Changes found in Sabbat War

ERRATA/RULINGS/CLARIFICATIONS All errata pertaining to reprinted cards have been incorporated into the texts of the reprinted cards. Many cards have been reworded to reflect rulings and clarifications. TERMINOLOGY As the previous revised rulebook did, all cards in the Sabbat War and the rulebook included in Sabbat War preconstructed starters use clearer or less ambiguous terminology: * Use of "hand damage" meaning the amount of damage inflicted by a hand strike has been eliminated. Now the unambiguous term "strength" is used. "Hand damage" is only used when referring to the type of damage done by a hand strike. * The term "referendum" is used instead of "political action" or "vote" when referring to the referendum. MISPRINTS Files from Wizards of the Coast indicate that a few cards were misprinted in the Sabbat expansion. These have been corrected: * Caitlin (Gangrel antitribu). Is a 6 capacity vampire, not a 5. * Legacy of Pander. Gives each non-titled Pander one vote, not one additional vote. (You can have more than one in play, but doing so will still result in each non-titled Pander having one vote. Similar to being named for more than one Rumors of Gehenna - there is no benefit other than needing more actions to remove the bonus). As mentioned in RTR 20-OCT-2000, there are two misprints in Sabbat War as well. These have been errata'ed to match the Sabbat printing, meaning that these two cards are *not* changed from their Sabbat versions: * Creation Rites: The acting vampire can move a blood to the vampire when the Creation Rites action is successful. * Power Structure: Requires Lasombra. OTHER CHANGES "Do Not Replace Until After Combat" has been replaced with "Do Not Replace Until the End of this Action" for non-combat cards. This change only matters for the times when more than one combat takes place (due to Psyche!, for example): * Arson * Bum's Rush * Pack Tactics Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: * Blood of Acid (one per round). * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). * Disarm (a vampire can have only one). * Immortal Grapple (one per round). * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one). * Terror Frenzy at superior (one per combat). Several allies now have strength listed where appropriate (typically when the ally can use potence cards): * Blood Brother Ambush (strength 2) * Ghouled Street Thug (strength 1) Miscellaneous: * Cardinal Sin: Insubordination: is played by the (possibly tapped) Ab/P/C who was just in combat. * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is ended prior to the press step). * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth. * Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool. * Mob Connections: can tap to give a press to a *minion* (not just a vampire) you control. * War Party: is playable by a Priscus (and still not playable *on* a Priscus). CHANGES TO THE RULEBOOK In addition to many changes for clarity, the rulebook included in Sabbat War preconstructed starter decks contains the following functional changes (both of which are only applicable when combining the cards with cards from earlier sets): * Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The titles of prince and archbishop of the same city contest each other, just as two titles of prince or two titles of archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4] * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the Sabbat rules sheet has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize / acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

All I can say is "wow!". Wow!! > MISPRINTS > * Caitlin (Gangrel antitribu). Is a 6 capacity vampire, not a 5. I'm a bit sad to see she is no longer a 5. She was a *great* low-mid ranged vamp for the !Gangrel who already have a problem with pool managagement (not a *huge* problem, but not a small problem either) > * Legacy of Pander. Gives each non-titled Pander one vote, > not one additional vote. Oh, well. There went all the money I spent on my 13+ Legacy of Panders... :( I'll have to see how good the deck stacks up now with each pander only having one vote now. By and by, though, I am NOT unahappy to see the power of this deck type castrated. > OTHER CHANGES > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). YES!!!!!!!!! > * Immortal Grapple (one per round). Oh, well. It was good to be able to cycle my IGs when I needed something else. One per round is a bit more intuitive. Why would you need to grapple in a grapple? > Miscellaneous: > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done > during the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat > is ended prior to the press step). So if the opposing vamp plays DotB and your vamp S:CE, your vamp will not take damage from the DotB? > * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth. Finally. > * Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool. Oh, yeah!! No more weenie dominate misdirection decks! This is a *great* thing. > CHANGES TO THE RULEBOOK > * Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The > titles of prince and archbishop of the same city contest > each other, just as two titles of prince or two titles of > archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4] I liked the old "get into combat" rules introduced with Sabbat better. By the by, this ruling seems kind of silly. They are 2 different sects with 2 different ruling hierarchies. This rule is *almost* like saying just because there is a mayor of the city there cannot be a mob Don in that city as well... Maybe you should run this by Guiliani <sp> > * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the > errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the > Sabbat rules sheet has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires > can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same > reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving > two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize / > acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1] Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card. Before, it could only be used once per turn. That made the card pretty balanced. But now, especially with the prevelance of Sabbat in combat decks (some of the more brutal fighters are Sabbat), why bother including it? Now, there are many clans and deck types that no longer have access to decent Combat ends. I'm not so sure this is such a good thing. Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

Sorrow wrote: > > Miscellaneous: > > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done > > during the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat > > is ended prior to the press step). > > So if the opposing vamp plays DotB and your vamp S:CE, your > vamp will not take damage from the DotB? Correct. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wow. This is huge. This is the most drastic set of errata I've seen since 7/7. I better prepare to batten down the hatches now as this is going to get ugly. Esp. tomorrow when I spring this on the older players in my area. I personally have mixed feelings about this set of rules changes, the dominant one being uneasiness. It would have been nice if we would have had a month or so to digest this, per the normal rules of introducing errata. Okay...having said that, I'll hold off on commentary about specific rulings until later, for the most part. In the meantime, I'm going to have to ask some of the more obvious questions that I'm going to expect to get asked tomorrow, the queries for clarifications and reasonings. > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this. > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one). > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one). Can multiples of these be played at one time? If so, is the damage from Pulled Fangs cumulative? (i.e., each Pulled Fangs card played gives an additional point of damage but each one after the first is discarded, not put on the vampire) If not (to either of the above), can the damage from Pulled Fangs be made aggravated again? (*grin* sorry, had to ask) > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during > the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is > ended prior to the press step). Why was this done? The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the cost was higher. There's pros and cons with the prior DotB and S:CE. On one hand, the prior wording allows a vampire to damge an opposing minion regardless of S:CE. On the other, it allows a vampire to stack 'em up and then S:CE for no risk. But as I mentioned above, I've never seen someone successfully abuse this. > * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth. What was the need here? Presence is already strong enough at pool gain/management. I know there was a desire to make it consistent with the Dominate cards that did the same thing (GtU and SM) but I thought that Presence being weaker at it wasn't a bad thing. Regards, Noal McDonald Prince/Priscus of Metro Detroit, MI -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

> > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: > > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). > Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this. Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of these and at the end of the round, even if you S:CE, you are taking that damge. Stack enough, and even a high cap vamp will go to torpor and there is nothing that can be done about it. The +HD given to the bestial vamp does nothing against Fortitude, which many of the vamps with Ani have. > > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one). > > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one). > Can multiples of these be played at one time? I believe the wording is going to be so that you can only ever use/ play *one* per round/combat. > > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during > > the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is > > ended prior to the press step). > Why was this done? See my example of a DotB deck above. There have been several that have shown it's face around here. > There's pros and cons with the prior DotB and S:CE. On one hand, the > prior wording allows a vampire to damge an opposing minion regardless of > S:CE. On the other, it allows a vampire to stack 'em up and then S:CE > for no risk. But as I mentioned above, I've never seen someone > successfully abuse this. We have. Alot. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I understand now why you and Todd B. were shaking your heads at my Legacy of Pander deck that won the Greensboro tourney. Of course I have a feeling these Erratas are going to have a much bigger impact than fixing a couple broken cards. I expect this thread to grow very quickly. I will step back and wait out the huge drawing out the beast, immortal grapple, etc debates that will soon follow. See you in Atlanta, Justin -- Justin Lacey Historian of Charlotte, NC [ quoted text not captured ]

Note: these changes apply to all official tournaments in which the Sabbat War cards are legal to use. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:20:34 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: >> * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). > >Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this. We saw some pretty vile concoctions down here - the 60-DotB deck with Aid from bats, weenie ANI and skill cards was pretty nasty. It ground to a halt a couple of times, but the fear factor was not pleasant. >> * Disarm (a vampire can have only one). >> * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one). > >Can multiples of these be played at one time? i doubt it, if a vampire can only have one. I think there's a ruling somewhere on "can't deliberately create effects that would violate card text." I don't remember which though. >If so, is the damage from Pulled Fangs cumulative? (i.e., each Pulled >Fangs card played gives an additional point of damage but each one after >the first is discarded, not put on the vampire) That would seem silly. :) >If not (to either of the above), can the damage from Pulled Fangs be >made aggravated again? (*grin* sorry, had to ask) ...time to break out the Ventrue Skin of Steel/PF/Amaranth deck... :) >> * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during >> the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is >> ended prior to the press step). > >Why was this done? > >The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the Dawn Op/Skin >of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the cost was higher. Dawn Op/DotB/Skin of Night is the gotcha, I think, since it uses two disciplines found naturally on two clans. Actions you most want to block tend to be bleeds, so if we look for ANI/FOR/dom, we get Sarisha Veliku as the only natural. ANI/for/dom adds in Natalia and Faruq. ANI/FOR adds in Joaquina and Gitane. FOR/ani/dom gives us Tim Crowley and Dominique in the mix. ANI/for is on a 5, four 6's, and four 7's. Slapping Dominate on an ANI/for or ANI/FOR vampire is not that difficult, and then you can send an endless series of bleeds that your opponent is either afraid to block, or doesn't dare try (for the guys who have FOR). Unstoppable? Hardly. Unfun to deal with if you don't have bounce? Yeah. I think it's an idea to get the game away from "bounce-fest", where the poor bugger without Dominate or Auspex always ends up being the bleed sinkhole. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> CHANGES TO THE RULEBOOK >> * Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The >> titles of prince and archbishop of the same city contest >> each other, just as two titles of prince or two titles of >> archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4] > > I liked the old "get into combat" rules introduced with Sabbat > better. By the by, this ruling seems kind of silly. I agree 100%. While both signify a struggle for the rulership of the city, I really prefer the original method. It made for interesting combat/vote decks. > They are 2 vdifferent sects with 2 different ruling hierarchies. > This rule is *almost* like saying just because there is a mayor > of the city there cannot be a mob Don in that city as well... Exactly. Struggling for the same title should be treated significantly than struggling for sect control of a city. >> * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the >> errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the >> Sabbat rules sheet has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires >> can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same >> reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving >> two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize / >> acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1] > > Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card. However, the RPG loyalists will agree with this change. I'm kind of torn on a game balance terms. My gut feeling is that rush combat decks need all the help they can get. > Before, it could only be used once per turn. Wasn't that always the case? I don't know of any way to untap a location other than normally. > But now, especially with the prevelance of Sabbat in combat decks > (some of the more brutal fighters are Sabbat), why bother including > it? This is where I'm torn the other way on game balance. Most combat decks are mixed now to take advantage of better discipline mixes. I have a problem with errata that turns a card into wallpaper. My gut instinct is that's what's going to happen here. The best change I could see would be that it could only be used when the controller of Elysium owns a Camarilla vampire in the current combat. Using it could symbolize the vampire running off to safety with Camarilla elders. > Now, there are many clans and deck types that no longer have > access to decent Combat ends. There's always Change of Target. Other than that, the only non-Cam clans I can think of that don't have a current method of ending or preventing combat are !Nosferatu, !Malkavians, Pander and Tzimisce. The rest have Celerity, Chimerstry, Dominate, Protean or Presence. New cards may make it easier for !Malks and Tzimice with their clan disciplines. I doubt that the !Nossies will see any help since I don't see there being a likelihood of seeing many new cards for the older, more established discisplines. > I'm not so sure this is such a good thing. Me either. Too drastic. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > It would have been nice if > we would have had a month or so to digest this, per the normal rules of > introducing errata. You do. It doesn't become official until the cards themselves are legal for tournament play. > > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one). > > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one). > > Can multiples of these be played at one time? No, since a vampire can have only one and you have to play it on the vampire. (So you can't play multiples because after the first, the target will already have one). [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: >> > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). >> Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this. > Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of > these and at the end of the round, even if you S:CE, you are taking > that damge. Stack enough, and even a high cap vamp will go to > torpor and there is nothing that can be done about it. The +HD given > to the bestial vamp does nothing against Fortitude, which many of > the vamps with Ani have. I've seen two versions of this deck that cause major damage to non-combat decks and major headaches for the combat decks. The first is pro/ani combo with 4-5 dotb in a combat followed by earth meld to end the combat. Add fortitude for Dawn op and the combo is abusive. The other is the pure animalism which uses 2-3 dotb (and sometimes a terror frenzy) and then maneuvers to long with Aid from Bats and presses to the next round and repeats the Aid from Bats until opponent is in torpor. The only way to prevent the latter deck from killing your vampire is to stay out of combat (ie Obdience) Both decks I've seen both run 40+ dotb in a 90 card deck. Jeff Dai

> >> * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the > >> errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the > >> Sabbat rules sheet has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires > >> can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same > >> reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving > >> two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize / > >> acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1] > > Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card. > However, the RPG loyalists will agree with this change. I'm kind of > torn on a game balance terms. My gut feeling is that rush combat > decks need all the help they can get. But how many times has it been asserted that V:tes is based on V:tM, it isn't V:tM. There are alot of things in the card game that don't apply in the RPG. > > Before, it could only be used once per turn. > Wasn't that always the case? I don't know of any way to untap a > location other than normally. I was just pointing that out as one of it's balance issues. It wasn't overpowered, IMO, because of that even though only Cam vamps could call the vote to burn. > > But now, especially with the prevelance of Sabbat in combat decks > > (some of the more brutal fighters are Sabbat), why bother including > > it? > This is where I'm torn the other way on game balance. Most combat decks > are mixed now to take advantage of better discipline mixes. I have a > problem with errata that turns a card into wallpaper. My gut instinct is > that's what's going to happen here. I believe it will. Only time will tell, I guess. > The best change I could see would be that it could only be used when the > controller of Elysium owns a Camarilla vampire in the current combat. > Using it could symbolize the vampire running off to safety with > Camarilla elders. Excellent alternative! > > Now, there are many clans and deck types that no longer have > > access to decent Combat ends. > There's always Change of Target. Yes, but this requires doesn't help the minion that isn't acting... > Other than that, the only non-Cam clans I can think of that don't have > a current method of ending or preventing combat are !Nosferatu, > !Malkavians, Pander and Tzimisce. > The rest have Celerity, Can only end combat second round. > Chimerstry, Very expensive S:CE > Dominate, Reactionary only > Protean or Presence. These being the only 2 that are really at all cost effective. > New cards may make it easier for !Malks and Tzimice with their clan > disciplines. I doubt that the !Nossies will see any help since I don't > see there being a likelihood of seeing many new cards for the older, > more established discisplines. Agreed. It's just that the Elysium was a stand by for *any* non-combat deck. Now, it's limited to just Cam on Cam combats. Really bad change, IMO. > > I'm not so sure this is such a good thing. > Me either. Too drastic. Indeed. And it is not as if this card broke the game or even combat. There were many ways to get around the Elysium, even for non-Cam clans. Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: > > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). > > Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this. Potentially, the cards within Sabbat War facilitate such. Others would know better than I. > > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one). > > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one). > > Can multiples of these be played at one time? Presumably, no, because vampires can only have one. > > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during > > the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is > > ended prior to the press step). > > Why was this done? Partly, one assumes, to ease interpretation of the card for new players as well as: > The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the Dawn Op/Skin > of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the cost was higher. > There's pros and cons with the prior DotB and S:CE. On one hand, the > prior wording allows a vampire to damge an opposing minion regardless of > S:CE. On the other, it allows a vampire to stack 'em up and then S:CE > for no risk. But as I mentioned above, I've never seen someone > successfully abuse this. True. I thought it provided a nice anti-S:CE bite, myself. > > * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth. > > What was the need here? It generally seems to have been the interpretation for it for a long time - JOL played with it as such, for example. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin with him and the way he makes me feel?"

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > The best change I could see would be that it could only be used when the > controller of Elysium owns a Camarilla vampire in the current combat. > Using it could symbolize the vampire running off to safety with > Camarilla elders. That seems reasonable. "One of the vampires in combat must be a member of the Camarilla." as a simple ruling. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the >> Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the > cost was higher. > > Dawn Op/DotB/Skin of Night is the gotcha, I think, since it > uses two disciplines found naturally on two clans. That's no the problem. The issue I see is that both examples above inflict a point of aggravated damage before you even get to maneuvers with virtually no risk to the acting vampire. Even with Dawn Op/DotB in DotB's current form, you still don't need Skin of Night. (although it helps) You can still get away with it with a anything from a simple Dodge to Skin of Steel to a Terror Frenzy/Fake Out/Far Fatuus. However, there's still a risk from environmental damage. > Actions you most want to block tend to be bleeds, With all respect Derek (and there's a lot of it), that statement is so simplistic as to be completely ludicrous. I don't know about you, but I take every opportunity to block a Sensory Dep action against me. And since Ravnos have no problem coming up with Animalism and Fortitude, they can still be very dangerous. Btw, if you want to talk bleeds, you don't need Dominate. Ravnos and Gangrel alike can use Tier of Souls, Freak Drive, Computer Hacking for a bleed of 3 and the removal of a blood from a vampire for a net blood cost of zero. Don't get me wrong, the Dawn Op/DotB combo is still powerful and I don't think selling this particular ruling will be teriibly difficult. I was just suprised that it was being issued. Regards, Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > You do. It doesn't become official until the cards themselves are > legal for tournament play. So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until December? Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip COMPLETELY wonderful rulings> Scott, old chap, you, like, totally rule. And so do all the other rules team brethren whose Secret Identities, even in the rare cases where i know them, shall forever remain undisclosed. Sniff. Legbiter, fresh from a home-made Marguerita, two bottles of Spanish plonk, astral sex with a gorgeous russian girly and beating Michael and Sarah AGAIN with the Cheapass weenie vote/allies deck [now 14/20 VP and 4/5 games]. Buffer line to stop message tailing Another one, just in [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> The rest have Celerity, > > Can only end combat second round. Not true. Preternatural Evasion. Requires CEL, though. >> Chimerstry, > > Very expensive S:CE Name a Chimerstry card that's not. *grin* >> Dominate, > > Reactionary only True of Obedience, not true of Seduction and Sleeping Mind. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:Q8jK5.9785$mC.6...@monger.newsread.com... > > > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: > > > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). > > Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this. > > Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of We've seen plenty of abuse in Los Angeles. Sick sick decks. Whacking Justicars without even a card played in response. Sad. A very welcome change. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > > So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until > December? As per standard rules, since SW is being released in the last half of October, sanctioned tournaments don't happen until December. The European Championships appear to have special dispensation from White Wolf, making a mockery of the whole thing. If there are good reasons why such delays occur, they should occur regardless. If there are not good reasons why such delays occur, they should not occur in the first place. Similarly, playtesters cannot play until one month after the release date, in sanctioned tournaments. (This isn't relevant *here*, but *is* relevant if you get a set released in the first half of the month, when it becomes legal at the start of the following month e.g. first half of June, legal in July *but* for the first few days of July, all playtesters are prohibited from playing in tournaments.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39F99E28...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > ERRATA/RULINGS/CLARIFICATIONS > [snip] > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: > > * Blood of Acid (one per round). > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one). > * Immortal Grapple (one per round). > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one). > * Terror Frenzy at superior (one per combat). Dayyum! Clearly these rulings are due to the overpowering dominance of combat decks at every tournament, right? ;-) No, but seriously, these are all pretty sensible, even though it's been awfully damn difficult to make any of them into an abusive deck. Even though the card text will probably answer this question, I have to ask anyway cause I'm curious: can both vamps in a combat play an Immortal Grapple, or only one of them? Looks like I am no longer needing to augment my collection of DotBs... which is sad since for the rewording to exist there must be DotBs in Sabbat War. :-( > * Cardinal Sin: Insubordination: is played by the (possibly tapped) Ab/P/C > who was just in combat. > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during the press > step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is ended prior to the > press step). > * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth. > * Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool. > * Mob Connections: can tap to give a press to a *minion* (not just a vampire) > you control. > * War Party: is playable by a Priscus (and still not playable *on* a Priscus). Misdirection: nice one. I just threw together a fairly rude presence-weenie misdirection bleed deck the other week, and it's still been nasty after all these years... DotB: unstackable, I'm not sure why this change is necessary. Seems to me like it's a perfectly fitting punishment for S:CEing your way to safety. Unless errata to Majesty and Earth Meld is next. ;-) looking forward to tomorrow's prerelease party, Josh archbishop of washington dc [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote in message ... >> > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable: >> > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat). >> Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this. > >Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of >these and at the end of the round, even if you S:CE, you are taking >that damge. Stack enough, and even a high cap vamp will go to >torpor and there is nothing that can be done about it. The +HD given >to the bestial vamp does nothing against Fortitude, which many of >the vamps with Ani have. This was the type I made. 50 or so DotB, Skin of Steel, Lots of Govern the Unalighned, and sprinkling of Deflection, Blood Doll, Grave Robbing, and Sudden Reversal. I took out lots of 6 to 8 capacity vampires. Pretty nasty. It was almost sure to at least foul up my prey. Steve Bucy, - "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> The rest have Celerity, > > Can only end combat second round. > Not true. Preternatural Evasion. Requires CEL, though. Noted. > >> Chimerstry, > > Very expensive S:CE > Name a Chimerstry card that's not. *grin* Heh > >> Dominate, > > Reactionary only > True of Obedience, not true of Seduction and Sleeping Mind. But these doen't preclude combat as Obedience and S:CE does. These only make blocking more difficult. Sorrow --- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8tcdgq$ueb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > Wow. This is huge. This is the most drastic set of errata I've seen > since 7/7. I better prepare to batten down the hatches now as this is > going to get ugly. Esp. tomorrow when I spring this on the older players > in my area. I personally have mixed feelings about this set of rules > changes, the dominant one being uneasiness. Change is almost always disruptive. However, there are some important differences with this stuff compared to 7/7. Hopefully these will be received better: 1. Multiple changes for ease of teaching new players. (Referendum and Strength!) 2. Changes will be put on new cards. (Rather than sheets of errata and confused new players, concerns of 7/7 opponents, you get changes on actual cards.) 3. LSJ acted on player concerns. (The basis for some of the 7/7 errata was in newsgroup discussions dating back to the beginning of the game (Wake, for example). The Misdirection and Drawing Out The Beast concerns have been raised in the last year and a half and hopefully show some responsiveness by LSJ. Let's hold our collective breath's, Noal. I'm so excited about the new set I'd hate to waste a bunch of time arguing in newsgroup threads. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0010272109010.11391- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > > > > So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until > > December? > > As per standard rules, since SW is being released in the last half of > October, sanctioned tournaments don't happen until December. The > European Championships appear to have special dispensation from White > Wolf, making a mockery of the whole thing. If there are good reasons > why such delays occur, they should occur regardless. That's only for Contructed. Limited format is sanctioned, with whatever cards you supply. Sealed SW should be santioned per the guildines given before December. Playtesters still will not be able to play in sanctioned SW Limited until December. Hope that helps. Regards, Joe Churchill - V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter www.warghoul.com [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > You do. It doesn't become official until the cards themselves are > > legal for tournament play. > > So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until > December? No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry about the changes - you just read card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the errata > > begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the Sabbat rules sheet > > has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires can call the referendum > > to burn the Elysium and, for the same reason, the Elysium can only be > > tapped to end combat involving two Camarilla vampires. Other minions > > do not recognize / acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1] > > Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card. Before, it could only > be used once per turn. That made the card pretty balanced. But now, > especially with the prevelance of Sabbat in combat decks (some of the > more brutal fighters are Sabbat), why bother including it? Now, there > are many clans and deck types that no longer have access to decent Combat > ends. I'm not so sure this is such a good thing. I disagree. Elysium was way overpowered before. It's existence precluded "casual" combat decks entirely, i.e. a deck that only tries to get into combat once a turn at most (and more like once every other turn or so) and does other things the remainder of the time. Elysium was particularly bad when used by Cam clans that had natural access to S:CE and votes (Toreador, Ventrue). Ventrue in particular were virtually immune to combat with Elysium in play. I think the change is good. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

>> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned >> until December? > > No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry > about the changes - you just read card text. Just so we're clear, this has real impact for me as I'm planning a sealed deck Sabbat War tournament on November 19th. Errata is only part of my concerns. If it's non-sanctioned, I might as well use the most recent errata. Esp. since, being sealed deck, they haven't built a deck and spent months tweaking it, only to have DotB's change dash their hopes. I won't be using NJL errata as I already advertised that official errata would be used. Another thing is if it's not sanctioned, I don't have to prohibit playtesters from playing. I understand the reasoning for constructed decks, as playtesters will have an advantage with advanced planning. Sealed decks tournaments level the playing field, regardless of advance knowledge, I should think. (For others, ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.) But most importantly is prize support. I wanted to strike while the iron's hot. Seems to me the best time to promote Sabbat War is right after it's been released. I'd hate to have a lack of prize support leave a sour taste in peoples' mouths. (Yes, I sent a notice to Tim Avers almost a month ago.) Can I still expect prize support even if sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments are not sanctioned until December? Regards, Noal McDonald [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Noal McDonald wrote: >> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until >> December? > > No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry > about the changes - you just read card text. Incorrect, according to the VEKN tournament rules on the White Wolf web page: 4.3. New Releases New cards are allowed in Limited tournament play immediately, including before the release date (for example, at a Prerelease tournament). I guess I should still expect normal prize support, then. I'll still have to prohibit playtesters from participating, though. Personally, I think that's a goofy rule for sealed deck, but a rule's a rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

> * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during the press > step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is ended prior to the > press step Yahoooooooo !!! Take this, lousy gangrels ! reyda cofoundator of "Stop those Gangrel Now"

In article <8td2r4$hbp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Noal McDonald wrote: > >> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until > >> December? > > > > No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry > > about the changes - you just read card text. > > Incorrect, according to the VEKN tournament rules on the White Wolf > web page: > Noal, I believe he was saying yes, since you asked "Can't Be." "No" would mean they can be sanctioned. Joe - V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter www.warghoul.com [ quoted text not captured ]

> >ERRATA/RULINGS/CLARIFICATIONS <snipped> >* Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool. I personally really like this change. Really helps level the playing field vs. those weenie decks that play Misdirection every turn. But on the other hand, Misdirection seems a little wall-papered now. >* Mob Connections: can tap to give a press to a *minion* (not just a vampire) > you control. Although most people consider this an insignificant change, it does make things more interesting (and it's not just because I actually use allies). Most notable, Mob Connections might see more use with Renegade Garous, Muddled Vampire Hunters, and War Ghouls. >* Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The titles of prince > and archbishop of the same city contest each other, just as two titles of > prince or two titles of archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4] Like other people, I really don't like this new ruling. I really liked the old combat rule and I would really like to see that rule come back and replace this new one. With all the vampires currently known, there are already 3 conflicts: Chicago, Atlanta, and Houston. Thus it would be difficult for any decks that wants to include any such pairs. >* Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the errata begun > in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the Sabbat rules sheet has been > extended. Only Camarilla vampires can call the referendum to burn the > Elysium and, for the same reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end > combat involving two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize / > acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1] Elysium seems too wall-papered now. Such a restriction makes it too specific for general use. I have to admit that overall, there are a lot of changes I like. I don't mind Caitlin, Legacy of Pander, or Drawing out the Beast since it sort of balances things (and I never use those anyway). Just my opinion... Halcyan 2

>>>> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until >>>> December? >>> >>> No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry >>> about the changes - you just read card text. >> >> Incorrect, according to the VEKN tournament rules on the White Wolf >> web page: > > I believe he was saying yes, since you asked "Can't Be." "No" would > mean they can be sanctioned. Ah, thanks. You're probably correct, Joe. Serves me for using a negative asumption in a question. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > With all the vampires currently known, there are already > 3 conflicts: Chicago, Atlanta, and Houston. Actually 4; Miami. Both title holders are Malks. Makes sense, really. The whole Elian Gonzalez thing was enough to drive even the undead crazy. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned > >> until December? > > > > No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry > > about the changes - you just read card text. > > Just so we're clear, this has real impact for me as I'm planning a > sealed deck Sabbat War tournament on November 19th. To re-iterate what was pointed out in another post, my "no" above was a response to your "SW sealed tourneys can't be sanctioned", meaning that "no, in fact they can be". > Errata is only part of my concerns. If it's non-sanctioned, I might as > well use the most recent errata. Esp. since, being sealed deck, they Well, this thread has so far been about the changes found in Sabbat War, which aren't errata (as they are actually printed - a distinction that some have felt was a rather large distinction in the past). > haven't built a deck and spent months tweaking it, only to have DotB's > change dash their hopes. I won't be using NJL errata as I already Exactly the reason that errata and new card sets are delayed for constructed tournaments in general. > advertised that official errata would be used. > > Another thing is if it's not sanctioned, I don't have to prohibit > playtesters from playing. I understand the reasoning for constructed > decks, as playtesters will have an advantage with advanced planning. > Sealed decks tournaments level the playing field, regardless of > advance knowledge, I should think. Could be. It hasn't come up before, though. > But most importantly is prize support. I wanted to strike while the > iron's hot. Seems to me the best time to promote Sabbat War is right > after it's been released. I'd hate to have a lack of prize support > leave a sour taste in peoples' mouths. (Yes, I sent a notice to Tim > Avers almost a month ago.) Can I still expect prize support even if > sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments are not sanctioned until December? Pre-release events should receive support. Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which are sanctionable immediately). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > OTHER CHANGES > Miscellaneous: Left two off this list by mistake: * Aggressive Tactics: no longer requires a ready Sabbat vampire. * Orgy of Blood: no longer requires a ready Sabbat vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39F9B1D4...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Sorrow wrote: > > > Miscellaneous: > > > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done > > > during the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat > > > is ended prior to the press step). > > > > So if the opposing vamp plays DotB and your vamp S:CE, your > > vamp will not take damage from the DotB? > > Correct. This is bad because it now adds more power to S:CE and allows presence heavy vampires to intercept dawn op / dotb decks. Also, the only way to get damage past a S:CE now is with Immortal Grapple (rare at best) or Thoughts Betrayed (very expensive). The whole Dawn Op / DotB deck concept goes in the bin, unless you can include a Pysche! (which only 1 vampire I can think of can currently do - Stanislava - coz it needs CEL ANI and for). In fact, it now makes it rediculously easy to produce a Presence Bleed / Vote deck. Even if you get intercepted, you can just keep out of range (Fake out et al) and Majesty. I think we are going to see a lot less Ravnos decks from now on! DH [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip stuff I found out after posting> > Well, this thread has so far been about the changes found in > Sabbat War, which aren't errata (as they are actually printed > - a distinction that some have felt was a rather large > distinction in the past). Not sure who those "some" might be. *whistles innocently* Btw, the changes were very well received and the re-printing of cards with severe text changes were met with a _lot_ of gratitude here in NJL land. I think our concerns with all of them have finally been put to rest. Esp. since the majority of the NJL rules team was present with people from our respective playgroups. And that's a good thing. (TM) We also had long conversations about agg damage and vote pushing, but I'll save that story for another day. >> Another thing is if it's not sanctioned, I don't have to prohibit >> playtesters from playing. I understand the reasoning for constructed >> decks, as playtesters will have an advantage with advanced planning. >> Sealed decks tournaments level the playing field, regardless of >> advance knowledge, I should think. > > Could be. It hasn't come up before, though. Well, it is an issue now...at least for me, anyway. Now that I'm running more VEKN tournaments, I'm noticing a lot of things in the tournament rules that I'd never noticed before. I'd really like an exception to the playtesters prohibition for sealed deck tournaments to be considered. > Pre-release events should receive support. *cough*could*cough*should*cough*didn't*cough* > Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which > are sanctionable immediately). Hoplefully a damned sight better than the support that I saw today. Otherwise, all of this is going to be moot. If I, personally, supply the prizes again, I'll supply the tournament rules. Esp. since I'm already taking a monetary loss by supplying the boosters for less than I'm paying for them. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > > > > So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until > > December? > > As per standard rules, since SW is being released in the last half of > October, sanctioned tournaments don't happen until December. The European > Championships appear to have special dispensation from White Wolf, making > a mockery of the whole thing. If there are good reasons why such delays > occur, they should occur regardless. If there are not good reasons why > such delays occur, they should not occur in the first place. The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always using the first of the month is done so that players can easily remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets. With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote: > The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used > to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always > using the first of the month is done so that players can easily > remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets. > > With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date > of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed > appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and > well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game. So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the new sets and don't include the cards. Cool. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote: > > > The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used > > to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always > > using the first of the month is done so that players can easily > > remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets. > > > > With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date > > of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed > > appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and > > well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game. > > So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the > new sets and don't include the cards. Cool. The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels by which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW. This seems to be blown out of proportion. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote: > > > > > The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used > > > to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always > > > using the first of the month is done so that players can easily > > > remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets. > > > > > > With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date > > > of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed > > > appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and > > > well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game. > > > > So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the > > new sets and don't include the cards. Cool. > > The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels by > which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW. > > This seems to be blown out of proportion. I don't know. I once beat up the WotC Magic netrep about doing the same thing WRT to the Magic U.S. National Championship and one of their June expansions. He ultimately admitted (more or less) that it was a mistake to break discipline. Why have a rule like this if you're just going turn around and break it when it's slightly inconvenient? I suppose it's a minor transgression and I can see a striking incentive in this case. But planting that seed of doubt and/or causing that extra layer of confusion (players often misunderstand things like this even when there's never an exception made) about it just doesn't seem worth it, IMHO. Fred

> Well, it is an issue now...at least for me, anyway. Now that I'm running > more VEKN tournaments, I'm noticing a lot of things in the tournament > rules that I'd never noticed before. I'd really like an exception to the > playtesters prohibition for sealed deck tournaments to be considered. Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were? If you do, then please tell the rest of us. If you don't how would you prohibit them? > > Pre-release events should receive support. > > *cough*could*cough*should*cough*didn't*cough* > > > Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which > > are sanctionable immediately). > > Hoplefully a damned sight better than the support that I saw today. > Otherwise, all of this is going to be moot. If I, personally, supply the > prizes again, I'll supply the tournament rules. Esp. since I'm already > taking a monetary loss by supplying the boosters for less than I'm > paying for them. Noal, I am sure everyone who attended your pre-release party appreciates the sacrifice you made to make sure it was a success. However, I don't appreciate your constant whinig about how unappreciated you are. Get over yourself. Next time you hold a tournament, I'll send you a giant wooden cross; so that way you can climb up on it and nail yourself to it. Then everyone will know what a giant sacrifice you made for VTES. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were? In this area, yes. > If you do, then please tell the rest of us. You don't need to know who they are. > However, I don't appreciate your constant whinig about how > unappreciated you are. > Get over yourself. With all due respect, what little there is, fuck off, Norman. Nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to read my posts. This has nothing to do with being unappreciated. This has every thing to do with going to bat for people that travel several hours and pay good money to be in a tournament and should be able to reasonably expect decent prize support when they do well. > Next time you hold a tournament, I'll send you a giant wooden cross; > so that way you can climb up on it and nail yourself to it. Then > everyone will know what a giant sacrifice you made for VTES. And I'll mail you a blow up sex doll so you'll finally get laid and lose the fucking attitude. > Comments Welcome, How about removing the corncob from your ass? Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > Well, it is an issue now...at least for me, anyway. Now that I'm running > > > more VEKN tournaments, I'm noticing a lot of things in the tournament > > rules that I'd never noticed before. I'd really like an exception to > > the playtesters prohibition for sealed deck tournaments to be > considered. > > Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were? If you > do, then please tell the rest of us. If you don't how would you > prohibit them? Noal wouldn't. Presumedly, they would prohibit themselves. Failure to do so would be detected by VEKN staff (at least LSJ and anyone at White Wolf who presumedly know the identities of the playtesters) when their tournament scores were processed for their ratings. As for "what that means", I have to imagine he'd prefer to have a greater player base. That's simple enough. > > > Pre-release events should receive support. > > > > *cough*could*cough*should*cough*didn't*cough* > > > > > Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which > > > are sanctionable immediately). > > > > Hoplefully a damned sight better than the support that I saw today. > > Otherwise, all of this is going to be moot. If I, personally, supply the > > > prizes again, I'll supply the tournament rules. Esp. since I'm already > > taking a monetary loss by supplying the boosters for less than I'm > > paying for them. > > Noal, > I am sure everyone who attended your pre-release party appreciates the > sacrifice you made to make sure it was a success. However, I don't > appreciate your constant whinig about how unappreciated you are. > Get over yourself. Hmmm. A subjective opinion, I guess. His comments didn't seem unreasonably bitter to me. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:39FDEEA8...@netcom.com... [snip opinion on Noal] > Hmmm. A subjective opinion, I guess. His comments didn't > seem unreasonably bitter to me. As opposed to an objective opinion, Fred? :) Xian

In article <8tkp3e$88j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were? > > In this area, yes. > > > If you do, then please tell the rest of us. > > You don't need to know who they are. The rules team doesn't exist and neither do the playtesters!! In fact, I'm pretty sure that we all don't exist! :) Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sometimes things are clearer if you say a redundant thing reduntly to clarify them. Once in a while. Fred

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote: > > So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the > > new sets and don't include the cards. Cool. > > The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels by > which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW. > > This seems to be blown out of proportion. It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the restriction then. Why have restrictions if we just over-turn them when it's convenient for a specific tournament? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote: > > > If you do, then please tell the rest of us. > > > > You don't need to know who they are. > > The rules team doesn't exist and neither do the playtesters!! And I'm LSJ faking an American accent, I've told you all before. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >* Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The titles of prince > > and archbishop of the same city contest each other, just as two titles of > > prince or two titles of archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4] > > Like other people, I really don't like this new ruling. I really liked the old > combat rule and I would really like to see that rule come back and replace this > new one. This makes sense both in RPG and CCG terms. In V:TES, blood represents influence whereas combat (sometimes) represents actual physical fisticuffs. If Sabbat Cainite X wants to become Archbishop of Camarilla city A, currently controlled by Camarilla Kindred Y, he doesn't simply stroll in and start ripping heads off - it's a Camarilla city. Instead, he has to make it a Sabbat city and get first dibs on the Archbishopric. That's why it's called a Crusade, not a Praxis Seizure. He performs this feat by encouraging the Sabbat through his influence (i.e. spending blood) and the current Prince will have to drum up Camarilla support to keep the Sabbat out - using his influence. In short, contesting represents a social/political/institutional battle, whereas combat represents, well, combat.

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.001031...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote: > > > So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the > > > new sets and don't include the cards. Cool. > > > > The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels by > > which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW. Correct. > > > > This seems to be blown out of proportion. Correct. :) Sorry Scott, couldn't resist... :) Players being interested in the EC are going to take a look at the EC-homepage (http://www.8ung.at/vtes). There they can find *all* necessary information, including that Sabbat War cards are *explicitly* allowed for this event. I strongly doubt that there would be *any* players that just arrive to the EC without checking prior what rules/formats are being used. > > It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the restriction then. Well, if you are convinced that *some* flexibility with a justified cause and an important occasion should not be allowed, ok. IMO, an exception to a rule is tolerable, if it is made clear that it's an exception, and if the gains outweigh the losses by far. Hm, I have a feeling that you percieve the world in two colours: either black or white. If there is no room for you between these two, then you won't have a hard time to find things which you cannot agree upon. Is this really an issue for you or are you just disgruntled? > > Why have restrictions if we just over-turn them when it's convenient for a > specific tournament? I believe that this discussed restriction was put in place a long time ago for Magic, so that players in different countries would have the chance to buy the new expansions, as they often didn't arrive until some weeks after the release date (at least in Austria it was that way). I also believe that this was taken over into the VEKN tournament rules, as it seemed still to apply, I don't know. *shrug* At the EC, on saturday, 25th, there is the draft event. Naturally players get to keep their cards, so they can use them on Sunday, 26th, for the constructed event. This way it's ensured that *all* participants, regardless of their country, will have access to Sabbat War cards. I believe that eliminates the biggest concern for the restriction and ensures more fun for players. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the restriction > > then. > > Well, if you are convinced that *some* flexibility with a justified > cause and an important occasion should not be allowed, ok. The rules are there. Breaking the rules when convenient doth not a good precedent set. Were the rules to be worded in a such a way as to allow this varying, I would not have a problem as anyone reading the rules would know about the potential for it. But which other rules shall we throw out when it becomes convenient for a small number of people? "Oh, it's only 100 cards.... it won't matter." [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.001101...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > > It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the restriction > > > then. > > > > Well, if you are convinced that *some* flexibility with a justified > > cause and an important occasion should not be allowed, ok. > > The rules are there. It seems so. > Breaking the rules when convenient doth not a good precedent set. Were > the rules to be worded in a such a way as to allow this varying, I would > not have a problem as anyone reading the rules would know about the > potential for it. > > But which other rules shall we throw out when it becomes convenient for a > small number of people? "Oh, it's only 100 cards.... it won't matter." Graveyard-shift brings cynism along. Point prooven. ;) Please read also my reply in that different thread with regard to EC and Sabbat War. I can tell you what. It's this "just because" opinion that did and does a lot of harm to the game. In the past it has shown that someone who only discerns between yes and no will eventually hurt the game under certain conditions (including newbies, tournaments, etc.). I know you for a long time, and in the overwhelming majority of discussions you are being not constructive and are mostly expressing negative feelings. I assume you just can't help it but to play devil's advocate. [sorry for being cynical myself] You'll see, after the dust settles, this exception will have zero impact upon the game and tournaments, other than players had a lot of fun. Remember my words. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:23:02 +0000, James Coupe wrote: >The rules are there. And the rules are controlled by those in power. WW are sovereign in this matter and can amend or ignore the rules as they see fit. I expect that the rule was just copied from the DCI rules for Magic, like most of the VEKN rules. I had occasion to check out the DCI's general policy recently and discovered that they don't have one. Magic uses a calendar month system. L5R uses a 30-day system. Pokemon allows cards as soon as they are released. Other companies do the same. All of Decipher's games, like Star Wars, allow cards in tournments immediately on the release date. The same goes for Shadowfist. I can see a need for a delay in Magic where expansions full of broken cards are being cranked out all the time and cards go out as well as in. VTES' circumstances are different and, as we see, a rigid delay period isn't appropriate. This is especially so in this case where most of the cards are reprints of cards that first appeared years ago. Btw, what is the status of the MRP cards during the waiting period? If I put a SW Misdirection in my deck before the set is legal, is this cheating? Is it treated as an old Misdirection or what? >But which other rules shall we throw out when it becomes convenient for a >small number of people? "Oh, it's only 100 cards.... it won't matter." If you're talking about the 90-card limit, yes, that would be another good rule to throw out too. If players want to put 100 cards in their deck, why shouldn't they? Even Magic allows this. Andrew

In article <3B5C3277D54DDE2B.AD3D13AD...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > If you're talking about the 90-card limit, yes, that would be another > good rule to throw out too. If players want to put 100 cards in their > deck, why shouldn't they? Even Magic allows this. So where is the limit drawn then? The card maximum is (as far as I can tell) built in to keep combat decks from terrorizing everything else. Can you imagine how brutal one of the archetypical rush decks if it was allowed to have double the standard limit? 180 cards: 24 Immortal Grapple, 8 Haven Uncovered, 24 Bum's Rush, etc. Sure, you'd have draw problems every once in a while, but as long as the proportions are kept the same, most of the time, it should work out just fine. With this size deck, you could torporize about 20 vampires easy, without having to even worry about running out of cards. Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > Btw, what is the status of the MRP cards during the waiting period? > If I put a SW Misdirection in my deck before the set is legal, is this > cheating? Is it treated as an old Misdirection or what? Cards from the new set, new or reprinted, are not allowed in tournaments in which they are not legal to use. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 prea...@utanet.at wrote: > You'll see, after the dust settles, this exception will have zero impact > upon the game and tournaments, other than players had a lot of fun. > Remember my words. :) Can you *guarantee*, at *this* point in time, that *everyone* turning up *will* know? What about people who hear from friends? And friends who forget to mention it? Can you *guarantee* that that's not possible? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:23:02 +0000, James Coupe wrote: > > >The rules are there. > > And the rules are controlled by those in power. WW are sovereign in > this matter and can amend or ignore the rules as they see fit. Which makes having a written down canon of rules pointless if they are overturned at a whim. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, Xian wrote: > In article > <3B5C3277D54DDE2B.AD3D13AD...@lp.airnews.net>, > a...@csi.com wrote: > > If you're talking about the 90-card limit, yes, that would be another > > good rule to throw out too. If players want to put 100 cards in their > > deck, why shouldn't they? Even Magic allows this. > > So where is the limit drawn then? He forgets that Other Games have a card limit. Jyhad does not and almost certainly never will have. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > I can see a need for a delay in Magic where expansions full of broken > cards are being cranked out all the time and cards go out as well as > in. VTES' circumstances are different and, as we see, a rigid delay > period isn't appropriate. This is especially so in this case where > most of the cards are reprints of cards that first appeared years ago. Some form of delay is necessary because the cards are released unevenly. It's not very cute to have to play against people who have scads of new cards if your source hasn't delivered your cards yet. The rule in the DCI for Magic was never invented or intended as a waiting period to ferret out broken cards. If it were, they'd need a couple of years, not 15-45 days... Fred

>> And the rules are controlled by those in power. WW are sovereign >> in this matter and can amend or ignore the rules as they see fit. > > Which makes having a written down canon of rules pointless if they > are overturned at a whim. I really have to agree with James on this one. VEKN predates White Wolf's involvement in VTES, and it disturbs me greatly that they are choosing to ignore one of the tournament rules because it suits them. If they are given leave to ignore any of the tournament rules for any reason, no matter how compelling, what kind of a signal does it send to other tournament organizers? If the rule is not important enough to be enforced 100% of the time, why is it there? Personally, I'd like to see the prohibition against playtesters participating in sanctioned tournaments for 30 days after a release date lifted for sealed (and possibly draft) tournaments as they're still on a level playing field with other participants. Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about some of the tournament rules, why they are there and whether they really need to be. Regards, Noal McDonald Prince of Metro Detroit, MI -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.00110...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 prea...@utanet.at wrote: >> You'll see, after the dust settles, this exception will have zero impact >> upon the game and tournaments, other than players had a lot of fun. >> Remember my words. :) >Can you *guarantee*, at *this* point in time, that *everyone* turning up >*will* know? > >What about people who hear from friends? And friends who forget to >mention it? Can you *guarantee* that that's not possible? Yes. Yes I can. My Spooky Powers over both Time and Space are legendary. gomi okay, so maybe i can't -- you say they taught you how to read and write yeah, they taught you how to count i say they taught you how to buy and sell your own body by the pound

In article <084382BEC96345A7.7D32DBED...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 22:14:54 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote: > > >Players being interested in the EC are going to take a look at the > >EC-homepage (http://www.8ung.at/vtes). There they can find *all* > >necessary information > > I've just looked at this and have some questions: > > 1. It says that cards will be marked to prevent cheating during the > draft. How? I ask because I dislike mutilating cards and often bring > sleeves for drafts Cards will not be mutilated, they will be marked in a way that we (the judges) can recognise it. Let's just say, it will be invisible marking for all other purposes. For reasons quite clear we cannot tell which way we are going to mark the cards. :) > 2. What is the prize? Finalists get cool plagues (as seen on the HP from last years prizes), the European Champion will get either a Huge engraved Chalice or an exquisitely dagger, with an engraved blade. We haven't decided yet, still waiting for the pieces to look at. It's an question of style right now. And of course lots of Sabbat War. :) > > 3. Last year's winner, Martin Weinmayer, used the Tremere with lots > of equipment. This seems to run counter to the received wisdom here > that neither are effective. What gives? I often get the impression that play-styles differ *a lot* around the globe. Possibly Martin can handle equipment very well. Really don't know. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.001031...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote: > > > > If you do, then please tell the rest of us. > > > > > > You don't need to know who they are. > > > > The rules team doesn't exist and neither do the playtesters!! > > And I'm LSJ faking an American accent, I've told you all before. > It is pronounced "y'all" not "you all". We are south of the Mason-Dixon. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

<prea...@utanet.at> wrote in message news:8tvf8a$597$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > 2. What is the prize? > > Finalists get cool plagues (as seen on the HP from last years prizes), I'm sure that this is simply a typo (or a transliteration error or something), but I wish they gave that away at all the tournaments. Finalist: "Ah, shoot. I was the first ousted, but you said there were prizes for each finalist, right? What do I win?" Judge: "You have your choice from among 5 different plagues." Finalist: "Not plaques?" Judge: "Nope. Plagues. We have one for each of the finalists, and the winner of the tournament gets an additional bonus of a specially-prepared military-grade vial of anthrax injected directly into his bloodstream! For you, we have bubonic, influenza...but those are only the most popular...we have some more exotic ones as well...why don't you take a look in my bag here?" Finalist: "You sure that wasn't supposed to be a plaque?" Sorry. I must be a little loopier on lack of sleep than I thought. Xian

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:C6100D8693713ECC.32002A3E...@lp.airnews.net... > On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:26:50 -0600, Xian wrote: > > >You think Majesty is a combat defense? > > It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense > against combat? Majesty (and by extension, S:CE) is *not* an effective defense against a serious combat deck. Any deck packing Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed, Psyche, and to a lesser extent, Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, Dog Pack, and Telepathic Tracking, will run roughshod over a deck that relies solely on Majesty. Xian

On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:07:57 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:26:50 -0600, Xian wrote: > >>You think Majesty is a combat defense? > >It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense >against combat? OK, so you put 8 Majesty in your Presence deck. Against Potence IG combat, it's a card that sits there in your hand while you hope your opponent doesn't draw up an IG, and while all your vampires die at the POT deck's whim. Against any other form of dedicated combat, it will save your vamps for the first few times, and then they will begin dying with reasonably alarming regularity, unless you've been able to oust that person. Against light combat, it will keep your vamps alive since you probably won't get into combat with any real degree of regularity - so you just save the Majesty for when they pull out the nifty strikes. So in one sense, it's a combat defense. But if you REALLY want combat defense, you're going to need to focus a lot more on things like maneuvers and prevention. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 22:14:54 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote: >Players being interested in the EC are going to take a look at the >EC-homepage (http://www.8ung.at/vtes). There they can find *all* >necessary information I've just looked at this and have some questions: 1. It says that cards will be marked to prevent cheating during the draft. How? I ask because I dislike mutilating cards and often bring sleeves for drafts 2. What is the prize? 3. Last year's winner, Martin Weinmayer, used the Tremere with lots of equipment. This seems to run counter to the received wisdom here that neither are effective. What gives? Andrew

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:07:30 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Some form of delay is necessary because the cards are released unevenly. >It's not very cute to have to play against people who have scads of >new cards if your source hasn't delivered your cards yet. The rule >in the DCI for Magic was never invented or intended as a waiting period >to ferret out broken cards. If it were, they'd need a couple of years, >not 15-45 days... Who cares why Magic does what it does? Other games show that a waiting period is not necessary. The whole point of an official release date is to ensure that cards go on sale simultaneously and so, in principle, are equally available to everyone. Adding a buffer period on top of that is redundant. Andrew

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:28:01 GMT, Xian wrote: >So where is the limit drawn then? > >The card maximum is (as far as I can tell) built in to keep combat >decks from terrorizing everything else. My impression is that it's there to make sure that the game finishes. You don't need this in a tournament though as there are formal time limits. Combat decks are held in check by other factors, e.g. defense cards like Majesty. Overall, they seem to be hard to build and play and so don't need the handicap of an arbitrary card limit too. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:07:30 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >Some form of delay is necessary because the cards are released unevenly. > >It's not very cute to have to play against people who have scads of > >new cards if your source hasn't delivered your cards yet. The rule > >in the DCI for Magic was never invented or intended as a waiting period > >to ferret out broken cards. If it were, they'd need a couple of years, > >not 15-45 days... > > Who cares why Magic does what it does? Who cares, indeed? No, I don't think any game needs to do their tournaments just because another game uses a rule. However... > Other games show that a waiting period is not necessary. I don't agree it shows anything of the sort. It may be some sort of value judgment or perhaps "release day" represents something different in the case of the other games. In any event, I repeat: it sucks to play against people who have their new cards when you don't. So every game that features serious tournament play should have a buffer period for purposes of fairness. > The whole point of an official release date is to ensure that cards go on > sale simultaneously and so, in principle, are equally available to everyone. I don't think that's exactly the reason, no. I believe it's about fairness to the distributors and retailers they serve. So the manufacturer does not have to cope with charges of favoritism because they can't possibly coordinate deliveries to every point on the globe. By the time this filters down to the players - as is embarrassingly clear by the various stories we've heard here - any semblance of such fairness is out the window. > Adding a buffer period on top of that is redundant. Absolutely false. Adding a buffer period on top of that is something that actually works. Besides which, it also gives players a bit of time to start testing decks, which is also good. Fred

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:3FE66F26D7DB3D46.5091503B...@lp.airnews.net... [max library limit] > My impression is that it's there to make sure that the game finishes. > You don't need this in a tournament though as there are formal time > limits. No, if that wasn't required in tournaments, I could build an insanely efficient combat deck packing enough cards to last through a *10*-player game. Though I hope that no one actually has *that* many Immortal Grapples... Correction. I hope that someone does have that many, and that they regularly are forced to endure 10-player games. Icky. > Combat decks are held in check by other factors, e.g. defense cards > like Majesty. You think Majesty is a combat defense? At this rate, I don't even need to feed you to the wolves, you seem intent on doing it yourself... > Overall, they seem to be hard to build and play and so > don't need the handicap of an arbitrary card limit too. Not all that hard to build, once you've seen a couple of good, solid templates. "Hard to play" isn't really one of those...thingies...that should be considered a limiting factor on whether or not a tournament deck needs to be brought in line with its competitors. As I see it: *Max card limit reigns in combat decks. *Action Modifier restrictions & Stealth/Intercept restrictions reign in Stealth & Bleed decks *Vote push rules bring vote deck into line. *NRA keeps Tap & Bleed sane. *Golden Rule of Card ownership modified for "stealing" keeps Corruption viable, if still slightly sketchy...as it's usually just directed at the prey. I don't think I missed any of the major strategies, did I? Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:26:50 -0600, Xian wrote: >You think Majesty is a combat defense? It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense against combat? Andrew

On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:28:16 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >it sucks to play against people who have their new cards when you don't. >So every game that features serious tournament play should have a buffer >period for purposes of fairness. It sucks to be told that you can't play with your new cards (or your old cards too). And the fairness argument is bogus. The release date is the same for everyone and, in a trading-card game, getting hold of the cards you want is meant to be challenging. There's lots of cards that I don't have for this and other CCG. VTES players have probably been spoilt by all the cheap Jyhad boxes. You'll find things different when you're paying full price for regular new expansions. My play group has bought a box of SW each and that's probably all that we'll buy. This leaves us far short of a set - we won't even have many commons. Is this fair? The question isn't even worth asking - it's the nature of the game. >Absolutely false. Adding a buffer period on top of that is something that >actually works. It doesn't work. It's ridiculous to sell something to someone and then tell them that they can't use it for several weeks. That's why these restrictions have been ditched for the European Championships. And a good thing too. Andrew

Xian wrote: > > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > news:C6100D8693713ECC.32002A3E...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] > Majesty (and by extension, S:CE) is *not* an effective defense against a > serious combat deck. Any deck packing Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed, > Psyche, and to a lesser extent, Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, Dog Pack, and > Telepathic Tracking, will run roughshod over a deck that relies solely on > Majesty. Well, sure. So what?!? It's certainly reasonable for a combat deck to run cards that get around "combat defense" cards. That doesn't mean the latter aren't "combat defense" cards, just because they can be solved. *Any* card can be solved...we hope! So if you expect a "combat defense" card is one that another deck can't pack cards to get around, then no such cards exist. Back to the original question: Majesty sure is a combat defense. It's about as "combat defense" as you can get, IMHO! (I'm now truly curious about what you would call, "combat defense".) Fred

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:28:16 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >it sucks to play against people who have their new cards when you don't. > >So every game that features serious tournament play should have a buffer > >period for purposes of fairness. > > It sucks to be told that you can't play with your new cards (or your > old cards too). Agreed, sorta kinda. But it's temporary. And less onerous to make people wait than allow thoroughly unbalanced advantage to some players over other. > And the fairness argument is bogus. The release date > is the same for everyone and, in a trading-card game, getting hold of > the cards you want is meant to be challenging. So what? It's still absurd to expect everybody to have their cards at the exact same moment. Look what's happening all around you, for crying out loud! Some people are getting cards they ordered, some aren't. The latter are having to make other arrangements or have no idea when/where they're going to get cards. Some are getting cards the day before release day, other wait while their supplier 50 miles away drop ships (unexpectedly) from clear across the country. It's one thing to make folks hunt down that chase rares if they feel they need to build decks with them - though truth be known, I feel the game would much better without this factor, either. But it's quite another to subject them to the completely random logistics of the CCG business. As a "fairness" argument, this point is so UNbogus, I'm at a loss to understand what you don't get. I guess if you like tournaments held with completely random groupings of players who do and do not have their new cards just because you like the idea that some players are challenged by a major fuck factor while others aren't, then I can see your position. But if so, why not just go on with the concept: hand out random number of victory points as players walk in the door. > There's lots of cards > that I don't have for this and other CCG. VTES players have probably > been spoilt by all the cheap Jyhad boxes. You'll find things > different when you're paying full price for regular new expansions. ??? I'm confused. What does the price have to do with anything??? > My play group has bought a box of SW each and that's probably all that > we'll buy. This leaves us far short of a set - we won't even have > many commons. Is this fair? The question isn't even worth asking - > it's the nature of the game. It is. It's bad. But at least that's your choice. The delivery day for any particular player is not his choice, so it's a different matter. > > >Absolutely false. Adding a buffer period on top of that is something that > >actually works. > > It doesn't work. Sure it works. Why would you claim it doesn't work? > It's ridiculous to sell something to someone and > then tell them that they can't use it for several weeks. That's why > these restrictions have been ditched for the European Championships. Nope. That was done just because they felt the difference between 30 full days and a few less didn't matter - the same reason the number of days varies between around 15 and around 45. Because beyond a certain number of days, the difference is less important than having the cutoff date be well known - in this case, always on the 1st of the month. But the EC is an important event and the players are hot to use their cards so an exception was made. I very much doubt the exception would have been made had the release date been much closer, say November 14. (Not that I like this. IMHO, they should not have made the exception even for this reason.) Fred

On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > And I'm LSJ faking an American accent, I've told you all before. > > > > It is pronounced "y'all" not "you all". We are south of the > Mason-Dixon. Yeah, but I wasn't in my LSJ mode at the time, was I? -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "Steve: Yeah, well that's one of the advantages of being a sad, lonely fairy, I guess. You get to learn how to be a spy." - Stephen Fry, Making History

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > >You think Majesty is a combat defense? > > It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense > against combat? Because of the way in which many combat decks are played, and are going to be shifted as a result of Telepathic Tracking, Majesty provides a hand-jam or a minor delay. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > > Majesty (and by extension, S:CE) is *not* an effective defense against a > > serious combat deck. Any deck packing Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed, > > Psyche, and to a lesser extent, Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, Dog Pack, and > > Telepathic Tracking, will run roughshod over a deck that relies solely on > > Majesty. > > Well, sure. So what?!? It's certainly reasonable for a combat deck to > run cards that get around "combat defense" cards. That doesn't mean the > latter aren't "combat defense" cards, just because they can be solved. It's very, very bad combat defence now, however. Fortitude is likely to shift more and more towards being a good combat defence discipline - which is presumably what was intended. So far as I can tell, Majesty was never intended to be great combat defence. Look at all the press stuff they had. It certainly seems that S:CE was never intended to be so powerful. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3A036D9A...@netcom.com... [snip Majesty = weak] > Well, sure. So what?!? It's certainly reasonable for a combat deck to > run cards that get around "combat defense" cards. That doesn't mean the > latter aren't "combat defense" cards, just because they can be solved. > *Any* card can be solved...we hope! True. I'm not saying that I'm glad that there are no uber-cards. > Back to the original question: Majesty sure is a combat defense. It's > about as "combat defense" as you can get, IMHO! > > (I'm now truly curious about what you would call, "combat defense".) Fortitude. Obedience. Flesh of Marble. Depending...maneuvers. I really want to play a Legacy of Power deck. But for some reason, though I have loads of DS, I have only 2 Legacy of Power. It'd be so fun. Hmm. I wonder if I could build one before tomorrow. I do have that extra DS booster box sitting around. No. No more card inventory-ing! Ack! Xian > Fred

On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:21:00 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >So what? It's still absurd to expect everybody to have their cards at >the exact same moment. Look what's happening all around you, for crying >out loud! Some people are getting cards they ordered, some aren't. The >latter are having to make other arrangements or have no idea when/where >they're going to get cards. Some are getting cards the day before release >day, other wait while their supplier 50 miles away drop ships (unexpectedly) >from clear across the country. The problem with this release is that there isn't enough product, not that it hasn't been released on schedule. There still won't be enough after a month. This situation occurred with Sabbat too. Should sets in short supply be banned from tournament play until everyone has as much as they want? That would be fair, wouldn't it? Not that there's any problem here, mind you. I just picked up a box from my local shop in the usual way. >It's one thing to make folks hunt down that chase rares if they feel they >need to build decks with them - though truth be known, I feel the game >would much better without this factor, either. But it's quite another >to subject them to the completely random logistics of the CCG business. As >a "fairness" argument, this point is so UNbogus, I'm at a loss to understand >what you don't get. The logistics of CCG supply are not random. There's an official release date which is set so that distributors all over the world can have the product in place at the same time. They will then be able to resupply their retailers within a day. From what I can see this has worked fine in this case and players in Austria, the UK, the USA, etc have all been able to buy the cards on schedule. The bugger factor here is not the timing, it's the short supply. >>I guess if you like tournaments held with completely random groupings of >players who do and do not have their new cards just because you like the >idea that some players are challenged by a major fuck factor while others >aren't, then I can see your position. But if so, why not just go on with >the concept: hand out random number of victory points as players walk in >the door. Now you're just being silly. Most of this set is reprints and, in any case, new cards only provide a decisive advantage if they are broken. Are the new Sabbat Wars cards broken? Assuming not, then my experience is that you're better off sticking with a tried and tested deck, rather than some brand-new thing which you're still tuning and learning how to use. >??? I'm confused. What does the price have to do with anything??? If money is no object, then I can have any amount of Sabbat Wars cards in my hands within 24 hours. When it comes to getting cards like Telepathic Tracking, money and price are a key constraint. I have seen one of this card in my box so far - maybe I'll have two. Am I going to buy cases of the cards so that I can have more and build a Tremere deck? No. Why? Because it would be too expensive. >It is. It's bad. But at least that's your choice. The delivery day >for any particular player is not his choice, so it's a different matter. A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes". >Nope. That was done just because they felt the difference between 30 >full days and a few less didn't matter - the same reason the number of >days varies between around 15 and around 45. Because beyond a certain >number of days, the difference is less important than having the cutoff >date be well known - in this case, always on the 1st of the month. But >the EC is an important event and the players are hot to use their cards >so an exception was made. I very much doubt the exception would have >been made had the release date been much closer, say November 14. (Not >that I like this. IMHO, they should not have made the exception even >for this reason.) It's not long since I was at Gencon in the US. The new Shadowfist set was released that weekend after similar long hiatus. Not only were the new cards _immediately_ legal in all the tournaments but I didn't hear the policy questioned even once. After waiting for 4 years for new cards, it would have been insane to say, "sorry - you'll to wait until next year's events". People buy cards to play with them and so any policy which stops them doing so is unnatural. Magic junkies have been conditioned to think otherwise but this isn't Magic. If it were, people would say that you would now have ban the OOP cards from Jyhad and Sabbat because to do otherwise wouldn't be fair to new players. Is that what you want - the whole set rotation rip-off? It may be fair, but I ain't buying it. Andrew

On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > The problem with this release is that there isn't enough product, not > that it hasn't been released on schedule. As you state, the problem with *this* release. You cannot predict what problems will occur on future releases. Uniform delivery of all products, even when there is sufficient stock, isn't something you can guarantee in the slightest. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:21:00 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >So what? It's still absurd to expect everybody to have their cards at > >the exact same moment. Look what's happening all around you, for crying > >out loud! Some people are getting cards they ordered, some aren't. The > >latter are having to make other arrangements or have no idea when/where > >they're going to get cards. Some are getting cards the day before release > >day, other wait while their supplier 50 miles away drop ships (unexpectedly) > >from clear across the country. > > The problem with this release is that there isn't enough product, not > that it hasn't been released on schedule. There still won't be enough > after a month. This situation occurred with Sabbat too. Should sets > in short supply be banned from tournament play until everyone has as > much as they want? That would be fair, wouldn't it? The point isn't about perfect fairness. It's about doing a reasonably prudent thing to make sure conditions are usually as fair as possible. I expect almost everyone will have had a chance to get their hands on SW within a month. If that's not happening and huge segments of the players have not been given a chance to buy them, then I don't think a ban on it would be all that ridiculous. That isn't the case, however. (And in any event, 1) you wouldn't plan for that and; 2) changing the rules after the release would be a bad thing for other reasons. So I wouldn't advocate any such ban unless the effect were a heck of a lot worse than it is in Sabbat War.) > Not that there's any problem here, mind you. I just picked up a box > from my local shop in the usual way. > > >It's one thing to make folks hunt down that chase rares if they feel they > >need to build decks with them - though truth be known, I feel the game > >would much better without this factor, either. But it's quite another > >to subject them to the completely random logistics of the CCG business. As > >a "fairness" argument, this point is so UNbogus, I'm at a loss to understand > >what you don't get. > > The logistics of CCG supply are not random. There's an official > release date which is set so that distributors all over the world can > have the product in place at the same time. I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're forgetting the issue here. We're talking about having a tournament on, say, November 4th allowing cards released on October 31st. Some shops have it in on Tuesday, some don't get it for a couple more weeks. Some people got their card shipped to them Monday night, some won't get them until the following week. What about all this is not basically random?!? > >>I guess if you like tournaments held with completely random groupings of > >players who do and do not have their new cards just because you like the > >idea that some players are challenged by a major fuck factor while others > >aren't, then I can see your position. But if so, why not just go on with > >the concept: hand out random number of victory points as players walk in > >the door. > > Now you're just being silly. Most of this set is reprints and, in any > case, new cards only provide a decisive advantage if they are broken. Wrong, right, and wrong. I am not being silly; as pointed out above, the actual date of receiving cards varies all over the map in the first two weeks of a release. Therefore, holding a tournament which allows them in the first two weeks is as random a fuck factor as handing out 1-6 VP based on the throw of a dice as the players walk in the door. Yes, most of the cards are reprints but many are not. And the cards which are not reprints make up a small release. Allowing their use represents a profound advantage out of just card variety. Banning certain players randomly from using, say, Dark Sovereigns or Ancient Hearts would be a profound disadvantage to those players by the same token. I guess if you don't consider that variety is advantage, then I can understand your position. That is wrong, however. > >??? I'm confused. What does the price have to do with anything??? > > If money is no object, then I can have any amount of Sabbat Wars cards > in my hands within 24 hours. That is also incorrect, within reason. I suppose if you threw a million dollars at the problem, maybe you could. Within reason, however, it doesn't matter how much money you have. There's no such thing as a totally reliable card seller who will _always_ have your cards in your hands the next day after a release. > >It is. It's bad. But at least that's your choice. The delivery day > >for any particular player is not his choice, so it's a different matter. > > A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In > the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes". There is nothing he can do. > It's not long since I was at Gencon in the US. The new Shadowfist set > was released that weekend after similar long hiatus. Not only were > the new cards _immediately_ legal in all the tournaments but I didn't > hear the policy questioned even once. After waiting for 4 years for > new cards, it would have been insane to say, "sorry - you'll to wait > until next year's events". No it wouldn't have. I don't know how serious Shadowfist players are; whether they have rating systems, for instance, or important regional or national tournaments which are stepping stones to larger tournaments. I doubt it. But if they do, then such a position would have do, such a policy would have been a profound disservice to players. On the other hand, if Shadowfist Tournaments are just about getting players together to play lots of games, then I can see why no one's worrying about it. If the release of SW had happened just before Gencon, I would certainly be against making them tournament legal for VEKN tournaments. On the other hand, there's certainly nothing wrong with having a few non- official tournaments allowing them. For that matter, tournaments directors are free to hold such tournaments right now. It just wouldn't count on your ratings nor receive prize support. Nor should it. > People buy cards to play with them and so any policy which stops them > doing so is unnatural. Magic junkies have been conditioned to think > otherwise but this isn't Magic. If it were, people would say that you > would now have ban the OOP cards from Jyhad and Sabbat because to do > otherwise wouldn't be fair to new players. Is that what you want - > the whole set rotation rip-off? It may be fair, but I ain't buying > it. The set rotation thing has a point to it. If Jyhad had that many expansions constantly coming out and enough new players generated who would care about it, then maybe a special constructed type might be justified. (Though you shouldn't get me started about all the mistakes the DCI has made with Magic. Just don't go there. I don't have time to type messages that long...) But you're comparing apples to oranges. To address your point directly, play your stupid cards. Play them in informal groups. Wait a couple weeks and tournament away. This buffer period is so meaningless in terms of preventing you from using your cards, I'm surprised you would care. On the other side of the issue, though, is a completely random, significant advantage to arbitrary groups of players. The tiny price we pay for eliminating that is well worth it. Fred

On Sun, 05 Nov 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: >I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're forgetting the >issue here. We're talking about having a tournament on, say, November 4th >allowing cards released on October 31st. We were actually talking about a tournament on Nov 26. That's the one that you would prefer not to use SW cards, right? This is still 3 weeks away. Anyone who doesn't have cards by then just isn't trying. >What about all this is not basically random?!? None of it. No-one is rolling dice here. >Wrong, right, and wrong. I am not being silly; as pointed out above, the >actual date of receiving cards varies all over the map in the first two >weeks of a release. Therefore, holding a tournament which allows them in >the first two weeks is as random a fuck factor as handing out 1-6 VP based >on the throw of a dice as the players walk in the door. You're still being silly. Apart from the fact that the release date is global, a tournament is in a particular place. If that area has cards then the players will likewise; if not then they are all in the same boat. Players might order in supplies from elsewhere but this option is available to all - there's nothing unfair or random about it. >That is also incorrect, within reason. I suppose if you threw a million >dollars at the problem, maybe you could. Within reason, however, it >doesn't matter how much money you have. There's no such thing as a totally >reliable card seller who will _always_ have your cards in your hands the >next day after a release. A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards are already spending this sort of money. I flew to Gencon in the US this year and one reason was to obtain the Doomtown and Shadowfist sets which were released there. If the mountain won't come to Mohammed ... >> A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In >> the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes". > >There is nothing he can do. Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player here not a total incompetent. >No it wouldn't have. I don't know how serious Shadowfist players are; >whether they have rating systems, for instance, or important regional >or national tournaments which are stepping stones to larger tournaments. >I doubt it. But if they do, then such a position would have do, such a >policy would have been a profound disservice to players. On the other >hand, if Shadowfist Tournaments are just about getting players together >to play lots of games, then I can see why no one's worrying about it. Judging from Gencon this year, it seems that Shadowfist players care more about winning their events than comparable Vampire players. You don't hear of Shadowfist players quitting the final of their world championship to just get together and "play lots of games". >To address your point directly, play your stupid cards. OK. Andrew

On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > You're still being silly. Apart from the fact that the release date > is global, a tournament is in a particular place. If that area has > cards then the players will likewise; Sure, quite possible. Some of us, however, do try and globe-trot when we get the chance. I, for instance, was trying to get to GenCon US this year (flights doing something like BHX or LHR to ORD or MKE at that time of year were stupid, regardless of the routing, unfortuantely), and the fact that the people local to there had cards wouldn't mean I did, assuming that a set had just been released. For instance, I have somewhere in the region of 20 boosters worth of SW, far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially if heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where people have been buying boxes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:37:33 +0000, James Coupe wrote: >Some of us, however, do try and globe-trot when we get the chance. I, for >instance, was trying to get to GenCon US this year (flights doing >something like BHX or LHR to ORD or MKE at that time of year were stupid, >regardless of the routing, unfortuantely), and the fact that the people >local to there had cards wouldn't mean I did, assuming that a set had just >been released. I booked my flight just a week or two ahead of Gencon and had no trouble getting a return with BA direct from LHR-ORD. I recommend www.expedia.co.uk as the best way to book anything like this. The main problem I find when travelling long distances to a con like this is not having the cards, it's deciding what cards to take. I always tell myself I should build my decks ahead of time and stick to them but I keep thinking "what if...?". The result is that I then literally turn into Mr Suitcase. I hurt my back lifting my case on the way back though (it's always heavier coming back) and so I must give this excess up and travel light. >For instance, I have somewhere in the region of 20 boosters worth of SW, >far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially if >heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where people >have been buying boxes. 20 boosters is less than me. Why so little? Andrew

> For instance, I have somewhere in the region of 20 boosters worth of SW, > far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially if > heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where people > have been buying boxes. Ok, I'll jump in again. :) 1.) The EC is split up in 2 events: draft on 25th, and constructed on 26th. We draft SW cards. This means, that each player attending will have a supply of SW cards *in any case* to use for sunday's constructed event. (If there are still players that really put a lot of time and effort in their hobby (i.e. travelling to abroad tourneys) and don't have at least pre-ordered a couple of boosters of SW...) 2.) You can use SW cards in the constructed 5 days earlier than normal. Considering that by now most (if not all) stores that pre-ordered SW have got their product, and that it seems that SW is very hard to get, if you are lucky enough to find it at all, those 5 days hardly matter. Could we please end this thread now? Some of us have expressed their doubts about having SW allowed at the EC, and I believe that those of you who don't like it will not show up. So be it. Please let's move on. Carl > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > "Steve: Yeah, well that's one of the advantages of being a sad, lonely > fairy, I guess. You get to learn how to be a spy." > - Stephen Fry, Making History > > [ quoted text not captured ]

prea...@utanet.at wrote: > Could we please end this thread now? Since you haven't adequately defended the action, no. We cannot. > Some of us have expressed their doubts about having SW allowed > at the EC, and I believe that those of you who don't like it > will not show up. So be it. Please let's move on. Whether or not people will attend or not is a poor justification for an exception being made. The EC tournament should not have exceptions made for it that are not made for other tournaments. To illustrate that, I'm happy to announce that Sabbat War cards will be allowed in the VEKN constructed tournament that Bernie Bresnahan is running on November 18th. And since breaking rules is like eating Ruffles potato chips (you can't stop after just one) I'm allowing playtesters to compete in the sealed deck Sabbat War tournament. And since the EC is breaking a rule and still being sanctioned, I fully expect our decisions to not affect our ability to also be sanctioned. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

>To illustrate that, I'm happy to announce that Sabbat War cards will be >allowed in the VEKN constructed tournament that Bernie Bresnahan is >running on November 18th. And since breaking rules is like eating >Ruffles potato chips (you can't stop after just one) I'm allowing >playtesters to compete in the sealed deck Sabbat War tournament. > >And since the EC is breaking a rule and still being sanctioned, I fully >expect our decisions to not affect our ability to also be sanctioned. Why does anyone care this much about sanctioning? There's one game where cash changes hands - Magic. Everything else is for fun, not profit. For the company I rep, I can get nearly anything sanctioned just by asking them far enough ahead of time. They send prize support because that's good marketing. If you want an exception made, just ask WW to make it. Maybe, they will.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > >For instance, I have somewhere in the region of 20 boosters worth of SW, > >far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially if > >heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where people > >have been buying boxes. > > 20 boosters is less than me. Why so little? That I was a little short of money when I bought them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Nov 2000, Ian Lee wrote: > Why does anyone care this much about sanctioning? There's one game where cash > changes hands - Magic. Everything else is for fun, not profit. Sanctioning allows: 1) Ratings 2) Prize support These are important to people, the former for the players, the latter for the organisers (who can't necessarily afford to blow a lot of money on boosters or whatever for people). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Sun, 05 Nov 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're forgetting the > >issue here. We're talking about having a tournament on, say, November 4th > >allowing cards released on October 31st. > > We were actually talking about a tournament on Nov 26. That's the one > that you would prefer not to use SW cards, right? This is still 3 > weeks away. Anyone who doesn't have cards by then just isn't trying. Oh. No, if that's what your issue is, then this debate is totally on the wrong track. You were in the middle of responding to James Coupe when you made the flat comment that you didn't believe there was any reason to have "buffer periods" _at all_. I reject that statement, which leads to the scenario I laid out about. If you believed we were still debating the EC exception to the buffer period, then this is a completely different issue. I've stated I don't agree with the exception, either, but for completely different reasons. Yes, you're correct: three weeks should be enough. Or why would the period still end on Dec. 1st even if release date were November 14th? The answer is that even as little as two weeks is considered "enough", which I agree with. The only objection I have to the EC exception is that it confuses people to make exceptions like that and I don't believe the reason is good enough. Though I do understand why others might. It's a question of judgment, I guess. > >What about all this is not basically random?!? > > None of it. No-one is rolling dice here. > > >Wrong, right, and wrong. I am not being silly; as pointed out above, the > >actual date of receiving cards varies all over the map in the first two > >weeks of a release. Therefore, holding a tournament which allows them in > >the first two weeks is as random a fuck factor as handing out 1-6 VP based > >on the throw of a dice as the players walk in the door. > > You're still being silly. Apart from the fact that the release date > is global, a tournament is in a particular place. If that area has > cards then the players will likewise; That is an incorrect statement - assuming we're talking about a tournament in the first few days after release. *Some* players may have cards, some may not. It depends on the source they use. And while the source is entirely a matter of each player's discretion, since it's absolutely impossible to predict which source will yield cards in which time frame, that point is moot. Essentially, the date at which each player has his cards is basically random. > >That is also incorrect, within reason. I suppose if you threw a million > >dollars at the problem, maybe you could. Within reason, however, it > >doesn't matter how much money you have. There's no such thing as a totally > >reliable card seller who will _always_ have your cards in your hands the > >next day after a release. > > A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards are > already spending this sort of money. I flew to Gencon in the US this > year and one reason was to obtain the Doomtown and Shadowfist sets > which were released there. If the mountain won't come to Mohammed ... A thousand dollars would not suffice if one didn't know of any location in the country which had cards available. On November 1st, I was unaware of any location in the entire country, nay world, where I could buy a plane ticket to which were I could purchase Sabbat War. Yet others were counting their cards. And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount of money, anyway. If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his cards by November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational. > >> A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In > >> the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes". > > > >There is nothing he can do. > > Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player > here not a total incompetent. It's not an exaggeration. I'm dead serious. This is nothing he can do. Period. Fred

>> A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards >> are already spending this sort of money. I'd like to know if _anyone_ has already speant $1,000 US on Sabbat War. I've bought a box of pre-con starters, 5 boxes of boosters from Potomac for a sealed deck tournament and 5 boxes from a local retailer for my personal use. Total cost was about $650. I'll be getting $270 back for the five boxes for the tournament, so that's about $375 net for six boxes. After that, I _might_ buy another box of pre-cons and a box of boosters, but that's probably going to be it until Final Nights. > On November 1st, I was unaware of any location in the entire country, > nay world, where I could buy a plane ticket to which were I could > purchase Sabbat War. Yet others were counting their cards. I can help you out. I know of one store that still has a few of the pre-con decks left. Of course, that knowledge will cost you a Derange card. *grin* > And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount > of money, anyway. Oh hell, no. If I spent a $1000 net on Sabbat War, my girlfriend, who's waiting on an engagement ring, would have my nuts in a vise. > If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand > dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his > cards by November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational. *dials up the funny farm* Hey, I got this guy... The point Fred is making here, I believe, is that VTES is not a game that generally caters to an audience that is habitually irresponsible with money...which you'd have to be (unless you're filthy rich) to blow $1000 on Sabbat War just to compete in a tournament. Magic: The Crack Habit, a few years ago, would have been worth a $1000 investment because you could make that back by selling the rares you don't need. VTES, on the other hand, doesn't have anywhere near that kind of a resale value. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:32:44 +0000, James Coupe wrote: >Sanctioning allows: > >1) Ratings >2) Prize support In fact, if you check the Prize Support Guidelines, you will find that that prize support is not tied to sanctioning and that "Preferred treatment will be given to events of a demonstrative nature." Presumably WW would prefer you to demonstrate using their product rather than WotC's old stock. As for ratings, I see some details on the WW site but no actual ratings. Do these exist? My experience is that even the DCI couldn't succesfully operate rating systems for their games. I don't see any ballyhoo here about being the top-rated player - even less than there is for being a tournament champion. Is the game worth the candle? Being the "European Champion" seems plenty good enough for bragging rights. Andrew

On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 19:08:50 GMT, Noal McDonald wrote: >>> A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards >>> are already spending this sort of money. > >I'd like to know if _anyone_ has already speant $1,000 US on Sabbat War. In spending $650, you're close enough in order-of-magnitude terms. I was actually thinking of the guy who was pissed that he couldn't get the 10 boxes that he'd ordered from his retailer. >Oh hell, no. If I spent a $1000 net on Sabbat War, my girlfriend, who's >waiting on an engagement ring, would have my nuts in a vise. People who spend big bucks on tiny, shiny stones, now they're the crazy ones <grin>. >The point Fred is making here, I believe, is that VTES is not a game >that generally caters to an audience that is habitually irresponsible >with money...which you'd have to be (unless you're filthy rich) to blow >$1000 on Sabbat War just to compete in a tournament. Attending a big event can easily cost $1000+ in airfare, hotel and car hire. Spend that much on cards and at least you've still got something to show for it. >Magic: The Crack Habit, a few years ago, would have been worth a $1000 >investment because you could make that back by selling the rares you >don't need. VTES, on the other hand, doesn't have anywhere near that >kind of a resale value. Sabbat boxes are priced at $250 and SW is selling at a premium now, right? The speculators may already be moving in ... Andrew

On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:02:44 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >It's a question of judgment, I guess. I agree that this is a matter of degree and I wouldn't have a big problem with a 1 week buffer period, but the current system is up to 6 weeks which is insane. My point is that the official release date should be fine because this already has a buffer period built in - the cards are shipped to the distributors ahead of this date. One single official date for everything is clean and simple and works for other games. >That is an incorrect statement - assuming we're talking about a tournament >in the first few days after release. *Some* players may have cards, some >may not. It depends on the source they use. And while the source is entirely >a matter of each player's discretion, since it's absolutely impossible to >predict which source will yield cards in which time frame, that point is >moot. Essentially, the date at which each player has his cards is basically >random. No. The global village is a single marketplace now and players are routinely buying their cards from different countries. We all have access to the same sources of supply and hence there is no randomness. >And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount of money, >anyway. If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand >dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his cards by >November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational. You were the one who wasn't being rational by quoting a million dollars as the ante. Even a thousand dollars isn't really required - all you need is the price of a phone call, the cost of a box and an overnight express delivery fee. I just quoted $1000 because, when buying cases, some players are already spending this sort of money and so this is a rational figure to use. >> Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player >> here not a total incompetent. > >It's not an exaggeration. I'm dead serious. This is nothing he can do. >Period. What? He can't read, use the telephone, surf the net or visit several stores? Anyone who can't get hold of cards in the first place doesn't need to worry about tournament fairness because he ain't gonna win anyway - he's obviously not sharp enough. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:02:44 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >It's a question of judgment, I guess. > > I agree that this is a matter of degree and I wouldn't have a big > problem with a 1 week buffer period, In fact, the guaranteed minimum buffer period is 15 days. The rest, which takes it up to a possible 45 days depending on the release date, is due to the desire to make the ending day of the buffer period fall on the end of a month. I feel somewhat neutral about the necessity of doing this (but if that's your policy, then stick to it...). Not so the minimum 15 days. In the continental U.S., such considerations allow players to ship via UPS ground even if they live in Seattle and their supplier is in Miami. An extra week to allow all the players to save real money - we can wait. > but the current system is up to 6 weeks which is insane. Doesn't seem insane to me. The wait is not that serious a thing. But if it's the maximum period that's upsetting you, the first thing to throw out would be the 1st-of-the-month rule. > My point is that the official release date > should be fine because this already has a buffer period built in - the > cards are shipped to the distributors ahead of this date. Sure, but no one can play with cards that are sitting in a distributor's warehouse next I checked. I can't comprehend why you think this is sufficient. The cards still have to go from distributors to retailers and from retailers to customers. Or under the best of circumstances, direct from mail order distributors to players. > >That is an incorrect statement - assuming we're talking about a tournament > >in the first few days after release. *Some* players may have cards, some > >may not. It depends on the source they use. And while the source is entirely > >a matter of each player's discretion, since it's absolutely impossible to > >predict which source will yield cards in which time frame, that point is > >moot. Essentially, the date at which each player has his cards is basically > >random. > > No. The global village is a single marketplace now and players are > routinely buying their cards from different countries. We all have > access to the same sources of supply and hence there is no randomness. Yes. Having access to the same source of supply does not prevent randomness. Players have no idea ahead of time which sources will ship in which period of time. (Why would you think they do?) So I preorder from mail order distributor X or from retailer Y, who got me my cards in 3 days last time. This time it happens to be 7 days. How was I supposed to know that ahead of time? > > >And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount of money, > >anyway. If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand > >dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his cards by > >November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational. > You were the one who wasn't being rational by quoting a million > dollars as the ante. Even a thousand dollars isn't really required - > all you need is the price of a phone call, the cost of a box and an > overnight express delivery fee. Right. And it ships overnight - 6 days after release date. You have no control over the process. Cards arrive when they arrive. Period. > >> Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player > >> here not a total incompetent. > > > >It's not an exaggeration. I'm dead serious. This is nothing he can do. > >Period. > > What? He can't read, use the telephone, surf the net or visit several > stores? Sure he can. But what good would it do? Fred

On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:01:09 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Sure, but no one can play with cards that are sitting in a distributor's >warehouse next I checked. I can't comprehend why you think this is >sufficient. The whole point of an official release date is to ensure that cards go on sale in retail stores at the same time. This is because there is a huge peak of sales when an expansion first appears and, if one store were to be ahead of the rest, it could cream off all these early sales. Sales of product ahead of the official date are embargoed for this reason and all retailers are given the chance to get product in place on their shelves for the release date. Now do you comprehend? >Yes. Having access to the same source of supply does not prevent randomness. >Players have no idea ahead of time which sources will ship in which period >of time. (Why would you think they do?) So I preorder from mail order >distributor X or from retailer Y, who got me my cards in 3 days last time. >This time it happens to be 7 days. How was I supposed to know that ahead >of time? I talk to my suppliers and they talk to their distributors who talk to the shippers and manufacturers. They usually have a pretty good idea when stock will be delivered. >> What? He can't read, use the telephone, surf the net or visit several >> stores? > >Sure he can. But what good would it do? You can lead a horse to water ... Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:32:44 +0000, James Coupe wrote: > > >Sanctioning allows: > > > >1) Ratings [clip prize support comments] > > As for ratings, I see some details on the WW site but no actual > ratings. Do these exist? Yes. http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/member > My experience is that even the DCI couldn't > succesfully operate rating systems for their games. I'm not really sure about how successful they were but we've been doing pretty well with ours. I think we've been rating tournaments for two or three years now. Wow. Time flies! Anyway, the results from each event are sent to Todd Banister who keeps the ratings for the entire world up to date. As someone who did this job for a while I am still amazed that Todd's able to keep up on this and hasn't burned out. He's the hardest working V:TES supporter that you rarely hear from. > I don't see any > ballyhoo here about being the top-rated player - even less than there > is for being a tournament champion. Is the game worth the candle? > Being the "European Champion" seems plenty good enough for bragging > rights. I'm sure its not as big a deal as it is in Magic but some people are pretty excited about them. My playgroup focusses on them quite a bit. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:01:09 GMT, I wrote: (about Andrew's comment that the distributors release all the cards on the same release date, therefore a dead period between release date and the first day you can use new expansion cards in tournaments is unnecessary) > > >Sure, but no one can play with cards that are sitting in a distributor's > >warehouse last time I checked. I can't comprehend why you think this is > >sufficient. > > The whole point of an official release date is to ensure that cards go > on sale in retail stores at the same time. This is because there is a > huge peak of sales when an expansion first appears and, if one store > were to be ahead of the rest, it could cream off all these early > sales. Sales of product ahead of the official date are embargoed for > this reason and all retailers are given the chance to get product in > place on their shelves for the release date. Now do you comprehend? No. Because while you're correct that the reason for the official release date, it doesn't insure that the cards hit all the store shelves on the same day. They certainly don't hit shelves of many stores _on_ release day and how many days thereafter it takes, no one can ever predict. For one store it's the next day, for the store across the street, it's 10 days later. So as a day-by-day thing in the first couple of weeks, this point is moot. > >Yes. Having access to the same source of supply does not prevent randomness. > >Players have no idea ahead of time which sources will ship in which period > >of time. (Why would you think they do?) So I preorder from mail order > >distributor X or from retailer Y, who got me my cards in 3 days last time. > >This time it happens to be 7 days. How was I supposed to know that ahead > >of time? > > I talk to my suppliers and they talk to their distributors who talk to > the shippers and manufacturers. They usually have a pretty good idea > when stock will be delivered. They will tell you they do. But they're wrong very often - either because they were lying about how quickly they could get them to you or they were lying that they knew anything at all or more often (I like to think) they thought they knew but something transpired they couldn't predict or they didn't know they didn't know. When you talk to a retailer or the guy on the phone taking your mail order, you are so far removed from the people who know anything about how the product moves around from the WW warehouse through unnamed numbers of stops to your possession that it's worthless to count on what they say. You ever play the parlor game, "Telephone"? That game has a point and the point is very pertinent to this situation. Now, can you ask these people and get a straight answer that turns out to be true? Often, you can - which sometimes surprises me. But I've discovered over time that it's downright foolish to count on it. Even when you've been getting your cards from the same source that's worked well for you for years - next time something changes and it takes an extra week. Happens all the time. All things considered, it's far more challenging to know when you'll have your cards when you preorder than you're trying to suggest. I suppose if you think not, that explains our difference of opinion. I have to say, though, that I wonder why you think it's important enough to care. I can see why you might want to reduce the period below the potential for a six week wait, but two weeks is a short enough period of time that it just seems prudent. Besides, it gives people some time to actually look at their cards, hit up LSJ for ruling they're unsure about, and start constructing decks and test playing them. That's not so bad, is it? Fred

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:32:44 +0000, James Coupe wrote: > > >Sanctioning allows: > > > >1) Ratings > >2) Prize support > > In fact, if you check the Prize Support Guidelines, you will find that > that prize support is not tied to sanctioning and that "Preferred > treatment will be given to events of a demonstrative nature." Certainly. But they, when giving prize support to events that aren't demonstrative in nature (e.g. a National tournament), will generally give it to sanctioned tournaments. Organising prize support for a major national or international tournament is *not* cheap. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "Steve: Yeah, well that's one of the advantages of being a sad, lonely fairy, I guess. You get to learn how to be a spy." - Stephen Fry, Making History

On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:57:54 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >All things considered, it's far more challenging to know when you'll have your >cards when you preorder than you're trying to suggest. I suppose if you think >not, that explains our difference of opinion. I have to say, though, that I >wonder why you think it's important enough to care. I can see why you might >want to reduce the period below the potential for a six week wait, but two >weeks is a short enough period of time that it just seems prudent. Besides, >it gives people some time to actually look at their cards, hit up LSJ for >ruling they're unsure about, and start constructing decks and test playing them. >That's not so bad, is it? Saying that "it's not important" is an argument that cuts both ways. I don't think it matters much if some players have cards which others don't, especially as this is going to happen anyway. Getting hold of rare stuff can be a challenge and that's all part of the fun. Stopping an enthusiast from playing with his new toys is a killjoy attitude and that's why I don't like it. This matters to me enough that I will refuse to play in an event if I think that it has banned cards without adequate reason. On personal note, I was delighted when a visiting US Shadowfist player showed up at the club last night. I'd asked him to bring me a copy of the excellent new Buffy game which seems tough to get in the US and impossible to find in the UK - this may be the first copy in the country. In return for this hot new item, I'm giving him an exclusive Shadowfist promo - the "naughty" Sting of the Scorpion. Folks who just wait for their local store to hand them such stuff on a plate will have a long wait - possibly forever. But where there's a will, there's a way ... Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:57:54 GMT, I wrote: (about the wait between release date and when new Jyhad expansions can be used in constructed tournaments) > > >All things considered, it's far more challenging to know when you'll have your > >cards when you preorder than you're trying to suggest. I suppose if you think > >not, that explains our difference of opinion. I have to say, though, that I > >wonder why you think it's important enough to care. I can see why you might > >want to reduce the period below the potential for a six week wait, but two > >weeks is a short enough period of time that it just seems prudent. Besides, > >it gives people some time to actually look at their cards, hit up LSJ for > >ruling they're unsure about, and start constructing decks and test playing them. > >That's not so bad, is it? > > Saying that "it's not important" is an argument that cuts both ways. > I don't think it matters much if some players have cards which others > don't, I don't understand that. The only explanation for your attitude that makes any sense is that you don't really think variety is power. Otherwise, we're back to the why-not-roll-a-dice-and-give-out-random-extra-victory-points argument. So this part is not - as you're suggestion - a question of priorities. It's a question of our differing perception about how much advantage is it to have new cards. > especially as this is going to happen anyway. I disagree with that statement, too. Generally, within two weeks, anyone who really wanted to have their cards has their cards - unless something completely unexpected happens. At some point, you have to accept that possibility. That does not mean you don't take reasonable steps to prevent it under normal circumstances. That's like suggesting there's no point in having cops given the fact that even having a police force won't prevent _some_ crime from happening. It won't - but it's still worth preventing most crime. > Getting hold of rare stuff can be a challenge and that's all part of > the fun. But that's a different aspect of the game. You're comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about the logistics of shipping preordered stuff in a given period of time, here. Not chasing rare singles or packs. Fred

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:48:37 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >It's a question of our differing perception about how >much advantage is it to have new cards. Not much, especially when most of them aren't new. How exactly does possession of SW translate into power? I went through a box of it and found just one card that I liked - the Hand of ?. My experience of expansions for other mature games is that, while they might contain some nice new cards, they are far from essential. The main effect of SW tournament play is the MRP errata. Now I'd agree that you want to give players ample warning about that and that's what LSJ did ahead of the release. >Generally, within two weeks, anyone who >really wanted to have their cards has their cards >- unless something completely unexpected happens. Actually I'm surprised at the extent to which some of the hard-core like James Coupe haven't bought much SW. What they repeatedly say is that they couldn't afford more. Few players will buy everything that they might want - at some point they decide to work with what they have and make the best of it. >But that's a different aspect of the game. You're comparing apples to >oranges. We're talking about the logistics of shipping preordered stuff >in a given period of time, here. Not chasing rare singles or packs. Your reference to "pre-ordered" shows where you're coming from. You pre-order stuff and then feel you're locked in to that one order. Me, I usually wait until the release and buy the cards where convenient. If one supplier doesn't have it, I go to the next. Your choice, not mine. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:48:37 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >It's a question of our differing perception about how > >much advantage is it to have new cards. > > Not much, especially when most of them aren't new. How exactly does > possession of SW translate into power? I went through a box of it and > found just one card that I liked - the Hand of ?. My experience of > expansions for other mature games is that, while they might contain > some nice new cards, they are far from essential. I didn't say they were "essential". I said that using the cards added variety to your card collection which makes your decks more powerful. Each new card, if it's useful, has the potential to add new synergy to existing cards. For instance, Shock Troops might add the extra twist that a super-weeny deck needs to turn up its power significantly. I'm sorry if you haven't found anything worthwhile. I assure you that others have and that better decks will be the result. As for their overall numbers, there are 77 new cards in Sabbat War, which is approximately half the total of Dark Sovereigns by way of comparison. In many cases, players will find SW a far easier way to get many of the old Sabbat cards, so pretending that a card being a reprint is just ignoring reality. That is, allowing some players to use their reprint Disarms since it's possible in theory for the others to use older Disarms is unfairness that's no more justified than allowing some to use new cards while others do without. In other games, like Magic, where a reprinted common might be sitting around in singles dealers' dime boxes might be a different story. > >But that's a different aspect of the game. You're comparing apples to > >oranges. We're talking about the logistics of shipping preordered stuff > >in a given period of time, here. Not chasing rare singles or packs. > > Your reference to "pre-ordered" shows where you're coming from. You > pre-order stuff and then feel you're locked in to that one order. Me, > I usually wait until the release and buy the cards where convenient. > If one supplier doesn't have it, I go to the next. Your choice, not > mine. And you're saying you consistently get your cards the day of the release? Even when I played a lot Magic in the SF Bay Area, I couldn't necessarily find that. To give you some perspective, to my knowledge, the first Sabbat War card has yet to be sold by a retailer in Phoenix. I may be wrong about that. It's hard to keep track of every little card shop in a large city. But I don't think so. You shouldn't assume that just because you're able to find cards quickly that everyone else can. Fred

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:55:19 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >That is, allowing some players to use their reprint Disarms >since it's possible in theory for the others to use older Disarms is >unfairness that's no more justified than allowing some to use new cards >while others do without. You can use your Disarms but I can't use mine? You have a funny idea of fairness. >And you're saying you consistently get your cards the day of the release? >Even when I played a lot Magic in the SF Bay Area, I couldn't necessarily >find that. To give you some perspective, to my knowledge, the first Sabbat >War card has yet to be sold by a retailer in Phoenix. I may be wrong about >that. It's hard to keep track of every little card shop in a large city. >But I don't think so. You shouldn't assume that just because you're able >to find cards quickly that everyone else can. If some guy in Phoenix is unable to buy SW from his local store, that's no good reason that I should not be allowed to play with my cards in London. And if this hypothetical guy really wants some SW cards, he can just pick up the phone and order some from London. Lots of other Americans do - Leisure Games does more business with the US than with us locals now. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:55:19 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >That is, allowing some players to use their reprint Disarms > >since it's possible in theory for the others to use older Disarms is > >unfairness that's no more justified than allowing some to use new cards > >while others do without. > > You can use your Disarms but I can't use mine? You have a funny idea > of fairness. Oops. You're right, I'm wrong about this point. Reprints of existing cards have to be legal for exactly this reason, though it does create a different form of unfairness. None the less, variety is still power. And on the main point, I stick to my guns. The fact that the new cards in Sabbat War are limited to a fairly small number is incidental. And besides, if only 77 out 400 some cards can't be used until December 1st, then you don't have much to complain about, do you? The amount of additional variety is exactly the amount of the inconvenience, so let's stick to the principals here. > >And you're saying you consistently get your cards the day of the release? > >Even when I played a lot Magic in the SF Bay Area, I couldn't necessarily > >find that. To give you some perspective, to my knowledge, the first Sabbat > >War card has yet to be sold by a retailer in Phoenix. I may be wrong about > >that. It's hard to keep track of every little card shop in a large city. > >But I don't think so. You shouldn't assume that just because you're able > >to find cards quickly that everyone else can. > > If some guy in Phoenix is unable to buy SW from his local store, > that's no good reason that I should not be allowed to play with my > cards in London. That's far too simplistic a way of looking at a tournament. There's nothing preventing a person visiting London from Phoenix on the day of the tournament and nothing in the world which prevents your London shop from being sold out by then. The existence of a shop with product somewhere is not the same thing as having a fair shot at product. If it's next door to you and 2,000 miles from someone else, he's not going to know it has product or where it is even though he may show up at the tournament. This is just stupid. I'm getting tired of arguing with a guy about whether immediate distribution of cards can possibly happen in way that's fair when the bottom line is *not* that you think the existing infrastructure is fair. It's just that you flat don't care about a significant degree of fairness in sanctioned tournaments in a tradeoff with a couple of weeks extra wait to use your cards in such tournaments. Fine. I personally can't understand your priorities as a couple of weeks is nothing and I - for one - wouldn't even *want* to use my new cards if I thought others were still waiting for theirs. What the hell do I want to win a tainted tournament for? It's not something I'd feel particularly proud of, myself. YMMV, I guess. Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote... > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > >That is, allowing some players to use their reprint Disarms > > >since it's possible in theory for the others to use older Disarms is > > >unfairness that's no more justified than allowing some to use new cards > > >while others do without. > > > > You can use your Disarms but I can't use mine? You have a funny idea > > of fairness. > > Oops. You're right, I'm wrong about this point. Reprints of existing > cards have to be legal for exactly this reason, though it does create a > different form of unfairness. > > None the less, variety is still power. And on the main point, I stick to > my guns. The fact that the new cards in Sabbat War are limited to a > fairly small number is incidental. And besides, if only 77 out 400 some > cards can't be used until December 1st, then you don't have much to > complain about, do you? The amount of additional variety is exactly the > amount of the inconvenience, so let's stick to the principals here. Incorrect. Cards from Sabbat War, regardless of whether or not they have appeared in another set prior to Sabbat War being printed, are not legal for sanctioned tournament play until December 1st, 2000 (which the exception of the EC). Additionally, new card texts (such as the +1 stealth on superior Enchant Kindred) do not take effect until Sabbat War becomes legal on December 1st. Best, Mattrim. mattrim...@home.com

"Mattrim." <mattrim...@home.com> wrote: > Cards from Sabbat War, regardless of whether or not they > have appeared in another set prior to Sabbat War being > printed, are not legal for sanctioned tournament play > until December 1st, 2000 (which the exception of the EC). Correct. Cards from a new set are not legal until the set is legal, reprints or not. > Additionally, new card texts (such as the +1 stealth on > superior Enchant Kindred) do not take effect until Sabbat > War becomes legal on December 1st. Well, the new card texts are only in effect in tournaments in which they are legal. The changes in wordings being the reason that the reprints are not legal until the set is legal. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

LSJ wrote: > > "Mattrim." <mattrim...@home.com> wrote: > > Cards from Sabbat War, regardless of whether or not they > > have appeared in another set prior to Sabbat War being > > printed, are not legal for sanctioned tournament play > > until December 1st, 2000 (which the exception of the EC). > > Correct. > Cards from a new set are not legal until the set is legal, > reprints or not. Sabbat War is kind of an extreme case, though, in that it reprints many cards from an extremely hard to get expansion. Doesn't it make sense to relax this piece in future expansions, when presumably the reprints would be of cards that were readily available? Then it just becomes a matter of convenience to let people use their new reprints if they like. (It would also be easier on judges who would no longer need to worry about spotting new versions of old cards.) Magic uses this rule. I thought Jyhad also did when governed by the DCI. Fred

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:36:52 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >This is just stupid. I'm getting tired of arguing with a guy about whether >immediate distribution of cards can possibly happen in way that's fair when >the bottom line is *not* that you think the existing infrastructure is fair. Sure, I think the existing infrastructure is fair. You've failed to demonstrate _any_ lack of fairness. There is no favouritism, no exclusive deals. It's just an open market with a common start date. >I personally can't understand your priorities as a couple of weeks is nothing >and I - for one - wouldn't even *want* to use my new cards if I thought others >were still waiting for theirs. What the hell do I want to win a tainted tournament >for? This issue has little to do with winning, AFAIC - I've already said that rushing to use new cards is no recipe for success. My motivation is that using new cards while they are still fresh is _fun_. Even after I'd pretty much given up Magic, I still used to go to the occasional pre-release because it was fun to get caught up in the excitement of experiencing the new stuff. That's the general trouble with this game. People must be taking this whole World of Darkness thing too seriously because the game and its players seem to be very lacking in a sense of humour and fun. Andrew Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:36:52 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >This is just stupid. I'm getting tired of arguing with a guy about whether > >immediate distribution of cards can possibly happen in way that's fair when > >the bottom line is *not* that you think the existing infrastructure is fair. > > Sure, I think the existing infrastructure is fair. You've failed to > demonstrate _any_ lack of fairness. Except no single source of cards delivers predictably or on the same day. I have no clue what your definition of "lack of fairness" could be. > There is no favouritism, no > exclusive deals. It's just an open market with a common start date. There's no deliberate favoritism but there's de facto random advantage. And the "common start date" is for distributors - too far removed from the players to matter a whit. Moot points, indeed. > >I personally can't understand your priorities as a couple of weeks is nothing > >and I - for one - wouldn't even *want* to use my new cards if I thought others > >were still waiting for theirs. What the hell do I want to win a tainted tournament > >for? > This issue has little to do with winning, AFAIC - I've already said > that rushing to use new cards is no recipe for success. My motivation > is that using new cards while they are still fresh is _fun_. Really? Well, I guess I agree on that point, using new cards is definitely fun. It just seems like we can wait a couple of weeks before we insist on using them in sanctioned tournaments. > Even > after I'd pretty much given up Magic, I still used to go to the > occasional pre-release because it was fun to get caught up in the > excitement of experiencing the new stuff. > > That's the general trouble with this game. People must be taking this > whole World of Darkness thing too seriously because the game and its > players seem to be very lacking in a sense of humour and fun. Well, what about you, then? If you think things need to be taken less seriously, why the insistence on using the cards in tournaments so quickly? It seems like you could blow this off without too much thought if you take the game so lightly. (Of course, if you're just pursuing a good argument, then I comprehend the apparent conundrum.) As for the seriousness you perceive, I think it's a couple of things: 1) There's a rating system. Anytime you introduce a rating system, folks start paying attention to it. Rightly or wrongly, the issue of fairness takes on new seriousness when people get a number stuck on their name. And; 2) Jyhad players, for the most part seem to appreciate and greatly value the pure strategy of the game. There are a lot of games on the market or in the past (I'm thinking Classic Rage as a real blatant example, here) whose popularity was based on the character of the game and/or maybe even the backstory but were pretty lousy games in the sense of making for difficult strategy decisions. Jyhad is definitely not one of them. Because of this, many players get very offended about otherwise fairly marginal stuff (e.g. whither to allow Madness of the Bard or no) if they think it would corrupt the purity of the game. I'm not saying it's right - I'm just saying everyone should agree with me. Unfortunately, everyone else takes that point of view on the matter as well. Fred

>>> Cards from Sabbat War, regardless of whether or not they >>> have appeared in another set prior to Sabbat War being >>> printed, are not legal for sanctioned tournament play >>> until December 1st, 2000 (which the exception of the EC). >> >> Correct. >> Cards from a new set are not legal until the set is legal, >> reprints or not. > > Doesn't it make sense to relax this piece in future expansions, > when presumably the reprints would be of cards that were > readily available? I made a suggestion on the Prince mailing list to change the the rule a bit to the following: Expansions released between the 1st and the 15th may be used beginning with the 1st of the following month. Expansions released between the 15th and the 31st may be used beginning with the 15th of the following month. It would make the gap in time between release date and sanction date more consistent. Carl agreed this would be a good compromise, but I've not seen any further discussion on the issue. Despite what Andrew says, two weeks is a reasonable time to wait to use new cards, but five weeks is a bit much. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message news: 8usonv$3gi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > Cards from a new set are not legal until the set is legal, > reprints or not. > > > Additionally, new card texts (such as the +1 stealth on > > superior Enchant Kindred) do not take effect until Sabbat > > War becomes legal on December 1st. > > Well, the new card texts are only in effect in tournaments > in which they are legal. > > The changes in wordings being the reason that the reprints > are not legal until the set is legal. apart som changes on wording on a few cards, i can't understand this. What's the difference between Sabbat & Sabbat War version of "Daring the Dawn" ? there is none here. So i must NOT use cards that everyone knows, and which will bring no complication to the game... I mean, i must trade to get cards i already own to play ! this sounds very boring... I'm happy the judges here in France are accepting reprints, because everyone will bring some at the French national tournament. r.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:32:45 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Except no single source of cards delivers predictably or on the same day. I >have no clue what your definition of "lack of fairness" could be. To demonstrate lack of fairness, you need to show a bias in the system. Variability or randomness as you think of it is not enough. A die may give you a random result but still be fair. >And the "common start date" is for distributors The common start date is for retailers - they may not sell before the release date. That's why it's called a "release" date - the product is set free on that date. >Well, what about you, then? If you think things need to be taken less >seriously, why the insistence on using the cards in tournaments so >quickly? This all started because some folk got uptight about new cards being used at the European Championships. They are the ones doing the insisting - insisting that rules are rules and should not be broken under any circumstances. I don't insist that you should do things my way. I think this matter should be left to individual tournament organisers who know their local circumstances and players best. I would still like to use my cards right away but would take such a restriction better if it came from an informed local rather than as a bureaucratic diktat imposed from 4000 miles away. >It seems like you could blow this off without too much thought >if you take the game so lightly. (Of course, if you're just pursuing a >good argument, then I comprehend the apparent conundrum.) No, I don't take this lightly. This irritates me enough that I boycott events which offend in this way. I declined to play in several events this year for this reason. Of course, I like a good argument too <grin>. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:32:45 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >Except no single source of cards delivers predictably or on the same day. I > >have no clue what your definition of "lack of fairness" could be. > > To demonstrate lack of fairness, you need to show a bias in the > system. Variability or randomness as you think of it is not enough. > A die may give you a random result but still be fair. All right, FINE! Then I'm actually complaining about the arbitrary randomness in the system. We've gotten to this point and you're only now clarifying that this is nit is your bone of contention? I think you knew what I meant. I already compared it to rolling a dice myself - and giving out victory points. Obviously I understand the difference between a systematic bias and incidental randomness and I don't see why it's an issue. Either is unfair. The point is, all the players should have a (reasonable) chance to acquire their initial desired preorder to play with. > >And the "common start date" is for distributors > > The common start date is for retailers - they may not sell before the > release date. That's why it's called a "release" date - the product > is set free on that date. Incorrect. The common start date is for *distributors* - or this was my understanding. *Distributors* may not sell to retailers before this date. How quickly they get the product to retailers so that retailers can sell it to customers depends on the relationship the two have. > >Well, what about you, then? If you think things need to be taken less > >seriously, why the insistence on using the cards in tournaments so > >quickly? > > This all started because some folk got uptight about new cards being > used at the European Championships. They are the ones doing the > insisting - insisting that rules are rules and should not be broken > under any circumstances. I don't insist that you should do things my > way. I think this matter should be left to individual tournament > organisers who know their local circumstances and players best. Is that right? Does your local tournament organizer actually have any clue when or how you got your cards? I can sure tell you mine doesn't. Not at any time since CCGs have been invented has anyone whose organized tournaments in the area I live (at the time) ever had that knowledge. I submit to you that that statement is totally and categorically wrong - at least insofar as it applies to knowledge of how quickly local players have cards. And it's not like it matters. It's not like it changes anything. So Bob the local judge happens to know Phil and Tom and the local gang are all buying from Joe's store who will have the cards in by Friday. He *still* doesn't who's gonna show up to play from out of town or who might be new to the game (or whatever) and where they got *their* cards. If it's unfair, I frankly don't give a fuck what's true about "the local circumstances and players". The local players aren't the only ones who necessarily play. > No, I don't take this lightly. ...and that I don't understand. It's *only* a few weeks. Sheesh. You'll have the rest of eternity to play your SW cards in tournaments. Fred

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:55:27 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >The point is, all the players should have a (reasonable) chance >to acquire their initial desired preorder to play with. They do all have a reasonable chance. You want more than equality of opportunity - you want equality of outcome. This is goddam socialism and is not appropriate for a trading card game in which it is a fanudamental principle that players are expected to have different collections of cards. >Incorrect. The common start date is for *distributors* - or this was >my understanding. *Distributors* may not sell to retailers before this >date. How quickly they get the product to retailers so that retailers >can sell it to customers depends on the relationship the two have. WotC impose restrictions ar the retail level (even to the extent of flouting laws against this). I'm not sure what WW's detailed policy is but note that their web site says to retailers, "About new releases. We do everything we can to make sure new releases arrive on your doorstep the same day as all the other stores in your area so that everyone gets their goodies at the same time." >Is that right? Does your local tournament organizer actually have any >clue when or how you got your cards? I can sure tell you mine doesn't. I suppose that my local TO for VTES is the Prince of London, Mike Nudd. He took the trouble to post a detailed list of SW availability in shops throughout SE England. It's a shame that your TO is comparatively clueless. >And it's not like it matters. It's not like it changes anything. So Bob >the local judge happens to know Phil and Tom and the local gang are all >buying from Joe's store who will have the cards in by Friday. He *still* >doesn't who's gonna show up to play from out of town or who might be new >to the game (or whatever) and where they got *their* cards. TOs should make any card bans clear in their tournament announcements. Players may be ignorant of any general policies in this regard and that's why the best default policy is that all cards are allowed unless specifically prohibited. >...and that I don't understand. It's *only* a few weeks. Sheesh. You'll >have the rest of eternity to play your SW cards in tournaments. No, I expect to be dead all too soon. Carpe diem. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:55:27 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >The point is, all the players should have a (reasonable) chance > >to acquire their initial desired preorder to play with. > > They do all have a reasonable chance. You want more than equality of > opportunity - you want equality of outcome. This is goddam socialism > and is not appropriate for a trading card game in which it is a > fanudamental principle that players are expected to have different > collections of cards. Sure, I want "equality of outcome" as far as people getting cards. It's a reasonable expectation. It's totally appropriate, given how important it is to card play and the slight sacrifice of waiting a short period for it. A "reasonable chance" means they usually succeed at obtaining their cards - in contrast to your proposal which would allow tournaments to be held on days when many players will fail. Again, why do you even want to take your cards and play in such a tournament, knowing others may not have their chance? I marvel that anyone would find an unsporting opportunity like that worthwhile. This has so little to do with social systems of economics that it's insane to slap terms like "socialism" on it. I'm wouldn't touch a useless academic debate like that with a 10 foot pole. > >Incorrect. The common start date is for *distributors* - or this was > >my understanding. *Distributors* may not sell to retailers before this > >date. How quickly they get the product to retailers so that retailers > >can sell it to customers depends on the relationship the two have. > > WotC impose restrictions ar the retail level (even to the extent of > flouting laws against this). No. WotC is exactly the manufacturer I'm familiar with. Their Netreps have announced on the newsgroups many times that the restriction is against *distributors* releasing to retailers. I'm not sure where you're getting your information. WotC can't possibly enforce such a restriction against the hundreds and thousands of stores that sell their products. But they *can* refuse to do business with the distributors who they deal with directly. Thus, it's the distributors that have the actual restriction. > I'm not sure what WW's detailed policy > is but note that their web site says to retailers, "About new > releases. We do everything we can to make sure new releases > arrive on your doorstep the same day as all the other stores in your > area so that everyone gets their goodies at the same time." Yup. And "everything (they) can" is to make sure that no one else's distributor will deliver to the store across the street before your distributor can deliver to you. Now, how quickly the distributor actually *does* get the product into the store - whether it's the same day or two weeks later - is between the store and the distributor. And it fluctuates quite a bit. > >Is that right? Does your local tournament organizer actually have any > >clue when or how you got your cards? I can sure tell you mine doesn't. > > I suppose that my local TO for VTES is the Prince of London, Mike > Nudd. He took the trouble to post a detailed list of SW availability > in shops throughout SE England. It's a shame that your TO is > comparatively clueless. Who said they (there's various people and I've moved recently) were "clueless"? I haven't told them and I don't expect it's any of their business, for the most part. You act like tournament organizers are some kind of "Mom and Pop" grocery store who know everybody roundabouts that plays. Some places that's true, some places it isn't. > >And it's not like it matters. It's not like it changes anything. So Bob > >the local judge happens to know Phil and Tom and the local gang are all > >buying from Joe's store who will have the cards in by Friday. He *still* > >doesn't who's gonna show up to play from out of town or who might be new > >to the game (or whatever) and where they got *their* cards. > > TOs should make any card bans clear in their tournament announcements. > Players may be ignorant of any general policies in this regard and > that's why the best default policy is that all cards are allowed > unless specifically prohibited. I'm not sure how that was supposed to be answer. Point is, Bob the local judge knows nothing of when out of town players or new players or - in places like some I've lived - most of the players get their cards. So it doesn't matter. Yours is an unworkable way of doing things. Fred

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:38:37 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >Sure, I want "equality of outcome" as far as people getting cards. >It's a reasonable expectation. It's totally appropriate, given how >important it is to card play Well if equality of outcome is important to the play of this game then it's seriously screwed-up AFAIC. I opened a VTES booster this evening and got my first copy of Dragonsbreath Rounds - a cool card that I have heard mentioned here several times. If I get only one copy of this card after opening over 3 boxes of boosters, just imagine what I'd have to do to get a handful of the cards for a gun deck. And then in the recent Malkavian newsletter I read of an amusing deck idea which requires 70 odd copies of Malkavian Prank. I'd quite enjoy building and playing such a deck (even if it's just a joke) but it's quite impractical because I only have 1 copy of the card. Compared to obstacles of this kind, the problem of not getting new cards immediately seems insignificant. >No. WotC is exactly the manufacturer I'm familiar with. Their Netreps >have announced on the newsgroups many times that the restriction is >against *distributors* releasing to retailers. This is not my personal experience of WotC but it's WW that matters in this case and we really need for them to explain their policy before we can dicker about what the consequences are for VTES. >>> Is that right? Does your local tournament organizer actually have any >>> clue when or how you got your cards? I can sure tell you mine doesn't. >> >> It's a shame that your TO is comparatively clueless. > > Who said they (there's various people and I've moved recently) were > "clueless"? You did - read your own words. >Yours is an unworkable way of doing things. It's the way Pokemon does it. That's the most successful CCG in the world. Andrew