anarch this anarch that... what about black hand?

First on anarch revolt: Yes, it's change actually screws existing deck types... wait a second... LSJ, didn't you say that you were trying to avoid screwing existing deck types? (during that whole "how would you change the grouping rule, should you feel its broke?" conversation). Furthermore: Ah. There's that reason to go anarch. Now my Anarch Salon will pass easier, but net less of an effect. :P Unsure about this change. I wish it were reprinted with the correct text. That'd be nice. Maybe it'll be in a starter (though I don't think so, as they'd then should be putting up Abomnination on the card change box). Lastly. What about Black Hand people? Anarch this, anarch that... its most likely going to be two new sets and all they'll have to show for it will be a few vampires, and Gehenna event hate. I'd hate to think I bought that 1.5 boxes of black hand just for the G3 sabbat vampires...

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > Lastly. What about Black Hand people? Anarch this, anarch that... its > most likely going to be two new sets and all they'll have to show > for it will be a few vampires, and Gehenna event hate. I'd hate to > think I bought that 1.5 boxes of black hand just for the G3 sabbat > vampires... IMO, that is because BH was excellently executed, and has lots of very playable (and often played) cards. Whereas Anarchs started out much too weak, and is gradually being brought in line with the expected power curve, and this requires printing more cards. Plus there could be all kinds of other reasons I'm not thinking about. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

"Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1108748737....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > First on anarch revolt: > > Yes, it's change actually screws existing deck types... wait a > second... LSJ, didn't you say that you were trying to avoid screwing > existing deck types? (during that whole "how would you change the > grouping rule, should you feel its broke?" conversation). Making a legal deck illegal is to be avoided, and was brought up in the grouping threads. Perhaps that's what you're misremembering. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

LSJ wrote: > "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1108748737....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > First on anarch revolt: > > > > Yes, it's change actually screws existing deck types... wait a > > second... LSJ, didn't you say that you were trying to avoid screwing > > existing deck types? (during that whole "how would you change the > > grouping rule, should you feel its broke?" conversation). > > Making a legal deck illegal is to be avoided, and was brought > up in the grouping threads. Perhaps that's what you're misremembering. Hmmm... I'm pretty good at that (misrememboring), when it comes to stuff like this. Maybe I need more Ginko... ~SV

"Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1108756007.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I love that place. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp