Nights of Reckoning rules cards

Nights of Reckoning rules cards are legal for all V:EKN tournaments, contructed and limited. They do not count as "most recent printing" of anything, however, since the texts on those cards had to be edited down in some cases. Effective immediately (when the set is legal, which is tomorrow, the 10th of May).

[ quoted text not captured ] Let me be the first to say thanks. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd say 'ditto', but I'm not the first, so I will have to make do with something like 'I, too, am glad of this decision.' Just more evidence that WW (and LSJ specifically) are rational people, and willing to listen to the concerns of the players. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Thank you. This set was newbie-unfriendly enough as it was, this was a good choice to make those rules cards legal. Ben Szymkow

[ quoted text not captured ] In regards to the printing of Elder Library as a rules card, that card did not have a cost. Does Elder Library still cost 1 pool? Thanks, John Zbyszinski Prince of Allentown

> In regards to the printing of Elder Library as a rules card, that card > did not have a cost. Does Elder Library still cost 1 pool? Yes it does. Notice: > > They do not count as "most recent printing" of anything, however, since > > the texts on those cards had to be edited down in some cases. In this instance, the card was missing a rather non-trivial portion of its text, ie. the cost.

Salem wrote: > > Just more evidence that WW (and LSJ specifically) are rational people, > and willing to listen to the concerns of the players. > it's a positive action. Of course, i'd hate to see more of such cards in the future. Instead, i'd like to see some pleasant surprises like a 12-card booster with 2 rares. Why not include 2 rares in a booster in the new set ? It will have many reprints, so why not include 2 rares, make players extremely happy and at the same time increase sales. As players like myself that have enough of Sabbat/SW cards that are going to be reprinted, will likely buy 1 box or maybe none. As it is very likely that they will choose to buy the new cards as singles. And keep in mind that these kind of players are many and it's their kind that spends a lot of money on vtes cards...

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks a lot from all my newbies, and from myself, too! Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] hi, in the words of the unforgettable Anakin Skywalker: Yippie!! thanks!!! regards, Chris.QJ

On 9 May 2006 08:09:21 -0700, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies, regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - borders, symbols, etc. are important too). I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far from mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the ability to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this noob- friendliness to be controversial. Bit I guess if those who voted / expressed their opinions are representative of the majority, this decision makes the majority happy, for what its worth. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch > of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It > certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies, > regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the > artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - borders, > symbols, etc. are important too). > > I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far from > mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the ability > to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this noob- > friendliness to be controversial. It's not about making the set newbie-friendly. It's about making the set less newbie un-friendly. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Daneel wrote: > I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch > of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It > certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies, > regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the > artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - borders, > symbols, etc. are important too). Did you miss the endless discussion about just this topic on this here newsgroup *and* the White Wolf Forum? The cards were already legal for non tournament play and limited tournament play (i.e. draft) when they were released. They are now legal for constructed tournaments, as there is no good reason for them not to be, given how they were already legal for limited tournament play and casual play. There are certainly arguments to be made that the rules card/proxies shouldn't exist at all (and while I disagree with such arguments, at least I can see where they come from), that they do exist and that they are already legal for casual play and draft play makes it mostly silly to keep them out of constructed play. But as they are now legal for constructed play, this is all moot. > I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far from > mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the ability > to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this noob- > friendliness to be controversial. That is mostly moot--NoR might very well be non newbie friendly, yet new players are still going to buy it. And in doing so, they are getting access to important useful reprints in the form of the rules cards. Keeping them from using them in constructed tournament play is just silly. -Peter

In message <ops9f560...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I do not see how introducing a bunch > of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. They're not proxies. If you don't like rules cards, say you don't like rules cards. If you don't like proxies, say you don't like proxies. But if you don't like rules cards, don't say you don't like proxies as though they're the same thing. They're not, and it confuses the issue if players think proxies are legal. The WW Forum shows just how players think a judge can somehow okay a proxy card from out of his ass because you don't have a legal one. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Daneel escreveu: > I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch > of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. And now we're back to the whole aestethics poor justification for not correcting a previously decision that was highly non-intuitive, specially for newbies (what? I can use this in tournament type X and not Y? Why the heck?). I'd suck a plea for these cards not to be allowed in ANY tournament at all, even if I don't agree. But since I don't have an iota of patience left about that subject (check the thread and pool at WW's forums to realize why), I'll just say: not happy? Buy some original artwork at eBay and go watch them shine at your wall while the rest of us go PLAY the game. Jeebus. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

On Fri, 12 May 2006 22:10:54 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <ops9f560...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> I do not see how introducing a bunch >> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. > > They're not proxies. > > If you don't like rules cards, say you don't like rules cards. If you > don't like proxies, say you don't like proxies. But if you don't like > rules cards, don't say you don't like proxies as though they're the same > thing. > > They're not, and it confuses the issue if players think proxies are > legal. The WW Forum shows just how players think a judge can somehow > okay a proxy card from out of his ass because you don't have a legal > one. I guess this is a fair point. I used proxy because I think about these cards more as "cards that represent other cards in certain environments" than as cards themselves. But I guess they are not proxies in the rule-defined sense. -- Bye, Daneel

On 12 May 2006 11:32:49 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch >> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It >> certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies, >> regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the >> artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - >> borders, >> symbols, etc. are important too). > > Did you miss the endless discussion about just this topic on this here > newsgroup *and* the White Wolf Forum? No, why would I? Disagreeing with the outcome of a vote or decision means to You that I must have, natually, missed the discussion beforehand? > The cards were already legal for non tournament play and limited > tournament play (i.e. draft) when they were released. They are now > legal for constructed tournaments, as there is no good reason for them > not to be, given how they were already legal for limited tournament > play and casual play. Not really to go into this, but there is no such thing as being legal for casual play. If You want to play casual "legally", you do by the constructed rules. -- Bye, Daneel

On 13 May 2006 17:33:57 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] You know, You don't *have to* reply to every post. ;) If You have no problem with people posting "I agree" posts to the announcement, I guess it's just fair to accept "I disagree" posts as well. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > No, why would I? Disagreeing with the outcome of a vote or decision means > to You that I must have, natually, missed the discussion beforehand? Well, all the points you brought up were addressed at length in the discussions that came before and during the vote. I figured that if you had such objections, you would have made them before and during the vote, rather than afterwords. > Not really to go into this, but there is no such thing as being legal for > casual play. If You want to play casual "legally", you do by the > constructed rules. Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club, for instance, are legal for casual play but not tournament play. Casual (as opposed to tournament) play has different rules (as per the rule book) than the tournament rules. Most of them are the same, but some of them are different. Previous to the vote, rules cards were perfectly legal for non constructed tournament play (just like Succubus Club and Kindred Restructure. And playing with a 100 card deck in a 6 player game). Just not constructed tournament play. Which is different from non constructed tournament play. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Last I checked, Kindred Restructure was still banned in all official tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg wrote: > Last I checked, Kindred Restructure was still banned in all official > tournaments. You saw the part in my comment about how I was saying that Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club were legal in *casual* play but not tournament play? (to wit: "Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club, for instance, are legal for casual play but not tournament play.") Just checking :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, I quoted too much text. The last thing you said, you used the phrase "non constructed tournament play" to describe the realm under which Kindred Restructure was legal, and that is an erroneous statement as it includes Limited Tournament play. You should have said "non official tournament play". [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg wrote: > The last thing you said... > Actually, I'm *still* misreading that last sentence, but my original statement still stands. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 May 2006 05:06:11 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Daneel wrote: >> No, why would I? Disagreeing with the outcome of a vote or decision >> means >> to You that I must have, natually, missed the discussion beforehand? > > Well, all the points you brought up were addressed at length in the > discussions that came before and during the vote. I figured that if you > had such objections, you would have made them before and during the > vote, rather than afterwords. I guess that then Your line of thought is flawed. I (and others) did bring these points up (though admittedly not everywhere where the debate was conducted). These points were indeed addressed at length when I (or others) brought them up. The addressing, though, proved to be more lengthy than convincing, at least for me. Therefor in spite of being aware of how some people disagree with these points (and on principle of what counterarguments), I'm still maintaining these points. >> Not really to go into this, but there is no such thing as being legal >> for >> casual play. If You want to play casual "legally", you do by the >> constructed rules. > > Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club, for instance, are legal for > casual play but not tournament play. Casual (as opposed to tournament) > play has different rules (as per the rule book) than the tournament > rules. Most of them are the same, but some of them are different. > Previous to the vote, rules cards were perfectly legal for non > constructed tournament play (just like Succubus Club and Kindred > Restructure. And playing with a 100 card deck in a 6 player game). Just > not constructed tournament play. Which is different from non > constructed tournament play. I guess then You refer to the people who remove 10 cards from their 90-card decks if the 5th player doesn't show up. I'm not sure that point is valid as anything beside a strawman - most groups I know either play by the tournament rules or play completely liberally (e.g. no enforced library limit, piece-of-paper proxiying, etc.). But I'm open to being proven wrong. Does anyone play *exactly* by the rulebook, and the rulebook on only? Anyway, not allowing these abominations for constructed is a strong way to get the point through - the point is, these cards were intended as *rules cards* with added draft functionality. I guess that is a point that puts a lot of stuff into context. For some people, at least. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Greg wrote: > Sorry, I quoted too much text. The last thing you said, you used the > phrase "non constructed tournament play" to describe the realm under > which Kindred Restructure was legal, and that is an erroneous statement > as it includes Limited Tournament play. Huh. Now that I see what you are talking about, I think "Man. Way too much time on your hands." But ok. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > I guess that then Your line of thought is flawed. If you want to think so. > I (and others) did bring these points up (though admittedly not everywhere > where the debate was conducted). These points were indeed addressed at > length when I (or others) brought them up. The addressing, though, proved > to be more lengthy than convincing, at least for me. Therefor in spite of > being aware of how some people disagree with these points (and on > principle of what counterarguments), I'm still maintaining these points. Which is why, I suppose, people are still pointing out how those points are sketchy. > I guess then You refer to the people who remove 10 cards from their > 90-card decks if the 5th player doesn't show up. No, I'm refering to people who play by the rules but not in tournaments. Which is likely a lot of people. The only environment where the rules cards were ever illegal was the constructed tournament environment. Which a lot of people don't play in. > I'm not sure that > point is valid as anything beside a strawman - most groups I know > either play by the tournament rules or play completely liberally > (e.g. no enforced library limit, piece-of-paper proxiying, etc.). Which is mostly irelevant. As they were legal in the rules of the game. Except in constructed tournament play. -Peter

Greg wrote: > Actually, I'm *still* misreading that last sentence, but my original > statement still stands. I mean, like, I see where you are coming from. And you are technically correct. I did write "non constructed tournament play" when I meant "non constructed and limited tournament play". But I think my point was still clear (that Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club are still legal in non tournament play). -Peter

On 15 May 2006 07:58:10 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I guess that then Your line of thought is flawed. > > If you want to think so. > >> I (and others) did bring these points up (though admittedly not >> everywhere >> where the debate was conducted). These points were indeed addressed at >> length when I (or others) brought them up. The addressing, though, >> proved >> to be more lengthy than convincing, at least for me. Therefor in >> spite of >> being aware of how some people disagree with these points (and on >> principle of what counterarguments), I'm still maintaining these points. > > Which is why, I suppose, people are still pointing out how those points > are sketchy. You (or anyone) failing to comprehend/agree does not make (any) points sketchy. You may not agree with them, You may not like people to agree with them, You may have points against them, You may not like people not agreeing with those points, but I guess that is where it ends. Saying "I don't like Your opinion" is fine, of course. ;) >> I guess then You refer to the people who remove 10 cards from their >> 90-card decks if the 5th player doesn't show up. > > No, I'm refering to people who play by the rules but not in > tournaments. Which rules? The tournament rules (with banned cards), the rulebook rules (80-card limit for 4-player game) or some set of other (blend?) rules? Just asking. > Which is likely a lot of people. I guess, everyone plays by some sort of rules, even if not playing at a tournament. > The only environment > where the rules cards were ever illegal was the constructed tournament > environment. Which a lot of people don't play in. > >> I'm not sure that >> point is valid as anything beside a strawman - most groups I know >> either play by the tournament rules or play completely liberally >> (e.g. no enforced library limit, piece-of-paper proxiying, etc.). > > Which is mostly irelevant. As they were legal in the rules of the game. > Except in constructed tournament play. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > You (or anyone) failing to comprehend/agree does not make (any) points > sketchy. You may not agree with them, You may not like people to agree > with them, You may have points against them, You may not like people not > agreeing with those points, but I guess that is where it ends. Well, I could disect your points and explain where they are based on incorrect assumptions or faulty logic. But I already did that a lot before the vote and during the vote. So "sketchy" is shorthand for "faulty argument". But ok. > Which rules? The tournament rules (with banned cards), the rulebook rules > (80-card limit for 4-player game) or some set of other (blend?) rules? > Just asking. The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed tournaments too. Which is likely for the best. -Peter

On 15 May 2006 08:34:19 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Daneel wrote: >> You (or anyone) failing to comprehend/agree does not make (any) points >> sketchy. You may not agree with them, You may not like people to agree >> with them, You may have points against them, You may not like people >> not >> agreeing with those points, but I guess that is where it ends. > > Well, I could disect your points and explain where they are based on > incorrect assumptions or faulty logic. But I already did that a lot > before the vote and during the vote. So "sketchy" is shorthand for > "faulty argument". But ok. See, I was wrong. I forgot Einstein. Assuming limits where no such limits can exist is naivite. It never ends... ;) >> Which rules? The tournament rules (with banned cards), the rulebook >> rules >> (80-card limit for 4-player game) or some set of other (blend?) rules? >> Just asking. > > The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game > except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed > tournaments too. Which is likely for the best. I disagree with what You wrote (which is, by the way, a non-sequitur to what You quoted above it). -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I disagree with what You wrote (which is, by the way, a non-sequitur to > what You quoted above it). You disagree with what I wrote about what? That the rules cards were legal in all instances except constructed tournaments? -Peter

On 15 May 2006 08:45:15 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I disagree with what You wrote (which is, by the way, a non-sequitur to >> what You quoted above it). > > You disagree with what I wrote about what? Read what You previously wrote (what You snipped here) to realize the answer to Your question. Most likely... ;) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Read what You previously wrote (what You snipped here) to realize the > answer to Your question. Most likely... ;) Just 'cause I am still confused, hows about you just tell me? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Well then, here's what You wrote: >>> The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game >>> except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed >>> tournaments too. Which is likely for the best. I strongly disagree with the comment (last sentence). Hence why I posted to begin with, be the way. (Not to disagree with Your specific comment, which at that time didn't exist as formulated here, but to disagree with the many comments that cheerfully welcomed the decision.) Not that it would matter anyway, but I felt it should be there for record's sake at least. On a related note I'm also not sure that the first sentence is fair (even if not outright untrue). From the original article: "Each booster pack contains 10 cards randomly selected from a set of 60 all-new cards consisting of 20 rares, 20 uncommon crypt cards, and 20 commons. Each booster also contains one rules cards from the set of five rules cards describing the new rules for the set. For added use in draft or sealed play, each rules card also doubles as a library card as indicated on the card when turned upside down. The library cards represented on the rules cards are chosen from previous sets for their general utility (that both vampires and imbued can use)." For as much as anything can be said about casual play legality (I'm not sure that the term is even existing) the original intent seems to me to be that these rules cards are intended for draft/sealed (limited), where they *represent* existing library cards. Which original intent, by the way, would have been commendable (if not for the outcome). Now I understand that it would have been pretty tough to state from WW's part that these cards are completely illegal except for limited (given how people will use it anyway). Come to think of it, I more and more believe that the original idea was flawed. We would have, in the long run, been better off by having only rules printed on the rules cards (and having them made of thinner paper), and maybe having the reprints simply on the commons sheet (or not having them at all). The notion to have rules cards that represent general utility cards for added limited flexibility seems like a good idea, until you realize that the players *will* be cheap and use them in casual/constructed play. If you look at it in this light, you effectively just released a bunch of mood-killingly unaesthetic cards (and kind of reopen the whole "why can't we just proxy" and "card art" topics). -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Well then, here's what You wrote: > > >>> The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game > >>> except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed > >>> tournaments too. Which is likely for the best. > > I strongly disagree with the comment (last sentence). Hence why I posted > to begin with, be the way. (Not to disagree with Your specific comment, > which at that time didn't exist as formulated here, but to disagree with > the many comments that cheerfully welcomed the decision.) Not that it > would matter anyway, but I felt it should be there for record's sake at > least. Ok. There were plenty of people who registered their disagreement with the idea. But I suppose it certainly can't hurt to have more. > For as much as anything can be said about casual play legality (I'm not > sure that the term is even existing) the original intent seems to me to > be that these rules cards are intended for draft/sealed (limited), where > they *represent* existing library cards. Sure. But as cards that are playable (i.e. they have rules text and appropriate backs), they were perfectly playable in any situation other than constructed tournament play (where they were explicitly illegal till recently). They are mentioned as being useful in limited/draft play (where they are). They were explicitly not allowed in constructed tournament play (as they were). They were totally useable in non constructed tournament play (as nothing said they weren't). As they were explicitly playable in draft/limited competetive play, and not explicitly illegal for non-tournament play, it follows that they were legal in any instance that wasn't constructed tournament play. The rules cards don't *represent* anything. They are what they are--playable cards with rules text. They have a different format than most other cards (i.e. no picture and truncated rules texts where necessary), but are in every way completely legitimate cards (excepting the misprint on Elder Library. But then non rules cards have been misprinted too). As they were already legal in competetive play (draft/limited), any argument to exclude the cards from play based on them being problematic for competetive play are moot--the rules arbiters already decieded that the cards were ok for competetive play. > Now I understand that it would have been pretty tough to state from WW's > part that these cards are completely illegal except for limited (given > how people will use it anyway). As that is an absurd thing to say (in a hypothetical sense). The cards are playable. And clearly good enough for limited play. So making them illegal for casual play would be silly (as there is no way to prevent people from using them, much like there is no way to make Succubus Club, Kindred Restructure, or Return to Innocence illegal for casual play). And keeping them illegal for constructed competetive play was a bad move on many levels (people want to use the cards they pay for, newer players could use the leg up to their collection, the cards clearly weren't problematic for competetive play as otherwise they would not have been legal in draft). So that is why we are where we are. > Come to think of it, I more and more believe that the original idea was > flawed. We would have, in the long run, been better off by having only > rules printed on the rules cards (and having them made of thinner paper), > and maybe having the reprints simply on the commons sheet (or not having > them at all). Having made them of thinner paper would have likely increased the cost of each booster, as then you would have had 11 cards and an insert which complictaes packaging *or* 10 cards and an insert which complictes packaging and results in people paying the price of an 11 card booster and only getting 10 cards. As it is, you get the necessary rules in the boosters with no added complication to the packaging system, everyone gets the 11 cards that they are paying the price for, and you have some nice, useful cards mixed in making draft easier and giving newer players a reasonable selection of necessary staple cards. > The notion to have rules cards that represent general utility cards for > added limited flexibility seems like a good idea, until you realize that > the players *will* be cheap and use them in casual/constructed play. I am unconvicned that this is the problem you imply it is based on atributing the use of the cards to cheapness. I realized that players will use them in casual/constructed play as soon as the idea became apparent, and it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do--how is it a problem that people are using them? > you look at it in this light, you effectively just released a bunch of > mood-killingly unaesthetic cards (and kind of reopen the whole "why can't > we just proxy" and "card art" topics). I find the concept of "mood killing" sketchy, at best. I don't find them "mood killing" at all. You are certainly welcome to, but that is a totally subjective viewpoint. As to the aesthetics of the cards, well, aesthetics are, by defenition, also a subjective view. I find many cards in the set aesthetically unpleasing (the regular Ambush, for instance--I am collecting rules card Ambushes specifically to use 'cause I dislike the picture on Ambush so much), but they are not kept out of play due to my objecting to them on an aesthetic level. You objections to the rules cards seem to be based completely in your own subjective view of what is "mood killing" or unaesthetic. Which don't make for a compelling argument as to why something should be excluded for play. I mean, you are certainly welcome to not like them, think they are ugly, and dislike the layout and lack of picture. But that doesn't mean that they should not be allowed to be used in play. It just means you think they are ugly. -Peter

On 15 May 2006 13:38:25 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> I strongly disagree with the comment (last sentence). Hence why I posted >> to begin with, be the way. (Not to disagree with Your specific >> comment, >> which at that time didn't exist as formulated here, but to disagree >> with >> the many comments that cheerfully welcomed the decision.) Not that it >> would matter anyway, but I felt it should be there for record's sake >> at >> least. > > Ok. There were plenty of people who registered their disagreement with > the idea. But I suppose it certainly can't hurt to have more. I guess so, especially since people who were in favor of the idea naturally voiced their agreement, gratitude, etc. You know, just for the record. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I guess so, especially since people who were in favor of the idea naturally > voiced their agreement, gratitude, etc. You know, just for the record. Yes. But the people expressing grattitude were not expressing previously shot down arguments as if they were not previously shot down, appearing as if they just walked into the middle of the conversation without having read everything leading up to that point. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess You refer to the valid arguments that were never in reality addressed. I'm not sure what those have to do with this, though. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I guess You refer to the valid arguments that were never in reality > addressed. I'm not sure what those have to do with this, though. Which arguments would those be? I addressed an awful lot of your arguments in a recent previous post, which you did not counter address. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the point" or two for good measure. Addressing an argument requires understanding it (something that is often missing). Once You understand what the argument is, You can think it over, and if You disagree with it on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can reply with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument (no, it's not enough if it sounds cool; it should also make sense and be logically sound). This debate shows that strong emotional attachment to an idea prevents people from conducting an intelligent debate. I think the root of this is that when emotionally heated by a subject, one is vulnerable to see the opposing arguments only as targets that must be outmanoeuvred (instead of actually addressed) and sees the person(s) sharing the unliked arguments as the enemy. But regardless of the root, the effect is clear. As for the list of unaddressed arguments, just read my original post (some dozen posts up in the thread tree). I didn't even bother to list all; just the most fundamental ones. For more, read any of the debates on this topic. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing > something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the > point" or two for good measure. Conviniently, I haven't been doing that. I have been adressing specific points with specific examples of how they are misguided. Or wrong. So far, the arguments I have seen from you involve aesthetics (which are, by defenition, subjective, and therfore not a good thing to base an argument on) or are based on questionable assumptions. Other than that, I've seen nothing. > You can think it over, and if You disagree with it > on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can reply > with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument Done and done. And you are yet to refute any of my arguments on the point. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > As for the list of unaddressed arguments, just read my original post > (some dozen posts up in the thread tree). Just for the sake of entertainment: "I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies, regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - borders, symbols, etc. are important too). " Addressed by multiple people in this thread. "Unaesthetic" is a completely subjective argument. I don't think the deisign of the rules cards is problematic. Or even ugly. Ugliness/aesthetics is not a viable reason to exclude something from play. That, and they aren't actually "proxies", as the tournament rules define them. "I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far from mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the ability to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this noob- friendliness to be controversial." Adressed by multiple people in this thread. Regardless of whether or not people "point newbies towards" NoR, newer players will buy the set, as people who like CCGs buy them. And newer players are likely to be able to benefit from the use of the rules card reprints. Umm, is that really all you got? -Peter

On 16 May 2006 12:39:04 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing >> something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the >> point" or two for good measure. > > Conviniently, I haven't been doing that. I have been adressing specific > points with specific examples of how they are misguided. Or wrong. So > far, the arguments I have seen from you involve aesthetics (which are, > by defenition, subjective, and therfore not a good thing to base an > argument on) or are based on questionable assumptions. Other than that, > I've seen nothing. Dunno. Check the new NoR rules cards. I would assume You will discover some parts are missing - parts that are integral for the majority of ccgs as defined today. Start from there. Think it over. There's no rush, take Your time. I'm sure You'll come up with something eventually. >> You can think it over, and if You disagree with it >> on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can >> reply >> with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument > > Done and done. And you are yet to refute any of my arguments on the > point. You are yet to make any. -- Regards, Daneel

On 16 May 2006 12:44:26 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> As for the list of unaddressed arguments, just read my original post >> (some dozen posts up in the thread tree). > > Just for the sake of entertainment: > > "I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch > > of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. > It > certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against > proxies, > regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the > artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - > borders, > symbols, etc. are important too). " > > Addressed by multiple people in this thread. "Unaesthetic" is a > completely subjective argument. Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made. Not does it address it, by the way. Because if You want to go general (where specific subjectivity should not matter) You get to questions like, what makes a card genuine, why are we using printed and bought cards, what is the purpose of artwork, etc. (as hinted at in other posts). > I don't think the deisign of the rules cards is problematic. Or even > ugly. I guess You are welcome to that opinion. But You do percieve the lack of artwork, the truncated text and the upside-down text taking up most of the card, right? Isn't your typical ccg card. You know, the type most people can find aesthetically pleasing. The type of card that has a chance to make a non-player say "wow, this game must rock". > Ugliness/aesthetics is not a viable reason to exclude something from > play. Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg wisdom I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this? Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the contrary. > That, and they aren't actually "proxies", as the tournament rules define > them. Yeah, right. ;) > "I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far > from > mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the > ability > to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this > noob- > friendliness to be controversial." > > Adressed by multiple people in this thread. Regardless of whether or > not people "point newbies towards" NoR, newer players will buy the set, I don't see a point. There is a completely newbie-unfriendly set out there. Everyone knows that it is completely newbie-unfriendly. So the newbies, who know that this set is completely newbie-unfriendly, and yet buy of this set instead of something that actually helps them complement their collection, are now the big trump example. I'd reconsider that point (if one was intended). > as people who like CCGs buy them. Awesome revelation. I'll add this to my big book of eretnal wisdoms. I sincerely believe that players - even if they like ccgs - have the incredible power to choose what they purchase. Whether this be a choice between games, or between sets of a game (not to mention the option not to purchase anything). > And newer players are likely to be > able to benefit from the use of the rules card reprints. Looking at the game in general - I think it's a matter of perspective. Do players benefit from having some cards with no artwork, truncated text and odd looks? Think this over. > Umm, is that really all you got? Nope, just what You bothered to quote. For the other unaddressed points, check any discussion topic on this. -- Regards, Daneel

> Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg > wisdom > I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this? > > Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the > contrary. Good Old Common Sense also dictates that people who act crazy or insane must be possessed by demons and, of course, we all no that the only cure for that is a good community-uniting event such as burning that threating individual at the stake. It's really for the sake of the children. Now let's hear it for common sense! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Daneel wrote: > Dunno. Check the new NoR rules cards. I would assume You will discover > some parts are missing - parts that are integral for the majority of > ccgs as defined today. Start from there. Think it over. There's no > rush, take Your time. I'm sure You'll come up with something eventually. Other than that they are missing pictures (which really have only limited impact on game play), they have everything necessary for game play--title, cost, necessary rules text. I can deal without pictures. It seems likely that most people can deal without pictures. I don't think anyone wants to remove pictures from all CCG cards. But that some cards have no pictures? Not a big deal. It has happened before (if you wan't, I can find multiple examples of CCG cards that are all text and no picture--the B5 CCG ISA card leaps to mind immediately, but others exist). It'll happen again. That *you* happen to think something is ugly doesn't mean that it should be unplayable. I think that the picture on Ambush is horrible, to the point that I won't play the card if I can possibly avoid it. But I don't think this means that the card should be unplayable in competitive play. Please go on. I'm fascinated. > You are yet to make any. I refer you to my post on May 14th, ~4:38 pm (EST, USA). Plenty of arguments. Specifically adresssing most criticisms of this decision. Which you have previously chosen to ignore. Which you are welcome to do. But don't then come back and claim that your points have not been adressed. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made. That you think something is ugly doesn't justify it being illegal in competetive play. The rules cards are completely functional. You may think they are ugly. Which you are welcome to do. That you think they are ugly, however, does not mean that this is a justification for preventing people from playing them. > Not does it address it, by the way. Because if You want to go general > (where specific subjectivity should not matter) You get to questions > like, what makes a card genuine, why are we using printed and bought > cards, what is the purpose of artwork, etc. (as hinted at in other posts). Which is all well and good. Yet still, the cards, without pictures, are perfectly viable as play components. > I guess You are welcome to that opinion. But You do percieve the lack of > artwork, the truncated text and the upside-down text taking up most of the > card, right? Isn't your typical ccg card. You know, the type most people > can find aesthetically pleasing. The type of card that has a chance to > make a non-player say "wow, this game must rock". Lots of cards can do that. That are already perfectly legal. There are plenty of cards that have objectionable pictures or poorly rendered pictures. Or are just plain ugly. These cards should be illegal in competetive play too? > Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg > wisdom I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this? Lots of people *hate* Christopher Shy. Cards with Christopher Shy art should be illegal in competetive play? Same logic applies. > Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the > contrary. Whatever common sense you are relying on seems to indicate that "I think it is ugly, so I think it should be excluded from the game". I'd go and get your common sense checked at the shop. > Yeah, right. ;) I don't even know what this means. > I don't see a point. There is a completely newbie-unfriendly set out > there. Everyone knows that it is completely newbie-unfriendly. Newbies don't. > So the newbies, who know that this set is completely newbie-unfriendly, and > yet buy of this set instead of something that actually helps them > complement their collection, are now the big trump example. If they are newbies, how do they know the set is newbie-unfriendly? If they are new and like playing with Hunters, as they like the background, they should not buy the set? If they just started playing with Legacies of Blood, and like the game, and have a modest collection of cards, they should be *discouraged* from buying the new set, even if it appeals to them? Heck--I've been playing this game for a dozen years, and *I* still can benefit from some of the extra cards reprinted as rules cards (Computer Hacking, Sudden Reversal, and the Ambush that I would rather use than the really ugly card with a picture which even though I think it is hideous and incredibly unappealing, I don't think should be illegal, 'cause I realize that my aesthetic tastes are not *everyone's* aesthetic tastes). People who have started playing the game recently certainly can benefit from cards reprinted on rules cards. You are saying that because you think they are ugly, these people should be either actively dissuaded from buying the set or denied the ability to use the cards which are completely functional and useful? > I sincerely believe that players - even if they like ccgs - have the > incredible power to choose what they purchase. Whether this be a choice > between games, or between sets of a game (not to mention the option not > to purchase anything). And you seem to be indicating that people should choose to *not* buy the NoR set, even if they want to, because *you* seem to think it is too difficult for them? > Looking at the game in general - I think it's a matter of perspective. > Do players benefit from having some cards with no artwork, truncated > text and odd looks? Think this over. If they can use the cards? Yes, yes they do benefit. How does anyone not benefit from having more cards that they can use? Even if you think they are ugly? -Peter

Daneel wrote: > On 13 May 2006 17:33:57 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo > <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But since I don't have an iota of patience left about that subject > > (check the thread and pool at WW's forums to realize why), I'll just > > say: not happy? Buy some original artwork at eBay and go watch them > > shine at your wall while the rest of us go PLAY the game. Jeebus. > > You know, You don't *have to* reply to every post. ;) No, not really. But it's good enough to reply and indulge in a little whiner-bashing when any subject has turned into a dead horse and said whiner tries kicking it again with wild "rational" points to justify one's own friggin' aesthetic notions. And don't come to me with that whole "Just because You think it's bullshit it does not mean it actually is" crap. *You* had called other people's opinions as "faulty" in this very thread with the same kind of definitive tone I'm using, so go suck it up being called a whiner. And suck this: you do not really have a point. You have a personal desire to not use these cards and is trying hard to rationalize it as much as you can, at the expense of the game community. And worse: you chose to do that after the whole thing is over. Dead. Poll closed. > If You have no problem with people posting "I agree" posts to the > announcement, I guess it's just fair to accept "I disagree" posts > as well. As it was said, it is fair to disagree ("I'd suck a plea for banning these from all tournaments"). But being overtly delusional (in any side of the issue) and trying to justify his own whims in a rational way instead of admitting this is just a matter of personal taste is not fair disagreement. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

[ quoted text not captured ] Just to satisfy my own curiousity... Is the repeated use of "You" (capitalized) an attempt to deify Peter Bakija in some way, or has it been changed to a proper noun in an attempt to redefine the "other" in the argument? I prefer the former (it's downright wacky!), but i suspect the latter. Merlin

On 16 May 2006 16:26:35 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made. > > That you think something is ugly doesn't justify it being illegal in > competetive play. Repeating this n times will not make this n times truer. It isn't true. The cards lack the art which can make them aesthetically pleasing. Whether some piece of art is good or bad is a question of aesthetics. Some people tend to like everything - as in, I'm sure for every picture we could find someone who things it rocks. If you don't have a picture, that's missing. If the card text is truncated, that's not the best thing either. > The rules cards are completely functional. So would be a Master: Discipline card with a post-it on it saying "War Ghoul" and then the card text. Fully functional. Yet hardly elevating the generel level of the game, wouldn't you agree? >> Not does it address it, by the way. Because if You want to go general >> (where specific subjectivity should not matter) You get to questions >> like, what makes a card genuine, why are we using printed and bought >> cards, what is the purpose of artwork, etc. (as hinted at in other >> posts). > > Which is all well and good. Yet still, the cards, without pictures, are > perfectly viable as play components. So are proxies. And player-invented cards. And the Joker, if You come up with rules on how to use it. Sure, they are all mighty viable play components. >> I guess You are welcome to that opinion. But You do percieve the lack of >> artwork, the truncated text and the upside-down text taking up most >> of the >> card, right? Isn't your typical ccg card. You know, the type most >> people >> can find aesthetically pleasing. The type of card that has a chance to >> make a non-player say "wow, this game must rock". > > Lots of cards can do that. That are already perfectly legal. There are > plenty of cards that have objectionable pictures or poorly rendered > pictures. Or are just plain ugly. These cards should be illegal in > competetive play too? Nope. Because You may thing something is ugly, but that does not mean that the card lacks the art that can make it appealing to at least some players. Not the truncated card text. And the lot of text there. >> Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg >> wisdom I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this? > > Lots of people *hate* Christopher Shy. Cards with Christopher Shy art > should be illegal in competetive play? Same logic applies. Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of my post quoted. Just checking. >> Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the >> contrary. > > Whatever common sense you are relying on seems to indicate that "I > think it is ugly, so I think it should be excluded from the game". I'd > go and get your common sense checked at the shop. Yeah, right. Repeating this n+1 times does not make thins n+1 times truer. It is still false. You just repeated it n+1 times, that's all. >> Yeah, right. ;) > > I don't even know what this means. What? 'Right' or the emoticon? >> I don't see a point. There is a completely newbie-unfriendly set out >> there. Everyone knows that it is completely newbie-unfriendly. > > Newbies don't. Then educate them. Or lobby at WW to make them issue noobie-only sets. Or lobby to make proxies legal (now that would really help newbies). >> So the newbies, who know that this set is completely >> newbie-unfriendly, and >> yet buy of this set instead of something that actually helps them >> complement their collection, are now the big trump example. > > If they are newbies, how do they know the set is newbie-unfriendly? Because whoever got them into the game tells them so? > You are saying that because you think they are ugly, these > people should be either actively dissuaded from buying the set or > denied the ability to use the cards which are completely functional and > useful? n+2 >> I sincerely believe that players - even if they like ccgs - have the >> incredible power to choose what they purchase. Whether this be a >> choice >> between games, or between sets of a game (not to mention the option >> not >> to purchase anything). > > And you seem to be indicating that people should choose to *not* buy > the NoR set, even if they want to, because *you* seem to think it is > too difficult for them? Now where on earth did I say this? Honestly, You are getting even more futile than You started off. What You buy is what You get. I mean, it's like saying that Buffy cards should be legal for VTES tournaments, because people who buy them thinking they are vampires, and compatible with VTES, should not be punished. I'm not saying nobody should buy NoR. People who know what is in it and consider it a valuable addition to their collection and an enhancement to their gaming experience should definitely buy it. Same goes for every set, by the way, it's just more true for sets like NoR, and to a lesser degree for LoB and BL. >> Looking at the game in general - I think it's a matter of perspective. >> Do players benefit from having some cards with no artwork, truncated >> text and odd looks? Think this over. > > If they can use the cards? Yes, yes they do benefit. How does anyone > not benefit from having more cards that they can use? Even if you think > they are ugly? Am I still counting? Why bother. Would noobs benefit from being able to use proxies at tournaments? I think yes. So go and lobby for that. -- Regards, Daneel

On 16 May 2006 16:12:07 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Dunno. Check the new NoR rules cards. I would assume You will discover >> some parts are missing - parts that are integral for the majority of >> ccgs as defined today. Start from there. Think it over. There's no >> rush, take Your time. I'm sure You'll come up with something >> eventually. > > Other than that they are missing pictures (which really have only > limited impact on game play), they have everything necessary for game > play--title, cost, necessary rules text. I can deal without pictures. > It seems likely that most people can deal without pictures. I don't > think anyone wants to remove pictures from all CCG cards. But that some > cards have no pictures? Not a big deal. It has happened before (if you > wan't, I can find multiple examples of CCG cards that are all text and > no picture--the B5 CCG ISA card leaps to mind immediately, but others > exist). It'll happen again. That *you* happen to think something is > ugly doesn't mean that it should be unplayable. I think that the > picture on Ambush is horrible, to the point that I won't play the card > if I can possibly avoid it. But I don't think this means that the card > should be unplayable in competitive play. Please go on. I'm fascinated. Dunno, You're the one ranting about this. And I'm not even counting. ;) >> You are yet to make any. > > I refer you to my post on May 14th, ~4:38 pm (EST, USA). Plenty of > arguments. Specifically adresssing most criticisms of this decision. > Which you have previously chosen to ignore. Which you are welcome to > do. But don't then come back and claim that your points have not been > adressed. And I refer You to my Tue, 16 May 2006 21:32:52 CET post. Saying You addressed something is not the same as actually having addressed it. Saying You have arguments is not equal to actually having them. -- Regards, Daneel

On 17 May 2006 10:00:11 -0700, Merlin <hallofha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Just to satisfy my own curiousity... > > Is the repeated use of "You" (capitalized) an attempt to deify Peter > Bakija in some way, or has it been changed to a proper noun in an > attempt to redefine the "other" in the argument? > > I prefer the former (it's downright wacky!), but i suspect the latter. > > Merlin Just a bad habit. I'm having so much correspondance nowadays that I've begun to capitalize the general noun. I'm trying to cut it back, but even new habits die hard. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

On 17 May 2006 07:53:11 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On 13 May 2006 17:33:57 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo >> <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > But since I don't have an iota of patience left about that subject >> > (check the thread and pool at WW's forums to realize why), I'll just >> > say: not happy? Buy some original artwork at eBay and go watch them >> > shine at your wall while the rest of us go PLAY the game. Jeebus. >> >> You know, You don't *have to* reply to every post. ;) > > No, not really. I'm glad we agree. -- Regards, Daneel

In message <ops9popr...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On 16 May 2006 16:26:35 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Daneel wrote: >>> Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made. >> >> That you think something is ugly doesn't justify it being illegal in >> competetive play. > >Repeating this n times will not make this n times truer. It isn't true. No, it really is true. That you, Daneel, think they're ugly does not justify it being illegal. Cards being made legal or illegal is not based on *your* personal perception of their aesthetic value. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Daneel wrote: > Repeating this n times will not make this n times truer. It isn't true. You are welcome to believe that. You are wrong, but people belive wrong things all the time. It doesn't matter how many time I say something (although I keep hoping it'll make a dent, but apparently not). Your issue with the rules cards, primarily, seems to be that you think they are ugly. Which is a reasonable view, as they are certainly not as pretty as the cards with pictures on them. But again (and again and again), you thinking something is ugly does not equal something being inapropriate for play. I've made the analogy before, but you either continually miss it, choose to ignore it, or are simply not seeing how it is an analogy--lots of people think lots of cards are ugly. Do they have a leg to stand on arguing that cards with Christopher Shy art should be illegal, as they are aesthetically unpleasing? > The cards lack the art which can make them aesthetically pleasing. Yep. And again, cards with no art in CCGs have existed in the past and will exist in the future. The lack of picture does not hinder game play. > So would be a Master: Discipline card with a post-it on it saying "War > Ghoul" and then the card text. Fully functional. Yet hardly elevating > the generel level of the game, wouldn't you agree? What does "hardly elevating the level of the game" even mean? Proxies (actual proxies, as opposed to rules cards) are fine for the game--if someone needs War Ghouls to make a deck and they don't have any? They can make all the proxies they want. Doesn't matter to me. Proxies are inappropriate for official tournaments for a specific and logical reason (the company needs to sell cards to make money; if people can play official tournaments with fake cards, there is less incentive to buy actual cards, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to take as a game company), but for casual play? Use all the proxies you want. > So are proxies. And player-invented cards. And the Joker, if You come up > with rules on how to use it. Sure, they are all mighty viable play > components. Yes, they are. I don't care if people use proxies. I wouldn't care if people used proxies in official tournaments, in reality, assuming the proxies had the appropriate text on them, but the company doesn't want people using proxies for reasons stated above, and in a practical sense, hand written proxies can easily be miswritten. But you talk about proxies in play as if they are actually a bad thing. I don't play VTES to see pretty cards--I can look at them in the comfort of my own home. I play VTES 'cause it is a good game, and if my opponents can make interesting decks by using proxies? That just makes the game more interesting. > Nope. Because You may thing something is ugly, but that does not mean that > the card lacks the art that can make it appealing to at least some > players. Not the truncated card text. And the lot of text there. That a card is unappealing to at least some players doesn't make it problematic for game play. If you think the card is ugly and unappealing, don't use it. Why do you think that other people should be forced to adhere to your view of what is or is not appealing? > Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of my > post quoted. Just checking. Are you dense, or purposefully obtuse? I'm guessing the second. But for giggles, I'll explain. Again. As I can do this all day. You seem to think that the rules cards are inappropriate for game play, as you think they are ugly (which somehow fails to "elevate the level of the game". Which is a pretty vague demand...) John Doe thinks vampires with Chritopher Shy are are ugly. Should John Doe demand that vampires with Christopher Shy art be made illegal for competetive play? A similar level of irrationality. > Then educate them. Or lobby at WW to make them issue noobie-only sets. Or > lobby to make proxies legal (now that would really help newbies). Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not assume that people are too stupid to understand the not that complex rules of the new set (newbies or not), and then make all the cards playable by everyone in every format of the game. Oh, wait. That is what already happened. > Because whoever got them into the game tells them so? Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for them? You don't think that is a bit patronizing? And if they got into the game on their own? And if they just started, have no problem with the rules at all, and just could benefit from the reprint rules cards? > Now where on earth did I say this? At the point where you said "the set is not a good set for new players" and indicated that new players should be told (ya know, by whoever got them into the game telling them so) that the NoR set is too diificult for new players? > Am I still counting? Why bother. 'Cause you might realize that your belief that things you think are ugly should be illegal for game play is completley irrational? >Would noobs benefit from being able to > use proxies at tournaments? I think yes. So go and lobby for that. There is a specific reason for making proxy cards illegal for official tournaments (financial interest of the company). -Peter

Daneel wrote: > I'm glad we agree. Ahh, the beautiful stench of irony... -Peter

Howdy Peter, > > Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of my > > post quoted. Just checking. > > Are you dense, or purposefully obtuse? I'm guessing the second. But for > giggles, I'll explain. Again. As I can do this all day. On the one hand, I admire your tenacity, your extreme patience, and your apparently limitless amount of time to waste on the Usenet. On the other, I'm kind of frightened by your determination. All of which to say, better you than me. I've tried to reason with Daneel before too, and while he can often make lucid, complex, and even well-reasoned arguments, when he goes off his meds like this*, all bets are off, and he will commit breathtaking lapses of reason in pursuit of his opinions. Of particular note is when he starts to tell his opponent not only what their argument is, but also _why_ they are making that argument (usually the diagnosis is 'to attack Daneel personally'). This sort of mindreading is the death of rational argument. (Why am I making this argument now? Because I've previously been the target of this tactic, and everyone else tuned out the 'debate', and it annoyed the heck out of me. So, yeah, to attack Daneel!) Anyway, if you want to retire from the field, I'm pretty sure no one out there is going to have any doubts about who has prevailed here. Alex *I have no actual knowledge of Daneel's status with respect to medicines, their need or lack thereof. It's just my shorthand for the 'irrational' Daneel persona, as opposed to the 'usual' Daneel.

pd...@lightlink.com escreveu: [ quoted text not captured ] You will never know how much I'm glad to see such an appropriate use of the word "stench". Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

wumpus wrote: > On the one hand, I admire your tenacity, your extreme patience, and > your apparently limitless amount of time to waste on the Usenet. On > the other, I'm kind of frightened by your determination. All of which > to say, better you than me. Heh--I've got the steely tenacity to spare :-) > Anyway, if you want to retire from the field, I'm pretty sure no one > out there is going to have any doubts about who has prevailed here. I'll retire eventually. When it stops being entertaining :-) Take it easy, -Peter

On 17 May 2006 14:37:04 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I've made the analogy before, but you either > continually miss it, choose to ignore it, or are simply not seeing how > it is an analogy--lots of people think lots of cards are ugly. Do they > have a leg to stand on arguing that cards with Christopher Shy art > should be illegal, as they are aesthetically unpleasing? Or, it is simply a bad analogy. Which is the case. People have different tastes, and different art will be appealing to them. Some people actually like Shy art, for example. But the lack of art has no chance to be appealing. Having the picture on a card adds to the game. Not having it does not add something many players expect. In relative terms, assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art detracts from the game. >> The cards lack the art which can make them aesthetically pleasing. > > Yep. And again, cards with no art in CCGs have existed in the past and > will exist in the future. The lack of picture does not hinder game > play. Having the picture on a card adds to the game. Not having it does not add something many players expect. In relative terms, assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art detracts from the game. >> So are proxies. And player-invented cards. And the Joker, if You come up >> with rules on how to use it. Sure, they are all mighty viable play >> components. > > Yes, they are. I don't care if people use proxies. I wouldn't care if > people used proxies in official tournaments, in reality, assuming the > proxies had the appropriate text on them, but the company doesn't want > people using proxies for reasons stated above, and in a practical > sense, hand written proxies can easily be miswritten. But you talk > about proxies in play as if they are actually a bad thing. Actually, I was more thinking that You would consider them to be a bad thing. Kind of like to contrast them with the rules cards. But anyway, I don't like proxies. I'm not openly against them or anything, I just don't use them (and prefer if others don't use them). For me looking at the cards is part of the experience, whether in my hand or in play. It's kind of like a pet peeve. I'm pretty supportive or making cards more widely available, though - if it were up to me, everyone had all the cards in the world they need, and could make any deck they choose to, using shiny-pretty cards with artwork. I don't mind at all proxies that are printed by the player and have all the text and the artwork (even if not in perfect quality). > That a card is unappealing to at least some players doesn't make it > problematic for game play. If you think the card is ugly and > unappealing, don't use it. Why do you think that other people should be > forced to adhere to your view of what is or is not appealing? I guess, playing against other players (as opposed to, say, playing home alone) prevents me from being able to choose what I play against. So if one player thinks that something is worth playing, I'll be playing against that, even if I don't think that concept is worth playing (or fun to play against). Same goes for selection of the actual cards. Or is it, if You don't like it, don't play against it? ;) >> Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of >> my post quoted. Just checking. > > Are you dense, or purposefully obtuse? I'm guessing the second. Are you trying to entertain me or yourself? I assume the second, though You do succeed in achieving the former. Also, not quoting relevant text makes Your posts harder to follow, in case someone would actually want to do that. ;) > But for > giggles, I'll explain. Again. As I can do this all day. You seem to > think that the rules cards are inappropriate for game play, as you > think they are ugly (which somehow fails to "elevate the level of the > game". Which is a pretty vague demand...) John Doe thinks vampires with > Chritopher Shy are are ugly. Should John Doe demand that vampires with > Christopher Shy art be made illegal for competetive play? A similar > level of irrationality. Having the picture on a card adds to the game. Not having it does not add something many players expect. In relative terms, assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art detracts from the game. Mind You, aesthetics is just one component of the good card. There is also clarity (which is also hurt if the card text is truncated). >> Then educate them. Or lobby at WW to make them issue noobie-only sets. >> Or lobby to make proxies legal (now that would really help newbies). > > Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not assume that > people are too stupid to understand the not that complex rules of the > new set (newbies or not), and then make all the cards playable by > everyone in every format of the game. Oh, wait. That is what already > happened. You so far seemed to imply that newbies are stupid, they don't understand what each set contains, etc. Now You claim the opposite. If newbies are smart, they will purchase sets that enhance their gaming experience, most likely complementing their collections in a way that helps their deckbuilding, etc. Then there is no reason to go out of the way to allow them to use the rules cards that also proxy as general utility cards in a given format, because they know what they are buying. They know about the set having 10-card boosters and a special rules card that also proxy as general utility cards in a given format, etc. >> Because whoever got them into the game tells them so? > > Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for them? I don't know. Why should You? > You don't think that is a bit patronizing? Depends on the tone. But I guess, it could be. > And if they got into the game on their own? I'm sure they are not playing in a vacuum. Most players don't. > And if they just started, have no problem with the > rules at all, and just could benefit from the reprint rules cards? I'm sure they could also benefit from a dozen War Ghouls. >> Now where on earth did I say this? > > At the point where you said "the set is not a good set for new players" > and indicated that new players should be told (ya know, by whoever got > them into the game telling them so) that the NoR set is too diificult > for new players? I'm not entirely sure what You hope to achieve by stating falsehood. I never said or implied that NoR is 'too difficult'. Read back to check. I stated it isn't newbie-friendly. That isn't the same thing (especially if You know what the set has, and that it is hard to combine effectively with 'regular' vampires). >> Am I still counting? Why bother. > > 'Cause you might realize that your belief that things you think are > ugly should be illegal for game play is completley irrational? Will counting achieve that? Not really - for two separate reasons. Stating something does not make it true. Stating that I said, believe, etc. something might help to hold together Your haphazad arguments, but they fall short of actually proving anything; because You would need to understand an argument to actually be able to address it, and do so in meaning, not just by writing that You did so. Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the point" or two for good measure. Addressing an argument requires understanding it (something that is often missing). Once You understand what the argument is, You can think it over, and if You disagree with it on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can reply with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument (no, it's not enough if it sounds cool; it should also make sense and be logically sound). >> Would noobs benefit from being able to >> use proxies at tournaments? I think yes. So go and lobby for that. > > There is a specific reason for making proxy cards illegal for official > tournaments (financial interest of the company). Wouldn't it be the company's best financial interest not to allow these rules card in tournaments? People who need the cards they represent would then get them from other sources, I guess. No? -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Or, it is simply a bad analogy. Which is the case. Ok then. If you fail to see how the concept of "I think it is ugly, thus I think it should be illegal" arcs across the two examples, I can't really help you. > People have different tastes, and different art will be appealing to them. Ahh, so you do have the capacity to understand the analogy. Yes. People have different tastes. And different things will appeal to them. For some, for instance, having no picture on a card is aesthetically unpleasing, to the point that they don't think such cards are good for the game. For others, however, having no picture is not a problem at all, and they think the card is fine for the game, and not remotely problematic. > But the lack of art has no chance to be appealing. Which, many would claim, is irrelevant. That the rules cards have no picture has no bearing on the cards use at all. I don't think anyone would claim that *all* cards should have no picture, as people like pictures. But the rules cards already exist without a picture, as an elegant solution to the "how do we get rules cards into the set most effectively" issue. That they exist already, without pictures, means that they either need to be used or not, regardless of the lack of picture. As the benefits to using the card outweigh the negatives (i.e. the lack of picture), it makes sense that they get used. > Not having it does not add something many players expect. In relative terms, > assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art > detracts from the game. Having no art on *all* the cards would detract from the game, yes. Having no art on *most* of the cards would detract from the game, I agree as well. Having no art on an insignificant number of cards in a huge set, as having no art on the cards is the compromise for making the necessary rules cards also playable, which benefits everyone, is not bad for the game. > Are you trying to entertain me or yourself? Me, mostly. > Mind You, aesthetics is just one component of the good card. There is > also clarity (which is also hurt if the card text is truncated). The card text on the rules cards is generally so minimal to begin with that truncation is hardly necessary. What was truncated from, say, Computer Hacking, Lucky Blow, and Vulnerability? > Addressing an argument requires understanding it (something that is often missing). I understand your argument. You think the cards are ugly, and so you think they shouldn't be legal for competetive play. > Wouldn't it be the company's best financial interest not to allow these > rules card in tournaments? No. As people already paid for them. At a certain point, the disconnect between a company's financial interest and their customer's product satisfaction becomes bad for everyone. It would also be in the company's best financial interest to demand that everyone play with only rare cards, in an absolute sense. -Peter

On 18 May 2006 11:46:04 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Or, it is simply a bad analogy. Which is the case. > > Ok then. If you fail to see how the concept of "I think it is ugly, > thus I think it should be illegal" arcs across the two examples, I > can't really help you. > >> People have different tastes, and different art will be appealing to >> them. > > Ahh, so you do have the capacity to understand the analogy. The analogy is flawed. I understand that it is flawed. I reveal to You that I understand that it is flawed. I don't see the big revelation. >> But the lack of art has no chance to be appealing. > > Which, many would claim, is irrelevant. Many would claim many things. > But the rules cards already exist without a picture, as an > elegant solution to the "how do we get rules cards into the set most > effectively" issue. Effectively as in what? I'm sure they would be able to pack different rules cards into the booster packs with equal ease. > That they exist already, without pictures, means > that they either need to be used or not, regardless of the lack of > picture. Use in this case should naturally mean 1) consult for rules issues and 2) use in limited. That's pretty good use for a rules cards. Especially since these functions do not detract from the game. > As the benefits to using the card outweigh the negatives (i.e. > the lack of picture), it makes sense that they get used. No, they don't. In the long run You simply introduced cards into the circulation that 1) contain outdated rules, 2) truncated card text and 3) no flavor art. A definite lose-lose situation. >> Not having it does not add something many players expect. In relative >> terms, >> assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art >> detracts from the game. > > Having no art on *all* the cards would detract from the game, yes. > Having no art on *most* of the cards would detract from the game, I > agree as well. Having no art on an insignificant number of cards in a > huge set, as having no art on the cards is the compromise for making > the necessary rules cards also playable, which benefits everyone, is > not bad for the game. By the same token, shouldn't people be allowed to use a small number of proxies on tournaments? As long as the majority of the cards are real cards, this shouldn't be a problem, should it? >> Mind You, aesthetics is just one component of the good card. There is >> also clarity (which is also hurt if the card text is truncated). > > The card text on the rules cards is generally so minimal to begin with > that truncation is hardly necessary. What was truncated from, say, > Computer Hacking, Lucky Blow, and Vulnerability? Are You saying that none of the card texts were truncated? Or that if some are truncated, but others are not, that somehow means that we can use the untruncated examples to somehow offset the truncated ones? Just checking. >> Addressing an argument requires understanding it (something that is >> often missing). > > I understand your argument. You think the cards are ugly, and so you > think they shouldn't be legal for competetive play. Your lack of understanding clearly pollutes Your communication. >> Wouldn't it be the company's best financial interest not to allow these >> rules card in tournaments? > > No. As people already paid for them. At a certain point, the disconnect > between a company's financial interest and their customer's product > satisfaction becomes bad for everyone. It would also be in the > company's best financial interest to demand that everyone play with > only rare cards, in an absolute sense. Given how many things players pay for that they cannot use for one reason or another, and how many things could be done to improve their situation without detracting from the value of the game, I am puzzled by this stubborn attachment to a clearly faulty point of view. But I guess we're quite different. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > The analogy is flawed. I understand that it is flawed. I reveal to You > that I understand that it is flawed. I don't see the big revelation. Flawed in the sense that you think the cards are ugly, so you think they should be illegal is somehow different from when other people think other cards are ugly and think they should be illegal? > Many would claim many things. You aren't kidding. > Effectively as in what? I'm sure they would be able to pack different > rules cards into the booster packs with equal ease. Effectively in the sense of "We need to get rules cards in the set. How do we do this without angering the player base by denying them a card in the booster that they are paying for while getting the rules in there? And maybe helping draft at the same time?" The rules card/reprint is a lovely compromise--the rules are in there; the boosters contain nice, utilitarian reprints that are very useful for draft and limited play; no one feels screwed by paying the price of an 11 card booster and only getting 10 cards. Effective. > Use in this case should naturally mean 1) consult for rules issues > and 2) use in limited. That's pretty good use for a rules cards. > Especially since these functions do not detract from the game. Nor does allowing people to use them in constructed play, as they are perfectly viable cards. Again, I'd agree that having no pictures on any of the cards would detract from the game. But having a very small percentage of the cards in the game (what, 17 out of literally thousands?) with no pictures, as there is a very good reason for not having the pictures, isn't much of an issue. And allowing people to use them gives a leg up to people who need the cards and keeps the player base, for the most part, not disgrunteled to be paying for perfectly playable cards and then being prevented from using them in competetive play. > No, they don't. In the long run You simply introduced cards into > the circulation that 1) contain outdated rules, 2) truncated card > text and 3) no flavor art. A definite lose-lose situation. The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for likely just as many people as it isn't. > By the same token, shouldn't people be allowed to use a small number of > proxies on tournaments? As long as the majority of the cards are real > cards, this shouldn't be a problem, should it? I would have no problem with this at all, in theory, except that the company has incentive to not allow the use of home-made cards (keeping in mind that the rules cards are not home made), and hand written cards can easily have misinformation on them, which is dubious in competetive play. The rules cards are not home made, nor do they have misinformation on them. They just don't have pictures. > Are You saying that none of the card texts were truncated? Or that if > some are truncated, but others are not, that somehow means that we can > use the untruncated examples to somehow offset the truncated ones? > Just checking. None of the texts were truncated to any significant effect. The cards are all very simple cards, and any change in verbiage has no actual impact on the function of the card. It isn't like there is a rules card Baltimore Purge that is truncated to "everyone send a vampire to torpor". > Your lack of understanding clearly pollutes Your communication. My lack of understanding that you think the cards are ugly and so they shouldn't be legal? Ok then. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > But the lack of art has no chance to be appealing. I certainly enjoy the nice artwork on some cards, but the game play is what I really care about and art, good, bad, or otherwise doesn't really contribute to me personally. I played plain text online games long after graphical versions of the same style games came out (eg Everquest, World of Warcraft etc...) on the basis that the pictures have no affect on game play. That isn't a 100% accurate analogy, or it may just prove that I'm the wrong side of 30 :-), but ultimately it's a personal preference thing.

On 18 May 2006 12:46:58 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> The analogy is flawed. I understand that it is flawed. I reveal to You >> that I understand that it is flawed. I don't see the big revelation. > > Flawed in the sense that you think the cards are ugly, so you think > they should be illegal is somehow different from when other people > think other cards are ugly and think they should be illegal? No; flawed in the sense that for the purposes of the analogy You compare two significantly different things. This makes the analogy fail. For the analogy to work, You would need to have two comparisons that are similar enough, at least in the relationship of the elements of the analogy. >> Many would claim many things. > > You aren't kidding. Never. >> Effectively as in what? I'm sure they would be able to pack different >> rules cards into the booster packs with equal ease. > > Effectively in the sense of "We need to get rules cards in the set. How > do we do this without angering the player base by denying them a card > in the booster that they are paying for while getting the rules in > there? And maybe helping draft at the same time?" The rules > card/reprint is a lovely compromise--the rules are in there; the > boosters contain nice, utilitarian reprints that are very useful for > draft and limited play; no one feels screwed by paying the price of an > 11 card booster and only getting 10 cards. Effective. Which is nice, but having 6 instead of the usual 7 commons in a booster - especially in a set where there are only 20 commons - especially since it was communicated - has far less chance of "angering the player base" than introducing cards that miss integral parts of a card. I mean, it's like complaining that the shringwrap doesn't double as 30 counters. After all, You do pay for that as well. >> Use in this case should naturally mean 1) consult for rules issues >> and 2) use in limited. That's pretty good use for a rules cards. >> Especially since these functions do not detract from the game. > > Nor does allowing people to use them in constructed play, as they are > perfectly viable cards. So Your point is, if You think that something is a perfectly viable card, although it misses certain integral parts, then it should be legal because You think it's viable? Just checking. > Again, I'd agree that having no pictures on any > of the cards would detract from the game. But having a very small > percentage of the cards in the game (what, 17 out of literally > thousands?) with no pictures, as there is a very good reason for not > having the pictures, isn't much of an issue. And allowing people to use > them gives a leg up to people who need the cards and keeps the player > base, for the most part, not disgrunteled to be paying for perfectly > playable cards and then being prevented from using them in competetive > play. > >> No, they don't. In the long run You simply introduced cards into >> the circulation that 1) contain outdated rules, 2) truncated card >> text and 3) no flavor art. A definite lose-lose situation. > > The rules aren't outdated. They will eventually be. (e.g. "in the long run") > The card text is only truncated in a completely insignificant sense. According to Your opinion. Which is fine, I guess. But I wouldn't call any truncation insignificant - if it is, why have more verbose text on the card (clarity?). Meaning, it isn't. At least clarity suffers (=bad). > The lack of art isn't a problem for > likely just as many people as it isn't. I don't get this. (I guess You meant, "as it is".) Which is ok, but then You have the crowd who is upset/puzzled/pissed/whatever by the lack of art. Most likely not an insignificant amount of people. But this is just a guess. >> By the same token, shouldn't people be allowed to use a small number of >> proxies on tournaments? As long as the majority of the cards are real >> cards, this shouldn't be a problem, should it? > > I would have no problem with this at all, in theory, except that the > company has incentive to not allow the use of home-made cards (keeping > in mind that the rules cards are not home made), and hand written cards > can easily have misinformation on them, which is dubious in competetive > play. The rules cards are not home made, nor do they have > misinformation on them. They just don't have pictures. And they don't have clear card texts. And they have an odd layout. And they have rules on them that are currently fresh (but will eventually become outdated). Oh, and they also miss the card art. >> Are You saying that none of the card texts were truncated? Or that if >> some are truncated, but others are not, that somehow means that we can >> use the untruncated examples to somehow offset the truncated ones? >> Just checking. > > None of the texts were truncated to any significant effect. The cards > are all very simple cards, and any change in verbiage has no actual > impact on the function of the card. It isn't like there is a rules card > Baltimore Purge that is truncated to "everyone send a vampire to > torpor". I won't deny that, though I would say, there is - due to the truncation - a possibility of lost clarity here and there (otherwise, why have more verbose text on the real cards?). Less clarity = more confusion, which is bad - especially for newbies. By the way, You still forgot to give Your reasons why You stated falsehood with respect to my statements. Your silence sheds some rather dubious light on Your motives. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess that's a fair point, and I can see where it is coming from. I played some graphics-free games myself. As much as I'd like to say that the looks don't matter, I've found that I'm pretty much enchanted by the looks of a game (computer, card, table, etc.), and for me the graphics of the game, the art on the cards, or the art on the board, figurines, etc. is quite important. Somehow it helps me get into an otherworldly mood I so much enjoy in games. To the contrary, I do like to read a lot, and I don't really like illustrated fictional story books. I like to imagine what I read for myself. I'm not sure this is a real contradiction, though. I got hooked onto VTES by the art way back. I liked the mechanics, etc., but what really got me into this game - as opposed to a gazillion other games - was the art on the cards. I'm not sure the majority (or even a significant minority) is like this. Yet I've a soft spot for the art, layouts and backgrounds (hence my numerous rants on the layout and background changes, for example). -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > No; flawed in the sense that for the purposes of the analogy You compare > two significantly different things. Well, except that in my analogy we have you ("I think the rules cards are ugly, so I think they should be illegal for competetive play") and we have the hypothetical other ("I think Christopher Shy are is ugly, so I think they should be illegal for competetive play"). I'm not seeing the difference so much. > Never. Huh. Maybe you should start some. Might make your life a tad more entertaing. > I mean, it's like complaining that the shringwrap doesn't > double as 30 counters. After all, You do pay for that as well. Talk about a textbook faulty analogy. See, this is why you think *my* anolgy is flawed. 'Cause you clearly don't understand what an actual working analogy is. See, it is not at all like complaining that the shrinkwrap doesn't double as 30 counters, as no part of shrinkwrap = counters. Or anything remotely playable at all. The rules cards are in every way playable already. They have identical backs to the rest of the cards in the set (heck, they are even in the right direction when the card part of the rules card is face up). They have titles just like the rest of the cards in the set. They have rules text, just like the rest of the cards in the set. They have costs, just like the rest of the cards in the set. They have card type icons, just like the rest of the cards in the set. They even have a border identifier (i.e. greenish for master, redish for combat, junkish for equipment, etc.) The only thing they don't have is an illustration, although if you look at the text of the rules portion of the card as simply abstract symbols, all the rules cards do have illustrations that are more interesting than the original Fake Out card... Shrinkwrap? Nothing like counters. Or any part of a game. Just random plastic film. No part of the game resembles plastic film. Plastic film does not resemble any part of the game. > So Your point is, if You think that something is a perfectly viable > card, although it misses certain integral parts, then it should be > legal because You think it's viable? Just checking. If the "integral part" has no actual impact upon playing the game? Absolutely. If they had misprinted some cards that had no art, say, just a big blank spot? I'd think those were fine for competetive play too. 'Cause the illustration, while certainly enjoyable, doesn't have any actual impact on one's ability to use the card in play. The illustration doesn't enhance the rules of the card. The illustration doesn't enhance the understanding of the card. Heck, sometimes the illustration specifically *hinders* the use and understanding of the card (see: Torn Signpost). > They will eventually be. (e.g. "in the long run") Why do you say that? You think the Imbued cards are going to be outlawed at some point (at which point only Outlaws will have Imbued cards...)? Even then, again, if you put your mind in the right place, the upsidedown rules text can easily be viewed as an abstract illustration just as attractive as Jyhad Fake Out. > According to Your opinion. Which is fine, I guess. But I wouldn't call > any truncation insignificant - if it is, why have more verbose text > on the card (clarity?). Meaning, it isn't. At least clarity suffers > (=bad). In the specific instances of the given cards in question, the lack of verbose text is irelevant. They are incredibly simple cards to begin with. > I don't get this. (I guess You meant, "as it is".) No, I meant what I said. The lack of art is a problem for just as many people as it (is not a problem). > Which is ok, but then You have the crowd who is upset/puzzled/pissed/whatever by the lack > of art. Most of them didn't seem to care so much. The vote was very significantly in favor of allowing the cards in constructed tournament play. > Most likely not an insignificant amount of people. But this is just a > guess. I'd guess otherwise. > And they don't have clear card texts. The card texts are perfectly clear. And the change of the card text was clearly determined by the rules team and tournament authority to be perfectly acceptible for limited competetive play (where rules are just as important as in constructed). >And they have an odd layout. Lots of cards have an odd layout, relative to all the other versions of the same card--if I pick up a Deflection at random, it is likely to have one of 3 or 4 different layouts (including different background identifiers, different locations for identifier icons, different places and types of cost icons). But all of these are legal for competetive play already. So clearly, differences in layout are not a problem in the eyes of the rules team and tournament authority. >And they have rules on them that are currently fresh (but will eventually > become outdated). If you hold the cards in the direction where the play card portion is readable, the rules text is irelevant, as it is upsidedown and unreadable. And functioning as an abstract illustration if you'd like it to. > Oh, and they also miss the card art. Which has no bearing on actually playing the game. If it did, it would be impossible to playtest new cards which have no illustrations, generally speaking. > I won't deny that, though I would say, there is - due to the truncation > - a possibility of lost clarity here and there (otherwise, why have more > verbose text on the real cards?). Less clarity = more confusion, which > is bad - especially for newbies. The cards lack less clarity. 'Cause the cards are incredibly simple to begin with. > By the way, You still forgot to give Your reasons why You stated falsehood > with respect to my statements. Your silence sheds some rather dubious > light on Your motives. Nah. I ignored that part. 'Cause I didn't state any falsehood with respect to your statements. And getting into a "yes you did" "no I didn't" apsect of the conversation didn't strike me as particularly interesting. -Peter

On 20 May 2006 16:33:04 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> No; flawed in the sense that for the purposes of the analogy You compare >> two significantly different things. > > Well, except that in my analogy we have you ("I think the rules cards > are ugly, so I think they should be illegal for competetive play") and > we have the hypothetical other ("I think Christopher Shy are is ugly, > so I think they should be illegal for competetive play"). I'm not > seeing the difference so much. I am. Having art is an integral part of a card. Having non-Shy art, why desirable by many, is not by definition necessary. >> Never. > > Huh. Maybe you should start some. Might make your life a tad more > entertaing. No need. Many people spend great amounts of energy to entertain me. >> I mean, it's like complaining that the shringwrap doesn't >> double as 30 counters. After all, You do pay for that as well. > > Talk about a textbook faulty analogy. See, this is why you think *my* > anolgy is flawed. 'Cause you clearly don't understand what an actual > working analogy is. See, it is not at all like complaining that the > shrinkwrap doesn't double as 30 counters, as no part of shrinkwrap = > counters. Or anything remotely playable at all. Your point was - they paid for something, so they would be (implied: rightfully) upset if they couldn't use it. I'm sure You don't think that the shrinkwrap is free. Players do pay for it. > Shrinkwrap? Nothing like counters. Or any part of a game. Just random > plastic film. No part of the game resembles plastic film. Plastic film > does not resemble any part of the game. Just like the rules cards in NoR, many would say. Nothing like a high quality, real card (one people expect to get when they buy boosters). >> So Your point is, if You think that something is a perfectly viable >> card, although it misses certain integral parts, then it should be >> legal because You think it's viable? Just checking. > > If the "integral part" has no actual impact upon playing the game? > Absolutely. So, to rephrase - Your point is, if You think that something is a perfectly viable card, although it misses certain integral parts (which, according to Your opinion, have no actual impact upon playing the game), then it should be legal because You think it's viable? Just checking. >> They will eventually be. (e.g. "in the long run") > > Why do you say that? You think the Imbued cards are going to be > outlawed at some point (at which point only Outlaws will have Imbued > cards...)? Nope. The coming of the newer sets / later rulings will eventually necessitate reworking at least some of the rules pertaining to Imbued. I don't think they will be outlawed (not do I currently see a reason for it to happen). > Even then, again, if you put your mind in the right place, > the upsidedown rules text can easily be viewed as an abstract > illustration just as attractive as Jyhad Fake Out. I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;) >> I don't get this. (I guess You meant, "as it is".) > > No, I meant what I said. The lack of art is a problem for just as many > people as it (is not a problem). Your original text: >>> The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a >>> completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for >>> likely just as many people as it isn't. Ah, so the typo was the earlier "isn't". >> Which is ok, but then You have the crowd who is >> upset/puzzled/pissed/whatever by the lack > of art. > > Most of them didn't seem to care so much. The vote was very > significantly in favor of allowing the cards in constructed tournament > play. Which means, that out of the 200 people regularly visiting the forums about 40 went there to vote in favor? Dunno how representative that is. >> Most likely not an insignificant amount of people. But this is just a >> guess. > > I'd guess otherwise. Anyway, it's just a guess either way. >> And they don't have clear card texts. > > The card texts are perfectly clear. And the change of the card text was > clearly determined by the rules team and tournament authority to be > perfectly acceptible for limited competetive play (where rules are just > as important as in constructed). Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then. >> And they have an odd layout. > > Lots of cards have an odd layout, relative to all the other versions of > the same card--if I pick up a Deflection at random, it is likely to > have one of 3 or 4 different layouts (including different background > identifiers, different locations for identifier icons, different places > and types of cost icons). But all of these are legal for competetive > play already. So clearly, differences in layout are not a problem in > the eyes of the rules team and tournament authority. Now this may be true - but that doesn't mean this is a good thing. Having 4 different types of layouts in the game is a bad thing. I certainly don't like it. I know many people are bugged by the lack of consistency. Elevating that problem to a new level for the sake of these few rules cards seems an awfully unwise trade-off to me. >> And they have rules on them that are currently fresh (but will >> eventually become outdated). > > If you hold the cards in the direction where the play card portion is > readable, the rules text is irelevant, as it is upsidedown and > unreadable. And functioning as an abstract illustration if you'd like > it to. I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;) >> Oh, and they also miss the card art. > > Which has no bearing on actually playing the game. If it did, it would > be impossible to playtest new cards which have no illustrations, > generally speaking. Playtesting is I would say different from playing the game. I'm sure I don't have to explain that. >> I won't deny that, though I would say, there is - due to the truncation >> - a possibility of lost clarity here and there (otherwise, why have >> more >> verbose text on the real cards?). Less clarity = more confusion, which >> is bad - especially for newbies. > > The cards lack less clarity. 'Cause the cards are incredibly simple to > begin with. Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then. >> By the way, You still forgot to give Your reasons why You stated >> falsehood >> with respect to my statements. Your silence sheds some rather dubious >> light on Your motives. > > Nah. I ignored that part. 'Cause I didn't state any falsehood with > respect to your statements. And getting into a "yes you did" "no I > didn't" apsect of the conversation didn't strike me as particularly > interesting. I'm such a nice guy, You see, I'm even there to do the legwork for Ya. You wrote: >>>> Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not >>>> assume that people are too stupid to understand the not that >>>> complex rules of the new set (newbies or not), [...] Where did I say what You imply (that is, I think that the new set is too difficult to understand)? I'm only asking because I didn't. >>>> Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for >>>> them? You don't think that is a bit patronizing? Where did I say what You imply (that is, the new set is difficult for noobs)? I'm only asking because I didn't. Just checking, You know. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I am. Having art is an integral part of a card. Having non-Shy art, why > desirable by many, is not by definition necessary. How is having art an integral part of the card? It has no impact at all on play. I mean, it is nice when a card has art and all. But it isn't necessary. It doesn't contribute to actually playing the game at all. It possibly contributes to someone's enjoyment of the game, sure. But if all the illustrations suddenly and magically vanished from all the VTES cards in the world, people could still play the game just fine. So using the word "necessary" in reference to illustrations on the card is wildly dubious. When I playtest cards, which I have done in the past, the cards I use (slips of paper that have titles and card text in sleeves in front of copies of Regaining the Upper Hand) have no illustrations on them. And they play just fine. When we use proxy cards to make weird decks that we can't make otherwise, those proxy cards have no illustrations on them. And they play just fine. When I was playing the B5 CCG, and I wanted to form the ISA in the game, I'd use the ISA card which was all text and no illustration. And it played just fine. Illustrations on cards are not "necessary". They are nice. And make the game more fun for many. But hardly "necessary". > No need. Many people spend great amounts of energy to entertain me. We do our best. > Your point was - they paid for something, so they would be (implied: > rightfully) upset if they couldn't use it. I'm sure You don't think > that the shrinkwrap is free. Players do pay for it. Your analogy was "wanting rules cards to be playable in constructed play is like wanting shrinkwrap to double for play counters". Which is an incredibly flawed analogy. 'Cause the rules cards are already just like regular cards, except they lack a (non necessary) illustration. Shrinkwrap is not just like counters (although to find further flaws in your analogy, if I take the shrinkwrap, I can, in fact, cut it up and use it for counters with reasonable success). Bad analogy. > Just like the rules cards in NoR, many would say. Nothing like a high > quality, real card (one people expect to get when they buy boosters). Although I laid out in detail how the rules cards are already very, very close to all the other cards (title, rules text, same back, same back orientation, same card stock, same play icons, same cost symbols, same background color). Just no illustration. Which is not necessary for play. > So, to rephrase - Your point is, if You think that something is a > perfectly viable card, although it misses certain integral parts > (which, according to Your opinion, have no actual impact upon > playing the game), then it should be legal because You think it's > viable? Just checking. Yep. But my standpoint is what we like to call "rational". Where the standpoint of "the card is ugly, so I think it should be illegal for constructed competetive play, even though it is already deemed perfectly fine for draft competetive play, and yet think that when other people think things are ugly and want them to be illegal, that is different from my standpoint somehow" is what we like to call "irrational". > Nope. The coming of the newer sets / later rulings will eventually > necessitate reworking at least some of the rules pertaining to Imbued. Maybe. Maybe not. And when the rules are upsidedown, that is mostly moot anyway. > I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;) Aesthetics are, by defenition, subjective. So you can't really claim to have a "sense of aesthetics" while simultaneously claiming someone else lacks such a sense. Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. Theirs just might not be the same as yours. Which is how aestheitcs works. I find the concept of getting a Tazmaian Devil that says "sexaaaayyyy!" tattooed on one's thigh to be deeply stupid, as I find it aesthetically absurd. But that someone else thinks this as awsome does not mean that they lack a sense of aesthetics. It just means that their sense of aesthetics is wildly different than mine. > Your original text: > > >>> The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a > >>> completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for > >>> likely just as many people as it isn't. > > Ah, so the typo was the earlier "isn't". Oh, yeah, you are correct. I clearly means "is a problem...as it isn't" These things happen. Kind of like capitalizing "you". > Which means, that out of the 200 people regularly visiting the forums > about 40 went there to vote in favor? Dunno how representative that is. It was 78. But yeah, not a huge representative sample, true. > Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as > having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team > is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then. Sure. But they were never deemed not clear enough to be illegal in competetive play in the first place. Just a clarification, I guess. > Now this may be true - but that doesn't mean this is a good thing. Having > 4 different types of layouts in the game is a bad thing. Sure it is. But it is a reality we, as VTES players, deal with. And a small number of cards with yet another layout is hardly a big problem. Or even a small problem. > I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;) And I refer you back to the short discussion on aesthetics a few paragraphs up. You clearly misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Maybe it is a language thing. > I'm such a nice guy, You see, I'm even there to do the legwork for > Ya. You wrote: > > >>>> Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not > >>>> assume that people are too stupid to understand the not that > >>>> complex rules of the new set (newbies or not), [...] > > Where did I say what You imply (that is, I think that the new set > is too difficult to understand)? I'm only asking because I didn't. > > >>>> Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for > >>>> them? You don't think that is a bit patronizing? > > Where did I say what You imply (that is, the new set is difficult for > noobs)? I'm only asking because I didn't. Just checking, You know. You said NoR is "newbie unfriendly" which is akin to saying "newbies are too stupid to understand". You did not specifically say "newbies are too stupid to understand", no. But you said something that easily translates into that. You could argue otherwise, which you are clearly doing. Yet still, it is a viable analogy (which, again, you don't seem to have too strong of a handle on). -Peter

On 21 May 2006 10:44:13 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I am. Having art is an integral part of a card. Having non-Shy art, why >> desirable by many, is not by definition necessary. > > How is having art an integral part of the card? It has no impact at all > on play. If no card had art, I'd say about 10% of the people currently playing would play (if at all). I'd wager that has an effect on play. > I mean, it is nice when a card has art and all. But it isn't > necessary. For what? Surely, the name, icons and text portion of the card interact with other cards on the level of the rules. But that does not say anything about what is necessary for the game. > It doesn't contribute to actually playing the game at all. It does - it brings and keeps players who like the Art the cards have. > It possibly contributes to someone's enjoyment of the game, sure. I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that detracts from that is bad for the game. > But > if all the illustrations suddenly and magically vanished from all the > VTES cards in the world, people could still play the game just fine. Technically, it could be argued that the rules and icons would still be there, and allow the game interaction. Of course, if that were to happen, hardly anybody would play the game, as it would be quite boring. > So > using the word "necessary" in reference to illustrations on the card is > wildly dubious. I'm convinced to the contrary. >> No need. Many people spend great amounts of energy to entertain me. > > We do our best. Is that so? I'd say, I'm mildly disappointed in that case. ;P >> Your point was - they paid for something, so they would be (implied: >> rightfully) upset if they couldn't use it. I'm sure You don't think >> that the shrinkwrap is free. Players do pay for it. > > Your analogy was "wanting rules cards to be playable in constructed > play is like wanting shrinkwrap to double for play counters". Which is > an incredibly flawed analogy. Of course, it is building on quite similar basics - buying something with the pack of cards that was not meant to be played in the way the player wants to play it. Just in case You missed the root of the analogy. > 'Cause the rules cards are already just > like regular cards, except they lack a (non necessary) illustration. ...and truncated text, and different layout. They are just like regular cards, except that they are different from regular cards in three quite basic aspects. > Shrinkwrap is not just like counters (although to find further flaws in > your analogy, if I take the shrinkwrap, I can, in fact, cut it up and > use it for counters with reasonable success). Bad analogy. You are confusing the good analogy with a bad one here. The analogy is good in showing how absurd both things are - saying that players bought the shrinkwrap and therefor want to use it in play is quite as absurd as saying that they have paid for the rules cards and they want to use it in play. So, the analogy was good in illustrating that the point You made was poorly thought out. >> Just like the rules cards in NoR, many would say. Nothing like a high >> quality, real card (one people expect to get when they buy boosters). > > Although I laid out in detail how the rules cards are already very, > very close to all the other cards (title, rules text, same back, same > back orientation, same card stock, same play icons, same cost symbols, > same background color). ...and I actually thought that the rules cards had a pretty uniform, dark look. I gotta get a good look at one of these. The ones I saw looked pretty much alike to me. > Just no illustration. Which is not necessary for play. ...and truncated text, and different layout. They are just like regular cards, except that they are different from regular cards in three quite basic aspects. >> So, to rephrase - Your point is, if You think that something is a >> perfectly viable card, although it misses certain integral parts >> (which, according to Your opinion, have no actual impact upon >> playing the game), then it should be legal because You think it's >> viable? Just checking. > > Yep. But my standpoint is what we like to call "rational". Where the > standpoint of "the card is ugly, so I think it should be illegal for > constructed competetive play, even though it is already deemed > perfectly fine for draft competetive play, and yet think that when > other people think things are ugly and want them to be illegal, that is > different from my standpoint somehow" is what we like to call > "irrational". I must confess, I detect the hint of bias in the paraphrasing. My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. As opposed to having the bottom line of "it should be because I think it should be legal", as it seems to be in Your case. >> Nope. The coming of the newer sets / later rulings will eventually >> necessitate reworking at least some of the rules pertaining to Imbued. > > Maybe. Maybe not. And when the rules are upsidedown, that is mostly > moot anyway. Which gets back to the point - the rules on the cards will become outdated, and the cards will ceise to be functional as rules cards. Just to make sure it is somehow not misunderstood that the point is uncontested. >> I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;) > > Aesthetics are, by defenition, subjective. So you can't really claim to > have a "sense of aesthetics" while simultaneously claiming someone else > lacks such a sense. Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. Theirs just > might not be the same as yours. Which is how aestheitcs works. I find > the concept of getting a Tazmaian Devil that says "sexaaaayyyy!" > tattooed on one's thigh to be deeply stupid, as I find it aesthetically > absurd. But that someone else thinks this as awsome does not mean that > they lack a sense of aesthetics. It just means that their sense of > aesthetics is wildly different than mine. Since the artwork is an integral part of the cards, an observer with a sense of aesthetics would most likely miss it. If the card has art, it will appeal to a different degree to people with different senses of aesthetics (e.g. Shy art vs. non-Shy art). The only common point is, lacking the art will not appeal to people's sense of aesthetics. >> Your original text: >> >> >>> The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a >> >>> completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for >> >>> likely just as many people as it isn't. >> >> Ah, so the typo was the earlier "isn't". > > Oh, yeah, you are correct. I clearly means "is a problem...as it isn't" > These things happen. Kind of like capitalizing "you". Ah, well, yeah, I figured, but I thought double-checking can't hurt. As English is not my native language, my command of it is naturally imperfect, and I find it better to clarify something than to misunderstand. I just got back to this point because I didn't understand why You initially contested my (correct) interpretation, implying the sentence was as intended. It's not that important, though, the good thing is that the meaning eventually got through. >> Which means, that out of the 200 people regularly visiting the forums >> about 40 went there to vote in favor? Dunno how representative that >> is. > > It was 78. But yeah, not a huge representative sample, true. > >> Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as >> having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team >> is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then. > > Sure. But they were never deemed not clear enough to be illegal in > competetive play in the first place. Just a clarification, I guess. I would really not put limited and constructed under the same hat. They are completely different animals. And indeed, the rules cards were intended to be legal only for Limited (where specific focus on the peculiarities of a given set is far easier to accomplish, and the benefits of having access to cards that can also double as general utility cards is quite significant), and not for Constructed (most likely for the obvious reasons I repeated many times - they are missing integral parts of the standard cards). Just a clarification (on the clarification), I guess. >> Now this may be true - but that doesn't mean this is a good thing. >> Having >> 4 different types of layouts in the game is a bad thing. > > Sure it is. But it is a reality we, as VTES players, deal with. And a > small number of cards with yet another layout is hardly a big problem. > Or even a small problem. Because we already have a problem? I hardly think so. I don't like to use one shortcoming as the explanation why another shortcoming is not that significant. On the contrary - especially since we already have alarmingly different layouts, an effort should be made to minimise the problem, not to add to it. >> I'm such a nice guy, You see, I'm even there to do the legwork for >> Ya. You wrote: >> >> >>>> Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not >> >>>> assume that people are too stupid to understand the not that >> >>>> complex rules of the new set (newbies or not), [...] >> >> Where did I say what You imply (that is, I think that the new set >> is too difficult to understand)? I'm only asking because I didn't. >> >> >>>> Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for >> >>>> them? You don't think that is a bit patronizing? >> >> Where did I say what You imply (that is, the new set is difficult for >> noobs)? I'm only asking because I didn't. Just checking, You know. > > You said NoR is "newbie unfriendly" which is akin to saying "newbies > are too stupid to understand". You did not specifically say "newbies > are too stupid to understand", no. But you said something that easily > translates into that. You could argue otherwise, which you are clearly > doing. Yet still, it is a viable analogy (which, again, you don't seem > to have too strong of a handle on). Man, You completely misread what was (wasn't) meant between the lines. Commenting on the set (the subject of the statement) that it is "newbie unfriendly" (the adjective) does not in any way label newbies. It labels the set. In this particular case it was even hinted that the reason for the set's newbie-unfriendliness is that it is the hardest to combine with the cards from other sets. I mean, that's pretty obvious (and has been mentioned by multiple sources even). So I'm kind of puzzled what You hope to gain from taking such dubious liberties in interpreting my comments. Also, Your new fad seems to be this thing with analogies - claiming various things that are obviously inaccurate (even bordering on falsehood). In reality all it does is lend a translucent quality to Your points, making them both less tangible, and less clear at the same time. If I can be allowed a respectful appeal, I'd suggest to please bring forth any new/original points You may wish to make regarding the subject, because I've rephrased and paraphrased the refutes of Your previous points a number of times, and I am under the clear impression that given this much material to draw upon, any lingering lack of understanding is not going to be dispelled by making more effort to clarify my already quite clearly stated points. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > If no card had art, I'd say about 10% of the people currently playing would > play (if at all). I'd wager that has an effect on play. No, that would have an effect on how many people played the game. Not the actual playability of the game. Again, the illustration has zero impact on whether a card is usable. It is nice to have an illustration, sure. But the game works just fine without them. > For what? Surely, the name, icons and text portion of the card interact > with other cards on the level of the rules. But that does not say > anything about what is necessary for the game. Name, icons, and text have a direct impact on the playability of a given card--name helps you identify the card and allows other cards to directly refer to it; icons help determine what kind of card a given card is; text lets the player know what the card does. All of these have an inpact on how the game actually works and plays. The illustration has zero impact. Ok. In some instances, it can help you identify the card, although the name is more useful for that. And the identification factor becomes less effective when illustrations are changed, which happens on a regular basis. Is a title *necessary* for purposes of the game? Probably. If the card have no titles, you can't identify them. Are the Icons necessary for the purposes of the game? Not strictly, but they actually have a mechanical purpose and actual aid the play of the game. Is the rules text necessary for the purposes of the game? Absolutely. Is an illustration necessary? Not even remotely. > It does - it brings and keeps players who like the Art the cards have. Bringing and keeping players has nothing to do with the rules and workings of the game. The game works due to rules and text and symbols that indicate what certain things do. Illustrations are nice to have, and certainly aids in the marketability of the game. But if they vanished, the game would still work. > I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that > detracts from that is bad for the game. That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows added fun for more people than it detracts fun from. > Technically, it could be argued that the rules and icons would still be > there, and allow the game interaction. Of course, if that were to happen, > hardly anybody would play the game, as it would be quite boring. Which is irrelevant to whether or not illustrations are necessary for game play. You continue to maintain that illustrations are *necessaary* for game play. Which they are clearly and definitively not. Are the nice? Yes. Do they add to the enjoyment of the game? Absolutely. Would it be bad if there were no illustrations on any cards at all? Yes. But claiming that illustrations are necessary is just plain incorrect. > I'm convinced to the contrary. You are convinced that illustrations are necessary for game play? Then you are deluded. > ...and truncated text, Which has no impact on play. > and different layout. Just like all the other cards have different layouts. > You are confusing the good analogy with a bad one here. The analogy is > good in showing how absurd both things are - saying that players bought > the shrinkwrap and therefor want to use it in play is quite as absurd > as saying that they have paid for the rules cards and they want to use > it in play. So, the analogy was good in illustrating that the point > You made was poorly thought out. If you are truly convinced of this, I'm am unlikely to convince you otherwise. Much like if you are truly convinced that illustrations are necessary for game play, I'm also unlikely to convince you otherwise. On both counts, you are incorrect. But what are you gonna do? > ...and I actually thought that the rules cards had a pretty uniform, > dark look. I gotta get a good look at one of these. The ones I saw > looked pretty much alike to me. Then you aren't paying attention. The different card types have the appropriate border colors (greenish for masters, reddish for combat, etc.). Just like on the non rules cards. > My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss > integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from > standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with > all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard > layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. That isn't the argument you have been articulating up to this point, however. There is a rational argument to be made that the rules cards should be illegal for *all* competetivge play. Not one that I agree with. But it is certainly an argument. But as the rules cards were already determined to be legal for limited competetive play, so as an argument for keeping them illegal for constructed competetive play, it fails. > Since the artwork is an integral part of the cards, an observer with a > sense of aesthetics would most likely miss it. All observers have a sense of aesthetics. Again, you clearly misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Possibly a language issue. > If the card has art, it > will appeal to a different degree to people with different senses of > aesthetics (e.g. Shy art vs. non-Shy art). The only common point is, > lacking the art will not appeal to people's sense of aesthetics. Whether or not something is pretty or ugly has no bearing on whether or not it is playable. > I would really not put limited and constructed under the same hat. They > are completely different animals. Not so much. They are both competetive play. People play limited for money and ratings, just as much as they play constructed for money and ratings. I find it difficult to fathom that if the rules cards are deemed ok for competetive limited play, that they can somehow be deemed not ok for constructed play. > Because we already have a problem? I hardly think so. I don't like to > use one shortcoming as the explanation why another shortcoming is not > that significant. On the contrary - especially since we already have > alarmingly different layouts, an effort should be made to minimise the > problem, not to add to it. Sure. But adding one more to a game where there are 4 or 5 for every card? Not much of an issue. > Man, You completely misread what was (wasn't) meant between the lines. > Commenting on the set (the subject of the statement) that it is "newbie > unfriendly" (the adjective) does not in any way label newbies. It labels > the set. Yes. It labels the set as "too complicated for newbies". As even the most complicated aspects of the game aren't rocket science, "too complicated for newbies" translates for "too complictated for newbies as I think they are dumb." At least to some extent. > I mean, that's pretty obvious (and has been mentioned by multiple sources > even). So I'm kind of puzzled what You hope to gain from taking such > dubious liberties in interpreting my comments. Huh. It made sense at the time. -Peter

On 21 May 2006 17:13:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that >> detracts from that is bad for the game. > > That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that > allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows > added fun for more people than it detracts fun from. I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking, .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted in precons. >> I'm convinced to the contrary. > > You are convinced that illustrations are necessary for game play? Then > you are deluded. You need people to play the game with. The quality and looks of the card provide them. If You think that You can play a multiplayer game without other players, then I'm not the deluded one. >> You are confusing the good analogy with a bad one here. The analogy is >> good in showing how absurd both things are - saying that players >> bought >> the shrinkwrap and therefor want to use it in play is quite as absurd >> as saying that they have paid for the rules cards and they want to use >> it in play. So, the analogy was good in illustrating that the point >> You made was poorly thought out. > > If you are truly convinced of this, I'm am unlikely to convince you > otherwise. Much like if you are truly convinced that illustrations are > necessary for game play, I'm also unlikely to convince you otherwise. For once I agree. > On both counts, you are incorrect. No, I'm not. I'm merely not too focused on a point I wish to make to have my effort prevent me from looking at things in context, and looking at the results and effects of things. > But what are you gonna do? In what respect? During the discussion I gave voice to my opinion and the points that support it. When the decision was made, I gave voice to my disagreement, with supporting points, mostly for record's sake. That roughly exhausts the reasonable set of actions available to me. (No, with all due respect, I don't consider the necroeqestripugilitarian discussion we are now having to be reasonable. This is something completely different; I do this for the personal enjoyment, without having any hopes of any opinion change. Because, I understand the points You make, I just consider them to be less important than the points I make - not because I make them. It's the other way around; I make them because I consider them to be more important.) >> My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss >> integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from >> standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with >> all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard >> layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. > > That isn't the argument you have been articulating up to this point, > however. This is the nth rephrasing. The essence is unaltered. > There is a rational argument to be made that the rules cards > should be illegal for *all* competetive play. Not one that I agree > with. But it is certainly an argument. But as the rules cards were > already determined to be legal for limited competetive play, so as an > argument for keeping them illegal for constructed competetive play, it > fails. Unless You realize that constructed and limited are different enough to warrant their own set of considerations. In that case having them legal for one event but not the other starts to make sense. >> I would really not put limited and constructed under the same hat. They >> are completely different animals. > > Not so much. They are both competetive play. People play limited for > money and ratings, just as much as they play constructed for money and > ratings. I find it difficult to fathom that if the rules cards are > deemed ok for competetive limited play, that they can somehow be deemed > not ok for constructed play. Well, I'm sure the majority of players specifically don't play for money and rating. From among the players I know, the majority outright disregard the ratings altogether, and I'm yet to meet a player who actually plays for money (given how there is none in VTES). Not even the prizes, mind You - most people I know play tournaments for the fun and challenge. Constructed is more about the challenge, Limited more about the fun. >> Because we already have a problem? I hardly think so. I don't like to >> use one shortcoming as the explanation why another shortcoming is not >> that significant. On the contrary - especially since we already have >> alarmingly different layouts, an effort should be made to minimise the >> problem, not to add to it. > > Sure. But adding one more to a game where there are 4 or 5 for every > card? Not much of an issue. As per the paragraph still quoted above - I disagree with this. ;) >> Man, You completely misread what was (wasn't) meant between the lines. >> Commenting on the set (the subject of the statement) that it is >> "newbie >> unfriendly" (the adjective) does not in any way label newbies. It >> labels >> the set. > > Yes. It labels the set as "too complicated for newbies". As even the > most complicated aspects of the game aren't rocket science, "too > complicated for newbies" translates for "too complictated for newbies > as I think they are dumb." At least to some extent. A very-very small extent, perhaps. An extent that is bordering on non-existent. Just like saying that a set is newbie-friendly can be translated into "so simple that even the dumb newbies can understand it". It's all a matter of what You want to read among the lines. I'm sure most people understood what I wrote correctly - especially, since as per the snipped paragraph, there was even other material supporting that my statement had nothing to do with the mental faculties of sophomores. But whatever, I think this has been sufficiently resolved. >> I mean, that's pretty obvious (and has been mentioned by multiple >> sources >> even). So I'm kind of puzzled what You hope to gain from taking such >> dubious liberties in interpreting my comments. > > Huh. It made sense at the time. I admit, it was a smooth move. Not entirely nice, but quite smooth. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

In message <ops9yuux...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On 21 May 2006 17:13:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Daneel wrote: >>> I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that >>> detracts from that is bad for the game. >> >> That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that >> allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows >> added fun for more people than it detracts fun from. > >I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking, > .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted > in precons. You're missing an important point here. What cards were really needed FOR DRAFT? The Rules Cards were originally intended for draft play. NoR as a set lacks many bread-and- butter cards, and there is little point re-inventing the wheel. Then, as a result, what effect would reprinting them in pre-cons have on draft play? Almost zero. Why? Because pre-cons suck donkey bollocks for draft. It is clearly a Rules Team desire (based both on NoR and the statement about draft play for the Sabbat base set) for draft play to be better supported in terms of a set's design and composition. They would also know that some sets are drafted alone (e.g. all Legacies of Blood), some drafted with other sets (e.g. 3 boosters of Legacies of Blood with 3 boosters of the Sabbat base set), and some are drafted competitively (e.g. my pod drafts from Legacies of Blood, your pod drafts from Sabbat base set). So, with that in mind, how would you alter Nights of Reckoning to provide enhanced support for draft, no need for rules inserts lurking around in a booster or in a box which you can do nothing with once you have more than one (see The Sabbat boosters, with huge rules inserts in each booster), and which can function effectively both alone or potentially against other sets? You also can't go for more than 11 cards in a booster, as that would change your usual planning in terms of profit, loss and packaging. You can't say "I wouldn't", because supporting effective draft play is clearly a desire of the company. Why might that be? It can drive booster sales, and it might be easier to rope new players in at a convention with "Hey, we're doing draft on Sunday afternoon if you want to stick around" than it would be at a constructed tournament. So keeping the set useful for draft is a priority. What exactly do you do to create a useful set, include new rules, and support draft play? [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking, > .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted > in precons. Not if you wanted the rules cards to be useful in draft, which is the main impetus behind the reprints on the rules cards. But once they are out there, if the cards are deemed good enough for competetive draft play, there is zero reason to deem them not good enough for constructed play. > You need people to play the game with. The quality and looks of the card > provide them. If You think that You can play a multiplayer game without > other players, then I'm not the deluded one. See, here is the thing. You are correct. You do need players to play a game. But that is a total straw man argument here. If the game had no illustrations at all, yeah, it is likely that it wouldn't have much of a player base. But in a design sense, the illustrations have no impact on the game at all. So claiming that the illustrations are *necessary* to play the game is completely false. If the argument here was "Should the game have illustrations at all?", I would agree that having no illustrations at all is bad for the game. But that isn't the argument. The argument is "Should the NoR rules card reprints be legal for consructed tournament play?" As the cards in question without illustrations are an infintisimal number compared to the whole set, that they have no pictures has no impact on whether or not people don't play the game due to no pictures on cards. As even with the pictureless rules cards in play, that is, what, <1% of the set? Making the cards with no pictures legal is not making the other pictures disappear. Making the cards with no pictures legal is not opening the door for the rest of the cards to be printed with no pictures. > This is the nth rephrasing. The essence is unaltered. No, it isn't. You have never said "the cards should be illegal completely from any kind of play". You have argued against having them in constructed play, but argued as to why they are ok in limited play. A different argument. The argument of "They should be illegal in all play" is a viable argument that I understand. I don't agree with it. But I can see where it is coming from. > Unless You realize that constructed and limited are different enough > to warrant their own set of considerations. In that case having them > legal for one event but not the other starts to make sense. See, you are doing it right here--arguing as to why it is ok for them to be used in competetive limited play but not ok for them to be used in competetive constructed play. Are illustrations unimportant in limited play? How is the different format of the cards, and rules text that is going to be outdated, and the truncated card text a problem in constructed play but not limited play? > Well, I'm sure the majority of players specifically don't play for money > and rating. From among the players I know, the majority outright > disregard the ratings altogether, and I'm yet to meet a player who > actually plays for money (given how there is none in VTES). Not even > the prizes, mind You - most people I know play tournaments for the fun > and challenge. Constructed is more about the challenge, Limited more > about the fun. Most people who play limited draft would disagree with this statement, I'm sure (and "money" was shorthand for "prizes" which may or may not actually be money). > A very-very small extent, perhaps. Hey, that is all you need. > I admit, it was a smooth move. Not entirely nice, but quite smooth. ;) I told you I try my best... -Peter

In message <mHRG7AO$WicE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >It is clearly a Rules Team desire (based both on NoR and the statement >about draft play for the Sabbat base set) for draft play to be better >supported in terms of a set's design and composition. Gah, Design Team. I've spent time today reading various rulings, old and new, so had the Rules Team on the brain. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <mHRG7AO$WicE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe > <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >>It is clearly a Rules Team desire (based both on NoR and the statement >>about draft play for the Sabbat base set) for draft play to be better >>supported in terms of a set's design and composition. > > Gah, Design Team. > > I've spent time today reading various rulings, old and new, so had the > Rules Team on the brain. I suspect there may be a rather large overlap in membership of the two teams, anyway. :) -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Mon, 22 May 2006 21:57:35 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <ops9yuux...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> On 21 May 2006 17:13:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> >>> Daneel wrote: >>>> I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that >>>> detracts from that is bad for the game. >>> >>> That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that >>> allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows >>> added fun for more people than it detracts fun from. >> >> I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking, >> .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted >> in precons. > > You're missing an important point here. > > What cards were really needed FOR DRAFT? The Rules Cards were > originally intended for draft play. NoR as a set lacks many bread-and- > butter cards, and there is little point re-inventing the wheel. [snip post I agree with] > What exactly do you do to create a useful set, include new rules, and > support draft play? What WW did was a good move. Bur I would've put a "for limited only" indication on the rules cards. And I would've reprinted commonly needed cards aplenty in a starter (in the next set, if needed). You can put a .44 into basically any type of precon. Same goes for Computer Hacking. Most of the general utility cards that players would have complained about are general utility cards that can go into a lot of decks. -- Regards, Daneel

On 22 May 2006 14:32:04 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking, >> .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted >> in precons. > > Not if you wanted the rules cards to be useful in draft, which is the > main impetus behind the reprints on the rules cards. But once they are > out there, if the cards are deemed good enough for competetive draft > play, there is zero reason to deem them not good enough for constructed > play. Except for the plethora of reasons I stated, restated and re-restated a number of times in the previous posts. >> This is the nth rephrasing. The essence is unaltered. > > No, it isn't. You have never said "the cards should be illegal > completely from any kind of play". You have argued against having them > in constructed play, but argued as to why they are ok in limited play. > A different argument. The argument of "They should be illegal in all > play" is a viable argument that I understand. I don't agree with it. > But I can see where it is coming from. How about, given the limited availability of cards at draft it may be beneficial to use proxies of general utility cards in limited, even if they are not fit for constructed, simply because it is pretty hard to get random general utility cards in limited? Is that something You would consider a viable point of view? Or will that fall under the "draft and constructed are the same" argument? >> Unless You realize that constructed and limited are different enough >> to warrant their own set of considerations. In that case having them >> legal for one event but not the other starts to make sense. > > See, you are doing it right here--arguing as to why it is ok for them > to be used in competetive limited play but not ok for them to be used > in competetive constructed play. Are illustrations unimportant in > limited play? How is the different format of the cards, and rules text > that is going to be outdated, and the truncated card text a problem in > constructed play but not limited play? You'll have a huge wave of limited events when the set is released. I assume that most of the limited use will happen there. That means, 1) the rules are not yet outdated, 2) players only need to play once with the rules cards, at the prerelease, and then they (the cards) no longer dilute casual/constructed play. >> Well, I'm sure the majority of players specifically don't play for money >> and rating. From among the players I know, the majority outright >> disregard the ratings altogether, and I'm yet to meet a player who >> actually plays for money (given how there is none in VTES). Not even >> the prizes, mind You - most people I know play tournaments for the fun >> and challenge. Constructed is more about the challenge, Limited more >> about the fun. > > Most people who play limited draft would disagree with this statement, > I'm sure (and "money" was shorthand for "prizes" which may or may not > actually be money). I guess we can agree on disagreeing here, given how we used the same argument to support opposite things. ;) Unless, of course, You have a representative study on this (I unfortunately don't). >> I admit, it was a smooth move. Not entirely nice, but quite smooth. ;) > > I told you I try my best... And I appreciate that. Nice of You. -- Regards, Daneel

In message <4472fa18$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: <snip - my Design Team / Rules Team confusion> >I suspect there may be a rather large overlap in membership of the two >teams, anyway. :) I've always assumed LSJ keeps them in life-sized Tupperware containers, and just gets them out when needed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > Except for the plethora of reasons I stated, restated and re-restated a > number of times in the previous posts. But none of those reasona explain how the rules cards can be ok for limited competetive play but not constructed competetive play. In limited play, the layout, rules text, and lack of illustration have the exact same effect (which for my money, is none, but you maintain that they do, so if they have an effect in constructed, they have the exact same effect in limited). Like, I find the concept that the rules cards are ok in limited play but not ok in constructed play to be incongrouous to the point of absurdity. Again, I see the argument of "the rules cards should not be legal for anything at all" to be a logical argument. I understand that. I don't agree. But I understand. I find the argument "yeah, they are fine for limited but right out for constructed" to make no sense at all. Not even a little bit. > How about, given the limited availability of cards at draft it may be > beneficial to use proxies of general utility cards in limited, even if > they are not fit for constructed, simply because it is pretty hard to > get random general utility cards in limited? Is that something You would > consider a viable point of view? No. I would not. You claim that the rules cards are bad for play because they have no illustrations (which lowers the level of play and turns off players), truncated rules text (which reduces clarity), a different layout (which exaggerates an already existing problem), and are littered with rules text (which will eventually be outdated). I find it difficult to understand how all of this can be true (in your view), making them unsuitable for constructed play, but then you turn around and say that they are just fine for limited. Like, if you are willing to make that leap and understand that whatever problems thay have, the benefit to having them in play in a limited game outweighs those problems, why are you unwilling to make the same leap and extend the benefit to constructed play? > Or will that fall under the "draft and constructed are the same" argument? They are the same, in terms of people taking them seriously. Like, I suspect that you don't play much in the way of competetive draft. There are people who play draft VTES all the time, and take it very seriously (as seriously as constructed--I mean, in both instances, people are there for entertainment, but they don't take draft any less seriously than they take constructed). Like, you seem to be writing off the difference between limited and constructed as "people take constructed seriously, people don't take draft seriously, so it doesn't matter..." Which simply isn't true. > You'll have a huge wave of limited events when the set is released. I > assume that most of the limited use will happen there. See, that is a wildly incorrect assumption. People play draft a lot. And certainly with a set like NoR that is specifically designed to be useful in draft, it'll likely see play in limited events for a long time (till the cards are no longer available). > And I appreciate that. Nice of You. Good to know. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > What WW did was a good move. Bur I would've put a "for limited only" > indication on the rules cards. And I would've reprinted commonly > needed cards aplenty in a starter (in the next set, if needed). They do reprint commonly needed cards aplenty in starters. Every set of starter decks to date has included a selection of useful, bread and butter cards, very similar to the reprinted rules cards (.44, Computer Hacking, Sudden Reversal, etc.). But printing them in starters doesn't help limited play so much, as most limited play tends to be booster draft based. > You can put a .44 into basically any type of precon. Same goes for > Computer Hacking. Which is why they do put them in any type of precon. -Peter

James Coupe wrote: > I've always assumed LSJ keeps them in life-sized Tupperware containers, > and just gets them out when needed. Maybe he just looks in different mirrors, one with a Design label and one with a Rules label? ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] Rules Team, Rules Team, on the wall On which card will the next erratum fall? Design Team, Design Team, who looks my kitten How should Fnordling of Blood be written?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1148474744.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] (*snort*) I think we just stumbled over the _real_ reason Madness of the Bard was banned. Fred ...victim of bad poetry, pay 2 pool...

Fred Scott wrote: > ...victim of bad poetry, pay 2 pool... Hey I thought they were quite good :-)

Fred Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:1148474744.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Shade wrote: > >> James Coupe wrote: > >> > I've always assumed LSJ keeps them in life-sized Tupperware containers, > >> > and just gets them out when needed. > >> > >> Maybe he just looks in different mirrors, one with a Design label and > >> one with a Rules label? ;) > > > > Rules Team, Rules Team, on the wall > > On which card will the next erratum fall? > > > > Design Team, Design Team, who looks my kitten "looks like my kitten", of course. > > How should Fnordling of Blood be written? > > (*snort*) I think we just stumbled over the _real_ reason Madness of the > Bard was banned. > > Fred > > ...victim of bad poetry, pay 2 pool... So call a judge. :-)

On 23 May 2006 12:56:29 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> What WW did was a good move. Bur I would've put a "for limited only" >> indication on the rules cards. And I would've reprinted commonly >> needed cards aplenty in a starter (in the next set, if needed). > > They do reprint commonly needed cards aplenty in starters. Every set of > starter decks to date has included a selection of useful, bread and > butter cards, very similar to the reprinted rules cards (.44, Computer > Hacking, Sudden Reversal, etc.). But printing them in starters doesn't > help limited play so much, as most limited play tends to be booster > draft based. That's why having limited-only incarnations of these cards seem like a good idea. >> You can put a .44 into basically any type of precon. Same goes for >> Computer Hacking. > > Which is why they do put them in any type of precon. Which is a good thing. If players are still missing these cards, then that may be an indication that they should give these cards a bit more weight, to make sure everyone has good access to the normal versions of such general utility cards. -- Regards, Daneel

On 23 May 2006 12:53:11 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Except for the plethora of reasons I stated, restated and re-restated a >> number of times in the previous posts. > > But none of those reasona explain how the rules cards can be ok for > limited competetive play but not constructed competetive play. In > limited play, the layout, rules text, and lack of illustration have the > exact same effect (which for my money, is none, but you maintain that > they do, so if they have an effect in constructed, they have the exact > same effect in limited). Like, I find the concept that the rules cards > are ok in limited play but not ok in constructed play to be > incongrouous to the point of absurdity. Then You fail to grasp the difference between the formats, and the different priorities each format has. > Again, I see the argument of "the rules cards should not be legal for > anything at all" to be a logical argument. I understand that. I don't > agree. But I understand. I find the argument "yeah, they are fine for > limited but right out for constructed" to make no sense at all. Not > even a little bit. Same thing. In limited general utility cards are pretty hot property - hot enough to assume that players playing limited will welcome these general utility cards and not mind using them once for the sake of rounding out their drafted decks. Especially since the text on the cards pertains to the very set that is drafted. In constructed/casual though no such benefit exists, so the hindrances that were listed a number of times become more important, and the benefits are significantly reduced (e.g. the chances of actually finding the rules sections beneficial are minimal). Not to mention that people who sit down to play draft choose to play that format with these boosters, and are therefor not going to be disappointed when others use these cards. If it's limited only, each player can choose whether they wish to participate in an enviromnent where these cards are played; otherwise, no such choice exists. >> How about, given the limited availability of cards at draft it may be >> beneficial to use proxies of general utility cards in limited, even if >> they are not fit for constructed, simply because it is pretty hard to >> get random general utility cards in limited? Is that something You >> would >> consider a viable point of view? > > No. I would not. You claim that the rules cards are bad for play > because they have no illustrations (which lowers the level of play and > turns off players), truncated rules text (which reduces clarity), a > different layout (which exaggerates an already existing problem), and > are littered with rules text (which will eventually be outdated). I > find it difficult to understand how all of this can be true (in your > view), making them unsuitable for constructed play, but then you turn > around and say that they are just fine for limited. Like, if you are > willing to make that leap and understand that whatever problems thay > have, the benefit to having them in play in a limited game outweighs > those problems, why are you unwilling to make the same leap and extend > the benefit to constructed play? I consider "the game" in general to be casual and constructed. Limited and other types are existing, but I do not consider them to be prevalent. Having these cards in circulation and being used means that they can be encountered anywhere, which is bad both from a would-be- player and a player-with-aesthetics point of view. The hindrances - generally speaking - outweigh the benefits. Having limited-only cards for that specific format mostly avoids this, and the benefits are magnified. Would-be-players are less frequently present in limited events, and the player-with-aesthetics can choose whether they wish to attend a limited game where these cards are used. No harm is done to the card pool, because once the limited event is over, the cards revert to being simply rules cards. >> Or will that fall under the "draft and constructed are the same" >> argument? > > They are the same, in terms of people taking them seriously. Like, I > suspect that you don't play much in the way of competetive draft. There > are people who play draft VTES all the time, and take it very seriously > (as seriously as constructed--I mean, in both instances, people are > there for entertainment, but they don't take draft any less seriously > than they take constructed). Like, you seem to be writing off the > difference between limited and constructed as "people take constructed > seriously, people don't take draft seriously, so it doesn't matter..." > Which simply isn't true. I'm not sure about that. This may be a meta-player-base difference thingy, because I am under the impression that my views regarding the "fun" = "draft" and "constructed" = "competition" are not the minority opinion. That doesn't mean that people who associate draft with fun don't take it seriously, or that they don't play to win. To the contrary; but the prime source of the expeted enjoyment is different. >> You'll have a huge wave of limited events when the set is released. I >> assume that most of the limited use will happen there. > > See, that is a wildly incorrect assumption. People play draft a lot. > And certainly with a set like NoR that is specifically designed to be > useful in draft, it'll likely see play in limited events for a long > time (till the cards are no longer available). I'm not sure about that; I guess we'll see. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > In limited general utility cards are pretty hot property - hot enough > to assume that players playing limited will welcome these general > utility cards and not mind using them once for the sake of rounding > out their drafted decks. Especially since the text on the cards > pertains to the very set that is drafted. And the general utility cards are still just as welcome to people who need them in constructed play, and they will not mind using them mutliple times for the sake ouf rounding out their constructed decks. > In constructed/casual though no such benefit exists, Of course such a benefit exists. People always need more Computer Hackings and Sudden Reversals, and the hinderances of the cards don't outweigh needing more Computer Hackings. > Not to mention > that people who sit down to play draft choose to play that format > with these boosters, and are therefor not going to be disappointed > when others use these cards. ??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules cards? I mean, like, other than you? I don't care if my opponents use rules cards. I don't know anyone who would care if their opponents used rules cards. As I mentioned before, I don't play VTES to see my opponent's cards. I can look at the cards in the privacy of my home. I play VTES for a good game, and if my opponents wanna use rules cards for the sake of making a deck that provides a good game, more power to them. > I consider "the game" in general to be casual and constructed. Limited > and other types are existing, but I do not consider them to be > prevalent. Your consideration is awry. People play limited VTES all the time. Some folks play booster draft weekly. Some venues hold draft tournament all the time. >Having these cards in circulation and being used means that > they can be encountered anywhere, which is bad both from a would-be- > player and a player-with-aesthetics point of view. Once again, you seem to misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. It just isn't necessarily the same as yours. >The hindrances - generally speaking - outweigh the benefits. Generally, to you. It is likely more folks disagree with you than not. -Peter

A general point on this thread. Its not okay for me to cut out bits of card, write card text on them and stick them in opaque sleeves is it ? I am guessing cos this doesn't make a lot of money for WW and so doesn't further the game at all which is of course the point of tournaments (oh and to massage ego of course) . >From an aesthetic perspective however a magic marker and some card stock and a rules card are about the same ....

jibbajibba wrote: > A general point on this thread. Its not okay for me to cut out bits of > card, write card text on them and stick them in opaque sleeves is it ? Not for tournament play, no, as the company had financial incentive to get you you play with actual cards. In casual play, you can do whatever you want. > I am guessing cos this doesn't make a lot of money for WW and so > doesn't further the game at all which is of course the point of > tournaments (oh and to massage ego of course) . I suppose, yeah. >From an aesthetic perspective however a magic marker and some card > stock and a rules card are about the same .... Except you paid for the rules card. Aesthetics has very little to do with why you can use rules cards and can't use proxies in tournament play. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > jibbajibba wrote: > >From an aesthetic perspective however a magic marker and some card > > stock and a rules card are about the same .... > > Except you paid for the rules card. Aesthetics has very little to do > with why you can use rules cards and can't use proxies in tournament > play. > But the arguement I would adopt would have to be that I didn't pay for the rules card. I paid for a booster pack of cards and got a free rule card (wow lucky me). After several more posts of this nature my eventual point would be that putting useful card text on the rule card to allow them to be useful in a draft is okay (forget that in this particular set its moot as you can't run an all NoR draft in any genuine sense, lets say its a general trend for future expansions) but all they are in effect is proxy cards issued by WW (I know all the cards are in effect proxy cards issues by WW if we are being precise) and so ....

"jibbajibba" <jibba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1148550979.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] From an aesthetic point of view - depending on your taste and the skills of the proxy-maker - that may be true. However, the making of proxies are far more problematic with which to track issues. If I made a proxy that purposely changed a word or two, I could use it to fool players who didn't know what the real rules text was supposed to say. That is also true (admittedly) of misprint cards and cards whose text has been superseded, but at least all of these cases are well-known and from that standpoint, players have a theoretical defense against abuses. If proxies were allowed, the only defense anyone would have would be to carry a copy of the most recent card text of every card ever printed in the game. And you would have to check it every time you saw a slightly suspicious proxy card. Fred

jibbajibba wrote: > But the arguement I would adopt would have to be that I didn't pay for > the rules card. I paid for a booster pack of cards and got a free rule > card (wow lucky me). You could make that argument. But you paid the cost for an 11 card booster. And then got 10 cards, and a rules card that is virtually identical to a regular card (same size, card stock, ya know, cut from the same sheet, etc). So for all intents and purposes, you paid for an 11 card booster and got an 11 card booster, and one of those cards was a rules card. Which would be a drag if the rules card was unplayable. But luckily, that isn't the case. > After several more posts of this nature my eventual point would be that > putting useful card text on the rule card to allow them to be useful in > a draft is okay (forget that in this particular set its moot as you > can't run an all NoR draft in any genuine sense, lets say its a general > trend for future expansions) but all they are in effect is proxy cards > issued by WW (I know all the cards are in effect proxy cards issues by > WW if we are being precise) and so .... All well and good. But they work fine for constructed play, so might as well be usable. It isn't as if they are going to replace all the other previously existing cards with rules cards, and it isn't like this is going to compell them to print all future cards as rules cards. -Peter

On 24 May 2006 17:19:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> In limited general utility cards are pretty hot property - hot enough >> to assume that players playing limited will welcome these general >> utility cards and not mind using them once for the sake of rounding >> out their drafted decks. Especially since the text on the cards >> pertains to the very set that is drafted. > > And the general utility cards are still just as welcome to people who > need them in constructed play, and they will not mind using them > mutliple times for the sake ouf rounding out their constructed decks. Ah, the magnificent feeling of getting back to square one. Please refer to my 689 posts in this thread and randomly pick one to see the points referring to this. >> In constructed/casual though no such benefit exists, > > Of course such a benefit exists. People always need more Computer > Hackings and Sudden Reversals, and the hinderances of the cards don't > outweigh needing more Computer Hackings. People may be in need of Computer Hackings and (I seriously doubt the Suddens, but whatever) other cards. Therefor they are periodically reprinted to make them available. Normal cards, with artwork, full text and the (new) standard layout. With other words, as normal playing cards. >> Not to mention >> that people who sit down to play draft choose to play that format >> with these boosters, and are therefor not going to be disappointed >> when others use these cards. > > ??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your > own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do > so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules > cards? I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics. > I mean, like, other than you? I don't care if my opponents use > rules cards. I don't know anyone who would care if their opponents used > rules cards. As I mentioned before, I don't play VTES to see my > opponent's cards. I can look at the cards in the privacy of my home. I > play VTES for a good game, and if my opponents wanna use rules cards > for the sake of making a deck that provides a good game, more power to > them. I'm not in a hairsplitting enough mood to point out the absurdity of going all the way to point out how what I'm saying is absurd, as it is just my opinion, and then go on to explain why it absolutely cannot be true, because You think otherwise. So, instead of pointing out this, I'll just say that I'm pretty sure that You do know people who would mind playing with/against the rules cards. >> I consider "the game" in general to be casual and constructed. Limited >> and other types are existing, but I do not consider them to be >> prevalent. > > Your consideration is awry. People play limited VTES all the time. Some > folks play booster draft weekly. Some venues hold draft tournament all > the time. Some folks play with, say, card limits. Like five times a week. Sure, people play all sorts of things. It's a game, after all. >> Having these cards in circulation and being used means that >> they can be encountered anywhere, which is bad both from a would-be- >> player and a player-with-aesthetics point of view. > > Once again, you seem to misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Everyone > has a sense of aesthetics. It just isn't necessarily the same as yours. Sure. Everyone has intelligence. Yet if I refer to someone as intelligent, nobody assumes that to be a blank statement. Well, maybe somebody does, but that would be the exception. Same goes with aesthetics. I guess, You don't know You have it unless You have it - it's difficult to explain. The concept is understandable by all, but the content is only percievable by those (not that) few that have the sense. Suffice to say, to those with a sense of aesthetics, the rules cards are hardly appealing, in fact, they are detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. >> The hindrances - generally speaking - outweigh the benefits. > > Generally, to you. It is likely more folks disagree with you than not. I don't think so. You know, aesthetics... clarity... layout... You get the feeling. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

On 25 May 2006 09:34:57 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > jibbajibba wrote: >> But the arguement I would adopt would have to be that I didn't pay for >> the rules card. I paid for a booster pack of cards and got a free rule >> card (wow lucky me). > > You could make that argument. But you paid the cost for an 11 card > booster. And then got 10 cards, and a rules card that is virtually > identical to a regular card (same size, card stock, ya know, cut from > the same sheet, etc). So for all intents and purposes, you paid for an > 11 card booster and got an 11 card booster, and one of those cards was > a rules card. Which would be a drag if the rules card was unplayable. > But luckily, that isn't the case. Man, You are over the top. Way over. I've been doubting any sanity left in that old skull of Yours, but any doubt I had has just dissipated. The booster says, 10 cards. You may or may not choose to buy it for the price it is listed for. But still, it's an 11-card booster. I've bought Sabbat boosters (28 cards) for the price of Sabbat War boosters (11). I don't suddenly expect, for example, the shrinkwrap to magically transform into 17 additional cards. Though it could be argued that I bought an 11-card booster for the price of the 28-card booster. Furthermore, I've bought 11-card boosters for many different prices, depending on my access to deals, internet retailers, etc. For example, I've brought boosters for roughly 2 bucks per booster, and I've bought them for roughly 4 bucks a booster. Still, I did not expect the 4-buck booster to magically split in twain and suddenly become two 11-card boosters. Using an absurd and twisted concept of human stupidity is a poor choice even for a strawman. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > The booster says, 10 cards. You may or may not choose to buy it for the > price it is listed for. But still, it's an 11-card booster. Yes, it is an 11 card booster, just like you say... It is listed as having 10 cards, correct. But it contains 11 cards. And costs as much as an 11 card booster pack. And the 11th card (the rules card) is a card--same card stock, same back, cut out of the same sheet other cards. > I've bought Sabbat boosters (28 cards) for the price of Sabbat War > boosters (11). I don't suddenly expect, for example, the shrinkwrap to > magically transform into 17 additional cards. Though it could be argued > that I bought an 11-card booster for the price of the 28-card booster. You are confusing MSRP and after market prices. I assume you understand the difference. Or prices from 8 years ago to prices from now. Not the same. However, 11 card boosters from LoB cost the same as 10 card boosters from NoR (MSRP). Like, you can argue all you want that NoR contains 10 cards. But the reality is that it contains 11, and one of them is a rules card, which you are paying for regardless of whether you believe it is a card or not. > Furthermore, I've bought 11-card boosters for many different prices, > depending on my access to deals, internet retailers, etc. For example, > I've brought boosters for roughly 2 bucks per booster, and I've bought > them for roughly 4 bucks a booster. Still, I did not expect the 4-buck > booster to magically split in twain and suddenly become two 11-card > boosters. Dude. You are pulling foolishness out of your ass here. The NoR boosters cost the same (MSRP) as LoB boosters. For the same amount of stuff. You can try to wiggle out of this all you want by pulling number out of your ass about how you paid 25 cents for Booster X and 10 bucks for booster Y in whatever system you want. The manufacturing company charges a price for a product. In this instance, they charge X dollars for an 11 card LoB booster and the exact same X dollars for a 10 card NoR booster that comes with an 11th card which is a rules card. You can pretend that you are not paying for it if you want. If it was actually a 10 card booster pack, presumably, they would have reduced the price, or, that means that the cost of production has gone up, or it means that they are arbitrarily charging consumers more for less product than a few months ago. All of which are possible. Yet the price was not reduced. Nor increased, considering how the booster contains the exact same physical components as the previous booster pack (i.e. wrapper and 11 cards). Same price (from manufacturer). Same amount of stuff. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Ah, the magnificent feeling of getting back to square one. Please refer > to my 689 posts in this thread and randomly pick one to see the points > referring to this. And I will refer you to my 700 posts in this thread and ask you to randomly pick one of the points refuting your points. I can still do this all day. > People may be in need of Computer Hackings and (I seriously doubt the > Suddens, but whatever) other cards. Therefor they are periodically > reprinted to make them available. Normal cards, with artwork, full > text and the (new) standard layout. With other words, as normal > playing cards. Regardless of what you doubt or not, people like using the cards that they have, and can benefit from using the cards they have. The rules cards are cards they have. If someone is unbothered by the lack of illustration, there is no good reason for them not to use said cards, regardless of your wishes. If you don't like the lack of illustration, don't use them. No one is making you. But you seem to impose your view of what you do or do not like on others to their detriment. > I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics. You really don't know what aesthetics means, do you? Like, it is a nice, expensive word that you seem to like using. But it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. > I'm not in a hairsplitting enough mood to point out the absurdity of going > all the way to point out how what I'm saying is absurd, as it is just my > opinion, and then go on to explain why it absolutely cannot be true, > because You think otherwise. So, instead of pointing out this, I'll just > say that I'm pretty sure that You do know people who would mind playing > with/against the rules cards. I don't think I do. I mean, I might. But it is unlikely. And anyone who does likely doesn't care enough to argue about it this much when it clearly benefits more people than it harms. > Some folks play with, say, card limits. Like five times a week. Sure, > people play all sorts of things. It's a game, after all. It is nice that you equate sanctioned competetive play with made up house rules. I'm sure plenty of folks will help you defend that argument. > Sure. Everyone has intelligence. Yet if I refer to someone as intelligent, > nobody assumes that to be a blank statement. Well, maybe somebody does, > but that would be the exception. Same goes with aesthetics. I guess, You > don't know You have it unless You have it - it's difficult to explain. > The concept is understandable by all, but the content is only > percievable by those (not that) few that have the sense. You don't seem to understand what "aestheitcs" means. Yet you keep using it in an incorrect fashion. I assumed it was a language issue. Now I assume it is willful ignorance. > Suffice to say, to those with a sense of aesthetics, the rules cards > are hardly appealing, in fact, they are detrimental to the enjoyment > of the game. It makes me giggle that when people you are playing this game with put rules cards on the table, it will reduce your enjoyment of the game. -Peter

So far I thought this whole thread was quite a waste of time (although mildly amusing at times). But since yesterday my opinion has changed. I tried to equip a rules card .44 Magnum while playing my Toreador gun deck and Joaquin refused to equip with it! I wasn't even able to put it underneath the vampire card (as I use to do). After a somewhat embarrasing discussion with my fellow players they allowed me to put it next to him. But what can I tell you: when Joaquin was in combat it didn't work either, the opposing minion didn't take the damage; Joaquin refused to pull the trigger! White Wolf and LSJ tricked me into believing that I had acquired cards that were perfectly suitable for constructed play, I demand a card exchange for NoR rules cards!

Daneel wrote: >> On 24 May 2006 17:19:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> ??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your >> own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do >> so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules >> cards? >I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics. I quickly read through this thread and noticed that mr. Bakija has repeatedly pointed out that there seems to be a problem with you and him understanding the concept of aesthetics differently. After reading most of the posts in this thread I've, in addition to agreeing with mr. Bakija, also gotten the impression that this aesthetic reason is the only reason why you (Daneel) are against NoR rules cards in stantard tournament play. Mr Bakija seems to refer to aesthetics as "concept/experiencing of beauty". This is the common understanding of the concept. All people have such a concept, it's just not the same for all of us. Your posts imply that you seem to assume that there is an universal, absolute concept of beauty and that your sense of aesthetics (or certain others who share it) is in parallel with that (universal, absolute, correct). I might be wrong, but this is the impression I've got. To illustrate (hypothetical figures, simplification for clarity) a few problems concerning an assumption that there's universal concept of beauty: a) Britney Spears (pop) album sells 82,4 million copies b) Julio Iglesias (erm....) album sells 10,2 million copies c) Philip Glass (classical) album sells 0,2 million copies I personally favour b) (please don't ask why). a) and c) are not appealing to my sense of aesthetics. Does this define my sense of aesthetics as "valid", "universal", "good" or "proper"? Or does this define buyers of a) or b) as people with a sense of aesthetics? What about those people who buy 2 different albums or even all three (based on their sense of aesthetics)? What if all people who find album c) appealing to their sense of aesthetics cease to exist? The concept of aesthetics can be used in connection to communication, writing etc. - stating several times that "people with sense of aesthetics are disappointed when they see NoR rules cards" argument in this thread is unaesthetic - it's excessively repetitive, it's called tautology, it's generally regarded as ugly when judging the beauty aspects of writing/literacy. Does your repetition of the argument prove that you have no sense of aesthetics, thus making your argument's basis altogether hollow? Sentences "common understanding" and "generally regarded as ugly" in the above paragraphs brings us to the root of the problem: it indeed seems that there are certain characteristics that are universal, in this case universally appealing aesthetically (like certain symmetry, in both music and visual arts). They are, however, VERY general and vague (I noted that mr. Bakija used the symmetry argument to support his argument about NoR cards being aesthetically appealing, which illustrates the point). Concept of taste in different cultures/subcultures is not the same, and individual taste seems to consist of genetic factors (according to, for example, sociobiologist theories, symmetry indicates health, which is good from evolutionary theory's standpoint) and personal/cultural experiences... it also changes during one's life (Karate Kid was ok when I was seven...). "Establishment", "canon", "cultural elite" etc. often try to dictate the terms of good taste (e.g. or at least "inexcplicitly" think that good taste means their own). Commercial successes often indicate something else. One could also very well argue that the whole Vtes (WoD) is a representation of bad taste (e.g. does not appeal to people with a sense of aesthetics), as it arbitrarily borrows different mythologies and combines them with popular myths in a very vulgar way. And at least two pictures in the cards contain nudity! If NoR cards do'nt appeal to your personal sense of aesthetics, it's fine. Please don't assume that other "people who have sense of aesthetics" find them undesirable in the game environment. It indicates that you seem to think that your (and somebody else's) sense of aesthetics is better than someone elses (or perhaps even "correct"). If you say "people with a similar sense of aesthetics as I have", it's logically acceptable - but formulating it this way would make the aesthetic argument weak. It would make it a (mostly, if you support the sociobiologist explanation) subjective opinion, in fact. Which it (mostly...)is. Most of the things I've written above can be thought differently and can and have been disputed. A.C.Danto's or Monroe C.Beardsley's writings on aesthetics are a good place to start reading if the concepts of aesthetic experience, "what defines good taste" etc. sound interesting... There are also the greek chaps, Wittgenstein (define red) etc. - I'm not familiar with the newest stuff, someone else might know better. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" No offense meant, just my 2 pool (perhaps I got a little carried away...). Heikki P.

hp wrote: > Most of the things I've written above can be thought differently and > can and have been disputed. A.C.Danto's or Monroe C.Beardsley's > writings on aesthetics are a good place to start reading if the > concepts of aesthetic experience, "what defines good taste" etc. sound > interesting... There are also the greek chaps, Wittgenstein (define > red) etc. - I'm not familiar with the newest stuff, someone else might > know better. Thank you. That was a far more eloquent discussion on aesthetics that I would have come up with :-) Like, you completely hit the nail on the head with what seems to be the issue in regards to "aesthetics" in this discussion--Daneel continually adresses the concept of "aesthetics" as if it were a universal absolute (i.e. "people with an aesthetic sense would...") Which it simply is not. What I suspect he means is "people with the same aesthetic sense as me would...", indicating that he is under the belief that *his* sense of aesthetics is the universal truth. Which, ya know, it is not. Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. And they are all different. In terms of this particular discussion, I'd never claim that I have a *better* sense of aesthetics than anyone else. But I probably have a wider understanding of concepts of art and design than a lot of people (something about having spent 7 years in art school...) And I have no problem at all with the rules cards and their lack of illustration, even in a design sense. But then, I also am a big fan of Christopher Shy... -Peter

<sven....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1148633410.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > So far I thought this whole thread was quite a waste of time > (although mildly amusing at times). But since yesterday my > opinion has changed. I tried to equip a rules card .44 Magnum > while playing my Toreador gun deck and Joaquin refused to equip > with it! I wasn't even able to put it underneath the vampire card (as > I use to do). After a somewhat embarrasing discussion with my > fellow players they allowed me to put it next to him. But what > can I tell you: when Joaquin was in combat it didn't work either, > the opposing minion didn't take the damage; Joaquin refused > to pull the trigger! White Wolf and LSJ tricked me into believing > that I had acquired cards that were perfectly suitable for > constructed play, I demand a card exchange for NoR rules > cards! Perhaps if you made a very tasteful proxy .44 Magnum, perhaps one with pearl handles or something. You could put the rules card in the deck, then when you drew it Joaquim could attempt to equip with the proxy card. Fred

Howdy Heikki, > Mr Bakija seems to refer to aesthetics as "concept/experiencing of > beauty". This is the common understanding of the concept. All people > have such a concept, it's just not the same for all of us. Your posts > imply that you seem to assume that there is an universal, absolute > concept of beauty and that your sense of aesthetics (or certain others > who share it) is in parallel with that (universal, absolute, correct). > I might be wrong, but this is the impression I've got. Main Entry: 2aesthetic Function: noun 1 plural but singular or plural in construction : a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty 2 : a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight <modernist aesthetics> <staging new ballets which reflected the aesthetic of the new nation -- Mary Clarke & Clement Crisp> 3 plural : a pleasing appearance or effect : BEAUTY <appreciated the aesthetics of the gemstones> Merriam-Webster seems to agree, at least as far as we are using 'aesthetics' in the sense of definition 2 above. To sum up: beauty is like pornography - you know it when you see it, for some value of 'you'. > To illustrate (hypothetical figures, simplification for clarity) a few > problems concerning an assumption that there's universal concept of > beauty: > a) Britney Spears (pop) album sells 82,4 million copies > b) Julio Iglesias (erm....) album sells 10,2 million copies > c) Philip Glass (classical) album sells 0,2 million copies > > I personally favour b) (please don't ask why). a) and c) are not > appealing to my sense of aesthetics. Does this define my sense of > aesthetics as "valid", "universal", "good" or "proper"? Or does this > define buyers of a) or b) as people with a sense of aesthetics? What > about those people who buy 2 different albums or even all three (based > on their sense of aesthetics)? What if all people who find album c) > appealing to their sense of aesthetics cease to exist? Are you threatening me? Sense of Aesthetics Type: Equipment Pool Cost: X Card Text: Melee weapon. X damage each strike, with a mandatory press to continue each round. If the bearer is ready during your untap phase, the bearer takes X unpreventable damage. Ha-hah! My Sense of Aesthetics is bigger than yours! Oh shit, that means I can't Conceal it. Have to Disguise it, I guess... Whee!, Alex

On 25 May 2006 17:03:42 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > You are confusing MSRP and after market prices. I assume you understand > the difference. Or prices from 8 years ago to prices from now. Not the > same. Or prices of a 10-card booster and prices of an 11-card booster. > However, 11 card boosters from LoB cost the same as 10 card > boosters from NoR (MSRP). Like, you can argue all you want that NoR > contains 10 cards. But the reality is that it contains 11, and one of > them is a rules card, which you are paying for regardless of whether > you believe it is a card or not. You are paying for a lot of things. You pay for whatever you like. If buying a 10-card booster for a similar amount You used to buy a 11-card booster for does not seem to be a good idea for You, there is the absolute freedom of being able not to buy. If the price is good even for a 10-card pack, then You are buying that 10-card pack, and whatever may come with it. So the point You are trying to make is extremely foolhardy. >> Furthermore, I've bought 11-card boosters for many different prices, >> depending on my access to deals, internet retailers, etc. For example, >> I've brought boosters for roughly 2 bucks per booster, and I've bought >> them for roughly 4 bucks a booster. Still, I did not expect the 4-buck >> booster to magically split in twain and suddenly become two 11-card >> boosters. > > Dude. You are pulling foolishness out of your ass here. The NoR > boosters cost the same (MSRP) as LoB boosters. For the same amount of > stuff. [...] > If it was actually > a 10 card booster pack, presumably, they would have reduced the price, > or, that means that the cost of production has gone up, or it means > that they are arbitrarily charging consumers more for less product than > a few months ago. All of which are possible. ...and a great many other things are possible. > Yet the price was not reduced. Which is not indicative of anything, by the way. Nor increased, considering how the booster contains the exact > same physical components as the previous booster pack (i.e. wrapper and > 11 cards). Same price (from manufacturer). Same amount of stuff. I'm not sure why You didn't bother to lobby to make the rules card playable from the precons. I mean, You are paying for that as well, right? -- Regards, Daneel

On 25 May 2006 17:13:49 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Ah, the magnificent feeling of getting back to square one. Please refer >> to my 689 posts in this thread and randomly pick one to see the points >> referring to this. > > And I will refer you to my 700 posts in this thread and ask you to > randomly pick one of the points refuting your points. I can still do > this all day. Sure. You can repeat the already refuted points a number of times. That will not change their status from utter bullshit to validity, though, but feel free to do so - if You're locked in Hammerhead mode, I'm not going to stop my amusement by stopping to requote myself. >> People may be in need of Computer Hackings and (I seriously doubt the >> Suddens, but whatever) other cards. Therefor they are periodically >> reprinted to make them available. Normal cards, with artwork, full >> text and the (new) standard layout. With other words, as normal >> playing cards. > > Regardless of what you doubt or not, people like using the cards that > they have, and can benefit from using the cards they have. The rules > cards are cards they have. If someone is unbothered by the lack of > illustration, there is no good reason for them not to use said cards, > regardless of your wishes. If you don't like the lack of illustration, > don't use them. No one is making you. But you seem to impose your view > of what you do or do not like on others to their detriment. My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. >> I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics. > > You really don't know what aesthetics means, do you? Like, it is a > nice, expensive word that you seem to like using. But it doesn't mean > what you seem to think it means. Dunno, it makes perfect sense from here. My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. >> I'm not in a hairsplitting enough mood to point out the absurdity of >> going >> all the way to point out how what I'm saying is absurd, as it is just >> my >> opinion, and then go on to explain why it absolutely cannot be true, >> because You think otherwise. So, instead of pointing out this, I'll >> just >> say that I'm pretty sure that You do know people who would mind >> playing >> with/against the rules cards. > > I don't think I do. I mean, I might. But it is unlikely. And anyone who > does likely doesn't care enough to argue about it this much when it > clearly benefits more people than it harms. As for the conclusion You take for granted - it is false, as proven many times already. As for the amount of argument, I'm not sure You are the perfect person to condemn someone for the amount of arguing done on any subject... ;) >> Some folks play with, say, card limits. Like five times a week. Sure, >> people play all sorts of things. It's a game, after all. > > It is nice that you equate sanctioned competetive play with made up > house rules. I'm sure plenty of folks will help you defend that > argument. It doesn't need defending - the example is to illustrate that there are many different formats. >> Sure. Everyone has intelligence. Yet if I refer to someone as >> intelligent, >> nobody assumes that to be a blank statement. Well, maybe somebody >> does, >> but that would be the exception. Same goes with aesthetics. I guess, >> You >> don't know You have it unless You have it - it's difficult to explain. >> The concept is understandable by all, but the content is only >> percievable by those (not that) few that have the sense. > > You don't seem to understand what "aestheitcs" means. Yet you keep > using it in an incorrect fashion. I assumed it was a language issue. > Now I assume it is willful ignorance. As a number of posts are proof of, You present quite an amount of willful ignorance to the valid and so far unrefuted points I made, clarified and re-clarified about a gazillion times by now. My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. >> Suffice to say, to those with a sense of aesthetics, the rules cards >> are hardly appealing, in fact, they are detrimental to the enjoyment >> of the game. > > It makes me giggle that when people you are playing this game with put > rules cards on the table, it will reduce your enjoyment of the game. Which would make You a malicious person, I guess. -- Regards, Daneel

On 26 May 2006 06:05:45 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > hp wrote: >> Most of the things I've written above can be thought differently and >> can and have been disputed. A.C.Danto's or Monroe C.Beardsley's >> writings on aesthetics are a good place to start reading if the >> concepts of aesthetic experience, "what defines good taste" etc. sound >> interesting... There are also the greek chaps, Wittgenstein (define >> red) etc. - I'm not familiar with the newest stuff, someone else might >> know better. > > Thank you. That was a far more eloquent discussion on aesthetics that I > would have come up with :-) > > Like, you completely hit the nail on the head with what seems to be the > issue in regards to "aesthetics" in this discussion--Daneel continually > adresses the concept of "aesthetics" as if it were a universal absolute > (i.e. "people with an aesthetic sense would...") Which it simply is > not. What I suspect he means is "people with the same aesthetic sense > as me would...", indicating that he is under the belief that *his* > sense of aesthetics is the universal truth. Which, ya know, it is not. People who appreciate having art on cards will miss the art on cards that don't have them. People who don't have a sense of aesthetics (or whose sense of aesthetics, for arguments sake, does not handle art on cards) will not miss the art on cards that don't have them. I'm not sure the nth rephrasing is really needed, but suit yourself. ;) I'm guessing that really focusing on the phrasing and verbiology like this when dealing with an obvious point just betrays the lack of ability to address the point itself. But whatever. > And I have no problem at all with the rules cards and their lack of > illustration, even in a design sense. But then, I also am a big fan > of Christopher Shy... Which are two different things in my book. I'm not a big fan of Shy, but I can easily accept how someone would be one, even if I don't find the majority of his art that appealing. I think that having art on VtES cards is natural, and I cannot accept, nor understand, how anyonw would think it is not a bad thing not to have it. -- Regards, Daneel

On 26 May 2006 05:51:19 -0700, hp <hes...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >>> On 24 May 2006 17:19:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>> ??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your >>> own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do >>> so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules >>> cards? > >> I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics. > > I quickly read through this thread and noticed that mr. Bakija has > repeatedly pointed out that there seems to be a problem with you and > him understanding the concept of aesthetics differently. After reading > most of the posts in this thread I've, in addition to agreeing with mr. > Bakija, also gotten the impression that this aesthetic reason is the > only reason why you (Daneel) are against NoR rules cards in stantard > tournament play. Not really. Maybe in the see of repetition the different points were kind of "left behind". I define a collectible card playing card as something that has, by definition, artwork as an integral part of it. I'm not arguing what kind of artwork is beautiful and what ugly (that's a different topic). The point is clear - people will find different pieces and styles of artwork appealing. Because people have different senses of aesthetics. Lack of artwork will lack the ability to appeal to any sense of aesthetics. This of course assumes things, stuff like people who play appreciate the artwork (which is quite natural, I guess, so I don't even get it why somebody would go out of his way to dispute it). Plus the other points. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > People who appreciate having art on cards will miss the art on cards that > don't have them. People who don't have a sense of aesthetics (or whose > sense of aesthetics, for arguments sake, does not handle art on cards) > will not miss the art on cards that don't have them. I'm not sure the > nth rephrasing is really needed, but suit yourself. ;) > > I'm guessing that really focusing on the phrasing and verbiology like > this when dealing with an obvious point just betrays the lack of ability > to address the point itself. But whatever. "People who appreciate having art on cards will miss the art on cards that don't have them." is a statement I agree with. It is, however, a generalisation based on your own view, it's an assumption. "People who don't have a sense of aesthetics (or...)" is a statement that basically defines a person who accepts the rules cards in tournament play as a person with a bad taste. This is a very rude, personal statement. I'ts also logically unacceptable, because the three things (appreciation of art on cards, sense of aesthetics and opinion about legality of NoR rules cards in tournament play) are not connected to each other: appreciating art on cards does not indicate one's opinion about whether the rules cards should be legal or illegal for tournament play, let alone one's sense of asthetics. It looks like you are deliberately using unbased, authoritative argumentation to reinforce your own opinion (which, to me, seems to be that you appreciate art on Vtes cards and therefore think that rules cards should not be allowed in constructed tournament play). I (also?) appreciate having art on cards. Art helps to identify cards in general and art in some cards also looks nice. Funny thing is that I love Jyhad Fake Out because it's IMO one of the ugliest cards in the game. It appeals to my sense of aesthetics - the sketchy picture with images that are very vaguely connected with the function of the card, the striking colors, the whole disharmony of the relatively simple composition and associative elements... As much as I'd like to see Jyhad Fake Out played instead of that aesthetic abomination which was printed in NoR, I still think I can live when (if) I see it played in a tournament. Actually I'm happy that they were made legal in constructed: People who have just started playing, people who are considering whether or not to start and people who don't want to spend a lot of money are probably happier. I'm also happier, because the decision to make them legal corresponds to my sense of justice (for various reasons discussed elsewhere in this thread, like the "status quo biased" assumption that booster packs should contain 11 cards). Now I'm not going to make my own view a generalisation and state that "people who don't want the rules card to be legal in constructed don't have a sense of justice". This would be very rude, arbitrary and also illogical for the same reasons as the statement about sense of aesthetics. Justice is also generally more important to people than aesthetics are, which would make the statement about sense of justice more provocative than statement about sense of aesthetics (and my sense of justice overrided my sense of aesthetics when I formed my opinion about the rules cards legality issue). To be honest, the different art in rules cards does'nt matter much to me. I however suppose that decision to make NoR rules cards legal in constructed was based on assumption that many, if not most, people have the same kind of "sense of justice" as I do - if (even some) players start to think that WW is unjust, sales might drop, people might leave/not start playing etc. It's business, after all. Yeah. I apologize for the longish (and uptight, tight-arse?) explanation and some possible language issues (I'm not writing in my native tongue). I think you (Daneel) have a point here and I agree that it would be good that all the cards had art (or an uniform look). But it's an opinion, it doesn't lead to further conclusions about people's tastes. WW people probably also initially thought at least partly the way you do, perhaps they also thought they could sell more (tournament legal) cards (it looks like they changed the initial decision...). It would have probably been wise and nice if they had foreseen and arranged the NoR rules issue in some other way initially :) Best, Heikki P.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Thank you. That was a far more eloquent discussion on aesthetics that I > would have come up with :-) *SNIP* > Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. And they are all different. In > terms of this particular discussion, I'd never claim that I have a > *better* sense of aesthetics than anyone else. But I probably have a > wider understanding of concepts of art and design than a lot of people > (something about having spent 7 years in art school...) And I have no > problem at all with the rules cards and their lack of illustration, > even in a design sense. But then, I also am a big fan of Christopher > Shy... I agree. BTW Thanks for the compliment. I thought no one would read that one... :) To me, Mr. Shy and and his art... :) Best, Heikki P.

Daneel wrote: > People who appreciate having art on cards will miss the art on cards that > don't have them. I appreciate having art on cards. I don't miss the art on the cards that don't have them. Your point is invalid. > I'm guessing that really focusing on the phrasing and verbiology like > this when dealing with an obvious point just betrays the lack of ability > to address the point itself. But whatever. No, focusing on the phrasing indicates that you are using a word to stand in for something it does not mean. And in doing so, you are trying to obfuscate the basic flaw of your argument. By using the term "sense of aesthetics", you seem to be trying to avoid saying "have the same taste as me", 'cause if you said "people who have the same taste as me would do X", your already tenious argument completely falls apart. By saying "people who have a sense of aesthetics", you seem to be attempting to use big words to disguise this. There is no absolute in aesthetics. There is *your* sense of aesthetics, which is not a universal truth. There is *my* sense of aesthetics, which may or may not be similar to yours, and is also not a universal truth. You saying "people with a sense of aesthetics will miss the art on the cards" is not true. People who have a similar sense of aesthetics to *you* might miss the art on the cards, but if you phrase your argument like this, it becomes very clear that the whole issue is one of your opinion, as opposed to one of universal truth, and thus fails to be an argument. > I think that having art on VtES cards > is natural, and I cannot accept, nor understand, how anyonw would think it > is not a bad thing not to have it. It would be bad if all cards had no art. It would be bad if most cards had no art. For my money, it isn't much of a problem that a few cards have no art, as there are specific, understandable reasons that they don't have art. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Sure. You can repeat the already refuted points a number of times. That > will not change their status from utter bullshit to validity, though, > but feel free to do so - if You're locked in Hammerhead mode, I'm not > going to stop my amusement by stopping to requote myself. The utter bullshit is the main focus of your argument--that you seem to think that 'cause you think something is ugly that it should be illegal for play. Which is a fine thing to believe if you want, but it is a good idea to realize that it isn't going to get you that far as an argument. > My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss > integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from > standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with > all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard > layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. If it made a difference to actual play, I'd agree with you. But for my money, it doesn't really make a difference to have a small handfull of cards that have a weird format and no picture. As they still work just fine. And allowing you to use them in constructed play allows people to use stuff they have already, when they can often benefit from having the cards. > Dunno, it makes perfect sense from here. That's 'cause you don't know what the word means, apparently. > As a number of posts are proof of, You present quite an amount of > willful ignorance to the valid and so far unrefuted points I made, > clarified and re-clarified about a gazillion times by now. You are yet to make any unrefuted points. You re-clarify a gazillion times as you like repeating yourself apparently as much as I do. Yet rephrasing your argument doesn't mean it isn't refuted. > Which would make You a malicious person, I guess. It might. Or it might just mean that it is funny. -Peter

Alex wrote: > Main Entry: 2aesthetic > Function: noun > 1 plural but singular or plural in construction : a branch of > philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with > the creation and appreciation of beauty > 2 : a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular > taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially > sight <modernist aesthetics> <staging new ballets which reflected the > aesthetic of the new nation -- Mary Clarke & Clement Crisp> > 3 plural : a pleasing appearance or effect : BEAUTY <appreciated the > aesthetics of the gemstones > Merriam-Webster seems to agree, at least as far as we are using > 'aesthetics' in the sense of definition 2 above. To sum up: beauty is > like pornography - you know it when you see it, for some value of > 'you'. Thanks for the dictionary definition. I assumed it was discussed in that sense (def.2/3) in this thread - saying that someone does'nt have a sense of a philosophical branch would have sounded weird :) >> What if all people who find album c) >> appealing to their sense of aesthetics cease to exist? > Are you threatening me? Although I find Akhenaten unbearable to my soft, not-(yet?)-so jaded ears, it was pure speculation. Please don't hit me with... > Sense of Aesthetics > Type: Equipment > Pool Cost: X > Card Text: Melee weapon. X damage each strike, with a mandatory press > to continue each round. If the bearer is ready during your untap > phase, the bearer takes X unpreventable damage. > Ha-hah! My Sense of Aesthetics is bigger than yours! Oh shit, that > means I can't Conceal it. Have to Disguise it, I guess... Don't you think it should inflict aggravated damage to bearer if there are any cards with Christopher Shy's artwork on the table? Well, actually some of Shy's work is ok, even "good" IMO :) Best, Heikki P.

Daneel wrote: > On 26 May 2006 05:51:19 -0700, hp <hess...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I quickly read through this thread and noticed that mr. Bakija has >> repeatedly pointed out that there seems to be a problem with you and >> him understanding the concept of aesthetics differently. After reading >> most of the posts in this thread I've, in addition to agreeing with mr. >> Bakija, also gotten the impression that this aesthetic reason is the >> only reason why you (Daneel) are against NoR rules cards in stantard >> tournament play. >Not really. Maybe in the see of repetition the different points were kind > of "left behind". I define a collectible card playing card as something > that has, by definition, artwork as an integral part of it. I'm not > arguing what kind of artwork is beautiful and what ugly (that's a > different topic). The point is clear - people will find different pieces > and styles of artwork appealing. Because people have different senses of > aesthetics. OK. I'm with you here. > Lack of artwork will lack the ability to appeal to any sense > of aesthetics. This of course assumes things, stuff like people who play > appreciate the artwork (which is quite natural, I guess, so I don't even > get it why somebody would go out of his way to dispute it). Assumptions, yes. But "Lack of artwork will lack the ability to appeal to any sense of aesthetics" is non sequitur, e.g does not logically follow from your earlier statements if we're strict. And I am, in this case - art is as difficult concept as "aesthetically appealing" (think about Cristo's art - the guy/couple that engulfs buildings in canvas). There's a branch of philosophy that tries to define it, after all :)) I tried to clarify my views in another post - it's not that you're wrong in saying that art is perceived as necessary in CCG's IMO. I Best, Heikki P.

Daneel wrote: > Not really. Maybe in the see of repetition the different points were kind > of "left behind". I define a collectible card playing card as something > that has, by definition, artwork as an integral part of it. That is a nice defenition. Which you are welcome to believe is how things are. Yet still, CCG cards with no artwork have existed in the past and will exist in the future. And they will continue to function as viable parts of said game. > Lack of artwork will lack the ability to appeal to any sense of aesthetics. Saying "having no picture means that no one can react to the picture" is both incredibly obvious and incredibly irrelevant. Yes. The card has no art. Which, as it does not hinder game play, isn't really a problem for playing the game. Again, I agree that it would be bad if no cards had art. But a few? Not a problem, for my money. > This of course assumes things, stuff like people who play > appreciate the artwork (which is quite natural, I guess, so I don't even > get it why somebody would go out of his way to dispute it). No one is disputing that people appreciate the artwork (building yet another straw man, I guess). No one has ever disputed that people appreciate the artwork. The dispute is whether or not the lack of art on a small handfull of cards is problematic for the game as a whole. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] >> As a number of posts are proof of, You present quite an amount of >> willful ignorance to the valid and so far unrefuted points I made, >> clarified and re-clarified about a gazillion times by now. > > You are yet to make any unrefuted points. You re-clarify a gazillion > times as you like repeating yourself apparently as much as I do. Yet > rephrasing your argument doesn't mean it isn't refuted. You're right. I don't have to rephrase it - it stands unrefuted in all phrasings. The rephrasing is just to show it even more prevalently. >> Which would make You a malicious person, I guess. > > It might. Or it might just mean that it is funny. I'm sure someone will argue and point out that "fun" is a subjective term. Different people find different things funny. Malicious people find malicious things to be funny. -- Regards, Daneel

On 28 May 2006 18:26:58 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> People who appreciate having art on cards will miss the art on cards >> that >> don't have them. > > I appreciate having art on cards. I don't miss the art on the cards > that don't have them. Your point is invalid. Unless, of course, your desire to refute my point is stronger than your compulsion to state the complete truth. Which is not entirely impossible. In fact, I believe this is the case. >> I'm guessing that really focusing on the phrasing and verbiology like >> this when dealing with an obvious point just betrays the lack of >> ability >> to address the point itself. But whatever. > > No, focusing on the phrasing indicates that you are using a word to > stand in for something it does not mean. And in doing so, you are > trying to obfuscate the basic flaw of your argument. By using the term > "sense of aesthetics", you seem to be trying to avoid saying "have the > same taste as me", 'cause if you said "people who have the same taste > as me would do X", your already tenious argument completely falls > apart. By saying "people who have a sense of aesthetics", you seem to > be attempting to use big words to disguise this. > > There is no absolute in aesthetics. There is *your* sense of > aesthetics, which is not a universal truth. There is *my* sense of > aesthetics, which may or may not be similar to yours, and is also not a > universal truth. You saying "people with a sense of aesthetics will > miss the art on the cards" is not true. People who have a similar sense > of aesthetics to *you* might miss the art on the cards, but if you > phrase your argument like this, it becomes very clear that the whole > issue is one of your opinion, as opposed to one of universal truth, and > thus fails to be an argument. My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. >> I think that having art on VtES cards >> is natural, and I cannot accept, nor understand, how anyonw would >> think it >> is not a bad thing not to have it. > > It would be bad if all cards had no art. It would be bad if most cards > had no art. For my money, it isn't much of a problem that a few cards > have no art, as there are specific, understandable reasons that they > don't have art. None of which reasons offset the cumulative effect of having cards with no art, truncated card text and a different layout as completely legal in all formats in the game. -- Regards, Daneel

On 29 May 2006 07:09:10 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Not really. Maybe in the see of repetition the different points were >> kind >> of "left behind". I define a collectible card playing card as >> something >> that has, by definition, artwork as an integral part of it. > > That is a nice defenition. Which you are welcome to believe is how > things are. Yet still, CCG cards with no artwork have existed in the > past and will exist in the future. And they will continue to function > as viable parts of said game. I'm sure that by looking at the big picture even you must realize the folly of this point. CCGs that do not reach a certain level of overall quality (of which the graphics is an integral part of) lose ground and have their players abandon them, likely for higher quality games. Whether the rules and card mechanisms are of high quality in VtES is not an argument here (though I think it is). But even having high quality rules and card designs does not mean that the game can disregard, even momentarily, the objective of providing high graphic and material quality cards. I don't see why anyone would deny this. Any step in favor of diluting this graphic quality is basically a losing move in the long run. >> Lack of artwork will lack the ability to appeal to any sense of >> aesthetics. > > Saying "having no picture means that no one can react to the picture" > is both incredibly obvious and incredibly irrelevant. Yes. The card has > no art. Which, as it does not hinder game play, isn't really a problem > for playing the game. Again, I agree that it would be bad if no cards > had art. But a few? Not a problem, for my money. You clearly miss the negative implications and collateral effects of having cards in circulation with no artwork. >> This of course assumes things, stuff like people who play >> appreciate the artwork (which is quite natural, I guess, so I don't >> even >> get it why somebody would go out of his way to dispute it). > > No one is disputing that people appreciate the artwork (building yet > another straw man, I guess). No one has ever disputed that people > appreciate the artwork. The dispute is whether or not the lack of art > on a small handfull of cards is problematic for the game as a whole. ...especially since the main argument for having the rules cards legal - giving more cards to players - is by definition concerning an equal portion of the card set as the no artwork issue. So if the number of cards is negligible, the argument for it becomes dubious; if it isn't, then the negative effect is obviously underrated. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss > integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from > standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with > all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard > layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. Yes, yes you do think that is rational. And in reality, it pretty much is. But throwing in "non-limited" play completely glosses over the issue that it isn't really rational to accept that the differences in the cards are ok for limited play but not ok for non limited play. 'Cause you realize that the benefit to limited play (access to necessary cards in a limited format) outweighs the negatives (lack of picture, strange format) and so the compromise is ok there, but then refuse to extend the same compromise to constructed play, where the benefit to letting them in constructed play (gives people the ability to play cards they own, lets people who actually need to use the cards to build the deck they want to build use them to do so) outweigs the negatives (lack of picture, strange format). > My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss > integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from > standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with > all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard > layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. You are losing it, dude. > I'm sure someone will argue and point out that "fun" is a > subjective term. Different people find different things > funny. Malicious people find malicious things to be funny. It's true. They do. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Unless, of course, your desire to refute my point is stronger than your > compulsion to state the complete truth. Which is not entirely impossible. > In fact, I believe this is the case. The complete truth about what? That I like art on cards, yet don't care that the rules cards have no picture? Here is the complete truth about that--I like the art on cards. Yet I don't care that the rules cards have no picture. 'Cause I realize that the advantages to allowing the cards in constructed play (people like using the cards they own, some people need to use them to build the decks they want to play) outweigh the negatives (i.e. that they have no picture). > My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss > integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from > standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with > all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard > layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. And yet again, you are totally losing it. > None of which reasons offset the cumulative effect of having cards with > no art, truncated card text and a different layout as completely legal > in all formats in the game. Cumulitive effect? What exactly is this cumulitive effect of which you speak? Allowing the rules cards in constructed play is a reasonable compromise, as people like using the cards they own, and some people actually need them to build the decks they want to build. Yeah. They have no pictures. Yeah, they have a different layout. And if *all* the cards were going to have no picture and the same layout as the rules cards, I'd be right there with you. But they aren't. The rules cards are an exception, and allowing them in constructed play is a perfectly reasonable compromise. -Peter

On 28 May 2006 14:02:57 -0700, hp <hes...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm also > happier, because the decision to make them legal corresponds to my > sense of justice (for various reasons discussed elsewhere in this > thread, like the "status quo biased" assumption that booster packs > should contain 11 cards). > > Now I'm not going to make my own view a generalisation and state that > "people who don't want the rules card to be legal in constructed don't > have a sense of justice". This would be very rude, arbitrary and also > illogical for the same reasons as the statement about sense of > aesthetics. Justice is also generally more important to people than > aesthetics are, which would make the statement about sense of justice > more provocative than statement about sense of aesthetics (and my sense > of justice overrided my sense of aesthetics when I formed my opinion > about the rules cards legality issue). > > To be honest, the different art in rules cards does'nt matter much to > me. I however suppose that decision to make NoR rules cards legal in > constructed was based on assumption that many, if not most, people have > the same kind of "sense of justice" as I do - if (even some) players > start to think that WW is unjust, sales might drop, people might > leave/not start playing etc. It's business, after all. Interesting to bring up the sense of justice angle. Because my sense of justice is of an opposing point of view. I think that the boosters are advertised as being 10-card boosters. So when someone argues that it costs as much as a booster from the previous set, my sense of justice says that person is being unfair. Demanding something that was never promised; being greedy; being selfish in demanding a change that will not benefit the game in general, only because they think it will benefit them. My sense of justice says, the game quality is more important than a petty common card or two. My sense of justice is also pretty sensitive of issues where people seem to equate the concept free speech with freedom to agree with the majority. I find the concept laughable, just like the dual measures people use when judging an opinion similar to / different from theirs. For me this argument is basically about quality vs. quantity - I'm sure I prefer the former. I've also been a noobie, but I don't think I would have ever sided with the quantity argument. > It would have > probably been wise and nice if they had foreseen and arranged the NoR > rules issue in some other way initially :) Agreed. The idea was a good one, I'm just not sure about the outcome. -- Regards, Daneel

On 29 May 2006 09:04:26 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Unless, of course, your desire to refute my point is stronger than your >> compulsion to state the complete truth. Which is not entirely >> impossible. >> In fact, I believe this is the case. > > The complete truth about what? That I like art on cards, yet don't care > that the rules cards have no picture? Here is the complete truth about > that--I like the art on cards. Yet I don't care that the rules cards > have no picture. 'Cause I realize that the advantages to allowing the > cards in constructed play (people like using the cards they own, some > people need to use them to build the decks they want to play) outweigh > the negatives (i.e. that they have no picture). Ah, but that is a faulty assumption. Because the hindrances of having the cards in the game are greater than the benefits. So any point derived from that assumption is - by nature - going to be faulty as well. >> My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss >> integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from >> standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with >> all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard >> layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. > > And yet again, you are totally losing it. Losing what? I assumed You will eventually understand the point and realize the truth that you are wrong. I'm not sure that will happen. But I'm quite willing to educate even a malicious person in the name of the greater good. >> None of which reasons offset the cumulative effect of having cards with >> no art, truncated card text and a different layout as completely legal >> in all formats in the game. > > Cumulitive effect? What exactly is this cumulitive effect of which you > speak? Allowing the rules cards in constructed play is a reasonable > compromise, as people like using the cards they own, and some people > actually need them to build the decks they want to build. Yeah. They > have no pictures. Yeah, they have a different layout. And if *all* the > cards were going to have no picture and the same layout as the rules > cards, I'd be right there with you. But they aren't. The rules cards > are an exception, and allowing them in constructed play is a perfectly > reasonable compromise. Not really. I would go as far as allowing them in limited is reasonable for the reasons I mentioned some 30 posts earlier. But I do not accept that it is reasonable to legalize them for constructed / casual (though I do realize that it is not possible to control the casual environment, so that's more of a technical point than a practical one). -- Regards, Daneel

On 29 May 2006 08:58:18 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss >> integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from >> standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with >> all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard >> layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. > > Yes, yes you do think that is rational. And in reality, it pretty much > is. But throwing in "non-limited" play completely glosses over the > issue that it isn't really rational to accept that the differences in > the cards are ok for limited play but not ok for non limited play. > 'Cause you realize that the benefit to limited play (access to > necessary cards in a limited format) outweighs the negatives (lack of > picture, strange format) and so the compromise is ok there, but then > refuse to extend the same compromise to constructed play, where the > benefit to letting them in constructed play (gives people the ability > to play cards they own, lets people who actually need to use the cards > to build the deck they want to build use them to do so) outweigs the > negatives (lack of picture, strange format). In limited there is no real way to introduce general utility cards without reprinting them in boosters (something that is generally preferred to be done in starters - that is, the reprinting). In that case from the *zero* availability the leap is huge. In my book, mostly offsetting the hindrances of having non-standard cards. In limited, there is no zero availability. Most of the cards are as abundant as they get; some of them are less abundant (and are only "very abundant"). The gain is minimal (if at all). People hand most of these cards away for free. I certainly did. People who want them just need to look. Not even too hard. So, there is no real gain, or there is minimal gain - and the hindrances are already looking much more significant if the do not appear for only one specific format, and only one specific instance and booster, but the whole game in general. >> My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss >> integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from >> standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with >> all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard >> layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. > > You are losing it, dude. Losing what? I assumed You will eventually understand the point and realize the truth that you are wrong. I'm not sure that will happen. But I'm quite willing to educate even a malicious person in the name of the greater good. >> I'm sure someone will argue and point out that "fun" is a >> subjective term. Different people find different things >> funny. Malicious people find malicious things to be funny. > > It's true. They do. How odd that You would agree with me on something. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > In limited there is no real way to introduce general utility cards > without reprinting them in boosters (something that is generally > preferred to be done in starters - that is, the reprinting). In that > case from the *zero* availability the leap is huge. In my book, mostly > offsetting the hindrances of having non-standard cards. See--you are willing to accept that the hinderance (no picture) is capable of being offset. You can't see how someone else might think that the advantages to allowing them in constructed play would offset the hinderences there? >In limited, there is no zero availability. (assuming you meant non-limited) > Most of the cards are as abundant as > they get; some of them are less abundant (and are only "very > abundant"). The gain is minimal (if at all). In your opinion. In my view, the gain is significant--people get to use the cards they own, and people who can benefit from having the rules cards in the decks they want to build (newer players rarely have all the cards they need, even really common ones--why deny them the ability to use the cards they already own in the name of making them go out and get replacements? As mentioned before, I can always use more Computer Hackings and Sudden Reversals, as I only own about 13 SRs and want a deck with more than 13 SRs. Thus, rules cards are a benefit to me, as I own some rules card SRs. And I use rules card Ambushes preferably to the en-pictured version, as I dislike the picture so much) get to benefit. And the hinderance is minimal--the cards are ugly. Which isn't a problem for my money. > People hand most of these cards away for free. I certainly did. People who want them just > need to look. Not even too hard. Or, they could just use the cards that are already in their posession, and not have to rely on people handing them out. Or having to spend money to get replacements for cards that already work just fine. > So, there is no real gain, or there is minimal gain Or, there is significant gain and no significant disadvantage. Depends on your view of the world. > Losing what? Your sanity. > I assumed You will eventually understand the point and > realize the truth that you are wrong. I'm not sure that will happen. 'Cause such a truth does not exist. > But I'm quite willing to educate even a malicious person in the name > of the greater good. That is mighty magnanamous of you. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Ah, but that is a faulty assumption. Because the hindrances of having > the cards in the game are greater than the benefits. See, this argument is going nowhere now. See, 'cause the benefits of having the cards in the game are greater then the hinderances. So any point derived from the assumption that the hinderances are greater are going to be faulty. And any useful discussion coming out of this discussion has come to an end. Well, it came to an end 50 posts ago. But now it has concretely come to an end. > Losing what? I assumed You will eventually understand the point and > realize the truth that you are wrong. I'm not sure that will happen. > But I'm quite willing to educate even a malicious person in the name > of the greater good. You aren't even trying anymore. You are just cutting and pasting your own arguments over and over again. Unless you are totally mad and don't realize that you are doing that... > Not really. I would go as far as allowing them in limited is reasonable > for the reasons I mentioned some 30 posts earlier. But I do not accept > that it is reasonable to legalize them for constructed / casual (though > I do realize that it is not possible to control the casual environment, > so that's more of a technical point than a practical one). I realize that you do not accept this. I think your logic on this front is faulty. Which is why any further discussion is even more pointless now than it used to be. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] For the people who enjoy the art, the only reason to play these rule cards in constructed is that they don't have enough of the ordinary versions. So, it boils down to offending your sense of asthetics vs. someone spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? Just want to make sure what is at stake here. > So, there is no real gain, or there > is minimal gain - and the hindrances are already looking much more > significant if the do not appear for only one specific format, and > only one specific instance and booster, but the whole game in general. I have a solution to your problem. Put your money where your mouth is, and take ordinary copies of each of the cards reprinted as rules cards to every constructed tournament you attend. Before the tournament begins, trade them out for the rules cards. Now, the players have regular copies of the cards and your sense of asthetics isn't violated. Problem solved.

On 29 May 2006 09:42:42 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Ah, but that is a faulty assumption. Because the hindrances of having >> the cards in the game are greater than the benefits. > > See, this argument is going nowhere now. See, 'cause the benefits of > having the cards in the game are greater then the hinderances. So any > point derived from the assumption that the hinderances are greater are > going to be faulty. You are clearly misguided. > And any useful discussion coming out of this discussion has come to an > end. Well, it came to an end 50 posts ago. But now it has concretely > come to an end. Ah, I see Your steely tenacity is already backing out. I'm not sure why having repeated the same things for 50 posts was rational, and not repeating them for the 51th time is irrational. I'm not necessarily doubting the jurgement on the 51th one, though. You replied to a post that was posted for record's sake, and posted the very arguments which I have already weighed and considered to be less significant than the arguments I in the end posted. I'm not sure what you could have possibly expected. >> Losing what? I assumed You will eventually understand the point and >> realize the truth that you are wrong. I'm not sure that will happen. >> But I'm quite willing to educate even a malicious person in the name >> of the greater good. > > You aren't even trying anymore. You are just cutting and pasting your > own arguments over and over again. Unless you are totally mad and don't > realize that you are doing that... Trying what? I mean, honestly. Convince You? You wounldn't admit to me being right even if You had to post another 50 posts to prove how much You disagree. I'm okay with that; I admire persistance, even if it is foolhardy. >> Not really. I would go as far as allowing them in limited is reasonable >> for the reasons I mentioned some 30 posts earlier. But I do not accept >> that it is reasonable to legalize them for constructed / casual >> (though >> I do realize that it is not possible to control the casual >> environment, >> so that's more of a technical point than a practical one). > > I realize that you do not accept this. I think your logic on this front > is faulty. Which is why any further discussion is even more pointless > now than it used to be. Not really. I have always thought like this (well, always ever since we had the debate during the vote). If You just realized that Your points fall short of convincing me, then You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. ;) I'm guessing, You knew this from, like, post 3, but went on just for heck's sake. Which is cool with me, by the way. -- Regards, Daneel

On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:10:28 GMT, Brett <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > For the people who enjoy the art, the only reason to play these rule > cards in constructed is that they don't have enough of the ordinary > versions. So, it boils down to offending your sense of asthetics vs. > someone spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? Just > want to make sure what is at stake here. Let's use proxies. It all boils down to WW's greed versus someone spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? > I have a solution to your problem. Put your money where your mouth is, > and take ordinary copies of each of the cards reprinted as rules cards > to every constructed tournament you attend. Before the tournament > begins, trade them out for the rules cards. Now, the players have > regular copies of the cards and your sense of asthetics isn't violated. > Problem solved. People who don't have the tenacity to chase after a bunch of commons will be leaving the game anyway in a short while. I'd be better off burning my cards than to give them to people who'll just dump them to a singles saler a few months later. -- Regards, Daneel

On 29 May 2006 09:37:20 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> In limited there is no real way to introduce general utility cards >> without reprinting them in boosters (something that is generally >> preferred to be done in starters - that is, the reprinting). In that >> case from the *zero* availability the leap is huge. In my book, mostly >> offsetting the hindrances of having non-standard cards. > > See--you are willing to accept that the hinderance (no picture) is > capable of being offset. You can't see how someone else might think > that the advantages to allowing them in constructed play would offset > the hinderences there? No, I can't. I can think of my noobie times, and I don't think I ever would've considered arguing for making the rules card .44 tournament legal, even if I only had 2 copies of it and was dying to build a Cel Magnum deck. I just don't get it. If I don't mind the cards being *real*, I can just print them and play. If I want them to be real, I expect the graphic and card material quality. >> In limited, there is no zero availability. > > (assuming you meant non-limited) Indeed. >> Most of the cards are as abundant as >> they get; some of them are less abundant (and are only "very >> abundant"). The gain is minimal (if at all). > > In your opinion. In my view, the gain is significant--people get to use > the cards they own, and people who can benefit from having the rules > cards in the decks they want to build (newer players rarely have all > the cards they need, even really common ones--why deny them the ability > to use the cards they already own in the name of making them go out and > get replacements? As mentioned before, I can always use more Computer > Hackings and Sudden Reversals, as I only own about 13 SRs and want a > deck with more than 13 SRs. Thus, rules cards are a benefit to me, as I > own some rules card SRs. And I use rules card Ambushes preferably to > the en-pictured version, as I dislike the picture so much) get to > benefit. And the hinderance is minimal--the cards are ugly. Which isn't > a problem for my money. Honestly, I'm not even saying they are ugly. They are different. Different enough to not qualify as *real* cards in my eye. For me they simply miss an important aesthetic aspect that contributes to them being authentic cards. I'm all for everyone having all the cards they need. Just make them real cards that have all the things a card is supposed to have. >> People hand most of these cards away for free. I certainly did. People >> who want them just >> need to look. Not even too hard. > > Or, they could just use the cards that are already in their posession, > and not have to rely on people handing them out. Or having to spend > money to get replacements for cards that already work just fine. Again, tying it into the argument I do not see as valid will never be convincing. >> So, there is no real gain, or there is minimal gain > > Or, there is significant gain and no significant disadvantage. Depends > on your view of the world. Which is cool, I guess, for arguments sake. But then why go into the length of debating that? Just curious. >> Losing what? > > Your sanity. I don't think that based on the limited interface and medium You are in a position to assess that. I disagree with your points and have always done so on this matter. If disagreeing with You makes me insane... ;) >> I assumed You will eventually understand the point and >> realize the truth that you are wrong. I'm not sure that will happen. > > 'Cause such a truth does not exist. Your inability to grasp the truth does not define the existance of the truth. >> But I'm quite willing to educate even a malicious person in the name >> of the greater good. > > That is mighty magnanamous of you. Whatever that may mean. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > No, I can't. I can think of my noobie times, and I don't think I ever > would've considered arguing for making the rules card .44 tournament > legal, even if I only had 2 copies of it and was dying to build a Cel > Magnum deck. I just don't get it. That is you. That you just don't get it is why this discussion will never go anywhere at all. People like using the cards they have. And if they have a couple .44 magnum rules cards, and need them to make the deck they want to play, lots of folks will be perfectly happy to use them. As they don't care that the card is different. Or ugly. 'Cause it is functional. > Honestly, I'm not even saying they are ugly. "Ugly" has always been short hand for "aesthetically unappealing", which is how you have been refering to the cards up till this point. > They are different. Which is true. > Different enough to not qualify as *real* cards in my eye. That is you. > For me they simply miss an important aesthetic aspect that contributes to them being > authentic cards. Again, you. Lots of folks disagree. > I'm all for everyone having all the cards they need. Just make them real > cards that have all the things a card is supposed to have. The rules cards are real and have everything they need to be perfectly playable. > I don't think that based on the limited interface and medium You are in > a position to assess that. I disagree with your points and have always > done so on this matter. If disagreeing with You makes me insane... ;) Well, it does. At least as far as I am concerned. That, and the flap of just giving up and cut-n-pasting the same paragraph 8 times or so makes it look like you have lost your mind. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Let's use proxies. It all boils down to WW's greed versus someone > spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? As has been pointed out previously, using proxies in competetive play results in having to posess a list of the card text of every card in the game at your disposal, so when someone throws out their proxy Herald of Topeth or Baltimore Purge, you'll be able to check and see that the rules text is correct. Which you don't have to do with the rules cards. As they have standardized text. Very significant problem. Rules cards don't have this problem. Analogy fails. > People who don't have the tenacity to chase after a bunch of commons will > be leaving the game anyway in a short while. I'd be better off burning > my cards than to give them to people who'll just dump them to a singles > saler a few months later. You have a very twisted view of the player base of this game. Lots of folks play in tournaments, like the game, and don't have a ton of cards. Maybe they are new. Maybe they are young/poor and don't have a lot of disposable income. People who have recently learned the game will show up at tournaments and play with a couple of starter decks they just purchased and shuffled together. These people lack tenacity and are going to quit the game in a few months? -Peter

Daneel wrote: > You are clearly misguided. No, no, you are clearly the misguided one. See how the argument ceases to be worthwhile now? > Ah, I see Your steely tenacity is already backing out. I'm not sure why > having repeated the same things for 50 posts was rational, and not > repeating them for the 51th time is irrational. I never claimed that my participation in this discussion was rational. It is clearly idiocy, as I am trying to convince a lunatic that his ironclad belief is incorrect. It is never going to happen. But at least now we have successfully boiled the discussion down to "I'm right" "No! I'm right!" But apparently I'm the only one of the two of us who has realized this. > Trying what? To build a reasonable argument. You are just getting lazy now. > Not really. I have always thought like this (well, always ever since we > had the debate during the vote). If You just realized that Your points > fall short of convincing me, then You aren't the sharpest tool in the > shed. ;) I'm guessing, You knew this from, like, post 3, but went on > just for heck's sake. Which is cool with me, by the way. I never had any intention of convincing you of anything. You believe what you are going to believe, just like me. The likelyhood of this discussion changing your mind is virtually nil. But then, I knew that from the start. Again, I never claimed my participation in this discussion was rational. Just my position. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:10:28 GMT, Brett <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > >> For the people who enjoy the art, the only reason to play these rule >> cards in constructed is that they don't have enough of the ordinary >> versions. So, it boils down to offending your sense of asthetics vs. >> someone spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? Just >> want to make sure what is at stake here. > > > Let's use proxies. It all boils down to WW's greed versus someone > spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? > Straw man. We're not discussing people complaining that White Wolf's cards are too expensive. We're discussing your complaint about people playing with rules cards which happen to now be LEGAL for constructed play. Since you seem to be in the minority, insofar as the WW poll is concerned, the onus is on you to deal with the problem. One way is to just suck it up. Another way is to trade "acceptable" versions of the cards for the rules cards at a tournament so that you don't have to see them in play. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:ops99wln...@news.chello.hu... > I'm not sure why You didn't bother to lobby to make the rules card > playable > from the precons. I mean, You are paying for that as well, right? We tried, but couldn't find any appropriate text to use for the card. Are they library or crypt? There was a huge discussion about which camp might prevail, then of course there was the completely insurmountable card back which failed to conform to either crypt or library cards. Raille

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:ops99wlk...@news.chello.hu... > On 26 May 2006 05:51:19 -0700, hp <hes...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Daneel wrote: >>>> On 24 May 2006 17:19:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> ??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your >>>> own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do >>>> so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules >>>> cards? >> >>> I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics. >> >> I quickly read through this thread and noticed that mr. Bakija has >> repeatedly pointed out that there seems to be a problem with you and >> him understanding the concept of aesthetics differently. After reading >> most of the posts in this thread I've, in addition to agreeing with mr. >> Bakija, also gotten the impression that this aesthetic reason is the >> only reason why you (Daneel) are against NoR rules cards in stantard >> tournament play. > > Not really. Maybe in the see of repetition the different points were kind > of "left behind". I define a collectible card playing card as something > that has, by definition, artwork as an integral part of it. I'm not > arguing what kind of artwork is beautiful and what ugly (that's a > different topic). The point is clear - people will find different pieces > and styles of artwork appealing. Because people have different senses of > aesthetics. Lack of artwork will lack the ability to appeal to any sense > of aesthetics. This of course assumes things, stuff like people who play > appreciate the artwork (which is quite natural, I guess, so I don't even > get it why somebody would go out of his way to dispute it). Personnaly I prefer cards without any art what so ever. Now thats perfectly aethetically pleasing! Raille

Daneel wrote: >Interesting to bring up the sense of justice angle. Because my sense of > justice is of an opposing point of view. "Sense of justice angle" illustrates/is parallel to the sense of aesthetics angle - everyone has one :) >I think that the boosters are advertised as being 10-card boosters. So > when someone argues that it costs as much as a booster from the > previous set, my sense of justice says that person is being unfair. Literally you're right, and literally I'd make the same interpretation. The problem is that when people argue or are disappointed about the situation, something is wrong. In this case it's the quantity (of playable cards) issue, I think. I vaguely referred to the "status quo bias" earlier - people think that change is bad and in this case they're used to get 11 cards. Booster price changes are probably far easier to accept than card quantity reduction (WW booster have "always" included the same amount of cards, if I recall correctly). People are used to price changes. > Demanding something that was never promised; being greedy; being > selfish in demanding a change that will not benefit the game in general, > only because they think it will benefit them. My sense of justice says, > the game quality is more important than a petty common card or two. Individual demands, if sufficient in quantity, must be taken seriously (especially in the commercial sector). Your references to your personal sense of justice, game quality and "petty commons" illustrate (your) values, which is the whole issue here. Values and needs of the (perceived) majority are what matters from WW's perspective IMO. It does'nt matter what the moral behind them is. <SNIP (personal worldview analysis)> >For me this argument is basically about quality vs. quantity - I'm sure > I prefer the former. I've also been a noobie, but I don't think I would > have ever sided with the quantity argument. This sums up the point pretty nicely. I don't like to argue about opinions, I prefer to play... "Quantity has a Quality All it's Own" - Josif Stalin :D Best, Heikki P.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optabknp...@news.chello.hu... > On 28 May 2006 18:40:27 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss > integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from > standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with > all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard > layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational. Obviously you've missed the multiple changes in card layout over the years. esp. the CE change. Nothing standard about that. The NoR cards have clear text, a standard format, and some art on the card back. Should be good enough for anybody! The new standard is to be cards without art. This saves $$$ each set in avoided artists fees. Raille

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optabk9y...@news.chello.hu... > On 29 May 2006 07:09:10 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'm sure that by looking at the big picture even you must realize the > folly of this point. CCGs that do not reach a certain level of overall > quality (of which the graphics is an integral part of) lose ground and > have their players abandon them, likely for higher quality games. > Whether the rules and card mechanisms are of high quality in VtES is > not an argument here (though I think it is). But even having high > quality rules and card designs does not mean that the game can > disregard, even momentarily, the objective of providing high graphic > and material quality cards. Proof? I see no proof even alledged that this is the case. Even with the non art cards for the NoR, the fan base is growing. Thus there is one item proving that you comment above if false. Do you have any showing that no art causes CCGs to fold? Raille

Daneel wrote: > People who appreciate having art on cards will miss the art on cards that > don't have them. People who don't have a sense of aesthetics (or whose > sense of aesthetics, for arguments sake, does not handle art on cards) > will not miss the art on cards that don't have them. Those statements aren't linked. Appreciating the art doesn't have any relation to missing or not missing the art on some cards. For example, I would appreciate having a nice painting on my wall at home. However if the painting was suddenly not there, I wouldn't miss it. I know this is true because I had some nice paintings at home, and now here in the UK I don't and I don't miss them.

Daneel wrote: > I'm sure that by looking at the big picture even you must realize the > folly of this point. Not so much with the folly. > CCGs that do not reach a certain level of overall > quality (of which the graphics is an integral part of) lose ground and > have their players abandon them, likely for higher quality games. You are basing this on what, exactly? Market research? I mean, yeah, good graphics are important for any product, but your claim that CCGs that do not reach a certain level of overall quality lose gound and have their players abandon them smacks of "this is information I am making up". Plenty of CCGs with incredibly dubious graphics have done very well (YuGiOh, for instance) CCGs with beautiful graphics have failed quickly (what was that crazy Angels in Cyberspace game with the long cards? That game was beautiful. But it didn't sell for crap). If you can show me some solid data to support this claim, I'll buy it. Otherwise, it is supposition. > Whether the rules and card mechanisms are of high quality in VtES is > not an argument here (though I think it is). But even having high > quality rules and card designs does not mean that the game can > disregard, even momentarily, the objective of providing high graphic > and material quality cards. Based on what, again? VTES is holding strong and doing well. It has already momentarily disregarded what you consider high quality graphic design in printing the rules cards. I doubt that this will have any appreciable efect on the long term success of the game. I mean, it might. But I doubt it. As the game has survived far more egregious grahpic mishaps (Jyhad: VTES: CE designs, including changing the backs fo the cards). You think that the inclusion of ~17 cards with no pictures is going to have a significant impact? Cumulitive or no? > I don't see why anyone would deny this. Any step in favor of diluting > this graphic quality is basically a losing move in the long run. If you would like to believe this, I'm not going to stop you. > You clearly miss the negative implications and collateral effects of having > cards in circulation with no artwork. Clearly I do. Or, conversely, you clearly are imagining the negative implications and collateral effects of having cards in circulation with no artwork as being vastly greater than they actually are. > ...especially since the main argument for having the rules cards legal > - giving more cards to players - is by definition concerning an equal > portion of the card set as the no artwork issue. So if the number of > cards is negligible, the argument for it becomes dubious; if it isn't, > then the negative effect is obviously underrated. The number of cards is negligible compared to the size of the set. Letting people use these cards is not negligible, as regardless of the number of cards there are, people have them. And can benefit from using them. -Peter

On 30 May 2006 06:53:18 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > You are basing this on what, exactly? Market research? I mean, yeah, > good graphics are important for any product, but your claim that CCGs > that do not reach a certain level of overall quality lose gound and > have their players abandon them smacks of "this is information I am > making up". Plenty of CCGs with incredibly dubious graphics have done > very well (YuGiOh, for instance) CCGs with beautiful graphics have > failed quickly (what was that crazy Angels in Cyberspace game with the > long cards? That game was beautiful. But it didn't sell for crap). If > you can show me some solid data to support this claim, I'll buy it. > Otherwise, it is supposition. Overall quality contains graphics but (as per my post) not limited to it. As per my post. >> Whether the rules and card mechanisms are of high quality in VtES is >> not an argument here (though I think it is). But even having high >> quality rules and card designs does not mean that the game can >> disregard, even momentarily, the objective of providing high graphic >> and material quality cards. > > Based on what, again? VTES is holding strong and doing well. It has > already momentarily disregarded what you consider high quality graphic > design in printing the rules cards. I doubt that this will have any > appreciable efect on the long term success of the game. I mean, it > might. But I doubt it. As the game has survived far more egregious > grahpic mishaps (Jyhad: VTES: CE designs, including changing the backs > fo the cards). You think that the inclusion of ~17 cards with no > pictures is going to have a significant impact? Cumulitive or no? Significant? Probably not. But an effect nevertheless. And a negative one. And definitely more significant than throwing a few additional commons into the circulation. Weighting it clearly shows that the hindrances are more significant. >> I don't see why anyone would deny this. Any step in favor of diluting >> this graphic quality is basically a losing move in the long run. > > If you would like to believe this, I'm not going to stop you. On one hand, You'd probably need arguments, which is hard to find against an obvious truth. So I guess this just sounded good, and had no meaning (not completely unusual thing on the forums, I guess). >> You clearly miss the negative implications and collateral effects of >> having cards in circulation with no artwork. > > Clearly I do. Or, conversely, you clearly are imagining the negative > implications and collateral effects of having cards in circulation with > no artwork as being vastly greater than they actually are. Except that there are clear negative effects. >> ...especially since the main argument for having the rules cards legal >> - giving more cards to players - is by definition concerning an equal >> portion of the card set as the no artwork issue. So if the number of >> cards is negligible, the argument for it becomes dubious; if it isn't, >> then the negative effect is obviously underrated. > > The number of cards is negligible compared to the size of the set. > Letting people use these cards is not negligible, as regardless of the > number of cards there are, people have them. And can benefit from using > them. Again, whatever benefit there may be, the hindrances doubtlessly offset. -- Regards, Daneel

On 29 May 2006 16:25:06 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> You are clearly misguided. > > No, no, you are clearly the misguided one. See how the argument ceases > to be worthwhile now? Except as proven by the previous pile of posts, sure. >> Ah, I see Your steely tenacity is already backing out. I'm not sure why >> having repeated the same things for 50 posts was rational, and not >> repeating them for the 51th time is irrational. > > I never claimed that my participation in this discussion was rational. > It is clearly idiocy, as I am trying to convince a lunatic that his > ironclad belief is incorrect. It is never going to happen. But at least > now we have successfully boiled the discussion down to "I'm right" "No! > I'm right!" But apparently I'm the only one of the two of us who has > realized this. You were trying to convince someone whose opinion was formed while weighing the very arguments you repeat and repeat. I'm not sure it is reasonable to assume that any repetition (talking about, from, like post 2 of this thread) will prove to be effective. I mean, the argument was (and still is) mostly, about having pros and cons, and weighing them in one way or another. If You think the pros are more significant, You'll advocate that. Or the other way around. It's all a matter of where You look it at from, what You consider to be more important, etc. If You look at it from a different angle, and have different criteria, You'll come to different conclusions. >> Trying what? > > To build a reasonable argument. You are just getting lazy now. All the argument that was there to be built has already been repeated. > I never had any intention of convincing you of anything. You believe > what you are going to believe, just like me. The likelyhood of this > discussion changing your mind is virtually nil. But then, I knew that > from the start. Again, I never claimed my participation in this > discussion was rational. Just my position. Not really. I mean, of course, the position. It is completely irrational. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

On 30 May 2006 01:27:59 -0700, hp <hes...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Interesting to bring up the sense of justice angle. Because my sense of >> justice is of an opposing point of view. > > "Sense of justice angle" illustrates/is parallel to the sense of > aesthetics angle - everyone has one :) Not to refute this or anything, but I'm generally not very fond of the "everyone has one" argument. >> I think that the boosters are advertised as being 10-card boosters. So >> when someone argues that it costs as much as a booster from the >> previous set, my sense of justice says that person is being unfair. > > Literally you're right, and literally I'd make the same interpretation. > The problem is that when people argue or are disappointed about the > situation, something is wrong. In this case it's the quantity (of > playable cards) issue, I think. I vaguely referred to the "status quo > bias" earlier - people think that change is bad and in this case > they're used to get 11 cards. Booster price changes are probably far > easier to accept than card quantity reduction (WW booster have "always" > included the same amount of cards, if I recall correctly). People are > used to price changes. ...meaning that people are greedy and don't understand what they are told? I don't really get the point. Most people would prefer to get more for the same price. That does not mean that the price cannot be fair for both a 11-card and a 10-card booster (especially since because of the small set, the print run restrictions are limiting). >> Demanding something that was never promised; being greedy; being >> selfish in demanding a change that will not benefit the game in >> general, >> only because they think it will benefit them. My sense of justice says, >> the game quality is more important than a petty common card or two. > > Individual demands, if sufficient in quantity, must be taken seriously > (especially in the commercial sector). Your references to your personal > sense of justice, game quality and "petty commons" illustrate (your) > values, which is the whole issue here. Values and needs of the > (perceived) majority are what matters from WW's perspective IMO. It > does'nt matter what the moral behind them is. Then we have moved on to the businness need from the grounds of the just. Your assessment is correct; WW reacted to observe its businness needs; that does not address the moral behind it. >> For me this argument is basically about quality vs. quantity - I'm sure >> I prefer the former. I've also been a noobie, but I don't think I would >> have ever sided with the quantity argument. > > This sums up the point pretty nicely. I don't like to argue about > opinions, I prefer to play... > > "Quantity has a Quality All it's Own" - Josif Stalin :D ;) -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure I get this. From the description it seems that You are indifferent towards the art - which does not constitute the appreciation in the sense of appreciating that it is there. I'm thinking, if you appreciate it, you would miss it - if you wouldn't miss it, you are indifferent. -- Regards, Daneel

On 29 May 2006 16:18:48 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Let's use proxies. It all boils down to WW's greed versus someone >> spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? > > As has been pointed out previously, using proxies in competetive play > results in having to posess a list of the card text of every card in > the game at your disposal, so when someone throws out their proxy > Herald of Topeth or Baltimore Purge, you'll be able to check and see > that the rules text is correct. Which you don't have to do with the > rules cards. As they have standardized text. Very significant problem. > Rules cards don't have this problem. Analogy fails. Except for the truncated card text. You still need to know what each card does. Refute fails. >> People who don't have the tenacity to chase after a bunch of commons >> will >> be leaving the game anyway in a short while. I'd be better off burning >> my cards than to give them to people who'll just dump them to a >> singles saler a few months later. > > You have a very twisted view of the player base of this game. Lots of > folks play in tournaments, like the game, and don't have a ton of > cards. Maybe they are new. Maybe they are young/poor and don't have a > lot of disposable income. People who have recently learned the game > will show up at tournaments and play with a couple of starter decks > they just purchased and shuffled together. > > These people lack tenacity and are going to quit the game in a few > months? Dunno. Most of them probably. And those who wouldn't know that this is a collectible game, and realize that they will have to collect cards to play it. It all starts with the Commons. They are, like, mostly, highly abundant. I don't understand why anyone would go into great length to argue to the contrary. -- Regards, Daneel

On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:35:10 GMT, Brett <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:10:28 GMT, Brett <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >> >>> For the people who enjoy the art, the only reason to play these rule >>> cards in constructed is that they don't have enough of the ordinary >>> versions. So, it boils down to offending your sense of asthetics vs. >>> someone spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? Just >>> want to make sure what is at stake here. >> >> Let's use proxies. It all boils down to WW's greed versus someone >> spending their time and money tracking down cards, right? > > Straw man. We're not discussing people complaining that White Wolf's > cards are too expensive. We're discussing your complaint about people > playing with rules cards which happen to now be LEGAL for constructed > play. Since you seem to be in the minority, insofar as the WW poll is > concerned, the onus is on you to deal with the problem. One way is to > just suck it up. Another way is to trade "acceptable" versions of the > cards for the rules cards at a tournament so that you don't have to see > them in play. Excellent way to reason. Refuting my point on why it wasn't a good idea to allow the rules cards to be legal in constructed by pointing out that they should be okay, as they are legal for constructed. I'm left speechless. -- Regards, Daneel

On 29 May 2006 16:12:44 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> No, I can't. I can think of my noobie times, and I don't think I ever >> would've considered arguing for making the rules card .44 tournament >> legal, even if I only had 2 copies of it and was dying to build a Cel >> Magnum deck. I just don't get it. > > That is you. That you just don't get it is why this discussion will > never go anywhere at all. People like using the cards they have. And if > they have a couple .44 magnum rules cards, and need them to make the > deck they want to play, lots of folks will be perfectly happy to use > them. As they don't care that the card is different. Or ugly. 'Cause it > is functional. Just like a post-it saying ".44 Magnum. Equipment. Weapon. Gun. Strike: 2R, with an optional manoeuvre each combat. 2 Pool." Fully functional. >> Honestly, I'm not even saying they are ugly. > > "Ugly" has always been short hand for "aesthetically unappealing", > which is how you have been refering to the cards up till this point. Which they are. As cards. They might rock as colorful pieces of cardboard. But, for argument's sake, I don't even have to say they are ugly. Because even if they looked cool, they would still fall under the other points of non-cardom already described. >> I'm all for everyone having all the cards they need. Just make them real >> cards that have all the things a card is supposed to have. > > The rules cards are real and have everything they need to be perfectly > playable. They obviously do not. >> If disagreeing with You makes me insane... ;) > > Well, it does. At least as far as I am concerned. I see. Good to know where You are coming from, at least. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > You were trying to convince someone whose opinion was formed while > weighing the very arguments you repeat and repeat. I'm not sure it is > reasonable to assume that any repetition (talking about, from, like > post 2 of this thread) will prove to be effective. I find it horribly ironic that you comment on the repetetiveness of my argument, when you are just as repetetive, and in fact, even got to the point of simply cutting and pasting the same comments over and over. Horribly ironic. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Except for the truncated card text. You still need to know what each > card does. Refute fails. Uhh, have you actually *seen* the rules cards, or are you actually just making this all up off the top of your head? None of the truncated text has any lack of clarity or a need for clarification. Do I actually need to list the rules cards and non rules cards for comparison? That way, at least, ya know, you might have actually have looked at the words on the cards you are so het up about. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Overall quality contains graphics but (as per my post) not limited to it. > As per my post. Fine work on completely avoiding actually adressing the criticisim of your statement--what are you basing your understanding on what does or does not make a CCG survive? Market research? Data analysis? Industry experience? Or just talking out of your ass? Do you know that having a game fail comes from, say, questionable design decisions, like printing cards with no pictures? Do you know that solid graphic design (for example) has a significant impact on the long term survivability of the game? Do you have data to support these positions? > Except that there are clear negative effects. Not that actually have any impact. See--the argument has come down to "I'm right!" No! I am!", yet you seem to not realize this. Sad. > Again, whatever benefit there may be, the hindrances doubtlessly offset. I am unconvinced of this. You are unconvinced in the other direction. There you go. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Just like a post-it saying ".44 Magnum. Equipment. Weapon. Gun. Strike: 2R, > with an optional manoeuvre each combat. 2 Pool." Fully functional. With a post it, I have to check to see that all the words are correct. 'Cause if you are a dick, or sloppy, you coppy them badly. Like you forget to write Gun (so we don't know if it can use Dragon Breath Rounds). Or write the cost wrong. The rules cards are pre-printed by the company with all pertinent text. Post-its have no such assurance. > They obviously do not. That obviousness is a figment of your imagination. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I wasn't trying to refute your point about whether or not the rules cards should be legal in constructed play --- the verdict is in, by majority vote in the poll. All further arguments, regardless of their validity, are irrelevant at this juncture. I'm not trying to argue about it. I'm offering you some advice, since you seem to have an issue with the result of the poll. You can be happy about it, or you can be unhappy about it ... your choice. If you are unhappy about it, I've provided one possible methond for relieving your misery. Take it or leave it. Peace.

"hp" <hes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1148977679.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Daneel wrote: >>Interesting to bring up the sense of justice angle. Because my sense of >> justice is of an opposing point of view. > > "Sense of justice angle" illustrates/is parallel to the sense of > aesthetics angle - everyone has one :) > >>I think that the boosters are advertised as being 10-card boosters. So >> when someone argues that it costs as much as a booster from the >> previous set, my sense of justice says that person is being unfair. > > Literally you're right, and literally I'd make the same interpretation. > The problem is that when people argue or are disappointed about the > situation, something is wrong. In this case it's the quantity (of > playable cards) issue, I think. I vaguely referred to the "status quo > bias" earlier - people think that change is bad and in this case > they're used to get 11 cards. Booster price changes are probably far > easier to accept than card quantity reduction (WW booster have "always" > included the same amount of cards, if I recall correctly). People are > used to price changes. > D.S. had 15 cards per pack A.H. 12 Sabbat 28 Not sure about Jyhad/Vtes, but for the most part 11 is the standard. Raille

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optadiit...@news.chello.hu... > On 30 May 2006 06:53:18 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Significant? Probably not. But an effect nevertheless. And a negative > one. And definitely more significant than throwing a few additional > commons into the circulation. Weighting it clearly shows that the > hindrances are more significant. In my play group the effect was only nagative when we were informed the extra cards could nto be used in tourny play. There was a huge positive impact once WW allowed the cards to be used in tourny play. So. Here is solid, if local, evidence that proves your wrong. > > Except that there are clear negative effects. > You keep saying this. Why? outside of your few postings, no one has indicated any clearly nagative effects. Can you list any verifiable effect that support your position? Raille

On Wed, 31 May 2006 05:33:27 -0400, "Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: >D.S. had 15 cards per pack >A.H. 12 >Sabbat 28 >Not sure about Jyhad/Vtes, but for the most part 11 is the standard. Jyhad/V:TES had 19 per pack. http://www.thelasombra.com/lists/booster_distribution.txt All White Wolf produced sets have had 11 cards per booster.

Raille wrote: > "hp" <hes...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I vaguely referred to the "status quo > > bias" earlier - people think that change is bad and in this case > > they're used to get 11 cards. Booster price changes are probably far > > easier to accept than card quantity reduction (WW booster have "always" > > included the same amount of cards, if I recall correctly). People are > > used to price changes. > > > > D.S. had 15 cards per pack > A.H. 12 > Sabbat 28 > Not sure about Jyhad/Vtes, but for the most part 11 is the standard. > > Raille Jyhad/V:tES had 19. WotC changed the sizes around a lot, looking for the right mix, but WW has always been 11. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Daneel wrote: > > For example, I would appreciate having a nice painting on my wall at > > home. However if the painting was suddenly not there, I wouldn't miss > > it. I know this is true because I had some nice paintings at home, and > > now here in the UK I don't and I don't miss them. > > I'm not sure I get this. From the description it seems that You are > indifferent towards the art - which does not constitute the appreciation > in the sense of appreciating that it is there. I'm thinking, if you > appreciate it, you would miss it - if you wouldn't miss it, you are > indifferent. Well let's put it this way then - if the artwork is there, I appreciate it. When it isn't there, I can live without it. I'm not indifferent to the artwork when I have it I just don't need a picture on my wall to be happy. From what you've said, to continue the example, you would want to get new artwork on the wall to be happy in the new place. It's not an entirely accurate analogy but that was the best I could do at the time :-) My point is that you can appreciate the artwork on the cards but that doesn't infer an opinion - one way or the other - about cards that have no artwork. Your trying to establish a link there which I don't think exists.

On 30 May 2006 16:21:57 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Just like a post-it saying ".44 Magnum. Equipment. Weapon. Gun. Strike: >> 2R, >> with an optional manoeuvre each combat. 2 Pool." Fully functional. > > With a post it, I have to check to see that all the words are correct. > 'Cause if you are a dick, or sloppy, you coppy them badly. Like you > forget to write Gun (so we don't know if it can use Dragon Breath > Rounds). Or write the cost wrong. The rules cards are pre-printed by > the company with all pertinent text. Post-its have no such assurance. Company printed cards have no guarantee of being accurate. There can be missing on cards, the card texts can be truncated - neither accuracy nor clarity if fully assured. Also, some cards have significant changes to their wordings. Significant enough to have earlier versions of the card do something completely different. If You want to make sure - and You will want to, unless the card is well-known to You - You will need to check a card list whenever You encounter a card not of the latest printing. Or take the risk of playing it in the wrong way. Same thing with a post-it. In fact, on the post-it, You can actually copy the *newest* text, that contains all the after-printing changes/clarifications/rewordings/descriptors. >> They obviously do not. > > That obviousness is a figment of your imagination. Which, in this particular case, happens not to conform to your figment of imagination - but to reality in its stead. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess, if this is true, then the analogy must be lacking. Maybe it would be more accurate to draw the analogy in a way that the artwork is as significant as in the case of cards. Say, comparing a functional brick house with no decoration to another one with wallpaper, tiles, pictures on the wall, cushions, carpets and rugs, etc. Assuming floor-heating, to remove the heating functionality of the rugs. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I have. I know the text is truncated because I've seen it. Though the fact that they are not considered the latest printing of anything is pretty self-explanatory to begin with. -- Regards, Daneel

On Wed, 31 May 2006 05:41:23 -0400, Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:optadiit...@news.chello.hu... >> On 30 May 2006 06:53:18 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Significant? Probably not. But an effect nevertheless. And a negative >> one. And definitely more significant than throwing a few additional >> commons into the circulation. Weighting it clearly shows that the >> hindrances are more significant. > > In my play group the effect was only nagative when we were informed the > extra cards could nto be used in tourny play. > > There was a huge positive impact once WW allowed the cards to be used in > tourny play. > > So. Here is solid, if local, evidence that proves your wrong. Negative impact as in reception by the players? Could be. As the vote shows, the majority of net-present players preferred to make them tournament legal. That does not mean that the game will benefit from this. >> Except that there are clear negative effects. > > You keep saying this. Why? outside of your few postings, no one has > indicated any clearly nagative effects. Would that be so? I've seen a couple other people voice similar arguments. > Can you list any verifiable effect that support your position? As, in, like, "in X years a total of Y players will not start playing this game because they find the rules cards disappealing"? How would I be able to prove that? It's not like proving anything is easy on the grounds of hypothesis. -- Regards, Daneel

On 30 May 2006 15:39:34 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Overall quality contains graphics but (as per my post) not limited to >> it. As per my post. > > Fine work on completely avoiding actually adressing the criticisim of > your statement--what are you basing your understanding on what does or > does not make a CCG survive? Market research? Data analysis? Industry > experience? Or just talking out of your ass? Do you know that having a > game fail comes from, say, questionable design decisions, like printing > cards with no pictures? Do you know that solid graphic design (for > example) has a significant impact on the long term survivability of the > game? Do you have data to support these positions? > >> Except that there are clear negative effects. > > Not that actually have any impact. See--the argument has come down to > "I'm right!" No! I am!", yet you seem to not realize this. Sad. Except I'm right. It's like You're saying the earth is flat, while I'm saying its round, and then You claim that we are just back-and-forth. While technically true, that does not address the validity of the statements. That, and You started the debate. You must've had an idea on what You wish to achieve when You attacked my for-record's-sake post. I'm beginning to wonder what that might've been, though. >> Again, whatever benefit there may be, the hindrances doubtlessly offset. > > I am unconvinced of this. You are unconvinced in the other direction. > There you go. Which was just how it was some 100 posts ago. But we had a lot of opportunity to practice blind-typing. ;) -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] ...except You were the one who wanted to refute/convince/whatever was it that You wanted. When hearing the same (already refuted) point, I can only reply with the same refute. So while the irony is prevalent, it is not the way You percieve it. -- Regards, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optae98k...@news.chello.hu... > On 30 May 2006 16:21:57 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> Daneel wrote: >>> Just like a post-it saying ".44 Magnum. Equipment. Weapon. Gun. Strike: >>> 2R,with an optional manoeuvre each combat. 2 Pool." Fully functional. >> >> With a post it, I have to check to see that all the words are correct. >> 'Cause if you are a dick, or sloppy, you coppy them badly. Like you >> forget to write Gun (so we don't know if it can use Dragon Breath >> Rounds). Or write the cost wrong. The rules cards are pre-printed by >> the company with all pertinent text. Post-its have no such assurance. > > Company printed cards have no guarantee of being accurate. There can be > missing on cards, the card texts can be truncated - neither accuracy > nor clarity if fully assured. The comparison is very poor. Sure, errors happen. But White Wolf is going to make a consistent and motivated effort to get it right. And when they fail, the results are well-known. You can look up the finite list of errata on its website, print it, and carry it around with you. This is not in the same area code as the concept of having to be suspicious of and double-check every "post-it" card every yahoo - who may by trying to get it right or may not care or may very well be deliberately trying to create disinformation - chooses to use. Hell, they might not even get the name right, so you wouldn't even know what to check. Fred

Daneel wrote: > ...except You were the one who wanted to refute/convince/whatever was it > that You wanted. When hearing the same (already refuted) point, I can > only reply with the same refute. See, and when I hear the same, already refuted point, my only recourse is to reply with the same refutation as well. Thus, we endlessly repeat ourselves. At which point it becomes funny for one side of the discussion to criticize the other side for repeating themselves. > So while the irony is prevalent, it is not the way You percieve it. Ahh, good. Now we have moved on to the "I'm rubber, you're glue..." portion of the discussion. Strong. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Company printed cards have no guarantee of being accurate. There can be > missing on cards, the card texts can be truncated - neither accuracy > nor clarity if fully assured. At which point the who purpose of cards in a card game becomes suspect. So a pointless response. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Except I'm right. It's like You're saying the earth is flat, while I'm > saying its round, and then You claim that we are just back-and-forth. > While technically true, that does not address the validity of the > statements. You have no proof that you are right. All you have to support your rightness is your own deluded mind. One man's truth is another man's insanity. And notably, you still have not actually addressed the question about where you get your special understanding of what does or does not make a game survive. > That, and You started the debate. You must've had an idea on what You > wish to achieve when You attacked my for-record's-sake post. I'm > beginning to wonder what that might've been, though. Ooh! Awsome! First we have the "I'm rubber, you're glue!" offensive, followed up by the "But you started it!" reposte! The hits just keep coming! A whirlwind of blows! -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Negative impact as in reception by the players? Could be. As the vote > shows, > the majority of net-present players preferred to make them tournament > legal. That does not mean that the game will benefit from this. If the net poll is even remotely representative of the player base as a whole (and I full well realize that it is neither a random sample nor an unbiased one), then the game will benefit if for no other reason that the majority of the players are happy that they can use their rules cards. > As, in, like, "in X years a total of Y players will not start playing this > game because they find the rules cards disappealing"? How would I be able > to prove that? It's not like proving anything is easy on the grounds of > hypothesis. That is 'cause, ya know, you have no proof to justify you claims that rules cards are bad for the game. Unless you have done some data analysis or market research or have some industry experience that we don't know about, and that you refuse to cite when repeatedly asked to. 'Cause you are coming to conclusions based on your own assumptions and views. Just like the rest of us. Except somehow you don't seem to realize this. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Nah. A more acurrate analogy would be saying that 17 square feet (rules cards) out of a house of ~1700 square feet (distinct library cards) are bare. Which is why a lot of people don't think it's a significant loss, especially since the choice is 17 square feet of additional functional but undecorated floor space or no additional floor space. Sure, if you've already got all the space you're going to be able to use, the undecorated bit may do nothing more than stick out like a sore thumb and those who are bothered by such things will avoid it. But that's not a great reason to disallow others from using it. At some point I'll see if I have enough "real" Info Highways/Barrens to replace all the rules-card versions I'm using now - people do tend to skip over the rules locations when they're scanning the table and miss what's in play (even in their own ready region). But a piece of equipment, which tends to have its picture covered anyway while it's in play, or a combat/action card that's played once and sent to the ash heap? These aren't typically a big deal. Witness1 -ItE

witness1 wrote: > Nah. A more acurrate analogy would be saying that 17 square feet (rules > cards) out of a house of ~1700 square feet (distinct library cards) are > bare. Which is why a lot of people don't think it's a significant loss, > especially since the choice is 17 square feet of additional functional > but undecorated floor space or no additional floor space. Ah. Now there is a very nice analogy. Daneel could learn something from this... -Peter

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optae98l...@news.chello.hu... >>> Except that there are clear negative effects. >> >> You keep saying this. Why? outside of your few postings, no one has >> indicated any clearly nagative effects. > > Would that be so? I've seen a couple other people voice similar arguments. > >> Can you list any verifiable effect that support your position? > > As, in, like, "in X years a total of Y players will not start playing this > game because they find the rules cards disappealing"? How would I be able > to prove that? It's not like proving anything is easy on the grounds of > hypothesis. Well if these people act like most normal people then in X years they will have replaced Y cards with the originals, complete with art work. And as the polls showed, the majority of the players votes to use the cards in all events as legal. The people that didn't vote showed their complete apathy to the situation, by not voting. Raille

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1149094326.2...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Thats about the size of a big closet. Furnace floor space or other utility area space, which is commonly under developed as home space. Raille Here's to closets!

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optae98l...@news.chello.hu... > On 30 May 2006 15:39:34 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Daneel wrote: >>> Overall quality contains graphics but (as per my post) not limited to >>> it. As per my post. >> >> Fine work on completely avoiding actually adressing the criticisim of >> your statement--what are you basing your understanding on what does or >> does not make a CCG survive? Market research? Data analysis? Industry >> experience? Or just talking out of your ass? Do you know that having a >> game fail comes from, say, questionable design decisions, like printing >> cards with no pictures? Do you know that solid graphic design (for >> example) has a significant impact on the long term survivability of the >> game? Do you have data to support these positions? >> >>> Except that there are clear negative effects. >> >> Not that actually have any impact. See--the argument has come down to >> "I'm right!" No! I am!", yet you seem to not realize this. Sad. > > Except I'm right. It's like You're saying the earth is flat, while I'm > saying its round, and then You claim that we are just back-and-forth. > While technically true, that does not address the validity of the > statements. Well you completely wrong here. The earth is well know to be a bit squashed and more pear shapped than round. Raille debunking earth fallacies

On 31 May 2006 09:29:02 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Daneel wrote: >> Except I'm right. It's like You're saying the earth is flat, while I'm >> saying its round, and then You claim that we are just back-and-forth. >> While technically true, that does not address the validity of the >> statements. > > You have no proof that you are right. All you have to support your > rightness is your own deluded mind. One man's truth is another man's > insanity. And notably, you still have not actually addressed the > question about where you get your special understanding of what does or > does not make a game survive. Logical deduction. Understanding of the obvious. Facets of a mental faculty that may or may not be alien to You. >> That, and You started the debate. You must've had an idea on what You >> wish to achieve when You attacked my for-record's-sake post. I'm >> beginning to wonder what that might've been, though. > > Ooh! Awsome! First we have the "I'm rubber, you're glue!" offensive, > followed up by the "But you started it!" reposte! The hits just keep > coming! A whirlwind of blows! I posted something for record's sake. After a debate that had all the arguments from all sides. To make sure the cons are not lost in the welcoming messages. To represent both sides of the argument. I assume some folks may not like that, but that does not strip me of my right to do so. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I admit, I also like the analogy. I kind of feel sad for having spent a 100 or so posts on a pointless discussion with somebody who can't even put a decent analogy like this together. I could've spent it on fruitful debate. Or (more likely) on a fruitless one with a more qualified opponent. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Not necessarily. Just a refute to the point You made. As usual... -- Regards, Daneel

On 31 May 2006 09:49:14 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Daneel wrote: >> Negative impact as in reception by the players? Could be. As the vote >> shows, >> the majority of net-present players preferred to make them tournament >> legal. That does not mean that the game will benefit from this. > > If the net poll is even remotely representative of the player base as a > whole (and I full well realize that it is neither a random sample nor > an unbiased one), then the game will benefit if for no other reason > that the majority of the players are happy that they can use their > rules cards. Which is a fair point, probably the only one I'll fully acknowledge. I'm not necessarily happy with it, but I do realize that at least the people who were aware of the change and supported (and probably people who are in contact with them and share their views) will consider WW's move to be supportive of the player base, and will probably be happy about it (for whatever that's worth). >> As, in, like, "in X years a total of Y players will not start playing >> this >> game because they find the rules cards disappealing"? How would I be >> able >> to prove that? It's not like proving anything is easy on the grounds >> of >> hypothesis. > > That is 'cause, ya know, you have no proof to justify you claims that > rules cards are bad for the game. Unless you have done some data > analysis or market research or have some industry experience that we > don't know about, and that you refuse to cite when repeatedly asked to. > 'Cause you are coming to conclusions based on your own assumptions and > views. Just like the rest of us. Except somehow you don't seem to > realize this. I assume if You really thought that hard data was needed, You would've supported Your initial response with them. In its absence I consider any such claims to be subterfuge, futile attempts to derail the conversation from the topic at hand, to veil Your ultimate defeat in the shroud of ambivalence. -- Regards, Daneel

On 31 May 2006 09:22:47 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Daneel wrote: >> ...except You were the one who wanted to refute/convince/whatever was it >> that You wanted. When hearing the same (already refuted) point, I can >> only reply with the same refute. > > See, and when I hear the same, already refuted point, my only recourse > is to reply with the same refutation as well. Thus, we endlessly repeat > ourselves. At which point it becomes funny for one side of the > discussion to criticize the other side for repeating themselves. Which is nice, but it fails to consider two things - one, the things You posted never refuted what I wrote, they just showed that You are unable to comprehend their meaning. At first I tried to explain, assuming You were sincerely clueless. I then realized that it is ignorance, not cluelessness, and my relentlessness kicked in to match Your stubbornness. >> So while the irony is prevalent, it is not the way You percieve it. > > Ahh, good. Now we have moved on to the "I'm rubber, you're glue..." > portion of the discussion. Strong. Which is cool, and fairly meaningless, and still does not address the fact that I'm right (as per the myriad of unrefuted points). -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Which is nice, but it fails to consider two things - one, the things You > posted never refuted what I wrote, they just showed that You are unable > to comprehend their meaning. At first I tried to explain, assuming You > were sincerely clueless. I then realized that it is ignorance, not > cluelessness, and my relentlessness kicked in to match Your stubbornness. You simply repeating "you have never refuted my points" in no way means that your points have not been refuted. 'Cause they have been repeatedly refuted. You refusing to understand this does not mean that it never happened. > Which is cool, and fairly meaningless, and still does not address the fact > that I'm right (as per the myriad of unrefuted points). You are incapable of proving that you are right, as your point ("rules cards are bad for the game 'cause I say so") is based solely on your own assumptions. I think I am right. Yet I realize that it is possible I am wrong. You think you are right, yet seem incapable o realizing such a thing. Much like if you were sure you were Napoleon. -Peter

Daneel wrote: >> I admit, I also like the analogy. I kind of feel sad for having spent a 100 > or so posts on a pointless discussion with somebody who can't even put > a decent analogy like this together. I could've spent it on fruitful > debate. Or (more likely) on a fruitless one with a more qualified > opponent. Which is funny, as we have previously established that you are incapable of reconizing an actual analogy, let alone construct one on your own. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > I assume if You really thought that hard data was needed, You would've > supported Your initial response with them. In its absence I consider any > such claims to be subterfuge, futile attempts to derail the conversation > from the topic at hand, to veil Your ultimate defeat in the shroud of > ambivalence. No, it is an attempt to see if you actually have information to back up your points. Assuming otherwise meerly supports the idea that you are insane. You keep claiming that having cards like the rules cards in the game are bad for the game and ultimately will contribute to its downfall. You continue to say this as if you have either knowledge of the future (indicating that you are insane), are completely certain in something you cannot be certain of (also indicating that you are insane), or have deep level knowledge of the medium that is yet to be shared with the reading populace. As I was hoping to give you the opportunity to indicate that you were not insane, I was hoping you had actual data or industry experience to back up your claims. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Logical deduction. Understanding of the obvious. Facets of a mental > faculty that may or may not be alien to You. Your logical deduction and understanding of the obvious are clearly deeply flawed if you fail to realize that *you might be wrong*. Again, I ask if you have some sort of deep level insight into the game industry that the rest of us fail to posess--I mean, like, you might, which would be handy for you. But as far as I can tell, you are just making things up (i.e. "rules cards are bad for the game") with little more than supposition. I mean, like, I'm working on supposition as well. And while I think I am right and you are wrong, I also realize that it is possible that I might be incorrect, and that rules cards will hasten the demise of the game. It seems wildly unlikely, but I accept that the possibility exists. You seem to be under the zealous belief that you are unerringly correct, with nothing to base your belief on but your own imagination. > I posted something for record's sake. Yes, yes you did. > After a debate that had all the > arguments from all sides. To make sure the cons are not lost in the > welcoming messages. To represent both sides of the argument. I assume > some folks may not like that, but that does not strip me of my right > to do so. I'd never claim that you had no right to do that. I might critisize you for doing so, especially as it looked as if you were coming out of nowhere after the fact (me full realizing that you might have been involved in the WW Forum discussion under some other wacky made up internet handle). But I'd never claim that you aren't allowed to make such a statement. And claiming that I have done that is setting up yet another straw man argument. -Peter

On 1 Jun 2006 11:36:26 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Which is nice, but it fails to consider two things - one, the things You >> posted never refuted what I wrote, they just showed that You are >> unable >> to comprehend their meaning. At first I tried to explain, assuming You >> were sincerely clueless. I then realized that it is ignorance, not >> cluelessness, and my relentlessness kicked in to match Your >> stubbornness. > > You simply repeating "you have never refuted my points" in no way means > that your points have not been refuted. 'Cause they have been > repeatedly refuted. You refusing to understand this does not mean that > it never happened. Of course it would not. It's the other was around - I'm saying it because You constantly seem to think that Your non-sequitur, half-relevant attemts at refutal were somehow mistaken as genuine arguments. Which they weren't. >> Which is cool, and fairly meaningless, and still does not address the >> fact >> that I'm right (as per the myriad of unrefuted points). > > You are incapable of proving that you are right, as your point ("rules > cards are bad for the game 'cause I say so") is based solely on your > own assumptions. I think I am right. Yet I realize that it is possible > I am wrong. You think you are right, yet seem incapable o realizing > such a thing. Much like if you were sure you were Napoleon. The 'because I say so' part is most interesting because it seems that You failed to comprehend the points I was basing this conclusion on. -- Regards, Daneel

On 1 Jun 2006 12:49:48 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Logical deduction. Understanding of the obvious. Facets of a mental >> faculty that may or may not be alien to You. > > Your logical deduction and understanding of the obvious are clearly > deeply flawed if you fail to realize that *you might be wrong*. Again, > I ask if you have some sort of deep level insight into the game > industry that the rest of us fail to posess--I mean, like, you might, > which would be handy for you. But as far as I can tell, you are just > making things up (i.e. "rules cards are bad for the game") with little > more than supposition. I mean, like, I'm working on supposition as > well. And while I think I am right and you are wrong, I also realize > that it is possible that I might be incorrect, and that rules cards > will hasten the demise of the game. It seems wildly unlikely, but I > accept that the possibility exists. You seem to be under the zealous > belief that you are unerringly correct, with nothing to base your > belief on but your own imagination. Which is good and all, but I'm not sure what the point is. If any... >> I posted something for record's sake. > > Yes, yes you did. > >> After a debate that had all the >> arguments from all sides. To make sure the cons are not lost in the >> welcoming messages. To represent both sides of the argument. I assume >> some folks may not like that, but that does not strip me of my right >> to do so. > > I'd never claim that you had no right to do that. I might critisize you > for doing so, especially as it looked as if you were coming out of > nowhere after the fact (me full realizing that you might have been > involved in the WW Forum discussion under some other wacky made up > internet handle). But I'd never claim that you aren't allowed to make > such a statement. And claiming that I have done that is setting up yet > another straw man argument. Well then, what makes You start a debate over that was already finished? Just checking. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, now we're having the "You're insane" argument. Very strong. Any classy. Getting a bit old, though, so You might consider switching to another main slogan for the next 50 posts. Not that I would mind (I understand the constraints You are working with), but other folks might actually still read this thread. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I assume "we" stands for You, the voices and Stonewall Jackson, which are all apparently facets of Your identity. I'm afraid I have a hunch why You so eagerly use the insanity webtool - to draw the attention away from more serious problems You must face daily. I sympathize with You and understand that it must be pretty straining for someone with Your condition to make attempts at coherence; I admire the effort, even if the result is questionable. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Of course it would not. It's the other was around - I'm saying it because > You constantly seem to think that Your non-sequitur, half-relevant > attemts at refutal were somehow mistaken as genuine arguments. Which > they weren't. Do you realize how rediculous this discussion has become, in that every time I say anything, you say "No! It is the exact opposite of that!" at which point I reply with "ya see how silly it is that every point is refuted with 'but no! It is the exact opposite!'", and then you respond to that with "No! It is the exact opposite!" See, I don't think you do realize how rediculous it is. Which is why I honestly think you are mentally ill, which is why I keep bringing it up. > The 'because I say so' part is most interesting because it seems that > You failed to comprehend the points I was basing this conclusion on. No, no. I understood your points. And in the end, all of your arguments, essentially, are based on "I think this is so, thus, it is so". All the discussion of aesthetics and how the rules cards aren't quality play pieces and whatever, essentially boil down to (as it always has) "My opinion is that they are bad. I have nothing concrete to actually support these ideas, but they are bad none the less." -Peter

Daneel wrote: > I assume "we" stands for You, the voices and Stonewall Jackson, which are > all apparently facets of Your identity. I'm afraid I have a hunch why You > so eagerly use the insanity webtool - to draw the attention away from more > serious problems You must face daily. Nah. It is 'cause at this point, I honestly think you are mentally ill. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Which is good and all, but I'm not sure what the point is. If any... The point is that if you had some sort of data to back up your arguments, or deep knowledge of the industry, or heck, even industry experience, you might have evidence to prop up the argument of "The rules cards are bad for the game, as games die off when they produce non quality components", upon which you seem to be basing most of your argument. But I 'm assuming you do not, as you continually dodge the question. Leaving me to believe that your only evidence is "'cause I said so". Which is nice and all, but hardly ironclad. > Well then, what makes You start a debate over that was already finished? > Just checking. If someone walks into a room and starts arguing about something, even if it had been previously settled, it makes sense to continue to refute. -Peter

Daneel wrote: > Ah, now we're having the "You're insane" argument. It isn't an argument. If you unerringly believe something is true that you have no way to actually proove, it is a symptom of mental illness. It is possible you *aren't* mentally ill, although I'm kind of convinced you are at this point, due to your unerring belief of things you have no proof of. But I'm not trying to convince you of this. I was hoping you'd convince me you weren't by, say, having worthwhile data to support your argument (industry analysis, experience, whatever). But you keep avoiding that. So I guess you don't. So your unerring belief in your argument can only be based in muddleheadedness. Or insanity. Whichever. -Peter

Howdy Peter, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Daneel wrote: > > Ah, now we're having the "You're insane" argument. > > It isn't an argument. If you unerringly believe something is true that > you have no way to actually proove, it is a symptom of mental illness. Quibble: Steadfast belief in things one cannot prove is not AFAIK a symptom of mental illness. For instance, many people believe in God or gods. While I personally do not, I do tend to believe that the sun will rise each day, which is not a provable hypothesis. (As no scientific hypothesis is provable, though 'good' hypotheses should be disprovable.)* OTOH, unwavering belief in things which have been _disproven_ will cause you problems, up to and including certification. Of course, I've already given my evaluation re Daneel's mental state, so I understand where you're coming from. I just wanted to keep the mudslinging on target. Hope that helps, Alex *These statements should not be taken as an equating faith and science, or even as expressing faith in science. Please don't go there.

wumpus wrote: > Howdy Peter, > > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Daneel wrote: > > > Ah, now we're having the "You're insane" argument. > > > > It isn't an argument. If you unerringly believe something is true that > > you have no way to actually proove, it is a symptom of mental illness. > > Quibble: Steadfast belief in things one cannot prove is not AFAIK a > symptom of mental illness. Proof isn't a very useful concept outside of mathematics. In a formal system you can prove things. In the real world all you can do is give evidence, and disprove (or more likely, give evidence against). -Matt Kanninen

wumpus wrote: > Quibble: Steadfast belief in things one cannot prove is not AFAIK a > symptom of mental illness. For instance, many people believe in God or > gods. Heh. I'm not going anywhere near that one :-) This being said, well, I was willing to continue the discussion till the end of the world while it was moderately on topic and interesting. As it has now completely degenerated into Daneel and I insulting each other, I'm done, as that is much less entertaining than disecting an actual, vaguely sensical argument. So Daneel, please feel free to keep up the fight, but I'm moving on to more interesting discussion. -Peter

On 2 Jun 2006 22:45:48 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > So Daneel, please feel free to keep up the fight, but I'm moving on to > more interesting discussion. I accept Your surrender. -- Regards, Daneel

On 2 Jun 2006 13:19:16 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Ah, now we're having the "You're insane" argument. > > It isn't an argument. If you unerringly believe something is true that > you have no way to actually proove, it is a symptom of mental illness. Which is nice and all, but again, the 'unerringly believe' part is, in this particular case, more accurately phrased as, 'in the light of the arguments I gave, and the arguments I've seen, I'm convinced that I'm right 1) because of the valid points supporting my conclusion, and 2) there are no valid points refuting it'. With other words, I'm right. (-- read: in the light of the arguments I gave, and the arguments I've seen, I'm convinced that I'm right 1) because of the valid points supporting my conclusion, and 2) there are no valid points refuting it) There's Your shitload of political correctness. Now dodge cancelled, back to Your lack of points. -- Regards, Daneel

On 2 Jun 2006 13:05:20 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Of course it would not. It's the other was around - I'm saying it >> because >> You constantly seem to think that Your non-sequitur, half-relevant >> attemts at refutal were somehow mistaken as genuine arguments. Which >> they weren't. > > Do you realize how rediculous this discussion has become, in that every > time I say anything, you say "No! It is the exact opposite of that!" at > which point I reply with "ya see how silly it is that every point is > refuted with 'but no! It is the exact opposite!'", and then you respond > to that with "No! It is the exact opposite!" See, I don't think you do > realize how rediculous it is. Which is why I honestly think you are > mentally ill, which is why I keep bringing it up. This discussion has already been rediculous from the beginning. >> The 'because I say so' part is most interesting because it seems that >> You failed to comprehend the points I was basing this conclusion on. > > No, no. I understood your points. And in the end, all of your > arguments, essentially, are based on "I think this is so, thus, it is > so". All the discussion of aesthetics and how the rules cards aren't > quality play pieces and whatever, essentially boil down to (as it > always has) "My opinion is that they are bad. I have nothing concrete > to actually support these ideas, but they are bad none the less." Not to be philosophical or all, but in the end everything boils down to this. Even data is subject to belief (what you accept, what you question). As the phrase goes, 'don't confuse me with facts, I already have my opinion'. At least this is the impression I got from this debate. -- Regards, Daneel

On 2 Jun 2006 13:13:34 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Which is good and all, but I'm not sure what the point is. If any... > > The point is that if you had some sort of data to back up your > arguments, or deep knowledge of the industry, or heck, even industry > experience, you might have evidence to prop up the argument of "The > rules cards are bad for the game, as games die off when they produce > non quality components", upon which you seem to be basing most of your > argument. But I 'm assuming you do not, as you continually dodge the > question. Leaving me to believe that your only evidence is "'cause I > said so". Which is nice and all, but hardly ironclad. In the realm of hypothesis that's as far as one gets. Forming an opinion will be based on these. Ir's really a strawman to apparently disrecognize the hypothetical nature of a debate and demand proof from the opponent (especially when 1) You never gave any proof to begin with, 2) nor would any proof be possible, as we are mostly talking about future events). But it sounded cool for a while. ;) >> Well then, what makes You start a debate over that was already finished? >> Just checking. > > If someone walks into a room and starts arguing about something, even > if it had been previously settled, it makes sense to continue to > refute. Even assuming You are sure that person just indeed walk into the room, You would still be wrong (at least in the manner You conducted your 'continue to refute' activity, which was really far from actual refutal, even addressing). Especially since the person posted a handful of the most significant points against the change, You know, mainly for record's sake. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] You are one card short of a full deck if You draw such a conclusion from a thread like this. I don't think You're mentally ill for being a stubborn bastard. So shouldn't You confuse my righteous persistance with a sign of mental frailty. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I accept Your surrender. If it helps you sleep better at night, I'm glad I could help. -Peter

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:optak3mr...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] This is so out of context. So what is your arguement? You have listed so many of the last few weeks, that I've lost count! So you need to redefine just what it is your stating is a valid point, and what is supporting that claim. In arguements, simply stating that you have convinced your self that your point is valid, is not a mean to the end. So for completeness, you need to restate your point being made and your supporting points. Pretend this is a court case. Think Enron. Lay and Skilling were taken down, and at the end of the case, both insisted that they were correct and had done nothing wrong. Sound eerily familiar doesn't it. Raille