What if VTES was rebooted into an incompatible 2.0 version?

With all the excitement and polls being taking place, I'd like to explore one possible outcome with the following question: Would VEKN still design and release PDF sets for VTES 1.0? Thing is; all arguments aside... I just love this quirky complex game and still look forward to expansions in whatever format... I'd like to see further development, new ideas, mediocre ideas (but potentially interesting) improved and bad ideas forsaken. -1 Strength

I'm totally against a new incompatible game. I'll voice my favorite alternative in the proper thread. It is possible to do the best of both worlds, I think (copyrights apart).

It will flop - nobody cares about one more new card game. NC Russia

I think to be commercially viable you'd like to have everyone playing the same VTES game. Backward compatibility ensures you keep the current players on board and makes it easier for players in torpor to rejoin the game. For new players it would probably make little difference.

Dear all, > Borrelstein wrote: > I think to be commercially viable you'd like to have everyone playing the same VTES game. Backward compatibility ensures you keep the current players on board and makes it easier for players in torpor to rejoin the game. For new players it would probably make little difference. > For me this sounds like a dream: - If a company starts a new products, that product should make money. If you can use the new product without buying it, the company does not make money. - If the company accepts your idea, you'll have a powerlevel issue between old and new cards. New cards should interest new players so they have to be strong enough to create full new competitive decks and strategies. This leeds to a whole new game, does not it. > elotar wrote: > It will flop - nobody cares about one more new card game. > Thanks for this interesting point about Russian potential market. Best regards, Rémi. I am Rémi Cavaillé (), Barcelona (Spain). I was the Prince of Lyon (France) around 2003. I am now Official Judge and the 5th Prince of Barcelona. Enjoy VTES, Marvel Champions, L5R and more gaming activities in Khan Jugar: sites.google.com/view/khanjugar/

I'm for a reboot. There are a raft of random bits and pieces that can be culled from the system. We can delete whole sets of cards that may not bring much to the game. We can retcon older edition vampires into new versions. We can restructure some broken stuff, or remove them, or reprint them, and so on. We can keep the stuff that is strong about the game, and give it a new lease on life. And the ability to have cards in stores, or distributed in packs/boosters will give us the chance to recruit new players. I don't love the LCG format as an idea. But I can see its appeal as a 'bricks and mortar Print-and-Play' options. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

If new vtes would be incompatible with old cards than big part of current playerbase wouldn't play it. They would probably play old vtes for a while but with less players than now (some of old players would switch to new vtes) they would stop playing vtes at all soon. This is clearly visible in the polls, it's what I and many of my friends feel.

@alek I´ll second that.

What I find interesting about both Ylly and Alek's comment is this... Why was it that we specifically got a Survey about a reboot? I suspect that it is precisely what we will see. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> alek wrote: > If new vtes would be incompatible with old cards than big part of current playerbase wouldn't play it. They would probably play old vtes for a while but with less players than now (some of old players would switch to new vtes) they would stop playing vtes at all soon. > This is clearly visible in the polls, it's what I and many of my friends feel. > I think there is a precedent with the game of thrones LCG. It was rebooted into an incompatible second edition version (last summer ?) with only slightly different rules (basically superfluous stuff was removed and rules were streamlined... pretty much what were hoping to do with VTES, right?). The original GoT LCG launched in 2002 and its cardpool had been getting large and unwieldy. Before second edition general consensus seemed to be that veteran players would not make the switch because they had invested so heavily into the old version in the past and their cards would be useless in the new version. However, this didn't turn out to be so, players DID make the switch and the second edition seems to be thriving. Ultimately, we are all playing for fun and our hobby will always require money. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

Of course it thrives at the moment, new version of the game with just a few expansions. Wait for a year or so when there has been a pile of expansions released. The numbers will start declining. Finnish Politics!

A complete reboot with 0% compatibility is not a good idea because the current group of players is not negligible. They want to make money and ignoring a group of people that already is faithful to the game is stupid. Yet, we cannot hold the game hostage. I think it is unlikely they will allow for 100% of our cards to be legal and 100% of the rules/rulings be the same. What I'm afraid the most in the 0% compatibility scenario is this: The new owner of the WoD might stop us from using their IP like we are doing on the grounds that we are stopping people from buying their new game. So the option to continue to build new expansions might not be there if they do a full reboot. So I guess what I'm saying is that we should be ready for one of two scenarios: -Nothing happens, we continue as is. -Paradox, Wizards and/or someone else agree on a relaunch that will NOT be 100% the same, with less cards and with simpler rules. Any 0%/100% scenario is not beneficial for anyone.

I am no expert by any means when it comes to game design. However, I believe VTES is unique in that it uses two decks at once: Vampires/Crypt Cards and Library Cards. I could absolutely see an example of not all Library Cards being 100 percent compatible while Vampires/Crypt Cards being completely compatible. And I know this sounds crazy, but the opposite could be true as well Vampire/Crypt Cards not being compatible while all the Library Cards could be compatible. And compatibility does not mean they will be usable. I can think of a set of 'new' VTES 2.0 vampires with no dominate discipline. Different Sects. Nearly Broken special abilities. AND totally incompatible with the current set. However I can see them making some library cards that would only be usable by the current vampires, and some that are totally 100% useable by both sets. This would create a rift of sorts. Use the old vampires and suffer power loss and no new great ideas. Or use the new vampires and new disciplines not available in the old set. I could also see the whole restricted list rear its ugly head as well. No Imbued allowed in version 2.0. All Group 1 and Group 2 vampires not allowed in version 2.0. I can see all of these possibilities and I don't think this is going to be a stricts 0% or 100% deal.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Why was it that we specifically got a Survey about a reboot? > I suspect that it is precisely what we will see. > So let me get this straight: the current plan is to introduce a new card game based on currently-not-in-production WoD source material that is incompatible with any of the previous sets, thereby ensuring an even more niche customer base than the game currently has? Sounds like a winning plan.

You're all off topic... -1 Strength

Simplest solution, no reboot, continue as is, release a LARGE rerpint set having all the most used cards (use twda as an indicator on what to reprint, please, no fucking eyes of the dead) Old players: Happy, status quo continues New players: Happy, can buy Vileins and Enkil and Summon history to their hearts content WW: Happy, negligible amounts spent to create an income generating product.

> TwoRazorReign wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > Why was it that we specifically got a Survey about a reboot? > > I suspect that it is precisely what we will see. > > > So let me get this straight: the current plan is to introduce a new card game based on currently-not-in-production WoD source material that is incompatible with any of the previous sets, thereby ensuring an even more niche customer base than the game currently has? Sounds like a winning plan. > 1) The new company openly talk about new computer games, other new developments AND re-engaging with both RPG and VTES players. 2) Nobody previously has been able to go ahead while they still might have to tangle with Hasbro over what the stuff was that Wizards still owned that never got transferred to White Wolf but people could still try lawyer each other into oblivion. 3) The easiest way to solve 2, is to not reprint. You don't bother resurrecting the old game, you cannibalise it. You steal all the core elements that make the game distinctive, throw out the potentially Hasbro-contentious stuff, then you replace the rest with a new name that you can sell through Bricks and Mortar or Online in some format (LCG, Starter+Booster, Classic CCG, PoD, something else). 4) You release the cards with the new RPGs (or RPG reprints) AND the new software in a 'huge super relaunch of the Old World of Darkness' with massive fanfares and appeals to all people and things nerd or vampire. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Bloodartist wrote: > I think there is a precedent with the game of thrones LCG. > Have you got any numbers about GoT LCG second edition sales and player participation? NC Russia

Based on how the 1st edition moved and how the 2nd edition is now moving I got to say that it has had a VERY strong start, second only the Android Netrunner. Moving about 10x better than the 1st edition was during its last year. Seeing the data for just one country (Finland) since I'm the buyer for the local distributor... Finnish Politics!

> Rémi wrote: > If the company accepts your idea, you'll have a powerlevel issue between old and new cards. New cards should interest new players so they have to be strong enough to create full new competitive decks and strategies. This leeds to a whole new game, does not it. > I think this can be fixed by creating a new tournament format where only the reboot-reprinted cards would be allowed. Ie, a "modern" and a "classic" format. In this new "modern" format one could choose not to reprint "problematic" cards (for example Direct Intervention etc) and too powerful could be replaced with less powerful ones (for example replace Govern the Unaligned with Scouting Mission) and remove/nerf stuff that creates alot of pool (Villein+Giants Blood, Voter Cap etc.) > Rémi wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > It will flop - nobody cares about one more new card game. > > > Thanks for this interesting point about Russian potential market. > Yes, I also think elotar might be a little bit too regional. But he´s got a point - a new WoD CCG would have to be something really out of the ordinary to attract both old VTES players and new players. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

First: The survey was about what the community felt should be done. Some kind of reboot, any kind. Second, there are two things you have to consider that you don´t seem to consider in this discussion: 1) The new White Wolf Publishing is going for a reboot/restart/refresh of the whole classic oWoD, called "One World of Darkness". Any new/rebooted/refreshed VTES/VTES-like game will have to support their new view of WoD. 2) It is extremelly smart to be able to use all the existing artwork of VTES in a new game. Also, WWP is ALL FOR keeping the existing communities happy, not provoking nerd rage and badwill. Even though they off course want to earn money (WoD costed a lot to buy!), a CCG is possibly not were they have to do a large part of those earnings. A CCG could just as well serve as a marketing ploy for the brand, while they earn the big money on various computer games, both from Paradox and various licensees. Personally I´m for a backwards compatible reboot-set with a new tournament format (described here .) Start out with a 5-deck starter box, launched by crowdfunding, well balanced against eachother and with a bunch of "hot" cards (2 Villein/deck, 1 Enkil Cog/box etc), and then continue as a LCG with a new small set every 3 months or something like that (possibly with a subscription model you can tie to the crowdfunding of the starter box). All cards printed after the reboot is playable in beginner-friendly "modern" format, but also backwards compatible. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > then continue as a LCG with a new small set every 3 months or something like that > These first small sets, say 30-50 cards each, could be 1/3 cards brand new cards, 1/3 cards from the VEKN print-sets, and 1/3 "hot" reprints from old VTES. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

The game should be rebooted. Imagine that the game is continued through many several sets during a 5 or 10 year license. then, wizards/hasbro/whatever does not renovate deckmaster license for whatever reason, just like happened before. Then we will be all screwed up again, for the same very reason we're screwed now. Or we fix this issue, or it will last forever. I am death. Paul Kersey, Death Wish

> Charles_Bronson wrote: > Imagine that the game is continued through many several sets during a 5 or 10 year license. then, wizards/hasbro/whatever does not renovate deckmaster license for whatever reason, just like happened before. > > Then we will be all screwed up again, for the same very reason we're screwed now. > Or we fix this issue, or it will last forever. > Yes, but what exactly is "deckmaster license"? If it´s just the Deckmaster-logo on the back of the cards, I guess we can live without it, if people just play sleeves in tournaments (as they already do, if they mix in Jyhad-cards). "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Soooo back on topic... If VTES was rebooted in an incompatible 2.0 version, would VEKN still be able or willing to release PDF sets for VTES 1.0? Worst case scenario (depending on view) is that a new fan based organisation will be assembled to release fan based VTES 1.0 sets and govern tournaments, possibly taking over from VEKN. Highly unlikely but not beyond the realm of possibilities. I'm one of those absolutely not interested in VTES 2.0, so it would be great if VTES 1.0 could still continue on whilst the rest dabble with their VTES 2.0. -1 Strength

> Ashur wrote: > > > Charles_Bronson wrote: > > ...Then we will be all screwed up again, for the same very reason we're screwed now. > > Or we fix this issue, or it will last forever. > > > Yes, but what exactly is "deckmaster license"? If it´s just the Deckmaster-logo on the back of the cards, I guess we can live without it, if people just play sleeves in tournaments (as they already do, if they mix in Jyhad-cards). > Do Hasbro own the Potence Symbol? Do they own the Action Symbol? Do they own the rule book as written? Do they own the card art on Francois/Ur-Shulgi/Sutekh/etc? Do they own the back of the cards? Do they own the Trisnake? Do they own the "Turn Sequence"? Unless you know exactly what they own, the only way to be sure is to rebuild it from the ground up. Circumvent the problem, or as Bronson said... when the license runs out the game goes into torpor until another license can be negotiated which may be never (as currently seems the case). Don't get suckered into the Sunk Cost Fallacy, we aren't getting the time we spent playing this game back, we aren't getting back the money we spent on the cards and as/if the player base dwindles in number the perceived value of your cards will dwindle to nothing as well. Euthanase VTES, rebuild it with the features we love but enough novelty that it can't be challenged by Hasbro as being in any way theirs. Then we get a game in print, that has a backing company for stuff like new cards and maybe prize support which can be out in stores/internet growing a playerbase. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Oh, this "funny" "discussion" again ... > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Do Hasbro own the Potence Symbol? Do they own the Action Symbol? Do they own the rule book as written? Do they own the card art on Francois/Ur-Shulgi/Sutekh/etc? Do they own the back of the cards? Do they own the Trisnake? Do they own the "Turn Sequence"? > No, Hasbro don´t own any of this, to my knowledge. WWP own all IP and the game mechanic patent expired 2015. Do you know anything I don´t, please show some facts. Should there be any legal difficulties, I am sure WWP can sort that out with Hasbro. Or at least there are no reason for VEKN to think otherwise. Also: Everyone is free to pitch their own WoD-themed card game to WWP, just go ahead, but don´t expect VEKN to support it. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> GreyB wrote: > Soooo back on topic... If VTES was rebooted in an incompatible 2.0 version, would VEKN still be able or willing to release PDF sets for VTES 1.0? > Possibly not, depending if White Wolf Publishing feel it interfere with any new WoD games. Their stated aim is to unite all classic WoD into their new "One World of Darkness". This means VEKN (whatever legal body that is?) will not be able to use any WoD IP to produce a gain, certainly if it´s for profit. I would create a "Star Wars CCG - Wars CCG situation" which I´m personally not very interested in. I also want to clarify that VEKN is a interest organization for VTES specifically. It is not an organization for promoting WoD-based card games in general or anything like that: "Vampire: Elder Kindred Network™ is the Official V:TES Players' Organization dedicated to the continued health of V:TES. The V:EKN endeavours to help V:TES grow in popularity through the embracing of new players as well as through the support of the existing fans. The V:EKN is the organization responsible for sanctioning and regulating official V:TES tournaments, recording V:TES players' ratings (and rankings)." "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > GreyB wrote: > > Soooo back on topic... If VTES was rebooted in an incompatible 2.0 version, would VEKN still be able or willing to release PDF sets for VTES 1.0? > > > Possibly not, depending if White Wolf Publishing feel it interfere with any new WoD games. Their stated aim is to unite all classic WoD into their new "One World of Darkness". This means VEKN (whatever legal body that is?) will not be able to use any WoD IP to produce a gain, certainly if it´s for profit. I would create a "Star Wars CCG - Wars CCG situation" which I´m personally not very interested in. > > I also want to clarify that VEKN is a interest organization for VTES specifically. It is not an organization for promoting WoD-based card games in general or anything like that: > "Vampire: Elder Kindred Network™ is the Official V:TES Players' Organization dedicated to the continued health of V:TES. The V:EKN endeavours to help V:TES grow in popularity through the embracing of new players as well as through the support of the existing fans. The V:EKN is the organization responsible for sanctioning and regulating official V:TES tournaments, recording V:TES players' ratings (and rankings)." > Hmm, thing is, if Paradox opts for an incompatible VTES 2.0, which basically is a new game that looks like VTES 1.0 but is not VTES 1.0, then there's no change to the state of VTES 1.0. So the next question is twofold. Would Paradox allow VEKN to continue releasing VTES 1.0 PDF sets and if so, would VEKN still be willing to create VTES 1.0 sets and promote VTES 1.0 as it does now. Or will VEKN simply move on to promoting VTES 2.0 and leave VTES 1.0 to rot and die off? If all answers have a negative outcome, I am sure we could gather a fan based non-profit organisation to keep VTES 1.0 alive and continue releasing fan based sets and promote fan based tournaments. Basically, if VTES 1.0 and VEKN moves to VTES 2.0, we could have a VEKN 2.0 that stays with VTES 1.0 -1 Strength

> Ashur wrote: > > > Charles_Bronson wrote: > > Imagine that the game is continued through many several sets during a 5 or 10 year license. then, wizards/hasbro/whatever does not renovate deckmaster license for whatever reason, just like happened before. > > > > Then we will be all screwed up again, for the same very reason we're screwed now. > > Or we fix this issue, or it will last forever. > > > Yes, but what exactly is "deckmaster license"? If it´s just the Deckmaster-logo on the back of the cards, I guess we can live without it, if people just play sleeves in tournaments (as they already do, if they mix in Jyhad-cards). > Can't find out a better source atm, but MTGsalvation has this: > > When Magic was first designed, Wizards of the Coast had plans for a series of trading card games. To group these games together, they were all given the name "Deckmaster". Magic, Jyhad (renamed Vampire: the Eternal Struggle), Netrunner and BattleTech were all Deckmaster games. Wizards of the Coast eventually abandoned this method of grouping their trading card games, but the Magic card back is locked so the Deckmaster logo remains. > I guess 'deckmaster' logo is property of wizards of the coast. This would only matter if we wanted to use the old cards in the new game though. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Lönkka wrote: > Of course it thrives at the moment, new version of the game with just a few expansions. > > Wait for a year or so when there has been a pile of expansions released. The numbers will start declining. > I think you missed my point. My point was that reboot into an incompatible version didn't kill GoT card game, contrary what many on these forums seem to fear would happen to VTES. And unlike netrunner, there was basically no time gap between old GoT and new GoT. It was rebooted while old version was still being played actively. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Ashur wrote: > Oh, this "funny" "discussion" again ... > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > Do Hasbro own the Potence Symbol? Do they own the Action Symbol? Do they own the rule book as written? Do they own the card art on Francois/Ur-Shulgi/Sutekh/etc? Do they own the back of the cards? Do they own the Trisnake? Do they own the "Turn Sequence"? > > > No, Hasbro don´t own any of this, to my knowledge. WWP own all IP... Should there be any legal difficulties, I am sure WWP can sort that out with Hasbro. Or at least there are no reason for VEKN to think otherwise. > Actually my entire point is... even if WWP/Paradox do own all the IP, it might be in Hasbro's interest to act as if they do, throw money into a long and expensive lawsuit to try bleed a nice fat settlement out of WWP/Paradox. Plus, to go with your assertion, if all the relevant IP was with WWP... why was a license needed to be negotiated between Hasbro and CCP in the first place? If there isn't a Hasbro link, or a veiled Hasbro threat, why does it need to be negotiated? It implies that WWP lacked some IP rights... Also, got it in writing somewhere who owns what? I don't know if Paradox do, I doubt they'd tell us exactly which IP they got when they bought WWP. I know Hasbro wouldn't, because they have got a reason to keep it secret to act as a bluff/threat to effectively extort royalties. So we get back to the problem of... Why was CCP feeling the need to appease Hasbro? VTES 2.0 removes that problem. Hasbro does not need to be appeased, because Hasbro would have no rights to the new IP. Plus, as I said earlier, VTES 2.0 allows for a global rebuild of the rules to make them more functional and less dependent on Rulings and/or the CCR/DPS. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Lönkka wrote: > Based on how the 1st edition moved and how the 2nd edition is now moving I got to say that it has had a VERY strong start, second only the Android Netrunner. Moving about 10x better than the 1st edition was during its last year. > Interesting. Will try to dig deeper. NC Russia

> GreyB wrote: > Hmm, thing is, if Paradox opts for an incompatible VTES 2.0, which basically is a new game that looks like VTES 1.0 but is not VTES 1.0, then there's no change to the state of VTES 1.0. > > So the next question is twofold. Would Paradox allow VEKN to continue releasing VTES 1.0 PDF sets and if so, would VEKN still be willing to create VTES 1.0 sets and promote VTES 1.0 as it does now. Or will VEKN simply move on to promoting VTES 2.0 and leave VTES 1.0 to rot and die off? > As I said, I don´t see how VTES continuing could be compatible with WWP wanting to unite their new WoD setting. But NO, as I said. VEKN is a an organization for promoting VTES, so I don´t see how it could "leave VTES 1.0" to rot. A new organization will likely form to promote a game that is not VTES. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Bloodartist wrote: > Can't find out a better source atm, but MTGsalvation has this: > > > > When Magic was first designed, Wizards of the Coast had plans for a series of trading card games. To group these games together, they were all given the name "Deckmaster". Magic, Jyhad (renamed Vampire: the Eternal Struggle), Netrunner and BattleTech were all Deckmaster games. Wizards of the Coast eventually abandoned this method of grouping their trading card games, but the Magic card back is locked so the Deckmaster logo remains. > > Yes, I am very aware of this, as I played all four games back when they were launched (although I´m not sure Battletech was a Deckmaster game, at least the logo was not on the cardbacks). > Bloodartist wrote: > I guess 'deckmaster' logo is property of wizards of the coast. This would only matter if we wanted to use the old cards in the new game though. > If we wanted to use the old card backs, yes. I do not see "Deckmaster" today as being anything else than that logo. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Actually my entire point is... even if WWP/Paradox do own all the IP, it might be in Hasbro's interest to act as if they do, throw money into a long and expensive lawsuit to try bleed a nice fat settlement out of WWP/Paradox. > Yes, this is of course a risk. That´s why it would be ideal to know what actually is the case concerning all IP/patents/icons/stuff before launching a reprint/reboot/relaunch/whatever. I am sure WWP feels the same way. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Plus, to go with your assertion, if all the relevant IP was with WWP... why was a license needed to be negotiated between Hasbro and CCP in the first place? If there isn't a Hasbro link, or a veiled Hasbro threat, why does it need to be negotiated? It implies that WWP lacked some IP rights... > The old WotC game mechanic was in a US patent that expired 2015. Also, some people say that there are some uncertainties concerning the icons in the game, but I haven´t yet seen that in print. Being forced to change all symbols would be VERY BAD for a continued VTES, maybe enough to kill the game. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Also, got it in writing somewhere who owns what? I don't know if Paradox do, I doubt they'd tell us exactly which IP they got when they bought WWP. I know Hasbro wouldn't, because they have got a reason to keep it secret to act as a bluff/threat to effectively extort royalties. > Of course it would be great if VEKN to work to get this cleared if the organization should continue to be involved in playtesting, running tournaments and promoting VTES. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > So we get back to the problem of... Why was CCP feeling the need to appease Hasbro? > > VTES 2.0 removes that problem. Hasbro does not need to be appeased, because Hasbro would have no rights to the new IP. > > Plus, as I said earlier, VTES 2.0 allows for a global rebuild of the rules to make them more functional and less dependent on Rulings and/or the CCR/DPS. > Personally I don´t have much problems with the rules, and I think it´s very unnecessary for a faction of players to work against a continuance of VTES (more or less "as is" but with a "rules overhaul) in favor for new VTES-inspired game. Everyone (you! me! anyone!) is free to pitch a new game to WWP - if they find you´re idea better than a continued VTES, a continued VTES will most likely be made impossible. If that´s the case, so be it. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

TBH, I see a slow death. We prolong it, by adding great expansions, but we are losing players at faster rates than gaining them. Quite many choose digital solutions, which are quite unwieldy. IMHO, something like digital VTES reboot with proper UI could prove beneficial. You keep the general mechanics, do not need the IP-related tapping mechanic and have a fully functional platform to test what works. Being digital, it does not replace general meetings for VTES, yet allows to gather some insight, how open the market is for a VTES kind of game. If general familiarity is kept, I am pretty sure veterans would not be against it, as it would not compete with VTES directly. Yeah, this is along the lines Hearthstone has. Also I would be grateful if anybody could offer a brief rebuttal, as making Hearthstone-like VTES was surely was discussed before Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

So Ashur, You recognise there is a risk, a non-zero risk, of Hasbro getting their law department out and suing a publisher out of existence. The 'tap mechanic' may not be the only IP. The rulebook itself might be covered IP. IP doesn't restrict itself to patentable material. The Coca Cola brand is not patentable (any longer, if ever) but is IP. So bringing up the death of the "Deckmaster Patent" is basically a strawman in this overall situation. But you also confirmed, you have no idea if the Discipline Icons, Action/Action Modifier/Political Action/Etc Icons, the Burn Icon, the Pool Icon, the action icon... these could all fall under possible IP not owned by WWP/Paradox. Heck even the FONTS used on the cards might be part of this suite of IP that is not owned by WWP/Paradox. Any of these might be enough of a trigger for Hasbro to send in their lawyers even if they know that they currently don't own the IP, because if they WIN... they end up owning the IP at the end of the case. VTES 2.0 has none of that risk or baggage. So, unless a Hasbro IP deal is signed relatively quickly... WWP/Paradox would be unlikely to try release a VTES Reprint or a VTES 1.5 with their oWoD reboot. It seems like the easiest and most elegant solution for WWP/Paradox is to build VTES 2.0 from the beginning, rather than backing a project that is highly uncertain and comes with it the chance of blowing all of your development work. Kombainas: Yeah, I can see that too. An VTES2.0 Online could possibly work, but the great strength of VTES is its interpersonal dynamic so I'm unsure about the growth and popularity of online VTES. That could be my own bias towards playing games with people in the same room. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Lönkka wrote: > Based on how the 1st edition moved and how the 2nd edition is now moving I got to say that it has had a VERY strong start, second only the Android Netrunner. Moving about 10x better than the 1st edition was during its last year. > Has dig deeper. GoT story is terrible. Information about the discontinuing of the game was published at november 2014, so a little less than a year before the relice of second edition core set. It's kind of obvious, that sales of the first edition wasn't so good after the fact. Second point - story of one player, exited to switch editions: "I have friends who are competitive GoT players, and I just can't play with them, despite the fact that we all learned the game at the same time. The ambiguity/counter-intuitive nature of the rules in the core set turned me off despite being a huge ASoIaF fan, and as everyone else didn't mind and went in whole-hog, bought tons chapter packs, and expanded their decks, my measly slightly-supplemented core deck only lost more and more and more, and what's worse, it became less fun to lose as those losses came from more difficult-to-follow rules and cards. A typical turn usually went something like this: Me: I attack you for 3. Friend: I play this response, killing your attacker, then activate this effect, getting a character out of my dead pile, then kneel this influence to discard one card from your hand, then stand all my characters to claim 3 power and kneel all your locations. Me: ...what?" Generally first edition was unplayable and, as mostly two player game at competitive level, got no reasonable way for a new player to enter. As I understand the field of it was like a legacy/vintage MTG format, stale with nessesity to obtane old expensive cards to compete. Situation in VtES got nothing to do with it. The game, surely, is a little bloated with cards and rules, but all of it can be quite easily solved if we got will to do it. We just need to have all staples available. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Situation in VtES got nothing to do with it. The game, surely, is a little bloated with cards and rules, but all of it can be quite easily solved if we got will to do it. > I think we might just have different definitions of "a little." Having started VTES after it was discontinued, and having done some rather significant efforts to bring others into the game, I can tell you that the game is extremely unwelcoming to new players. If you tell somebody that there are over 3000 possible library cards to play with, they will pack up and head for another game. Even once a player knows the game, it's incredibly daunting to play it. Just think of all the cards and disciplines and effects that might come up that you've never heard of before! Those factors drive new players away. I'm not saying that VTES is horrible (I clearly like it), but I am saying that my opinion is that a relaunch would be extremely valuable. Just printing the VEKN sets (and previous cards) seems like a good way to keep a tiny core group of gamers committed, but it in no way encourages new players to start. A relaunched game with good advertising is the best way to keep a large player base. And remember, large player base means that the company will continue to support the game, which means you get to keep playing it. It's in your best interest, too! 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 wrote: > If you tell somebody that there are over 3000 possible library cards to play with, they will pack up and head for another game. > Magic's standard format has currently 1448 cards to play with, it doesn't seem to be a problem. (total number of cards is 13651 ) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Given that VTES has over 3500 cards, I think it's safe to say that the situation is a bit different. Also, Magic removes mechanics bloat with set rotation, VTES just keeps it all. 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:

> kombainas wrote: > Yeah, this is along the lines Hearthstone has. Also I would be grateful if anybody could offer a brief rebuttal, as making Hearthstone-like VTES was surely was discussed before > First: I am not against a online VTES version, even though that version would most likely be like playing the Silence of Death format. Second: Are you seriously comparing VTES with Hearthstone? I think that is like comparing Diplomacy to Pokemon. It´s an entirely different type of game. VTES is more of a strategy boardgame that happen to be based on cards, than a "normal CCG". Also: I am pretty sure that WWP understand that a CCG is not where they are going to make shitloads of money, so a "normal CCG" business model is not necessarily high priority. They are going to make their money on computer games (MMORPG:s, Bloodlines-continuance, grand strategy, etc) set in the WoD - other stuff (LARPS, tablerpgs, boardgames, cardgames) will most likely more be like "merchandise" for those other, more lucurative venues. Do you understand? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > So Ashur, You recognise there is a risk, a non-zero risk, of Hasbro getting their law department out and suing a publisher out of existence. > Well, I do not see the Hasbro law department suing anyone out of existence because of VTES, no. I have no idea why you use this kind of words. Why not try to be more optimistic? IF Hasbro has any problems with VTES continuing, couldn´t these differencies be solved? Compare with the "Hex: Shards of Fate" incident. Hex made a extremelly blatant infringement, but it was solved outside of court within a year (if I understand correctly). The infringement that might be relevant in the case of VTES is nowhere near as serious, so why not estimate it could be solved rather easly? > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > The 'tap mechanic' may not be the only IP. The rulebook itself might be covered IP. IP doesn't restrict itself to patentable material. The Coca Cola brand is not patentable (any longer, if ever) but is IP. So bringing up the death of the "Deckmaster Patent" is basically a strawman in this overall situation. But you also confirmed, you have no idea if the Discipline Icons, Action/Action Modifier/Political Action/Etc Icons, the Burn Icon, the Pool Icon, the action icon... these could all fall under possible IP not owned by WWP/Paradox. > Again: The WotC game mechanic patent expired 2015, and WWP has stated they own ALL IP:s relevant for VTES. Why do you not believe in this, until someone shows some actual proof of it being otherwise? > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > VTES 2.0 has none of that risk or baggage. So, unless a Hasbro IP deal is signed relatively quickly... WWP/Paradox would be unlikely to try release a VTES Reprint or a VTES 1.5 with their oWoD reboot. It seems like the easiest and most elegant solution for WWP/Paradox is to build VTES 2.0 from the beginning, rather than backing a project that is highly uncertain and comes with it the chance of blowing all of your development work. > I have to point out that I am not negative to a VTES 2.0, but I know that designing and playtesting of such a venture would take dedicated persons _years_. I suggest the VEKN continue to pursue a continued VTES 1.0 meanwhile - I do not want to see a "gap" in production and tournaments, that would destroy playgroups. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Isn't the whole discussion about IP rights moot? If Paradox thinks the risks are too high to continue VTES 1.0, thats the end of it and we might see a VTES 2.0 (which isn't a certainty at this point either). If they can continue on VTES 1.0 and will, cool, no certainty on that either. Not much the community can add to that discussion... -1 Strength

> Ankha wrote: > > > brettscho wrote: > > If you tell somebody that there are over 3000 possible library cards to play with, they will pack up and head for another game. > > > Magic's standard format has currently 1448 cards to play with, it doesn't seem to be a problem. > > (total number of cards is 13651 ) > +1 to Ankha. I even would say that MTG is much more complicated then VtES in deckbuilding for beginners stage. Showing to the new players all the cards at once is just a bad way of promoting the game. The are really very few basic parts of the game which must be taught to start gaming - +bleed, stealth, intersept, bounce, KRC, blood management and combat. It's really not so important, that there are like 100+ +bleed cards, mostly they are doing the same thing. ICLee Idea "6 blood dolls + 6 conditionings + 6 wakes + 6 deflections + whenever" as a template for a beginners deck looks kind of good for me. And possibility of meeting some weird effects is one of the feachures of VtES. Which is fine, cause all of them will be generallt weaker, than basic GtA+conditioning combo. NC Russia

> Ashur wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > So Ashur, You recognise there is a risk, a non-zero risk, of Hasbro getting their law department out and suing a publisher out of existence. > > > Well, I do not see the Hasbro law department suing anyone out of existence because of VTES, no. I have no idea why you use this kind of words. Why not try to be more optimistic? IF Hasbro has any problems with VTES continuing, couldn´t these differencies be solved? > > Compare with the "Hex: Shards of Fate" incident. Hex made a extremelly blatant infringement, but it was solved outside of court within a year (if I understand correctly). The infringement that might be relevant in the case of VTES is nowhere near as serious, so why not estimate it could be solved rather easly? > Why do I use these kinds of words? Because when you are mitigating risks, you hope for the best and plan for the worst. And in this case, the worst is to assume that Hasbro will take someone to the cleaners. Why assume they couldn't be solved? Because those that have spent years trying to solve them, weren't able to solve them. The WWP products that the OneBookshelf guys could get published were the ones with no Hasbro material in them. It seems like Hasbro aren't interested in VTES being published. > Ashur wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > The 'tap mechanic' may not be the only IP. The rulebook itself might be covered IP. IP doesn't restrict itself to patentable material. The Coca Cola brand is not patentable (any longer, if ever) but is IP. So bringing up the death of the "Deckmaster Patent" is basically a strawman in this overall situation. But you also confirmed, you have no idea if the Discipline Icons, Action/Action Modifier/Political Action/Etc Icons, the Burn Icon, the Pool Icon, the action icon... these could all fall under possible IP not owned by WWP/Paradox. > > > Again: The WotC game mechanic patent expired 2015, and WWP has stated they own ALL IP:s relevant for VTES. Why do you not believe in this, until someone shows some actual proof of it being otherwise? > The patent doesn't cover this stuff. It covers making a generic CCG using the "Tap mechanic". It doesn't cover the turn order, it doesn't cover the rule book, it doesn't cover the card art, it doesn't cover the icons, etc, etc, etc. The patent NEVER covered those things. The things I listed are NON-PATENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. They said they had all the rights they needed to REPRINT VTES or just to make a VTES Game? Because you only need the oWoD stuff to make VTES 2.0. They've got all of that. But Hasbro clearly has something that stopped a reprint. > Ashur wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > VTES 2.0 has none of that risk or baggage. So, unless a Hasbro IP deal is signed relatively quickly... WWP/Paradox would be unlikely to try release a VTES Reprint or a VTES 1.5 with their oWoD reboot. It seems like the easiest and most elegant solution for WWP/Paradox is to build VTES 2.0 from the beginning, rather than backing a project that is highly uncertain and comes with it the chance of blowing all of your development work. > > > I have to point out that I am not negative to a VTES 2.0, but I know that designing and playtesting of such a venture would take dedicated persons _years_. I suggest the VEKN continue to pursue a continued VTES 1.0 meanwhile - I do not want to see a "gap" in production and tournaments, that would destroy playgroups. > We are already in a 'gap' in production. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > The patent doesn't cover this stuff. It covers making a generic CCG using the "Tap mechanic". It doesn't cover the turn order, it doesn't cover the rule book, it doesn't cover the card art, it doesn't cover the icons, etc, etc, etc. > The patent NEVER covered those things. The things I listed are NON-PATENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. > Actually I read the Patent while working in European Patent Office (2005 / 6) and it was almost literally the rule book of Jyhad, with specific icons in the cards, where they go, etc.. Later things changed (round was turn and turn was round, layout of the cards changed the disciplines from the right to the left, new disciplines created, imbued, etc.) but all of that was done with Wizards agreement to add upon "their" property. Since I was not involved in Org Play and we had the support of a company, with new cards coming out, etc., I didn't keep the PDF... One can still get it online, I think.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Why assume they couldn't be solved? Because those that have spent years trying to solve them, weren't able to solve them. The WWP products that the OneBookshelf guys could get published were the ones with no Hasbro material in them. It seems like Hasbro aren't interested in VTES being published. > Sorry, I had no idea anyone have spent years trying to solve anything. I´ve heard that Hasbro was first not willing to discuss anything, and then I heard OBS didn´t want to do any deal with Hasbro because it could disturb other deals they have together. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > The patent doesn't cover this stuff. It covers making a generic CCG using the "Tap mechanic". It doesn't cover the turn order, it doesn't cover the rule book, it doesn't cover the card art, it doesn't cover the icons, etc, etc, etc. > The patent NEVER covered those things. The things I listed are NON-PATENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. > Please don´t use caps, there is no need to behave like that. Obviously you are more into these things than I am, but maybe you can explain instead of being rude? You seem to have seen these things in print, I haven´t. CCP had the right to reprint cards, with artwork, symbols and everything (including the Deckmaster logo!), but suddenly, when WWP now aquire the WoD IP:s from CCP, you think WWP cannot make the same kind of deal with Hasbro? Wouldn´t it be more likely that such a deal can be made? > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > We are already in a 'gap' in production. > Yes, I have noticed this. What I am saying is that the VEKN should work for a continued VTES, because that is the stated mission of this organization. People that don´t like VTES should not involve themselves in VEKN, or? Stop hating? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Please don´t use caps, there is no need to behave like that. Obviously you are more into these things than I am, but maybe you can explain instead of being rude? You seem to have seen these things in print, I haven´t. CCP had the right to reprint cards, with artwork, symbols and everything (including the Deckmaster logo!), but suddenly, when WWP now aquire the WoD IP:s from CCP, you think WWP cannot make the same kind of deal with Hasbro? Wouldn´t it be more likely that such a deal can be made? > I do not have any insider information, but after following the progress (or lack of) of CCP's world of darkness MMORPG for several years, it seems to me that the problem was CCP and its obscure board of investors rather than anything else. Now that CCP no longer part of the equation, we can hope for something to happen. I never heard that it was Hasbro that put the brake on things. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > I do not have any insider information, but after following the progress (or lack of) of CCP's world of darkness MMORPG for several years, it seems to me that the problem was CCP and its obscure board of investors rather than anything else. Now that CCP no longer part of the equation, we can hope for something to happen. I never heard that it was Hasbro that put the brake on things. > Well, it depends on how you interpret what is written here: www.vekn.net/announcements/317-the-current-state-of-vtes . It´s all kind of blurry, who should be blamed for what and where the real problem lies currently. Hopefully, things will clear soon. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Zero Interest in Incompatibility. Just like I had Zero Interest in nWoD. Just like I had Zero Interest in D&D 4e. Just like I had Zero Interest in L5R post-Jade (or was it Gold?) edition. Incompatibility means I go back to playing my old stuff. It still works. There's no patent restriction making it not work between my friends and I. I am not slavish to the release of new things.