? Weird. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Parity Shift is ridiculously overpowered, Direct Intervention is the >> very definition of anti-fun (perhaps anti-GAME is a better term) and >> Sensory Deprivation has a special place in my heart for awful, >> unimaginative card design. I don't want to see these cards ever >> again, for those reasons. That isn't elitist in any way. The fact >> that they AREN'T being banned doesn't change my rationale on those >> cards in any way. > > If a card is broken, ban it (or issue errata or reprint it in non- > broken form). "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." I've been saying to ban them all along. The fact that they aren't in-print and haven't beeen reprinted is a good first step. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > I believe that when a poster can make a point in a straightforward > manner but chooses not to, then it's fair to assume that it wasn't > the point he was trying to make. This is a thing *I* consider to be > obvioius. "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." I thought it was clear that I wanted the cards banned. Guess not. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I've been saying to ban them all along. The fact that they aren't > in-print and haven't beeen reprinted is a good first step. A step towards what? Only those with piles of cash or who have been playing a long time owning some of the most powerful cards? Would you care to explain to new players in person why a select group of people should be the only ones to own significant quantities of Parity Shift, Sense Dep, etc? No reprints does not equal a ban, only a scarcity, even if it was for a hundred years. Back to the topic, what cards would you like to see reprinted that have never been? Brandon

On Jan 12, 5:14 pm, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] This list encompasses most of what I was going to write and has many more.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't think that sense dep and DI really qualify for the ban hammer. I guess parity shift does, but I played this game for years, then two like a two year hiatus and now there is an uproar about parity shift. I guess because they didn't reprint it in KoT. For me, PTO was more annoying that any of these cards. Looked like the devs agreed.

Martel732 wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> I believe that when a poster can make a point in a straightforward >>> manner but chooses not to, then it's fair to assume that it wasn't >>> the point he was trying to make. This is a thing *I* consider to be >>> obvioius. >> >> "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," >> "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." >> >> I thought it was clear that I wanted the cards banned. Guess not. > > I don't think that sense dep and DI really qualify for the ban hammer. > I guess parity shift does, but I played this game for years, then two > like a two year hiatus and now there is an uproar about parity shift. > I guess because they didn't reprint it in KoT. > > For me, PTO was more annoying that any of these cards. Looked like > the devs agreed. The Parity Shift uproar did seem to come to a head when it wasn't reprinted in KoT, I agree. But the card is still strikingly powerful. To me, D.I. was always just an anti-fun (or anti-game) as PTO, just in a different way. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/ DI is at least limited by one per turn per methuselah. And it costs pool. PTO decks could destroy an 11 cap independent, fill up and GAIN 2 pool off the vote. Yes, getting stuff DIed sucks, but I never saw it THAT much when I played before. DI can't be used to stop those soul- crushing minion taps or villeins like sudden. Oh well, I guess I'll see this year for myself. As for sense dep, it is very powerful; yet, I have overcame that card more easily than a card like no secrets. Maybe that's a metagame thing.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:oz83n.8255$rH7....@newsfe19.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Kevin, I didn't say you were ignorant. What I wanted to say was: >>>> With elitism: few (older / with more money) players have those >>>> powerfull cards, thus being unfar to those that would like to use >>>> them but can't. You may choose to dislike those cards. I dislike >>>> Imbued. That doen't make either of us elitists for having an >>>> opinion. >>> >>> I'm pretty sure his point (Man. I spend a lot of time clarifying >>> Kevin's points these days...) is that he'd like to see the cards >>> vanish into the ether and never be seen again by anyone. Which likely >>> means the cards being banned. Which does not give older players an >>> elite advantage, as *no one* uses the cards in question. Not >>> reprinting them is just the start of that. >> >> If that's what he meant, then he's passed up a lot of chances to >> clarify this. > > "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," > "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." > > These aren't clear statements that I want them banned? Weird. This is a perfect example of why you're getting a reputation with some people as being mean-spirited on this board. You're ignoring the obvious issue. LOOK at the above text and the preceding posts leading up to my comment. Whether you *MERELY* wanted the cards banned or not is *OBVIOUSLY* not why I made that comment. I made that comment in reference to the question of not reprinting the cards EVEN WHEN THEY WEREN'T BANNED. Sheesh. People get tired of being sniped with shots that totally miss the point. Your post was not an attempt to clarify. It was just a flame. Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:sB83n.8256$rH7....@newsfe19.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Parity Shift is ridiculously overpowered, Direct Intervention is the >>> very definition of anti-fun (perhaps anti-GAME is a better term) and >>> Sensory Deprivation has a special place in my heart for awful, >>> unimaginative card design. I don't want to see these cards ever >>> again, for those reasons. That isn't elitist in any way. The fact >>> that they AREN'T being banned doesn't change my rationale on those >>> cards in any way. >> >> If a card is broken, ban it (or issue errata or reprint it in non- >> broken form). > > "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," > "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." > > I've been saying to ban them all along. The fact that they aren't > in-print and haven't beeen reprinted is a good first step. No, it's not. That would cause the problems in distribution I and other people have cited. If the card is broken and needs to be banned, then the first step is to ban it. There is no second step. Banning a broken card doesn't require a multi-step process. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Brum <tiago.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Kevin, I didn't say you were ignorant. What I wanted to say was: >>>>> With elitism: few (older / with more money) players have those >>>>> powerfull cards, thus being unfar to those that would like to use >>>>> them but can't. You may choose to dislike those cards. I dislike >>>>> Imbued. That doen't make either of us elitists for having an >>>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure his point (Man. I spend a lot of time clarifying >>>> Kevin's points these days...) is that he'd like to see the cards >>>> vanish into the ether and never be seen again by anyone. Which >>>> likely means the cards being banned. Which does not give older >>>> players an elite advantage, as *no one* uses the cards in >>>> question. Not reprinting them is just the start of that. >>> >>> If that's what he meant, then he's passed up a lot of chances to >>> clarify this. >> >> "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," >> "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." >> >> These aren't clear statements that I want them banned? Weird. > > This is a perfect example of why you're getting a reputation with > some people as being mean-spirited on this board. I've always been mean-spirited. You just noticed? ;) > You're ignoring the obvious issue. LOOK at the above text and the > preceding posts leading up to my comment. Whether you *MERELY* > wanted the cards banned or not is *OBVIOUSLY* not why I made that > comment. I made that comment in reference to the question of not > reprinting the cards EVEN WHEN THEY WEREN'T BANNED. > > Sheesh. People get tired of being sniped with shots that totally > miss the point. Your post was not an attempt to clarify. It was > just a flame. In the most broad, sweeping, nigh-meaningless use of the word "flame". I've had two different regulars on this newsgroup email me directly asking "Why is everyone getting on your case when you say something? You are only stating the obvious. You're being very clear." YMMV, I guess. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with everything you just said. But the red herring (Chris, help me out here;) that people keep posting about how old-players-having-cards-that-new-players-don't-have-easy- access-to leading to loss of the player base and/or difficulty recruiting new players just doesn't hold water. I've never seen of or heard of a player who got upset and quit, or refused to become a regular player, due specifically to not having so-called easy access to a particular old, non reprinted, non-banned card. So I don't consider it a real argument, except on a conceptual level. Which is where you and those who agree with you may have been coming from this whole time, I dunno. If so, I think we're at an impass. [ quoted text not captured ]

Martel732 wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Martel732 wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>>> I believe that when a poster can make a point in a straightforward >>>>> manner but chooses not to, then it's fair to assume that it wasn't >>>>> the point he was trying to make. This is a thing *I* consider to >>>>> be obvioius. >> >>>> "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," >>>> "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." >> >>>> I thought it was clear that I wanted the cards banned. Guess not. >> >>> I don't think that sense dep and DI really qualify for the ban >>> hammer. I guess parity shift does, but I played this game for >>> years, then two like a two year hiatus and now there is an uproar >>> about parity shift. I guess because they didn't reprint it in KoT. >> >>> For me, PTO was more annoying that any of these cards. Looked >>> like the devs agreed. >> >> The Parity Shift uproar did seem to come to a head when it wasn't >> reprinted in KoT, I agree. But the card is still strikingly powerful. >> >> To me, D.I. was always just an anti-fun (or anti-game) as PTO, just >> in a different way. > > DI is at least limited by one per turn per methuselah. And it costs > pool. PTO decks could destroy an 11 cap independent, fill up and GAIN > 2 pool off the vote. Yes, getting stuff DIed sucks, but I never saw it > THAT much when I played before. DI can't be used to stop those soul- > crushing minion taps or villeins like sudden. Oh well, I guess I'll > see this year for myself. You make good points in regards to D.I. vs. PTO. > As for sense dep, it is very powerful; yet, I have overcame that card > more easily than a card like no secrets. Maybe that's a metagame > thing. My primary issue with SD is that you get ONE CHANCE to allow your minion to continue playing the game, and then it's all over. That's unfair. Just like PTO was unfair. There are plenty of 'block fails' cards to get past No Secrets, or just use a lot of stealth. There are also LOTS more vampires with CHI (not to mention chi) than there are Magaji. And the nearly-impossible removal clause? It's basically not there. Even decks that are created specifically to remove minions from play don't often succeed. How can my random deck be expected to do it? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/ The minion in question may still react. They can still cast votes. They still might provide text for your other minions. This is very important. Minions burnt by PTO no longer provided anything. Heck, infernal minions are plain immune to SD. In some ways, inferior nightmare curse is even worse, because then you are tempted to pay pool to untap your minion, even if it is not a good idea. I usually plan nightmare curse in the inferior in my prey. I personally have not played many decks that have the stealth or block fails to reliably get past no magaji, so I find it to be more annoying than SD in many cases. Plus, many of my decks have a lot of reactions, so I can use the SD minion to react. Maybe its an Ohio thing, but I have removed the offending Ravnos from play several times. Maybe its all the combat.

On Jan 14, 4:04 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > My primary issue with SD is that you get ONE CHANCE to allow your > minion to continue playing the game, and then it's all over. That's unfair. > Just like PTO was unfair. There are plenty of 'block fails' cards to get > past No Secrets, or just use a lot of stealth. There are also LOTS more > vampires with CHI (not to mention chi) than there are Magaji. > > And the nearly-impossible removal clause? It's basically not there. Even > decks that are created specifically to remove minions from play don't often > succeed. How can my random deck be expected to do it? > The removal clause of Sensory Deprivation is more "oust the playing methuselah", because that's often easier than burning the minion that played it. Personally, I try to have ways of directing actions at my predator if need be, and if ousting my predator means that I get to stay in the game long enough to have a chance at ousting my prey, then I'll do it. Vote decks can KRC backwards. Kindred Spirits can obviously go backwards. Julia Prima and some Giovanni whose name I don't remember can bleed backwards. Rush decks are good at wrecking predators, as are intercept decks. Weenie decks aren't particularly effected by SD. Of course, star vamp decks are gonna have the same problems against SD as they do against Pentex, with the difference being that you can sometimes get rid of Pentex. But unless I think I can get a quick oust, my reaction to seeing SD is to wall up, and then do everything in my deck's power to oust the playing methuselah. Granted, a card that makes you oust your predator isn't necessarily balanced, but in ~10-15 years I have yet to be utterly hosed by it nearly as fast as I've been hosed by power bleed or trumpy rush combat...

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:lMB3n.33131$Gf3....@newsfe22.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> If a card is broken, ban it (or issue errata or reprint it in non- >>>> broken form). ... >>> I've been saying to ban them all along. The fact that they aren't >>> in-print and haven't beeen reprinted is a good first step. >> >> No, it's not. That would cause the problems in distribution I and >> other people have cited. If the card is broken and needs to be >> banned, then the first step is to ban it. There is no second step. Banning a broken card doesn't require a multi-step process. > > I agree with everything you just said. > > But the red herring (Chris, help me out here;) that people keep posting > about how old-players-having-cards-that-new-players-don't-have-easy- > access-to leading to loss of the player base and/or difficulty recruiting > new players just doesn't hold water. I've never seen of or heard of a > player who got upset and quit, or refused to become a regular player, > due specifically to not having so-called easy access to a particular old, > non reprinted, non-banned card. So I don't consider it a real argument, > except on a conceptual level. The reason you haven't seen or heard it is because White Wolf has never allowed the problem to become a serious one. That's great - let's keep it that way. Systematically refusing to reprint a non-banned card will inevitably cause the problem over time - especially if the reason you refuse to print it is because it's found to be quite useful. And these cards are certainly useful. That's central to why you don't want them reprinted. (I'm not hearing anyone clamor to stop the reprint of Twisting the Knife because it's on the watch list.) > Which is where you and those who agree with you may have been > coming from this whole time, I dunno. If so, I think we're at an impass. Actually, no. You've fail to mention why we would _need_ a multi-step process. If you agree that abusive cards need to just be banned when they're found to be abusive, then there we go. We have agreement There is no purpose to having "semi-banned" or "in-the-first-stages-of-being-banned" cards. Either we like the card or we don't. If we like it, the reprinting policy should be the standard one: balancing the needs of new players against the need to sell packs of in-print edition cards and/or simply the need to keep players honest by chosing your reprints somewhat randomly. If we don't, it's outa here - banned. Now. A middle ground has no function except to irritate, annoy, or cause singles prices to skyrocket before they suddenly become worthless. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> But the red herring (Chris, help me out here;) that people keep >> posting about how old-players-having-cards-that-new-players-don't- >> have-easy-access-to leading to loss of the player base and/or >> difficulty recruiting new players just doesn't hold water. I've >> never seen of or heard of a player who got upset and quit, or >> refused to become a regular player, due specifically to not having >> so-called easy access to a particular old, non reprinted, non- >> banned card. So I don't consider it a real argument, except on >> a conceptual level. > > The reason you haven't seen or heard it is because White Wolf > has never allowed the problem to become a serious one. [snip] I've certainly heard a lot about it from you and others on this ng! ;) >> Which is where you and those who agree with you may have been >> coming from this whole time, I dunno. If so, I think we're at an >> impass. > > Actually, no. You've fail to mention why we would _need_ a multi- > step process. If you agree that abusive cards need to just be > banned when they're found to be abusive, then there we go. We have > agreement. There is no purpose to having "semi-banned" or "in-the- > first-stages-of-being-banned" cards. Either we like the card or we > don't. If we like it, the reprinting policy should be the standard > one: balancing the needs of new players against the need to sell > packs of in-print edition cards and/or simply the need to keep > players honest by chosing your reprints somewhat randomly. If we > don't, it's outa here - banned. Now. A middle ground has no > function except to irritate, annoy, or cause singles prices to > skyrocket before they suddenly become worthless. We agree again. I want no middle-ground nor have I stated any interest in creating such a state for cards. What I have said is that these cards are so disgusting that I'm glad they haven't been reprinted. Then you and others got all up in my face because of the so-called problem I describe above, which I don't feel has any merit as a real argument since it is entirely conceptual. I have to say, I'm glad we have come to agreement on this issue, so that next time I say how I want those cards banned and not reprinted you won't have to try to get me to understand anything. Sounds like a time savings for both of us! [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:tdO3n.18735$w21....@newsfe17.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: Re: Kevin said about certain unbanned cards, "I've been saying to ban them all along. The fact that they aren't in-print and haven't beeen reprinted is a good first step." ...to which I replied, "No, it's not. That would cause the problems in distribution I and other people have cited. If the card is broken and needs to be banned, then the first step is to ban it. There is no second step. Banning a broken card doesn't require a multi-step process." ...to which Kevin replied, "I've never seen of or heard of a player who got upset and quit, or refused to become a regular player, due specifically to not having so-called easy access to a particular old, non reprinted, non-banned card. So I don't consider it a real argument, except on a conceptual level. ...picking up on the action, later in the 3rd quarter... >>> Which is where you and those who agree with you may have been >>> coming from this whole time, I dunno. If so, I think we're at an >>> impass. >> >> Actually, no. You've fail to mention why we would _need_ a multi- >> step process. ... >> A middle ground has no >> function except to irritate, annoy, or cause singles prices to >> skyrocket before they suddenly become worthless. > > We agree again. I want no middle-ground nor have I stated any > interest in creating such a state for cards. What I have said is > that these cards are so disgusting that I'm glad they haven't been > reprinted. Then you and others got all up in my face because of the > so-called problem I describe above, which I don't feel has any merit > as a real argument since it is entirely conceptual. No, Kevin. What you actually said was that you wouldn't want them reprinted in the future. Those are two very different thrusts. If you want to express gratitude purely for the fact that they haven't shown up recently (except D.I. really kind of has), I don't think people are necessarily going to jump on you for that. But lobbying to prevent them being reprinted in the future automatically gets people thinking, "Um, how LONG into the future does he mean? Forever and ever?" And then we project, like, 9 or 12 years from now and, say, Parity Shift is still legal yet hasn't been reprinted for that many years and we think that this would be very bad. > I have to say, I'm glad we have come to agreement on this issue, so > that next time I say how I want those cards banned and not reprinted > you won't have to try to get me to understand anything. Sounds like > a time savings for both of us! If, indeed, you say the thing you were quoted as saying above, that's fine. (Hint: In this newsgroup, it would be clearer to just say you want them banned. Banned implies "not reprinted". "Not reprinted", OTOH, does _not_ also imply banned.) I mean, I don't exactly agree with that either. I think Sensory Dep would have been a fine card to reprint in Lords of the Night (for instance), given that it isn't banned. But it's certainly not important enough of a difference to bother arguing about whether it's good or bad that SD didn't show up in the one recent expansion. (I'm also not unsympathetic to your arguments about its unfunness - but that's a separate discussion.) On the other hand, if you say the thing you originally said in this thread - that you don't want it reprinted in the future - then you're likely get peoples' dander for the same reason all over again. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> We agree again. I want no middle-ground nor have I stated any >> interest in creating such a state for cards. What I have said is >> that these cards are so disgusting that I'm glad they haven't been >> reprinted. Then you and others got all up in my face because of >> the so-called problem I describe above, which I don't feel has any >> merit as a real argument since it is entirely conceptual. > > No, Kevin. What you actually said was that you wouldn't want them > reprinted in the future. Those are two very different thrusts. > If you want to express gratitude purely for the fact that they > haven't shown up recently (except D.I. really kind of has), I don't > think people are necessarily going to jump on you for that. But > lobbying to prevent them being reprinted in the future automatically > gets people thinking, "Um, how LONG into the future does he mean? > Forever and ever?" And then we project, like, 9 or 12 years from > now and, say, Parity Shift is still legal yet hasn't been reprinted > for that many years and we think that this would be very bad. If we go forward X years and they haven't yet been reprinted, then the amount of decks that'd be using those ugly cards would be less than it is now, which is a concretely good thing. The purely theoretical, nigh-useless argument that you and others keep putting forward doesn't interest me. When you find a player as I described a post or two back, call me. So no, it wouldn't be bad, even though you keep saying it would be. So, I'm going to stop responding now, since we're at a CLEAR impass. >> I have to say, I'm glad we have come to agreement on this issue, >> so that next time I say how I want those cards banned and not >> reprinted you won't have to try to get me to understand anything. >> Sounds like a time savings for both of us! > > If, indeed, you say the thing you were quoted as saying above, > that's fine. (Hint: In this newsgroup, it would be clearer to just > say you want them banned. Banned implies "not reprinted". "Not > reprinted", OTOH, does _not_ also imply banned.) Hint: When I say "forever and ever" and then I say how that means I want the cards banned and you and others STILL don't get it, that's not my issue. I and others feel I was clear, you and others feel I wasn't clear. Ok, great, thanks for educating me. > (I'm also not unsympathetic to your arguments about its unfunness > but that's a separate discussion.) Something else we agree on. Excellent. > On the other hand, if you say the thing you originally said in > this thread - that you don't want it reprinted in the future - then > you're likely get peoples' dander for the same reason all over > again. I'm curious as to where all this concern for my well-being is coming from, but you've so exhausted me over minutiae that I no longer care. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jan 14, 8:16 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/ Hey! What about the SD discussion?

On Jan 14, 8:16 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >The purely theoretical, nigh-useless argument that you and others >keep putting forward doesn't interest me. When you find a player >as I described a post or two back, call me. I've refused to take part in other CCGs where many highly powerful cards were ridiculously rare (in boosters etc.), ridiculously expensive (as singles), or ridiculously hard to get hold of in other ways. The original ST:TNG card game was, in fact, my first card game, and I bought a handful of cards for it (perhaps a few hundred), found that creating competitive decks against obsessives would cost a lot, and moved on. Similarly, I knew a bunch of people who were into Type 1 Magic, and there was no way I was going chasing Lotuses and Moxes. As a result, my purchases of Magic are restricted to the occasional booster draft with friends every now and then. If V:TES had cards that a substantial group of people thought weren't fun (DI, Parity Shift, Pentex Subversion, Sensory Deprivation etc.), and then left those cards available for play but not for me to buy in any reasonable fashion, I wouldn't buy in to the game in exactly the same way. I'm pretty sure that there are quite a lot of us who've avoided games where hunting down power cards required way more money than we were willing to pay. That's why it's not a theoretical concern. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

brandonsantacruz wrote: > Sensory Deprivation was in Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts You mean DS and Final Nights. Nitpick, sure. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] I missed the Sabbat expansion's $60 boxes by a year or so. Those cards weren't available to me to buy except via $200 boxes and heavy, serious trading. That's how I got those cards, when I wanted them. I never owned a War Ghoul or Mind Rape, much less several, until they were reprinted multiple times because I didn't want to pay $25 for each. I hear your argument, but you CAN buy into the game and those cards I'm speaking of with a few bucks. Not tens or hundreds of bucks, but a few bucks. All those cards are consistently less than $10 each, some going for as little as $5 once in a while. So the situation seems fine. When it becomes non-theoretical, I'll yell louder than Fred or anyone else, as I often have in the past (see my many "eBay Madness" posts). [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >I hear your argument, but you CAN buy into the game and those cards >I'm speaking of with a few bucks. Not tens or hundreds of bucks, but >a few bucks. All those cards are consistently less than $10 each, >some going for as little as $5 once in a while. So the situation >seems fine. Most of those cards are less than $10 now, because we have reprints of them in easy to access forms (mostly). They won't be that cheap if you insist on not reprinting them. >When it becomes non-theoretical, I'll yell louder than Fred or anyone >else, as I often have in the past (see my many "eBay Madness" posts). You're actually arguing for a policy that will *increase* eBay Madness. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I hear your argument, but you CAN buy into the game and those cards >> I'm speaking of with a few bucks. Not tens or hundreds of bucks, but >> a few bucks. All those cards are consistently less than $10 each, >> some going for as little as $5 once in a while. So the situation >> seems fine. > > Most of those cards are less than $10 now, because we have reprints > of them in easy to access forms (mostly). They won't be that cheap if > you insist on not reprinting them. I have no reprint policy. I want the cards banned. I thought I went over this with Fred...? >> When it becomes non-theoretical, I'll yell louder than Fred or anyone >> else, as I often have in the past (see my many "eBay Madness" posts). > > You're actually arguing for a policy that will *increase* eBay > Madness. Baning cards will increase their value? Huh? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:7mP3n.5084$Mv3...@newsfe05.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> We agree again. I want no middle-ground nor have I stated any >>> interest in creating such a state for cards. What I have said is >>> that these cards are so disgusting that I'm glad they haven't been >>> reprinted. Then you and others got all up in my face because of >>> the so-called problem I describe above, which I don't feel has any >>> merit as a real argument since it is entirely conceptual. >> >> No, Kevin. What you actually said was that you wouldn't want them >> reprinted in the future. Those are two very different thrusts. >> If you want to express gratitude purely for the fact that they >> haven't shown up recently (except D.I. really kind of has), I don't >> think people are necessarily going to jump on you for that. But >> lobbying to prevent them being reprinted in the future automatically >> gets people thinking, "Um, how LONG into the future does he mean? >> Forever and ever?" And then we project, like, 9 or 12 years from >> now and, say, Parity Shift is still legal yet hasn't been reprinted >> for that many years and we think that this would be very bad. > > If we go forward X years and they haven't yet been reprinted, then > the amount of decks that'd be using those ugly cards would be less > than it is now, which is a concretely good thing. You're ducking the point that I just showed how in your previous post, you misrepresented your original position. And in expressing that sentiment, you likewise make it look very unlikely that you merely meant that you wanted the cards banned when you said it. > The purely theoretical, nigh-useless argument that you and others > keep putting forward doesn't interest me. When you find a player > as I described a post or two back, call me. Diversion. I replied to that challenge the in response the first time you posted it: WW doesn't do the bad thing that causes it to happen. There were plenty of people who quit Magic Type I (or whatever it's called now) as Moxen, Lotuses, multilands and so forth got further and further out of print. There's no real debatable issue here. Just rubbish being thrown in the way of pursuers. > > If, indeed, you say the thing you were quoted as saying above, > > that's fine. (Hint: In this newsgroup, it would be clearer to just > > say you want them banned. Banned implies "not reprinted". "Not > > reprinted", OTOH, does _not_ also imply banned.) > > Hint: When I say "forever and ever" and then I say how that means > I want the cards banned and you and others STILL don't get it, that's > not my issue. When you say something in a confusing, misleading way and get misunderstood, that IS your issue. Assuming you were actually misunderstood, of course. Here's a thought: how about using the words, "I want the cards banned" if actually mean "I want the cards banned"? It works for everybody else. Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:qMZ3n.6174$ap2....@newsfe18.iad... > When it becomes non-theoretical, I'll yell louder than Fred or anyone > else, as I often have in the past (see my many "eBay Madness" posts). I'm not sure if you and I necessarily yell about the same things in our respective, "this-is-crazy-EBAY-again" posts. I don't recall what your posts were about. Mine tend to talk about two things: 1) Two (or more) bidders being complete idiots and bidding back and forth until they've got the price of a Deflection card up to, like, $80 or so. and 2) Such-and-such card has gotten so expensive on EBAY, it needs to be reprinted (please...White Wolf). The last one was probably about The Unmasking, which was regular going for $40+ for a while there. Fred

On Jan 11, 5:09 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Off the top of my head, I'd give Carlton the award for best > card only printed once, with Baltimore Purge coming in 2nd. > > Am I missing a good one that has only appeared in one set, > or as only a promo? > > best - > > chris Draba... not the best, but maybe the best that hasn't been mentioned yet.

On Jan 13, 11:41 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > I believe that when a poster can make a point in a straightforward > > manner but chooses not to, then it's fair to assume that it wasn't > > the point he was trying to make. This is a thing *I* consider to be > > obvioius. > > "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," > "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." > > I thought it was clear that I wanted the cards banned. Guess not. > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/ wasn't very clear. it sounded like you just wanted them to not get banned but not be reprinted either. simcof

On Jan 14, 8:48 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/ I've definitely seen this. We have a new generation of players who can't get cards like Parity Shift, 44 Magnums and Deflections. These are pretty core cards that are not seeing reprints. The new players have no fun getting smashed by the many parity shift decks out there and having to use second rate weapons. simcof

simcof wrote: > I've definitely seen this. We have a new generation of players who > can't get cards like Parity Shift, 44 Magnums and Deflections. These > are pretty core cards that are not seeing reprints. The new players > have no fun getting smashed by the many parity shift decks out there > and having to use second rate weapons. I don't know anyone who doesn't have dozens of .44s just sitting around gathering dust. Email me at vtesinlv at cox dot net and if you pay shipping, I'm sure I can get you dozens of them. For $49+shipping you can go to thelasombra.com and get a box of Black Hand starters and get eight Deflections, along with all the other good stuff in that box, especially the vampires. (eBay has the individual Black Hand !Tremere starters for about the same price after shipping, so you might as well but the whole box.) eBay also has plenty of reasonably-priced Deflection auctions, as well as suuuuuuper-cheap .44 auctions, so there's no reason not to have as many of these as you want. Parity Shift... well, in order not to invoke another Fred post, I'll say nothing about that card. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

simcof wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> I believe that when a poster can make a point in a straightforward >>> manner but chooses not to, then it's fair to assume that it wasn't >>> the point he was trying to make. This is a thing *I* consider to be >>> obvioius. >> >> "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," >> "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." >> >> I thought it was clear that I wanted the cards banned. Guess not. > > wasn't very clear. it sounded like you just wanted them to not get > banned but not be reprinted either. If that's what I wanted, then I'd continue to see them be played, right? Which would contradict what I said. Which is why that wasn't it. I am starting to think that the people in this thread that have some kind of dislike for White Wolf not reprinting cards and not banning them are transferring their issues over to me. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

> I am starting to think that the people in this thread that have some kind > of dislike for White Wolf not reprinting cards and not banning them are > transferring their issues over to me. ;) Well, obviously it is your fault. :P

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >simcof wrote: >> I've definitely seen this. We have a new generation of players who >> can't get cards like Parity Shift, 44 Magnums and Deflections. These >> are pretty core cards that are not seeing reprints. The new players >> have no fun getting smashed by the many parity shift decks out there >> and having to use second rate weapons. > >I don't know anyone who doesn't have dozens of .44s just sitting >around gathering dust. They're called new players. You keep treating new players as if they have access to piles of cards from days gone by. They don't. [ quoted text not captured ]

simcof wrote: > I've definitely seen this. We have a new generation of players who > can't get cards like Parity Shift, 44 Magnums and Deflections. These > are pretty core cards that are not seeing reprints. The new players > have no fun getting smashed by the many parity shift decks out there > and having to use second rate weapons. I have dozens of .44s lying around and I still built my only gun deck around Berettas! Take _that_, ...uh...someone. or something...yeah! [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > simcof wrote: >> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> I believe that when a poster can make a point in a straightforward >>>> manner but chooses not to, then it's fair to assume that it wasn't >>>> the point he was trying to make. This is a thing *I* consider to be >>>> obvioius. >>> >>> "...because I want those cards gone forever and ever," >>> "I don't want to see these cards ever again,..." >>> >>> I thought it was clear that I wanted the cards banned. Guess not. >> >> wasn't very clear. it sounded like you just wanted them to not get >> banned but not be reprinted either. > > If that's what I wanted, then I'd continue to see them be played, right? > > Which would contradict what I said. > > Which is why that wasn't it. > > I am starting to think that the people in this thread that have some kind > of dislike for White Wolf not reprinting cards and not banning them are > transferring their issues over to me. ;) to be fair, at first i also thought that was what you wanted. it appeared initially (although later got clarified) that you never wanted to see them played, and that if they never got reprinted then that alone (thus implying without needing to see them banned) would achieve that goal. Which is why some people started to think you were a little blind if you thought that old people would stop playing their copies (which you didn't think, but it appeared kind of like you'd overlooked that and not considered it). It's good that your position is now clarified though, as it's a totally reasonable stance :) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> simcof wrote: >>> I've definitely seen this. We have a new generation of players who >>> can't get cards like Parity Shift, 44 Magnums and Deflections. These >>> are pretty core cards that are not seeing reprints. The new players >>> have no fun getting smashed by the many parity shift decks out there >>> and having to use second rate weapons. >> >> I don't know anyone who doesn't have dozens of .44s just sitting >> around gathering dust. > > They're called new players. > > You keep treating new players as if they have access to piles of cards > from days gone by. They don't. Ok, now it's my fault that I wasn't clear, I guess. Let me rephrase for those who are in the wings waiting to strike. I don't know any regular, old players, who are in almost every playgroup, and certainly available via eBay and other trading sites, who don't have dozens of .44s just sitting around gathering dust. As far as "keep treating", that hasn't been my intention nor in-print. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jan 18, 5:26 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I have dozens of .44s lying around and I still built my only gun deck > around Berettas! Take _that_, ...uh...someone. or something...yeah! > > -- > salem > (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) **You** have a gun deck? - YY

[ quoted text not captured ] assamites and everything! [ quoted text not captured ]