rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

JYHAD ~ vampire-the eternal struggle?

10 messages from 8 participants · 28 April 1995 – 03 May 1995
original thread on Google Groups

Yousef G Master

Thomas interguy Marshalek (FZY...@prodigy.com) wrote: : YO- does it bug anyone else that, as of current plans, when jyhad becomes : vampire-the eternal struggle, the new cards are not meant to be : compatible with the old jyhad cards? : -Sonja Blue Are you sure that's true? I heard some rumours but also heard that they might be working together. It would _really_ suck if the two games didn't work together. I could deal with it slightly if the two cards were different but the game the same, because I have lots of cards to play with already but that even so it would be increadibly stupid of WoTC. They would loose most of the people who already play. I thought they were just trying to change the text and rules to make it more understandable and possibly change the art and name for marketing purposes. -Yousef Master

Joseph Cochran

In article <3nqm2g$v...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] The rules are meant to be compatible, and the impression I've gotten is that at worst, if we played a game and I used old cards and you used new, we'd still be able to play. However, I doubt the new game is going to sell as well as they hope it will. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

Rick Kinney

Yousef G Master (mas...@red.seas.upenn.edu) wrote: : Thomas interguy Marshalek (FZY...@prodigy.com) wrote: : : YO- does it bug anyone else that, as of current plans, when jyhad becomes : : vampire-the eternal struggle, the new cards are not meant to be : : compatible with the old jyhad cards? : WoTC. They would loose most of the people who already play. I thought : they were just trying to change the text and rules to make it more : understandable and possibly change the art and name for marketing : purposes. Hmmm.... i heard a rumor that one of the reasons they were changing the name was because "jyhad" is offensive to people of arabic descent. And this was compounded by an additional rumor that jyhad was a swearword in one arabic language, and that some arabic people simply objected that "jihad" was spelled wrong. Could be an outright lie on the rumorteller's part, but if true, I'm damn curious to what the connotations with the word "jihad/jyhad" are. Exhale- "Waxy"

CurtAdams

>FZY...@prodigy.com (Thomas interguy Marshalek) >YO- does it bug anyone else that, as of current plans, when jyhad becomes >vampire-the eternal struggle, the new cards are not meant to be >compatible with the old jyhad cards? WotC has stated that the new cards are supposed to be compatible with the old. We'll just have to see to what extent they accomplish this. At present, the prospects look good, but a happy ending is not yet guaranteed. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Thomas interguy Marshalek

lets face it-jyhad did bomb. and jihad was a bloody french war-hence jihad in m-tg, and jyhad as the name for the vampire war. i belive jyhad~ v-tes is a marketing ploy... -SONJA BLUE - THOMAS INTERGUY MARSHALEK FZY...@prodigy.com

James R. McClure Jr.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) wrote: > It failed on this point, since few non-gamers realized the game had > anything to do with vampires, so the name and such were changed for > marketing purposes. This whole "offensive" thing was really just > a side issue. Peace Tom, Thanks for saying that. I'm sure there were several people who thought WotC would never admit this is a marketting move. Now if you'll just leave the cardbacks alone! 8^) [smiling, but VERY serious] Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Joseph Cochran

In article <3o37jo$t...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >> They sold 180 million cards... > >Well, sort of. WotC sold 180 million cards, but the game is still >readily availble at the retail level. And this is bad? Personally, the availability of the game is a very nice thing. And the retailers in our area are glad to have a game that people can get. >>and are preparing a second print run... > >There is no second print run of Jyhad, unless you call V:TES a second >print run of Jyhad, which strikes me as a little dicey. Yes, I consider V:tES a second print run, considering that Magic's changes of cards were considered to be the same game. Unless, of course, you're changing the game so much that you consider it to be a different game, which strikes *me* as duplicitous. >It is certainly true that Magic's level of success is an unrealistic goal >for any other trading card game to expect to achieve. However, Jyhad was >meant to appeal to more than the complex/mature segment of the habitual >gamers... it was meant to have much more penetration into markets that >were closer to mainstream, such as the Goth market, which is hardly >conventional ;) but doesn't have a large population of gamers, either. So the company took a product which bombed, and is sinking more money into it to try again with new marketing? Is this what you're saying? Best of luck... >anything to do with vampires, so the name and such were changed for >marketing purposes. This whole "offensive" thing was really just > >>>jihad in m-tg, and jyhad as the name for the vampire war. i belive jyhad~ >>>v-tes is a marketing ploy... >> Oh yes, it's nothing but a marketing attempt to bolster sales by >>making the game less complex and attempting to appeal to a wider market. > >Well, remember, the rules comes in two stages. The first stage is simpler, >to help people become accustomed to the game. The advanced rules flesh >out V:TES to be a clarified ;) Jyhad. Which is still changing in marketing. Putting "new, easier" wrappers on something and still allowing the old game strikes me as marketing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Mayer

Concerning the change of card backs... Well, I have almost a complete set. I have dozens of the commons. I need no more. But, what if I like the idea of an expansion and its cards are different. So I buy a couple packs to pick up Necromancy to add to my selection of skills. So, if I add Necromancy to one of my decks, they will all be the new backs. Thus, all one skill is in one card back. Am I spiking my deck, well yes. Is it my fault, no. But, unless I buy all new cards, my deck would inadvertantly be spiked. So who's problem is this? WoTC, cause I ain't buying any more cards. Mike

Thomas R Wylie

Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>Well, sort of. WotC sold 180 million cards, but the game is still >>readily availble at the retail level. > And this is bad? Personally, the availability of the game is a >very nice thing. And the retailers in our area are glad to have a game >that people can get. It's not bad, it just seemed like you were claiming Jyhad was totally sold out, which is not quite true, so I corrected. If that's not what you were claiming, then never mind. :) >>There is no second print run of Jyhad, unless you call V:TES a second >>print run of Jyhad, which strikes me as a little dicey. > Yes, I consider V:tES a second print run, considering that >Magic's changes of cards were considered to be the same game. > Unless, of course, you're changing the game so much that you >consider it to be a different game, which strikes *me* as duplicitous. Well, the game is essentially a rerelease of Jyhad under a new name and a somewhat different presentation. For example, there are material differences in the cards, such as the different card backs, and the different card borders for the various types of minion cards. So it just seems weird to talk about it as a strict reprinting of Jyhad. Maybe it's just me. > So the company took a product which bombed, and is sinking more >money into it to try again with new marketing? Is this what you're >saying? Best of luck... I wouldn't say Jyhad bombed, but it's not selling as well as it could, and the old presentation of the game is a major reason why it's not selling to certain market segments. Hence the new marketing approach. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Joseph Cochran

In article <3o6mdj$j...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >Joseph Cochran <js...@discus.ise.vt.edu> wrote: >>>There is no second print run of Jyhad, unless you call V:TES a second >>>print run of Jyhad, which strikes me as a little dicey. >> Yes, I consider V:tES a second print run, considering that >>Magic's changes of cards were considered to be the same game. >> Unless, of course, you're changing the game so much that you >>consider it to be a different game, which strikes *me* as duplicitous. > >Well, the game is essentially a rerelease of Jyhad under a new name and >a somewhat different presentation. For example, there are material differences >in the cards, such as the different card backs, and the different card borders >for the various types of minion cards. So it just seems weird to talk about >it as a strict reprinting of Jyhad. Maybe it's just me. You can't have it both ways. Either it *is* the same game reprinted or it *isn't*. You change the game, or you don't. You (the company) have gone to great lengths to say that the game is the same, that it's only the cosmetics that will change. If this is true, then the game is a reprinting of Jyhad. If not, it is a new game. It's as simple as that. >I wouldn't say Jyhad bombed, but it's not selling as well as it could, and >the old presentation of the game is a major reason why it's not selling to >certain market segments. Hence the new marketing approach. The post you were corroborating with your statements was a post that said that Jyhad bombed. Thus, the implication you gave was that you agreed that Jyhad bombed. Personally, from all reports I've had through the net and through friends who are retailers, the game sold reasonably well and was a solid game compared to other products they sell. It wasn't Magic, but it was a solid game sales-wise. Nobody took a bath from it. I wish you the best of luck with the new marketing, but I seriously wonder how the change will affect your installed customer base. We can see what the net thinks, but you're not changing it for us, so I'll be interested to see what kind of a barometer we are for the larger market that you intend to capture. [ quoted text not captured ]