Being a veteran of another collectible card game, the Starwars:CCG,
I think that adapting their players comittee's strategy for printing
new cards is a solid alternative.
In SW:CCG, after it was discontinued by Decipher,
the player comittee has published so-called "virtual cards", which
are based on the name of an already existing card, but the virtual
card now has a different game text.
So a card like Luke Skywalker Game Text: Can do X
becomes Luke Skywalker (v) Game Text: Can do Y
This has several advantages:
1. No new Artwork is needed. You simply print out a piece
of paper with the new game text and
stick it in the sleve over the old card's game text.
2. Cards remain valuable. In order to legally play
the virtual card, you have to put in the sleve the old card
with the same card name, that is: For every
Luke Skywalker (v) you want to play you need a Luke Skywalker
card.
3. For Vtes this could mean that old wallpaper cards could be
juiced up with a virtual, or in vtes terms "advanced" version,
and see more play.
Since there is a discussion elsewhere in this forum about being
forced to sleve decks in order to use print-outs,
an alternative could be to write on the card with a well-readable
marker an (a) behind the card title to indicate advanced status
and have the advanced game text with you on a seperate sheet of paper.
MS
I would have no objection to this.
Card #1:
Guard Duty. Make card text match Todd Bannister's Designer intent, the vampire on Guard Duty should be able to block actions against the designated location that don't start at stealth.
groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/273579683816ec66
Very much my own thoughts. And it saddens me, that this, in my opinion far more elegant solution, was not even accordingly discussed. The impuls it would give to the secondary market is great, beneficial to the game. And, above all, it would remain the "real game" with actual cards.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
No, it is a means for creating a whole lot of new cards. E.g. let's say we have a gr.1 Brujah justicar, who doesn't see much action nowadays, so let there be a new version of him, hence giving him a chance. Does anyone miss the old one? Then he is free to use the old one. The new doesn't overwrite the old one. It just is another "persona" of the vampire Don Cruez. One persona gives him maneuver, another could give him whatever the design team might find useful.
Put simply, virtual cards might be a sort of reboot for the game. There would be no need for inventing or tediously finding new vampires or card titles. Nor would it need new artwork. It would enlarge the cardpool significantly.
Technically you can "overwrite" either just the textbox, or even the disciplines. The print-outs are certainly discernable, but hey, in my opinion, seeing the original card, the original artwork, matters a lot, it feels like playing the card, not a proxy. And I don't like playing with proxies...
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
Sounds like the planned PDF-set but with old card names.
Personally I think having to remember the current errata enough, giving cards even more text doesn't sound appealing to me.
OK, let me rephrase one more time. Imagine the old card - and you would need the actual card, e.g. in this example Don Cruez. You would then print out a small piece of paper, which you would cut out and which would only cover the textbox. You would put the printout in the cardsleeve, or even glue it to the old card, thus rewriting it's old text. There would be the old Don Cruez, and there would be Don Cruez (v) (=virtual).
So this DOES NOT mean adding new text to the old one, but replacing it with new text.
What is harder - remembering a brand new vampire, or the old one with a new special? What gives you more of the "feel" for the game - playing with a rebooted old school vampire or printing out a completely new one?
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
Point 2 is interesting.
However, it requires permanent knowledge of the rarity of a card. The fact that we have had reprints in VTES makes it awkward, imho. So far, trading only involved "minimum rarity" + power. (that is, a card that dropped from rare to uncommon / fixed is less valuable than a card that remains rare. and bad cards are less valuable than good cards).
That is true, in Star Wars CCG there also were reprints, but as far as I know (except for the Death Star II starters) not of this sort. There were white border reprints and foil reprints. Both significantly changing the value of the card. Then there is the problem of card design, which changed three times (Jyhad - V:tes - Camarilla - Anarchs). All of this is I believe still managable.
My point was to (very belatedly) draw attention to this alternative.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
> Daidalos wrote:
> OK, let me rephrase one more time. Imagine the old card - and you would need the actual card, e.g. in this example Don Cruez. You would then print out a small piece of paper, which you would cut out and which would only cover the textbox. You would put the printout in the cardsleeve, or even glue it to the old card, thus rewriting it's old text. There would be the old Don Cruez, and there would be Don Cruez (v) (=virtual).
> So this DOES NOT mean adding new text to the old one, but replacing it with new text.
> What is harder - remembering a brand new vampire, or the old one with a new special? What gives you more of the "feel" for the game - playing with a rebooted old school vampire or printing out a completely new one?
>
Well, you will add more card text to associate with the card name. With all errata and changes that has been made I feel that there's enough for each card as it is now.
And honestly, I'd say changing my memory of a current card would be harder and also feel more confusing than learning a new card name and associated card text.
Regarding the feel of the game I'd rather see new cards with new artwork (which seems possible thanks for volunteers).
No. And yes, it does mean, that old worthless cards could sell/trade for a lot. It would change the market. Yet - is that a good or bad thing? The market is stale, with everyone wanting the same +/-50 cards.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
> Pascal wrote:
> VTES also doesn't have an icon for rarity. Does SW have it?
>
I am not sure what rarity has to do with the proposal.
I nominate
Eyes of the Dead
and
Up Yours!
for virtual text.
Ah! Good catch!
I thought the system was :
Each newly designed card has its own rarity.
"To play a pdf card, you have to sleeve it in front of an existing card of same rarity." (and not "same name")
Hence all the fuss about rarity
I thought you mean: in order to release a new (virtual) card, you have to consider it's rarity "in the real world" - e. g. it's "power".
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
A lot of people are seriously missing the point here:
The point is not to be able to "errata" worthless cards. That's just a possibility within the virtual card system.
The point is to create new cards with the SAME NAME as existing cards. To play the new card (the virtual card, hence the (V) annotation) you need to put a piece of paper in a sleeve that hold the ACTUAL card.
For example, if a Deep Song (v) was designed, you'd first need an actual Deep Song to be able to play it. This has a couple of very useful side-effects:
1) You don't need to bother with art. The are is already there, thus allowing you to focus on actual game effects instead of art.
2) It allows, as above, rewriting of wallpaper cards without issuing endless errate lists. People will just have to play the virtual verion of the card and therefore nobody will have to rely on an eidetic memory to know exactly what every card does.
3) It keeps the secondary market alive and changing. If Twisting the Knife (v) would actually be a good card, then the value of Twisting the Knife would go up. With the system VEKN has chosen, it will be very easy to just print "Summon Future" with some new art, but with the exact same card text as Summon History, instantly crashing the secondary market for it.
4) It keeps rarity in the game (and with it the trading aspect). If the Crimon Sentinel (v) was an insanely good melee weapon, it still wouldn't be in every deck, for the same reason you don't see the Heart in every deck currently - not everyone owns sufficient of them to put a copy in every deck.
5) It gets rid of the proxy discussion entirely, because new cards are not actual proxies. They still require investment in a collection, respecting the first C in CCG.
6) You can easily update and change the virtual cards if they proof to be bad, broken or generally not healthy for the game. You simply update the text file and require people to always play with the latest version of virtual cards.
7) And, as an icing on the cake, there would be ZERO copyright problems, because you're not actually recreating anything that is copyrighted.
It's a really elegant system and has been working perfectly for Star Wars for years.
I kinda like this idea. In fact I was thinking something similar.
Since the new cards in the set will require vampire cards for backing, why shouldn't V:EKN allow for updated card texts on old cards.
For example, "Majesty" requires a blood, Wouldn't it be prudent to allow players to use a current text printout, using the old card for the backing? I would even argue for requiring players to play with updated text.
Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.
I have a question.
If we have a (v)-version of a combat card, can we use both versions in one deck? (and benefit from different effects)
If we are using (v)-versions of a vampires, both versions would contest each other? (just to be sure)
I like this idea. So we can make many card worthy to be in decks. Should we start "card ideas" topics already?
As someone who may have to judge such cards in the future:
- If you choose the (V) version for one, you get it for all. If there was ONE (V) version in a deck than all would be assumed to be (V) versions.
- Any unique card with the same name contests any other unique card with the same name. Of course, vampires are unique by default.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
What you as a judge think it moot, because in the end you will have to judge what the rules say. What you think is more convenient is irrelevant.
As someone who actually played some Star Wars with (v) cards -
> - If you choose the (V) version for one, you get it for all. If there was ONE (V) version in a deck than all would be assumed to be (V) versions.
>
No. The card is what it says it is. If you play a card X (v), there is a little piece of paper in it with the (v) card text. If it doesn't have the piece, it's just the regular vanilla card X.
> Any unique card with the same name contests any other unique card with the same name. Of course, vampires are unique by default.
>
Yes. Although in Star Wars this only really matters for characters (comparable to vampires in VTES) since with the way the game is setup there is no other form of uniqueness. Also contesting does not exist.
It would make sense to have Academnic Hunting Ground (v) contest with Academic Hunting ground, similar to how Nergal (Adv) contests Nergal.
It needs also be said that the effects of the (v) card and the regular card can be *vastly* different. There is neither need nor reason to make the effects similar. Immortal Grapple (v) might for all intents and purposes be a Political Action requiring Samedi.
The last part of the above said is very important:
1) you don't want the normal and (v) effects to be similar, you want them very different.
2) you don't want or need good cards to be tranformed or "virtualized". There is enough of "not so good ones".
3) Masters, action cards, allies, retainers or other permanents and political actions are more apt for virtualization than other cards because of the rapid cardflow in v:tes.
4) think of this as a process: starting with some 30 first v-cards. those could be thematically or even chronologically organized to make the first "virtual set".
5) now imagine what would happen in the community: no one would have problems with discerning normal/virtual cards. There would be for example decks playing Surprise influence (my personal favourite wallpaper card). Everyone would know these are the new virtual cards.
6) with more of these v-cards appearing, there could be some confusion from time to time, but hey: v:tes is all about confusion, we've lived with it before.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
Izaak,
If you think the opinion of someone who will have to administer any future rules has no point in contributing to the rules, then I'd say you have your head shoved somewhere rather dark and smelly.
I would expect that as a Prince (and someone who regularly judges tournaments) that my opinion on how the rule should be written to ensure a minimum of cheating/etc would be valued. It is about bringing the practical enforcement angle into the creation of the rule to start with.
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> If you think the opinion of someone who will have to administer any future rules has no point in contributing to the rules, then I'd say you have your head shoved somewhere rather dark and smelly.
>
Oh I see. So you were consulted on the RTR 2012 rulings? Or on the 7/7/7 ones? Or ANY rule changes and update for that matter? Don't kid yourself here.
I think, if you expect that every random Joe that happens to judge or organize a tournament has something to say about the rulings, I suggest that you change your expectation. Especially, given that after having it explained to you at least twnice now, you still don't seem to quite grasp the concept of virtual cards.
> I would expect that as a Prince (and someone who regularly judges tournaments) that my opinion on how the rule should be written to ensure a minimum of cheating/etc would be valued. It is about bringing the practical enforcement angle into the creation of the rule to start with.
>
Except that you make these statements under the false assumption that (v) cards have to be similar to the regular card, an errata'd or upgraded card, as you wish. Which they do not. So before suggesting any rulings for a system you should first familiarize yourself with the concept more and then you'll realize that your suggestion under (1) makes no sense whatsoever.
In the virtual card world, you are basically saying "If you play at least one Telepathic Counter in your deck, I will have to assume that all your Majesties are also Telepathic Counters".
And that makes no sense. Whatsoever.
> Izaak wrote:
> 1) You don't need to bother with art. The are is already there, thus allowing you to focus on actual game effects instead of art.
>
Granted, that's the best point of the approach.
>
> 2) It allows, as above, rewriting of wallpaper cards without issuing endless errate lists. People will just have to play the virtual version of the card and therefore nobody will have to rely on an eidetic memory to know exactly what every card does.
>
If the VEKN wanted it that way, they could just issue errata and let people paste the new text on the old card. How is your solution better?
>
> 3) It keeps the secondary market alive and changing. If Twisting the Knife (v) would actually be a good card, then the value of Twisting the Knife would go up. With the system VEKN has chosen, it will be very easy to just print "Summon Future" with some new art, but with the exact same card text as Summon History, instantly crashing the secondary market for it.
>
I fail to see that as a good point. First, it opens the door to insider trading: how do you prevent a playtester from grabbing all the cheap copies he can before the new text is publicly released? Second, not all VTES players like to chase cards, otherwise there would not have been regular requests to turn it into an LCG when it was still in print. With its 2 hour format and strong social element, VTES is not your typical CCG. The players come from different backgrounds, be it the RPG, CCGs or boardgames.
Moreover, there has been a persistent (and completely justified) trend to reprint good cards only. Many of the candidates for virtualisation will turn into real chase cards because they have not been printed in 10 years. Star Wars CCG was produced for 6 years, VTES for 16. The access to old cards is already a real problem for attracting and keeping new players, the last thing we need is to make it worse.
>
> 4) It keeps rarity in the game (and with it the trading aspect). If the Crimon Sentinel (v) was an insanely good melee weapon, it still wouldn't be in every deck, for the same reason you don't see the Heart in every deck currently - not everyone owns sufficient of them to put a copy in every deck.
>
It is not rarity that limits unique cards. When you need a Heart for a tournament, you can always find somebody to lend one. And are are you really saying that Girls decks with 9+ Ashur, 6+Liquidation and 6+ Villein don't play the Heart because they can't afford it?
>
> 5) It gets rid of the proxy discussion entirely, because new cards are not actual proxies. They still require investment in a collection, respecting the first C in CCG.
>
As long as you still need to paste another paper on an existing card, the problem remains the same for the people who don't want sleeves. Besides the VEKN has clearly stated several times that it would not allow proxies for now, and I don't see how one could make a viable only with the 35 cards (including vampires of different clans) from the next expansion. Internet expansions that small will not decrease the value of existing cards because you will still need original cards as the bulk of your deck.
>
> 6) You can easily update and change the virtual cards if they proof to be bad, broken or generally not healthy for the game. You simply update the text file and require people to always play with the latest version of virtual cards.
>
Same goes for a pdf expansion.
>
> 7) And, as an icing on the cake, there would be ZERO copyright problems, because you're not actually recreating anything that is copyrighted.
>
That is obviously wrong. If it was true, then CCG publishers for other games would never have had to come up with a whole thesaurus of synonyms for the word "tap". After all, they were not trying to print fake MtG cards, were they? The copyright issues remain exactly the same, except that you have nothing to sell so it is easier to stay under the radar.
This is a reply to the objections posted above:
ad 2) the "rewriting of wallpaper cards without issuing endless errate lists" doesn't mean adding words/lines or rephrasing, it means: a) the original card is left as it is (for clarity's sake, here's an example: Surprise influence, Requires a ready vampire. Only usable during the referendum of a political action. This reacting vampire gains 2 votes.) b) by rewriting a new, virtual card is created: Surprise influence (v): Cost: 1 blood. Only usable when another Methusaleh is being bled. Tap this reacting vampire to cancel a reaction card that doesn't require a Discipline.
VEKN obviously don't do this, becouse they do not think about this possibility. They want to create new cards (i.e. new name, picture, text.)
ad 3) This certainly is a weak spot, yet one that can easily be circumvented: by not using controvers (= too rare, old, whatever) cards. and, on the other hand, what is so wrong with trading old, up to now worthless cards again? Do cards have "inherent value" or something? Their cost, apart from their "material cost" is solely dependent on the market, which is driven by symbolic values of the cards. Insider trading: oooh, I guess this has never happened yet, has it? This is an academic objection, valid in a world far, far away.
ad 4) Good Lord - "in every deck" in the original post means: I currently have 10 decks built, yet I play the Heart only in two of them, because I have 2 Hearts. I won't be playing all 10 decks in a tournament and I might add one of the Hearts in my tournament deck.
ad 5) this is the crucial point: in my view, virtual cards are not proxies. Print-outs of any card which is put in front of another card on the other hand - is. I know this is not the reasoning of the IC and others, yet I can't rid myself of the feeling that I won't like playing with the new cards. This is the first and most important reason why I'm advocating the v-cards.
ad 6) - yes.
ad 7) Now here I can't really offer much of an answer, but here's an illustration: all of the new v-cards in Star Wars, all of the new rulebooks - everything the community has so far done, is always done IN SPITE of Lucasfilm. The phrase they use is: Not Endorsed or Sponsored by Lucasfilm.
I don't know, maybe the Star Wars Player's Commitee has a sort of understanding with Lucas, a sort of "detante", but it seems to me like he just can't do much about it - unless he'd want to look like real jerk.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
Never played Star Wars CCG but if that system works great for that game it totally should be considered and researched more. I guess there are also other CCGs in same situation as Vtes. How things are managed in those games? Stupid trying to reinvent things anyway.
Phobia
Mummify
Erosion
Eyes of the Dead
Surprise Influence
Up Yours!
Smoke Grenade
Ahriman's Demesne
Command
Crimson Fury
Fractured Armament
King of the Mountain
Inbase Discotek, Frankfurt
Twisting the Knife
Lobotomy
Legacy of Caine
Sunrise Service
Lifeless Tongues
Cloak of Blood
Delivery Truck
Toy Chest Test
There is some cards you can start with! Also can add all the clan hosers and all the 'hold' cards in that list.
> Non-existant user wrote:
>
> > 7) And, as an icing on the cake, there would be ZERO copyright problems, because you're not actually recreating anything that is copyrighted.
> >
> That is obviously wrong. If it was true, then CCG publishers for other games would never have had to come up with a whole thesaurus of synonyms for the word "tap". After all, they were not trying to print fake MtG cards, ere they? The copyright issues remain exactly the same, except that you have nothing to sell so it is easier to stay under the radar.
>
half of this forum doesn't understand copyrights at all.
the tapping mechanic is covered by a patent. you can't copyright a word or concept.
> Surreal wrote:
> Never played Star Wars CCG but if that system works great for that game it totally should be considered and researched more. I guess there are also other CCGs in same situation as Vtes. How things are managed in those games? Stupid trying to reinvent things anyway.
>
Well SW has the concept of virtual cards. Others I have seen create their own sets, very much like we are trying to do.
This is an interesting idea, must admit never heard it before. Wasn't into SW.
I would have a couple of hesitations about it:
It is already difficult in VTES to see what is going on on the other side of the table. With cards that LOOK the same but do something entirely different ... Could be annoying.
I can picture the glue over text box. But how do you address card title and disciplines, blood cost and requirements?
Availability. No matter which card we chose it will be unfair for someone. Either because he threw away his twisting the knives or a multitude of other reasons. A brand new PDF set is really great in terms of availability.
It does have the same sleeving issues as the PDF set. Not that I care but it has been an argument.
It is a very technical solution. Some people would find it irritating when there are two RPG related effects, one of them being true to the source material but weak but the other strong and completely irrelevant regarding source material.
How have these things been addressed in SW?
> It is already difficult in VTES to see what is going on on the other side of the table. With cards that LOOK the same but do something entirely different ... Could be annoying.
>
Not much different than it is now - "sorry what does that card do exactly again" is already a much heard phrase even with the most experienced players. Also, you'd just play the cards like they are now "I Govern virtual that vampire for 2 damage". In Star Wars this is really no issue and the "problem" you describe there is there as well.
> I can picture the glue over text box. But how do you address card title and disciplines, blood cost and requirements?
>
You don't, really. The thing is, if you want to create a celerity combat card that costs a blood, then just make it the virtual card of an existing celerity card that requires a blood. That's how it's done in Star Wars with the Force costs as well. of course you'll run out of cards eventually, but they haven't yet in Star Wars and VTES has a lote more cards to work with. For characters they just use a slightly bigger slip of paper that denotes strength and health if it differs from the original card.
I see the problem with crypt cards, but just handle those like advanced vampires are handled.
> Availability. No matter which card we chose it will be unfair for someone. Either because he threw away his twisting the knives or a multitude of other reasons. A brand new PDF set is really great in terms of availability.
>
For some people the retention of card rarity and availability is an important aspect of the hobby. I'd be the first to say that VTES has always been closer to a CG than a CCG, but in the end it's still a trading card game and losing the trading aspect may in the long run have its cost.
With PDFs, the original cards could (and likely will) -given time- be close to worthless because of replacing existing cards and power creep. I understand the current 35 cards are there to fill a hole but how many holes are there to plug? There was already a lot of power creep in both crypt and library cards in KoT and HttB and making anything new will have to be at least as good to be used. Or fill a super obscure niche, but again - how many niches are there to fill.
> It does have the same sleeving issues as the PDF set. Not that I care but it has been an argument.
>
Of course. And thus moot.
> It is a very technical solution. Some people would find it irritating when there are two RPG related effects, one of them being true to the source material but weak but the other strong and completely irrelevant regarding source material.
>
It's technical, sure. But it circumvents copyrights and keeps the game a trading card game. If those are your goals, which I believe should be the case it's the most elegant solution I've seen yet.
> Izaak wrote:
> It's technical, sure. But it circumvents copyrights and keeps the game a trading card game. If those are your goals, which I believe should be the case it's the most elegant solution I've seen yet.
>
Actually I think the worst part about copyright will be the text since it involves (tap) and other patents (I learned something!). I am not particulary worried about White Wolf material, rather about WotC. The biggest "part" of the actual complete card will be the picture, which will be genuine VEKN material.
> Izaak wrote:
> You don't, really. The thing is, if you want to create a celerity combat card that costs a blood, then just make it the virtual card of an existing celerity card that requires a blood. That's how it's done in Star Wars with the Force costs as well. of course you'll run out of cards eventually, but they haven't yet in Star Wars and VTES has a lote more cards to work with. For characters they just use a slightly bigger slip of paper that denotes strength and health if it differs from the original card.
>
> I see the problem with crypt cards, but just handle those like advanced vampires are handled.
>
How do they change the title? Or is the new text an implication of the (v) version? Can you point me to a direct link to some of those cards and more details.
It is really weird that this only came up now, it would have been really good input half a year ago. I do not want to get specific hopes up, but certainly this isn´t forgotten.
Here's a downloads page of the Star Wars Player's commitee, the master pdf file is huge, though.
Technically, in SW several different types of v-cards exist:
1) minor change: only the textbox is changed.
2) medium change: textbox and some (or all) of the attributes (i.e. power, cost, defensive nuber...) are changed
3) major change: the original card becomes only the artwork of a completely new card, i.e. interrupt becomes a character, in V:tes this would mean transforming e.g. Surprise influence into an action card.
4) new card: in some instances, completely new cards were created - e.g. Galen Marek of the Expanded SW universe has a new card. But this is the last resort.
Thanks Johannes, this attention is more than I'd hoped for. Yet I am realistic.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
> Daidalos wrote:
> Here's a downloads page of the Star Wars Player's commitee, the master pdf file is huge, though.
> Technically, in SW several different types of v-cards exist:
> 1) minor change: only the textbox is changed.
>
That would be a really different alternative to new cards, I think. However given the complexity of V:TES with the huge number of requirements and cost ranges I have the feeling this seriously limites the options. Can you give a comparison on the set of requirements in SW (vs. Clan, discipline, title etc.. in V:TES) and the cost ranges? Just to get an idea about their range of options and ours.
> Daidalos wrote:
> 2) medium change: textbox and some (or all) of the attributes (i.e. power, cost, defensive nuber...) are changed
> 3) major change: the original card becomes only the artwork of a completely new card, i.e. interrupt becomes a character, in V:tes this would mean transforming e.g. Surprise influence into an action card.
> 4) new card: in some instances, completely new cards were created - e.g. Galen Marek of the Expanded SW universe has a new card. But this is the last resort.
>
I think when changing a card to that extent it is better to just do a new card. The medium change is sort of in between. Changing ONE attribute could be doable for library card.
If it is only about the artwork I think people are actually excited to see new artwork. The limited availability prevents us from putting out too many cards
OK, here's the nutshell:
For characters, these are the most important: Power, Deploy cost, Forfeit Value (below the deploy cost), Ability, Destiny Number (right top corner).
(sorry, I just can't upload the bloody picture )
For other cards it's either very similar - vehicles and such,
or quite simple with only the textbox being important
Yet, as a whole, the Star Wars CCG is vastly complex and (when it comes to symbols and pletora of various rules and specials) only comparable to V:tes (or, most likely, even more difficult to play and learn).
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
As I simply can't do it with a picture (shame on me), the topography of the respective traits and values is like this:
star wars cards have picture in the vertical centre of the card.
below the picture are all but 1 numbers: only the destiny number is above the picture.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
> johannes wrote:
>
> It is really weird that this only came up now, it would have been really good input half a year ago. I do not want to get specific hopes up, but certainly this isn´t forgotten.
>
Well, the original post dates back to November 2011, so....
MS
Dig it! Let's start the brainstorming fun right now!
Phobia
Action
ser: Put this card on any vampire; you still control this card. During your master phase, you may put a phobia counter on this card. If a minion you control blocks the vampire with this card, you may burn five counters from this card before range is chosen to end combat.
SER: As above, but with +1 stealth.
Virtual Phobia
Action
ser: Put this card on a minion; you still control this card. This minion cannot block actions. Burn this card during your next untap phase.
SER: Put this card on a minion; you still control this card. Opposing minions may burn 1 blood or life to end combat against this minion. Burn this card when Victory Points are given to a methuselah.
Proxy Kissed
Giovanni
Master: out-of-turn.
Put this card on a Giovanni when you move him or her from your uncontrolled region to your ready region during your influence phase. This Giovanni gains one level of Potence and one level of Fortitude . His or her capacity is increased by 1. Move 1 blood from the blood bank to this Giovanni.
Virtual Proxy Kissed
Giovanni
Master
Put this card on a Giovanni vampire; a vampire may have only one Proxy Kissed. This vampire may burn 1 blood to gain 1 vote during political actions. This card may be burned after a successful hunt action to gain 2 additional blood.
Whee! This is fun!
> Forhead wrote:
> Is it just me or those "Virtual Phobia" just sound semanticly wrong and very non-vampire themed?
>
It's just you.
It's a wonderful idea to spice up underused cards with almost no effort. New options for deckbuilding! B)
pckvtes.wordpress.com
My comment were only about the name. It has a very bad sound to it, I think. "the virtual part of it. But maybe you don't get to see the words "virtual phobia" on any game cards.
Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark
Nah, you don't name them "Virtual <Original_CardName>". Following the SWCCG example, give them some fancy new name and denote that it is placed on Phobia (at the bottom on the card).
>
> Anubis' Phobia
> Action
> : Put this card on any minion. You still control this card. This minion cannot block actions. Burn this card during your next untap phase.
> : Put this card on any minion. You still control this card. Opposing minions may burn 1 blood or life to end combat against this minion. Burn this card when one (or more) victory point are given to a Methuselah.
> Phobia (V)
>
But please do not see the virtual cards as replacements/errata for existing cards only. They can be completed different cards which just happens to share the same artwork or requirements.
Btw, as far as I know (I have never been an active SWCCG player), only common and uncommon cards were used as basis for these virtual cards.
Okey, thanks. That's very releaving to hear. I don't like the idea. But I would have felt violated if the all virtual cards would have been named "Virtual <Original_CardName>".
Isak Esbjörnsson Bjärmark
Yeah, I am still highly ambivalent to this idea. If we are designing brand new cards... why not design brand new cards??
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
There are many reasons why the v-cards could prove more efficient or elegant. For me the most important point being the lesser extent of "proxy-ness" of this solution. Yet I understand that many people wish to see new cards with new artwork.
I must admit that in my part of the world the new pdf expansion is being awaited with even more ambivalent feelings. Reactions like "I won't play with the new cards" or "the whole game goes down for good" are not so rare. I'm sorry for the gloomy post, but this is the reality.
"I like to think there always are ...possibilities." Spock
Of course the main difference between this and the PDF expansion is that this would mean that new players would not have ready access to the new cards. I fail to see this as an advantage.
There would still be all the same patent and copyright issues. There would still be a requirement to sleeve the cards. It would be more like proxying as you'd be using your "Alacrity" to represent your "Virtual Alacrity" (or whatever). In fact, every objection that anyone raised to the PDF expansion would also apply to this idea. But there would also be that one major extra drawback of restricting the access that new players have to those cards.
Hello all - I'm a first time poster long time lurker (etc etc). As a new player (started playing after WW discontinued the game), I have to say that I'm a little shocked at the VTES community. Everybody points to card games like Star Wars and Star Trek as models for how a game can survive after being dropped. Yet there seems to have been no effort to ASK the leaders of those communities what they've done and what's been successful. And then when somebody comes here saying "here is something that game X has done, and I think it's great" (a prime example being the virtual card idea) suddenly nobody has anything positive to say (an over-exaggeration, but not far off from what I've seen). The Star Wars CCG knows how to survive MUCH better than VTES - we should at least be open to the possibility that what they have to offer is of value. Whoever brings the idea shouldn't need to feel defensive or like they are being attacked. Daidalos - thank you for bringing this interesting idea to our community. I'm very glad to hear the perspective of somebody familiar with both games. Please continue to post ideas that the SW CCG community has experimented with! VTES may or may not use them, but we certainly need to hear them. For those who disagree with this (or any other idea) - try to do so with a little more respect. Kindness costs nothing, a fact all too often forgotten by those on the internet. <end rant>
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
Brettscho, there are a lot of deeply conservative VTES players who post regularly on this board. It's not necessarily indicative of all VTES players, although I think a majority tend that way. I have also been shocked at how negatively many players react the suggestion of change, at least unless it stems from an established authority. It's just the way it is, and perhaps it stems from the top-down management style that VTES has had for such a long time. I think a lot of the players who have stuck with the game like that environment. A conservative or slow-to-change environment certainly has many benefits, after all.
I suspect that the other two CCG communities you mentioned have a different history. Perhaps the corporate leadership of the games had a different flavor. The people who are interested in those CCGs are probably great fans of their respective source materials, too, and want to have a chance to contribute to the favorite setting through the CCG. VTES players, at least many who post here, tend to be decidedly uninterested in the WoD setting. Just throwing out some thoughts.
Hum... I like the idea about virtual cards. Especially thinking about completing the sabbat gr 5-6. Using the same names (and uniqueness) and just using small adjustments and new groups.
Only thing I think about is the change in layout that happened at the Camarilla Ed. Then we'dd have to create two layouts for each card.
While there are some small advantages of the concept, one major disadvantage makes it much worse than full pdf cards. It's a lack of artwork which creates "playing with proxies" feeling much bigger than in case of completely new pdf cards. This one alone makes me strongly against it.