Nights of Reckoning rules cards
LSJ
contructed and limited.
They do not count as "most recent printing" of anything, however, since
the texts on those cards had to be edited down in some cases.
Effective immediately (when the set is legal, which is tomorrow, the
10th of May).
pd...@lightlink.com
Let me be the first to say thanks.
-Peter
Salem
I'd say 'ditto', but I'm not the first, so I will have to make do with
something like 'I, too, am glad of this decision.'
Just more evidence that WW (and LSJ specifically) are rational people,
and willing to listen to the concerns of the players.
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
sim...@iinet.net.au
good choice to make those rules cards legal.
Ben Szymkow
John Zbyszinski
In regards to the printing of Elder Library as a rules card, that card
did not have a cost. Does Elder Library still cost 1 pool?
Thanks,
John Zbyszinski
Prince of Allentown
CthuluKitty
> did not have a cost. Does Elder Library still cost 1 pool?
Yes it does. Notice:
> > They do not count as "most recent printing" of anything, however, since
> > the texts on those cards had to be edited down in some cases.
In this instance, the card was missing a rather non-trivial portion of
its text, ie. the cost.
tzimisce_dragon
Salem wrote:
>
> Just more evidence that WW (and LSJ specifically) are rational people,
> and willing to listen to the concerns of the players.
>
it's a positive action. Of course, i'd hate to see more of such cards
in the future.
Instead, i'd like to see some pleasant surprises like a 12-card booster
with 2 rares.
Why not include 2 rares in a booster in the new set ?
It will have many reprints, so why not include 2 rares, make players
extremely happy and at the same time increase sales. As players like
myself that have enough of Sabbat/SW cards that are going to be
reprinted,
will likely buy 1 box or maybe none. As it is very likely that they
will choose
to buy the new cards as singles. And keep in mind that these kind of
players
are many and it's their kind that spends a lot of money on vtes cards...
Ector
Yours,
Ector
Chris.QJ
hi,
in the words of the unforgettable Anakin Skywalker: Yippie!!
thanks!!!
regards,
Chris.QJ
Daneel
I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch
of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It
certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies,
regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the
artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - borders,
symbols, etc. are important too).
I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far from
mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the ability
to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this noob-
friendliness to be controversial.
Bit I guess if those who voted / expressed their opinions are
representative of the majority, this decision makes the majority
happy, for what its worth.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Greg
> I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch
> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It
> certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies,
> regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the
> artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - borders,
> symbols, etc. are important too).
>
> I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far from
> mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the ability
> to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this noob-
> friendliness to be controversial.
It's not about making the set newbie-friendly. It's about making the
set less newbie un-friendly.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch
> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It
> certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies,
> regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the
> artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements - borders,
> symbols, etc. are important too).
Did you miss the endless discussion about just this topic on this here
newsgroup *and* the White Wolf Forum?
The cards were already legal for non tournament play and limited
tournament play (i.e. draft) when they were released. They are now
legal for constructed tournaments, as there is no good reason for them
not to be, given how they were already legal for limited tournament
play and casual play.
There are certainly arguments to be made that the rules card/proxies
shouldn't exist at all (and while I disagree with such arguments, at
least I can see where they come from), that they do exist and that they
are already legal for casual play and draft play makes it mostly silly
to keep them out of constructed play. But as they are now legal for
constructed play, this is all moot.
> I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far from
> mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the ability
> to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this noob-
> friendliness to be controversial.
That is mostly moot--NoR might very well be non newbie friendly, yet
new players are still going to buy it. And in doing so, they are
getting access to important useful reprints in the form of the rules
cards. Keeping them from using them in constructed tournament play is
just silly.
-Peter
James Coupe
writes:
>I do not see how introducing a bunch
> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game.
They're not proxies.
If you don't like rules cards, say you don't like rules cards. If you
don't like proxies, say you don't like proxies. But if you don't like
rules cards, don't say you don't like proxies as though they're the same
thing.
They're not, and it confuses the issue if players think proxies are
legal. The WW Forum shows just how players think a judge can somehow
okay a proxy card from out of his ass because you don't have a legal
one.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch
> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game.
And now we're back to the whole aestethics poor justification for not
correcting a previously decision that was highly non-intuitive,
specially for newbies (what? I can use this in tournament type X and
not Y? Why the heck?).
I'd suck a plea for these cards not to be allowed in ANY tournament at
all, even if I don't agree.
But since I don't have an iota of patience left about that subject
(check the thread and pool at WW's forums to realize why), I'll just
say: not happy? Buy some original artwork at eBay and go watch them
shine at your wall while the rest of us go PLAY the game. Jeebus.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Daneel
wrote:
> In message <ops9f560...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> I do not see how introducing a bunch
>> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game.
>
> They're not proxies.
>
> If you don't like rules cards, say you don't like rules cards. If you
> don't like proxies, say you don't like proxies. But if you don't like
> rules cards, don't say you don't like proxies as though they're the same
> thing.
>
> They're not, and it confuses the issue if players think proxies are
> legal. The WW Forum shows just how players think a judge can somehow
> okay a proxy card from out of his ass because you don't have a legal
> one.
I guess this is a fair point.
I used proxy because I think about these cards more as "cards that
represent
other cards in certain environments" than as cards themselves. But I guess
they are not proxies in the rule-defined sense.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch
>> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game. It
>> certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against proxies,
>> regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the
>> artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements -
>> borders,
>> symbols, etc. are important too).
>
> Did you miss the endless discussion about just this topic on this here
> newsgroup *and* the White Wolf Forum?
No, why would I? Disagreeing with the outcome of a vote or decision means
to
You that I must have, natually, missed the discussion beforehand?
> The cards were already legal for non tournament play and limited
> tournament play (i.e. draft) when they were released. They are now
> legal for constructed tournaments, as there is no good reason for them
> not to be, given how they were already legal for limited tournament
> play and casual play.
Not really to go into this, but there is no such thing as being legal for
casual play. If You want to play casual "legally", you do by the
constructed rules.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
<fabio....@gmail.com> wrote:
You know, You don't *have to* reply to every post. ;)
If You have no problem with people posting "I agree" posts to the
announcement, I guess it's just fair to accept "I disagree" posts
as well.
--
Bye,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> No, why would I? Disagreeing with the outcome of a vote or decision means
> to You that I must have, natually, missed the discussion beforehand?
Well, all the points you brought up were addressed at length in the
discussions that came before and during the vote. I figured that if you
had such objections, you would have made them before and during the
vote, rather than afterwords.
> Not really to go into this, but there is no such thing as being legal for
> casual play. If You want to play casual "legally", you do by the
> constructed rules.
Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club, for instance, are legal for
casual play but not tournament play. Casual (as opposed to tournament)
play has different rules (as per the rule book) than the tournament
rules. Most of them are the same, but some of them are different.
Previous to the vote, rules cards were perfectly legal for non
constructed tournament play (just like Succubus Club and Kindred
Restructure. And playing with a 100 card deck in a 6 player game). Just
not constructed tournament play. Which is different from non
constructed tournament play.
-Peter
Greg
Last I checked, Kindred Restructure was still banned in all official
tournaments.
pd...@lightlink.com
Greg wrote:
> Last I checked, Kindred Restructure was still banned in all official
> tournaments.
You saw the part in my comment about how I was saying that Kindred
Restructure and Succubus Club were legal in *casual* play but not
tournament play? (to wit: "Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club, for
instance, are legal for casual play but not tournament play.")
Just checking :-)
-Peter
Greg
Sorry, I quoted too much text. The last thing you said, you used the
phrase "non constructed tournament play" to describe the realm under
which Kindred Restructure was legal, and that is an erroneous statement
as it includes Limited Tournament play. You should have said "non
official tournament play".
Greg
Greg wrote:
> The last thing you said...
>
Actually, I'm *still* misreading that last sentence, but my original
statement still stands.
Daneel
>
> Daneel wrote:
>> No, why would I? Disagreeing with the outcome of a vote or decision
>> means
>> to You that I must have, natually, missed the discussion beforehand?
>
> Well, all the points you brought up were addressed at length in the
> discussions that came before and during the vote. I figured that if you
> had such objections, you would have made them before and during the
> vote, rather than afterwords.
I guess that then Your line of thought is flawed.
I (and others) did bring these points up (though admittedly not everywhere
where the debate was conducted). These points were indeed addressed at
length when I (or others) brought them up. The addressing, though, proved
to be more lengthy than convincing, at least for me. Therefor in spite of
being aware of how some people disagree with these points (and on
principle
of what counterarguments), I'm still maintaining these points.
>> Not really to go into this, but there is no such thing as being legal
>> for
>> casual play. If You want to play casual "legally", you do by the
>> constructed rules.
>
> Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club, for instance, are legal for
> casual play but not tournament play. Casual (as opposed to tournament)
> play has different rules (as per the rule book) than the tournament
> rules. Most of them are the same, but some of them are different.
> Previous to the vote, rules cards were perfectly legal for non
> constructed tournament play (just like Succubus Club and Kindred
> Restructure. And playing with a 100 card deck in a 6 player game). Just
> not constructed tournament play. Which is different from non
> constructed tournament play.
I guess then You refer to the people who remove 10 cards from their
90-card decks if the 5th player doesn't show up. I'm not sure that
point is valid as anything beside a strawman - most groups I know
either play by the tournament rules or play completely liberally
(e.g. no enforced library limit, piece-of-paper proxiying, etc.).
But I'm open to being proven wrong. Does anyone play *exactly* by the
rulebook, and the rulebook on only?
Anyway, not allowing these abominations for constructed is a strong way
to get the point through - the point is, these cards were intended as
*rules cards* with added draft functionality. I guess that is a point
that puts a lot of stuff into context. For some people, at least. ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Greg wrote:
> Sorry, I quoted too much text. The last thing you said, you used the
> phrase "non constructed tournament play" to describe the realm under
> which Kindred Restructure was legal, and that is an erroneous statement
> as it includes Limited Tournament play.
Huh. Now that I see what you are talking about, I think "Man. Way too
much time on your hands." But ok.
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> I guess that then Your line of thought is flawed.
If you want to think so.
> I (and others) did bring these points up (though admittedly not everywhere
> where the debate was conducted). These points were indeed addressed at
> length when I (or others) brought them up. The addressing, though, proved
> to be more lengthy than convincing, at least for me. Therefor in spite of
> being aware of how some people disagree with these points (and on
> principle of what counterarguments), I'm still maintaining these points.
Which is why, I suppose, people are still pointing out how those points
are sketchy.
> I guess then You refer to the people who remove 10 cards from their
> 90-card decks if the 5th player doesn't show up.
No, I'm refering to people who play by the rules but not in
tournaments. Which is likely a lot of people. The only environment
where the rules cards were ever illegal was the constructed tournament
environment. Which a lot of people don't play in.
> I'm not sure that
> point is valid as anything beside a strawman - most groups I know
> either play by the tournament rules or play completely liberally
> (e.g. no enforced library limit, piece-of-paper proxiying, etc.).
Which is mostly irelevant. As they were legal in the rules of the game.
Except in constructed tournament play.
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com
Greg wrote:
> Actually, I'm *still* misreading that last sentence, but my original
> statement still stands.
I mean, like, I see where you are coming from. And you are technically
correct. I did write "non constructed tournament play" when I meant
"non constructed and limited tournament play". But I think my point was
still clear (that Kindred Restructure and Succubus Club are still legal
in non tournament play).
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> I guess that then Your line of thought is flawed.
>
> If you want to think so.
>
>> I (and others) did bring these points up (though admittedly not
>> everywhere
>> where the debate was conducted). These points were indeed addressed at
>> length when I (or others) brought them up. The addressing, though,
>> proved
>> to be more lengthy than convincing, at least for me. Therefor in
>> spite of
>> being aware of how some people disagree with these points (and on
>> principle of what counterarguments), I'm still maintaining these points.
>
> Which is why, I suppose, people are still pointing out how those points
> are sketchy.
You (or anyone) failing to comprehend/agree does not make (any) points
sketchy. You may not agree with them, You may not like people to agree
with them, You may have points against them, You may not like people not
agreeing with those points, but I guess that is where it ends.
Saying "I don't like Your opinion" is fine, of course. ;)
>> I guess then You refer to the people who remove 10 cards from their
>> 90-card decks if the 5th player doesn't show up.
>
> No, I'm refering to people who play by the rules but not in
> tournaments.
Which rules? The tournament rules (with banned cards), the rulebook rules
(80-card limit for 4-player game) or some set of other (blend?) rules?
Just asking.
> Which is likely a lot of people.
I guess, everyone plays by some sort of rules, even if not playing at a
tournament.
> The only environment
> where the rules cards were ever illegal was the constructed tournament
> environment. Which a lot of people don't play in.
>
>> I'm not sure that
>> point is valid as anything beside a strawman - most groups I know
>> either play by the tournament rules or play completely liberally
>> (e.g. no enforced library limit, piece-of-paper proxiying, etc.).
>
> Which is mostly irelevant. As they were legal in the rules of the game.
> Except in constructed tournament play.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> You (or anyone) failing to comprehend/agree does not make (any) points
> sketchy. You may not agree with them, You may not like people to agree
> with them, You may have points against them, You may not like people not
> agreeing with those points, but I guess that is where it ends.
Well, I could disect your points and explain where they are based on
incorrect assumptions or faulty logic. But I already did that a lot
before the vote and during the vote. So "sketchy" is shorthand for
"faulty argument". But ok.
> Which rules? The tournament rules (with banned cards), the rulebook rules
> (80-card limit for 4-player game) or some set of other (blend?) rules?
> Just asking.
The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game
except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed
tournaments too. Which is likely for the best.
-Peter
Daneel
>
> Daneel wrote:
>> You (or anyone) failing to comprehend/agree does not make (any) points
>> sketchy. You may not agree with them, You may not like people to agree
>> with them, You may have points against them, You may not like people
>> not
>> agreeing with those points, but I guess that is where it ends.
>
> Well, I could disect your points and explain where they are based on
> incorrect assumptions or faulty logic. But I already did that a lot
> before the vote and during the vote. So "sketchy" is shorthand for
> "faulty argument". But ok.
See, I was wrong. I forgot Einstein. Assuming limits where no such limits
can exist is naivite. It never ends... ;)
>> Which rules? The tournament rules (with banned cards), the rulebook
>> rules
>> (80-card limit for 4-player game) or some set of other (blend?) rules?
>> Just asking.
>
> The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game
> except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed
> tournaments too. Which is likely for the best.
I disagree with what You wrote (which is, by the way, a non-sequitur to
what You quoted above it).
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> I disagree with what You wrote (which is, by the way, a non-sequitur to
> what You quoted above it).
You disagree with what I wrote about what? That the rules cards were
legal in all instances except constructed tournaments?
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> I disagree with what You wrote (which is, by the way, a non-sequitur to
>> what You quoted above it).
>
> You disagree with what I wrote about what?
Read what You previously wrote (what You snipped here) to realize the
answer
to Your question. Most likely... ;)
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> Read what You previously wrote (what You snipped here) to realize the
> answer to Your question. Most likely... ;)
Just 'cause I am still confused, hows about you just tell me?
-Peter
Daneel
Well then, here's what You wrote:
>>> The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game
>>> except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed
>>> tournaments too. Which is likely for the best.
I strongly disagree with the comment (last sentence). Hence why I posted
to begin with, be the way. (Not to disagree with Your specific comment,
which at that time didn't exist as formulated here, but to disagree with
the many comments that cheerfully welcomed the decision.) Not that it
would matter anyway, but I felt it should be there for record's sake at
least.
On a related note I'm also not sure that the first sentence is fair (even
if not outright untrue). From the original article:
"Each booster pack contains 10 cards randomly selected from a set of 60
all-new cards consisting of 20 rares, 20 uncommon crypt cards, and 20
commons. Each booster also contains one rules cards from the set of
five rules cards describing the new rules for the set.
For added use in draft or sealed play, each rules card also doubles as a
library card as indicated on the card when turned upside down. The
library cards represented on the rules cards are chosen from previous
sets for their general utility (that both vampires and imbued can use)."
For as much as anything can be said about casual play legality (I'm not
sure that the term is even existing) the original intent seems to me to
be that these rules cards are intended for draft/sealed (limited), where
they *represent* existing library cards.
Which original intent, by the way, would have been commendable (if not for
the outcome).
Now I understand that it would have been pretty tough to state from WW's
part that these cards are completely illegal except for limited (given
how people will use it anyway).
Come to think of it, I more and more believe that the original idea was
flawed. We would have, in the long run, been better off by having only
rules printed on the rules cards (and having them made of thinner paper),
and maybe having the reprints simply on the commons sheet (or not having
them at all).
The notion to have rules cards that represent general utility cards for
added limited flexibility seems like a good idea, until you realize that
the players *will* be cheap and use them in casual/constructed play. If
you look at it in this light, you effectively just released a bunch of
mood-killingly unaesthetic cards (and kind of reopen the whole "why can't
we just proxy" and "card art" topics).
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> Well then, here's what You wrote:
>
> >>> The rules cards, upon release, were legal in all formats of the game
> >>> except for constructed tournaments. Now they are legal in constructed
> >>> tournaments too. Which is likely for the best.
>
> I strongly disagree with the comment (last sentence). Hence why I posted
> to begin with, be the way. (Not to disagree with Your specific comment,
> which at that time didn't exist as formulated here, but to disagree with
> the many comments that cheerfully welcomed the decision.) Not that it
> would matter anyway, but I felt it should be there for record's sake at
> least.
Ok. There were plenty of people who registered their disagreement with
the idea. But I suppose it certainly can't hurt to have more.
> For as much as anything can be said about casual play legality (I'm not
> sure that the term is even existing) the original intent seems to me to
> be that these rules cards are intended for draft/sealed (limited), where
> they *represent* existing library cards.
Sure. But as cards that are playable (i.e. they have rules text and
appropriate backs), they were perfectly playable in any situation other
than constructed tournament play (where they were explicitly illegal
till recently). They are mentioned as being useful in limited/draft
play (where they are). They were explicitly not allowed in constructed
tournament play (as they were). They were totally useable in non
constructed tournament play (as nothing said they weren't). As they
were explicitly playable in draft/limited competetive play, and not
explicitly illegal for non-tournament play, it follows that they were
legal in any instance that wasn't constructed tournament play.
The rules cards don't *represent* anything. They are what they
are--playable cards with rules text. They have a different format than
most other cards (i.e. no picture and truncated rules texts where
necessary), but are in every way completely legitimate cards (excepting
the misprint on Elder Library. But then non rules cards have been
misprinted too).
As they were already legal in competetive play (draft/limited), any
argument to exclude the cards from play based on them being problematic
for competetive play are moot--the rules arbiters already decieded that
the cards were ok for competetive play.
> Now I understand that it would have been pretty tough to state from WW's
> part that these cards are completely illegal except for limited (given
> how people will use it anyway).
As that is an absurd thing to say (in a hypothetical sense). The cards
are playable. And clearly good enough for limited play. So making them
illegal for casual play would be silly (as there is no way to prevent
people from using them, much like there is no way to make Succubus
Club, Kindred Restructure, or Return to Innocence illegal for casual
play). And keeping them illegal for constructed competetive play was a
bad move on many levels (people want to use the cards they pay for,
newer players could use the leg up to their collection, the cards
clearly weren't problematic for competetive play as otherwise they
would not have been legal in draft). So that is why we are where we
are.
> Come to think of it, I more and more believe that the original idea was
> flawed. We would have, in the long run, been better off by having only
> rules printed on the rules cards (and having them made of thinner paper),
> and maybe having the reprints simply on the commons sheet (or not having
> them at all).
Having made them of thinner paper would have likely increased the cost
of each booster, as then you would have had 11 cards and an insert
which complictaes packaging *or* 10 cards and an insert which
complictes packaging and results in people paying the price of an 11
card booster and only getting 10 cards. As it is, you get the necessary
rules in the boosters with no added complication to the packaging
system, everyone gets the 11 cards that they are paying the price for,
and you have some nice, useful cards mixed in making draft easier and
giving newer players a reasonable selection of necessary staple cards.
> The notion to have rules cards that represent general utility cards for
> added limited flexibility seems like a good idea, until you realize that
> the players *will* be cheap and use them in casual/constructed play.
I am unconvicned that this is the problem you imply it is based on
atributing the use of the cards to cheapness. I realized that players
will use them in casual/constructed play as soon as the idea became
apparent, and it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do--how
is it a problem that people are using them?
> you look at it in this light, you effectively just released a bunch of
> mood-killingly unaesthetic cards (and kind of reopen the whole "why can't
> we just proxy" and "card art" topics).
I find the concept of "mood killing" sketchy, at best. I don't find
them "mood killing" at all. You are certainly welcome to, but that is a
totally subjective viewpoint. As to the aesthetics of the cards, well,
aesthetics are, by defenition, also a subjective view. I find many
cards in the set aesthetically unpleasing (the regular Ambush, for
instance--I am collecting rules card Ambushes specifically to use
'cause I dislike the picture on Ambush so much), but they are not kept
out of play due to my objecting to them on an aesthetic level.
You objections to the rules cards seem to be based completely in your
own subjective view of what is "mood killing" or unaesthetic. Which
don't make for a compelling argument as to why something should be
excluded for play. I mean, you are certainly welcome to not like them,
think they are ugly, and dislike the layout and lack of picture. But
that doesn't mean that they should not be allowed to be used in play.
It just means you think they are ugly.
-Peter
Daneel
>> I strongly disagree with the comment (last sentence). Hence why I posted
>> to begin with, be the way. (Not to disagree with Your specific
>> comment,
>> which at that time didn't exist as formulated here, but to disagree
>> with
>> the many comments that cheerfully welcomed the decision.) Not that it
>> would matter anyway, but I felt it should be there for record's sake
>> at
>> least.
>
> Ok. There were plenty of people who registered their disagreement with
> the idea. But I suppose it certainly can't hurt to have more.
I guess so, especially since people who were in favor of the idea naturally
voiced their agreement, gratitude, etc. You know, just for the record.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> I guess so, especially since people who were in favor of the idea naturally
> voiced their agreement, gratitude, etc. You know, just for the record.
Yes. But the people expressing grattitude were not expressing
previously shot down arguments as if they were not previously shot
down, appearing as if they just walked into the middle of the
conversation without having read everything leading up to that point.
-Peter
Daneel
I guess You refer to the valid arguments that were never in reality
addressed. I'm not sure what those have to do with this, though.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> I guess You refer to the valid arguments that were never in reality
> addressed. I'm not sure what those have to do with this, though.
Which arguments would those be? I addressed an awful lot of your
arguments in a recent previous post, which you did not counter address.
-Peter
Daneel
Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing
something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the
point" or two for good measure. Addressing an argument requires
understanding it (something that is often missing). Once You understand
what the argument is, You can think it over, and if You disagree with it
on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can reply
with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument
(no, it's not enough if it sounds cool; it should also make sense and be
logically sound).
This debate shows that strong emotional attachment to an idea prevents
people from conducting an intelligent debate. I think the root of this
is that when emotionally heated by a subject, one is vulnerable to see
the opposing arguments only as targets that must be outmanoeuvred
(instead of actually addressed) and sees the person(s) sharing the
unliked arguments as the enemy. But regardless of the root, the effect
is clear.
As for the list of unaddressed arguments, just read my original post
(some dozen posts up in the thread tree). I didn't even bother to list
all; just the most fundamental ones. For more, read any of the debates
on this topic.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing
> something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the
> point" or two for good measure.
Conviniently, I haven't been doing that. I have been adressing specific
points with specific examples of how they are misguided. Or wrong. So
far, the arguments I have seen from you involve aesthetics (which are,
by defenition, subjective, and therfore not a good thing to base an
argument on) or are based on questionable assumptions. Other than that,
I've seen nothing.
> You can think it over, and if You disagree with it
> on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can reply
> with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument
Done and done. And you are yet to refute any of my arguments on the
point.
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com
> As for the list of unaddressed arguments, just read my original post
> (some dozen posts up in the thread tree).
Just for the sake of entertainment:
"I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch
of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game.
It
certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against
proxies,
regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the
artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements -
borders,
symbols, etc. are important too). "
Addressed by multiple people in this thread. "Unaesthetic" is a
completely subjective argument. I don't think the deisign of the rules
cards is problematic. Or even ugly. Ugliness/aesthetics is not a viable
reason to exclude something from play. That, and they aren't actually
"proxies", as the tournament rules define them.
"I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far
from
mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the
ability
to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this
noob-
friendliness to be controversial."
Adressed by multiple people in this thread. Regardless of whether or
not people "point newbies towards" NoR, newer players will buy the set,
as people who like CCGs buy them. And newer players are likely to be
able to benefit from the use of the rules card reprints.
Umm, is that really all you got?
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing
>> something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the
>> point" or two for good measure.
>
> Conviniently, I haven't been doing that. I have been adressing specific
> points with specific examples of how they are misguided. Or wrong. So
> far, the arguments I have seen from you involve aesthetics (which are,
> by defenition, subjective, and therfore not a good thing to base an
> argument on) or are based on questionable assumptions. Other than that,
> I've seen nothing.
Dunno. Check the new NoR rules cards. I would assume You will discover
some parts are missing - parts that are integral for the majority of
ccgs as defined today. Start from there. Think it over. There's no
rush, take Your time. I'm sure You'll come up with something eventually.
>> You can think it over, and if You disagree with it
>> on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can
>> reply
>> with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument
>
> Done and done. And you are yet to refute any of my arguments on the
> point.
You are yet to make any.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> As for the list of unaddressed arguments, just read my original post
>> (some dozen posts up in the thread tree).
>
> Just for the sake of entertainment:
>
> "I'm not happy with this decision. I do not see how introducing a bunch
>
> of unaesthetic proxies to the game elevates the level of the game.
> It
> certainly detracts from my enjoyment when I'm playing against
> proxies,
> regardless of whether they are official or not, because for me the
> artwork is very important (and actually the other art elements -
> borders,
> symbols, etc. are important too). "
>
> Addressed by multiple people in this thread. "Unaesthetic" is a
> completely subjective argument.
Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made.
Not does it address it, by the way. Because if You want to go general
(where specific subjectivity should not matter) You get to questions
like, what makes a card genuine, why are we using printed and bought
cards, what is the purpose of artwork, etc. (as hinted at in other posts).
> I don't think the deisign of the rules cards is problematic. Or even
> ugly.
I guess You are welcome to that opinion. But You do percieve the lack of
artwork, the truncated text and the upside-down text taking up most of the
card, right? Isn't your typical ccg card. You know, the type most people
can find aesthetically pleasing. The type of card that has a chance to
make
a non-player say "wow, this game must rock".
> Ugliness/aesthetics is not a viable reason to exclude something from
> play.
Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg
wisdom
I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this?
Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the
contrary.
> That, and they aren't actually "proxies", as the tournament rules define
> them.
Yeah, right. ;)
> "I certainly wouldn't point newbies towards NoR because it is so far
> from
> mainstream V:tES, it is hard to integrate, and start-ups need the
> ability
> to gradually absorb the game. Therefor I see this hype about this
> noob-
> friendliness to be controversial."
>
> Adressed by multiple people in this thread. Regardless of whether or
> not people "point newbies towards" NoR, newer players will buy the set,
I don't see a point. There is a completely newbie-unfriendly set out
there. Everyone knows that it is completely newbie-unfriendly. So the
newbies, who know that this set is completely newbie-unfriendly, and
yet buy of this set instead of something that actually helps them
complement their collection, are now the big trump example. I'd
reconsider that point (if one was intended).
> as people who like CCGs buy them.
Awesome revelation. I'll add this to my big book of eretnal wisdoms.
I sincerely believe that players - even if they like ccgs - have the
incredible power to choose what they purchase. Whether this be a choice
between games, or between sets of a game (not to mention the option not
to purchase anything).
> And newer players are likely to be
> able to benefit from the use of the rules card reprints.
Looking at the game in general - I think it's a matter of perspective.
Do players benefit from having some cards with no artwork, truncated
text and odd looks? Think this over.
> Umm, is that really all you got?
Nope, just what You bothered to quote. For the other unaddressed points,
check any discussion topic on this.
--
Regards,
Daneel
XZealot
> Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg
> wisdom
> I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this?
>
> Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the
> contrary.
Good Old Common Sense also dictates that people who act crazy or insane
must be possessed by demons and, of course, we all no that the only
cure for that is a good community-uniting event such as burning that
threating individual at the stake. It's really for the sake of the
children.
Now let's hear it for common sense!
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
pd...@lightlink.com
> Dunno. Check the new NoR rules cards. I would assume You will discover
> some parts are missing - parts that are integral for the majority of
> ccgs as defined today. Start from there. Think it over. There's no
> rush, take Your time. I'm sure You'll come up with something eventually.
Other than that they are missing pictures (which really have only
limited impact on game play), they have everything necessary for game
play--title, cost, necessary rules text. I can deal without pictures.
It seems likely that most people can deal without pictures. I don't
think anyone wants to remove pictures from all CCG cards. But that some
cards have no pictures? Not a big deal. It has happened before (if you
wan't, I can find multiple examples of CCG cards that are all text and
no picture--the B5 CCG ISA card leaps to mind immediately, but others
exist). It'll happen again. That *you* happen to think something is
ugly doesn't mean that it should be unplayable. I think that the
picture on Ambush is horrible, to the point that I won't play the card
if I can possibly avoid it. But I don't think this means that the card
should be unplayable in competitive play. Please go on. I'm fascinated.
> You are yet to make any.
I refer you to my post on May 14th, ~4:38 pm (EST, USA). Plenty of
arguments. Specifically adresssing most criticisms of this decision.
Which you have previously chosen to ignore. Which you are welcome to
do. But don't then come back and claim that your points have not been
adressed.
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com
> Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made.
That you think something is ugly doesn't justify it being illegal in
competetive play. The rules cards are completely functional. You may
think they are ugly. Which you are welcome to do. That you think they
are ugly, however, does not mean that this is a justification for
preventing people from playing them.
> Not does it address it, by the way. Because if You want to go general
> (where specific subjectivity should not matter) You get to questions
> like, what makes a card genuine, why are we using printed and bought
> cards, what is the purpose of artwork, etc. (as hinted at in other posts).
Which is all well and good. Yet still, the cards, without pictures, are
perfectly viable as play components.
> I guess You are welcome to that opinion. But You do percieve the lack of
> artwork, the truncated text and the upside-down text taking up most of the
> card, right? Isn't your typical ccg card. You know, the type most people
> can find aesthetically pleasing. The type of card that has a chance to
> make a non-player say "wow, this game must rock".
Lots of cards can do that. That are already perfectly legal. There are
plenty of cards that have objectionable pictures or poorly rendered
pictures. Or are just plain ugly. These cards should be illegal in
competetive play too?
> Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg
> wisdom I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this?
Lots of people *hate* Christopher Shy. Cards with Christopher Shy art
should be illegal in competetive play? Same logic applies.
> Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the
> contrary.
Whatever common sense you are relying on seems to indicate that "I
think it is ugly, so I think it should be excluded from the game". I'd
go and get your common sense checked at the shop.
> Yeah, right. ;)
I don't even know what this means.
> I don't see a point. There is a completely newbie-unfriendly set out
> there. Everyone knows that it is completely newbie-unfriendly.
Newbies don't.
> So the newbies, who know that this set is completely newbie-unfriendly, and
> yet buy of this set instead of something that actually helps them
> complement their collection, are now the big trump example.
If they are newbies, how do they know the set is newbie-unfriendly? If
they are new and like playing with Hunters, as they like the
background, they should not buy the set? If they just started playing
with Legacies of Blood, and like the game, and have a modest collection
of cards, they should be *discouraged* from buying the new set, even if
it appeals to them? Heck--I've been playing this game for a dozen
years, and *I* still can benefit from some of the extra cards reprinted
as rules cards (Computer Hacking, Sudden Reversal, and the Ambush that
I would rather use than the really ugly card with a picture which even
though I think it is hideous and incredibly unappealing, I don't think
should be illegal, 'cause I realize that my aesthetic tastes are not
*everyone's* aesthetic tastes). People who have started playing the
game recently certainly can benefit from cards reprinted on rules
cards. You are saying that because you think they are ugly, these
people should be either actively dissuaded from buying the set or
denied the ability to use the cards which are completely functional and
useful?
> I sincerely believe that players - even if they like ccgs - have the
> incredible power to choose what they purchase. Whether this be a choice
> between games, or between sets of a game (not to mention the option not
> to purchase anything).
And you seem to be indicating that people should choose to *not* buy
the NoR set, even if they want to, because *you* seem to think it is
too difficult for them?
> Looking at the game in general - I think it's a matter of perspective.
> Do players benefit from having some cards with no artwork, truncated
> text and odd looks? Think this over.
If they can use the cards? Yes, yes they do benefit. How does anyone
not benefit from having more cards that they can use? Even if you think
they are ugly?
-Peter
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> On 13 May 2006 17:33:57 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But since I don't have an iota of patience left about that subject
> > (check the thread and pool at WW's forums to realize why), I'll just
> > say: not happy? Buy some original artwork at eBay and go watch them
> > shine at your wall while the rest of us go PLAY the game. Jeebus.
>
> You know, You don't *have to* reply to every post. ;)
No, not really.
But it's good enough to reply and indulge in a little whiner-bashing
when any subject has turned into a dead horse and said whiner tries
kicking it again with wild "rational" points to justify one's own
friggin' aesthetic notions.
And don't come to me with that whole "Just because You think it's
bullshit it does not mean it actually is" crap. *You* had called other
people's opinions as "faulty" in this very thread with the same kind of
definitive tone I'm using, so go suck it up being called a whiner. And
suck this: you do not really have a point. You have a personal desire
to not use these cards and is trying hard to rationalize it as much as
you can, at the expense of the game community. And worse: you chose to
do that after the whole thing is over. Dead. Poll closed.
> If You have no problem with people posting "I agree" posts to the
> announcement, I guess it's just fair to accept "I disagree" posts
> as well.
As it was said, it is fair to disagree ("I'd suck a plea for banning
these from all tournaments").
But being overtly delusional (in any side of the issue) and trying to
justify his own whims in a rational way instead of admitting this is
just a matter of personal taste is not fair disagreement.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Merlin
Just to satisfy my own curiousity...
Is the repeated use of "You" (capitalized) an attempt to deify Peter
Bakija in some way, or has it been changed to a proper noun in an
attempt to redefine the "other" in the argument?
I prefer the former (it's downright wacky!), but i suspect the latter.
Merlin
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made.
>
> That you think something is ugly doesn't justify it being illegal in
> competetive play.
Repeating this n times will not make this n times truer. It isn't true.
The cards lack the art which can make them aesthetically pleasing.
Whether some piece of art is good or bad is a question of aesthetics.
Some people tend to like everything - as in, I'm sure for every picture
we could find someone who things it rocks. If you don't have a picture,
that's missing. If the card text is truncated, that's not the best thing
either.
> The rules cards are completely functional.
So would be a Master: Discipline card with a post-it on it saying "War
Ghoul" and then the card text. Fully functional. Yet hardly elevating
the generel level of the game, wouldn't you agree?
>> Not does it address it, by the way. Because if You want to go general
>> (where specific subjectivity should not matter) You get to questions
>> like, what makes a card genuine, why are we using printed and bought
>> cards, what is the purpose of artwork, etc. (as hinted at in other
>> posts).
>
> Which is all well and good. Yet still, the cards, without pictures, are
> perfectly viable as play components.
So are proxies. And player-invented cards. And the Joker, if You come up
with rules on how to use it. Sure, they are all mighty viable play
components.
>> I guess You are welcome to that opinion. But You do percieve the lack of
>> artwork, the truncated text and the upside-down text taking up most
>> of the
>> card, right? Isn't your typical ccg card. You know, the type most
>> people
>> can find aesthetically pleasing. The type of card that has a chance to
>> make a non-player say "wow, this game must rock".
>
> Lots of cards can do that. That are already perfectly legal. There are
> plenty of cards that have objectionable pictures or poorly rendered
> pictures. Or are just plain ugly. These cards should be illegal in
> competetive play too?
Nope. Because You may thing something is ugly, but that does not mean that
the card lacks the art that can make it appealing to at least some
players.
Not the truncated card text. And the lot of text there.
>> Based on what principles? Whose decision? Where is this huge book of ccg
>> wisdom I might've missed somewhere that says smart things like this?
>
> Lots of people *hate* Christopher Shy. Cards with Christopher Shy art
> should be illegal in competetive play? Same logic applies.
Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of my
post quoted. Just checking.
>> Because all I have here is good old common sense, and that says to the
>> contrary.
>
> Whatever common sense you are relying on seems to indicate that "I
> think it is ugly, so I think it should be excluded from the game". I'd
> go and get your common sense checked at the shop.
Yeah, right. Repeating this n+1 times does not make thins n+1 times truer.
It is still false. You just repeated it n+1 times, that's all.
>> Yeah, right. ;)
>
> I don't even know what this means.
What? 'Right' or the emoticon?
>> I don't see a point. There is a completely newbie-unfriendly set out
>> there. Everyone knows that it is completely newbie-unfriendly.
>
> Newbies don't.
Then educate them. Or lobby at WW to make them issue noobie-only sets. Or
lobby to make proxies legal (now that would really help newbies).
>> So the newbies, who know that this set is completely
>> newbie-unfriendly, and
>> yet buy of this set instead of something that actually helps them
>> complement their collection, are now the big trump example.
>
> If they are newbies, how do they know the set is newbie-unfriendly?
Because whoever got them into the game tells them so?
> You are saying that because you think they are ugly, these
> people should be either actively dissuaded from buying the set or
> denied the ability to use the cards which are completely functional and
> useful?
n+2
>> I sincerely believe that players - even if they like ccgs - have the
>> incredible power to choose what they purchase. Whether this be a
>> choice
>> between games, or between sets of a game (not to mention the option
>> not
>> to purchase anything).
>
> And you seem to be indicating that people should choose to *not* buy
> the NoR set, even if they want to, because *you* seem to think it is
> too difficult for them?
Now where on earth did I say this? Honestly, You are getting even more
futile than You started off. What You buy is what You get. I mean,
it's like saying that Buffy cards should be legal for VTES tournaments,
because people who buy them thinking they are vampires, and compatible
with VTES, should not be punished.
I'm not saying nobody should buy NoR. People who know what is in it and
consider it a valuable addition to their collection and an enhancement
to their gaming experience should definitely buy it. Same goes for every
set, by the way, it's just more true for sets like NoR, and to a lesser
degree for LoB and BL.
>> Looking at the game in general - I think it's a matter of perspective.
>> Do players benefit from having some cards with no artwork, truncated
>> text and odd looks? Think this over.
>
> If they can use the cards? Yes, yes they do benefit. How does anyone
> not benefit from having more cards that they can use? Even if you think
> they are ugly?
Am I still counting? Why bother. Would noobs benefit from being able to
use proxies at tournaments? I think yes. So go and lobby for that.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> Dunno. Check the new NoR rules cards. I would assume You will discover
>> some parts are missing - parts that are integral for the majority of
>> ccgs as defined today. Start from there. Think it over. There's no
>> rush, take Your time. I'm sure You'll come up with something
>> eventually.
>
> Other than that they are missing pictures (which really have only
> limited impact on game play), they have everything necessary for game
> play--title, cost, necessary rules text. I can deal without pictures.
> It seems likely that most people can deal without pictures. I don't
> think anyone wants to remove pictures from all CCG cards. But that some
> cards have no pictures? Not a big deal. It has happened before (if you
> wan't, I can find multiple examples of CCG cards that are all text and
> no picture--the B5 CCG ISA card leaps to mind immediately, but others
> exist). It'll happen again. That *you* happen to think something is
> ugly doesn't mean that it should be unplayable. I think that the
> picture on Ambush is horrible, to the point that I won't play the card
> if I can possibly avoid it. But I don't think this means that the card
> should be unplayable in competitive play. Please go on. I'm fascinated.
Dunno, You're the one ranting about this. And I'm not even counting. ;)
>> You are yet to make any.
>
> I refer you to my post on May 14th, ~4:38 pm (EST, USA). Plenty of
> arguments. Specifically adresssing most criticisms of this decision.
> Which you have previously chosen to ignore. Which you are welcome to
> do. But don't then come back and claim that your points have not been
> adressed.
And I refer You to my Tue, 16 May 2006 21:32:52 CET post. Saying You
addressed something is not the same as actually having addressed it.
Saying You have arguments is not equal to actually having them.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
wrote:
> Just to satisfy my own curiousity...
>
> Is the repeated use of "You" (capitalized) an attempt to deify Peter
> Bakija in some way, or has it been changed to a proper noun in an
> attempt to redefine the "other" in the argument?
>
> I prefer the former (it's downright wacky!), but i suspect the latter.
>
> Merlin
Just a bad habit. I'm having so much correspondance nowadays that I've
begun to capitalize the general noun. I'm trying to cut it back, but
even new habits die hard. ;)
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
<fabio....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>> On 13 May 2006 17:33:57 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
>> <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But since I don't have an iota of patience left about that subject
>> > (check the thread and pool at WW's forums to realize why), I'll just
>> > say: not happy? Buy some original artwork at eBay and go watch them
>> > shine at your wall while the rest of us go PLAY the game. Jeebus.
>>
>> You know, You don't *have to* reply to every post. ;)
>
> No, not really.
I'm glad we agree.
--
Regards,
Daneel
James Coupe
writes:
>On 16 May 2006 16:26:35 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> Saying that aesthetics is subjective does not challenge the point made.
>>
>> That you think something is ugly doesn't justify it being illegal in
>> competetive play.
>
>Repeating this n times will not make this n times truer. It isn't true.
No, it really is true.
That you, Daneel, think they're ugly does not justify it being illegal.
Cards being made legal or illegal is not based on *your* personal
perception of their aesthetic value.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
pd...@lightlink.com
> Repeating this n times will not make this n times truer. It isn't true.
You are welcome to believe that. You are wrong, but people belive wrong
things all the time. It doesn't matter how many time I say something
(although I keep hoping it'll make a dent, but apparently not). Your
issue with the rules cards, primarily, seems to be that you think they
are ugly. Which is a reasonable view, as they are certainly not as
pretty as the cards with pictures on them. But again (and again and
again), you thinking something is ugly does not equal something being
inapropriate for play. I've made the analogy before, but you either
continually miss it, choose to ignore it, or are simply not seeing how
it is an analogy--lots of people think lots of cards are ugly. Do they
have a leg to stand on arguing that cards with Christopher Shy art
should be illegal, as they are aesthetically unpleasing?
> The cards lack the art which can make them aesthetically pleasing.
Yep. And again, cards with no art in CCGs have existed in the past and
will exist in the future. The lack of picture does not hinder game
play.
> So would be a Master: Discipline card with a post-it on it saying "War
> Ghoul" and then the card text. Fully functional. Yet hardly elevating
> the generel level of the game, wouldn't you agree?
What does "hardly elevating the level of the game" even mean? Proxies
(actual proxies, as opposed to rules cards) are fine for the game--if
someone needs War Ghouls to make a deck and they don't have any? They
can make all the proxies they want. Doesn't matter to me. Proxies are
inappropriate for official tournaments for a specific and logical
reason (the company needs to sell cards to make money; if people can
play official tournaments with fake cards, there is less incentive to
buy actual cards, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to take as
a game company), but for casual play? Use all the proxies you want.
> So are proxies. And player-invented cards. And the Joker, if You come up
> with rules on how to use it. Sure, they are all mighty viable play
> components.
Yes, they are. I don't care if people use proxies. I wouldn't care if
people used proxies in official tournaments, in reality, assuming the
proxies had the appropriate text on them, but the company doesn't want
people using proxies for reasons stated above, and in a practical
sense, hand written proxies can easily be miswritten. But you talk
about proxies in play as if they are actually a bad thing. I don't play
VTES to see pretty cards--I can look at them in the comfort of my own
home. I play VTES 'cause it is a good game, and if my opponents can
make interesting decks by using proxies? That just makes the game more
interesting.
> Nope. Because You may thing something is ugly, but that does not mean that
> the card lacks the art that can make it appealing to at least some
> players. Not the truncated card text. And the lot of text there.
That a card is unappealing to at least some players doesn't make it
problematic for game play. If you think the card is ugly and
unappealing, don't use it. Why do you think that other people should be
forced to adhere to your view of what is or is not appealing?
> Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of my
> post quoted. Just checking.
Are you dense, or purposefully obtuse? I'm guessing the second. But for
giggles, I'll explain. Again. As I can do this all day. You seem to
think that the rules cards are inappropriate for game play, as you
think they are ugly (which somehow fails to "elevate the level of the
game". Which is a pretty vague demand...) John Doe thinks vampires with
Chritopher Shy are are ugly. Should John Doe demand that vampires with
Christopher Shy art be made illegal for competetive play? A similar
level of irrationality.
> Then educate them. Or lobby at WW to make them issue noobie-only sets. Or
> lobby to make proxies legal (now that would really help newbies).
Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not assume that
people are too stupid to understand the not that complex rules of the
new set (newbies or not), and then make all the cards playable by
everyone in every format of the game. Oh, wait. That is what already
happened.
> Because whoever got them into the game tells them so?
Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for them?
You don't think that is a bit patronizing? And if they got into the
game on their own? And if they just started, have no problem with the
rules at all, and just could benefit from the reprint rules cards?
> Now where on earth did I say this?
At the point where you said "the set is not a good set for new players"
and indicated that new players should be told (ya know, by whoever got
them into the game telling them so) that the NoR set is too diificult
for new players?
> Am I still counting? Why bother.
'Cause you might realize that your belief that things you think are
ugly should be illegal for game play is completley irrational?
>Would noobs benefit from being able to
> use proxies at tournaments? I think yes. So go and lobby for that.
There is a specific reason for making proxy cards illegal for official
tournaments (financial interest of the company).
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com
> I'm glad we agree.
Ahh, the beautiful stench of irony...
-Peter
wumpus
> > Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of my
> > post quoted. Just checking.
>
> Are you dense, or purposefully obtuse? I'm guessing the second. But for
> giggles, I'll explain. Again. As I can do this all day.
On the one hand, I admire your tenacity, your extreme patience, and
your apparently limitless amount of time to waste on the Usenet. On
the other, I'm kind of frightened by your determination. All of which
to say, better you than me.
I've tried to reason with Daneel before too, and while he can often
make lucid, complex, and even well-reasoned arguments, when he goes off
his meds like this*, all bets are off, and he will commit breathtaking
lapses of reason in pursuit of his opinions. Of particular note is
when he starts to tell his opponent not only what their argument is,
but also _why_ they are making that argument (usually the diagnosis is
'to attack Daneel personally'). This sort of mindreading is the death
of rational argument.
(Why am I making this argument now? Because I've previously been the
target of this tactic, and everyone else tuned out the 'debate', and it
annoyed the heck out of me. So, yeah, to attack Daneel!)
Anyway, if you want to retire from the field, I'm pretty sure no one
out there is going to have any doubts about who has prevailed here.
Alex
*I have no actual knowledge of Daneel's status with respect to
medicines, their need or lack thereof. It's just my shorthand for the
'irrational' Daneel persona, as opposed to the 'usual' Daneel.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
You will never know how much I'm glad to see such an appropriate use of
the word "stench".
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
pd...@lightlink.com
> On the one hand, I admire your tenacity, your extreme patience, and
> your apparently limitless amount of time to waste on the Usenet. On
> the other, I'm kind of frightened by your determination. All of which
> to say, better you than me.
Heh--I've got the steely tenacity to spare :-)
> Anyway, if you want to retire from the field, I'm pretty sure no one
> out there is going to have any doubts about who has prevailed here.
I'll retire eventually. When it stops being entertaining :-)
Take it easy,
-Peter
Daneel
> I've made the analogy before, but you either
> continually miss it, choose to ignore it, or are simply not seeing how
> it is an analogy--lots of people think lots of cards are ugly. Do they
> have a leg to stand on arguing that cards with Christopher Shy art
> should be illegal, as they are aesthetically unpleasing?
Or, it is simply a bad analogy. Which is the case. People have different
tastes, and different art will be appealing to them. Some people
actually like Shy art, for example. But the lack of art has no chance
to be appealing. Having the picture on a card adds to the game. Not
having it does not add something many players expect. In relative terms,
assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art
detracts from the game.
>> The cards lack the art which can make them aesthetically pleasing.
>
> Yep. And again, cards with no art in CCGs have existed in the past and
> will exist in the future. The lack of picture does not hinder game
> play.
Having the picture on a card adds to the game. Not having it does not
add something many players expect. In relative terms, assuming the
standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art detracts from
the game.
>> So are proxies. And player-invented cards. And the Joker, if You come up
>> with rules on how to use it. Sure, they are all mighty viable play
>> components.
>
> Yes, they are. I don't care if people use proxies. I wouldn't care if
> people used proxies in official tournaments, in reality, assuming the
> proxies had the appropriate text on them, but the company doesn't want
> people using proxies for reasons stated above, and in a practical
> sense, hand written proxies can easily be miswritten. But you talk
> about proxies in play as if they are actually a bad thing.
Actually, I was more thinking that You would consider them to be a bad
thing. Kind of like to contrast them with the rules cards.
But anyway, I don't like proxies. I'm not openly against them or anything,
I just don't use them (and prefer if others don't use them). For me
looking at the cards is part of the experience, whether in my hand or in
play. It's kind of like a pet peeve. I'm pretty supportive or making
cards more widely available, though - if it were up to me, everyone had
all the cards in the world they need, and could make any deck they choose
to, using shiny-pretty cards with artwork.
I don't mind at all proxies that are printed by the player and have all the
text and the artwork (even if not in perfect quality).
> That a card is unappealing to at least some players doesn't make it
> problematic for game play. If you think the card is ugly and
> unappealing, don't use it. Why do you think that other people should be
> forced to adhere to your view of what is or is not appealing?
I guess, playing against other players (as opposed to, say, playing
home alone) prevents me from being able to choose what I play against.
So if one player thinks that something is worth playing, I'll be playing
against that, even if I don't think that concept is worth playing (or
fun to play against). Same goes for selection of the actual cards.
Or is it, if You don't like it, don't play against it? ;)
>> Was this a reply? Or did You just write something to keep the whole of
>> my post quoted. Just checking.
>
> Are you dense, or purposefully obtuse? I'm guessing the second.
Are you trying to entertain me or yourself? I assume the second, though
You do succeed in achieving the former. Also, not quoting relevant text
makes Your posts harder to follow, in case someone would actually want
to do that. ;)
> But for
> giggles, I'll explain. Again. As I can do this all day. You seem to
> think that the rules cards are inappropriate for game play, as you
> think they are ugly (which somehow fails to "elevate the level of the
> game". Which is a pretty vague demand...) John Doe thinks vampires with
> Chritopher Shy are are ugly. Should John Doe demand that vampires with
> Christopher Shy art be made illegal for competetive play? A similar
> level of irrationality.
Having the picture on a card adds to the game. Not having it does not
add something many players expect. In relative terms, assuming the
standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art detracts from
the game.
Mind You, aesthetics is just one component of the good card. There is
also clarity (which is also hurt if the card text is truncated).
>> Then educate them. Or lobby at WW to make them issue noobie-only sets.
>> Or lobby to make proxies legal (now that would really help newbies).
>
> Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not assume that
> people are too stupid to understand the not that complex rules of the
> new set (newbies or not), and then make all the cards playable by
> everyone in every format of the game. Oh, wait. That is what already
> happened.
You so far seemed to imply that newbies are stupid, they don't understand
what each set contains, etc. Now You claim the opposite. If newbies are
smart, they will purchase sets that enhance their gaming experience,
most likely complementing their collections in a way that helps their
deckbuilding, etc. Then there is no reason to go out of the way to allow
them to use the rules cards that also proxy as general utility cards in
a given format, because they know what they are buying. They know about
the set having 10-card boosters and a special rules card that also proxy
as general utility cards in a given format, etc.
>> Because whoever got them into the game tells them so?
>
> Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for them?
I don't know. Why should You?
> You don't think that is a bit patronizing?
Depends on the tone. But I guess, it could be.
> And if they got into the game on their own?
I'm sure they are not playing in a vacuum. Most players don't.
> And if they just started, have no problem with the
> rules at all, and just could benefit from the reprint rules cards?
I'm sure they could also benefit from a dozen War Ghouls.
>> Now where on earth did I say this?
>
> At the point where you said "the set is not a good set for new players"
> and indicated that new players should be told (ya know, by whoever got
> them into the game telling them so) that the NoR set is too diificult
> for new players?
I'm not entirely sure what You hope to achieve by stating falsehood. I
never said or implied that NoR is 'too difficult'. Read back to check.
I stated it isn't newbie-friendly. That isn't the same thing
(especially if You know what the set has, and that it is hard to
combine effectively with 'regular' vampires).
>> Am I still counting? Why bother.
>
> 'Cause you might realize that your belief that things you think are
> ugly should be illegal for game play is completley irrational?
Will counting achieve that? Not really - for two separate reasons.
Stating something does not make it true. Stating that I said, believe,
etc. something might help to hold together Your haphazad arguments,
but they fall short of actually proving anything; because You would
need to understand an argument to actually be able to address it, and
do so in meaning, not just by writing that You did so.
Addressing an argument is not simply quoting it and then just writing
something below it, maybe even throwing in a "see how that refutes the
point" or two for good measure. Addressing an argument requires
understanding it (something that is often missing). Once You understand
what the argument is, You can think it over, and if You disagree with it
on specific grounds ("I don't like it" ain't enough here), You can reply
with specifically pointing out something that can refute the argument
(no, it's not enough if it sounds cool; it should also make sense and be
logically sound).
>> Would noobs benefit from being able to
>> use proxies at tournaments? I think yes. So go and lobby for that.
>
> There is a specific reason for making proxy cards illegal for official
> tournaments (financial interest of the company).
Wouldn't it be the company's best financial interest not to allow these
rules card in tournaments? People who need the cards they represent
would then get them from other sources, I guess. No?
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
Daneel wrote:
> Or, it is simply a bad analogy. Which is the case.
Ok then. If you fail to see how the concept of "I think it is ugly,
thus I think it should be illegal" arcs across the two examples, I
can't really help you.
> People have different tastes, and different art will be appealing to them.
Ahh, so you do have the capacity to understand the analogy. Yes. People
have different tastes. And different things will appeal to them. For
some, for instance, having no picture on a card is aesthetically
unpleasing, to the point that they don't think such cards are good for
the game. For others, however, having no picture is not a problem at
all, and they think the card is fine for the game, and not remotely
problematic.
> But the lack of art has no chance to be appealing.
Which, many would claim, is irrelevant. That the rules cards have no
picture has no bearing on the cards use at all. I don't think anyone
would claim that *all* cards should have no picture, as people like
pictures. But the rules cards already exist without a picture, as an
elegant solution to the "how do we get rules cards into the set most
effectively" issue. That they exist already, without pictures, means
that they either need to be used or not, regardless of the lack of
picture. As the benefits to using the card outweigh the negatives (i.e.
the lack of picture), it makes sense that they get used.
> Not having it does not add something many players expect. In relative terms,
> assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art
> detracts from the game.
Having no art on *all* the cards would detract from the game, yes.
Having no art on *most* of the cards would detract from the game, I
agree as well. Having no art on an insignificant number of cards in a
huge set, as having no art on the cards is the compromise for making
the necessary rules cards also playable, which benefits everyone, is
not bad for the game.
> Are you trying to entertain me or yourself?
Me, mostly.
> Mind You, aesthetics is just one component of the good card. There is
> also clarity (which is also hurt if the card text is truncated).
The card text on the rules cards is generally so minimal to begin with
that truncation is hardly necessary. What was truncated from, say,
Computer Hacking, Lucky Blow, and Vulnerability?
> Addressing an argument requires understanding it (something that is often missing).
I understand your argument. You think the cards are ugly, and so you
think they shouldn't be legal for competetive play.
> Wouldn't it be the company's best financial interest not to allow these
> rules card in tournaments?
No. As people already paid for them. At a certain point, the disconnect
between a company's financial interest and their customer's product
satisfaction becomes bad for everyone. It would also be in the
company's best financial interest to demand that everyone play with
only rare cards, in an absolute sense.
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> Or, it is simply a bad analogy. Which is the case.
>
> Ok then. If you fail to see how the concept of "I think it is ugly,
> thus I think it should be illegal" arcs across the two examples, I
> can't really help you.
>
>> People have different tastes, and different art will be appealing to
>> them.
>
> Ahh, so you do have the capacity to understand the analogy.
The analogy is flawed. I understand that it is flawed. I reveal to You
that I understand that it is flawed. I don't see the big revelation.
>> But the lack of art has no chance to be appealing.
>
> Which, many would claim, is irrelevant.
Many would claim many things.
> But the rules cards already exist without a picture, as an
> elegant solution to the "how do we get rules cards into the set most
> effectively" issue.
Effectively as in what? I'm sure they would be able to pack different
rules cards into the booster packs with equal ease.
> That they exist already, without pictures, means
> that they either need to be used or not, regardless of the lack of
> picture.
Use in this case should naturally mean 1) consult for rules issues
and 2) use in limited. That's pretty good use for a rules cards.
Especially since these functions do not detract from the game.
> As the benefits to using the card outweigh the negatives (i.e.
> the lack of picture), it makes sense that they get used.
No, they don't. In the long run You simply introduced cards into
the circulation that 1) contain outdated rules, 2) truncated card
text and 3) no flavor art. A definite lose-lose situation.
>> Not having it does not add something many players expect. In relative
>> terms,
>> assuming the standard is to have art on the cards, the lack of art
>> detracts from the game.
>
> Having no art on *all* the cards would detract from the game, yes.
> Having no art on *most* of the cards would detract from the game, I
> agree as well. Having no art on an insignificant number of cards in a
> huge set, as having no art on the cards is the compromise for making
> the necessary rules cards also playable, which benefits everyone, is
> not bad for the game.
By the same token, shouldn't people be allowed to use a small number of
proxies on tournaments? As long as the majority of the cards are real
cards, this shouldn't be a problem, should it?
>> Mind You, aesthetics is just one component of the good card. There is
>> also clarity (which is also hurt if the card text is truncated).
>
> The card text on the rules cards is generally so minimal to begin with
> that truncation is hardly necessary. What was truncated from, say,
> Computer Hacking, Lucky Blow, and Vulnerability?
Are You saying that none of the card texts were truncated? Or that if
some are truncated, but others are not, that somehow means that we can
use the untruncated examples to somehow offset the truncated ones?
Just checking.
>> Addressing an argument requires understanding it (something that is
>> often missing).
>
> I understand your argument. You think the cards are ugly, and so you
> think they shouldn't be legal for competetive play.
Your lack of understanding clearly pollutes Your communication.
>> Wouldn't it be the company's best financial interest not to allow these
>> rules card in tournaments?
>
> No. As people already paid for them. At a certain point, the disconnect
> between a company's financial interest and their customer's product
> satisfaction becomes bad for everyone. It would also be in the
> company's best financial interest to demand that everyone play with
> only rare cards, in an absolute sense.
Given how many things players pay for that they cannot use for one reason
or another, and how many things could be done to improve their situation
without detracting from the value of the game, I am puzzled by this
stubborn attachment to a clearly faulty point of view.
But I guess we're quite different. ;)
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> The analogy is flawed. I understand that it is flawed. I reveal to You
> that I understand that it is flawed. I don't see the big revelation.
Flawed in the sense that you think the cards are ugly, so you think
they should be illegal is somehow different from when other people
think other cards are ugly and think they should be illegal?
> Many would claim many things.
You aren't kidding.
> Effectively as in what? I'm sure they would be able to pack different
> rules cards into the booster packs with equal ease.
Effectively in the sense of "We need to get rules cards in the set. How
do we do this without angering the player base by denying them a card
in the booster that they are paying for while getting the rules in
there? And maybe helping draft at the same time?" The rules
card/reprint is a lovely compromise--the rules are in there; the
boosters contain nice, utilitarian reprints that are very useful for
draft and limited play; no one feels screwed by paying the price of an
11 card booster and only getting 10 cards. Effective.
> Use in this case should naturally mean 1) consult for rules issues
> and 2) use in limited. That's pretty good use for a rules cards.
> Especially since these functions do not detract from the game.
Nor does allowing people to use them in constructed play, as they are
perfectly viable cards. Again, I'd agree that having no pictures on any
of the cards would detract from the game. But having a very small
percentage of the cards in the game (what, 17 out of literally
thousands?) with no pictures, as there is a very good reason for not
having the pictures, isn't much of an issue. And allowing people to use
them gives a leg up to people who need the cards and keeps the player
base, for the most part, not disgrunteled to be paying for perfectly
playable cards and then being prevented from using them in competetive
play.
> No, they don't. In the long run You simply introduced cards into
> the circulation that 1) contain outdated rules, 2) truncated card
> text and 3) no flavor art. A definite lose-lose situation.
The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a
completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for
likely just as many people as it isn't.
> By the same token, shouldn't people be allowed to use a small number of
> proxies on tournaments? As long as the majority of the cards are real
> cards, this shouldn't be a problem, should it?
I would have no problem with this at all, in theory, except that the
company has incentive to not allow the use of home-made cards (keeping
in mind that the rules cards are not home made), and hand written cards
can easily have misinformation on them, which is dubious in competetive
play. The rules cards are not home made, nor do they have
misinformation on them. They just don't have pictures.
> Are You saying that none of the card texts were truncated? Or that if
> some are truncated, but others are not, that somehow means that we can
> use the untruncated examples to somehow offset the truncated ones?
> Just checking.
None of the texts were truncated to any significant effect. The cards
are all very simple cards, and any change in verbiage has no actual
impact on the function of the card. It isn't like there is a rules card
Baltimore Purge that is truncated to "everyone send a vampire to
torpor".
> Your lack of understanding clearly pollutes Your communication.
My lack of understanding that you think the cards are ugly and so they
shouldn't be legal? Ok then.
-Peter
Shade
Daneel wrote:
> But the lack of art has no chance to be appealing.
I certainly enjoy the nice artwork on some cards, but the game play is
what I really care about and art, good, bad, or otherwise doesn't
really contribute to me personally.
I played plain text online games long after graphical versions of the
same style games came out (eg Everquest, World of Warcraft etc...) on
the basis that the pictures have no affect on game play. That isn't a
100% accurate analogy, or it may just prove that I'm the wrong side of
30 :-), but ultimately it's a personal preference thing.
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> The analogy is flawed. I understand that it is flawed. I reveal to You
>> that I understand that it is flawed. I don't see the big revelation.
>
> Flawed in the sense that you think the cards are ugly, so you think
> they should be illegal is somehow different from when other people
> think other cards are ugly and think they should be illegal?
No; flawed in the sense that for the purposes of the analogy You compare
two significantly different things. This makes the analogy fail. For the
analogy to work, You would need to have two comparisons that are similar
enough, at least in the relationship of the elements of the analogy.
>> Many would claim many things.
>
> You aren't kidding.
Never.
>> Effectively as in what? I'm sure they would be able to pack different
>> rules cards into the booster packs with equal ease.
>
> Effectively in the sense of "We need to get rules cards in the set. How
> do we do this without angering the player base by denying them a card
> in the booster that they are paying for while getting the rules in
> there? And maybe helping draft at the same time?" The rules
> card/reprint is a lovely compromise--the rules are in there; the
> boosters contain nice, utilitarian reprints that are very useful for
> draft and limited play; no one feels screwed by paying the price of an
> 11 card booster and only getting 10 cards. Effective.
Which is nice, but having 6 instead of the usual 7 commons in a booster
- especially in a set where there are only 20 commons - especially
since it was communicated - has far less chance of "angering the
player base" than introducing cards that miss integral parts of a
card. I mean, it's like complaining that the shringwrap doesn't
double as 30 counters. After all, You do pay for that as well.
>> Use in this case should naturally mean 1) consult for rules issues
>> and 2) use in limited. That's pretty good use for a rules cards.
>> Especially since these functions do not detract from the game.
>
> Nor does allowing people to use them in constructed play, as they are
> perfectly viable cards.
So Your point is, if You think that something is a perfectly viable
card, although it misses certain integral parts, then it should be
legal because You think it's viable? Just checking.
> Again, I'd agree that having no pictures on any
> of the cards would detract from the game. But having a very small
> percentage of the cards in the game (what, 17 out of literally
> thousands?) with no pictures, as there is a very good reason for not
> having the pictures, isn't much of an issue. And allowing people to use
> them gives a leg up to people who need the cards and keeps the player
> base, for the most part, not disgrunteled to be paying for perfectly
> playable cards and then being prevented from using them in competetive
> play.
>
>> No, they don't. In the long run You simply introduced cards into
>> the circulation that 1) contain outdated rules, 2) truncated card
>> text and 3) no flavor art. A definite lose-lose situation.
>
> The rules aren't outdated.
They will eventually be. (e.g. "in the long run")
> The card text is only truncated in a completely insignificant sense.
According to Your opinion. Which is fine, I guess. But I wouldn't call
any truncation insignificant - if it is, why have more verbose text
on the card (clarity?). Meaning, it isn't. At least clarity suffers
(=bad).
> The lack of art isn't a problem for
> likely just as many people as it isn't.
I don't get this. (I guess You meant, "as it is".) Which is ok, but then
You have the crowd who is upset/puzzled/pissed/whatever by the lack of
art.
Most likely not an insignificant amount of people. But this is just a
guess.
>> By the same token, shouldn't people be allowed to use a small number of
>> proxies on tournaments? As long as the majority of the cards are real
>> cards, this shouldn't be a problem, should it?
>
> I would have no problem with this at all, in theory, except that the
> company has incentive to not allow the use of home-made cards (keeping
> in mind that the rules cards are not home made), and hand written cards
> can easily have misinformation on them, which is dubious in competetive
> play. The rules cards are not home made, nor do they have
> misinformation on them. They just don't have pictures.
And they don't have clear card texts. And they have an odd layout. And
they have rules on them that are currently fresh (but will eventually
become outdated). Oh, and they also miss the card art.
>> Are You saying that none of the card texts were truncated? Or that if
>> some are truncated, but others are not, that somehow means that we can
>> use the untruncated examples to somehow offset the truncated ones?
>> Just checking.
>
> None of the texts were truncated to any significant effect. The cards
> are all very simple cards, and any change in verbiage has no actual
> impact on the function of the card. It isn't like there is a rules card
> Baltimore Purge that is truncated to "everyone send a vampire to
> torpor".
I won't deny that, though I would say, there is - due to the truncation
- a possibility of lost clarity here and there (otherwise, why have more
verbose text on the real cards?). Less clarity = more confusion, which
is bad - especially for newbies.
By the way, You still forgot to give Your reasons why You stated falsehood
with respect to my statements. Your silence sheds some rather dubious
light on Your motives.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
I guess that's a fair point, and I can see where it is coming from. I
played some graphics-free games myself. As much as I'd like to say that
the looks don't matter, I've found that I'm pretty much enchanted by
the looks of a game (computer, card, table, etc.), and for me the
graphics of the game, the art on the cards, or the art on the board,
figurines, etc. is quite important. Somehow it helps me get into an
otherworldly mood I so much enjoy in games.
To the contrary, I do like to read a lot, and I don't really like
illustrated fictional story books. I like to imagine what I read for
myself. I'm not sure this is a real contradiction, though.
I got hooked onto VTES by the art way back. I liked the mechanics, etc.,
but what really got me into this game - as opposed to a gazillion other
games - was the art on the cards. I'm not sure the majority (or even a
significant minority) is like this. Yet I've a soft spot for the art,
layouts and backgrounds (hence my numerous rants on the layout and
background changes, for example).
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> No; flawed in the sense that for the purposes of the analogy You compare
> two significantly different things.
Well, except that in my analogy we have you ("I think the rules cards
are ugly, so I think they should be illegal for competetive play") and
we have the hypothetical other ("I think Christopher Shy are is ugly,
so I think they should be illegal for competetive play"). I'm not
seeing the difference so much.
> Never.
Huh. Maybe you should start some. Might make your life a tad more
entertaing.
> I mean, it's like complaining that the shringwrap doesn't
> double as 30 counters. After all, You do pay for that as well.
Talk about a textbook faulty analogy. See, this is why you think *my*
anolgy is flawed. 'Cause you clearly don't understand what an actual
working analogy is. See, it is not at all like complaining that the
shrinkwrap doesn't double as 30 counters, as no part of shrinkwrap =
counters. Or anything remotely playable at all.
The rules cards are in every way playable already. They have identical
backs to the rest of the cards in the set (heck, they are even in the
right direction when the card part of the rules card is face up). They
have titles just like the rest of the cards in the set. They have rules
text, just like the rest of the cards in the set. They have costs, just
like the rest of the cards in the set. They have card type icons, just
like the rest of the cards in the set. They even have a border
identifier (i.e. greenish for master, redish for combat, junkish for
equipment, etc.) The only thing they don't have is an illustration,
although if you look at the text of the rules portion of the card as
simply abstract symbols, all the rules cards do have illustrations that
are more interesting than the original Fake Out card...
Shrinkwrap? Nothing like counters. Or any part of a game. Just random
plastic film. No part of the game resembles plastic film. Plastic film
does not resemble any part of the game.
> So Your point is, if You think that something is a perfectly viable
> card, although it misses certain integral parts, then it should be
> legal because You think it's viable? Just checking.
If the "integral part" has no actual impact upon playing the game?
Absolutely. If they had misprinted some cards that had no art, say,
just a big blank spot? I'd think those were fine for competetive play
too. 'Cause the illustration, while certainly enjoyable, doesn't have
any actual impact on one's ability to use the card in play. The
illustration doesn't enhance the rules of the card. The illustration
doesn't enhance the understanding of the card. Heck, sometimes the
illustration specifically *hinders* the use and understanding of the
card (see: Torn Signpost).
> They will eventually be. (e.g. "in the long run")
Why do you say that? You think the Imbued cards are going to be
outlawed at some point (at which point only Outlaws will have Imbued
cards...)? Even then, again, if you put your mind in the right place,
the upsidedown rules text can easily be viewed as an abstract
illustration just as attractive as Jyhad Fake Out.
> According to Your opinion. Which is fine, I guess. But I wouldn't call
> any truncation insignificant - if it is, why have more verbose text
> on the card (clarity?). Meaning, it isn't. At least clarity suffers
> (=bad).
In the specific instances of the given cards in question, the lack of
verbose text is irelevant. They are incredibly simple cards to begin
with.
> I don't get this. (I guess You meant, "as it is".)
No, I meant what I said. The lack of art is a problem for just as many
people as it (is not a problem).
> Which is ok, but then You have the crowd who is upset/puzzled/pissed/whatever by the lack > of art.
Most of them didn't seem to care so much. The vote was very
significantly in favor of allowing the cards in constructed tournament
play.
> Most likely not an insignificant amount of people. But this is just a
> guess.
I'd guess otherwise.
> And they don't have clear card texts.
The card texts are perfectly clear. And the change of the card text was
clearly determined by the rules team and tournament authority to be
perfectly acceptible for limited competetive play (where rules are just
as important as in constructed).
>And they have an odd layout.
Lots of cards have an odd layout, relative to all the other versions of
the same card--if I pick up a Deflection at random, it is likely to
have one of 3 or 4 different layouts (including different background
identifiers, different locations for identifier icons, different places
and types of cost icons). But all of these are legal for competetive
play already. So clearly, differences in layout are not a problem in
the eyes of the rules team and tournament authority.
>And they have rules on them that are currently fresh (but will eventually
> become outdated).
If you hold the cards in the direction where the play card portion is
readable, the rules text is irelevant, as it is upsidedown and
unreadable. And functioning as an abstract illustration if you'd like
it to.
> Oh, and they also miss the card art.
Which has no bearing on actually playing the game. If it did, it would
be impossible to playtest new cards which have no illustrations,
generally speaking.
> I won't deny that, though I would say, there is - due to the truncation
> - a possibility of lost clarity here and there (otherwise, why have more
> verbose text on the real cards?). Less clarity = more confusion, which
> is bad - especially for newbies.
The cards lack less clarity. 'Cause the cards are incredibly simple to
begin with.
> By the way, You still forgot to give Your reasons why You stated falsehood
> with respect to my statements. Your silence sheds some rather dubious
> light on Your motives.
Nah. I ignored that part. 'Cause I didn't state any falsehood with
respect to your statements. And getting into a "yes you did" "no I
didn't" apsect of the conversation didn't strike me as particularly
interesting.
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> No; flawed in the sense that for the purposes of the analogy You compare
>> two significantly different things.
>
> Well, except that in my analogy we have you ("I think the rules cards
> are ugly, so I think they should be illegal for competetive play") and
> we have the hypothetical other ("I think Christopher Shy are is ugly,
> so I think they should be illegal for competetive play"). I'm not
> seeing the difference so much.
I am. Having art is an integral part of a card. Having non-Shy art, why
desirable by many, is not by definition necessary.
>> Never.
>
> Huh. Maybe you should start some. Might make your life a tad more
> entertaing.
No need. Many people spend great amounts of energy to entertain me.
>> I mean, it's like complaining that the shringwrap doesn't
>> double as 30 counters. After all, You do pay for that as well.
>
> Talk about a textbook faulty analogy. See, this is why you think *my*
> anolgy is flawed. 'Cause you clearly don't understand what an actual
> working analogy is. See, it is not at all like complaining that the
> shrinkwrap doesn't double as 30 counters, as no part of shrinkwrap =
> counters. Or anything remotely playable at all.
Your point was - they paid for something, so they would be (implied:
rightfully) upset if they couldn't use it. I'm sure You don't think
that the shrinkwrap is free. Players do pay for it.
> Shrinkwrap? Nothing like counters. Or any part of a game. Just random
> plastic film. No part of the game resembles plastic film. Plastic film
> does not resemble any part of the game.
Just like the rules cards in NoR, many would say. Nothing like a high
quality, real card (one people expect to get when they buy boosters).
>> So Your point is, if You think that something is a perfectly viable
>> card, although it misses certain integral parts, then it should be
>> legal because You think it's viable? Just checking.
>
> If the "integral part" has no actual impact upon playing the game?
> Absolutely.
So, to rephrase - Your point is, if You think that something is a
perfectly viable card, although it misses certain integral parts
(which, according to Your opinion, have no actual impact upon
playing the game), then it should be legal because You think it's
viable? Just checking.
>> They will eventually be. (e.g. "in the long run")
>
> Why do you say that? You think the Imbued cards are going to be
> outlawed at some point (at which point only Outlaws will have Imbued
> cards...)?
Nope. The coming of the newer sets / later rulings will eventually
necessitate reworking at least some of the rules pertaining to Imbued.
I don't think they will be outlawed (not do I currently see a reason
for it to happen).
> Even then, again, if you put your mind in the right place,
> the upsidedown rules text can easily be viewed as an abstract
> illustration just as attractive as Jyhad Fake Out.
I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;)
>> I don't get this. (I guess You meant, "as it is".)
>
> No, I meant what I said. The lack of art is a problem for just as many
> people as it (is not a problem).
Your original text:
>>> The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a
>>> completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for
>>> likely just as many people as it isn't.
Ah, so the typo was the earlier "isn't".
>> Which is ok, but then You have the crowd who is
>> upset/puzzled/pissed/whatever by the lack > of art.
>
> Most of them didn't seem to care so much. The vote was very
> significantly in favor of allowing the cards in constructed tournament
> play.
Which means, that out of the 200 people regularly visiting the forums
about 40 went there to vote in favor? Dunno how representative that is.
>> Most likely not an insignificant amount of people. But this is just a
>> guess.
>
> I'd guess otherwise.
Anyway, it's just a guess either way.
>> And they don't have clear card texts.
>
> The card texts are perfectly clear. And the change of the card text was
> clearly determined by the rules team and tournament authority to be
> perfectly acceptible for limited competetive play (where rules are just
> as important as in constructed).
Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as
having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team
is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then.
>> And they have an odd layout.
>
> Lots of cards have an odd layout, relative to all the other versions of
> the same card--if I pick up a Deflection at random, it is likely to
> have one of 3 or 4 different layouts (including different background
> identifiers, different locations for identifier icons, different places
> and types of cost icons). But all of these are legal for competetive
> play already. So clearly, differences in layout are not a problem in
> the eyes of the rules team and tournament authority.
Now this may be true - but that doesn't mean this is a good thing. Having
4 different types of layouts in the game is a bad thing. I certainly
don't like it. I know many people are bugged by the lack of consistency.
Elevating that problem to a new level for the sake of these few rules
cards seems an awfully unwise trade-off to me.
>> And they have rules on them that are currently fresh (but will
>> eventually become outdated).
>
> If you hold the cards in the direction where the play card portion is
> readable, the rules text is irelevant, as it is upsidedown and
> unreadable. And functioning as an abstract illustration if you'd like
> it to.
I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;)
>> Oh, and they also miss the card art.
>
> Which has no bearing on actually playing the game. If it did, it would
> be impossible to playtest new cards which have no illustrations,
> generally speaking.
Playtesting is I would say different from playing the game. I'm sure I
don't have to explain that.
>> I won't deny that, though I would say, there is - due to the truncation
>> - a possibility of lost clarity here and there (otherwise, why have
>> more
>> verbose text on the real cards?). Less clarity = more confusion, which
>> is bad - especially for newbies.
>
> The cards lack less clarity. 'Cause the cards are incredibly simple to
> begin with.
Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as
having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team
is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then.
>> By the way, You still forgot to give Your reasons why You stated
>> falsehood
>> with respect to my statements. Your silence sheds some rather dubious
>> light on Your motives.
>
> Nah. I ignored that part. 'Cause I didn't state any falsehood with
> respect to your statements. And getting into a "yes you did" "no I
> didn't" apsect of the conversation didn't strike me as particularly
> interesting.
I'm such a nice guy, You see, I'm even there to do the legwork for
Ya. You wrote:
>>>> Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not
>>>> assume that people are too stupid to understand the not that
>>>> complex rules of the new set (newbies or not), [...]
Where did I say what You imply (that is, I think that the new set
is too difficult to understand)? I'm only asking because I didn't.
>>>> Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for
>>>> them? You don't think that is a bit patronizing?
Where did I say what You imply (that is, the new set is difficult for
noobs)? I'm only asking because I didn't. Just checking, You know.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> I am. Having art is an integral part of a card. Having non-Shy art, why
> desirable by many, is not by definition necessary.
How is having art an integral part of the card? It has no impact at all
on play. I mean, it is nice when a card has art and all. But it isn't
necessary. It doesn't contribute to actually playing the game at all.
It possibly contributes to someone's enjoyment of the game, sure. But
if all the illustrations suddenly and magically vanished from all the
VTES cards in the world, people could still play the game just fine. So
using the word "necessary" in reference to illustrations on the card is
wildly dubious.
When I playtest cards, which I have done in the past, the cards I use
(slips of paper that have titles and card text in sleeves in front of
copies of Regaining the Upper Hand) have no illustrations on them. And
they play just fine. When we use proxy cards to make weird decks that
we can't make otherwise, those proxy cards have no illustrations on
them. And they play just fine. When I was playing the B5 CCG, and I
wanted to form the ISA in the game, I'd use the ISA card which was all
text and no illustration. And it played just fine.
Illustrations on cards are not "necessary". They are nice. And make the
game more fun for many. But hardly "necessary".
> No need. Many people spend great amounts of energy to entertain me.
We do our best.
> Your point was - they paid for something, so they would be (implied:
> rightfully) upset if they couldn't use it. I'm sure You don't think
> that the shrinkwrap is free. Players do pay for it.
Your analogy was "wanting rules cards to be playable in constructed
play is like wanting shrinkwrap to double for play counters". Which is
an incredibly flawed analogy. 'Cause the rules cards are already just
like regular cards, except they lack a (non necessary) illustration.
Shrinkwrap is not just like counters (although to find further flaws in
your analogy, if I take the shrinkwrap, I can, in fact, cut it up and
use it for counters with reasonable success). Bad analogy.
> Just like the rules cards in NoR, many would say. Nothing like a high
> quality, real card (one people expect to get when they buy boosters).
Although I laid out in detail how the rules cards are already very,
very close to all the other cards (title, rules text, same back, same
back orientation, same card stock, same play icons, same cost symbols,
same background color). Just no illustration. Which is not necessary
for play.
> So, to rephrase - Your point is, if You think that something is a
> perfectly viable card, although it misses certain integral parts
> (which, according to Your opinion, have no actual impact upon
> playing the game), then it should be legal because You think it's
> viable? Just checking.
Yep. But my standpoint is what we like to call "rational". Where the
standpoint of "the card is ugly, so I think it should be illegal for
constructed competetive play, even though it is already deemed
perfectly fine for draft competetive play, and yet think that when
other people think things are ugly and want them to be illegal, that is
different from my standpoint somehow" is what we like to call
"irrational".
> Nope. The coming of the newer sets / later rulings will eventually
> necessitate reworking at least some of the rules pertaining to Imbued.
Maybe. Maybe not. And when the rules are upsidedown, that is mostly
moot anyway.
> I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;)
Aesthetics are, by defenition, subjective. So you can't really claim to
have a "sense of aesthetics" while simultaneously claiming someone else
lacks such a sense. Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. Theirs just
might not be the same as yours. Which is how aestheitcs works. I find
the concept of getting a Tazmaian Devil that says "sexaaaayyyy!"
tattooed on one's thigh to be deeply stupid, as I find it aesthetically
absurd. But that someone else thinks this as awsome does not mean that
they lack a sense of aesthetics. It just means that their sense of
aesthetics is wildly different than mine.
> Your original text:
>
> >>> The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a
> >>> completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for
> >>> likely just as many people as it isn't.
>
> Ah, so the typo was the earlier "isn't".
Oh, yeah, you are correct. I clearly means "is a problem...as it isn't"
These things happen. Kind of like capitalizing "you".
> Which means, that out of the 200 people regularly visiting the forums
> about 40 went there to vote in favor? Dunno how representative that is.
It was 78. But yeah, not a huge representative sample, true.
> Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as
> having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team
> is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then.
Sure. But they were never deemed not clear enough to be illegal in
competetive play in the first place. Just a clarification, I guess.
> Now this may be true - but that doesn't mean this is a good thing. Having
> 4 different types of layouts in the game is a bad thing.
Sure it is. But it is a reality we, as VTES players, deal with. And a
small number of cards with yet another layout is hardly a big problem.
Or even a small problem.
> I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;)
And I refer you back to the short discussion on aesthetics a few
paragraphs up. You clearly misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Maybe
it is a language thing.
> I'm such a nice guy, You see, I'm even there to do the legwork for
> Ya. You wrote:
>
> >>>> Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not
> >>>> assume that people are too stupid to understand the not that
> >>>> complex rules of the new set (newbies or not), [...]
>
> Where did I say what You imply (that is, I think that the new set
> is too difficult to understand)? I'm only asking because I didn't.
>
> >>>> Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for
> >>>> them? You don't think that is a bit patronizing?
>
> Where did I say what You imply (that is, the new set is difficult for
> noobs)? I'm only asking because I didn't. Just checking, You know.
You said NoR is "newbie unfriendly" which is akin to saying "newbies
are too stupid to understand". You did not specifically say "newbies
are too stupid to understand", no. But you said something that easily
translates into that. You could argue otherwise, which you are clearly
doing. Yet still, it is a viable analogy (which, again, you don't seem
to have too strong of a handle on).
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> I am. Having art is an integral part of a card. Having non-Shy art, why
>> desirable by many, is not by definition necessary.
>
> How is having art an integral part of the card? It has no impact at all
> on play.
If no card had art, I'd say about 10% of the people currently playing would
play (if at all). I'd wager that has an effect on play.
> I mean, it is nice when a card has art and all. But it isn't
> necessary.
For what? Surely, the name, icons and text portion of the card interact
with other cards on the level of the rules. But that does not say
anything about what is necessary for the game.
> It doesn't contribute to actually playing the game at all.
It does - it brings and keeps players who like the Art the cards have.
> It possibly contributes to someone's enjoyment of the game, sure.
I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that
detracts from that is bad for the game.
> But
> if all the illustrations suddenly and magically vanished from all the
> VTES cards in the world, people could still play the game just fine.
Technically, it could be argued that the rules and icons would still be
there, and allow the game interaction. Of course, if that were to happen,
hardly anybody would play the game, as it would be quite boring.
> So
> using the word "necessary" in reference to illustrations on the card is
> wildly dubious.
I'm convinced to the contrary.
>> No need. Many people spend great amounts of energy to entertain me.
>
> We do our best.
Is that so? I'd say, I'm mildly disappointed in that case. ;P
>> Your point was - they paid for something, so they would be (implied:
>> rightfully) upset if they couldn't use it. I'm sure You don't think
>> that the shrinkwrap is free. Players do pay for it.
>
> Your analogy was "wanting rules cards to be playable in constructed
> play is like wanting shrinkwrap to double for play counters". Which is
> an incredibly flawed analogy.
Of course, it is building on quite similar basics - buying something with
the pack of cards that was not meant to be played in the way the player
wants to play it.
Just in case You missed the root of the analogy.
> 'Cause the rules cards are already just
> like regular cards, except they lack a (non necessary) illustration.
...and truncated text, and different layout. They are just like regular
cards, except that they are different from regular cards in three quite
basic aspects.
> Shrinkwrap is not just like counters (although to find further flaws in
> your analogy, if I take the shrinkwrap, I can, in fact, cut it up and
> use it for counters with reasonable success). Bad analogy.
You are confusing the good analogy with a bad one here. The analogy is
good in showing how absurd both things are - saying that players bought
the shrinkwrap and therefor want to use it in play is quite as absurd
as saying that they have paid for the rules cards and they want to use
it in play. So, the analogy was good in illustrating that the point
You made was poorly thought out.
>> Just like the rules cards in NoR, many would say. Nothing like a high
>> quality, real card (one people expect to get when they buy boosters).
>
> Although I laid out in detail how the rules cards are already very,
> very close to all the other cards (title, rules text, same back, same
> back orientation, same card stock, same play icons, same cost symbols,
> same background color).
...and I actually thought that the rules cards had a pretty uniform,
dark look. I gotta get a good look at one of these. The ones I saw
looked pretty much alike to me.
> Just no illustration. Which is not necessary for play.
...and truncated text, and different layout. They are just like regular
cards, except that they are different from regular cards in three quite
basic aspects.
>> So, to rephrase - Your point is, if You think that something is a
>> perfectly viable card, although it misses certain integral parts
>> (which, according to Your opinion, have no actual impact upon
>> playing the game), then it should be legal because You think it's
>> viable? Just checking.
>
> Yep. But my standpoint is what we like to call "rational". Where the
> standpoint of "the card is ugly, so I think it should be illegal for
> constructed competetive play, even though it is already deemed
> perfectly fine for draft competetive play, and yet think that when
> other people think things are ugly and want them to be illegal, that is
> different from my standpoint somehow" is what we like to call
> "irrational".
I must confess, I detect the hint of bias in the paraphrasing.
My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss
integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from
standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with
all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard
layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational.
As opposed to having the bottom line of "it should be because I think
it should be legal", as it seems to be in Your case.
>> Nope. The coming of the newer sets / later rulings will eventually
>> necessitate reworking at least some of the rules pertaining to Imbued.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. And when the rules are upsidedown, that is mostly
> moot anyway.
Which gets back to the point - the rules on the cards will become outdated,
and the cards will ceise to be functional as rules cards. Just to make
sure
it is somehow not misunderstood that the point is uncontested.
>> I guess, people with any sense of aesthetics would beg to differ. ;)
>
> Aesthetics are, by defenition, subjective. So you can't really claim to
> have a "sense of aesthetics" while simultaneously claiming someone else
> lacks such a sense. Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. Theirs just
> might not be the same as yours. Which is how aestheitcs works. I find
> the concept of getting a Tazmaian Devil that says "sexaaaayyyy!"
> tattooed on one's thigh to be deeply stupid, as I find it aesthetically
> absurd. But that someone else thinks this as awsome does not mean that
> they lack a sense of aesthetics. It just means that their sense of
> aesthetics is wildly different than mine.
Since the artwork is an integral part of the cards, an observer with a
sense of aesthetics would most likely miss it. If the card has art, it
will appeal to a different degree to people with different senses of
aesthetics (e.g. Shy art vs. non-Shy art). The only common point is,
lacking the art will not appeal to people's sense of aesthetics.
>> Your original text:
>>
>> >>> The rules aren't outdated. The card text is only truncated in a
>> >>> completely insignificant sense. The lack of art isn't a problem for
>> >>> likely just as many people as it isn't.
>>
>> Ah, so the typo was the earlier "isn't".
>
> Oh, yeah, you are correct. I clearly means "is a problem...as it isn't"
> These things happen. Kind of like capitalizing "you".
Ah, well, yeah, I figured, but I thought double-checking can't hurt. As
English is not my native language, my command of it is naturally
imperfect,
and I find it better to clarify something than to misunderstand. I just
got
back to this point because I didn't understand why You initially contested
my (correct) interpretation, implying the sentence was as intended. It's
not that important, though, the good thing is that the meaning eventually
got through.
>> Which means, that out of the 200 people regularly visiting the forums
>> about 40 went there to vote in favor? Dunno how representative that
>> is.
>
> It was 78. But yeah, not a huge representative sample, true.
>
>> Which is odd, given how they are explicitly announced not to count as
>> having the latest card text on anything - meaning, that the rules team
>> is probably aware of the lack of clarity. I guess, so should You then.
>
> Sure. But they were never deemed not clear enough to be illegal in
> competetive play in the first place. Just a clarification, I guess.
I would really not put limited and constructed under the same hat. They
are completely different animals. And indeed, the rules cards were
intended to be legal only for Limited (where specific focus on the
peculiarities of a given set is far easier to accomplish, and the
benefits of having access to cards that can also double as general
utility cards is quite significant), and not for Constructed (most
likely for the obvious reasons I repeated many times - they are missing
integral parts of the standard cards). Just a clarification (on the
clarification), I guess.
>> Now this may be true - but that doesn't mean this is a good thing.
>> Having
>> 4 different types of layouts in the game is a bad thing.
>
> Sure it is. But it is a reality we, as VTES players, deal with. And a
> small number of cards with yet another layout is hardly a big problem.
> Or even a small problem.
Because we already have a problem? I hardly think so. I don't like to
use one shortcoming as the explanation why another shortcoming is not
that significant. On the contrary - especially since we already have
alarmingly different layouts, an effort should be made to minimise the
problem, not to add to it.
>> I'm such a nice guy, You see, I'm even there to do the legwork for
>> Ya. You wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Or, we could let people buy the cards they want to buy, not
>> >>>> assume that people are too stupid to understand the not that
>> >>>> complex rules of the new set (newbies or not), [...]
>>
>> Where did I say what You imply (that is, I think that the new set
>> is too difficult to understand)? I'm only asking because I didn't.
>>
>> >>>> Why should I tell someone that the new set is too difficult for
>> >>>> them? You don't think that is a bit patronizing?
>>
>> Where did I say what You imply (that is, the new set is difficult for
>> noobs)? I'm only asking because I didn't. Just checking, You know.
>
> You said NoR is "newbie unfriendly" which is akin to saying "newbies
> are too stupid to understand". You did not specifically say "newbies
> are too stupid to understand", no. But you said something that easily
> translates into that. You could argue otherwise, which you are clearly
> doing. Yet still, it is a viable analogy (which, again, you don't seem
> to have too strong of a handle on).
Man, You completely misread what was (wasn't) meant between the lines.
Commenting on the set (the subject of the statement) that it is "newbie
unfriendly" (the adjective) does not in any way label newbies. It labels
the set. In this particular case it was even hinted that the reason for
the set's newbie-unfriendliness is that it is the hardest to combine
with the cards from other sets.
I mean, that's pretty obvious (and has been mentioned by multiple sources
even). So I'm kind of puzzled what You hope to gain from taking such
dubious liberties in interpreting my comments.
Also, Your new fad seems to be this thing with analogies - claiming
various things that are obviously inaccurate (even bordering on
falsehood). In reality all it does is lend a translucent quality to
Your points, making them both less tangible, and less clear at the
same time. If I can be allowed a respectful appeal, I'd suggest to
please bring forth any new/original points You may wish to make
regarding the subject, because I've rephrased and paraphrased the
refutes of Your previous points a number of times, and I am under
the clear impression that given this much material to draw upon,
any lingering lack of understanding is not going to be dispelled by
making more effort to clarify my already quite clearly stated points.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> If no card had art, I'd say about 10% of the people currently playing would
> play (if at all). I'd wager that has an effect on play.
No, that would have an effect on how many people played the game. Not
the actual playability of the game. Again, the illustration has zero
impact on whether a card is usable. It is nice to have an illustration,
sure. But the game works just fine without them.
> For what? Surely, the name, icons and text portion of the card interact
> with other cards on the level of the rules. But that does not say
> anything about what is necessary for the game.
Name, icons, and text have a direct impact on the playability of a
given card--name helps you identify the card and allows other cards to
directly refer to it; icons help determine what kind of card a given
card is; text lets the player know what the card does. All of these
have an inpact on how the game actually works and plays. The
illustration has zero impact. Ok. In some instances, it can help you
identify the card, although the name is more useful for that. And the
identification factor becomes less effective when illustrations are
changed, which happens on a regular basis.
Is a title *necessary* for purposes of the game? Probably. If the card
have no titles, you can't identify them. Are the Icons necessary for
the purposes of the game? Not strictly, but they actually have a
mechanical purpose and actual aid the play of the game. Is the rules
text necessary for the purposes of the game? Absolutely. Is an
illustration necessary? Not even remotely.
> It does - it brings and keeps players who like the Art the cards have.
Bringing and keeping players has nothing to do with the rules and
workings of the game. The game works due to rules and text and symbols
that indicate what certain things do. Illustrations are nice to have,
and certainly aids in the marketability of the game. But if they
vanished, the game would still work.
> I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that
> detracts from that is bad for the game.
That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that
allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows
added fun for more people than it detracts fun from.
> Technically, it could be argued that the rules and icons would still be
> there, and allow the game interaction. Of course, if that were to happen,
> hardly anybody would play the game, as it would be quite boring.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not illustrations are necessary for
game play. You continue to maintain that illustrations are *necessaary*
for game play. Which they are clearly and definitively not. Are the
nice? Yes. Do they add to the enjoyment of the game? Absolutely. Would
it be bad if there were no illustrations on any cards at all? Yes. But
claiming that illustrations are necessary is just plain incorrect.
> I'm convinced to the contrary.
You are convinced that illustrations are necessary for game play? Then
you are deluded.
> ...and truncated text,
Which has no impact on play.
> and different layout.
Just like all the other cards have different layouts.
> You are confusing the good analogy with a bad one here. The analogy is
> good in showing how absurd both things are - saying that players bought
> the shrinkwrap and therefor want to use it in play is quite as absurd
> as saying that they have paid for the rules cards and they want to use
> it in play. So, the analogy was good in illustrating that the point
> You made was poorly thought out.
If you are truly convinced of this, I'm am unlikely to convince you
otherwise. Much like if you are truly convinced that illustrations are
necessary for game play, I'm also unlikely to convince you otherwise.
On both counts, you are incorrect. But what are you gonna do?
> ...and I actually thought that the rules cards had a pretty uniform,
> dark look. I gotta get a good look at one of these. The ones I saw
> looked pretty much alike to me.
Then you aren't paying attention. The different card types have the
appropriate border colors (greenish for masters, reddish for combat,
etc.). Just like on the non rules cards.
> My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss
> integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from
> standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with
> all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard
> layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational.
That isn't the argument you have been articulating up to this point,
however. There is a rational argument to be made that the rules cards
should be illegal for *all* competetivge play. Not one that I agree
with. But it is certainly an argument. But as the rules cards were
already determined to be legal for limited competetive play, so as an
argument for keeping them illegal for constructed competetive play, it
fails.
> Since the artwork is an integral part of the cards, an observer with a
> sense of aesthetics would most likely miss it.
All observers have a sense of aesthetics. Again, you clearly
misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Possibly a language issue.
> If the card has art, it
> will appeal to a different degree to people with different senses of
> aesthetics (e.g. Shy art vs. non-Shy art). The only common point is,
> lacking the art will not appeal to people's sense of aesthetics.
Whether or not something is pretty or ugly has no bearing on whether or
not it is playable.
> I would really not put limited and constructed under the same hat. They
> are completely different animals.
Not so much. They are both competetive play. People play limited for
money and ratings, just as much as they play constructed for money and
ratings. I find it difficult to fathom that if the rules cards are
deemed ok for competetive limited play, that they can somehow be deemed
not ok for constructed play.
> Because we already have a problem? I hardly think so. I don't like to
> use one shortcoming as the explanation why another shortcoming is not
> that significant. On the contrary - especially since we already have
> alarmingly different layouts, an effort should be made to minimise the
> problem, not to add to it.
Sure. But adding one more to a game where there are 4 or 5 for every
card? Not much of an issue.
> Man, You completely misread what was (wasn't) meant between the lines.
> Commenting on the set (the subject of the statement) that it is "newbie
> unfriendly" (the adjective) does not in any way label newbies. It labels
> the set.
Yes. It labels the set as "too complicated for newbies". As even the
most complicated aspects of the game aren't rocket science, "too
complicated for newbies" translates for "too complictated for newbies
as I think they are dumb." At least to some extent.
> I mean, that's pretty obvious (and has been mentioned by multiple sources
> even). So I'm kind of puzzled what You hope to gain from taking such
> dubious liberties in interpreting my comments.
Huh. It made sense at the time.
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that
>> detracts from that is bad for the game.
>
> That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that
> allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows
> added fun for more people than it detracts fun from.
I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking,
.44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted
in precons.
>> I'm convinced to the contrary.
>
> You are convinced that illustrations are necessary for game play? Then
> you are deluded.
You need people to play the game with. The quality and looks of the card
provide them. If You think that You can play a multiplayer game without
other players, then I'm not the deluded one.
>> You are confusing the good analogy with a bad one here. The analogy is
>> good in showing how absurd both things are - saying that players
>> bought
>> the shrinkwrap and therefor want to use it in play is quite as absurd
>> as saying that they have paid for the rules cards and they want to use
>> it in play. So, the analogy was good in illustrating that the point
>> You made was poorly thought out.
>
> If you are truly convinced of this, I'm am unlikely to convince you
> otherwise. Much like if you are truly convinced that illustrations are
> necessary for game play, I'm also unlikely to convince you otherwise.
For once I agree.
> On both counts, you are incorrect.
No, I'm not. I'm merely not too focused on a point I wish to make to have
my effort prevent me from looking at things in context, and looking at
the results and effects of things.
> But what are you gonna do?
In what respect? During the discussion I gave voice to my opinion and the
points that support it. When the decision was made, I gave voice to my
disagreement, with supporting points, mostly for record's sake. That
roughly exhausts the reasonable set of actions available to me.
(No, with all due respect, I don't consider the necroeqestripugilitarian
discussion we are now having to be reasonable. This is something
completely different; I do this for the personal enjoyment, without
having any hopes of any opinion change. Because, I understand the
points You make, I just consider them to be less important than the
points I make - not because I make them. It's the other way around;
I make them because I consider them to be more important.)
>> My point is that no card intended for non-limited use should miss
>> integral portions of the standard play cards, or be different from
>> standard play cards (e.g. they should be standard play cards, with
>> all the integral components). That includes clear text, standard
>> layout and the art. I think that's pretty rational.
>
> That isn't the argument you have been articulating up to this point,
> however.
This is the nth rephrasing. The essence is unaltered.
> There is a rational argument to be made that the rules cards
> should be illegal for *all* competetive play. Not one that I agree
> with. But it is certainly an argument. But as the rules cards were
> already determined to be legal for limited competetive play, so as an
> argument for keeping them illegal for constructed competetive play, it
> fails.
Unless You realize that constructed and limited are different enough
to warrant their own set of considerations. In that case having them
legal for one event but not the other starts to make sense.
>> I would really not put limited and constructed under the same hat. They
>> are completely different animals.
>
> Not so much. They are both competetive play. People play limited for
> money and ratings, just as much as they play constructed for money and
> ratings. I find it difficult to fathom that if the rules cards are
> deemed ok for competetive limited play, that they can somehow be deemed
> not ok for constructed play.
Well, I'm sure the majority of players specifically don't play for money
and rating. From among the players I know, the majority outright
disregard the ratings altogether, and I'm yet to meet a player who
actually plays for money (given how there is none in VTES). Not even
the prizes, mind You - most people I know play tournaments for the fun
and challenge. Constructed is more about the challenge, Limited more
about the fun.
>> Because we already have a problem? I hardly think so. I don't like to
>> use one shortcoming as the explanation why another shortcoming is not
>> that significant. On the contrary - especially since we already have
>> alarmingly different layouts, an effort should be made to minimise the
>> problem, not to add to it.
>
> Sure. But adding one more to a game where there are 4 or 5 for every
> card? Not much of an issue.
As per the paragraph still quoted above - I disagree with this. ;)
>> Man, You completely misread what was (wasn't) meant between the lines.
>> Commenting on the set (the subject of the statement) that it is
>> "newbie
>> unfriendly" (the adjective) does not in any way label newbies. It
>> labels
>> the set.
>
> Yes. It labels the set as "too complicated for newbies". As even the
> most complicated aspects of the game aren't rocket science, "too
> complicated for newbies" translates for "too complictated for newbies
> as I think they are dumb." At least to some extent.
A very-very small extent, perhaps. An extent that is bordering on
non-existent. Just like saying that a set is newbie-friendly can be
translated into "so simple that even the dumb newbies can understand
it". It's all a matter of what You want to read among the lines. I'm
sure most people understood what I wrote correctly - especially, since
as per the snipped paragraph, there was even other material supporting
that my statement had nothing to do with the mental faculties of
sophomores. But whatever, I think this has been sufficiently resolved.
>> I mean, that's pretty obvious (and has been mentioned by multiple
>> sources
>> even). So I'm kind of puzzled what You hope to gain from taking such
>> dubious liberties in interpreting my comments.
>
> Huh. It made sense at the time.
I admit, it was a smooth move. Not entirely nice, but quite smooth. ;)
--
Regards,
Daneel
James Coupe
writes:
>On 21 May 2006 17:13:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that
>>> detracts from that is bad for the game.
>>
>> That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that
>> allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows
>> added fun for more people than it detracts fun from.
>
>I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking,
> .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted
> in precons.
You're missing an important point here.
What cards were really needed FOR DRAFT? The Rules Cards were
originally intended for draft play. NoR as a set lacks many bread-and-
butter cards, and there is little point re-inventing the wheel.
Then, as a result, what effect would reprinting them in pre-cons have on
draft play? Almost zero. Why? Because pre-cons suck donkey bollocks
for draft.
It is clearly a Rules Team desire (based both on NoR and the statement
about draft play for the Sabbat base set) for draft play to be better
supported in terms of a set's design and composition. They would also
know that some sets are drafted alone (e.g. all Legacies of Blood), some
drafted with other sets (e.g. 3 boosters of Legacies of Blood with 3
boosters of the Sabbat base set), and some are drafted competitively
(e.g. my pod drafts from Legacies of Blood, your pod drafts from Sabbat
base set).
So, with that in mind, how would you alter Nights of Reckoning to
provide enhanced support for draft, no need for rules inserts lurking
around in a booster or in a box which you can do nothing with once you
have more than one (see The Sabbat boosters, with huge rules inserts in
each booster), and which can function effectively both alone or
potentially against other sets? You also can't go for more than 11
cards in a booster, as that would change your usual planning in terms of
profit, loss and packaging.
You can't say "I wouldn't", because supporting effective draft play is
clearly a desire of the company. Why might that be? It can drive
booster sales, and it might be easier to rope new players in at a
convention with "Hey, we're doing draft on Sunday afternoon if you want
to stick around" than it would be at a constructed tournament. So
keeping the set useful for draft is a priority.
What exactly do you do to create a useful set, include new rules, and
support draft play?
pd...@lightlink.com
> I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking,
> .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted
> in precons.
Not if you wanted the rules cards to be useful in draft, which is the
main impetus behind the reprints on the rules cards. But once they are
out there, if the cards are deemed good enough for competetive draft
play, there is zero reason to deem them not good enough for constructed
play.
> You need people to play the game with. The quality and looks of the card
> provide them. If You think that You can play a multiplayer game without
> other players, then I'm not the deluded one.
See, here is the thing. You are correct. You do need players to play a
game. But that is a total straw man argument here. If the game had no
illustrations at all, yeah, it is likely that it wouldn't have much of
a player base. But in a design sense, the illustrations have no impact
on the game at all. So claiming that the illustrations are *necessary*
to play the game is completely false. If the argument here was "Should
the game have illustrations at all?", I would agree that having no
illustrations at all is bad for the game. But that isn't the argument.
The argument is "Should the NoR rules card reprints be legal for
consructed tournament play?" As the cards in question without
illustrations are an infintisimal number compared to the whole set,
that they have no pictures has no impact on whether or not people don't
play the game due to no pictures on cards. As even with the pictureless
rules cards in play, that is, what, <1% of the set? Making the cards
with no pictures legal is not making the other pictures disappear.
Making the cards with no pictures legal is not opening the door for the
rest of the cards to be printed with no pictures.
> This is the nth rephrasing. The essence is unaltered.
No, it isn't. You have never said "the cards should be illegal
completely from any kind of play". You have argued against having them
in constructed play, but argued as to why they are ok in limited play.
A different argument. The argument of "They should be illegal in all
play" is a viable argument that I understand. I don't agree with it.
But I can see where it is coming from.
> Unless You realize that constructed and limited are different enough
> to warrant their own set of considerations. In that case having them
> legal for one event but not the other starts to make sense.
See, you are doing it right here--arguing as to why it is ok for them
to be used in competetive limited play but not ok for them to be used
in competetive constructed play. Are illustrations unimportant in
limited play? How is the different format of the cards, and rules text
that is going to be outdated, and the truncated card text a problem in
constructed play but not limited play?
> Well, I'm sure the majority of players specifically don't play for money
> and rating. From among the players I know, the majority outright
> disregard the ratings altogether, and I'm yet to meet a player who
> actually plays for money (given how there is none in VTES). Not even
> the prizes, mind You - most people I know play tournaments for the fun
> and challenge. Constructed is more about the challenge, Limited more
> about the fun.
Most people who play limited draft would disagree with this statement,
I'm sure (and "money" was shorthand for "prizes" which may or may not
actually be money).
> A very-very small extent, perhaps.
Hey, that is all you need.
> I admit, it was a smooth move. Not entirely nice, but quite smooth. ;)
I told you I try my best...
-Peter
James Coupe
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>It is clearly a Rules Team desire (based both on NoR and the statement
>about draft play for the Sabbat base set) for draft play to be better
>supported in terms of a set's design and composition.
Gah, Design Team.
I've spent time today reading various rulings, old and new, so had the
Rules Team on the brain.
Salem
> In message <mHRG7AO$WicE...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe
> <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>>It is clearly a Rules Team desire (based both on NoR and the statement
>>about draft play for the Sabbat base set) for draft play to be better
>>supported in terms of a set's design and composition.
>
> Gah, Design Team.
>
> I've spent time today reading various rulings, old and new, so had the
> Rules Team on the brain.
I suspect there may be a rather large overlap in membership of the two
teams, anyway. :)
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Daneel
wrote:
> In message <ops9yuux...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
> writes:
>> On 21 May 2006 17:13:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Daneel wrote:
>>>> I'd say, that's the point of playing - to have fun. Anything that
>>>> detracts from that is bad for the game.
>>>
>>> That is certainly an argument. It seems more likely, however, that
>>> allowing the rules card cards to be used in constructed play allows
>>> added fun for more people than it detracts fun from.
>>
>> I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking,
>> .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted
>> in precons.
>
> You're missing an important point here.
>
> What cards were really needed FOR DRAFT? The Rules Cards were
> originally intended for draft play. NoR as a set lacks many bread-and-
> butter cards, and there is little point re-inventing the wheel.
[snip post I agree with]
> What exactly do you do to create a useful set, include new rules, and
> support draft play?
What WW did was a good move. Bur I would've put a "for limited only"
indication on the rules cards. And I would've reprinted commonly
needed cards aplenty in a starter (in the next set, if needed). You
can put a .44 into basically any type of precon. Same goes for
Computer Hacking. Most of the general utility cards that players would
have complained about are general utility cards that can go into a lot
of decks.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> I disagree. I mean, what card was really needed? Computer Hacking,
>> .44s? We'd have been better off with having these properly reprinted
>> in precons.
>
> Not if you wanted the rules cards to be useful in draft, which is the
> main impetus behind the reprints on the rules cards. But once they are
> out there, if the cards are deemed good enough for competetive draft
> play, there is zero reason to deem them not good enough for constructed
> play.
Except for the plethora of reasons I stated, restated and re-restated a
number of times in the previous posts.
>> This is the nth rephrasing. The essence is unaltered.
>
> No, it isn't. You have never said "the cards should be illegal
> completely from any kind of play". You have argued against having them
> in constructed play, but argued as to why they are ok in limited play.
> A different argument. The argument of "They should be illegal in all
> play" is a viable argument that I understand. I don't agree with it.
> But I can see where it is coming from.
How about, given the limited availability of cards at draft it may be
beneficial to use proxies of general utility cards in limited, even if
they are not fit for constructed, simply because it is pretty hard to
get random general utility cards in limited? Is that something You would
consider a viable point of view? Or will that fall under the "draft and
constructed are the same" argument?
>> Unless You realize that constructed and limited are different enough
>> to warrant their own set of considerations. In that case having them
>> legal for one event but not the other starts to make sense.
>
> See, you are doing it right here--arguing as to why it is ok for them
> to be used in competetive limited play but not ok for them to be used
> in competetive constructed play. Are illustrations unimportant in
> limited play? How is the different format of the cards, and rules text
> that is going to be outdated, and the truncated card text a problem in
> constructed play but not limited play?
You'll have a huge wave of limited events when the set is released. I
assume that most of the limited use will happen there. That means,
1) the rules are not yet outdated, 2) players only need to play once
with the rules cards, at the prerelease, and then they (the cards) no
longer dilute casual/constructed play.
>> Well, I'm sure the majority of players specifically don't play for money
>> and rating. From among the players I know, the majority outright
>> disregard the ratings altogether, and I'm yet to meet a player who
>> actually plays for money (given how there is none in VTES). Not even
>> the prizes, mind You - most people I know play tournaments for the fun
>> and challenge. Constructed is more about the challenge, Limited more
>> about the fun.
>
> Most people who play limited draft would disagree with this statement,
> I'm sure (and "money" was shorthand for "prizes" which may or may not
> actually be money).
I guess we can agree on disagreeing here, given how we used the same
argument to support opposite things. ;) Unless, of course, You have a
representative study on this (I unfortunately don't).
>> I admit, it was a smooth move. Not entirely nice, but quite smooth. ;)
>
> I told you I try my best...
And I appreciate that. Nice of You.
--
Regards,
Daneel
James Coupe
<salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
<snip - my Design Team / Rules Team confusion>
>I suspect there may be a rather large overlap in membership of the two
>teams, anyway. :)
I've always assumed LSJ keeps them in life-sized Tupperware containers,
and just gets them out when needed.
pd...@lightlink.com
> Except for the plethora of reasons I stated, restated and re-restated a
> number of times in the previous posts.
But none of those reasona explain how the rules cards can be ok for
limited competetive play but not constructed competetive play. In
limited play, the layout, rules text, and lack of illustration have the
exact same effect (which for my money, is none, but you maintain that
they do, so if they have an effect in constructed, they have the exact
same effect in limited). Like, I find the concept that the rules cards
are ok in limited play but not ok in constructed play to be
incongrouous to the point of absurdity.
Again, I see the argument of "the rules cards should not be legal for
anything at all" to be a logical argument. I understand that. I don't
agree. But I understand. I find the argument "yeah, they are fine for
limited but right out for constructed" to make no sense at all. Not
even a little bit.
> How about, given the limited availability of cards at draft it may be
> beneficial to use proxies of general utility cards in limited, even if
> they are not fit for constructed, simply because it is pretty hard to
> get random general utility cards in limited? Is that something You would
> consider a viable point of view?
No. I would not. You claim that the rules cards are bad for play
because they have no illustrations (which lowers the level of play and
turns off players), truncated rules text (which reduces clarity), a
different layout (which exaggerates an already existing problem), and
are littered with rules text (which will eventually be outdated). I
find it difficult to understand how all of this can be true (in your
view), making them unsuitable for constructed play, but then you turn
around and say that they are just fine for limited. Like, if you are
willing to make that leap and understand that whatever problems thay
have, the benefit to having them in play in a limited game outweighs
those problems, why are you unwilling to make the same leap and extend
the benefit to constructed play?
> Or will that fall under the "draft and constructed are the same" argument?
They are the same, in terms of people taking them seriously. Like, I
suspect that you don't play much in the way of competetive draft. There
are people who play draft VTES all the time, and take it very seriously
(as seriously as constructed--I mean, in both instances, people are
there for entertainment, but they don't take draft any less seriously
than they take constructed). Like, you seem to be writing off the
difference between limited and constructed as "people take constructed
seriously, people don't take draft seriously, so it doesn't matter..."
Which simply isn't true.
> You'll have a huge wave of limited events when the set is released. I
> assume that most of the limited use will happen there.
See, that is a wildly incorrect assumption. People play draft a lot.
And certainly with a set like NoR that is specifically designed to be
useful in draft, it'll likely see play in limited events for a long
time (till the cards are no longer available).
> And I appreciate that. Nice of You.
Good to know.
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com
> What WW did was a good move. Bur I would've put a "for limited only"
> indication on the rules cards. And I would've reprinted commonly
> needed cards aplenty in a starter (in the next set, if needed).
They do reprint commonly needed cards aplenty in starters. Every set of
starter decks to date has included a selection of useful, bread and
butter cards, very similar to the reprinted rules cards (.44, Computer
Hacking, Sudden Reversal, etc.). But printing them in starters doesn't
help limited play so much, as most limited play tends to be booster
draft based.
> You can put a .44 into basically any type of precon. Same goes for
> Computer Hacking.
Which is why they do put them in any type of precon.
-Peter
Shade
James Coupe wrote:
> I've always assumed LSJ keeps them in life-sized Tupperware containers,
> and just gets them out when needed.
Maybe he just looks in different mirrors, one with a Design label and
one with a Rules label? ;)
LSJ
Rules Team, Rules Team, on the wall
On which card will the next erratum fall?
Design Team, Design Team, who looks my kitten
How should Fnordling of Blood be written?
Fred Scott
news:1148474744.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(*snort*) I think we just stumbled over the _real_ reason Madness of the
Bard was banned.
Fred
...victim of bad poetry, pay 2 pool...
Shade
Fred Scott wrote:
> ...victim of bad poetry, pay 2 pool...
Hey I thought they were quite good :-)
LSJ
Fred Scott wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:1148474744.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Shade wrote:
> >> James Coupe wrote:
> >> > I've always assumed LSJ keeps them in life-sized Tupperware containers,
> >> > and just gets them out when needed.
> >>
> >> Maybe he just looks in different mirrors, one with a Design label and
> >> one with a Rules label? ;)
> >
> > Rules Team, Rules Team, on the wall
> > On which card will the next erratum fall?
> >
> > Design Team, Design Team, who looks my kitten
"looks like my kitten", of course.
> > How should Fnordling of Blood be written?
>
> (*snort*) I think we just stumbled over the _real_ reason Madness of the
> Bard was banned.
>
> Fred
>
> ...victim of bad poetry, pay 2 pool...
So call a judge. :-)
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> What WW did was a good move. Bur I would've put a "for limited only"
>> indication on the rules cards. And I would've reprinted commonly
>> needed cards aplenty in a starter (in the next set, if needed).
>
> They do reprint commonly needed cards aplenty in starters. Every set of
> starter decks to date has included a selection of useful, bread and
> butter cards, very similar to the reprinted rules cards (.44, Computer
> Hacking, Sudden Reversal, etc.). But printing them in starters doesn't
> help limited play so much, as most limited play tends to be booster
> draft based.
That's why having limited-only incarnations of these cards seem like a
good idea.
>> You can put a .44 into basically any type of precon. Same goes for
>> Computer Hacking.
>
> Which is why they do put them in any type of precon.
Which is a good thing. If players are still missing these cards, then that
may be an indication that they should give these cards a bit more weight,
to make sure everyone has good access to the normal versions of such
general utility cards.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> Except for the plethora of reasons I stated, restated and re-restated a
>> number of times in the previous posts.
>
> But none of those reasona explain how the rules cards can be ok for
> limited competetive play but not constructed competetive play. In
> limited play, the layout, rules text, and lack of illustration have the
> exact same effect (which for my money, is none, but you maintain that
> they do, so if they have an effect in constructed, they have the exact
> same effect in limited). Like, I find the concept that the rules cards
> are ok in limited play but not ok in constructed play to be
> incongrouous to the point of absurdity.
Then You fail to grasp the difference between the formats, and the
different priorities each format has.
> Again, I see the argument of "the rules cards should not be legal for
> anything at all" to be a logical argument. I understand that. I don't
> agree. But I understand. I find the argument "yeah, they are fine for
> limited but right out for constructed" to make no sense at all. Not
> even a little bit.
Same thing.
In limited general utility cards are pretty hot property - hot enough
to assume that players playing limited will welcome these general
utility cards and not mind using them once for the sake of rounding
out their drafted decks. Especially since the text on the cards
pertains to the very set that is drafted.
In constructed/casual though no such benefit exists, so the hindrances
that were listed a number of times become more important, and the
benefits are significantly reduced (e.g. the chances of actually
finding the rules sections beneficial are minimal). Not to mention
that people who sit down to play draft choose to play that format
with these boosters, and are therefor not going to be disappointed
when others use these cards.
If it's limited only, each player can choose whether they wish to
participate in an enviromnent where these cards are played;
otherwise, no such choice exists.
>> How about, given the limited availability of cards at draft it may be
>> beneficial to use proxies of general utility cards in limited, even if
>> they are not fit for constructed, simply because it is pretty hard to
>> get random general utility cards in limited? Is that something You
>> would
>> consider a viable point of view?
>
> No. I would not. You claim that the rules cards are bad for play
> because they have no illustrations (which lowers the level of play and
> turns off players), truncated rules text (which reduces clarity), a
> different layout (which exaggerates an already existing problem), and
> are littered with rules text (which will eventually be outdated). I
> find it difficult to understand how all of this can be true (in your
> view), making them unsuitable for constructed play, but then you turn
> around and say that they are just fine for limited. Like, if you are
> willing to make that leap and understand that whatever problems thay
> have, the benefit to having them in play in a limited game outweighs
> those problems, why are you unwilling to make the same leap and extend
> the benefit to constructed play?
I consider "the game" in general to be casual and constructed. Limited
and other types are existing, but I do not consider them to be
prevalent. Having these cards in circulation and being used means that
they can be encountered anywhere, which is bad both from a would-be-
player and a player-with-aesthetics point of view. The hindrances -
generally speaking - outweigh the benefits.
Having limited-only cards for that specific format mostly avoids this,
and the benefits are magnified. Would-be-players are less frequently
present in limited events, and the player-with-aesthetics can choose
whether they wish to attend a limited game where these cards are used.
No harm is done to the card pool, because once the limited event is
over, the cards revert to being simply rules cards.
>> Or will that fall under the "draft and constructed are the same"
>> argument?
>
> They are the same, in terms of people taking them seriously. Like, I
> suspect that you don't play much in the way of competetive draft. There
> are people who play draft VTES all the time, and take it very seriously
> (as seriously as constructed--I mean, in both instances, people are
> there for entertainment, but they don't take draft any less seriously
> than they take constructed). Like, you seem to be writing off the
> difference between limited and constructed as "people take constructed
> seriously, people don't take draft seriously, so it doesn't matter..."
> Which simply isn't true.
I'm not sure about that. This may be a meta-player-base difference
thingy, because I am under the impression that my views regarding the
"fun" = "draft" and "constructed" = "competition" are not the minority
opinion. That doesn't mean that people who associate draft with fun
don't take it seriously, or that they don't play to win. To the
contrary; but the prime source of the expeted enjoyment is different.
>> You'll have a huge wave of limited events when the set is released. I
>> assume that most of the limited use will happen there.
>
> See, that is a wildly incorrect assumption. People play draft a lot.
> And certainly with a set like NoR that is specifically designed to be
> useful in draft, it'll likely see play in limited events for a long
> time (till the cards are no longer available).
I'm not sure about that; I guess we'll see.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> In limited general utility cards are pretty hot property - hot enough
> to assume that players playing limited will welcome these general
> utility cards and not mind using them once for the sake of rounding
> out their drafted decks. Especially since the text on the cards
> pertains to the very set that is drafted.
And the general utility cards are still just as welcome to people who
need them in constructed play, and they will not mind using them
mutliple times for the sake ouf rounding out their constructed decks.
> In constructed/casual though no such benefit exists,
Of course such a benefit exists. People always need more Computer
Hackings and Sudden Reversals, and the hinderances of the cards don't
outweigh needing more Computer Hackings.
> Not to mention
> that people who sit down to play draft choose to play that format
> with these boosters, and are therefor not going to be disappointed
> when others use these cards.
??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your
own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do
so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules
cards? I mean, like, other than you? I don't care if my opponents use
rules cards. I don't know anyone who would care if their opponents used
rules cards. As I mentioned before, I don't play VTES to see my
opponent's cards. I can look at the cards in the privacy of my home. I
play VTES for a good game, and if my opponents wanna use rules cards
for the sake of making a deck that provides a good game, more power to
them.
> I consider "the game" in general to be casual and constructed. Limited
> and other types are existing, but I do not consider them to be
> prevalent.
Your consideration is awry. People play limited VTES all the time. Some
folks play booster draft weekly. Some venues hold draft tournament all
the time.
>Having these cards in circulation and being used means that
> they can be encountered anywhere, which is bad both from a would-be-
> player and a player-with-aesthetics point of view.
Once again, you seem to misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Everyone
has a sense of aesthetics. It just isn't necessarily the same as yours.
>The hindrances - generally speaking - outweigh the benefits.
Generally, to you. It is likely more folks disagree with you than not.
-Peter
jibbajibba
card, write card text on them and stick them in opaque sleeves is it ?
I am guessing cos this doesn't make a lot of money for WW and so
doesn't further the game at all which is of course the point of
tournaments (oh and to massage ego of course) .
>From an aesthetic perspective however a magic marker and some card
stock and a rules card are about the same ....
pd...@lightlink.com
jibbajibba wrote:
> A general point on this thread. Its not okay for me to cut out bits of
> card, write card text on them and stick them in opaque sleeves is it ?
Not for tournament play, no, as the company had financial incentive to
get you you play with actual cards. In casual play, you can do whatever
you want.
> I am guessing cos this doesn't make a lot of money for WW and so
> doesn't further the game at all which is of course the point of
> tournaments (oh and to massage ego of course) .
I suppose, yeah.
>From an aesthetic perspective however a magic marker and some card
> stock and a rules card are about the same ....
Except you paid for the rules card. Aesthetics has very little to do
with why you can use rules cards and can't use proxies in tournament
play.
-Peter
jibbajibba
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
> jibbajibba wrote:
> >From an aesthetic perspective however a magic marker and some card
> > stock and a rules card are about the same ....
>
> Except you paid for the rules card. Aesthetics has very little to do
> with why you can use rules cards and can't use proxies in tournament
> play.
>
But the arguement I would adopt would have to be that I didn't pay for
the rules card. I paid for a booster pack of cards and got a free rule
card (wow lucky me).
After several more posts of this nature my eventual point would be that
putting useful card text on the rule card to allow them to be useful in
a draft is okay (forget that in this particular set its moot as you
can't run an all NoR draft in any genuine sense, lets say its a general
trend for future expansions) but all they are in effect is proxy cards
issued by WW (I know all the cards are in effect proxy cards issues by
WW if we are being precise) and so ....
Fred Scott
news:1148550979.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
From an aesthetic point of view - depending on your taste and the
skills of the proxy-maker - that may be true. However, the making
of proxies are far more problematic with which to track issues. If
I made a proxy that purposely changed a word or two, I could use it
to fool players who didn't know what the real rules text was supposed
to say. That is also true (admittedly) of misprint cards and cards
whose text has been superseded, but at least all of these cases are
well-known and from that standpoint, players have a theoretical
defense against abuses. If proxies were allowed, the only defense
anyone would have would be to carry a copy of the most recent card
text of every card ever printed in the game. And you would have to
check it every time you saw a slightly suspicious proxy card.
Fred
pd...@lightlink.com
jibbajibba wrote:
> But the arguement I would adopt would have to be that I didn't pay for
> the rules card. I paid for a booster pack of cards and got a free rule
> card (wow lucky me).
You could make that argument. But you paid the cost for an 11 card
booster. And then got 10 cards, and a rules card that is virtually
identical to a regular card (same size, card stock, ya know, cut from
the same sheet, etc). So for all intents and purposes, you paid for an
11 card booster and got an 11 card booster, and one of those cards was
a rules card. Which would be a drag if the rules card was unplayable.
But luckily, that isn't the case.
> After several more posts of this nature my eventual point would be that
> putting useful card text on the rule card to allow them to be useful in
> a draft is okay (forget that in this particular set its moot as you
> can't run an all NoR draft in any genuine sense, lets say its a general
> trend for future expansions) but all they are in effect is proxy cards
> issued by WW (I know all the cards are in effect proxy cards issues by
> WW if we are being precise) and so ....
All well and good. But they work fine for constructed play, so might as
well be usable. It isn't as if they are going to replace all the other
previously existing cards with rules cards, and it isn't like this is
going to compell them to print all future cards as rules cards.
-Peter
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> In limited general utility cards are pretty hot property - hot enough
>> to assume that players playing limited will welcome these general
>> utility cards and not mind using them once for the sake of rounding
>> out their drafted decks. Especially since the text on the cards
>> pertains to the very set that is drafted.
>
> And the general utility cards are still just as welcome to people who
> need them in constructed play, and they will not mind using them
> mutliple times for the sake ouf rounding out their constructed decks.
Ah, the magnificent feeling of getting back to square one. Please refer
to my 689 posts in this thread and randomly pick one to see the points
referring to this.
>> In constructed/casual though no such benefit exists,
>
> Of course such a benefit exists. People always need more Computer
> Hackings and Sudden Reversals, and the hinderances of the cards don't
> outweigh needing more Computer Hackings.
People may be in need of Computer Hackings and (I seriously doubt the
Suddens, but whatever) other cards. Therefor they are periodically
reprinted to make them available. Normal cards, with artwork, full
text and the (new) standard layout. With other words, as normal
playing cards.
>> Not to mention
>> that people who sit down to play draft choose to play that format
>> with these boosters, and are therefor not going to be disappointed
>> when others use these cards.
>
> ??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your
> own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do
> so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules
> cards?
I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics.
> I mean, like, other than you? I don't care if my opponents use
> rules cards. I don't know anyone who would care if their opponents used
> rules cards. As I mentioned before, I don't play VTES to see my
> opponent's cards. I can look at the cards in the privacy of my home. I
> play VTES for a good game, and if my opponents wanna use rules cards
> for the sake of making a deck that provides a good game, more power to
> them.
I'm not in a hairsplitting enough mood to point out the absurdity of going
all the way to point out how what I'm saying is absurd, as it is just my
opinion, and then go on to explain why it absolutely cannot be true,
because You think otherwise. So, instead of pointing out this, I'll just
say that I'm pretty sure that You do know people who would mind playing
with/against the rules cards.
>> I consider "the game" in general to be casual and constructed. Limited
>> and other types are existing, but I do not consider them to be
>> prevalent.
>
> Your consideration is awry. People play limited VTES all the time. Some
> folks play booster draft weekly. Some venues hold draft tournament all
> the time.
Some folks play with, say, card limits. Like five times a week. Sure,
people play all sorts of things. It's a game, after all.
>> Having these cards in circulation and being used means that
>> they can be encountered anywhere, which is bad both from a would-be-
>> player and a player-with-aesthetics point of view.
>
> Once again, you seem to misunderstand what "aesthetics" means. Everyone
> has a sense of aesthetics. It just isn't necessarily the same as yours.
Sure. Everyone has intelligence. Yet if I refer to someone as intelligent,
nobody assumes that to be a blank statement. Well, maybe somebody does,
but that would be the exception. Same goes with aesthetics. I guess, You
don't know You have it unless You have it - it's difficult to explain.
The concept is understandable by all, but the content is only
percievable by those (not that) few that have the sense.
Suffice to say, to those with a sense of aesthetics, the rules cards
are hardly appealing, in fact, they are detrimental to the enjoyment
of the game.
>> The hindrances - generally speaking - outweigh the benefits.
>
> Generally, to you. It is likely more folks disagree with you than not.
I don't think so. You know, aesthetics... clarity... layout... You get
the feeling. ;)
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
> jibbajibba wrote:
>> But the arguement I would adopt would have to be that I didn't pay for
>> the rules card. I paid for a booster pack of cards and got a free rule
>> card (wow lucky me).
>
> You could make that argument. But you paid the cost for an 11 card
> booster. And then got 10 cards, and a rules card that is virtually
> identical to a regular card (same size, card stock, ya know, cut from
> the same sheet, etc). So for all intents and purposes, you paid for an
> 11 card booster and got an 11 card booster, and one of those cards was
> a rules card. Which would be a drag if the rules card was unplayable.
> But luckily, that isn't the case.
Man, You are over the top. Way over. I've been doubting any sanity left
in that old skull of Yours, but any doubt I had has just dissipated.
The booster says, 10 cards. You may or may not choose to buy it for the
price it is listed for. But still, it's an 11-card booster.
I've bought Sabbat boosters (28 cards) for the price of Sabbat War
boosters (11). I don't suddenly expect, for example, the shrinkwrap to
magically transform into 17 additional cards. Though it could be argued
that I bought an 11-card booster for the price of the 28-card booster.
Furthermore, I've bought 11-card boosters for many different prices,
depending on my access to deals, internet retailers, etc. For example,
I've brought boosters for roughly 2 bucks per booster, and I've bought
them for roughly 4 bucks a booster. Still, I did not expect the 4-buck
booster to magically split in twain and suddenly become two 11-card
boosters.
Using an absurd and twisted concept of human stupidity is a poor choice
even for a strawman.
--
Regards,
Daneel
pd...@lightlink.com
> The booster says, 10 cards. You may or may not choose to buy it for the
> price it is listed for. But still, it's an 11-card booster.
Yes, it is an 11 card booster, just like you say...
It is listed as having 10 cards, correct. But it contains 11 cards. And
costs as much as an 11 card booster pack. And the 11th card (the rules
card) is a card--same card stock, same back, cut out of the same sheet
other cards.
> I've bought Sabbat boosters (28 cards) for the price of Sabbat War
> boosters (11). I don't suddenly expect, for example, the shrinkwrap to
> magically transform into 17 additional cards. Though it could be argued
> that I bought an 11-card booster for the price of the 28-card booster.
You are confusing MSRP and after market prices. I assume you understand
the difference. Or prices from 8 years ago to prices from now. Not the
same. However, 11 card boosters from LoB cost the same as 10 card
boosters from NoR (MSRP). Like, you can argue all you want that NoR
contains 10 cards. But the reality is that it contains 11, and one of
them is a rules card, which you are paying for regardless of whether
you believe it is a card or not.
> Furthermore, I've bought 11-card boosters for many different prices,
> depending on my access to deals, internet retailers, etc. For example,
> I've brought boosters for roughly 2 bucks per booster, and I've bought
> them for roughly 4 bucks a booster. Still, I did not expect the 4-buck
> booster to magically split in twain and suddenly become two 11-card
> boosters.
Dude. You are pulling foolishness out of your ass here. The NoR
boosters cost the same (MSRP) as LoB boosters. For the same amount of
stuff. You can try to wiggle out of this all you want by pulling number
out of your ass about how you paid 25 cents for Booster X and 10 bucks
for booster Y in whatever system you want. The manufacturing company
charges a price for a product. In this instance, they charge X dollars
for an 11 card LoB booster and the exact same X dollars for a 10 card
NoR booster that comes with an 11th card which is a rules card. You can
pretend that you are not paying for it if you want. If it was actually
a 10 card booster pack, presumably, they would have reduced the price,
or, that means that the cost of production has gone up, or it means
that they are arbitrarily charging consumers more for less product than
a few months ago. All of which are possible. Yet the price was not
reduced. Nor increased, considering how the booster contains the exact
same physical components as the previous booster pack (i.e. wrapper and
11 cards). Same price (from manufacturer). Same amount of stuff.
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com
> Ah, the magnificent feeling of getting back to square one. Please refer
> to my 689 posts in this thread and randomly pick one to see the points
> referring to this.
And I will refer you to my 700 posts in this thread and ask you to
randomly pick one of the points refuting your points. I can still do
this all day.
> People may be in need of Computer Hackings and (I seriously doubt the
> Suddens, but whatever) other cards. Therefor they are periodically
> reprinted to make them available. Normal cards, with artwork, full
> text and the (new) standard layout. With other words, as normal
> playing cards.
Regardless of what you doubt or not, people like using the cards that
they have, and can benefit from using the cards they have. The rules
cards are cards they have. If someone is unbothered by the lack of
illustration, there is no good reason for them not to use said cards,
regardless of your wishes. If you don't like the lack of illustration,
don't use them. No one is making you. But you seem to impose your view
of what you do or do not like on others to their detriment.
> I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics.
You really don't know what aesthetics means, do you? Like, it is a
nice, expensive word that you seem to like using. But it doesn't mean
what you seem to think it means.
> I'm not in a hairsplitting enough mood to point out the absurdity of going
> all the way to point out how what I'm saying is absurd, as it is just my
> opinion, and then go on to explain why it absolutely cannot be true,
> because You think otherwise. So, instead of pointing out this, I'll just
> say that I'm pretty sure that You do know people who would mind playing
> with/against the rules cards.
I don't think I do. I mean, I might. But it is unlikely. And anyone who
does likely doesn't care enough to argue about it this much when it
clearly benefits more people than it harms.
> Some folks play with, say, card limits. Like five times a week. Sure,
> people play all sorts of things. It's a game, after all.
It is nice that you equate sanctioned competetive play with made up
house rules. I'm sure plenty of folks will help you defend that
argument.
> Sure. Everyone has intelligence. Yet if I refer to someone as intelligent,
> nobody assumes that to be a blank statement. Well, maybe somebody does,
> but that would be the exception. Same goes with aesthetics. I guess, You
> don't know You have it unless You have it - it's difficult to explain.
> The concept is understandable by all, but the content is only
> percievable by those (not that) few that have the sense.
You don't seem to understand what "aestheitcs" means. Yet you keep
using it in an incorrect fashion. I assumed it was a language issue.
Now I assume it is willful ignorance.
> Suffice to say, to those with a sense of aesthetics, the rules cards
> are hardly appealing, in fact, they are detrimental to the enjoyment
> of the game.
It makes me giggle that when people you are playing this game with put
rules cards on the table, it will reduce your enjoyment of the game.
-Peter
sven....@gmail.com
(although mildly amusing at times). But since yesterday my
opinion has changed. I tried to equip a rules card .44 Magnum
while playing my Toreador gun deck and Joaquin refused to equip
with it! I wasn't even able to put it underneath the vampire card (as
I use to do). After a somewhat embarrasing discussion with my
fellow players they allowed me to put it next to him. But what
can I tell you: when Joaquin was in combat it didn't work either,
the opposing minion didn't take the damage; Joaquin refused
to pull the trigger! White Wolf and LSJ tricked me into believing
that I had acquired cards that were perfectly suitable for
constructed play, I demand a card exchange for NoR rules
cards!
hp
>> On 24 May 2006 17:19:50 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> ??? "Disappointed when others use those cards" You are projecting your
>> own worldview onto a multitude of others without any good reason to do
>> so. Who is going to be disapointed when other people use the rules
>> cards?
>I assume, people who have a sense of aesthetics.
I quickly read through this thread and noticed that mr. Bakija has
repeatedly pointed out that there seems to be a problem with you and
him understanding the concept of aesthetics differently. After reading
most of the posts in this thread I've, in addition to agreeing with mr.
Bakija, also gotten the impression that this aesthetic reason is the
only reason why you (Daneel) are against NoR rules cards in stantard
tournament play.
Mr Bakija seems to refer to aesthetics as "concept/experiencing of
beauty". This is the common understanding of the concept. All people
have such a concept, it's just not the same for all of us. Your posts
imply that you seem to assume that there is an universal, absolute
concept of beauty and that your sense of aesthetics (or certain others
who share it) is in parallel with that (universal, absolute, correct).
I might be wrong, but this is the impression I've got.
To illustrate (hypothetical figures, simplification for clarity) a few
problems concerning an assumption that there's universal concept of
beauty:
a) Britney Spears (pop) album sells 82,4 million copies
b) Julio Iglesias (erm....) album sells 10,2 million copies
c) Philip Glass (classical) album sells 0,2 million copies
I personally favour b) (please don't ask why). a) and c) are not
appealing to my sense of aesthetics. Does this define my sense of
aesthetics as "valid", "universal", "good" or "proper"? Or does this
define buyers of a) or b) as people with a sense of aesthetics? What
about those people who buy 2 different albums or even all three (based
on their sense of aesthetics)? What if all people who find album c)
appealing to their sense of aesthetics cease to exist?
The concept of aesthetics can be used in connection to communication,
writing etc. - stating several times that "people with sense of
aesthetics are disappointed when they see NoR rules cards" argument in
this thread is unaesthetic - it's excessively repetitive, it's called
tautology, it's generally regarded as ugly when judging the beauty
aspects of writing/literacy. Does your repetition of the argument prove
that you have no sense of aesthetics, thus making your argument's basis
altogether hollow?
Sentences "common understanding" and "generally regarded as ugly" in
the above paragraphs brings us to the root of the problem: it indeed
seems that there are certain characteristics that are universal, in
this case universally appealing aesthetically (like certain symmetry,
in both music and visual arts). They are, however, VERY general and
vague (I noted that mr. Bakija used the symmetry argument to support
his argument about NoR cards being aesthetically appealing, which
illustrates the point). Concept of taste in different
cultures/subcultures is not the same, and individual taste seems to
consist of genetic factors (according to, for example, sociobiologist
theories, symmetry indicates health, which is good from evolutionary
theory's standpoint) and personal/cultural experiences... it also
changes during one's life (Karate Kid was ok when I was seven...).
"Establishment", "canon", "cultural elite" etc. often try to dictate
the terms of good taste (e.g. or at least "inexcplicitly" think that
good taste means their own). Commercial successes often indicate
something else. One could also very well argue that the whole Vtes
(WoD) is a representation of bad taste (e.g. does not appeal to people
with a sense of aesthetics), as it arbitrarily borrows different
mythologies and combines them with popular myths in a very vulgar way.
And at least two pictures in the cards contain nudity!
If NoR cards do'nt appeal to your personal sense of aesthetics, it's
fine. Please don't assume that other "people who have sense of
aesthetics" find them undesirable in the game environment. It indicates
that you seem to think that your (and somebody else's) sense of
aesthetics is better than someone elses (or perhaps even "correct"). If
you say "people with a similar sense of aesthetics as I have", it's
logically acceptable - but formulating it this way would make the
aesthetic argument weak. It would make it a (mostly, if you support the
sociobiologist explanation) subjective opinion, in fact. Which it
(mostly...)is.
Most of the things I've written above can be thought differently and
can and have been disputed. A.C.Danto's or Monroe C.Beardsley's
writings on aesthetics are a good place to start reading if the
concepts of aesthetic experience, "what defines good taste" etc. sound
interesting... There are also the greek chaps, Wittgenstein (define
red) etc. - I'm not familiar with the newest stuff, someone else might
know better.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
No offense meant, just my 2 pool (perhaps I got a little carried
away...).
Heikki P.
pd...@lightlink.com
> Most of the things I've written above can be thought differently and
> can and have been disputed. A.C.Danto's or Monroe C.Beardsley's
> writings on aesthetics are a good place to start reading if the
> concepts of aesthetic experience, "what defines good taste" etc. sound
> interesting... There are also the greek chaps, Wittgenstein (define
> red) etc. - I'm not familiar with the newest stuff, someone else might
> know better.
Thank you. That was a far more eloquent discussion on aesthetics that I
would have come up with :-)
Like, you completely hit the nail on the head with what seems to be the
issue in regards to "aesthetics" in this discussion--Daneel continually
adresses the concept of "aesthetics" as if it were a universal absolute
(i.e. "people with an aesthetic sense would...") Which it simply is
not. What I suspect he means is "people with the same aesthetic sense
as me would...", indicating that he is under the belief that *his*
sense of aesthetics is the universal truth. Which, ya know, it is not.
Everyone has a sense of aesthetics. And they are all different. In
terms of this particular discussion, I'd never claim that I have a
*better* sense of aesthetics than anyone else. But I probably have a
wider understanding of concepts of art and design than a lot of people
(something about having spent 7 years in art school...) And I have no
problem at all with the rules cards and their lack of illustration,
even in a design sense. But then, I also am a big fan of Christopher
Shy...
-Peter