Changes found in Sabbat War
LSJ
All errata pertaining to reprinted cards have been incorporated into the
texts of the reprinted cards. Many cards have been reworded to reflect
rulings and clarifications.
TERMINOLOGY
As the previous revised rulebook did, all cards in the Sabbat War and the
rulebook included in Sabbat War preconstructed starters use clearer or
less ambiguous terminology:
* Use of "hand damage" meaning the amount of damage inflicted by a hand
strike has been eliminated. Now the unambiguous term "strength" is used.
"Hand damage" is only used when referring to the type of damage done
by a hand strike.
* The term "referendum" is used instead of "political action" or "vote"
when referring to the referendum.
MISPRINTS
Files from Wizards of the Coast indicate that a few cards were misprinted in
the Sabbat expansion. These have been corrected:
* Caitlin (Gangrel antitribu). Is a 6 capacity vampire, not a 5.
* Legacy of Pander. Gives each non-titled Pander one vote, not one additional
vote. (You can have more than one in play, but doing so will still result
in each non-titled Pander having one vote. Similar to being named for more
than one Rumors of Gehenna - there is no benefit other than needing more
actions to remove the bonus).
As mentioned in RTR 20-OCT-2000, there are two misprints in Sabbat War as
well. These have been errata'ed to match the Sabbat printing, meaning that
these two cards are *not* changed from their Sabbat versions:
* Creation Rites: The acting vampire can move a blood to the vampire when
the Creation Rites action is successful.
* Power Structure: Requires Lasombra.
OTHER CHANGES
"Do Not Replace Until After Combat" has been replaced with "Do Not Replace
Until the End of this Action" for non-combat cards. This change only matters
for the times when more than one combat takes place (due to Psyche!, for
example):
* Arson
* Bum's Rush
* Pack Tactics
Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
* Blood of Acid (one per round).
* Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
* Disarm (a vampire can have only one).
* Immortal Grapple (one per round).
* Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one).
* Terror Frenzy at superior (one per combat).
Several allies now have strength listed where appropriate (typically when the
ally can use potence cards):
* Blood Brother Ambush (strength 2)
* Ghouled Street Thug (strength 1)
Miscellaneous:
* Cardinal Sin: Insubordination: is played by the (possibly tapped) Ab/P/C
who was just in combat.
* Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during the press
step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is ended prior to the
press step).
* Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth.
* Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool.
* Mob Connections: can tap to give a press to a *minion* (not just a vampire)
you control.
* War Party: is playable by a Priscus (and still not playable *on* a Priscus).
CHANGES TO THE RULEBOOK
In addition to many changes for clarity, the rulebook included in Sabbat
War preconstructed starter decks contains the following functional changes
(both of which are only applicable when combining the cards with cards
from earlier sets):
* Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The titles of prince
and archbishop of the same city contest each other, just as two titles of
prince or two titles of archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4]
* Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the errata begun
in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the Sabbat rules sheet has been
extended. Only Camarilla vampires can call the referendum to burn the
Elysium and, for the same reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end
combat involving two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize /
acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1]
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Sorrow
Wow!!
> MISPRINTS
> * Caitlin (Gangrel antitribu). Is a 6 capacity vampire, not a 5.
I'm a bit sad to see she is no longer a 5. She was a *great*
low-mid ranged vamp for the !Gangrel who already have a
problem with pool managagement (not a *huge* problem,
but not a small problem either)
> * Legacy of Pander. Gives each non-titled Pander one vote,
> not one additional vote.
Oh, well. There went all the money I spent on my 13+ Legacy
of Panders... :(
I'll have to see how good the deck stacks up now with each
pander only having one vote now. By and by, though, I am
NOT unahappy to see the power of this deck type castrated.
> OTHER CHANGES
> Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
> * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
YES!!!!!!!!!
> * Immortal Grapple (one per round).
Oh, well. It was good to be able to cycle my IGs when I needed
something else. One per round is a bit more intuitive. Why would
you need to grapple in a grapple?
> Miscellaneous:
> * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done
> during the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat
> is ended prior to the press step).
So if the opposing vamp plays DotB and your vamp S:CE, your
vamp will not take damage from the DotB?
> * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth.
Finally.
> * Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool.
Oh, yeah!!
No more weenie dominate misdirection decks!
This is a *great* thing.
> CHANGES TO THE RULEBOOK
> * Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The
> titles of prince and archbishop of the same city contest
> each other, just as two titles of prince or two titles of
> archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4]
I liked the old "get into combat" rules introduced with Sabbat
better. By the by, this ruling seems kind of silly. They are 2
different sects with 2 different ruling hierarchies. This rule is
*almost* like saying just because there is a mayor of the city
there cannot be a mob Don in that city as well...
Maybe you should run this by Guiliani <sp>
> * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the
> errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the
> Sabbat rules sheet has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires
> can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same
> reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving
> two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize /
> acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1]
Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card. Before, it
could only be used once per turn. That made the card pretty
balanced. But now, especially with the prevelance of Sabbat
in combat decks (some of the more brutal fighters are Sabbat),
why bother including it? Now, there are many clans and deck
types that no longer have access to decent Combat ends. I'm
not so sure this is such a good thing.
Sorrow
---
I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me.
They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course!
There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!"
So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy
LSJ
> > Miscellaneous:
> > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done
> > during the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat
> > is ended prior to the press step).
>
> So if the opposing vamp plays DotB and your vamp S:CE, your
> vamp will not take damage from the DotB?
Correct.
Noal McDonald
since 7/7. I better prepare to batten down the hatches now as this is
going to get ugly. Esp. tomorrow when I spring this on the older players
in my area. I personally have mixed feelings about this set of rules
changes, the dominant one being uneasiness. It would have been nice if
we would have had a month or so to digest this, per the normal rules of
introducing errata.
Okay...having said that, I'll hold off on commentary about specific
rulings until later, for the most part. In the meantime, I'm going to
have to ask some of the more obvious questions that I'm going to expect
to get asked tomorrow, the queries for clarifications and reasonings.
> Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
> * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this.
> * Disarm (a vampire can have only one).
> * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one).
Can multiples of these be played at one time?
If so, is the damage from Pulled Fangs cumulative? (i.e., each Pulled
Fangs card played gives an additional point of damage but each one after
the first is discarded, not put on the vampire)
If not (to either of the above), can the damage from Pulled Fangs be
made aggravated again? (*grin* sorry, had to ask)
> * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during
> the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is
> ended prior to the press step).
Why was this done?
The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the Dawn Op/Skin
of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the cost was higher.
There's pros and cons with the prior DotB and S:CE. On one hand, the
prior wording allows a vampire to damge an opposing minion regardless of
S:CE. On the other, it allows a vampire to stack 'em up and then S:CE
for no risk. But as I mentioned above, I've never seen someone
successfully abuse this.
> * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth.
What was the need here?
Presence is already strong enough at pool gain/management. I know there
was a desire to make it consistent with the Dominate cards that did the
same thing (GtU and SM) but I thought that Presence being weaker at it
wasn't a bad thing.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
Prince/Priscus of Metro Detroit, MI
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sorrow
> > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
> Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this.
Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of
these and at the end of the round, even if you S:CE, you are taking
that damge. Stack enough, and even a high cap vamp will go to
torpor and there is nothing that can be done about it. The +HD given
to the bestial vamp does nothing against Fortitude, which many of
the vamps with Ani have.
> > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one).
> > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one).
> Can multiples of these be played at one time?
I believe the wording is going to be so that you can only ever use/
play *one* per round/combat.
> > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during
> > the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is
> > ended prior to the press step).
> Why was this done?
See my example of a DotB deck above. There have been several that
have shown it's face around here.
> There's pros and cons with the prior DotB and S:CE. On one hand, the
> prior wording allows a vampire to damge an opposing minion regardless of
> S:CE. On the other, it allows a vampire to stack 'em up and then S:CE
> for no risk. But as I mentioned above, I've never seen someone
> successfully abuse this.
We have.
Alot.
Sorrow
---
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kindred_historian
my Legacy of Pander deck that won the Greensboro tourney.
Of course I have a feeling these Erratas are going to have a much
bigger impact than fixing a couple broken cards. I expect this thread
to grow very quickly. I will step back and wait out the huge drawing
out the beast, immortal grapple, etc debates that will soon follow.
See you in Atlanta,
Justin
--
Justin Lacey
Historian of Charlotte, NC
LSJ
Sabbat War cards are legal to use.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>> Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
>> * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
>
>Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this.
We saw some pretty vile concoctions down here - the 60-DotB deck with
Aid from bats, weenie ANI and skill cards was pretty nasty. It ground
to a halt a couple of times, but the fear factor was not pleasant.
>> * Disarm (a vampire can have only one).
>> * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one).
>
>Can multiples of these be played at one time?
i doubt it, if a vampire can only have one. I think there's a ruling
somewhere on "can't deliberately create effects that would violate
card text." I don't remember which though.
>If so, is the damage from Pulled Fangs cumulative? (i.e., each Pulled
>Fangs card played gives an additional point of damage but each one after
>the first is discarded, not put on the vampire)
That would seem silly. :)
>If not (to either of the above), can the damage from Pulled Fangs be
>made aggravated again? (*grin* sorry, had to ask)
...time to break out the Ventrue Skin of Steel/PF/Amaranth deck... :)
>> * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during
>> the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is
>> ended prior to the press step).
>
>Why was this done?
>
>The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the Dawn Op/Skin
>of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the cost was higher.
Dawn Op/DotB/Skin of Night is the gotcha, I think, since it uses two
disciplines found naturally on two clans. Actions you most want to
block tend to be bleeds, so if we look for ANI/FOR/dom, we get Sarisha
Veliku as the only natural. ANI/for/dom adds in Natalia and Faruq.
ANI/FOR adds in Joaquina and Gitane. FOR/ani/dom gives us Tim Crowley
and Dominique in the mix. ANI/for is on a 5, four 6's, and four 7's.
Slapping Dominate on an ANI/for or ANI/FOR vampire is not that
difficult, and then you can send an endless series of bleeds that your
opponent is either afraid to block, or doesn't dare try (for the guys
who have FOR). Unstoppable? Hardly. Unfun to deal with if you don't
have bounce? Yeah. I think it's an idea to get the game away from
"bounce-fest", where the poor bugger without Dominate or Auspex always
ends up being the bleed sinkhole.
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Noal McDonald
>> CHANGES TO THE RULEBOOK
>> * Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The
>> titles of prince and archbishop of the same city contest
>> each other, just as two titles of prince or two titles of
>> archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4]
>
> I liked the old "get into combat" rules introduced with Sabbat
> better. By the by, this ruling seems kind of silly.
I agree 100%.
While both signify a struggle for the rulership of the city, I really
prefer the original method. It made for interesting combat/vote decks.
> They are 2 vdifferent sects with 2 different ruling hierarchies.
> This rule is *almost* like saying just because there is a mayor
> of the city there cannot be a mob Don in that city as well...
Exactly. Struggling for the same title should be treated significantly
than struggling for sect control of a city.
>> * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the
>> errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the
>> Sabbat rules sheet has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires
>> can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same
>> reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving
>> two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize /
>> acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1]
>
> Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card.
However, the RPG loyalists will agree with this change. I'm kind of torn
on a game balance terms. My gut feeling is that rush combat decks need
all the help they can get.
> Before, it could only be used once per turn.
Wasn't that always the case? I don't know of any way to untap a location
other than normally.
> But now, especially with the prevelance of Sabbat in combat decks
> (some of the more brutal fighters are Sabbat), why bother including
> it?
This is where I'm torn the other way on game balance. Most combat decks
are mixed now to take advantage of better discipline mixes. I have a
problem with errata that turns a card into wallpaper. My gut instinct is
that's what's going to happen here.
The best change I could see would be that it could only be used when the
controller of Elysium owns a Camarilla vampire in the current combat.
Using it could symbolize the vampire running off to safety with
Camarilla elders.
> Now, there are many clans and deck types that no longer have
> access to decent Combat ends.
There's always Change of Target. Other than that, the only non-Cam clans
I can think of that don't have a current method of ending or preventing
combat are !Nosferatu, !Malkavians, Pander and Tzimisce. The rest have
Celerity, Chimerstry, Dominate, Protean or Presence.
New cards may make it easier for !Malks and Tzimice with their clan
disciplines. I doubt that the !Nossies will see any help since I don't
see there being a likelihood of seeing many new cards for the older,
more established discisplines.
> I'm not so sure this is such a good thing.
Me either. Too drastic.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
LSJ
> It would have been nice if
> we would have had a month or so to digest this, per the normal rules of
> introducing errata.
You do. It doesn't become official until the cards themselves are
legal for tournament play.
> > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one).
> > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one).
>
> Can multiples of these be played at one time?
No, since a vampire can have only one and you have to play it on the
vampire. (So you can't play multiples because after the first, the
target will already have one).
Jeff Dai
>> > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
>> > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
>> Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this.
> Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of
> these and at the end of the round, even if you S:CE, you are taking
> that damge. Stack enough, and even a high cap vamp will go to
> torpor and there is nothing that can be done about it. The +HD given
> to the bestial vamp does nothing against Fortitude, which many of
> the vamps with Ani have.
I've seen two versions of this deck that cause major damage to non-combat
decks and major headaches for the combat decks.
The first is pro/ani combo with 4-5 dotb in a combat followed by earth
meld to end the combat. Add fortitude for Dawn op and the combo is abusive.
The other is the pure animalism which uses 2-3 dotb (and sometimes a
terror frenzy) and then maneuvers to long with Aid from Bats and presses
to the next round and repeats the Aid from Bats until opponent is in
torpor.
The only way to prevent the latter deck from killing your vampire is to
stay out of combat (ie Obdience)
Both decks I've seen both run 40+ dotb in a 90 card deck.
Jeff Dai
Sorrow
> >> errata begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the
> >> Sabbat rules sheet has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires
> >> can call the referendum to burn the Elysium and, for the same
> >> reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end combat involving
> >> two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize /
> >> acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1]
> > Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card.
> However, the RPG loyalists will agree with this change. I'm kind of
> torn on a game balance terms. My gut feeling is that rush combat
> decks need all the help they can get.
But how many times has it been asserted that V:tes is based on V:tM,
it isn't V:tM. There are alot of things in the card game that don't apply
in the RPG.
> > Before, it could only be used once per turn.
> Wasn't that always the case? I don't know of any way to untap a
> location other than normally.
I was just pointing that out as one of it's balance issues. It wasn't
overpowered, IMO, because of that even though only Cam vamps
could call the vote to burn.
> > But now, especially with the prevelance of Sabbat in combat decks
> > (some of the more brutal fighters are Sabbat), why bother including
> > it?
> This is where I'm torn the other way on game balance. Most combat decks
> are mixed now to take advantage of better discipline mixes. I have a
> problem with errata that turns a card into wallpaper. My gut instinct is
> that's what's going to happen here.
I believe it will. Only time will tell, I guess.
> The best change I could see would be that it could only be used when the
> controller of Elysium owns a Camarilla vampire in the current combat.
> Using it could symbolize the vampire running off to safety with
> Camarilla elders.
Excellent alternative!
> > Now, there are many clans and deck types that no longer have
> > access to decent Combat ends.
> There's always Change of Target.
Yes, but this requires doesn't help the minion that isn't acting...
> Other than that, the only non-Cam clans I can think of that don't have
> a current method of ending or preventing combat are !Nosferatu,
> !Malkavians, Pander and Tzimisce.
> The rest have Celerity,
Can only end combat second round.
> Chimerstry,
Very expensive S:CE
> Dominate,
Reactionary only
> Protean or Presence.
These being the only 2 that are really at all cost effective.
> New cards may make it easier for !Malks and Tzimice with their clan
> disciplines. I doubt that the !Nossies will see any help since I don't
> see there being a likelihood of seeing many new cards for the older,
> more established discisplines.
Agreed.
It's just that the Elysium was a stand by for *any* non-combat deck.
Now, it's limited to just Cam on Cam combats. Really bad change,
IMO.
> > I'm not so sure this is such a good thing.
> Me either. Too drastic.
Indeed. And it is not as if this card broke the game or even combat.
There were many ways to get around the Elysium, even for non-Cam
clans.
Sorrow
---
no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force
no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust
no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders
now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes
now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies
James Coupe
> > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
> > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
>
> Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this.
Potentially, the cards within Sabbat War facilitate such. Others would
know better than I.
> > * Disarm (a vampire can have only one).
> > * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one).
>
> Can multiples of these be played at one time?
Presumably, no, because vampires can only have one.
> > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during
> > the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is
> > ended prior to the press step).
>
> Why was this done?
Partly, one assumes, to ease interpretation of the card for new players as
well as:
> The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the Dawn Op/Skin
> of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the cost was higher.
> There's pros and cons with the prior DotB and S:CE. On one hand, the
> prior wording allows a vampire to damge an opposing minion regardless of
> S:CE. On the other, it allows a vampire to stack 'em up and then S:CE
> for no risk. But as I mentioned above, I've never seen someone
> successfully abuse this.
True. I thought it provided a nice anti-S:CE bite, myself.
> > * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth.
>
> What was the need here?
It generally seems to have been the interpretation for it for a long time
- JOL played with it as such, for example.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him.
I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin
with him and the way he makes me feel?"
James Coupe
> controller of Elysium owns a Camarilla vampire in the current combat.
> Using it could symbolize the vampire running off to safety with
> Camarilla elders.
That seems reasonable.
"One of the vampires in combat must be a member of the Camarilla." as a
simple ruling.
Noal McDonald
>> The Dawn Op/DotB/Illusions combo isn't any worse than the
>> Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control combo. In fact, the
> cost was higher.
>
> Dawn Op/DotB/Skin of Night is the gotcha, I think, since it
> uses two disciplines found naturally on two clans.
That's no the problem. The issue I see is that both examples above
inflict a point of aggravated damage before you even get to maneuvers
with virtually no risk to the acting vampire.
Even with Dawn Op/DotB in DotB's current form, you still don't need Skin
of Night. (although it helps) You can still get away with it with a
anything from a simple Dodge to Skin of Steel to a Terror Frenzy/Fake
Out/Far Fatuus. However, there's still a risk from environmental damage.
> Actions you most want to block tend to be bleeds,
With all respect Derek (and there's a lot of it), that statement is so
simplistic as to be completely ludicrous. I don't know about you, but I
take every opportunity to block a Sensory Dep action against me. And
since Ravnos have no problem coming up with Animalism and Fortitude,
they can still be very dangerous.
Btw, if you want to talk bleeds, you don't need Dominate. Ravnos and
Gangrel alike can use Tier of Souls, Freak Drive, Computer Hacking for a
bleed of 3 and the removal of a blood from a vampire for a net blood
cost of zero.
Don't get me wrong, the Dawn Op/DotB combo is still powerful and I don't
think selling this particular ruling will be teriibly difficult. I was
just suprised that it was being issued.
Regards,
Noal
Noal McDonald
> You do. It doesn't become official until the cards themselves are
> legal for tournament play.
So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until
December?
Noal
legb...@my-deja.com
Scott, old chap, you, like, totally rule. And so do all the other rules
team brethren whose Secret Identities, even in the rare cases where i
know them, shall forever remain undisclosed. Sniff.
Legbiter, fresh from a home-made Marguerita, two bottles of Spanish
plonk, astral sex with a gorgeous russian girly and beating Michael and
Sarah AGAIN with the Cheapass weenie vote/allies deck [now 14/20 VP and
4/5 games].
Buffer line to stop message tailing
Another one, just in
Noal McDonald
Not true. Preternatural Evasion. Requires CEL, though.
>> Chimerstry,
>
> Very expensive S:CE
Name a Chimerstry card that's not. *grin*
>> Dominate,
>
> Reactionary only
True of Obedience, not true of Seduction and Sleeping Mind.
Robert Goudie
news:Q8jK5.9785$mC.6...@monger.newsread.com...
> > > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
> > > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
> > Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this.
>
> Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of
We've seen plenty of abuse in Los Angeles. Sick sick decks. Whacking
Justicars without even a card played in response. Sad. A very welcome
change.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
James Coupe
>
> December?
As per standard rules, since SW is being released in the last half of
October, sanctioned tournaments don't happen until December. The European
Championships appear to have special dispensation from White Wolf, making
a mockery of the whole thing. If there are good reasons why such delays
occur, they should occur regardless. If there are not good reasons why
such delays occur, they should not occur in the first place.
Similarly, playtesters cannot play until one month after the release date,
in sanctioned tournaments. (This isn't relevant *here*, but *is* relevant
if you get a set released in the first half of the month, when it becomes
legal at the start of the following month e.g. first half of June, legal
in July *but* for the first few days of July, all playtesters are
prohibited from playing in tournaments.)
Joshua Duffin
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> ERRATA/RULINGS/CLARIFICATIONS
>
[snip]
> Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
>
> * Blood of Acid (one per round).
> * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
> * Disarm (a vampire can have only one).
> * Immortal Grapple (one per round).
> * Pulled Fangs (a vampire can have only one).
> * Terror Frenzy at superior (one per combat).
Dayyum!
Clearly these rulings are due to the overpowering dominance
of combat decks at every tournament, right? ;-)
No, but seriously, these are all pretty sensible, even
though it's been awfully damn difficult to make any of
them into an abusive deck.
Even though the card text will probably answer this question,
I have to ask anyway cause I'm curious: can both vamps in
a combat play an Immortal Grapple, or only one of them?
Looks like I am no longer needing to augment my collection
of DotBs... which is sad since for the rewording to exist
there must be DotBs in Sabbat War. :-(
> * Cardinal Sin: Insubordination: is played by the (possibly tapped)
Ab/P/C
> who was just in combat.
> * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during the
press
> step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is ended prior to
the
> press step).
> * Enchant Kindred: the superior action is at +1 stealth.
> * Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool.
> * Mob Connections: can tap to give a press to a *minion* (not just a
vampire)
> you control.
> * War Party: is playable by a Priscus (and still not playable *on* a
Priscus).
Misdirection: nice one. I just threw together a fairly
rude presence-weenie misdirection bleed deck the other week,
and it's still been nasty after all these years...
DotB: unstackable, I'm not sure why this change is necessary.
Seems to me like it's a perfectly fitting punishment for
S:CEing your way to safety. Unless errata to Majesty and
Earth Meld is next. ;-)
looking forward to tomorrow's prerelease party,
Josh
archbishop of washington dc
Steve Bucy
Sorrow wrote in message ...
>> > Several combat cards have been reworded not to be stackable:
>> > * Drawing Out the Beast (one per combat).
>> Why was this done? I don't recall anyone successfully abusing this.
>
>Then you've never played against a DotB deck. Stack 3, 4, 5+ of
>these and at the end of the round, even if you S:CE, you are taking
>that damge. Stack enough, and even a high cap vamp will go to
>torpor and there is nothing that can be done about it. The +HD given
>to the bestial vamp does nothing against Fortitude, which many of
>the vamps with Ani have.
This was the type I made. 50 or so DotB, Skin of Steel, Lots of Govern the
Unalighned, and sprinkling of Deflection, Blood Doll, Grave Robbing, and
Sudden Reversal. I took out lots of 6 to 8 capacity vampires. Pretty nasty.
It was almost sure to at least foul up my prey.
Steve Bucy,
-
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
Sorrow
> > Can only end combat second round.
> Not true. Preternatural Evasion. Requires CEL, though.
Noted.
> >> Chimerstry,
> > Very expensive S:CE
> Name a Chimerstry card that's not. *grin*
Heh
> >> Dominate,
> > Reactionary only
> True of Obedience, not true of Seduction and Sleeping Mind.
But these doen't preclude combat as Obedience and S:CE does.
These only make blocking more difficult.
Sorrow
---
I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his
ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the
balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't
wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us
Robert Goudie
news:8tcdgq$ueb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Wow. This is huge. This is the most drastic set of errata I've seen
> since 7/7. I better prepare to batten down the hatches now as this is
> going to get ugly. Esp. tomorrow when I spring this on the older players
> in my area. I personally have mixed feelings about this set of rules
> changes, the dominant one being uneasiness.
Change is almost always disruptive. However, there are some important
differences with this stuff compared to 7/7. Hopefully these will be
received better:
1. Multiple changes for ease of teaching new players. (Referendum and
Strength!)
2. Changes will be put on new cards. (Rather than sheets of errata and
confused new players, concerns of 7/7 opponents, you get changes on actual
cards.)
3. LSJ acted on player concerns. (The basis for some of the 7/7 errata was
in newsgroup discussions dating back to the beginning of the game (Wake, for
example). The Misdirection and Drawing Out The Beast concerns have been
raised in the last year and a half and hopefully show some responsiveness by
LSJ.
Let's hold our collective breath's, Noal. I'm so excited about the new set
I'd hate to waste a bunch of time arguing in newsgroup threads.
Joe C.
100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Noal McDonald wrote:
> >
> > So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until
> > December?
>
> As per standard rules, since SW is being released in the last half of
> October, sanctioned tournaments don't happen until December. The
> European Championships appear to have special dispensation from White
> Wolf, making a mockery of the whole thing. If there are good reasons
> why such delays occur, they should occur regardless.
That's only for Contructed. Limited format is sanctioned, with whatever
cards you supply. Sealed SW should be santioned per the guildines given
before December. Playtesters still will not be able to play in
sanctioned SW Limited until December.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Joe Churchill
-
V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC
Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter
www.warghoul.com
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > You do. It doesn't become official until the cards themselves are
> > legal for tournament play.
>
> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until
> December?
No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry
about the changes - you just read card text.
Eric Pettersen
> > * Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the errata
> > begun in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the Sabbat rules sheet
> > has been extended. Only Camarilla vampires can call the referendum
> > to burn the Elysium and, for the same reason, the Elysium can only be
> > tapped to end combat involving two Camarilla vampires. Other minions
> > do not recognize / acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1]
>
> Woah. This ruling waaaay underpowers the card. Before, it could only
> be used once per turn. That made the card pretty balanced. But now,
> especially with the prevelance of Sabbat in combat decks (some of the
> more brutal fighters are Sabbat), why bother including it? Now, there
> are many clans and deck types that no longer have access to decent Combat
> ends. I'm not so sure this is such a good thing.
I disagree. Elysium was way overpowered before. It's existence precluded
"casual" combat decks entirely, i.e. a deck that only tries to get into
combat once a turn at most (and more like once every other turn or so)
and does other things the remainder of the time.
Elysium was particularly bad when used by Cam clans that had natural access
to S:CE and votes (Toreador, Ventrue). Ventrue in particular were virtually
immune to combat with Elysium in play. I think the change is good.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
Noal McDonald
>> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned
>> until December?
>
> No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry
> about the changes - you just read card text.
Just so we're clear, this has real impact for me as I'm planning a
sealed deck Sabbat War tournament on November 19th.
Errata is only part of my concerns. If it's non-sanctioned, I might as
well use the most recent errata. Esp. since, being sealed deck, they
haven't built a deck and spent months tweaking it, only to have DotB's
change dash their hopes. I won't be using NJL errata as I already
advertised that official errata would be used.
Another thing is if it's not sanctioned, I don't have to prohibit
playtesters from playing. I understand the reasoning for constructed
decks, as playtesters will have an advantage with advanced planning.
Sealed decks tournaments level the playing field, regardless of advance
knowledge, I should think.
(For others, ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.)
But most importantly is prize support. I wanted to strike while the
iron's hot. Seems to me the best time to promote Sabbat War is right
after it's been released. I'd hate to have a lack of prize support leave
a sour taste in peoples' mouths. (Yes, I sent a notice to Tim Avers
almost a month ago.) Can I still expect prize support even if sealed
deck Sabbat War tournaments are not sanctioned until December?
Regards,
Noal McDonald
Noal McDonald
> Noal McDonald wrote:
>> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until
>> December?
>
> No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry
> about the changes - you just read card text.
Incorrect, according to the VEKN tournament rules on the White Wolf web
page:
4.3. New Releases
New cards are allowed in Limited tournament play immediately, including
before the release date (for example, at a Prerelease tournament).
I guess I should still expect normal prize support, then. I'll still
have to prohibit playtesters from participating, though. Personally, I
think that's a goofy rule for sealed deck, but a rule's a rule.
Reyda
> * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done during the press
> step (and therefore will not occur if the combat is ended prior to the
> press step
Yahoooooooo !!!
Take this, lousy gangrels !
reyda
cofoundator of "Stop those Gangrel Now"
Joe C.
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Noal McDonald wrote:
> >> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until
> >> December?
> >
> > No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry
> > about the changes - you just read card text.
>
> Incorrect, according to the VEKN tournament rules on the White Wolf
> web page:
>
Noal,
I believe he was saying yes, since you asked "Can't Be." "No" would
mean they can be sanctioned.
Joe
-
V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC
Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter
www.warghoul.com
Halcyan 2
>ERRATA/RULINGS/CLARIFICATIONS
<snipped>
>* Misdirection: taps 1 minion and costs 1 pool.
I personally really like this change. Really helps level the playing field vs.
those weenie decks that play Misdirection every turn. But on the other hand,
Misdirection seems a little wall-papered now.
>* Mob Connections: can tap to give a press to a *minion* (not just a vampire)
> you control.
Although most people consider this an insignificant change, it does make things
more interesting (and it's not just because I actually use allies). Most
notable, Mob Connections might see more use with Renegade Garous, Muddled
Vampire Hunters, and War Ghouls.
>* Contesting Cities: A city can have only one ruler. The titles of prince
> and archbishop of the same city contest each other, just as two titles of
> prince or two titles of archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4]
Like other people, I really don't like this new ruling. I really liked the old
combat rule and I would really like to see that rule come back and replace this
new one.
With all the vampires currently known, there are already 3 conflicts: Chicago,
Atlanta, and Houston. Thus it would be difficult for any decks that wants to
include any such pairs.
>* Elysium: The Arboretum: while not reprinted in the set, the errata begun
> in the [RTR 10-NOV-1995] and printed in the Sabbat rules sheet has been
> extended. Only Camarilla vampires can call the referendum to burn the
> Elysium and, for the same reason, the Elysium can only be tapped to end
> combat involving two Camarilla vampires. Other minions do not recognize /
> acknowledge the Elysium. [10.1]
Elysium seems too wall-papered now. Such a restriction makes it too specific
for general use.
I have to admit that overall, there are a lot of changes I like. I don't mind
Caitlin, Legacy of Pander, or Drawing out the Beast since it sort of balances
things (and I never use those anyway).
Just my opinion...
Halcyan 2
Noal McDonald
>>>> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until
>>>> December?
>>>
>>> No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry
>>> about the changes - you just read card text.
>>
>> Incorrect, according to the VEKN tournament rules on the White Wolf
>> web page:
>
> mean they can be sanctioned.
Ah, thanks. You're probably correct, Joe. Serves me for using a negative
asumption in a question.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Noal McDonald
> With all the vampires currently known, there are already
> 3 conflicts: Chicago, Atlanta, and Houston.
Actually 4; Miami. Both title holders are Malks.
Makes sense, really. The whole Elian Gonzalez thing was enough to drive
even the undead crazy.
LSJ
> >> So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned
> >> until December?
> >
> > No. But if you're doing sealed deck, then you don't have to worry
> > about the changes - you just read card text.
>
> Just so we're clear, this has real impact for me as I'm planning a
> sealed deck Sabbat War tournament on November 19th.
To re-iterate what was pointed out in another post, my "no"
above was a response to your "SW sealed tourneys can't be sanctioned",
meaning that "no, in fact they can be".
> Errata is only part of my concerns. If it's non-sanctioned, I might as
> well use the most recent errata. Esp. since, being sealed deck, they
Well, this thread has so far been about the changes found in Sabbat
War, which aren't errata (as they are actually printed - a distinction
that some have felt was a rather large distinction in the past).
> haven't built a deck and spent months tweaking it, only to have DotB's
> change dash their hopes. I won't be using NJL errata as I already
Exactly the reason that errata and new card sets are delayed for
constructed tournaments in general.
> advertised that official errata would be used.
>
> Another thing is if it's not sanctioned, I don't have to prohibit
> playtesters from playing. I understand the reasoning for constructed
> decks, as playtesters will have an advantage with advanced planning.
> Sealed decks tournaments level the playing field, regardless of
> advance knowledge, I should think.
Could be. It hasn't come up before, though.
> But most importantly is prize support. I wanted to strike while the
> iron's hot. Seems to me the best time to promote Sabbat War is right
> after it's been released. I'd hate to have a lack of prize support
> leave a sour taste in peoples' mouths. (Yes, I sent a notice to Tim
> Avers almost a month ago.) Can I still expect prize support even if
> sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments are not sanctioned until December?
Pre-release events should receive support.
Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which
are sanctionable immediately).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ
> OTHER CHANGES
> Miscellaneous:
Left two off this list by mistake:
* Aggressive Tactics: no longer requires a ready Sabbat vampire.
* Orgy of Blood: no longer requires a ready Sabbat vampire.
hamd...@my-deja.com
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Sorrow wrote:
> > > Miscellaneous:
> > > * Drawing Out the Beast: damage from the superior is done
> > > during the press step (and therefore will not occur if the combat
> >
> > So if the opposing vamp plays DotB and your vamp S:CE, your
> > vamp will not take damage from the DotB?
>
> Correct.
This is bad because it now adds more power to S:CE and allows presence
heavy vampires to intercept dawn op / dotb decks.
Also, the only way to get damage past a S:CE now is with Immortal
Grapple (rare at best) or Thoughts Betrayed (very expensive). The whole
Dawn Op / DotB deck concept goes in the bin, unless you can include a
Pysche! (which only 1 vampire I can think of can currently do -
Stanislava - coz it needs CEL ANI and for).
In fact, it now makes it rediculously easy to produce a Presence
Bleed / Vote deck. Even if you get intercepted, you can just keep out
of range (Fake out et al) and Majesty. I think we are going to see a
lot less Ravnos decks from now on!
DH
Noal McDonald
> Well, this thread has so far been about the changes found in
> Sabbat War, which aren't errata (as they are actually printed
> - a distinction that some have felt was a rather large
> distinction in the past).
Not sure who those "some" might be. *whistles innocently*
Btw, the changes were very well received and the re-printing of cards
with severe text changes were met with a _lot_ of gratitude here in NJL
land. I think our concerns with all of them have finally been put to
rest. Esp. since the majority of the NJL rules team was present with
people from our respective playgroups.
And that's a good thing. (TM)
We also had long conversations about agg damage and vote pushing, but
I'll save that story for another day.
>> Another thing is if it's not sanctioned, I don't have to prohibit
>> playtesters from playing. I understand the reasoning for constructed
>> decks, as playtesters will have an advantage with advanced planning.
>> Sealed decks tournaments level the playing field, regardless of
>> advance knowledge, I should think.
>
> Could be. It hasn't come up before, though.
Well, it is an issue now...at least for me, anyway. Now that I'm running
more VEKN tournaments, I'm noticing a lot of things in the tournament
rules that I'd never noticed before. I'd really like an exception to the
playtesters prohibition for sealed deck tournaments to be considered.
> Pre-release events should receive support.
*cough*could*cough*should*cough*didn't*cough*
> Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which
> are sanctionable immediately).
Hoplefully a damned sight better than the support that I saw today.
Otherwise, all of this is going to be moot. If I, personally, supply the
prizes again, I'll supply the tournament rules. Esp. since I'm already
taking a monetary loss by supplying the boosters for less than I'm
paying for them.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
LSJ
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Noal McDonald wrote:
> >
> > So...sealed deck Sabbat War tournaments can't be sanctioned until
> > December?
>
> As per standard rules, since SW is being released in the last half of
> October, sanctioned tournaments don't happen until December. The European
> Championships appear to have special dispensation from White Wolf, making
> a mockery of the whole thing. If there are good reasons why such delays
> occur, they should occur regardless. If there are not good reasons why
> such delays occur, they should not occur in the first place.
The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used
to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always
using the first of the month is done so that players can easily
remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets.
With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date
of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed
appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and
well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
James Coupe
> The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used
> to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always
> using the first of the month is done so that players can easily
> remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets.
>
> With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date
> of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed
> appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and
> well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game.
So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the
new sets and don't include the cards. Cool.
LSJ
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote:
>
> > The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used
> > to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always
> > using the first of the month is done so that players can easily
> > remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets.
> >
> > With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date
> > of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed
> > appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and
> > well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game.
>
> So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the
> new sets and don't include the cards. Cool.
The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels by
which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW.
This seems to be blown out of proportion.
Frederick Scott
> James Coupe wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote:
> >
> > > The "official" delay period is 2 to 5 weeks - the variation being used
> > > to have the "activation" date fall on the first of the month. Always
> > > using the first of the month is done so that players can easily
> > > remember/calculate the "activation" date for new sets.
> > >
> > > With so few "new sets" being released for V:TES lately, and with the date
> > > of the EC falling withing the 2 to 5 week period already, it seemed
> > > appropriate to overlook the "fall on 1st" rule for such a large (and
> > > well-advertised) event in order to help promote the revival of the game.
> >
> > So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the
> > new sets and don't include the cards. Cool.
>
> The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels by
> which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW.
>
> This seems to be blown out of proportion.
I don't know. I once beat up the WotC Magic netrep about doing the same
thing WRT to the Magic U.S. National Championship and one of their June
expansions. He ultimately admitted (more or less) that it was a mistake to
break discipline.
Why have a rule like this if you're just going turn around and break it
when it's slightly inconvenient? I suppose it's a minor transgression and
I can see a striking incentive in this case. But planting that seed of doubt
and/or causing that extra layer of confusion (players often misunderstand
things like this even when there's never an exception made) about it just
doesn't seem worth it, IMHO.
Fred
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> Well, it is an issue now...at least for me, anyway. Now that I'm
running
> more VEKN tournaments, I'm noticing a lot of things in the tournament
> rules that I'd never noticed before. I'd really like an exception to
the
> playtesters prohibition for sealed deck tournaments to be considered.
Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were? If you
do, then please tell the rest of us. If you don't how would you
prohibit them?
> > Pre-release events should receive support.
>
> *cough*could*cough*should*cough*didn't*cough*
>
> > Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which
> > are sanctionable immediately).
>
> Hoplefully a damned sight better than the support that I saw today.
> Otherwise, all of this is going to be moot. If I, personally, supply
the
> prizes again, I'll supply the tournament rules. Esp. since I'm already
> taking a monetary loss by supplying the boosters for less than I'm
> paying for them.
Noal,
I am sure everyone who attended your pre-release party appreciates the
sacrifice you made to make sure it was a success. However, I don't
appreciate your constant whinig about how unappreciated you are.
Get over yourself.
Next time you hold a tournament, I'll send you a giant wooden cross; so
that way you can climb up on it and nail yourself to it. Then everyone
will know what a giant sacrifice you made for VTES.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Noal McDonald
> Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were?
In this area, yes.
> If you do, then please tell the rest of us.
You don't need to know who they are.
> However, I don't appreciate your constant whinig about how
> unappreciated you are.
> Get over yourself.
With all due respect, what little there is, fuck off, Norman. Nobody's
forcing you at gunpoint to read my posts.
This has nothing to do with being unappreciated. This has every thing to
do with going to bat for people that travel several hours and pay good
money to be in a tournament and should be able to reasonably expect
decent prize support when they do well.
> Next time you hold a tournament, I'll send you a giant wooden cross;
> so that way you can climb up on it and nail yourself to it. Then
> everyone will know what a giant sacrifice you made for VTES.
And I'll mail you a blow up sex doll so you'll finally get laid and lose
the fucking attitude.
> Comments Welcome,
How about removing the corncob from your ass?
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Frederick Scott
> > Well, it is an issue now...at least for me, anyway. Now that I'm running
>
> > more VEKN tournaments, I'm noticing a lot of things in the tournament
> > rules that I'd never noticed before. I'd really like an exception to
> > the playtesters prohibition for sealed deck tournaments to be
> considered.
>
> Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were? If you
> do, then please tell the rest of us. If you don't how would you
> prohibit them?
Noal wouldn't. Presumedly, they would prohibit themselves.
Failure to do so would be detected by VEKN staff (at least
LSJ and anyone at White Wolf who presumedly know the
identities of the playtesters) when their tournament scores
were processed for their ratings.
As for "what that means", I have to imagine he'd prefer
to have a greater player base. That's simple enough.
> > > Pre-release events should receive support.
> >
> > *cough*could*cough*should*cough*didn't*cough*
> >
> > > Sanctioned events should receive support (incl. SW sealed, which
> > > are sanctionable immediately).
> >
> > Hoplefully a damned sight better than the support that I saw today.
> > Otherwise, all of this is going to be moot. If I, personally, supply the
>
> > prizes again, I'll supply the tournament rules. Esp. since I'm already
> > taking a monetary loss by supplying the boosters for less than I'm
> > paying for them.
>
> Noal,
> I am sure everyone who attended your pre-release party appreciates the
> sacrifice you made to make sure it was a success. However, I don't
> appreciate your constant whinig about how unappreciated you are.
> Get over yourself.
Hmmm. A subjective opinion, I guess. His comments didn't
seem unreasonably bitter to me.
Fred
Xian
"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39FDEEA8...@netcom.com...
[snip opinion on Noal]
> Hmmm. A subjective opinion, I guess. His comments didn't
> seem unreasonably bitter to me.
As opposed to an objective opinion, Fred?
:)
Xian
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote:
> > Whatever that means. Do you know who all the playtesters were?
>
> In this area, yes.
>
> > If you do, then please tell the rest of us.
>
> You don't need to know who they are.
The rules team doesn't exist and neither do the playtesters!! In fact,
I'm pretty sure that we all don't exist! :)
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
Frederick Scott
Xian wrote:
Sometimes things are clearer if you say a redundant thing
reduntly to clarify them. Once in a while.
Fred
James Coupe
> > So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can play the
> > new sets and don't include the cards. Cool.
>
> The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels by
> which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW.
>
> This seems to be blown out of proportion.
It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the restriction then.
Why have restrictions if we just over-turn them when it's convenient for a
specific tournament?
James Coupe
> > > If you do, then please tell the rest of us.
> >
> > You don't need to know who they are.
>
> The rules team doesn't exist and neither do the playtesters!!
And I'm LSJ faking an American accent, I've told you all before.
Tim Fletcher
> > and archbishop of the same city contest each other, just as two titles
of
> > prince or two titles of archbishop of that city would. [6.3.4]
>
> Like other people, I really don't like this new ruling. I really liked the
old
> combat rule and I would really like to see that rule come back and replace
this
> new one.
This makes sense both in RPG and CCG terms. In V:TES, blood represents
influence whereas combat (sometimes) represents actual physical fisticuffs.
If Sabbat Cainite X wants to become Archbishop of Camarilla city A,
currently
controlled by Camarilla Kindred Y, he doesn't simply stroll in and start
ripping
heads off - it's a Camarilla city. Instead, he has to make it a Sabbat city
and
get first dibs on the Archbishopric. That's why it's called a Crusade, not a
Praxis
Seizure. He performs this feat by encouraging the Sabbat through his
influence (i.e.
spending blood) and the current Prince will have to drum up Camarilla
support to
keep the Sabbat out - using his influence.
In short, contesting represents a social/political/institutional battle,
whereas combat
represents, well, combat.
prea...@utanet.at
James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, LSJ wrote:
> > > So, new players who hear about the EC calculate the time they can
play the
> > > new sets and don't include the cards. Cool.
> >
> > The channels by which one hears about the EC are also the channels
by
> > which one hears that SW cards are legal in SW.
Correct.
> >
> > This seems to be blown out of proportion.
Correct.
:) Sorry Scott, couldn't resist... :)
Players being interested in the EC are going to take a look at the
EC-homepage (http://www.8ung.at/vtes). There they can find *all*
necessary information, including that Sabbat War cards are *explicitly*
allowed for this event.
I strongly doubt that there would be *any* players that just arrive to
the EC without checking prior what rules/formats are being used.
>
> It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the restriction
then.
Well, if you are convinced that *some* flexibility with a justified
cause and an important occasion should not be allowed, ok.
IMO, an exception to a rule is tolerable, if it is made clear that it's
an exception, and if the gains outweigh the losses by far.
Hm, I have a feeling that you percieve the world in two colours: either
black or white. If there is no room for you between these two, then you
won't have a hard time to find things which you cannot agree upon.
Is this really an issue for you or are you just disgruntled?
>
> Why have restrictions if we just over-turn them when it's convenient
for a
> specific tournament?
I believe that this discussed restriction was put in place a long time
ago for Magic, so that players in different countries would have the
chance to buy the new expansions, as they often didn't arrive until some
weeks after the release date (at least in Austria it was that way).
I also believe that this was taken over into the VEKN tournament rules,
as it seemed still to apply, I don't know. *shrug*
At the EC, on saturday, 25th, there is the draft event. Naturally
players get to keep their cards, so they can use them on Sunday, 26th,
for the constructed event. This way it's ensured that *all*
participants, regardless of their country, will have access to Sabbat
War cards.
I believe that eliminates the biggest concern for the restriction and
ensures more fun for players.
Carl
James Coupe
> > It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the restriction
> > then.
>
> Well, if you are convinced that *some* flexibility with a justified
> cause and an important occasion should not be allowed, ok.
The rules are there.
Breaking the rules when convenient doth not a good precedent set. Were
the rules to be worded in a such a way as to allow this varying, I would
not have a problem as anyone reading the rules would know about the
potential for it.
But which other rules shall we throw out when it becomes convenient for a
small number of people? "Oh, it's only 100 cards.... it won't matter."
prea...@utanet.at
<Pine.SOL.4.21.001101...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 prea...@utanet.at wrote:
> > > It just seems utterly, utterly pointless ever having the
restriction
> > > then.
> >
> > Well, if you are convinced that *some* flexibility with a justified
> > cause and an important occasion should not be allowed, ok.
>
> The rules are there.
It seems so.
> Breaking the rules when convenient doth not a good precedent set.
Were
> the rules to be worded in a such a way as to allow this varying, I
would
> not have a problem as anyone reading the rules would know about the
> potential for it.
>
> But which other rules shall we throw out when it becomes convenient
for a
> small number of people? "Oh, it's only 100 cards.... it won't
matter."
Graveyard-shift brings cynism along. Point prooven. ;)
Please read also my reply in that different thread with regard to EC and
Sabbat War.
I can tell you what. It's this "just because" opinion that did and does
a lot of harm to the game. In the past it has shown that someone who
only discerns between yes and no will eventually hurt the game under
certain conditions (including newbies, tournaments, etc.).
I know you for a long time, and in the overwhelming majority of
discussions you are being not constructive and are mostly expressing
negative feelings. I assume you just can't help it but to play devil's
advocate.
[sorry for being cynical myself]
You'll see, after the dust settles, this exception will have zero impact
upon the game and tournaments, other than players had a lot of fun.
Remember my words. :)
Andrew S. Davidson
>The rules are there.
And the rules are controlled by those in power. WW are sovereign in
this matter and can amend or ignore the rules as they see fit.
I expect that the rule was just copied from the DCI rules for Magic,
like most of the VEKN rules. I had occasion to check out the DCI's
general policy recently and discovered that they don't have one.
Magic uses a calendar month system. L5R uses a 30-day system.
Pokemon allows cards as soon as they are released. Other companies do
the same. All of Decipher's games, like Star Wars, allow cards in
tournments immediately on the release date. The same goes for
Shadowfist.
I can see a need for a delay in Magic where expansions full of broken
cards are being cranked out all the time and cards go out as well as
in. VTES' circumstances are different and, as we see, a rigid delay
period isn't appropriate. This is especially so in this case where
most of the cards are reprints of cards that first appeared years ago.
Btw, what is the status of the MRP cards during the waiting period?
If I put a SW Misdirection in my deck before the set is legal, is this
cheating? Is it treated as an old Misdirection or what?
>But which other rules shall we throw out when it becomes convenient for a
>small number of people? "Oh, it's only 100 cards.... it won't matter."
If you're talking about the 90-card limit, yes, that would be another
good rule to throw out too. If players want to put 100 cards in their
deck, why shouldn't they? Even Magic allows this.
Andrew
Xian
<3B5C3277D54DDE2B.AD3D13AD...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> If you're talking about the 90-card limit, yes, that would be another
> good rule to throw out too. If players want to put 100 cards in their
> deck, why shouldn't they? Even Magic allows this.
So where is the limit drawn then?
The card maximum is (as far as I can tell) built in to keep combat
decks from terrorizing everything else. Can you imagine how brutal one
of the archetypical rush decks if it was allowed to have double the
standard limit? 180 cards: 24 Immortal Grapple, 8 Haven Uncovered, 24
Bum's Rush, etc. Sure, you'd have draw problems every once in a while,
but as long as the proportions are kept the same, most of the time, it
should work out just fine. With this size deck, you could torporize
about 20 vampires easy, without having to even worry about running out
of cards.
Xian
--
But rain falls down and I feel cold
A cold that sleeps within my heart
It tears the earth and sun apart
--New Order, "Shellshock"
LSJ
> Btw, what is the status of the MRP cards during the waiting period?
> If I put a SW Misdirection in my deck before the set is legal, is this
> cheating? Is it treated as an old Misdirection or what?
Cards from the new set, new or reprinted, are not allowed in tournaments
in which they are not legal to use.
James Coupe
> You'll see, after the dust settles, this exception will have zero impact
> upon the game and tournaments, other than players had a lot of fun.
> Remember my words. :)
Can you *guarantee*, at *this* point in time, that *everyone* turning up
*will* know?
What about people who hear from friends? And friends who forget to
mention it? Can you *guarantee* that that's not possible?
James Coupe
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:23:02 +0000, James Coupe wrote:
>
> >The rules are there.
>
> And the rules are controlled by those in power. WW are sovereign in
> this matter and can amend or ignore the rules as they see fit.
Which makes having a written down canon of rules pointless if they are
overturned at a whim.
James Coupe
> In article
> <3B5C3277D54DDE2B.AD3D13AD...@lp.airnews.net>,
> a...@csi.com wrote:
> > If you're talking about the 90-card limit, yes, that would be another
> > good rule to throw out too. If players want to put 100 cards in their
> > deck, why shouldn't they? Even Magic allows this.
>
> So where is the limit drawn then?
He forgets that Other Games have a card limit. Jyhad does not and almost
certainly never will have.
Frederick Scott
> I can see a need for a delay in Magic where expansions full of broken
> cards are being cranked out all the time and cards go out as well as
> in. VTES' circumstances are different and, as we see, a rigid delay
> period isn't appropriate. This is especially so in this case where
> most of the cards are reprints of cards that first appeared years ago.
Some form of delay is necessary because the cards are released unevenly.
It's not very cute to have to play against people who have scads of
new cards if your source hasn't delivered your cards yet. The rule
in the DCI for Magic was never invented or intended as a waiting period
to ferret out broken cards. If it were, they'd need a couple of years,
not 15-45 days...
Fred
Noal McDonald
>> And the rules are controlled by those in power. WW are sovereign
>> in this matter and can amend or ignore the rules as they see fit.
>
> Which makes having a written down canon of rules pointless if they
> are overturned at a whim.
I really have to agree with James on this one.
VEKN predates White Wolf's involvement in VTES, and it disturbs me
greatly that they are choosing to ignore one of the tournament rules
because it suits them. If they are given leave to ignore any of the
tournament rules for any reason, no matter how compelling, what kind of
a signal does it send to other tournament organizers?
If the rule is not important enough to be enforced 100% of the time, why
is it there?
Personally, I'd like to see the prohibition against playtesters
participating in sanctioned tournaments for 30 days after a release date
lifted for sealed (and possibly draft) tournaments as they're still on a
level playing field with other participants.
Perhaps there needs to be a discussion about some of the tournament
rules, why they are there and whether they really need to be.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
Prince of Metro Detroit, MI
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Gomi no Sensei
James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 prea...@utanet.at wrote:
>> You'll see, after the dust settles, this exception will have zero impact
>> upon the game and tournaments, other than players had a lot of fun.
>> Remember my words. :)
>Can you *guarantee*, at *this* point in time, that *everyone* turning up
>*will* know?
>
>What about people who hear from friends? And friends who forget to
>mention it? Can you *guarantee* that that's not possible?
Yes. Yes I can.
My Spooky Powers over both Time and Space are legendary.
gomi
okay, so maybe i can't
--
you say they taught you how to read and write
yeah, they taught you how to count
i say they taught you how to buy and sell
your own body by the pound
prea...@utanet.at
<084382BEC96345A7.7D32DBED...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 22:14:54 GMT, prea...@utanet.at wrote:
>
> >Players being interested in the EC are going to take a look at the
> >EC-homepage (http://www.8ung.at/vtes). There they can find *all*
> >necessary information
>
>
> 1. It says that cards will be marked to prevent cheating during the
> draft. How? I ask because I dislike mutilating cards and often bring
> sleeves for drafts
Cards will not be mutilated, they will be marked in a way that we (the
judges) can recognise it. Let's just say, it will be invisible marking
for all other purposes. For reasons quite clear we cannot tell which way
we are going to mark the cards. :)
> 2. What is the prize?
Finalists get cool plagues (as seen on the HP from last years prizes),
the European Champion will get either a Huge engraved Chalice or an
exquisitely dagger, with an engraved blade. We haven't decided yet,
still waiting for the pieces to look at. It's an question of style right
now. And of course lots of Sabbat War. :)
>
> 3. Last year's winner, Martin Weinmayer, used the Tremere with lots
> of equipment. This seems to run counter to the received wisdom here
> that neither are effective. What gives?
I often get the impression that play-styles differ *a lot* around the
globe. Possibly Martin can handle equipment very well. Really don't
know.
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote:
> > > > If you do, then please tell the rest of us.
> > >
> > > You don't need to know who they are.
> >
> > The rules team doesn't exist and neither do the playtesters!!
>
> And I'm LSJ faking an American accent, I've told you all before.
>
It is pronounced "y'all" not "you all". We are south of the
Mason-Dixon.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Xian
<prea...@utanet.at> wrote in message news:8tvf8a$597$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > 2. What is the prize?
>
> Finalists get cool plagues (as seen on the HP from last years prizes),
I'm sure that this is simply a typo (or a transliteration error or something),
but I wish they gave that away at all the tournaments.
Finalist: "Ah, shoot. I was the first ousted, but you said there were prizes
for each finalist, right? What do I win?"
Judge: "You have your choice from among 5 different plagues."
Finalist: "Not plaques?"
Judge: "Nope. Plagues. We have one for each of the finalists, and the
winner of the tournament gets an additional bonus of a specially-prepared
military-grade vial of anthrax injected directly into his bloodstream! For
you, we have bubonic, influenza...but those are only the most popular...we
have some more exotic ones as well...why don't you take a look in my bag
here?"
Finalist: "You sure that wasn't supposed to be a plaque?"
Sorry. I must be a little loopier on lack of sleep than I thought.
Xian
Xian
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:C6100D8693713ECC.32002A3E...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:26:50 -0600, Xian wrote:
>
> >You think Majesty is a combat defense?
>
> It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense
> against combat?
Majesty (and by extension, S:CE) is *not* an effective defense against a
serious combat deck. Any deck packing Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed,
Psyche, and to a lesser extent, Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, Dog Pack, and
Telepathic Tracking, will run roughshod over a deck that relies solely on
Majesty.
Xian
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:26:50 -0600, Xian wrote:
>
>>You think Majesty is a combat defense?
>
>It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense
>against combat?
OK, so you put 8 Majesty in your Presence deck.
Against Potence IG combat, it's a card that sits there in your hand
while you hope your opponent doesn't draw up an IG, and while all your
vampires die at the POT deck's whim.
Against any other form of dedicated combat, it will save your vamps
for the first few times, and then they will begin dying with
reasonably alarming regularity, unless you've been able to oust that
person.
Against light combat, it will keep your vamps alive since you probably
won't get into combat with any real degree of regularity - so you just
save the Majesty for when they pull out the nifty strikes.
So in one sense, it's a combat defense. But if you REALLY want combat
defense, you're going to need to focus a lot more on things like
maneuvers and prevention.
-- Derek
Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Andrew S. Davidson
>Players being interested in the EC are going to take a look at the
>EC-homepage (http://www.8ung.at/vtes). There they can find *all*
>necessary information
I've just looked at this and have some questions:
1. It says that cards will be marked to prevent cheating during the
draft. How? I ask because I dislike mutilating cards and often bring
sleeves for drafts
2. What is the prize?
3. Last year's winner, Martin Weinmayer, used the Tremere with lots
of equipment. This seems to run counter to the received wisdom here
that neither are effective. What gives?
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>Some form of delay is necessary because the cards are released unevenly.
>It's not very cute to have to play against people who have scads of
>new cards if your source hasn't delivered your cards yet. The rule
>in the DCI for Magic was never invented or intended as a waiting period
>to ferret out broken cards. If it were, they'd need a couple of years,
>not 15-45 days...
Who cares why Magic does what it does? Other games show that a
waiting period is not necessary. The whole point of an official
release date is to ensure that cards go on sale simultaneously and so,
in principle, are equally available to everyone. Adding a buffer
period on top of that is redundant.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>So where is the limit drawn then?
>
>The card maximum is (as far as I can tell) built in to keep combat
>decks from terrorizing everything else.
My impression is that it's there to make sure that the game finishes.
You don't need this in a tournament though as there are formal time
limits.
Combat decks are held in check by other factors, e.g. defense cards
like Majesty. Overall, they seem to be hard to build and play and so
don't need the handicap of an arbitrary card limit too.
Andrew
Frederick Scott
>
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:07:30 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >Some form of delay is necessary because the cards are released unevenly.
> >It's not very cute to have to play against people who have scads of
> >new cards if your source hasn't delivered your cards yet. The rule
> >in the DCI for Magic was never invented or intended as a waiting period
> >to ferret out broken cards. If it were, they'd need a couple of years,
> >not 15-45 days...
>
> Who cares why Magic does what it does?
Who cares, indeed? No, I don't think any game needs to do their tournaments
just because another game uses a rule. However...
> Other games show that a waiting period is not necessary.
I don't agree it shows anything of the sort. It may be some sort of value
judgment or perhaps "release day" represents something different in the
case of the other games. In any event, I repeat: it sucks to play against
people who have their new cards when you don't. So every game that features
serious tournament play should have a buffer period for purposes of fairness.
> The whole point of an official release date is to ensure that cards go on
> sale simultaneously and so, in principle, are equally available to everyone.
I don't think that's exactly the reason, no. I believe it's about fairness
to the distributors and retailers they serve. So the manufacturer does not
have to cope with charges of favoritism because they can't possibly coordinate
deliveries to every point on the globe. By the time this filters down to the
players - as is embarrassingly clear by the various stories we've heard here -
any semblance of such fairness is out the window.
> Adding a buffer period on top of that is redundant.
Absolutely false. Adding a buffer period on top of that is something that
actually works. Besides which, it also gives players a bit of time to start
testing decks, which is also good.
Fred
Xian
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:3FE66F26D7DB3D46.5091503B...@lp.airnews.net...
[max library limit]
> My impression is that it's there to make sure that the game finishes.
> You don't need this in a tournament though as there are formal time
> limits.
No, if that wasn't required in tournaments, I could build an insanely
efficient combat deck packing enough cards to last through a *10*-player game.
Though I hope that no one actually has *that* many Immortal Grapples...
Correction. I hope that someone does have that many, and that they regularly
are forced to endure 10-player games. Icky.
> Combat decks are held in check by other factors, e.g. defense cards
> like Majesty.
You think Majesty is a combat defense? At this rate, I don't even need to
feed you to the wolves, you seem intent on doing it yourself...
> Overall, they seem to be hard to build and play and so
> don't need the handicap of an arbitrary card limit too.
Not all that hard to build, once you've seen a couple of good, solid
templates. "Hard to play" isn't really one of those...thingies...that should
be considered a limiting factor on whether or not a tournament deck needs to
be brought in line with its competitors.
As I see it:
*Max card limit reigns in combat decks.
*Action Modifier restrictions & Stealth/Intercept restrictions reign in
Stealth & Bleed decks
*Vote push rules bring vote deck into line.
*NRA keeps Tap & Bleed sane.
*Golden Rule of Card ownership modified for "stealing" keeps Corruption
viable, if still slightly sketchy...as it's usually just directed at the prey.
I don't think I missed any of the major strategies, did I?
Xian
--
I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold.
A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart.
--_Shellshock_, New Order
www.waste.org/~xian
Andrew S. Davidson
>You think Majesty is a combat defense?
It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense
against combat?
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>it sucks to play against people who have their new cards when you don't.
>So every game that features serious tournament play should have a buffer
>period for purposes of fairness.
It sucks to be told that you can't play with your new cards (or your
old cards too). And the fairness argument is bogus. The release date
is the same for everyone and, in a trading-card game, getting hold of
the cards you want is meant to be challenging. There's lots of cards
that I don't have for this and other CCG. VTES players have probably
been spoilt by all the cheap Jyhad boxes. You'll find things
different when you're paying full price for regular new expansions.
My play group has bought a box of SW each and that's probably all that
we'll buy. This leaves us far short of a set - we won't even have
many commons. Is this fair? The question isn't even worth asking -
it's the nature of the game.
>Absolutely false. Adding a buffer period on top of that is something that
>actually works.
It doesn't work. It's ridiculous to sell something to someone and
then tell them that they can't use it for several weeks. That's why
these restrictions have been ditched for the European Championships.
And a good thing too.
Andrew
Frederick Scott
> serious combat deck. Any deck packing Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed,
> Psyche, and to a lesser extent, Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, Dog Pack, and
> Telepathic Tracking, will run roughshod over a deck that relies solely on
> Majesty.
Well, sure. So what?!? It's certainly reasonable for a combat deck to
run cards that get around "combat defense" cards. That doesn't mean the
latter aren't "combat defense" cards, just because they can be solved.
*Any* card can be solved...we hope! So if you expect a "combat defense"
card is one that another deck can't pack cards to get around, then no
such cards exist.
Back to the original question: Majesty sure is a combat defense. It's
about as "combat defense" as you can get, IMHO!
(I'm now truly curious about what you would call, "combat defense".)
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:28:16 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >it sucks to play against people who have their new cards when you don't.
> >So every game that features serious tournament play should have a buffer
> >period for purposes of fairness.
>
> It sucks to be told that you can't play with your new cards (or your
> old cards too).
Agreed, sorta kinda. But it's temporary. And less onerous to make people
wait than allow thoroughly unbalanced advantage to some players over other.
> And the fairness argument is bogus. The release date
> is the same for everyone and, in a trading-card game, getting hold of
> the cards you want is meant to be challenging.
So what? It's still absurd to expect everybody to have their cards at
the exact same moment. Look what's happening all around you, for crying
out loud! Some people are getting cards they ordered, some aren't. The
latter are having to make other arrangements or have no idea when/where
they're going to get cards. Some are getting cards the day before release
day, other wait while their supplier 50 miles away drop ships (unexpectedly)
from clear across the country.
It's one thing to make folks hunt down that chase rares if they feel they
need to build decks with them - though truth be known, I feel the game
would much better without this factor, either. But it's quite another
to subject them to the completely random logistics of the CCG business. As
a "fairness" argument, this point is so UNbogus, I'm at a loss to understand
what you don't get.
I guess if you like tournaments held with completely random groupings of
players who do and do not have their new cards just because you like the
idea that some players are challenged by a major fuck factor while others
aren't, then I can see your position. But if so, why not just go on with
the concept: hand out random number of victory points as players walk in
the door.
> There's lots of cards
> that I don't have for this and other CCG. VTES players have probably
> been spoilt by all the cheap Jyhad boxes. You'll find things
> different when you're paying full price for regular new expansions.
??? I'm confused. What does the price have to do with anything???
> My play group has bought a box of SW each and that's probably all that
> we'll buy. This leaves us far short of a set - we won't even have
> many commons. Is this fair? The question isn't even worth asking -
> it's the nature of the game.
It is. It's bad. But at least that's your choice. The delivery day
for any particular player is not his choice, so it's a different matter.
>
> >Absolutely false. Adding a buffer period on top of that is something that
> >actually works.
>
> It doesn't work.
Sure it works. Why would you claim it doesn't work?
> It's ridiculous to sell something to someone and
> then tell them that they can't use it for several weeks. That's why
> these restrictions have been ditched for the European Championships.
Nope. That was done just because they felt the difference between 30
full days and a few less didn't matter - the same reason the number of
days varies between around 15 and around 45. Because beyond a certain
number of days, the difference is less important than having the cutoff
date be well known - in this case, always on the 1st of the month. But
the EC is an important event and the players are hot to use their cards
so an exception was made. I very much doubt the exception would have
been made had the release date been much closer, say November 14. (Not
that I like this. IMHO, they should not have made the exception even
for this reason.)
Fred
James Coupe
> > And I'm LSJ faking an American accent, I've told you all before.
> >
>
> It is pronounced "y'all" not "you all". We are south of the
> Mason-Dixon.
Yeah, but I wasn't in my LSJ mode at the time, was I?
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"Steve: Yeah, well that's one of the advantages of being a sad, lonely
fairy, I guess. You get to learn how to be a spy."
- Stephen Fry, Making History
James Coupe
> >You think Majesty is a combat defense?
>
> It's a "Strike: Combat Ends" card, right? How is this not a defense
> against combat?
Because of the way in which many combat decks are played, and are going to
be shifted as a result of Telepathic Tracking, Majesty provides a hand-jam
or a minor delay.
James Coupe
> > Majesty (and by extension, S:CE) is *not* an effective defense against a
> > serious combat deck. Any deck packing Immortal Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed,
> > Psyche, and to a lesser extent, Fast Reaction, Hidden Lurker, Dog Pack, and
> > Telepathic Tracking, will run roughshod over a deck that relies solely on
> > Majesty.
>
> Well, sure. So what?!? It's certainly reasonable for a combat deck to
> run cards that get around "combat defense" cards. That doesn't mean the
> latter aren't "combat defense" cards, just because they can be solved.
It's very, very bad combat defence now, however.
Fortitude is likely to shift more and more towards being a good combat
defence discipline - which is presumably what was intended.
So far as I can tell, Majesty was never intended to be great combat
defence. Look at all the press stuff they had. It certainly seems that
S:CE was never intended to be so powerful.
Xian
"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A036D9A...@netcom.com...
[snip Majesty = weak]
> Well, sure. So what?!? It's certainly reasonable for a combat deck to
> run cards that get around "combat defense" cards. That doesn't mean the
> latter aren't "combat defense" cards, just because they can be solved.
> *Any* card can be solved...we hope!
True. I'm not saying that I'm glad that there are no uber-cards.
> Back to the original question: Majesty sure is a combat defense. It's
> about as "combat defense" as you can get, IMHO!
>
> (I'm now truly curious about what you would call, "combat defense".)
Fortitude. Obedience. Flesh of Marble. Depending...maneuvers.
I really want to play a Legacy of Power deck. But for some reason, though I
have loads of DS, I have only 2 Legacy of Power. It'd be so fun. Hmm. I
wonder if I could build one before tomorrow. I do have that extra DS booster
box sitting around. No. No more card inventory-ing! Ack!
Xian
> Fred
Andrew S. Davidson
>So what? It's still absurd to expect everybody to have their cards at
>the exact same moment. Look what's happening all around you, for crying
>out loud! Some people are getting cards they ordered, some aren't. The
>latter are having to make other arrangements or have no idea when/where
>they're going to get cards. Some are getting cards the day before release
>day, other wait while their supplier 50 miles away drop ships (unexpectedly)
>from clear across the country.
The problem with this release is that there isn't enough product, not
that it hasn't been released on schedule. There still won't be enough
after a month. This situation occurred with Sabbat too. Should sets
in short supply be banned from tournament play until everyone has as
much as they want? That would be fair, wouldn't it?
Not that there's any problem here, mind you. I just picked up a box
from my local shop in the usual way.
>It's one thing to make folks hunt down that chase rares if they feel they
>need to build decks with them - though truth be known, I feel the game
>would much better without this factor, either. But it's quite another
>to subject them to the completely random logistics of the CCG business. As
>a "fairness" argument, this point is so UNbogus, I'm at a loss to understand
>what you don't get.
The logistics of CCG supply are not random. There's an official
release date which is set so that distributors all over the world can
have the product in place at the same time. They will then be able to
resupply their retailers within a day. From what I can see this has
worked fine in this case and players in Austria, the UK, the USA, etc
have all been able to buy the cards on schedule. The bugger factor
here is not the timing, it's the short supply.
>>I guess if you like tournaments held with completely random groupings of
>players who do and do not have their new cards just because you like the
>idea that some players are challenged by a major fuck factor while others
>aren't, then I can see your position. But if so, why not just go on with
>the concept: hand out random number of victory points as players walk in
>the door.
Now you're just being silly. Most of this set is reprints and, in any
case, new cards only provide a decisive advantage if they are broken.
Are the new Sabbat Wars cards broken? Assuming not, then my
experience is that you're better off sticking with a tried and tested
deck, rather than some brand-new thing which you're still tuning and
learning how to use.
>??? I'm confused. What does the price have to do with anything???
If money is no object, then I can have any amount of Sabbat Wars cards
in my hands within 24 hours. When it comes to getting cards like
Telepathic Tracking, money and price are a key constraint. I have
seen one of this card in my box so far - maybe I'll have two. Am I
going to buy cases of the cards so that I can have more and build a
Tremere deck? No. Why? Because it would be too expensive.
>It is. It's bad. But at least that's your choice. The delivery day
>for any particular player is not his choice, so it's a different matter.
A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In
the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes".
>Nope. That was done just because they felt the difference between 30
>full days and a few less didn't matter - the same reason the number of
>days varies between around 15 and around 45. Because beyond a certain
>number of days, the difference is less important than having the cutoff
>date be well known - in this case, always on the 1st of the month. But
>the EC is an important event and the players are hot to use their cards
>so an exception was made. I very much doubt the exception would have
>been made had the release date been much closer, say November 14. (Not
>that I like this. IMHO, they should not have made the exception even
>for this reason.)
It's not long since I was at Gencon in the US. The new Shadowfist set
was released that weekend after similar long hiatus. Not only were
the new cards _immediately_ legal in all the tournaments but I didn't
hear the policy questioned even once. After waiting for 4 years for
new cards, it would have been insane to say, "sorry - you'll to wait
until next year's events".
People buy cards to play with them and so any policy which stops them
doing so is unnatural. Magic junkies have been conditioned to think
otherwise but this isn't Magic. If it were, people would say that you
would now have ban the OOP cards from Jyhad and Sabbat because to do
otherwise wouldn't be fair to new players. Is that what you want -
the whole set rotation rip-off? It may be fair, but I ain't buying
it.
Andrew
James Coupe
> The problem with this release is that there isn't enough product, not
> that it hasn't been released on schedule.
As you state, the problem with *this* release.
You cannot predict what problems will occur on future releases. Uniform
delivery of all products, even when there is sufficient stock, isn't
something you can guarantee in the slightest.
Frederick Scott
>
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:21:00 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >the exact same moment. Look what's happening all around you, for crying
> >out loud! Some people are getting cards they ordered, some aren't. The
> >latter are having to make other arrangements or have no idea when/where
> >they're going to get cards. Some are getting cards the day before release
> >day, other wait while their supplier 50 miles away drop ships (unexpectedly)
> >from clear across the country.
>
> after a month. This situation occurred with Sabbat too. Should sets
> in short supply be banned from tournament play until everyone has as
> much as they want? That would be fair, wouldn't it?
The point isn't about perfect fairness. It's about doing a reasonably
prudent thing to make sure conditions are usually as fair as possible.
I expect almost everyone will have had a chance to get their hands on
SW within a month. If that's not happening and huge segments of the players
have not been given a chance to buy them, then I don't think a ban on
it would be all that ridiculous. That isn't the case, however. (And
in any event, 1) you wouldn't plan for that and; 2) changing the rules
after the release would be a bad thing for other reasons. So I wouldn't
advocate any such ban unless the effect were a heck of a lot worse than
it is in Sabbat War.)
> Not that there's any problem here, mind you. I just picked up a box
> from my local shop in the usual way.
>
> >It's one thing to make folks hunt down that chase rares if they feel they
> >need to build decks with them - though truth be known, I feel the game
> >would much better without this factor, either. But it's quite another
> >to subject them to the completely random logistics of the CCG business. As
> >a "fairness" argument, this point is so UNbogus, I'm at a loss to understand
> >what you don't get.
>
> The logistics of CCG supply are not random. There's an official
> release date which is set so that distributors all over the world can
> have the product in place at the same time.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're forgetting the
issue here. We're talking about having a tournament on, say, November 4th
allowing cards released on October 31st. Some shops have it in on Tuesday,
some don't get it for a couple more weeks. Some people got their card
shipped to them Monday night, some won't get them until the following week.
What about all this is not basically random?!?
> >>I guess if you like tournaments held with completely random groupings of
> >players who do and do not have their new cards just because you like the
> >idea that some players are challenged by a major fuck factor while others
> >aren't, then I can see your position. But if so, why not just go on with
> >the concept: hand out random number of victory points as players walk in
> >the door.
>
> Now you're just being silly. Most of this set is reprints and, in any
> case, new cards only provide a decisive advantage if they are broken.
Wrong, right, and wrong. I am not being silly; as pointed out above, the
actual date of receiving cards varies all over the map in the first two
weeks of a release. Therefore, holding a tournament which allows them in
the first two weeks is as random a fuck factor as handing out 1-6 VP based
on the throw of a dice as the players walk in the door.
Yes, most of the cards are reprints but many are not. And the cards which
are not reprints make up a small release. Allowing their use represents a
profound advantage out of just card variety. Banning certain players randomly
from using, say, Dark Sovereigns or Ancient Hearts would be a profound
disadvantage to those players by the same token. I guess if you don't
consider that variety is advantage, then I can understand your position. That
is wrong, however.
> >??? I'm confused. What does the price have to do with anything???
>
> If money is no object, then I can have any amount of Sabbat Wars cards
> in my hands within 24 hours.
That is also incorrect, within reason. I suppose if you threw a million
dollars at the problem, maybe you could. Within reason, however, it
doesn't matter how much money you have. There's no such thing as a totally
reliable card seller who will _always_ have your cards in your hands the
next day after a release.
> >It is. It's bad. But at least that's your choice. The delivery day
> >for any particular player is not his choice, so it's a different matter.
>
> A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In
> the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes".
There is nothing he can do.
> It's not long since I was at Gencon in the US. The new Shadowfist set
> was released that weekend after similar long hiatus. Not only were
> the new cards _immediately_ legal in all the tournaments but I didn't
> hear the policy questioned even once. After waiting for 4 years for
> new cards, it would have been insane to say, "sorry - you'll to wait
> until next year's events".
No it wouldn't have. I don't know how serious Shadowfist players are;
whether they have rating systems, for instance, or important regional
or national tournaments which are stepping stones to larger tournaments.
I doubt it. But if they do, then such a position would have do, such a
policy would have been a profound disservice to players. On the other
hand, if Shadowfist Tournaments are just about getting players together
to play lots of games, then I can see why no one's worrying about it.
If the release of SW had happened just before Gencon, I would certainly
be against making them tournament legal for VEKN tournaments. On the
other hand, there's certainly nothing wrong with having a few non-
official tournaments allowing them.
For that matter, tournaments directors are free to hold such tournaments
right now. It just wouldn't count on your ratings nor receive prize
support. Nor should it.
> People buy cards to play with them and so any policy which stops them
> doing so is unnatural. Magic junkies have been conditioned to think
> otherwise but this isn't Magic. If it were, people would say that you
> would now have ban the OOP cards from Jyhad and Sabbat because to do
> otherwise wouldn't be fair to new players. Is that what you want -
> the whole set rotation rip-off? It may be fair, but I ain't buying
> it.
The set rotation thing has a point to it. If Jyhad had that many
expansions constantly coming out and enough new players generated who
would care about it, then maybe a special constructed type might be
justified. (Though you shouldn't get me started about all the mistakes
the DCI has made with Magic. Just don't go there. I don't have time
to type messages that long...) But you're comparing apples to oranges.
To address your point directly, play your stupid cards. Play them in
informal groups. Wait a couple weeks and tournament away. This buffer
period is so meaningless in terms of preventing you from using your
cards, I'm surprised you would care. On the other side of the issue,
though, is a completely random, significant advantage to arbitrary groups
of players. The tiny price we pay for eliminating that is well worth it.
Fred
Andrew S. Davidson
>I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you're forgetting the
>issue here. We're talking about having a tournament on, say, November 4th
>allowing cards released on October 31st.
We were actually talking about a tournament on Nov 26. That's the one
that you would prefer not to use SW cards, right? This is still 3
weeks away. Anyone who doesn't have cards by then just isn't trying.
>What about all this is not basically random?!?
None of it. No-one is rolling dice here.
>Wrong, right, and wrong. I am not being silly; as pointed out above, the
>actual date of receiving cards varies all over the map in the first two
>weeks of a release. Therefore, holding a tournament which allows them in
>the first two weeks is as random a fuck factor as handing out 1-6 VP based
>on the throw of a dice as the players walk in the door.
You're still being silly. Apart from the fact that the release date
is global, a tournament is in a particular place. If that area has
cards then the players will likewise; if not then they are all in the
same boat. Players might order in supplies from elsewhere but this
option is available to all - there's nothing unfair or random about
it.
>That is also incorrect, within reason. I suppose if you threw a million
>dollars at the problem, maybe you could. Within reason, however, it
>doesn't matter how much money you have. There's no such thing as a totally
>reliable card seller who will _always_ have your cards in your hands the
>next day after a release.
A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards are
already spending this sort of money. I flew to Gencon in the US this
year and one reason was to obtain the Doomtown and Shadowfist sets
which were released there. If the mountain won't come to Mohammed ...
>> A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In
>> the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes".
>
>There is nothing he can do.
Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player
here not a total incompetent.
>No it wouldn't have. I don't know how serious Shadowfist players are;
>whether they have rating systems, for instance, or important regional
>or national tournaments which are stepping stones to larger tournaments.
>I doubt it. But if they do, then such a position would have do, such a
>policy would have been a profound disservice to players. On the other
>hand, if Shadowfist Tournaments are just about getting players together
>to play lots of games, then I can see why no one's worrying about it.
Judging from Gencon this year, it seems that Shadowfist players care
more about winning their events than comparable Vampire players. You
don't hear of Shadowfist players quitting the final of their world
championship to just get together and "play lots of games".
>To address your point directly, play your stupid cards.
OK.
Andrew
James Coupe
> You're still being silly. Apart from the fact that the release date
> is global, a tournament is in a particular place. If that area has
> cards then the players will likewise;
Sure, quite possible.
Some of us, however, do try and globe-trot when we get the chance. I, for
instance, was trying to get to GenCon US this year (flights doing
something like BHX or LHR to ORD or MKE at that time of year were stupid,
regardless of the routing, unfortuantely), and the fact that the people
local to there had cards wouldn't mean I did, assuming that a set had just
been released.
For instance, I have somewhere in the region of 20 boosters worth of SW,
far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially if
heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where people
have been buying boxes.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Some of us, however, do try and globe-trot when we get the chance. I, for
>instance, was trying to get to GenCon US this year (flights doing
>something like BHX or LHR to ORD or MKE at that time of year were stupid,
>regardless of the routing, unfortuantely), and the fact that the people
>local to there had cards wouldn't mean I did, assuming that a set had just
>been released.
I booked my flight just a week or two ahead of Gencon and had no
trouble getting a return with BA direct from LHR-ORD. I recommend
www.expedia.co.uk as the best way to book anything like this.
The main problem I find when travelling long distances to a con like
this is not having the cards, it's deciding what cards to take. I
always tell myself I should build my decks ahead of time and stick to
them but I keep thinking "what if...?". The result is that I then
literally turn into Mr Suitcase. I hurt my back lifting my case on
the way back though (it's always heavier coming back) and so I must
give this excess up and travel light.
>For instance, I have somewhere in the region of 20 boosters worth of SW,
>far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially if
>heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where people
>have been buying boxes.
20 boosters is less than me. Why so little?
Andrew
prea...@utanet.at
> For instance, I have somewhere in the region of 20 boosters worth of
SW,
> far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially
if
> heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where
people
> have been buying boxes.
Ok, I'll jump in again. :)
1.) The EC is split up in 2 events: draft on 25th, and constructed on
26th. We draft SW cards. This means, that each player attending will
have a supply of SW cards *in any case* to use for sunday's constructed
event. (If there are still players that really put a lot of time and
effort in their hobby (i.e. travelling to abroad tourneys) and don't
have at least pre-ordered a couple of boosters of SW...)
2.) You can use SW cards in the constructed 5 days earlier than normal.
Considering that by now most (if not all) stores that pre-ordered SW
have got their product, and that it seems that SW is very hard to get,
if you are lucky enough to find it at all, those 5 days hardly matter.
Could we please end this thread now? Some of us have expressed their
doubts about having SW allowed at the EC, and I believe that those of
you who don't like it will not show up. So be it. Please let's move on.
Carl
>
> --
> James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
> "Steve: Yeah, well that's one of the advantages of being a sad, lonely
> fairy, I guess. You get to learn how to be a spy."
> - Stephen Fry, Making History
>
>
Noal McDonald
> Could we please end this thread now?
Since you haven't adequately defended the action, no. We cannot.
> Some of us have expressed their doubts about having SW allowed
> at the EC, and I believe that those of you who don't like it
> will not show up. So be it. Please let's move on.
Whether or not people will attend or not is a poor justification for an
exception being made. The EC tournament should not have exceptions made
for it that are not made for other tournaments.
To illustrate that, I'm happy to announce that Sabbat War cards will be
allowed in the VEKN constructed tournament that Bernie Bresnahan is
running on November 18th. And since breaking rules is like eating
Ruffles potato chips (you can't stop after just one) I'm allowing
playtesters to compete in the sealed deck Sabbat War tournament.
And since the EC is breaking a rule and still being sanctioned, I fully
expect our decisions to not affect our ability to also be sanctioned.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Ian Lee
>allowed in the VEKN constructed tournament that Bernie Bresnahan is
>running on November 18th. And since breaking rules is like eating
>Ruffles potato chips (you can't stop after just one) I'm allowing
>playtesters to compete in the sealed deck Sabbat War tournament.
>
>And since the EC is breaking a rule and still being sanctioned, I fully
>expect our decisions to not affect our ability to also be sanctioned.
Why does anyone care this much about sanctioning? There's one game where cash
changes hands - Magic. Everything else is for fun, not profit.
For the company I rep, I can get nearly anything sanctioned just by asking them
far enough ahead of time. They send prize support because that's good
marketing.
If you want an exception made, just ask WW to make it. Maybe, they will.
James Coupe
> >far more than a lot of players somewhere else might have, especially if
> >heading for a major convention, but far less than some areas where people
> >have been buying boxes.
>
That I was a little short of money when I bought them.
James Coupe
> Why does anyone care this much about sanctioning? There's one game where cash
> changes hands - Magic. Everything else is for fun, not profit.
Sanctioning allows:
1) Ratings
2) Prize support
These are important to people, the former for the players, the latter for
the organisers (who can't necessarily afford to blow a lot of money on
boosters or whatever for people).
Frederick Scott
>
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >issue here. We're talking about having a tournament on, say, November 4th
> >allowing cards released on October 31st.
>
> that you would prefer not to use SW cards, right? This is still 3
> weeks away. Anyone who doesn't have cards by then just isn't trying.
Oh. No, if that's what your issue is, then this debate is totally on
the wrong track. You were in the middle of responding to James Coupe
when you made the flat comment that you didn't believe there was any
reason to have "buffer periods" _at all_. I reject that statement, which
leads to the scenario I laid out about.
If you believed we were still debating the EC exception to the buffer period,
then this is a completely different issue. I've stated I don't agree with
the exception, either, but for completely different reasons. Yes, you're
correct: three weeks should be enough. Or why would the period still end
on Dec. 1st even if release date were November 14th? The answer is that
even as little as two weeks is considered "enough", which I agree with.
The only objection I have to the EC exception is that it confuses people
to make exceptions like that and I don't believe the reason is good
enough. Though I do understand why others might. It's a question of
judgment, I guess.
> >What about all this is not basically random?!?
>
> None of it. No-one is rolling dice here.
>
> >Wrong, right, and wrong. I am not being silly; as pointed out above, the
> >actual date of receiving cards varies all over the map in the first two
> >weeks of a release. Therefore, holding a tournament which allows them in
> >the first two weeks is as random a fuck factor as handing out 1-6 VP based
> >on the throw of a dice as the players walk in the door.
>
> You're still being silly. Apart from the fact that the release date
> is global, a tournament is in a particular place. If that area has
> cards then the players will likewise;
That is an incorrect statement - assuming we're talking about a tournament
in the first few days after release. *Some* players may have cards, some
may not. It depends on the source they use. And while the source is entirely
a matter of each player's discretion, since it's absolutely impossible to
predict which source will yield cards in which time frame, that point is
moot. Essentially, the date at which each player has his cards is basically
random.
> >That is also incorrect, within reason. I suppose if you threw a million
> >dollars at the problem, maybe you could. Within reason, however, it
> >doesn't matter how much money you have. There's no such thing as a totally
> >reliable card seller who will _always_ have your cards in your hands the
> >next day after a release.
>
> A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards are
> already spending this sort of money. I flew to Gencon in the US this
> year and one reason was to obtain the Doomtown and Shadowfist sets
> which were released there. If the mountain won't come to Mohammed ...
A thousand dollars would not suffice if one didn't know of any location
in the country which had cards available. On November 1st, I was unaware
of any location in the entire country, nay world, where I could buy a plane
ticket to which were I could purchase Sabbat War. Yet others were counting
their cards.
And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount of money,
anyway. If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand
dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his cards by
November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational.
> >> A really serious player doesn't leave things like this to chance. In
> >> the words of the Magic ads, he "does what it takes".
> >
> >There is nothing he can do.
>
> Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player
> here not a total incompetent.
It's not an exaggeration. I'm dead serious. This is nothing he can do.
Period.
Fred
Noal McDonald
>> A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards
>> are already spending this sort of money.
I'd like to know if _anyone_ has already speant $1,000 US on Sabbat War.
I've bought a box of pre-con starters, 5 boxes of boosters from Potomac
for a sealed deck tournament and 5 boxes from a local retailer for my
personal use. Total cost was about $650. I'll be getting $270 back for
the five boxes for the tournament, so that's about $375 net for six
boxes.
After that, I _might_ buy another box of pre-cons and a box of boosters,
but that's probably going to be it until Final Nights.
> On November 1st, I was unaware of any location in the entire country,
> nay world, where I could buy a plane ticket to which were I could
> purchase Sabbat War. Yet others were counting their cards.
I can help you out. I know of one store that still has a few of the
pre-con decks left. Of course, that knowledge will cost you a Derange
card. *grin*
> And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount
> of money, anyway.
Oh hell, no. If I spent a $1000 net on Sabbat War, my girlfriend, who's
waiting on an engagement ring, would have my nuts in a vise.
> If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand
> dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his
> cards by November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational.
*dials up the funny farm* Hey, I got this guy...
The point Fred is making here, I believe, is that VTES is not a game
that generally caters to an audience that is habitually irresponsible
with money...which you'd have to be (unless you're filthy rich) to blow
$1000 on Sabbat War just to compete in a tournament.
Magic: The Crack Habit, a few years ago, would have been worth a $1000
investment because you could make that back by selling the rares you
don't need. VTES, on the other hand, doesn't have anywhere near that
kind of a resale value.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Sanctioning allows:
>
>1) Ratings
>2) Prize support
In fact, if you check the Prize Support Guidelines, you will find that
that prize support is not tied to sanctioning and that "Preferred
treatment will be given to events of a demonstrative nature."
Presumably WW would prefer you to demonstrate using their product
rather than WotC's old stock.
As for ratings, I see some details on the WW site but no actual
ratings. Do these exist? My experience is that even the DCI couldn't
succesfully operate rating systems for their games. I don't see any
ballyhoo here about being the top-rated player - even less than there
is for being a tournament champion. Is the game worth the candle?
Being the "European Champion" seems plenty good enough for bragging
rights.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>>> A thousand dollars will do and players buying cases of cards
>>> are already spending this sort of money.
>
>I'd like to know if _anyone_ has already speant $1,000 US on Sabbat War.
In spending $650, you're close enough in order-of-magnitude terms. I
was actually thinking of the guy who was pissed that he couldn't get
the 10 boxes that he'd ordered from his retailer.
>Oh hell, no. If I spent a $1000 net on Sabbat War, my girlfriend, who's
>waiting on an engagement ring, would have my nuts in a vise.
People who spend big bucks on tiny, shiny stones, now they're the
crazy ones <grin>.
>The point Fred is making here, I believe, is that VTES is not a game
>that generally caters to an audience that is habitually irresponsible
>with money...which you'd have to be (unless you're filthy rich) to blow
>$1000 on Sabbat War just to compete in a tournament.
Attending a big event can easily cost $1000+ in airfare, hotel and car
hire. Spend that much on cards and at least you've still got
something to show for it.
>Magic: The Crack Habit, a few years ago, would have been worth a $1000
>investment because you could make that back by selling the rares you
>don't need. VTES, on the other hand, doesn't have anywhere near that
>kind of a resale value.
Sabbat boxes are priced at $250 and SW is selling at a premium now,
right? The speculators may already be moving in ...
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>It's a question of judgment, I guess.
I agree that this is a matter of degree and I wouldn't have a big
problem with a 1 week buffer period, but the current system is up to 6
weeks which is insane. My point is that the official release date
should be fine because this already has a buffer period built in - the
cards are shipped to the distributors ahead of this date. One single
official date for everything is clean and simple and works for other
games.
>That is an incorrect statement - assuming we're talking about a tournament
>in the first few days after release. *Some* players may have cards, some
>may not. It depends on the source they use. And while the source is entirely
>a matter of each player's discretion, since it's absolutely impossible to
>predict which source will yield cards in which time frame, that point is
>moot. Essentially, the date at which each player has his cards is basically
>random.
No. The global village is a single marketplace now and players are
routinely buying their cards from different countries. We all have
access to the same sources of supply and hence there is no randomness.
>And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount of money,
>anyway. If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand
>dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his cards by
>November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational.
You were the one who wasn't being rational by quoting a million
dollars as the ante. Even a thousand dollars isn't really required -
all you need is the price of a phone call, the cost of a box and an
overnight express delivery fee. I just quoted $1000 because, when
buying cases, some players are already spending this sort of money and
so this is a rational figure to use.
>> Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player
>> here not a total incompetent.
>
>It's not an exaggeration. I'm dead serious. This is nothing he can do.
>Period.
What? He can't read, use the telephone, surf the net or visit several
stores? Anyone who can't get hold of cards in the first place doesn't
need to worry about tournament fairness because he ain't gonna win
anyway - he's obviously not sharp enough.
Andrew
Frederick Scott
>
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 18:02:44 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >It's a question of judgment, I guess.
>
> I agree that this is a matter of degree and I wouldn't have a big
> problem with a 1 week buffer period,
In fact, the guaranteed minimum buffer period is 15 days. The rest,
which takes it up to a possible 45 days depending on the release
date, is due to the desire to make the ending day of the buffer
period fall on the end of a month. I feel somewhat neutral about the
necessity of doing this (but if that's your policy, then stick to
it...). Not so the minimum 15 days. In the continental U.S., such
considerations allow players to ship via UPS ground even if they live
in Seattle and their supplier is in Miami. An extra week to allow
all the players to save real money - we can wait.
> but the current system is up to 6 weeks which is insane.
Doesn't seem insane to me. The wait is not that serious a thing.
But if it's the maximum period that's upsetting you, the first thing
to throw out would be the 1st-of-the-month rule.
> My point is that the official release date
> should be fine because this already has a buffer period built in - the
> cards are shipped to the distributors ahead of this date.
Sure, but no one can play with cards that are sitting in a distributor's
warehouse next I checked. I can't comprehend why you think this is
sufficient. The cards still have to go from distributors to retailers
and from retailers to customers. Or under the best of circumstances,
direct from mail order distributors to players.
> >That is an incorrect statement - assuming we're talking about a tournament
> >in the first few days after release. *Some* players may have cards, some
> >may not. It depends on the source they use. And while the source is entirely
> >a matter of each player's discretion, since it's absolutely impossible to
> >predict which source will yield cards in which time frame, that point is
> >moot. Essentially, the date at which each player has his cards is basically
> >random.
>
> No. The global village is a single marketplace now and players are
> routinely buying their cards from different countries. We all have
> access to the same sources of supply and hence there is no randomness.
Yes. Having access to the same source of supply does not prevent randomness.
Players have no idea ahead of time which sources will ship in which period
of time. (Why would you think they do?) So I preorder from mail order
distributor X or from retailer Y, who got me my cards in 3 days last time.
This time it happens to be 7 days. How was I supposed to know that ahead
of time?
>
> >And a thousand dollars is not what I'd call a "reasonable" amount of money,
> >anyway. If you're telling that it's OK to tournaments because a thousand
> >dollars fixes the problem for any player who doesn't have his cards by
> >November 4th, I'd say you're not being rational.
> You were the one who wasn't being rational by quoting a million
> dollars as the ante. Even a thousand dollars isn't really required -
> all you need is the price of a phone call, the cost of a box and an
> overnight express delivery fee.
Right. And it ships overnight - 6 days after release date. You have
no control over the process. Cards arrive when they arrive. Period.
> >> Silly exagerration again. We're talking about a really serious player
> >> here not a total incompetent.
> >
> >It's not an exaggeration. I'm dead serious. This is nothing he can do.
> >Period.
>
> What? He can't read, use the telephone, surf the net or visit several
> stores?
Sure he can. But what good would it do?
Fred
Andrew S. Davidson
>Sure, but no one can play with cards that are sitting in a distributor's
>warehouse next I checked. I can't comprehend why you think this is
>sufficient.
The whole point of an official release date is to ensure that cards go
on sale in retail stores at the same time. This is because there is a
huge peak of sales when an expansion first appears and, if one store
were to be ahead of the rest, it could cream off all these early
sales. Sales of product ahead of the official date are embargoed for
this reason and all retailers are given the chance to get product in
place on their shelves for the release date. Now do you comprehend?
>Yes. Having access to the same source of supply does not prevent randomness.
>Players have no idea ahead of time which sources will ship in which period
>of time. (Why would you think they do?) So I preorder from mail order
>distributor X or from retailer Y, who got me my cards in 3 days last time.
>This time it happens to be 7 days. How was I supposed to know that ahead
>of time?
I talk to my suppliers and they talk to their distributors who talk to
the shippers and manufacturers. They usually have a pretty good idea
when stock will be delivered.
>> What? He can't read, use the telephone, surf the net or visit several
>> stores?
>
>Sure he can. But what good would it do?
You can lead a horse to water ...
Andrew
Robert Goudie
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:32:44 +0000, James Coupe wrote:
>
> >Sanctioning allows:
> >
> >1) Ratings
>
> As for ratings, I see some details on the WW site but no actual
> ratings. Do these exist?
Yes. http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/member
> My experience is that even the DCI couldn't
> succesfully operate rating systems for their games.
I'm not really sure about how successful they were but we've been doing
pretty well with ours. I think we've been rating tournaments for two or
three years now. Wow. Time flies! Anyway, the results from each event are
sent to Todd Banister who keeps the ratings for the entire world up to date.
As someone who did this job for a while I am still amazed that Todd's able
to keep up on this and hasn't burned out. He's the hardest working V:TES
supporter that you rarely hear from.
> I don't see any
> ballyhoo here about being the top-rated player - even less than there
> is for being a tournament champion. Is the game worth the candle?
> Being the "European Champion" seems plenty good enough for bragging
> rights.
I'm sure its not as big a deal as it is in Magic but some people are pretty
excited about them. My playgroup focusses on them quite a bit.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org