reprints needed in the next bunch of starters

Blanket of Night Camarilla Vitae Slave Deflection Shroud of Absence ...could all fit in a Lasombra (or Kiasyd + Lasombra) deck Eldest are Kholo Illusions of the Kindred Mass Reality Sensory Deprivation ... could go in a Ravnos or a non-clan-theme deck (eg Laibon Ravnos + other compatible Laibon, or Sabbat Ravnos + other Sabbat) Changeling Skin Mask Deep Song Hand of Conrad Heroic Might Murder of Crows Preternatural Strength ... Nos and/or !Nos Carlton Van Wyk Eyes of Argus Masochism Spiritual Intervention Villein ... Harbingers/Nagaraja/!Ventrue These four decks could be fleshed out to be part of a Bloodlines + Sabbat expansion, for example. Parity Shift could use a reprint, but it seems unlikely that we'd get four more Camarilla starters right away. Maybe a conflict-themed expansion (a la KMW), with four clanless decks: Camarilla/Imperator, Sabbat/Inquisitor, Anarch and Imbued, or something. What do you think needs a reprint, and what would be a good (plausible, marketable) vehicle for reprinting it?

On Jun 1, 11:58 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Camarilla Vitae Slave Seriously? I don't know of any non-trick decks that use this card. Why do you feel that there's a pressing need to reprint it? John Eno

On Jun 1, 11:58 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Blanket of Night > Camarilla Vitae Slave Both of questionable need. > Deflection Yes. Agreed. > Shroud of Absence Yeah, I'll back up Ben on this one. Reprint it. Soon. > Eldest are Kholo > Illusions of the Kindred > Mass Reality > Sensory Deprivation Yeah, probably necessary to reprint. Well, not so much the Eldest are Kholo (kind of fringe tech. I mean good, yeah, but not so much that everyone needs them). But the other ones. Or at least Illusions and Sense Dep. > Changeling Skin Mask Really? I dunno--I have a couple of these, and play decks that could use them all the time. And never find them useful. > Deep Song It is a currently in print common. Yeah, hard to get, kinda, but eventually enough will be around in circulation. > Hand of Conrad Maybe? It is pretty fringey and tricky. And not otherwise that good. > Heroic Might Still in print. Not that hard to get. > Murder of Crows That would be good. Agreed. > Preternatural Strength Yeah, probably one day. > Carlton Van Wyk Wasn't he just in a starter or something? > Eyes of Argus Same as Deep Song. > Masochism Really? Sooooo fringe. > Spiritual Intervention Yeah, I don't know why this *hasn't* been reprinted. Well, ok, one was in the 10th tin. > Villein I'll give you this one. Should be 2 of each in all of whatever the next starters are. > Parity Shift could use a reprint, Yeah, it should be reprinted. And should have been in KoT. -Peter

On Jun 1, 11:58 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Blanket of Night > Camarilla Vitae Slave > Deflection > Shroud of Absence > ...could all fit in a Lasombra (or Kiasyd + Lasombra) deck CVS does not seem necessary; for me, the main criteria for reprint are utility and rarity. CVS has never been a good utility card. The other three you could argue for, so that Obtenebration has its full range of stealth cards available, and Deflection is really a seminal card. I got most of mine by buying older starters, but for some newer players that option is hard to take. > Eldest are Kholo > Illusions of the Kindred > Mass Reality > Sensory Deprivation > ... could go in a Ravnos or a non-clan-theme deck (eg Laibon Ravnos + > other compatible Laibon, or Sabbat Ravnos + other Sabbat) Sen Dep and Illusions definitely need reprinting, as they pretty major Chimerstry tech. Eldest is rather limited in focus, and Mass Reality tends to be for decks with a lot of moving parts. > Changeling Skin Mask > Deep Song > Hand of Conrad > Heroic Might > Murder of Crows > Preternatural Strength > ... Nos and/or !Nos The two items seem unlikely candidates given their limited utility. Crows and Deep Song, as very effective parts of an Animalism toolbox, could both use reprinting. I think I would say the same for the Potence cards, since they change the game significantly for fighty deck-building. It might be a bit soon for the KoT cards to be reprinted, but given their relative scarcity it might make sense. > Carlton Van Wyk > Eyes of Argus > Masochism > Spiritual Intervention > Villein > ... Harbingers/Nagaraja/!Ventrue > > These four decks could be fleshed out to be part of a Bloodlines + > Sabbat expansion, for example. Masochism is goofy; so not a utilitarian card; the last time I tried to use it, it nearly cost me the game. I see lots of Carltons so I am not sure it is that hard to find (not sure why. . . ). SI and Villein could both benefit from reprinting because of their rarity and high functionality. Eyes are strong Auspex, but are they that rare? > Parity Shift could use a reprint, but it seems unlikely that we'd get > four more Camarilla starters right away. Maybe a conflict-themed > expansion (a la KMW), with four clanless decks: Camarilla/Imperator, > Sabbat/Inquisitor, Anarch and Imbued, or something. Yeah, they totally need to reprint this card. I still don't understand why it was unavailable in the last major Cam reprint! As for other reprints, Govern the Unaligned might be a good idea. It's been in starters here and there but given its extreme utility a reprint would be cool. Mythic Form, while expensive, is a strong card for Protean that I would like to see reprinted. I wouldn't mind seeing Tongue of the Serpent and Skin of the Adder reprinted for Serpentis, although given that most snake decks use combat-ending tech they are not essential cards, but good combat utility tech. Cheers, John

> > Deep Song > > It is a currently in print common. Yeah, hard to get, kinda, but > eventually enough will be around in circulation. > > > Hand of Conrad > > Heroic Might > > Still in print. Not that hard to get. > > Eyes of Argus > > Same as Deep Song. > Something being in print is not a reason not to put it in a starter. Starters have always been jam packed with cards that are/were in print.

On Jun 1, 2:28 pm, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Something being in print is not a reason not to put it in a starter. > Starters have always been jam packed with cards that are/were in print. Oh, well, sure. But usually, the main impetus for folks wanting cards in starters is that they are hard to get otherwise. But if that isn't your main impetus, that makes sense then. -Peter

Malone wrote: > Sensory Deprivation I hope this crappy un-fun card stays dead and buried. And please don't anyone start with the stupid, stupid "...but it's at 0 stealth" argument. This just proves that you're a fool. > Carlton Van Wyk As one of the best cards ever printed, I do hope that Carleton gets reprinted at some point. Even as a rare he'd be AWESOME and a total draw for me to buy that set just to get more of him. I'd do A LOT to see this reprinted. 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/

[ quoted text not captured ] After just opening my third box of KoT and now having a grand total of 4 Deep Song, to me it feels kind of hard to get. I mean, so far I've needed the vamps so it was fine to buy all that KoT. But now, all I have to look for if I buy more is, like, Villein, Deep Song, Ashur Tablet and Eyes of Argus. It doesn't make sense to spend $65 on one or two each of a few cards. And it doesn't make sense to spend $4 each on in-print commons on the aftermarket. The main criterion for 'needing' a starter reprint is, of course, to become more widely available. Secondarily, I'd like to see cards that have not yet appeared in the new layout.

On Jun 1, 4:00 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Malone wrote: > > Sensory Deprivation > > I hope this crappy un-fun card stays dead and buried. Yeah, except it's not dead and it's not buried. If you want it banned, I'd understand. > And please > don't anyone start with the stupid, stupid "...but it's at 0 stealth" > argument. This just proves that you're a fool. ? That you talk like that proves something about *you*.

> > Masochism > > Really? Sooooo fringe. It's great out here on the fringe, you should visit sometime. > Masochism is goofy; so not a utilitarian card; the last time I tried > to use it, it nearly cost me the game. How can it nearly cost you the game? You took the Masochism action when you should have bled? You started inflicting damage on yourself that you couldn't sustain? That kind of stuff isn't the card's fault. It's a good card in most decks that have Fortitude and play high-blood- cost cards. Which is maybe not so many decks, but Harbinger Shamblers comes to mind, and Ishtarri vote. A 6-cap Ishtarri, full of blood and rush counters, can burn an 11-cap with Eldest Command Undeath.

Malone wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Malone wrote: >>> Sensory Deprivation >> >> I hope this crappy un-fun card stays dead and buried. > > Yeah, except it's not dead and it's not buried. If you want > it banned, I'd understand. I do want it banned, for the same reason as PTO. But since it'll never, ever happen, I'd settle for never, ever reprinting it. >> And please don't anyone start with the stupid, stupid "...but >> it's at 0 stealth" argument. This just proves that you're a fool. > > ? That you talk like that proves something about *you*. Yes, it sure does. It shows that I know and have experienced the old, boring, tired, and utterly false "But it's at 0 stealth!" argument before, and don't want anyone to waste their time posting such utter nonsense. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 Jun., 21:51, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 2:28 pm, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > > Something being in print is not a reason not to put it in a starter. > > Starters have always been jam packed with cards that are/were in print. > > Oh, well, sure. But usually, the main impetus for folks wanting cards > in starters is that they are hard to get otherwise. Like Bang Nakh. Right.

Draba, Babble and Eyes of the night are at the top of my list (+ some of the before mentioned).

On Jun 1, 4:31 pm, per_math...@hotmail.com wrote: > Draba, Babble and Eyes of the night are at the top of my list (+ some > of the before mentioned). Gotta second Draba. I would have much rather seen that in the LotN starter than, say, Fata Amria. Cheers, John

On Jun 1, 4:31 pm, preache...@gmx.at wrote: > Like Bang Nakh. Right. Dude. What are you talking about? The premise of this thread is "cards I think should get reprinted in starters", of which the impetus is usually "this card is hard to get". That Bang Nakh, a card that is not hard to get, is *also* reprinted in starters is irrelevant to the discussion. I mean, they also reprint Flash in starters. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Dude. The premise was clear. I just wanted to point out that your statement "Oh, well, sure. But usually, the main impetus for folks wanting cards in starters is that they are hard to get otherwise." seems to be at odds with what you really get in the starters. Do you really think that the Bang Nakh-mania compares to the quite useful Flash?

On Jun 1, 4:25 pm, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > > Masochism > > > Really? Sooooo fringe. > > It's great out here on the fringe, you should visit sometime. I visit there quite frequently; just ask my playgroup. > > > Masochism is goofy; so not a utilitarian card; the last time I tried > > to use it, it nearly cost me the game. > > How can it nearly cost you the game? You took the Masochism action > when you should have bled? You started inflicting damage on yourself > that you couldn't sustain? That kind of stuff isn't the card's fault. Well, if it had been a GtU, I could have bleed for three, or Governed down. If it has been any Aus card, I could have blocked an incoming action, If it had been bounce, etc. So, the fact that it was a card that I need to get on my guy, and then have him get beaten up to make useful, instead of taking direct action or defending myself, make it rather sketchy, especially against decks that are not, shall we say, fringe. > It's a good card in most decks that have Fortitude and play high-blood- > cost cards. Which is maybe not so many decks, but Harbinger Shamblers > comes to mind, and Ishtarri vote. A 6-cap Ishtarri, full of blood and > rush counters, can burn an 11-cap with Eldest Command Undeath. So, you get it on your Fishtarri, hoping that no one has intercept, you get beaten down to no blood somehow and hope that some fighty dude does not torp you or rip your head off, Giant's Blood your 6-cap (or Taste perhaps?), and then call the vote without using Awe or any stealth that costs blood, and hope the vote passes? Gotcha. Cheers, John

Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> wrote: >Eldest are Kholo >Illusions of the Kindred >Mass Reality >Sensory Deprivation >... could go in a Ravnos or a non-clan-theme deck (eg Laibon Ravnos + >other compatible Laibon, or Sabbat Ravnos + other Sabbat) >Spiritual Intervention >What do you think needs a reprint, and what would be a good >(plausible, marketable) vehicle for reprinting it? For a few of these, and a variety of other similar cards, what I think might be quite interesting is *not* to reprint them in starters, but to make a draftable set with Indies as the main focus. Somewhere between an expansion for the Indies and a base set. Perhaps, say: - 60 vampires: 12 of each of the 4 main Indie clans, and 12 miscellaneous. - A bunch of useful reprints from clan cards, discipline cards etc. - A bunch of useful reprints from other disciplines for the Indies. - A bunch of new cards for the clans and disciplines. Say, 10-12 cards for each exclusive discipline + clan = 48. 5-7 cards for each of the other 7 disciplines (Obf, Cel, Ani, For, Pre, Dom, Pot) - 7x6 = 42. So about 90 reprints. Then, say, 80 new cards covering HOT NEW ACTION. So 230-ish cards total, 140 new cards. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In article <f44039ec-3604-4d19...@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, preac...@gmx.at wrote: > Dude. The premise was clear. I just wanted to point out that your > statement > > "Oh, well, sure. But usually, the main impetus for folks wanting > cards > in starters is that they are hard to get otherwise." > > seems to be at odds with what you really get in the starters. You get all sorts of things in starters. Some are common as dirt (Flash, Kindred Spirits), some are hard to get (Direct Intervention, War Ghoul). Some of them tend to be cards that are handy when the starter deck is played as a starter deck (Bang Nahk). > Do you really think that the Bang Nakh-mania compares to the quite > useful Flash? When the deck with all the Bang Nahks was played as a started deck in a game of starter decks? Sure. In general? Of course not. But starter decks have all sorts of missions at once. And one of them is "can this deck be played as a starter deck out of the box", and sometimes Bang Nakhs help the deck do just that. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On Jun 1, 5:18 pm, demonturtle <crankytur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Masochism is goofy; so not a utilitarian card; the last time I tried > > > to use it, it nearly cost me the game. > > > How can it nearly cost you the game? You took the Masochism action > > when you should have bled? You started inflicting damage on yourself > > that you couldn't sustain? That kind of stuff isn't the card's fault. > > Well, if it had been a GtU, I could have bleed for three, or Governed > down. If it has been any Aus card, I could have blocked an incoming > action, If it had been bounce, etc. So, the fact that it was a card > that I need to get on my guy, and then have him get beaten up to make > useful, instead of taking direct action or defending myself, make it > rather sketchy, especially against decks that are not, shall we say, > fringe. By that logic, apparently a deck that contains anything but Govern and Telepathic Misdirection has the wrong cards in it. You don't need to get beat up very much to charge up a Masochism. You get two counters for each round of combat where you take any damage (you can use fortitude to arrange to take only one point, for example, or Flesh of Marble if you've got enough protein), and it's also possible to arrange to inflict controlled amounts of damage on yourself. > > It's a good card in most decks that have Fortitude and play high-blood- > > cost cards. Which is maybe not so many decks, but Harbinger Shamblers > > comes to mind, and Ishtarri vote. A 6-cap Ishtarri, full of blood and > > rush counters, can burn an 11-cap with Eldest Command Undeath. > > So, you get it on your Fishtarri, hoping that no one has intercept, > you get beaten down to no blood somehow and hope that some fighty dude > does not torp you or rip your head off, Giant's Blood your 6-cap (or > Taste perhaps?), and then call the vote without using Awe or any > stealth that costs blood, and hope the vote passes? Gotcha. : ) Yes, you only play 6-caps, and you only call ECU on 11-caps; and you avoid any of the easy ways your vampires could regain blood. It's foolproof!

A 6-cap Ishtarri, full of blood and > > > rush counters, can burn an 11-cap with Eldest Command Undeath. ...and Mata Hari, with Ankara Citadel and full of blood and rush counters, can burn a 27-cap.

[ quoted text not captured ] ? Of course. There are more issues involved in making a starter than "what do established players want most to pad their collections"? But, this thread is not "what cards should appear in a starter", but "what reprints are *needed* in the *next* batch of starters", indicating player desire for cards to add to their collections.

On Jun 1, 3:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The question of "need" is an interesting one. Who needs cards? What cards do they need? What would qualify more as a need or as a want? If you talk to a player who is starting out, they will probably give you an answer that is considerably different than Norm, Kevin, etc. When designing a starter, how much goes towards what someone might need and how much goes towards something else? To use an example: The KoT Brujah starter Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 3 max: 11 average: 6.5 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2x Adana de Sforza 11 CEL OBF POT PRE PRO aus Brujah:4 Camarilla Brujah Inner Circle: Combat cards cost Adana 1 less blood. +2 bleed. 2x Jann Berger 10 CEL POT PRE dem for Brujah:4 Camarilla Prince of Monaco: Cards that require Potence cost Jann 1 less blood. +1 bleed. 2x Tomaine 6 CEL POT PRE Brujah:4 Camarilla primogen: If your prey controls a ready Sabbat vampire, he or she gets +1 hand size while Tomaine is ready. 2x Herbert Westin 5 OBF PRE pot Brujah:4 Camarilla: When Herbert successfully performs an equip action, you may draw an additional card (discard afterward). 2x Reginald Moore 4 PRE Brujah:4 Camarilla primogen: Reginald gets +1 strength in combat with Tremere and Tremere antitribu. He cannot block vampires of those clans or attempt actions to enter combat with them. 2x Garret 3 pot pre Brujah:4 Library [77 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Action [14] 4x Enrage 2x Entrenching 5x Harass 3x Public Trust Action Modifier/Combat [5] 5x Resist Earth's Grasp Combat [32] 6x Brute Force 3x Immortal Grapple 3x Psyche! 3x Relentless Pursuit 4x Slam 4x Stutter-Step 3x Taste of Vitae 3x Torn Signpost 3x Weighted Walking Stick Equipment [9] 4x Bang Nakh -- Tiger's Claws 2x Bundi 1x Drum of Xipe Totec 1x Phased Motion Detector 1x Sengir Dagger Master [10] 1x Celerity 1x KRCG News Radio 2x Major Boon 1x Nod 1x Potence 1x Presence 1x Tension in the Ranks 2x Vessel Political Action [4] 2x Finding the Path 2x Year of Fortune Reaction [3] 3x On the Qui Vive If the vampires are a given, how many of these things satisfy a need? -staple cards -cohesive deck -hard to find cards I'm not in a place to comment on all aspects of the deck, but I am personally happy to see the Drum, Tension, and most of the combat cards. Why weapons are so plentiful in starters is beyond me, they could be more Immortal Grapples, Torn Signpost, Fame, haven uncovered, etc. Brandon

> I do want it banned, for the same reason as PTO. But since it'll > never, ever happen, I'd settle for never, ever reprinting it. Refusing to reprint a staple Chimerstry card that is already out there in the meta, being used by players lucky enough to have bought Dark Sovs ONLY disadvatages new players - something this game is in need of. Given that you're a Prince, I find your attitude confusing. jase

On Jun 1, 5:08 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, by the time a big Indie set comes up again in the rotation, it would be reasonable to put some reprints in the boosters. I guess that's at least three years away.

[ quoted text not captured ] For my money, i would like the following Preternatural Strength. Heroic Might Freak drives (it is actually impossible to have enough of these damn things) Villein Alamut Parity Shift Deflection (have run out) anything useful, like AI, DI, Golconda, Heidelberg, Parthenon

[ quoted text not captured ] Masochism used to be a good card for Ravnos. Not so much anymore with Fattuus Mastery etc. I don't use it much anymore, but I think it needs reprinting more than Bang Nakhs. best - chris

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> I do want it banned, for the same reason as PTO. But since it'll >> never, ever happen, I'd settle for never, ever reprinting it. > > Refusing to reprint a staple Chimerstry card that is already out there > in the meta, being used by players lucky enough to have bought Dark > Sovs ONLY disadvatages new players - something this game is in need > of. The game does NOT need more anti-fun cards. > Given that you're a Prince, I find your attitude confusing. Given that you've laid your premise on faulty foundations, I find your conclusion confusing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >>> I do want it banned, for the same reason as PTO. But since it'll >>> never, ever happen, I'd settle for never, ever reprinting it. >> Refusing to reprint a staple Chimerstry card that is already out there >> in the meta, being used by players lucky enough to have bought Dark >> Sovs ONLY disadvatages new players - something this game is in need >> of. > > The game does NOT need more anti-fun cards. Jason is NOT suggesting adding a new anti-fun card.

On Jun 2, 12:41 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > The game does NOT need more anti-fun cards. Well, that is completely true. That being said, some unfun cards already exist. And not reprinting them doesn't remove them from the environment--it just makes it harder for newer players to use them, and then when older players use them to make the newer player's games unfun, the newer players say "Wow. This game blows. Why are those incredibly powerful, incredibly unfun cards so hard to get and never reprinted, so only old players get to use them..." So I agree that Sensory Deprivation is incredibly unfun. And would be happy if I never saw it again. But that it exists, and that some players already have it, and it isn't getting banned from play, it should get reprinted at some point. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Since Sense Dep is an anti-fun card, since I suggested that I want it banned or at the very least never reprinted, since he suggested linking reprinting a "staple card" (his words, not mine) to disadvantaging new players and then questioned my attitude, I'd say that it was clear he was or is suggesting reprinting an anti-fun card. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> The game does NOT need more anti-fun cards. > > > Jason is NOT suggesting adding a new anti-fun card. > > Since Sense Dep is an anti-fun card, since I suggested that I want it > banned or at the very least never reprinted, since he suggested linking > reprinting a "staple card" (his words, not mine) to disadvantaging new > players and then questioned my attitude, I'd say that it was clear he was > or is suggesting reprinting an anti-fun card. While true, this also doesn't contradict what LSJ said - he and Jason are making different points. Jason is suggesting reprinting an 'anti-fun card'. You both agree on this. But as LSJ correctly states, Jason is not suggesting "adding a new anti-fun card" - Sense Dep is not new, thus it's not being added. Jason may be suggesting printing more quantities of existing 'anti- fun' cards, but that's not adding new ones to the game - it's just making an existing, not-uncommonly-seen card more available to the players that don't already have them. Whether or not this is a bad idea is obviously debatable (and being actively debated.) -John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: >>>> The game does NOT need more anti-fun cards. >> >>> Jason is NOT suggesting adding a new anti-fun card. >> >> Since Sense Dep is an anti-fun card, since I suggested that I want it >> banned or at the very least never reprinted, since he suggested >> linking reprinting a "staple card" (his words, not mine) to >> disadvantaging new players and then questioned my attitude, I'd say >> that it was clear he was or is suggesting reprinting an anti-fun >> card. > > While true, this also doesn't contradict what LSJ said - he and Jason > are making different points. > > Jason is suggesting reprinting an 'anti-fun card'. You both agree on > this. > > But as LSJ correctly states, Jason is not suggesting "adding a new > anti-fun card" - Sense Dep is not new, thus it's not being added. Then LSJ is being pedantic for no real reason, unless an attempt at education is encompassed in his one-line statement. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > John Flournoy wrote: >>>>> The game does NOT need more anti-fun cards. >>>> Jason is NOT suggesting adding a new anti-fun card. >>> Since Sense Dep is an anti-fun card, since I suggested that I want it >>> banned or at the very least never reprinted, since he suggested >>> linking reprinting a "staple card" (his words, not mine) to >>> disadvantaging new players and then questioned my attitude, I'd say >>> that it was clear he was or is suggesting reprinting an anti-fun >>> card. >> While true, this also doesn't contradict what LSJ said - he and Jason >> are making different points. >> >> Jason is suggesting reprinting an 'anti-fun card'. You both agree on >> this. >> >> But as LSJ correctly states, Jason is not suggesting "adding a new >> anti-fun card" - Sense Dep is not new, thus it's not being added. > > Then LSJ is being pedantic for no real reason, unless an attempt at > education is encompassed in his one-line statement. :) No pedantry beyond the obvious pointing out of the strawman.

[ quoted text not captured ] There is no strawman. Sense Dep is anti-fun. But we've had this discussion before, so why beat a dead horse? [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > There is no strawman. Sense Dep is anti-fun. The strawman was arguing against reprinting Sense Dep with the assertion that the game doesn't need more anti-fun cards. While true that the game doesn't need more anti-fun cards, that particular truth is a strawman response to the reprinting question, since reprinting Sense Dep would not mean more anti-fun cards in the game. > But we've had this discussion before, so why beat a dead horse? Why, indeed.

LSJ wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> There is no strawman. Sense Dep is anti-fun. > > The strawman was arguing against reprinting Sense Dep with > the assertion that the game doesn't need more anti-fun cards. > > While true that the game doesn't need more anti-fun cards, that > particular truth is a strawman response to the reprinting question, > since reprinting Sense Dep would not mean more anti-fun cards > in the game. Ah, now my education is complete. muhuhaha>:) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] To take this argument in a different direction, not disagreeing with LSJ, or really with Kevin... I do agree that Sens Dep is anti-fun, but it's also my experience that it doesn't make you win. Ravnos decks that concentrate on Sens Dep seem to put a lot of effort into blood management and stealth, to the point where there's not a whole lot of ousting mechanism. The prey of a Sens Dep-heavy deck tends to wall up (to the degree that it can), and Sens Dep-ing backwards seems like a good way to oust your predator with little net result except a new pred with more pool. It's rare that I've seen a Ravnos deck actually *win* when it plays Sens Dep (more than just 1 or 2 as a prayer card). The Ravnos decks I've seen do well are swarm bleed, with Week of Nightmares, Paul Forrest, Club Illusion, or a combination thereof. I feel like an Eldest are Kholo deck could be really good, though I haven't seen one win yet. There's always some fun Mata Hari BS that might work sometimes... Ravnos have some good intercept too, and I'm sure that somebody has a good Smiling Jack/Constant Revolution-type wall deck. (Granted, a decent amount of this is conjecture, as there's only one *good* Ravnos deck in our playgroup that I've seen played a lot, which is Eric Simon's Phaedymite deck with DEM/CHI. The only other player that I've played a lot with who really liked Ravnos could never really get them banging on all cylinders, and moved to LA a few years back and is now in Phoenix.) Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are more Ravnos decks out there that I don't know about that win while playing a lot of Sens Dep... But if I'm right, then reprinting a card that's anti-fun and doesn't help you win doesn't seem like it helps out newbies much at all. If anything, it just helps them build decks that are anti-fun *and* losers, meaning that everyone at the table is miserable. Granted, it's a powerful card that due to not being reprinted is way rarer than it should be, and so I'm not *against* reprinting it. But being powerful doesn't necessarily mean "makes you win"... And if it doesn't make you win, then there's no disadvantage to not having it, right?

Chris Berger wrote: > Granted, it's a powerful card that due to not being reprinted is way > rarer than it should be, and so I'm not *against* reprinting it. But > being powerful doesn't necessarily mean "makes you win"... And if it > doesn't make you win, then there's no disadvantage to not having it, > right? So do you think that Parity Shift wasn't reprinted because it DOES make you win? :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Not sure what you mean with "a lot of Sense Dep". It's kinda like Pentex Subversion, Misdirection and stuff like that. One, well placed, is all you really need. Decks that try to Sense Dep all vamps on the table are kinda bound to get their nuts kicked, but in my world almost every Ravnos deck should have 1-3 Sense Deps for when the moment is right. > Granted, it's a powerful card that due to not being reprinted is way > rarer than it should be, and so I'm not *against* reprinting it. But > being powerful doesn't necessarily mean "makes you win"... And if it > doesn't make you win, then there's no disadvantage to not having it, > right? Kinda weird argument. I don't think any single card is that powerful. The same could be said about Week of Nightmares, Fata Morgana, On the Qui Vive, Kindred Spirits or any other card. Something that hasn't been brought up yet though (I think) is that Sense Dep being so rare makes it harder to counter, in a way. When building decks, it's easy and well worth it to include counters for cards that you see often. But the powerful ones that you don't really see much is a different thing, since there's a rather big risk that you'll just waste 2-3 slots. Granted, counters that works against Sense Dep often works against other cards as well, but there's still a small point here. And reprinting or not, I still think it should be reworded to target younger vampires (or something similar). It's way out of the power curve atm.

henrik wrote: > And reprinting or not, I still think it should be reworded to target > younger vampires (or something similar). It's way out of the power > curve atm. Even at "younger vampires" it is still anti-fun, since it is one of the rare "if you fail to block, you're screwed" permanents. If it were reprinted without "younger vampires" but with a removal clause or something comparable, I'd have no problem with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 2, 4:10 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > Granted, it's a powerful card that due to not being reprinted is way > > rarer than it should be, and so I'm not *against* reprinting it. But > > being powerful doesn't necessarily mean "makes you win"... And if it > > doesn't make you win, then there's no disadvantage to not having it, > > right? > > So do you think that Parity Shift wasn't reprinted because it DOES > make you win? :) > No. Parity Shift should have been reprinted.

On Jun 2, 4:27 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > henrik wrote: > > And reprinting or not, I still think it should be reworded to target > > younger vampires (or something similar). It's way out of the power > > curve atm. > > Even at "younger vampires" it is still anti-fun, since it is one of the rare > "if you fail to block, you're screwed" permanents. > > If it were reprinted without "younger vampires" but with a removal > clause or something comparable, I'd have no problem with it. While I don't necessarily agree with the degree of problem others feel it causes and/or whether it should be reprinted, I do agree with this - part of the reason it is viewed as an 'anti-fun card' is that having the ability to remove it is frequently dependent on what deck you played, unlike most other lock-down cards. For instance, Pentex Subversion locks a vampire mostly down - but it can be readily removed (or at least the attempt can be made) no matter what cards you have in your library. Same holds true with any 'D to remove' card, or even those that time out via counters - removing the card isn't reliant on your own deck choices. Sense Dep, however, pretty much requires your deck to be able to remove a vampire from play, either by rushing him, or intercepting him with combat behind it, or by playing a specialized card that flips him back to uncontrolled, etc. Some decks (quite a few, really) have no prayer of removing Sense Dep other than finding a way to get that player ousted - which is largely not the best strategy when your predator has played it on you. It's not always crippling or insurmountable (if I'm playing interchangable midcaps, or lots of untaps, etc, it just slows me down a bit, for instance.) But it's a lot more likely to be a continuing, unendable source of anti-fun than other similar cards, once it starts being a problem. If there was a more direct way to remove it - even one that is relatively hard, but doesn't mandate what you must have in your library - it'd be less of a problem and less actively-un-fun to see in play. > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Week of Nightmares totally makes you win. It's not even a "decks with WoN win a lot" or "decks that get WoN out tend to win" argument. Week of Nightmares MAKES you win. Kindred Spirits on the other hand isn't as obvious, but it's obviously a card that has winningness in it - decks with lots of KS tend to win, and they tend to win *because* they have lots of KS (something about +bleed and gain pool just, I dunno... works). Decks with *lots* of Sens Dep don't seem to win much at all - decks with just a few Sens Deps that do win, don't seem to win *because* of Sens Dep. Again, this is just my experience and my opinion. If I'm wrong, then oh well... just throwing it out there. Are there good decks that should maybe have a couple of Sens Deps in them? Sure. But the majority of the time that I see a Ravnos deck win, I don't see it play a Sens Dep. And the majority of the time that I see a Ravnos deck play a Sens Dep, it doesn't win. Which isn't to say that it's a terrible card - it's a very strong card, but it just seems like more than helping the player who uses it to win, it just causes one player to lose/be pissed off. If it's his predator, it usually causes them to lose - if it's his prey, it causes him to have to sit around doing nothing until the Ravnos player gets ousted. It basically just keeps your prey from going forward, since he can still wake and block/deflect/otherwise defend - assuming that's something that his deck can do. I do agree that I think the card would be a lot more reasonable (fun- wise) if it had a burn clause other than the acting vampire gets burned. Heck, it could be worded exactly the same as Pentex Subversion (more powerful), just costing 3 blood and a 0-stealth action instead of 2 pool and a master - as long as you could actually act to remove it.

> Since Sense Dep is an anti-fun card, since I suggested that I want it > banned or at the very least never reprinted, since he suggested linking > reprinting a "staple card" (his words, not mine) to disadvantaging new > players and then questioned my attitude, Are you honestly saying you can't see a link between the two? The card exists. I own many. A new player owns none, and cannot aquire copies without resorting to an expensive secondary market. You honestly do not see a problem with this picture? Complaining about how "un-fun" the card is is absolutely pointless. It exists. It is not going to be banned. Ergo, it should be reprinted. There is no sensible arguement here. jase

> If there was a more direct way to remove it - even one that is > relatively hard, but doesn't mandate what you must have in your > library - it'd be less of a problem and less actively-un-fun to see in > play. I don't see how Sense Dep is any more "un-fun" that having your Vamps rushed by POT weenies right out of the box and dunked with no teeth. Or being bled for 12 pool before you get a minion out. Or havign Saulot SM your 10 cap unblockably, Heidelburg all it's blood then burn it with a NeutralGuard/DtD combo. There are many situations which makes this game "un-fun", and most of those stem from fielding a deck which, for whatever reason, can't deal with the strat your enemies are employing. Such is the nature of VTES. If you're playing a deck which can't rush, or block, recoup the blood of an SD'ed minion or whatever, then yep, Sense Dep is going to hurt you. But it's not like Sense Dep is so overwhelmingly prevailent in any meta I've played in or read about that it's any more "un-fun" than any other scenario I've described. jase

> And the majority of the time > that I see a Ravnos deck play a Sens Dep, it doesn't win. Which isn't > to say that it's a terrible card - it's a very strong card, but it > just seems like more than helping the player who uses it to win, it > just causes one player to lose/be pissed off. This is not my experience. IME, Sense Dep is played by prey to predator as a defensive measure, slowing down the pred long enough for the Ravnos to either oust his prey or build his wall. I seldom see SD played by predator onto prey. IME, this is the best defensive strat available to vanilla Ravnos, and it works exceptionally well. Just IME of course. jase

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> Since Sense Dep is an anti-fun card, since I suggested that I want it >> banned or at the very least never reprinted, since he suggested >> linking reprinting a "staple card" (his words, not mine) to >> disadvantaging new players and then questioned my attitude, > > Are you honestly saying you can't see a link between the two? > > The card exists. I own many. A new player owns none, and cannot > aquire copies without resorting to an expensive secondary market. > > You honestly do not see a problem with this picture? I see a problem with the card which overrides the availability issue. > Complaining about how "un-fun" the card is is absolutely pointless. Seems like my (and others) complaining (often loudly) about it over the years has helped it NOT to be reprinted. see also: Parity Shift, Deflection, Govern the Unaligned, et.al. > It exists. It is not going to be banned. Ergo, it should be reprinted. > There is no sensible arguement here. What you say does not necessarily follow. See above. [ quoted text not captured ]

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > But it's not like Sense Dep is so overwhelmingly prevailent in > any meta I've played in or read about that it's any more "un-fun" > than any other scenario I've described. So SD should be made more available, just so you can see if really is as un-fun as some of us say it is? Don't think so. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas [ quoted text not captured ]

> I see a problem with the card which overrides the availability issue. No. Your personal issues with the card have nothing to do with whether or not it should be reprinted for the sake of new players. Nothing is overridden, this is hubris. > Seems like my (and others) complaining (often loudly) about it over > the years has helped it NOT to be reprinted. Hence, my ongoing question regarding your attitude, especially given that you are a Prince. If you honestly believe that agitating on this newsgroup has influenced Scott's decision whether or not to reprint the card (and it should be glaringly obvious to all and sundry how failure to reprint cards does not limit their use, but simply disadvantages new players who want to use them) then frankly your attitude sucks. jase

> So SD should be made more available, just so you can see if > really is as un-fun as some of us say it is? SD should be made more-available because some of us already own all we need, but new players, which are the lifeblood of this game, and absolutely essential for it's forward momentum, cannot acquire them easily and are thus disadvantaged. You or I or anybody should not be advantaged in this game simply because we've been playing longer and have access to a bigger card pool. These are the black and whites of the case. I'm sorry, but I don't care how "un-fun" you think it is. And repeatedly whining about it accomplishes nothing, given LSJ's refusal to ban it. jase

On Jun 2, 9:18 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Seems like my (and others) complaining (often loudly) about it over > the years has helped it NOT to be reprinted. > > see also: Parity Shift, Deflection, Govern the Unaligned, et.al. I think you're making an assumption about causality here that you don't actually have any evidence to back up. There are other reasons those cards might not have been reprinted. John Eno

Chris Berger wrote: > On Jun 2, 2:35 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>> There is no strawman. Sense Dep is anti-fun. >> The strawman was arguing against reprinting Sense Dep with the assertion that >> the game doesn't need more anti-fun cards. >> >> While true that the game doesn't need more anti-fun cards, that particular truth >> is a strawman response to the reprinting question, since reprinting Sense Dep >> would not mean more anti-fun cards in the game. >> >>> But we've had this discussion before, so why beat a dead horse? >> Why, indeed. > > To take this argument in a different direction, not disagreeing with > LSJ, or really with Kevin... > > I do agree that Sens Dep is anti-fun, but it's also my experience that > it doesn't make you win. Ravnos decks that concentrate on Sens Dep > seem to put a lot of effort into blood management and stealth, to the > point where there's not a whole lot of ousting mechanism. The prey of > a Sens Dep-heavy deck tends to wall up (to the degree that it can), > and Sens Dep-ing backwards seems like a good way to oust your predator > with little net result except a new pred with more pool. It's rare > that I've seen a Ravnos deck actually *win* when it plays Sens Dep > (more than just 1 or 2 as a prayer card). Sense Dep is good to get your prey to block/tap/use wakes etc. Then go in for the kill with something else. In other words, the threat of SD is as much use as the actual delivery of it. best - chris

> While I don't necessarily agree with the degree of problem others feel > it causes and/or whether it should be reprinted, I do agree with this > - part of the reason it is viewed as an 'anti-fun card' is that having > the ability to remove it is frequently dependent on what deck you > played, unlike most other lock-down cards. > [...] > > If there was a more direct way to remove it - even one that is > relatively hard, but doesn't mandate what you must have in your > library - it'd be less of a problem and less actively-un-fun to see in > play. > > -John Flournoy Changing "in play" to "ready" would be a good and sufficient change, in my opinion. But then, as implied in my original post calling for its reprinting, I'm not dead set against the card as-is. I think it was a design error (and I think Deflection was a design error, too) but I don't see it as out there in BAN ME land. Also, there could be a card like this: Ritual of Cleansing the Taint cost: X blood +X stealth action Requires a non-Infernal vampire of capacity 7 or more. Usable by a tapped vampire. Usable by a vampire who is not allowed to play action cards (but not one who is not allowed to act). Not usable if any non- mandatory actions have been attempted this turn. This vampire gains three blood from the blood bank and you may burn one pool to burn a card on this vampire. Cleansing Ritual already exists, but it's weak, has huge opportunity cost and requires a scarce discipline. Shadow of Taint is better, but still has the huge opportunity cost and fringe discipline. This is not strictly better than them but its usability as a pseudo-hunt reduces the opportunity cost and makes it reasonable to put a few in a deck as defense against Sensory Deprivation (and Ilomba, Mind Rape, Temptation, ...).

On Jun 2, 11:00 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Hence, my ongoing question regarding your attitude, especially given > that you are a Prince. If you honestly believe that agitating on this > newsgroup has influenced Scott's decision whether or not to reprint > the card (and it should be glaringly obvious to all and sundry how > failure to reprint cards does not limit their use, but simply > disadvantages new players who want to use them) then frankly your > attitude sucks. > > jase The fact that Kevin is a prince or not in no way invalidates or justifies his opinion. Prince's are volunteers responsible for local organization of events and have no greater say in card selection, rejection, or modification. Those choices are made by the people responsible for those choices, and should they decide to listen to an opinion on such matters I sincerely doubt that they care if the person they are listening to is a prince or not, instead evaluating ideas based on merit, regardless of source. John P (Prince of) Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure, agreed. It's an assumption. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >Johann von Doom wrote: >> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Seems like my (and others) complaining (often loudly) about it over >>> the years has helped it NOT to be reprinted. >>> >>> see also: Parity Shift, Deflection, Govern the Unaligned, et.al. >> >> I think you're making an assumption about causality here that you >> don't actually have any evidence to back up. There are other reasons >> those cards might not have been reprinted. > >Sure, agreed. It's an assumption. Your vocal complaints resulted in 5 copies of Govern the Unaligned turning up in the Third Edition Tremere starter, and appearances in 5 other WW sets that LSJ has been responsible for. Third Edition starters are still available from, amongst other places: - the White Wolf store (singly) - TheLasombra (in a starter box) - vtes.de (in a starter box) Doesn't look like you're succeeding in preventing it being reprinted. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Johann von Doom wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Seems like my (and others) complaining (often loudly) about it over >>>> the years has helped it NOT to be reprinted. >>>> >>>> see also: Parity Shift, Deflection, Govern the Unaligned, et.al. >>> >>> I think you're making an assumption about causality here that you >>> don't actually have any evidence to back up. There are other reasons >>> those cards might not have been reprinted. >> >> Sure, agreed. It's an assumption. > > Your vocal complaints resulted in 5 copies of Govern the Unaligned > turning up in the Third Edition Tremere starter, and appearances in 5 > other WW sets that LSJ has been responsible for. > > Third Edition starters are still available from, amongst other places: > > - the White Wolf store (singly) > - TheLasombra (in a starter box) > - vtes.de (in a starter box) > > Doesn't look like you're succeeding in preventing it being reprinted. Oh, sure, agreed. But I'd still like to think that discussion/complaining/etc makes a difference. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 3, 1:56 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Kevin M. <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >Johann von Doom wrote: > >> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >>> Seems like my (and others) complaining (often loudly) about it over > >>> the years has helped it NOT to be reprinted. > > >>> see also: Parity Shift, Deflection, Govern the Unaligned, et.al. > > >> I think you're making an assumption about causality here that you > >> don't actually have any evidence to back up. There are other reasons > >> those cards might not have been reprinted. > > >Sure, agreed. It's an assumption. > > > Third Edition starters are still available from, amongst other places: > > - the White Wolf store (singly) > - TheLasombra (in a starter box) > - vtes.de (in a starter box) > Speaking of which, aren't FN starters still available too? I can't check the WW site right now, but I recall one of our newer players picked up a Ravnos starter (sans box) from WW at reduced price at the end of last year, and that has a Sensory Deprivation in it, right?

Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >Speaking of which, aren't FN starters still available too? I can't >check the WW site right now, but I recall one of our newer players >picked up a Ravnos starter (sans box) from WW at reduced price at the >end of last year, and that has a Sensory Deprivation in it, right? They don't appear to be in the WW store right now. They did have some unboxed FN starters not all that long ago, but I don't recall seeing them anywhere for a while. Possibly Ebay, I guess. The WW store does have one SW starter - Ventrue Antitribu! [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ya, ebay for 30 bucks... Dan

Howdy, On Jun 3, 12:45 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >Speaking of which, aren't FN starters still available too? I can't > >check the WW site right now, but I recall one of our newer players > >picked up a Ravnos starter (sans box) from WW at reduced price at the > >end of last year, and that has a Sensory Deprivation in it, right? > > They don't appear to be in the WW store right now. They did have some > unboxed FN starters not all that long ago, but I don't recall seeing > them anywhere for a while. Possibly Ebay, I guess. > > The WW store does have one SW starter - Ventrue Antitribu! Sigh... (I personally have probably bought more of those things for personal use than anyone on the planet, so I am eminently qualified to say that they really, really stink. I'm looking forward to all the l33t tech that will be in the next one, but hoping we don't have to wait for the old one to sell out before the new is ushered in...) Alex

<jason...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:c49a06df-968b-4c01...@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I have been following this conversation with much interest. SD happens to be one of the cards in vtes I think is broken, and should be banned, or at the very least made unique. All of those things you listed here Jase are indeed terrible, and suck when they happen to you. Sense Dep though is different. It's on a different power curve to other cards. sure it costs 3 blood, unfortunately, you don't even have to build your deck around blood gain anymore, really, as Ravnos have any number of cards that reduce the cost of chimerstry. You can't get rid of it. I have hated it since I opened my first dark sovs booster many many years ago and got one. It shuts your deck down, so you don't play cards. and that is what vtes is all about to quote a very good friend of mine, your hand versus mine. The beauty of the game is that you always have a full hand. Ravnos also have enough block denial and stealth to make it happen regularly. With sense dep though (and yes, there is a guy in our group that has a deck with 15 SDs in it) there is the potential for you to be sitting there doing NOTHING while the rest of the table get to play the game. The stupid thing is he thinks he is awesome. He doesn't realise that we have all played the crap in the past, realised it was an ass of a strategy and just stopped. I refuse to play in games where that deck is played, because inevitably, the only person playing is the guy who has that deck. Indeed, I only started playing recently after quitting the game because of things like this that are common in our play group. Sure every once in a while I get everyone to gang on it, or someone is playing some horrendous weenie bash deck that manages to take one of their vamps out. Not often though. That's why it should be banned or errated. That's why people call it unfun. I usually go around and pick everyone up to take them to the place to play. It takes around an hour and a half to get everyone together and get there. we don't get much time to play. 5 hours max usually. Which is 3 games max. every two weeks. I don't want to spend 2 hours of it doing nothing then drive everyone home. And if the guy is in an especially awesome mood, hell, he might play it all night just for fun. If it keeps happening, despite my empassioned pleas to stop, I'll be quitting the game. Again. Because I don't have any fun. -Tim

> The fact that Kevin is a prince or not in no way invalidates or > justifies his opinion. Prince's are volunteers responsible for local > organization of events and have no greater say in card selection, > rejection, or modification. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Princes should be doing everything they can to encourage new players coming into the game. Failure to reprint old, powerful cards disadvantages new players. Plain and simple. Therefore, agitating on the ng with the intent of never having SD printed again is a questionable thing for a prince to be doing. Make a clear and concise case as to what the card it too powerful and petition to have it banned, sure. Saying you'd be happy to have it never printed again is tantamount to saying that you're happy to have new players at a disadvantage if they want to play Ravnos (or Cam princes, or whatever) jase

> If it keeps happening, despite my empassioned pleas to stop, I'll be > quitting the game. Again. Because I don't have any fun. I am in no way disputing that having your vamps SD'ed sucks (I will state flatly that there are MANY things you can do to stop this happening however). That aside, what sucks more than having your vamps SD'ed is the refusal to ban that card, coupled with a refusal to reprint it. This attitude only disadvantages newbies, and we should be doing everything we can to encourage them into the game. jase

[ quoted text not captured ] SD Sucks when played. EITHER Ban or Reprint. Does that pretty succinctly restate your position? bes t- chris

wrote in message news:<269c9b6d-21de-4830...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, if it makes you feel better, I agree with you to a certain extent. I would argue though that making that card more available would dampen their spirit for the game. But you are correct, I have been trying to get Shrouds of Absence. This is not an easy task. I am also trying to complete a Sabbat set. I am missing a Camarilla Vitae Slave. Trying to get this also, is not an easy task. So there is certainly something to that side of the argument. I was just complaining about this particular example. It's funny. I have been thinking. There are many ways to stop having your vamps 'depped. But for some reason, all the preventative measures people have in their decks never seem to come out when you need them. I know mine suddenly get shuffled to the bottom of my deck. Damn Chimerstry and it's illusions. -Tim

> SD Sucks when played. > > EITHER Ban or Reprint. > > Does that pretty succinctly restate your position? Having your vamps SD'ed sucks, but no more than lots of other sucky things that can happen to your vamps. Reprint it. :) jase

On Jun 4, 1:01 am, "Tim" <t...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > <jasonsv...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Tim, you could always try one of my personal methods to deal with this kind of deck. Had a similar thing happening, guy playing utterly irresponsible sneak bleed, so spoke to some people in our play group, and made a Tariq + Eagle sight deck. What would happen is every time his bleeds got bounced, I would ask if he has change of target or Spying Mission in hand. If he said no, I would block and burn the acting vampire. If he said he did, and lied, I would then rush and burn 2 vamps. Pretty quickly he stopped playing the same janky crap. You can "train" your meta game, but it takes participation from a number of people who are tired of seeing a specific archetype or deck

Blooded Sand suggested: > Tim, you could always try one of my personal methods to deal with this > kind of deck. Had a similar thing happening, guy playing utterly > irresponsible sneak bleed, so spoke to some people in our play group, > and made a Tariq + Eagle sight deck. > > What would happen is every time his bleeds got bounced, I would ask if > he has change of target or Spying Mission in hand. If he said no, I > would block and burn the acting vampire. If he said he did, and lied, > I would then rush and burn 2 vamps. > > Pretty quickly he stopped playing the same janky crap. > You can "train" your meta game, but it takes participation from a > number of people who are tired of seeing a specific archetype or deck Ugh. This kind of nonsense is the problem, not the solution. Obnoxious strategies like mass SenseDep and irresponsible big bleed are already well constrained by the fact that they tend not to win. People who want to win and try doing so with dumb decks will inevitably stop once they realize that it's not working. What you should be doing is setting a better example by sitting down with a deck that wins games and playing it towards that goal, while explaining why that player's actions are disruptive and ineffective. What you're proposing is exactly the opposite: responding to one player's stupid play with even stupider play. In a serious game in which people are trying to win, the actions you describe would be viewed as obnoxious. In a tournament, they would be a violation of playing to win. Stealth bleed and bleed bounce are legitimate parts of VTES. You should adjust your decks and play style to account for that fact, rather than trying to punish bad play with worse play. Jesse

I agree with Jason's stance regarding SD: Ban it or reprinted (preferably reprint, IMO) but don't leave the status quo as is. New players should not be at a disadvantage when it comes to card selection. With that said, Deflection needs to be reprinted ASAP. It's a basic, staple Dominate card that anyone who plays a deck with Dominate uses. I have a new player who's kind of gotten into the game but hasn't fully committed to it, and one of the things holding him back is the fact that he has to troll ebay to find basic utility cards; he wants to make a Lasombra deck but hasn't because he feels that he's at a disadvantage because he doesn't have Deflections. This is EXACTLY the scenario this game needs to avoid. A new player should be able to purchase starters and bosters and be assured that basic staple cards are available in said starters and boosters. The more effort a new player has to expend in getting cards just to be on an even footing with veteran players the less likely that person is going to make a committment to that game.

On Jun 4, 11:50 am, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > With that said, Deflection needs to be reprinted ASAP. It's a basic, > staple Dominate card that anyone who plays a deck with Dominate uses. > I have a new player who's kind of gotten into the game but hasn't > fully committed to it, and one of the things holding him back is the > fact that he has to troll ebay to find basic utility cards; he wants > to make a Lasombra deck but hasn't because he feels that he's at a > disadvantage because he doesn't have Deflections. > So give him some Deflections. Are you saying that there's no one in your group that has like 20 or 30 Jyhad-backed Deflections? On the one hand, if no one has them, he's not at much of a disadvantage. On the other hand, if everyone only has like 10 of them and isn't willing to give away or loan any.... well, it's not particularly expensive to buy *any* Jyhad set commons...

Chris Berger wrote: > So give him some Deflections. > > Are you saying that there's no one in your group that has like 20 or > 30 Jyhad-backed Deflections? On the one hand, if no one has them, > he's not at much of a disadvantage. On the other hand, if everyone > only has like 10 of them and isn't willing to give away or loan > any.... well, it's not particularly expensive to buy *any* Jyhad set > commons... Giving new players cards is certainly a good way to help them into the game, but it doesn't solve the problem of cards needing reprints. I've been playing since the Jyhad days, but at this point my need for Deflections exceeds the number I have in my collection, and I frequently have to pull them from old decks to build new ones. The other problem is that Jyhad cards have a different card back, are kind of ugly, and aren't formatted the same way as new cards, all of which are slightly problematic, especially for people who are trying to learn the game. Deflection is even more annoying, in that the Jyhad version is misprinted. Jesse

For those who missed the earlier thread: the omission of some obviously-needed reprints in recent sets stems from a recent change in the way WotC-era art is handled.

[ quoted text not captured ] Does that change also affects reprinting the card with different art? Dan

[ quoted text not captured ] Presumably, the budget and/or time constraints on producing new art is also a factor. -witness1

jcrossn...@gmail.com wrote: > Blooded Sand suggested: >> Tim, you could always try one of my personal methods to deal with this >> kind of deck. Had a similar thing happening, guy playing utterly >> irresponsible sneak bleed, so spoke to some people in our play group, >> and made a Tariq + Eagle sight deck. >> >> What would happen is every time his bleeds got bounced, I would ask if >> he has change of target or Spying Mission in hand. If he said no, I >> would block and burn the acting vampire. If he said he did, and lied, >> I would then rush and burn 2 vamps. >> >> Pretty quickly he stopped playing the same janky crap. >> You can "train" your meta game, but it takes participation from a >> number of people who are tired of seeing a specific archetype or deck > > Ugh. This kind of nonsense is the problem, not the solution. Obnoxious > strategies like mass SenseDep and irresponsible big bleed are already > well constrained by the fact that they tend not to win. People who > want to win and try doing so with dumb decks will inevitably stop once > they realize that it's not working. Ah, but you are making an assumption: that the player is actually playing to win, and not doing working towards some other goal (showing how awesome he is; annoying his (former) friends; picking up hot chicks, etc). Since these sounded like pick-up games, not tourneys, he is not by the rules required to be playing to win. Bring on the Malkys. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] I have offered my artistic talent, to no avail: http://www.monocleofclarity.com:81/deflection.jpg

[ quoted text not captured ] I understand, but also presumably, lots of new cards will get new art when the next set comes out. What is the big issue on adding new art to old text/card instead of new text/card? Unless the card name and/or text is bonded by contract to WotC, there is no other reason that I can think of... Dan

On Jun 4, 2:40 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > I have offered my artistic talent, to no avail: > > http://www.monocleofclarity.com:81/deflection.jpg That link doesn't work for me. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Desire to put new cards as well as reprints in a set is presumably also a factor. Which new card (or other old card with new art) would you take out to make room in your art budget for Deflection? Which one for Parity Shift? And on down the line. Someone has to make that decision, and it's not trivial. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] That's a crying shame. I love that pic. :P -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] I asked people to tell me if port 81 wasnt working for them in my other thread :P To reiterate: At some point in the future, port 80 (default web port) for all my sites will be gone, because of a switch to FiOS. I picked port 81 as the alternative... but some ISPs (and especially some places of businesses, like my very own workplace ironically) might block it. Contact me privately, but let me know from where you're trying to connect.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm wondering what you'd say could happen to your vamps that is worse than Sense Dep. Seriously, I'd like to know. It may help me understand your position better, if at all. 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/

jwnew...@bellsouth.net wrote: > Desire to put new cards as well as reprints in a set is presumably > also a factor. Which new card (or other old card with new art) would > you take out to make room in your art budget for Deflection? Which > one for Parity Shift? And on down the line. Someone has to make that > decision, and it's not trivial. Sure it is. The Oath ==> Deflection Blood Weakens ==> Parity Shift [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > jwnew...@bellsouth.net wrote: >> Desire to put new cards as well as reprints in a set is presumably >> also a factor. Which new card (or other old card with new art) would >> you take out to make room in your art budget for Deflection? Which >> one for Parity Shift? And on down the line. Someone has to make that >> decision, and it's not trivial. > > Sure it is. > > The Oath ==> Deflection The Oath is not a Dominate-requiring card, so no swap-out there. In addition, The Oath is not a reprint, so was in a different design pipeline altogether. Again meaning no swap out. > Blood Weakens ==> Parity Shift Unsurprisingly, Blood Weakens's art is not WotC-era, so did not have to be redone. No simple swap out there.

LSJ wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> jwnew...@bellsouth.net wrote: >>> Desire to put new cards as well as reprints in a set is presumably >>> also a factor. Which new card (or other old card with new art) would >>> you take out to make room in your art budget for Deflection? Which >>> one for Parity Shift? And on down the line. Someone has to make that >>> decision, and it's not trivial. >> >> Sure it is. >> >> The Oath ==> Deflection > > The Oath is not a Dominate-requiring card, so no swap-out there. > In addition, The Oath is not a reprint, so was in a different design > pipeline altogether. Again meaning no swap out. Then I'd have put Deflection in KoT and saved Mouthpiece for another set, since Mouthpiece isn't (and won't ever be) desired like Deflection. >> Blood Weakens ==> Parity Shift > > Unsurprisingly, Blood Weakens's art is not WotC-era, so did not have > to be redone. No simple swap out there. And had new art made, if necessary. Bad Art < Reprinting Desirables. But I understand that it's easier said than done. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>> jwnew...@bellsouth.net wrote: >>>> Desire to put new cards as well as reprints in a set is presumably >>>> also a factor. Which new card (or other old card with new art) would >>>> you take out to make room in your art budget for Deflection? Which >>>> one for Parity Shift? And on down the line. Someone has to make that >>>> decision, and it's not trivial. >>> Sure it is. >>> >>> The Oath ==> Deflection >> The Oath is not a Dominate-requiring card, so no swap-out there. >> In addition, The Oath is not a reprint, so was in a different design >> pipeline altogether. Again meaning no swap out. > > Then I'd have put Deflection in KoT and saved Mouthpiece for another > set, since Mouthpiece isn't (and won't ever be) desired like Deflection. See above re: "not a reprint". >>> Blood Weakens ==> Parity Shift >> Unsurprisingly, Blood Weakens's art is not WotC-era, so did not have >> to be redone. No simple swap out there. > > And had new art made, if necessary. Bad Art < Reprinting Desirables. > > But I understand that it's easier said than done. :( Hmm. If so, there would have been zero impetus for the above, since it has already been covered.

On Jun 4, 12:23 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > So give him some Deflections. > > Are you saying that there's no one in your group that has like 20 or > 30 Jyhad-backed Deflections? On the one hand, if no one has them, > he's not at much of a disadvantage. On the other hand, if everyone > only has like 10 of them and isn't willing to give away or loan > any.... well, it's not particularly expensive to buy *any* Jyhad set > commons... This is a completely unnacceptable solution. Putting aside the fact that I actually don't have spare Deflections to give away, from a new player's perspective requiring the charity of other players to compete is just as big of disencentive to get into the game as having to troll ebay. Basic staple cards should always be available for retail purchase, end of discussion.

[ quoted text not captured ] So how about this? White wolf brings out what could be a perma base set. This set contains stock cards (majesty, deflection, parity shift, etc + no vamps) This means that the need for reprints is reduced, the perma base set is easy to adjust to add new staples, and the staples are ALWAYS in print and available. I am sure that it would not be a too difficult task to come up with what cards are staples for the game as a whole, and need to be easily avail;able to new players. This also allows for some interesting draft play, as permbase + any set = viable pod mixes. Furthermore when designing a new set, there is no need to take into account what basic cards need to be, once again, included. If this base set takes a page from 10th anniversary (ie nice shiny tins) it adds yet another reason to get your hands on them.

Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: >White wolf brings out what could be a perma base set. This set >contains stock cards (majesty, deflection, parity shift, etc + no >vamps) >This means that the need for reprints is reduced, the perma base set >is easy to adjust to add new staples, and the staples are ALWAYS in >print and available. >I am sure that it would not be a too difficult task to come up with >what cards are staples for the game as a whole, and need to be easily >avail;able to new players. A set that massively appeals to new players but has little long-term appeal for established players (except for a booster or two for draft) won't be kept in stock at stores. If the idea is that this set will change but keep the same name, it's then confusing to players as to whether they can find the card they want. Is this the version before Majesty was dropped? If it changes name, you have continual rebranding, repackaging etc., and confusing stores. Oh, is this one of the V:TES sets that old players won't buy, or not? Also, you don't want to completely shuffle staple cards out of other sets, because pre-constructed starters - in particular - benefit from them. Something like the Third Edition starter set might be a possible way to go to make some basics easier to get hold of, but I have no idea how well that sold / how easy it was to get / whether it was cost effective for White Wolf. It can have some cards in it that have appeal to older players too (e.g. new vampires), but a clutch of staples too. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure, except that no games actually work that way. For some, if you want to be competitive, you have to buy tons of cards as singles at $20+ each. For V:TES, you might have to spend $1 per Deflection (the few singles that go for $20, might mean that you can't build the best possible deck for a particular clan, but lack of them doesn't keep you from being competitive). If you think it's "completely unacceptable" that you can't always get every card that is very useful and goes in a lot of decks, without the singles market, then you are bound to be disappointed in life.

On Jun 5, 7:17 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > Sure, except that no games actually work that way. For some, if you > want to be competitive, you have to buy tons of cards as singles at > $20+ each. For V:TES, you might have to spend $1 per Deflection (the > few singles that go for $20, might mean that you can't build the best > possible deck for a particular clan, but lack of them doesn't keep you > from being competitive). If you think it's "completely unacceptable" > that you can't always get every card that is very useful and goes in a > lot of decks, without the singles market, then you are bound to be > disappointed in life. Except there's nothing intrinsic to the game itself that forces the game to work that way, only the availability of cards. Deflection only becomes expensive and rare on the singles market if it goes out of print. If it stays in print, the problem is avoided. V:tES is not like M:tG, where you have rare cards that are completely superior to common cards, i.e. regular lands vs. dual lands. In V:tES, the most powerful and useful cards are common and uncommon, which makes the game much better. This allows new players to have an easier time getting into the game because they don't need to buy X copies of some powerful rare card to make a competitive deck. Any trend which moves toward the increasing need for rare and/or out of print cards is a bad one and to be avoided.

[ quoted text not captured ] I understand that is one of the points of this discussion... Dan

[ quoted text not captured ] It's also valid to point out that VTES is second oldest CCG around, and AFAIK, the only one for which the cards released 14 years ago are still valid and wanted for tournaments AND casual play. This definitely affects lots of factors unique to the VTES CCG when talking about NEW x OLD players. Dan

[ quoted text not captured ] Excellent idea! To take it a step further.... Introducing VTES: Vanilla Background: Methuselahs are really old and remember 1994 very well. Reaching back all the way back in their bag of tricks, they rediscover how to change the target of attacks and exert their political influence, among other things. Will you join the battle to remember, or suffer from Alzheimers like the NWoD vampires? Each pack contains 11 library cards, including one rare and featuring draft text. Cost $2.99 per pack. Other features include an expanded fanbase, improved girth of distribution, and the vigorous, fast, loose and often heated exchange of cards. If you experience more than four hours of enjoyment in one evening, you are having a good time. Sign me up for 4 boxes! My credit card number is... Are you listening, White Wolf? Brandon

On Jun 5, 8:05 am, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 7:17 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > Sure, except that no games actually work that way. For some, if you > > want to be competitive, you have to buy tons of cards as singles at > > $20+ each. For V:TES, you might have to spend $1 per Deflection (the > > few singles that go for $20, might mean that you can't build the best > > possible deck for a particular clan, but lack of them doesn't keep you > > from being competitive). If you think it's "completely unacceptable" > > that you can't always get every card that is very useful and goes in a > > lot of decks, without the singles market, then you are bound to be > > disappointed in life. > > Except there's nothing intrinsic to the game itself that forces the > game to work that way, only the availability of cards. Deflection > only becomes expensive and rare on the singles market if it goes out > of print. If it stays in print, the problem is avoided. The CCG sales model is based on the concept of cards of scarcity both because there's a gambling aspect to opening packs and becaue it encourages people to buy more cards when they can't have everything easily. What does this have to do with the singles market? More than is obvious. Perception of value helps marketing. CCG companies love it when there are vibrant singles markets; it's better than the alternative. Anyway, this doesn't seem relevant to Deflection, which seems an unlikely choice for keeping scarce, unlike, say, Shroud of Absence. Can take comments at face value and believe that Deflection not being reprinted was an unfortunate consequence of behind the scenes industry stuff. That actually happens far more often than people realize, especially with card art. BTW, indications are, with some obvious exceptions, that CCGs are dying out. Whether this is a lull in the short history of CCGs or a permanent shaking out of the market is the question. Either way, the newer model for card games is to sell fixed sets with all of the cards for that set and to expand with more fixed sets. > V:tES is not like M:tG, where you have rare cards that are completely > superior to common cards, i.e. regular lands vs. dual lands. In > V:tES, the most powerful and useful cards are common and uncommon, > which makes the game much better. This allows new players to have an > easier time getting into the game because they don't need to buy X > copies of some powerful rare card to make a competitive deck. Any > trend which moves toward the increasing need for rare and/or out of > print cards is a bad one and to be avoided. There are a number of rare cards in V:TES that enable tournament level decks that have no close substitutes. Also, if you want to give a CCG grief, give it to the old Dragonball Z CCG where an ultrarare and a common did exactly the same thing and the common got banned. "Need" - what does need mean? Do I need Dreams of the Sphinx? The Unmasking? Sudario Refraction? Palla Grande/Week of Nightmares? The Erciyes Fragments? Anthelios? Villein? No. But, then, you can play competitive Magic without any rares, too. The difference is that with Magic you will have hardly any choices whereas with V:TES you will have lots of choices (almost all of which will be better with Dreams). The reality is that CCG companies are trying to maximize profits and the CCG model has been based on the idea of chase cards, including chase staples. Every indication, from people deciding to play the original Star Wars CCG even though mains were ultrarare to Magic adding ultrarares in the last year, is that producing scarcity of useful cards increases profits. It's interesting that more effort isn't put into keeping certain cards unavailable. My unopened Third Edition boxes, which were horribly devalued from the get go by the production problems with the set, have been significantly devalued by having Heart of Nizchetus, On the Qui Vive, et al getting reprinted. Is scarcity pro-player? Of course not. We want to spend as little as possible in our goals. Though, quite a few of us also like chase cards for the challenge of collecting and to be able to look down upon those poor saps who don't put a dozen Mythic Forms in all of their decks. So, it's not cut and dried just as nothing in CCGs is ever cut and dried. I've frequently argued that CCGs scare off potential players when they force them to invest heavily just to compete. So, yes, I can see where not having a kajillion Deflections at hand is irksome. But, then, I don't see a lot of people getting into V:TES while I hear of plenty of collections full of commons being up for sale. And, just think, trading for Deflection should be simplicity itself since the card is almost valueless to people like me.

[ quoted text not captured ] Here's an example of a deck combining staple cards and highly desirable rares(there is a difference in some cases): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/7805200f0b108a01# Does it look like this player was content to stop at the staple cards, or did he need to buy a LOT of new stuff to construct the deck? Even cards like Deep Song seem to put a big demand on new card inventories, let alone Villein, Warsaw Station, Scourge, Narrow Minds, Enkil Cog, Preternatural Strength, etc. I think that re-printing those old staple cards like Deflection and Parity Shift is win-win. Players, new and old, get product to draft with, construct decks, trade, etc. White Wolf gets more players to buy their new stuff as it comes out. Sure, more established players won't need much/any of the reprints, unless they want to draft or *gasp* recruit new players. I'd like to see VTES have a lower threshhold for entry level players and live up to the moniker CCG rather than Hording Card Game. Brandon

> > Deflection > > only becomes expensive and rare on the singles market if it goes out > > of print. If it stays in print, the problem is avoided. Not entirely. Don't forget that without Heart of Nizchetus etc. going for enough cash to keep singles sellers in business, Deflections will cease to be sold by those carriers (since they will go out of business.) Purchasing a large quantity of cards (say, 2 boxes) must result in profit from selling the cards for the sellers if they are to continue buying. (This is what I do not like about the concept of 60 card sets; I worry they will not pan out for singles sellers. Anyone with any data, please post. Jeff?) > The CCG sales model is based on the concept of cards of scarcity both > because there's a gambling aspect to opening packs and becaue it > encourages people to buy more cards when they can't have everything > easily. What does this have to do with the singles market? More than > is obvious. Perception of value helps marketing. CCG companies love > it when there are vibrant singles markets; it's better than the > alternative. Agree. > BTW, indications are, with some obvious exceptions, that CCGs are > dying out. Whether this is a lull in the short history of CCGs or a > permanent shaking out of the market is the question. Either way, the > newer model for card games is to sell fixed sets with all of the cards > for that set and to expand with more fixed sets. OK, I don't agree with that assessment...I don't know where you live or play, but I live and play in the Seattle area, and round here, there's a lot of growth in CCGs. Specifically: -- V:TES is very strong right now. Our playgroup meets for regular games 3+ times per month, KoT is very popular, many new players have joined our group. -- Magic: The Gathering is stronger than ever. Numerous old players returned to M:TG because of their fondness for the latest sets, the "Alara block." -- Pokemon--yes, POKEMON--was recently played for a $500 cash prize in a local tournament two weeks ago. And I thought it was dead! -- L5R, from what the local guys tell me, is more fun and balanced than ever. Cards are on the shelves for the last number of sets. -- Illuminati (INWO) well, I haven't seen anyone playing, but I just sold a box locally for $40 because he says his friends are playing. -- WOW CCG is doing great, I have thought about learning it. Regular games at a local store. -- Game of Thrones, I know is being played in Seattle. Not sure how many players or how regularly. So, either I live in a strange oasis of successful card games, or we have different criteria. I mean, there are probably hundreds of ccgs that didn't make it, but I guess I never expected "Legend of the Burning Sands" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to work out anyway. The big ones, which I expected to have SOME staying power, seem mostly to be staying. The only big player I can think of that isn't with us today (and isn't netrunner ancient) would be the VS system, but that was artificially propped up for most of its existence anyway. Also, I know Warlord CCG went to fixed sets, because it's trying to court the D+D player demographic, and those players notoriously despise the CCG format. But I think it died long ago. Heard rumors L5R was considering fixed sets, but never seen one. Which other card games are doing that? > > Any > > trend which moves toward the increasing need for rare and/or out of > > print cards is a bad one and to be avoided. What about a trend towards printing "needed" rares, and then only letting them be scarce for a year or so and then reprinting them in a starter? Heart of Nizchetus is a paragon, I think, of V:TES' scarcity model, where LSJ prints a shotgun blast of new stuff, some of it's pretty good, and whatever seems to be the best (or players complain about needing more of the most) gets reprinted in the next two sets. Which works for me, if it means good cards provide a boost for the singles market for this set, and then a boost again for the next one. > "Need" - what does need mean? Do I need Dreams of the Sphinx? Well, frankly, I think if you want to be competitive, you do. But luckily, all the cards in your (now truncated) list which I believe both competitive AND casual players would want, have made it into multiple sets and usually a starter. Dreams made it into 3 starters, if I count correctly. And it could certainly be in more starters without upsetting me :] > [Y]ou can play competitive Magic without any rares, > too. The difference is that with Magic you will have hardly any > choices whereas with V:TES you will have lots of choices (almost all > of which will be better with Dreams). I agree, but mitigating that, there are ever more ways to discard and gain pool. IMO, if we continue getting more of these things, and then we get more reasonable ways to increase transfers, then Dreams will be merely an option instead of a competitive necessity. > The reality is that CCG companies are trying to maximize profits The following stand, more or less: More profits = less overhead + more boxes sold. How do you sell more boxes? Well, you need to attract more players (who then buy cards.) But, the boxes alone cannot support the players. A healthy singles market must support them. Therefore, the game must be cheap enough to get in and play, by way of cheap and plentiful good cards (which build a player base), but also enough cards with good resale value that the secondary market can thrive and support those players. > Every indication...is that producing scarcity of > useful cards increases profits. No, not one indication, which is retaining players. Wizards of the Coast declared recently that future Magic sets would have fewer cards than past sets because players asked for it repeatedly, and they believe it's increasingly wise to cater to the players as the US/global economy weakens. The "Mythic Rare" rarity was introduced at the same time, not only because it drives little kids crazy to open a huge dragon that's a "Mythic Rare", but also because it helps the secondary market. The MR rarity is now about as rare as regular rares were before. > It's interesting that more effort > isn't put into keeping certain cards unavailable. My unopened Third > Edition boxes, which were horribly devalued from the get go by the > production problems with the set, have been significantly devalued by > having Heart of Nizchetus, On the Qui Vive, et al getting reprinted. This is the downside of speculation. Speculators are not guaranteed a return on their investment, especially in an economic downturn, and especially in a game where the designer has a history of reprinting hard-to-find and oft-demanded cards, and the designer/company has stated a preference to recruit new players and to be player-friendly. > I don't see a lot of people getting into V:TES while I hear of > plenty of collections full of commons being up for sale. And, just > think, trading for Deflection should be simplicity itself since the > card is almost valueless to people like me. I do see a lot of people getting into V:TES. Outside of searching eBay, I don't know of any collections for sale. Anyway, share your experiences, OK? I will read it! -- Brian

On Sun, 7 June 2009 14:37:44 -0700 (PDT), islandofyiaros wrote: >(This is what I do not like about the concept of 60 card >sets; I worry they will not pan out for singles sellers. Anyone with >any data, please post. Jeff?) I've lost money opening boxes of every 60 card set. Selling the boxes as well has mitigated that loss. I have a significant preference for the Bloodlines sized set. There do seem to be a lot of people opening and selling Ebony Kingdom on Ebay right now though. Carpe noctem. The Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best source of V:TES information. Now also selling boxes and individual cards.

islando...@gmail.com wrote: > The following stand, more or less: > > How do you sell more boxes? Well, you need to attract > more players (who then buy cards.) > > But, the boxes alone cannot support the players. > A healthy singles market must support them. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you have an example of a CCG without a singles market which is/was unable to support the players? 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/

On Jun 8, 7:50 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > islandofyia...@gmail.com wrote: > > The following stand, more or less: > > > How do you sell more boxes? Well, you need to attract > > more players (who then buy cards.) > > > But, the boxes alone cannot support the players. > > A healthy singles market must support them. > > I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you have an example > of a CCG without a singles market which is/was unable to support > the players? > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas He is saying that you need more than just boxes being sold, you need single resellers to support a growing market for specific cards. Do you have an example of a CCG without a singles market? Because if you do not this is a strawman

Blooded Sand wrote: > On Jun 8, 7:50 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> islandofyia...@gmail.com wrote: >>> The following stand, more or less: >> >>> How do you sell more boxes? Well, you need to attract >>> more players (who then buy cards.) >> >>> But, the boxes alone cannot support the players. >>> A healthy singles market must support them. >> >> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you have an example >> of a CCG without a singles market which is/was unable to support >> the players? > > He is saying that you need more than just boxes being sold, you > need single resellers to support a growing market for specific cards. And that is exactly what I said, and what I am asking him about. > Do you have an example of a CCG without a singles market? > Because if you do not this is a strawman. It isn't a strawman, rather it'd be his assertion that is the strawman, since, as you suggest, there isn't a CCG without a singles market. 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 [ quoted text not captured ]

> This is a completely unnacceptable solution. Putting aside the fact > that I actually don't have spare Deflections to give away, from a new > player's perspective requiring the charity of other players to compete > is just as big of disencentive to get into the game as having to troll > ebay. Basic staple cards should always be available for retail > purchase, end of discussion. Precisely. jase

> I'm wondering what you'd say could happen to your vamps > that is worse than Sense Dep. Seriously, I'd like to know. > It may help me understand your position better, if at all. Pretty much anything that removes them from play, and there are countless ways to do so. From something as simple as a AggPoke/ Amaranth to something as convoluted as a Spirit Marionatte/Heidelburg/ Neutral Guard/DtD burn combo. At the very least, SD can be removed by ousting the Ravnos player, or burning the Ravnos vampire. When your vamps are gone, they are gone (assuming no Giovanni shenanigans). This sucks more than a vamp with his face (temporarily) stitched up. jase

On Jun 7, 2:37 pm, islandofyia...@gmail.com wrote: > > BTW, indications are, with some obvious exceptions, that CCGs are > > dying out. Whether this is a lull in the short history of CCGs or a > > permanent shaking out of the market is the question. Either way, the > > newer model for card games is to sell fixed sets with all of the cards > > for that set and to expand with more fixed sets. > > OK, I don't agree with that assessment...I don't know where you live > or play, but I live and play in the Seattle area, and round here, > there's a lot of growth in CCGs. I don't find it easy to look up year to year sales data, but I try to engage industry people. > Specifically: > > -- V:TES is very strong right now. Our playgroup meets for regular > games 3+ times per month, KoT is very popular, many new players have > joined our group. If you want anecdotes, I come across people all of the time who don't realize the game is still being played. But, I don't believe in anecdotal evidence except in rare cases with CCGs. V:TES has tiny market share in the U.S. AFAICT. As one of the old timers, it has survived when hundreds of other CCGs have died. So, I'm not inclined to consider it a bellweather for CCGs. > -- Magic: The Gathering is stronger than ever. Numerous old players > returned to M:TG because of their fondness for the latest sets, the > "Alara block." An obvious exception. Stronger than ever? I'm not sure since I have no insight on sales figures, but it has plenty of life, sure. > -- Pokemon--yes, POKEMON--was recently played for a $500 cash prize in > a local tournament two weeks ago. And I thought it was dead! It was quite the revelation some years ago when I found out that Yu-Gi- Oh! outsold Magic by 5x times in North America and something like 20x times worldwide. As gamers, we get info reported through hobby gaming channels, but all of the hobby game stores in the US (NA?) combined didn't make YGO's top three channels - Walmart, Toys R Us, Target. Latest rankings I can find on CCGs (December 2008) show Pokemon to be #1, YGO #2, Magic #3, Naruto #4, Chaotic #5. I wonder how Epic is doing. > -- L5R, from what the local guys tell me, is more fun and balanced > than ever. Cards are on the shelves for the last number of sets. My observation of the health of the game is quite different, but I expect it has a relatively good chance of surviving, even with the reboots, due to my perception that it has the highest coolness factor of any CCG ever (and some of the worst game play of any popular CCG). > -- Illuminati (INWO) well, I haven't seen anyone playing, but I just > sold a box locally for $40 because he says his friends are playing. > > -- WOW CCG is doing great, I have thought about learning it. Regular > games at a local store. My understanding, and the rankings above support it, is that YGO took a big hit even before UD lost the rights to it. They let go someone I used to work with who came from Precedence. Vs. appears all but dead. WoW was a great license, and I figure it has some years to go. I believe that Epic's company is not affiliated with UD, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the point is that I see UD having had its heyday and on the downturn unless it finds more WoW magic. > -- Game of Thrones, I know is being played in Seattle. Not sure how > many players or how regularly. > > So, either I live in a strange oasis of successful card games, or we > have different criteria. I mean, there are probably hundreds of ccgs > that didn't make it, but I guess I never expected "Legend of the > Burning Sands" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to work out anyway. The > big ones, which I expected to have SOME staying power, seem mostly to > be staying. The only big player I can think of that isn't with us > today (and isn't netrunner ancient) would be the VS system, but that > was artificially propped up for most of its existence anyway. Why not Buffy? Because it went off the air? That hurt B5 bad. Where YGO and Pokemon just go through new iterations. Anyway, CCGs do better in some places. Certain CCGs have strong regional biases. It's possible you have a good location. We have three local game conventions. One of them doesn't even try to run any CCG events. One has tried and large failed in recent years. The third was formed by people who put on a CCG only convention for several years, and CCGing there has been a joke for about 3 years. Last I talked to a shop owner, she was saying that the industry trend is toward boardgames. Of course, there have been trends to CCGs, to wargames, to family games, to miniatures, CMGs over the years, which is why I'm not willing to just write off the viability of new CCGs all together. > Also, I know Warlord CCG went to fixed sets, because it's trying to > court the D+D player demographic, and those players notoriously > despise the CCG format. But I think it died long ago. Heard rumors > L5R was considering fixed sets, but never seen one. Which other card > games are doing that? New ones. > How do you sell more boxes? Well, you need to attract more players > (who then buy cards.) I've made this argument for many years - that CCG companies that screw over their customers are doing themselves a long term disservice by losing more players than they should and failing to gain as many as they should. But, I could never prove it. I'd have industry people tell me that the sets I thought made games suck had good sales. I could argue that there's a delay in the market, that the sales dip will happen with the following set since people won't know the sucktactitude of a set until it's already sold (lots of set sales come early in the set's life). Meanwhile, CCG companies have marketing people/depts. Well, some do. I hear good things sometimes about how one company handles this and another handles that, but I have never heard of any correlation between being nicer to one's customers in terms of things like rarity schemes and customer service and improving sales. > > Every indication...is that producing scarcity of > > useful cards increases profits. > > No, not one indication, which is retaining players. See above about the lack of data. Even when companies lose players, they can argue that it's due to factors outside of their control. Show goes off the air, sales go down. New CCG grabs market share, downturn in economy, industry trend, whatever. I occasionally wonder how sophisticated the marketing is in the CCG industry. Of course, more money means more to put into marketing. But, given how many unbelievably dumb or uninspired things I see companies do, it's hard to tell whether anyone pays attention to the industry in general. > > It's interesting that more effort > > isn't put into keeping certain cards unavailable. My unopened Third > > Edition boxes, which were horribly devalued from the get go by the > > production problems with the set, have been significantly devalued by > > having Heart of Nizchetus, On the Qui Vive, et al getting reprinted. > > This is the downside of speculation. Speculators are not guaranteed a > return on their investment, especially in an economic downturn, and > especially in a game where the designer has a history of reprinting > hard-to-find and oft-demanded cards, and the designer/company has > stated a preference to recruit new players and to be player-friendly. Well, it wasn't speculation. It was overbuying a horrendous product in an industry that doesn't do recalls and having the people who normally express interest in sharing orders lacking an interest in taking as much as normal, which was then followed by a lack of artificially propping up the value of the set by avoiding certain reprints until more inventory could be cleared. > Anyway, share your experiences, OK? I will read it! My experiences? My experience is that while people still play that we used to have 3-4 storyline events and now struggle to have 2, that we used to have 3-4 meaningful standard constructed tournaments a year and now we only have them when Ira comes up with a qualifier weekend, that when I used to go to Northern Virginia, a double digit turnout at someone's house was possible where now I might comprise 20% of the tournament turnout, that I used to keep up with at least 3 CCGs and now wish I had more money to travel to play one meaningfully, that the rare times I have read Kravdraa, I wasn't seeing this healthy Seattle environment you were talking about (I guess things have improved this year), that once upon a time we had a 22 player turnout at a local convention (with a 17 player, losers game) and had the number of pickup tables go down to one around 2 or 3AM where now I'm amazed that I had 7 different people play in the last convention event, that there were L5R Kotei at local cons, that the Shadowfist crowd used to show up to one of the cons, that people did crazy stuff like run demos for niche CCGs. But, then, I'm not nearly as plugged into the industry as I once was, so I don't put tremendous weight on my experiences. I seem to get into niche CCGs that require tremendous amounts of work on volunteers' parts to even maintain groups. Magic and other major CCGs moved out of local cons for good reasons. We'd have more tournaments if we didn't bother asking the players whether they wanted to have them and just put them on the schedule. Etc. I do think V:TES is poorly marketed and has some better growth potential. One of our players believed that one of the keys to significant growth was coming up with good two-player rules. I realize Oscar went around the country a couple of years or so ago, but we don't feel the presence of the company behind the volunteers. Why aren't there more "we will make you a card" events? Why aren't precons more playable and sets splashier? Why isn't the web site better? Why aren't there rarity indicators on cards? Why can't people come up with better prize ideas than unique promos? Why don't storyline events rock the world and make for significant changes in the game in future sets? Why isn't Dominate banned?

[snips really long post] The structure of Sets (Big Core Set with lots of staple cards and a handy smattering of new shiney stuff + 2 or 3 baby sets of random stuff) is something that probably doesn't need to be changed too much. Every two or three years a glut of "staple cards" whacks into the market and people's collections before being tapered out over the next 3 smaller sets (like KMW, Legacies of Blood, Sword of Caine, Twilight Rebellion...). It seems to work for WW and it's not too bad. Sure I'd be more tempted to buy more over a longer period of time (say if there was a 9 month delay between sets rather than 6 months) but *shrug* I doubt my quiet voice in the gale will change that tactic. Sure, the way to keep any community vibrant is to regularly and frequently meet with "same but different" experiences. Works for the Charismatic Church in the US, works for D&D gamers (to an extent)... should work for a CCG. The Storyline concept (and BYO Storyline) would appear to be a unique thing to V:TES probably because it stemmed from an RPG originally. Personally, I want to do more and see more Storyline impact in the cards. I don't know how much it takes, but I'm guessing that Fee Stake: Perth (which is a city from my lovely homeland) came about because of a BYO Storyline... and I like that fact. I think people around the world would be interested in seeing more V:TES cards connected to where they live. It's a tactic that plays to sentimentality and pride in "your place". There are a lot of things VTES does better than MtG in my opinion. While there are more things they could be doing... let's make sure we don't kill the patient to cure the disease. I'll take a "slightly sick VTES" over a "Zombie Corpse MtG-Clone".

I read the transcript of an interview with LSJ (http:// ashheap.storageannex.com/interview_lsj.htm) where he stated that, at least at the time, sets were "set in stone" a ways in advance. This doesn't seem to jive with the responsive sort of card game I hear people asking for. Many of the promos are jank this time around(Rogue, really?). What does it take to get the CCG to be more adaptive, more representative of game results? What's the impetus for sets being planned out so far in advance? Being very deliberate in decision making has it's pros and cons, I just don't see the reason to (re)print bad cards in the place of interesting and/or useful ones. Brandon