s...@oook1.demon.co.uk (Stuart Wildish) writes:
>A couple of years back I bought a Jyhad pack hoping to get my mates at
>uni into playing it. They weren't interested, and I forgot about it.
>Now I want to start playing again, however I see it's called V:tES
>now. Is there any difference (cards, or rules) between the two or is
>it just a name change?
Mostly it's just a name change.
Six of the cards were replaced with six new ones, and minor changes
were made in the rules (eliminating Paralyze effect and making aggravated
damage cleaner albeit more powerful).
The rulebook includes a "basic" game designed to ease new players into
the game mechanics by eliminating many concepts (Torpor, Intercept, etc.)
The "advanced" rules add the missing concepts.
If you already know how to play Jyhad, VtES advanced game should be
easy to adapt to.
(The expansions add more rules - making the game more and more different
from Jyhad).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * - Tribble
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | (-*-) - Darth Tribble in his
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | TIE Fighter
Hello all
A couple of years back I bought a Jyhad pack hoping to get my mates at
uni into playing it. They weren't interested, and I forgot about it.
Now I want to start playing again, however I see it's called V:tES
now. Is there any difference (cards, or rules) between the two or is
it just a name change?
TIA
Stu
--
s...@oook1.demon.co.uk http://www.oook1.demon.co.uk/
Stuart Wildish (s...@oook1.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Hello all: A couple of years back I bought a Jyhad pack hoping to get my mates at
: uni into playing it. They weren't interested, and I forgot about it.
: Now I want to start playing again, however I see it's called V:tES
: now. Is there any difference (cards, or rules) between the two or is
: it just a name change?
Some rule changes occurred, the most major being the way Aggravated
Damage is applied. However for the most part it's the same game, with
the same cards reprinted with the same art. Some useless or confusing
cards from the old set were dropped, and replaced with some anti-bleed
cards. Some card text was changed or clarified.
The two sets are supposed to be fully compatible. I regularly combine
cards from both sets in my game. Old cards are supposed to be played as
though they had new edition text in current rules. Tournament rules
require that if you mix cards your libraries have a 60%/40% split to
minimize the chance of cheating (with no mixing in crypts).
This is necessary because of the change in card backs, which was
unforgivable on their part, expecially since the old Jyhad card backs were
so much cooler. From what I have heard, anti-Arab racism was the
motivation for the change. It was felt that "Jyhad", from an arabic word
for struggle, would cause the game to be associated with Mid-East
Terrorism. Thus, they were afraid that their evil bloodsucking vampires
would be associated with Arabs, hence with terrorism (and not,
incidentally, that Arabs might object to being associated with evil
bloodsucking vampires).
John Whelan
: TIA[ quoted text not captured ]
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>s...@oook1.demon.co.uk (Stuart Wildish) writes:>>A couple of years back I bought a Jyhad pack hoping to get my mates at
>>uni into playing it. They weren't interested, and I forgot about it.
>>Now I want to start playing again, however I see it's called V:tES
>>now. Is there any difference (cards, or rules) between the two or is
>>it just a name change?>Mostly it's just a name change.>Six of the cards were replaced with six new ones,
Which cards were they? And can they still be used with the VtES rules?
Thanks
[ quoted text not captured ]
jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) wrote:
>This is necessary because of the change in card backs, which was
>unforgivable on their part, expecially since the old Jyhad card backs were
>so much cooler. From what I have heard, anti-Arab racism was the
>motivation for the change. It was felt that "Jyhad", from an arabic word
>for struggle, would cause the game to be associated with Mid-East
>Terrorism. Thus, they were afraid that their evil bloodsucking vampires
>would be associated with Arabs, hence with terrorism (and not,
>incidentally, that Arabs might object to being associated with evil
>bloodsucking vampires).
From what I understand Jyhad is a word meaning "Holy War". Saddam
called for one agaisnt the entire West during a Gulf War, and I think
there's one on Salman Rusddie (sp?). I guess they didn't want
something (vampires, not the game) that is seen to be very evil to use
a word with holy meaning.
Just a guess.
Cheers
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Stuart Wildish wrote:
> jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) wrote:> >This is necessary because of the change in card backs, which was
> >unforgivable on their part, expecially since the old Jyhad card backs were
> >so much cooler. From what I have heard, anti-Arab racism was the
> >motivation for the change. It was felt that "Jyhad", from an arabic word
> >for struggle, would cause the game to be associated with Mid-East
> >Terrorism.
They changed this story to "It's a Marketing Issue" and then back to
"It's our Moral Obligation" and then back to "It's a Marketing Issue" and
then back to "It's our Moral Obligation" several times. IMHO, the Moral
issue was probably a bunch of hooey. The "distributors in the Middle
East" they referred to could never be found, and all the people I know of
who have contact with retailers, distributors, etc., in that area had
never even heard of or felt any complaints towards the game.
[snip]
> From what I understand Jyhad is a word meaning "Holy War".
No.
Jihad means "struggle". Jyhad is not the same word as Jihad. I believe
this is referred to as a homonym. Jyhad in the game means "vampiric
conflict" (common parlance from Vampire: the Masquerade).
>Saddam
> called for one agaisnt the entire West during a Gulf War, and I think
> there's one on Salman Rusddie (sp?). I guess they didn't want
> something (vampires, not the game) that is seen to be very evil to use
> a word with holy meaning.
Not likely. Their above switcheroo is evidence of that.
> Just a guess.
No offense, but it's likely a bad guess. IMHO, after Jyhad's poor sales
(comparative to what they likely expected after Magic), they wanted
people to see "Vampire" and no what it meant (a Marketing Issue) and
therefore buy it. Strange how they couldn't have just had a good
marketing campaign to begin with (as Rage did).
@#$ The Corrupter $#@ @#$ Adrian Lee Sullivan $#@ Truth is as
@#$ Game Theory - Coffee - Opinion - Hedonism $#@ subjective as
@#$ <http:cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ Reality ...
GAT/CS/WS C(+++) USX+ P++ N++ PS++@ PE@ b++(+++) X+++ R+++* r+ z++**?
jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes:
>From what I have heard, anti-Arab racism was the
>motivation for the change. It was felt that "Jyhad", from an arabic word
>for struggle, would cause the game to be associated with Mid-East>Terrorism. Thus, they were afraid that their evil bloodsucking vampires
>would be associated with Arabs, hence with terrorism (and not,
>incidentally, that Arabs might object to being associated with evil
>bloodsucking vampires).
This explaination never held any water. WotC kept changing the story, and
the only person who might have objected was their Israeli (not Arab)
distributor. Then again, WotC never even said he objected - just kind of
implied that he might have.
I've yet to see even a half-reasonable explaination for why WotC changed
the backs. The best guess was that it was an attempt to obsolete the
tremendously overprinted original Jyhad set, but if so, it was really
stupid. They just added yet more essentially identical cards to what was
already a gross oversupply, and ran off quite a few players.
I'm curious what goofy misconception convinced them to change the backs,
but I suppose we'll never know.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Regarding the motivation for changing from Jyhad to VtES, I have always
believed (but have no hard data) that it was a WotC marketing decision. I
remember vampires getting awfully popular and trendy in American pop
culture, and I remember thinking Jyhad the game, before I was familiar
with it, must be about middle east terrorism or something.
It makes sense to me for WotC to have changed the name to take advantage
of the trendiness of Vampires, and to remove confusion such as mine. It
never made sense to change it because it was insulting to someone.
However, admitting that they had changed it as a marketing ploy would be
very unpopular with those already invested in cards, so I believe (again
with no hard data) that they made up the story about folks being offended
by the name Jyhad. ("We didnt WANT to screw you, we HAD to.")
Any other opinions?
\
If it hasn't been mentioned before...
There are the new black-back card sleeves that Deckbynder (sp??) has put out.
You can get a sample in the latest Inquest. This would obviously solve the
problem of different backs. First, though, it would have to be approved for
tournaments. So, I would suggest people start e-mailing WOTC about it.
And if you don't play in tournaments, I guess it doesn't matter if you want to
use sleeves or not.
Cards removed from Jyhad to form V:TES Camille Devereux, Chainsaw,
Concealed Weapon, Monocle of Clarity, Movement of the Slow Body,
Rotschreck, Rowan Ring. These haven't been banned from V:TES play, and
the rulebook to V:TES makes room to explain rules like paralysis which
come from these cards. Added were Raven, Archon Investigation, Elder
Intervention, Justicar Retribution, Protected Resources, Shadow of the
Beast. Note that Raven is Camille with new art. Renamed cards were
Dominate Kine (was Kine Dominance), Gangrel Atavism (was Gangrel
De-evolution), Wooden Stake (was Stake). Info from Darkness Unveiled.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
pheersum inhabits the mortal shell of eric schultheis. one
channels mailto://phee...@netwizards.net. nature says,"go ahead, have
as many babies as you want. something will eat them."
---------------------------------------------------------------------