your opinion about all TCG you tested ?

cure

unread,

Jun 7, 2004, 8:06:10 AM6/7/04

to

Hello,
I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested
???
No more than 2 lines per game!!!
I don't know most of the game and it is possible to have some of them
cheap on ebay it is why I want to know the one which are good or bad!

.hack//enemy
7th Sea
Age of Empires
Arcadia
Babylon 5
Battletech
Beyblade
Bionicle
Buffy
Call of Cthulhu
Creepy Freaks
CrossGen
Cyberpunk
D&D Miniatures
DC HeroClix
DC/Marvel TCG (Upper Deck)
Deck Protectors
Doomtown
Doomtrooper
Dragonball Z/Dragonball GT
Duel Masters
Firestorm
Galactic Empires
Game of Thrones
Gaming Supplies
Guardians
>following the advice of some people I bought a couple of cheap box
(starter, booster and dagger isle)... I will test the game beginning
of july!

Harry Potter
Hercules
Highlander
Hum Aliens
Hyborian Gates
Illuminati
Initial D
L5R/LBS
Looney Tunes
Lord of the Rings
Lord of the Rings Miniatures
Lost Colony
Mage Knight
Magic
>I played, liked it 5 years ago, but there is too much money
involve!!! I stopped!

Magic - Foreign
Magi-Nation
Marvel HeroClix
Marvel Recharge
Marvel/DC TCG (Upper Deck)
MechWarrior
Middle Earth
>tested , love the cards, but the game not too much.

MLB Showdown
Monster Rancher
Mythos
NBA Showdown
NeoPets
Netrunner
NFL Showdown
On The Edge
Ophidian 2350
Other/Unlisted Gaming Boxes
Overpower
>too easy, nothing amazing about this game!!!! don't buy it!

Pokemon
Rage
>I have a couple of deck and I keep all the werewolf for teh
collection... great to play once or twice a year, no more.

Redemption
RIFTS
Sailor Moon
Scooby Doo
Settlers of Catan (Board Game)
Shadowfist
Shadowrun
Simpsons
Spycraft
Star Trek
Star Wars CCG (Decipher)
Star Wars TCG (WOTC)
SW: Jedi Knights
SW: Young Jedi
Tomb Raider
Ultimate Combat
Vampire/Jyhad
>if you have a group of 4 of 5 friend to play, it is a great games. I
collect and play it as much as possible even if the cards are not
beautiful

WarCry
Warhammer 40K
Warlord
WCW Nitro
Wheel of Time
Wizard in Training
WWE Raw Deal
Wyvern
Xena
X-Files
Yu-Gi-Oh
YuYu Hakusho

Bob Bolender III

unread,

Jun 7, 2004, 8:13:35 AM6/7/04

to

Hey,

Pokemon
> Was good for a while, but when they added 300 more it went down.
Redemption
> I have played it for a year and I think it rocks! Plenty of strategy
along with Biblical principles.

"cure" <cu...@caramail.com> wrote in message
news:64a19912.04060...@posting.google.com...

Sorrow

unread,

Jun 7, 2004, 11:05:27 AM6/7/04

to

> I don't know most of the game and it is possible to have some of them
> cheap on ebay it is why I want to know the one which are good or bad!

One of the best sources of information for this is:

http://www.rpweld3.com/reviews/ccgreviews.html

Sadly, he stopped going this as of last June (June/2004). But just about
any
game that came out before that time was reviewed. If you are interested in
getting into any of the older/ish games, this is the place to start learning
about
it.

Sorrow
--
Why did the chicken cross the road?
"To die. Alone. In the rain." - Ernest Hemingway

OurGodlivz

unread,

Jun 7, 2004, 4:59:17 PM6/7/04

to

> Lord of the Rings
I have not played this game, but did want too until they came out with so
many cards so fast. I don't have that much time or money
>
> Redemption
Played for 5 years. It is more fun when there are several advanced
players. Often there are only U14 around. But has a great group here.

> Settlers of Catan (Board Game)

Great Board game. Becareful where you but though b/c it's as pricey as
all the other Adventure Board Games. see www.boardgamegeek.com

Chris Mattern

unread,

Jun 7, 2004, 9:46:16 PM6/7/04

to

cure wrote:

> Hello,
> I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
> would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested
> ???
> No more than 2 lines per game!!!
> I don't know most of the game and it is possible to have some of them
> cheap on ebay it is why I want to know the one which are good or bad!
>
>
> .hack//enemy

It's Decipher. Below I will detail why I will never buy another Decipher
game.

> 7th Sea
Has been discontinued. Interesting game, but some of the play mechanics
seem a little unbalanced (why would you choose boarding over gunnery?)

> Deck Protectors
Um, this isn't a TCG. They're card sleeves.

> Doomtown
Has been discontinued. Excellent game. You actually build a geography; the
game has a wonderful requirement that you must learn how to *maneuver*.

> Gaming Supplies
Um, not a TCG. It's supplies for use with TCGs, like it says.

> Guardians
>>following the advice of some people I bought a couple of cheap box
> (starter, booster and dagger isle)... I will test the game beginning
> of july!

I played this a little. It had some interesting aspects but in the end
didn't catch me. Part of the problem was the art, which was certainly
very nicely done but just wasn't to my taste.
>
> Harry Potter
I believe this has been discontinued as well. Overly simple. Might be
good for younger players.

> Initial D
An interesting concept; very different. Only seen a small demo deck, so
it's difficult for me to evaluate how well they carried it off.

> L5R/LBS
Two different games; Legend of the Five Rings and Legend of the Burning
Sands. Set in the same world, but different games and not interchangeable.

Legend of the Five Rings
Excellent game. Subtle gameplay and a storyline that cannot be matched
(and which you can contribute to by playing in sanctioned tournaments).

Legend of the Burning Sands
Has been discontinued. An interesting game that got caught by its confusing
similarity to L5R and AEG's ill-conceived "Rolling Thunder" release concept.

> Magic
>>I played, liked it 5 years ago, but there is too much money
> involve!!! I stopped!

You might want to look into this again. Standard (Type II) has become the
reigning tournament type. While it's a pain to see your cards rotate out
of Standard, it's nice to see $30 World Championship Decks (and yes, there
have been some).
>
> Magic - Foreign
This is just Magic cards printed in foreign languages.

> Netrunner
One of the best TCGs ever made. Sadly, it has been discontinued. Unique
concepts, excellent gameplay.

> Pokemon
Unbalanced and overly simple, IMHO. May become the second TCG I decide
to sell out of.

> Shadowfist
Nice game, excellent multiplayer, nonstop action. Great game if you
love a game where a card in play's average lifetime is two or three turns.

> Star Trek
Bleh. The only CCG I ever sold out of. Decipher is in the business of
power rares and clumsy, inadequate fixes. Can you say "Bridge Crew Deck"?

> Star Wars CCG (Decipher)
And the other reason I will never buy a Decipher game. "The main characters
will be commons!" "Wait, no, we lied, they're rares. Play the third alien
from the left in the Cantina scene if you have to play your commons. This
makes it more fun to collect!"

> Vampire/Jyhad
>>if you have a group of 4 of 5 friend to play, it is a great games. I
> collect and play it as much as possible even if the cards are not
> beautiful

Exactly my take. The best multiplayer CCG ever made, but you can't
really play it with only two people.

> Yu-Gi-Oh
From what I can tell, this has a nasty tendency to degenerate into, "I have
the biggest monster, so you're helpless" because you can't gang up several
small creatures on the big one like you can in almost any other CCG.
Ways around it, but not enough.

--
Christopher Mattern

"Which one you figure tracked us?"
"The ugly one, sir."
"...Could you be more specific?"

Majiken

unread,

Jun 8, 2004, 1:17:18 AM6/8/04

to

Okay... this could take a while, but what the heck.

> 7th Sea
RPG or CCG? I've played both. Don't get much of a chance to play the RPG
anymore, but my collection of cards is hard to rival. Love the game and
mourn its passing.

> Babylon 5
Again, what version? Miniature, RPG or CCG? I've played the CCG, and it's
kind of boring. I know a lot of people who love it, but I could never get
into a card game that dealt with politics.

> Battletech
CCG is cool.

> Beyblade
Fun to play with my 8 year old. We collect the tops.

> Bionicle
Any particular game? There must be a dozen or more out there.

>Doomtown
One of the best and most innovative CCGs ever made. Wish I could find more
people to play it with.

> Firestorm
The most strategic sci-fi CCG ever made. Love the game, the art and the
story. This one makes you think like no other game I've encountered. Try
it!

> Galactic Empires
Ugh. Have a ton of cards with mediocre artwork and vague instructions.
Never have figured out how to play it.

> Game of Thrones
One of the best looking CCGs. Gorgeous artwork that fans of the books will
love. The game itself is okay, and we play it often.

> Harry Potter
More fun than it appears. Some love it, some hate it. You'll have to
decide for yourself. Persoanlly, my kids and I love it.

> Highlander
Boring.

>L5R/LBS
Like them both. Wish I could find the Awakening cards for LBS.

> Looney Tunes
Blah. Not as much fun as you might think.

> Lord of the Rings
Which version? CCG is decent enough. Never got incolved with the
miniatures.

> Mage Knight
Sold my collection of 500 pieces when it started to suffer from Magic
syndrome. Too big, too fast, impossible to collect.

> Magic
Ugh, don't get me started. You have to be a millionaire to keep up.

> Magi-Nation
Cute game, anime artwork. We play but don't collect seriously.

> MechWarrior
I have about 200 figures for a game I've never played.

> Middle Earth
Again, lots of cards but never played the game. I've heard it's kind of
boring and long.

>Pokemon
The only CCG my wife will play with me. Stopped buying it years ago.

> Rage
The initial releases were cool, and the game rocked. The revamped version
blew.

> Star Wars TCG (WOTC)
Play it regularly and have a decent collection. Nice and quick, easy to
learn and teach. Good game.

> SW: Jedi Knights
YUCK. They thought anything with "Star Wars" on it would sell. Horrible
game.

> SW: Young Jedi
Got it when it first game out, played twice, stopped buying it. Not a bad
game.

> Tomb Raider
More fun than you'd think to look at it. Good for solo play too, which
makes it unique.

> Warhammer 40K
Minis or CCG? Played the card game for awhile, but had to stop due to $
issues.

> Warlord
Love it, demo it, will play it anytime.

> Wheel of Time
If possible, even more boring than Babylon 5. Only reason I bought it is
because I love the books.

> Wizard in Training
Cheap knockoff of Harry Potter that came out first and died quickly. Not
bad to play, but kind of complicated for kids.

> Wyvern
Collected the cards, played once. Dull.

> X-Files
CCG version of Clue. Nice attempt, but no depth and has none of the
excitement of the show.

> Yu-Gi-Oh
Kind of iffy on this one. Have two starter decks and that's it. Play
occasionally.

Hope this helps you!

Maj

Matt Green

unread,

Jun 8, 2004, 4:48:09 AM6/8/04

to

There are a couple missing that I've played that i'll include:

> Battletech
Demonstrated it quite a bit and it's certainly easy to teach. I feel the
game is too 'linear' and that the dice detract from the gameplay.

> Call of Cthulhu
It's not out yet. I worry about rumours of a Fantasy Flight 'rare card =
power card' ethos. Certainly has some fantastic artwork though. I'll give it
a try.

> Doomtown
Demonstrated it a couple of times, but by the time I was in a position to
buy into it the rolling thunder release program had put me off entirely.

> Illuminati
Interesting and fun. Broadly speaking.

> ::Judge Dredd::
I liked the concept and the artwork. The best strategies were far too
obvious and the game is now out of print.

> L5R
I had to demonstrate this game and I hate it. Loath it even. Too long, too
complicated to teach easily and just not rewarding in any fashion. blerg.

> Magic
Played it competitively for years. To be as good as I would want to be to
start playing it again, I would need to dedicate time that I no longer have.
An amazing game.

> Mythos
I quite liked the concept but the replay value is a bit limited to my mind.

> Netrunner
A great game that doesn't lend itself to tournament play, which may have led
to its demise. The concept is great, although I think it could have be
executed better.

> ::Spellfire::
I've had some good games of this. Really. Lots of cards, the latest rules
and balanced decks are required I think. There are worse CCGs...

> Star Trek
...and this is one of them. Power rares are an endemic problem of Decipher
CCGs. Discuss.

> Vampire/Jyhad
With 4-5 players it's amazing. A wonderful game that i'll probably never
bore of playing. The amount of errata is unfortunate but probably necessary
to keep the game alive.

Matt.

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 8, 2004, 10:02:18 AM6/8/04

to

On 7 Jun 2004 05:06:10 -0700, cure wrote:

>I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
>would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested

>No more than 2 lines per game!!!

I've bought and played many of these but don't want to waste time on
the stinkers. It's not smart to try and do more than one CCG and the
one to go for from that list is undoubtedly Shadowfist. The reasons
are:

* Longevity - first published in 1995 and still going strong with a
new expansion recently and another one coming later this year. And
remarkably, no cards are banned, retired or otherwise unplayable.

* Multi-player - makes it more fun and balanced than most CCG

* Good theme - action movies, kung fu, sorcery, guns, monkeys -
something for everyone.

* Good looks - the original cards used many of the same artists as
Magic and the latest set has some of the most gorgeous art ever. And
it hasn't changed its layout or card backs unlike many other
long-lived CCGs.

An honourable mention should go to Doomtown which still has its fans
but is quite moribund now. Die-hard fans should come to Origins where
the last of the organised events are to be found.

Andrew

DaveSter64

unread,

Jun 8, 2004, 3:23:20 PM6/8/04

to

>> Highlander
>Boring.

How so? It's had many cards errata'd (like MtG) to make the game more
playable-overpowered promo cards nearly destroyed the game in the early days.
That was boring, watching my opponen play while I could only draw and discard.

It does help to be a big fan of the movies/TV show.

>
>> Magi-Nation
>Cute game, anime artwork. We play but don't collect seriously.
>

This is my current favorite game, but sadly it looks like the company will go
under before releasing the new expansion.

Just my 2¢
Dave

Majiken

unread,

Jun 8, 2004, 4:21:20 PM6/8/04

to

"DaveSter64" <daves...@aol.comno-spam> wrote in message
news:20040608152320...@mb-m03.aol.com...

> >> Highlander
> >Boring.
>
> How so? It's had many cards errata'd (like MtG) to make the game more
> playable-overpowered promo cards nearly destroyed the game in the early
days.
> That was boring, watching my opponen play while I could only draw and
discard.
>
> It does help to be a big fan of the movies/TV show.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of the first movie (the rest pretty much
sucked, and the show was okay), and was very excited about the game. Bought
several boxes, got the characters I wanted, played it several times and was
just bored. Couldn't get into it whan all you can't hit the other guy and
you're getting pummeled.

> >> Magi-Nation
> >Cute game, anime artwork. We play but don't collect seriously.
> >
> This is my current favorite game, but sadly it looks like the company will
go
> under before releasing the new expansion.

Yeah, we really like this one too, but the high cost of the cards keeps us
from buying too much. Unfortunately this is the case in most CCGs. It's
just too expensive to keep up with all the expansions.

Maj

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 8, 2004, 4:33:48 PM6/8/04

to

"cure" <cu...@caramail.com> wrote in message
news:64a19912.04060...@posting.google.com...

> Hello,
> I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
> would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested
> ???
> No more than 2 lines per game!!!
> I don't know most of the game and it is possible to have some of them
> cheap on ebay it is why I want to know the one which are good or bad!
>
>

> Battletech
Yuck. Doesn't do justice to the source material. I didn't like the
artwork, and its got that dice mechanic... ;-)

> Game of Thrones
I heard good things about it in early release, but have also heard that the
expansions make it a bit less fun, due to some serious escalation.

> Guardians
Fun stuff, if it can be found for cheap.

> Hyborian Gates
Awful, awful, awful.

> Illuminati
On principle, I must support any TCG which encourages the consumption of
coffee while playing...

>Imajica (inserted, just becasue I happen to remember it...)
Good game mechanics, but the game's theme is absolutely inaccessible to
anyone who hasn't read the book.

> L5R
This game never kept my attention, despite a healthy local playing
community, and my own interest in its theme.

> Mage Knight
Ultra-rare super mega foil holo chase cards go 3D... If you can convince a
someone to play a limited format, it can be fun and challenging.

> Magic
You too can jump on the bandwagon, and have your collection obsoleted every
year! As with most things, the most popular is never the best.

> MechWarrior
DA suffers less from Ultra-Rare-Super-Mega-Foil-Holo-Chase Syndrome than its
predecessor, Mage Knight, and is better for it. Multi-story tall combat
robots are always a plus, too...

> Mythos
I actually liked this, but games could stagnate from each player being able
to muck with thier opponent's strategy moreso than being able to accomplish
their own.

> Netrunner
Very nice mechanics. The genre got stale about the same time as William
Gibson and Bruce Sterling did, though... Be honest, who's actually read all
of _Virtual Light_? :-P

> On The Edge
See Guardians.

> Rage
Brrrrroken. My own distaste for the dishonesty of Ryan Dancey with WotC's
non-Magic gaming community of the mid-late 90's raises the bile factor
towards its re-release.

> Shadowfist
Great genre. Good, solid game. Re-playability is decent. People tell me
that multi-player is fun, but TTBOMK I've never been in a room with two
other players...

> Vampire/Jyhad
My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer
TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when
released to the masses, he went back to the drawing board and got it right.
VTES is the result. I gush... Frankly, I'm so biased in my love of this
game, listening to me going on about it is probably not wise.

> Wyvern
Yuck. So your Big Draw for your TCG is Dragons..? Why do they all look
like Chia Pets, then... Horrible artwork, horrible mechanics.

> X-Files
It seems somehow fitting that the TCG for X-Files fans is a convoluted
version of two-player solitaire...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Chris

unread,

Jun 8, 2004, 6:18:45 PM6/8/04

to

I'm a player mostly and only a collector of a few games, so all my
remarks will be from a casual player's standpoint.

>7th Sea

I enjoy this game, but unfortunately don't have anyone to play it with
at the moment. It's fairly strategic, and the cards looks great. It's
the CCG to get if you're a pirate genre fan obviously. Have 4 play
decks and about 900 extra cards.

>D&D Miniatures

The game's not bad, but it's basically just the RPG without the RP. I
use the minis for my D&D campaign.

>Doomtown

Played it a couple of times and loved it. Pretty complex if memory
serves. Again haven't had anyone to play with in a while, I just
remember it being fun. Kept 2 play decks, sold the rest.

>Illuminati

This game is pretty fun, and humorous, but it'll take a long time to
know what each card does without having to read the lengthy text each
time you play the card. At least at the rate that I play. Have 2 play
decks and a few extra cards.

>Lord of the Rings

This was a pretty good game, though it seemed limited by only allowing
so many sites. Cards looked great, but I got out of this game as it
started growing too fast.

>Lord of the Rings Miniatures

I owned a few but sold them before ever playing. Just had no one to
play with.

>Mage Knight

Used to own a lot and I enjoyed the game, but sold them all off to
concentrate on Hero Clix. It's a good game and I love pre-painted
minis with game info right on them. To me this is still a GREAT idea
as I am not a wargamer who likes to paint things.

>Magic

I still believe this is in the top 3 games. I'm a casual player only
(I played in a small tourney or two way back in 1993-94 when our
university gang first got into the game - Unlimited had just come out!
I've made a LOT of money selling off those Unlimited-Legends cards).
This is a great game I still play. I have 4 play decks and a few
extras, though I don't have any cards since Mercadian Masques.

>Marvel HeroClix

This is the only Clix/minis game I still play, and then only Marvel (I
prefer Marvel comics over DC). It's fun. It's a better representation
of comics in a game format than any CCG or RPG as far as I'm
concerned.

>Ophidian 2350

Absolutely a fantastic game! The mechanics are awesome. I got into
this one from day 1, but unfortunately it died off due to not having a
solid tourney structure in place and I assume it didn't sell up to
Fleer's expectations. If you haven't tried this game, get it cheap on
ebay for a casual game (there's also a virtual expansion set on
Ophidian's website - not sure of the URL off hand). It's all about
futuristic gladiatorial combat, and it's gameplay is unique and
innovative. I have 2 play decks and about 500 extra cards.

>Overpower

I don't mind this game. Yes, it is simple, but some of us casual
players like simple games. My brother and I can sit back on a summer
afternoon and play a best of 5 series and have loads of fun. I have 2
play decks and about 500 extra cards.

>Redemption

The game isn't bad and I'm intrigued by biblical/angel type stories
and movies, but it was the players unfortunately that turned me off.
Can we just discuss the game, and leave religious discussion out of it
please? I sold off all my cards.

>Star Trek

Unlike a lot of people who responded, I like this game. I'm not sure
what the "overpowered rare" problem is since Magic does the exact same
thing, as does pretty much any game I've seen. Though I assume it's
because you can play a common crappy card at the same 'cost' as
Jean-Luc Picard. I sold off all my cards, but recently bought a ton
more cheap and made about 10 play decks of different factions. For
casual play only with my Trekkie friends.

>Star Wars CCG (Decipher)

The best game ever made period. Or perhaps it's better to say that
it's my favourite game. I've never had more fun playing a CCG and I
recently bought a lot of cards again after selling all mine years ago.
I have 4 play decks and lots of extras.

>Tomb Raider

I love this game. I'm a bit of a Tomb Raider junkie (the games, not so
much the movies), and I love games that have good solitaire rules, and
this one is almost more fun as a solo game than a two-player game. If
you're a CCG player, and a fan of Tomb Raider, then you should have at
least tried this game. Very cheap on ebay. I have one solitaire deck
and an almost complete collection.

>Vampire/Jyhad

Tried it briefly. CCG's should be two-player games first, then
solitaire second, then multi-player last. I have a hard enough time
finding one opponent, let alone 2 or more.

>Xena

Tried it. Very simple. It's a great drinking game,

>X-Files

Also one of my favourites. I've had many fun games, and I disagree
with the "two players playing solitaire" comment. There isn't as much
interaction as some games (like Ophidian 2350 for example which is all
interaction), but there is still a fair bit.

Sorrow

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 8:27:24 AM6/9/04

to

> > Netrunner
> Very nice mechanics. The genre got stale about the same time as William
> Gibson and Bruce Sterling did, though... Be honest, who's actually read
all
> of _Virtual Light_? :-P

How do you see that the genre got stale? Even so, how does that bear on the
CCG? As a game, Netrunner is quite fun and challenging to play.

> > Rage
> Brrrrroken. My own distaste for the dishonesty of Ryan Dancey with WotC's
> non-Magic gaming community of the mid-late 90's raises the bile factor
> towards its re-release.

Have you taken a look at 2ndEd Rage (Rage Across Las Vegas)? It's actually
very balanced and fun to play.

> > Vampire/Jyhad
> My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
Multiplayer
> TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when
> released to the masses, he went back to the drawing board and got it
right.
> VTES is the result. I gush... Frankly, I'm so biased in my love of this
> game, listening to me going on about it is probably not wise.

It was quite good. Up until Camarilla Edition, anyway. But that's just one
man's opinion.

Sorrow
---
I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me.
They ask me if I feel remorse 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

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 11:19:35 AM6/9/04

to

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote:

>> Vampire/Jyhad
>My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer

>TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when...

Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. It is still retains
Magic's dwindling life mechanism and is all about eliminating other
players from the game. This is ok for a two-player game like Magic -
the game ends when one player is out. But it's a poor basis for a
multiplayer game. Play a fun, theme deck and *bam* you're ousted and
go off to weep while the other players finish the game. And a game
can take hours to finish. While you're waiting, you can look through
the game's art and then tear your eyes out. A more suitable title
would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ...

Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is
Shadowfist. Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and
the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather
than fading into nothingness.

But I'm reminded of the last episode of Angel, "Not Fade Away", which
aired here yesterday. And I really must go do something about that.
Grrrr...

Andrew

Sorrow

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 11:30:31 AM6/9/04

to

> >> Vampire/Jyhad
> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
Multiplayer
> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when...
> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.

This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed.
However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers
of InQuest magazine.

Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden

Teemu T Vilen

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 12:03:05 PM6/9/04

to

In rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote:
: On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote:
: Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. It is still retains

: Magic's dwindling life mechanism and is all about eliminating other
: players from the game. This is ok for a two-player game like Magic -
: the game ends when one player is out. But it's a poor basis for a
: multiplayer game. Play a fun, theme deck and *bam* you're ousted and
: go off to weep while the other players finish the game. And a game
: can take hours to finish. While you're waiting, you can look through
: the game's art and then tear your eyes out. A more suitable title
: would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ...

Sounds like a bitter first attempt to making a "fun" deck thinking that
as you're playing with a "fun" deck, nobody should beat you because of
that, and because you didn't bother with pool/blood gain and no bleed
nor combat defense, not to mention anything that would actually oust
your prey ;)

: Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is

: Shadowfist. Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and
: the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather
: than fading into nothingness.

Most games work a bit like Chez Geek (for example). Everyone goes
forward and the first to cross the line wins. In most games there's
either little you can do to stop someone from winning with interesting
mechanics or table dynamics or, the outcome of the game is determined
mostly by luck and the cards people (happen to) have in hand. Games like
these wont last very long as anything but casual entertainment in a bar
twice a year.

A good Jyhad game is nothing like that. Instead of one "building to a
crescendo" arc (as you describe it), a Jyhad game has a multitude and
every change in the game affects the game state. True, palyers drop from
the game before the game is finished, but with an experienced table
no-one should get out without a good fight. If you get a crappy start
it's built into the table dynamics that other players have an interest
for keeping you going and alive until you're back on your feet. If they
shrug and let you die, they aren't either thinking straight when they
play or they weren't thinking straight when they build a deck without
options to influence the game - or, as mentioned earlier, you built a
squishy deck and can only blame yourself =)

//T

Matt Green

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 12:06:09 PM6/9/04

to

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote:
>
> >> Vampire/Jyhad
> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
Multiplayer
> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when...
>
> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.

Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and
condescending in on-line fora? I've met you IRL and you seem a perfectly
reasonable fellow, likewise the other 'fist players involved in the 'dice'
discussion the other month were really personable once they stopped
over-reacting and started posting constructively.

I swear this sort of attitude puts people off playing Shadowfist. And for
what? What a pointless discussion. I don't care what game you end up playing
Cure as long as you enjoy it.

Matt Green

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 1:05:42 PM6/9/04

to

In article <2ioojjF...@uni-berlin.de>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Vampire/Jyhad
>> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
>Multiplayer
>> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when...
>> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.
>This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed.

No, it's just correct.
A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist
considerably better.

>However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers
>of InQuest magazine.

Which is a good sample why?

--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^-- "Get your mind right and you can make a stick /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ your wand and the sky your hat and a puddle |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\ your magic..." -- Granny Weatherwax '---''(_/--' (_/-'

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 1:11:01 PM6/9/04

to

In article <ca7chh$d7q$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,

Matt Green <ma...@rid0utass0ciates.c0.uk> wrote:
>Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and
>condescending in on-line fora?

Trash talk, mostly.
Note that we get on each other's nerves sometimes too.

>I've met you IRL and you seem a perfectly
>reasonable fellow, likewise the other 'fist players involved in the 'dice'
>discussion the other month were really personable once they stopped
>over-reacting and started posting constructively.

Went the other way too, I'll note -- there were a lot of annoying
miscommuncations early in the "dice" thread, which turned into a useful
conversation once some of them were smoothed out a bit.

I'll note that I have something of an "old usenet" style, which tends to cover
both not "suffering (apparent) fools gladly" as well as a few other things.

>I swear this sort of attitude puts people off playing Shadowfist. And for
>what? What a pointless discussion. I don't care what game you end up playing
>Cure as long as you enjoy it.

Absolutely. But discussion can be fruitful anyway.

BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in
cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free, online
(at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box).

Raille

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 1:34:25 PM6/9/04

to

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:tJCdnWJfHaH...@io.com...

> In article <2ioojjF...@uni-berlin.de>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >> >> Vampire/Jyhad
> >> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
> >Multiplayer
> >> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic
when...
> >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.
> >This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed.
>
> No, it's just correct.
> A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist
> considerably better.
>
> >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers
> >of InQuest magazine.
>
> Which is a good sample why?

Because its the Only sample. There are not enough fist players to get a
statistically significant sampling.

Now if you can pull off another vote and have a higher turn out than the
inquest vote, then you can make a claim that fist is better. Until then
Vtes is supreme.

Raille

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 3:18:12 PM6/9/04

to

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote:
>
> >> Vampire/Jyhad
> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
Multiplayer
> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when...
>
> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.

Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in
_your_ Cheerios this morning..? I thought this was an opinion thread, and
not an Andrew S. Davidson opinion thread. You'll be happy to know, I've
altered the header title appropriately :P )

> It is still retains
> Magic's dwindling life mechanism and is all about eliminating other
> players from the game. This is ok for a two-player game like Magic -
> the game ends when one player is out. But it's a poor basis for a
> multiplayer game. Play a fun, theme deck and *bam* you're ousted and
> go off to weep while the other players finish the game.

...Or start another game with others so ousted. Note, if you agree with
others as to the relative competitive level of decks, this doesn't happen in
casual play. If you attend a tournament with a fun, theme deck, you should
have the sense to know ahead of time that you'll be sitting around a lot...

> And a game can take hours to finish.

For inexperienced players, yes. I'll admit the slow play early on tends to
convince a lot of people to not stick with the game. Most groups with even
a moderate level of experience can reduce game lengths to less than two
hours, often less than an hour. If your attention span cannot tolerate
that, well then, you shouldn't be playing a multiplayer game... As with all
games, circumstances of deadlock can arise.

> While you're waiting, you can look through
> the game's art and then tear your eyes out. A more suitable title
> would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ...
>

Andrew, you're going to make an excellent old person someday (soon), you
crotchety old fart... That aside, the majority of the VTES players out
there aren't from the goth subculture, nor are they Vampire RPG types. The
typical VTES player is a strategic-minded gamer with the rare trait of
actually enjoying social interaction while gaming. As to the artwork,
everyone has their preferences. I like many of the (non-Christopher Shy)
vampire portaits, and have my favorite artists for the game (Kieran Yanner
is a recent fave). The artword for VTES strikes a wide range of quality, if
only becuse there are now so many cards... By contrast (and since you seem
to _want_ to get in a 'my opinion is worth more than yours' contest), the
cartoonish style of Shadowfist is cute, but approaches tedium quickly for
me. I _do_ like LA Williams' "Hopping Vampire", though, even if it does
have two legs...

> Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is
> Shadowfist.

Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really
comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules.

> Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and
> the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather
> than fading into nothingness.
>

Conversely, dog-piling a single player is much easier (even encouraged) in
Shadowfist's environment. Just surviving as someone else's Tool until the
end of a multiplayer game can often be more of a bore than getting ousted,
and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, come to
think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in multiplayer Shadowfist would
roughly result in the same effect as in VTES. The only difference; you have
to play it out to the bitter end...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 4:35:57 PM6/9/04

to

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2iods8F...@uni-berlin.de...

> > > Netrunner
> > Very nice mechanics. The genre got stale about the same time as William
> > Gibson and Bruce Sterling did, though... Be honest, who's actually read
> all
> > of _Virtual Light_? :-P
>
> How do you see that the genre got stale?

Oh, I dunno... The whole haxx0r v. Eeev1l.c0rp bit seems horribly cliche'
to me by now. As with everything else in my post, its just opinion...

> Even so, how does that bear on the
> CCG? As a game, Netrunner is quite fun and challenging to play.
>

I agree. Hence the first three words written...

> > > Rage
> > Brrrrroken. My own distaste for the dishonesty of Ryan Dancey with
WotC's
> > non-Magic gaming community of the mid-late 90's raises the bile factor
> > towards its re-release.
>
> Have you taken a look at 2ndEd Rage (Rage Across Las Vegas)? It's
actually
> very balanced and fun to play.
>

As I mentioned, the bile factor is associated (however unfairly) with Ryan
Dancey, and not Rage 2ed, per se. I didn't look at Rage 2ed, and wouldn't
bother with it now (my free gaming time is seriously limited). Not unless
Legbiter made me. ;-)

> > > Vampire/Jyhad
> > My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
> Multiplayer
> > TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when
> > released to the masses, he went back to the drawing board and got it
> right.
> > VTES is the result. I gush... Frankly, I'm so biased in my love of
this
> > game, listening to me going on about it is probably not wise.
>
> It was quite good. Up until Camarilla Edition, anyway.

Everyone has reasons for deciding to try a new game, and for leaving old
ones. I can't say I agree with your reasons, but I can respect you're right
to them...

> But that's just one
> man's opinion.
>

and that _was_ the point of this thread, which seems to have escaped Some
(ahem!!!)

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

The Doctor

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 5:11:21 PM6/9/04

to

Raille wrote:
>
> Because its the Only sample. There are not enough fist players to get a
> statistically significant sampling.
>
> Now if you can pull off another vote and have a higher turn out than the
> inquest vote, then you can make a claim that fist is better. Until then
> Vtes is supreme.

Quantity is not quality.

Just because a minor majority voted George Bush to the White House does
not mean he is the best president.

Jyhad sure is the best Multiplayer TCG, I agree, but not because so many
people say so. It just IS very good.

And well, basically there haven't been that many Multiplayer TVGs, and
even VTES is not doing too great. It has a steady group of loyal
followers, but so does Quake2 (the dead computergame).

Pro's about Jyhad/VTES:
-it's not over in 5-10 minutes
-you have to actually think
-you have to talk to other players (coherent talk, not just 'Lightning
Bolt on your Hypnotic Spectre')
-(in Jyhad at least) the cards are pretty and dark :)
-it's about vampires, how cool can you get?
-it was built to be multiplayer, and is fun for all players. I've played
10-player games that lasted till sunrise (some players suddenly had to
leave at that time *gg*) and were interesting all through the game. And
yeah, some were ousted before it ended. Didn't see them sulk, they just
stayed to watch.

Con's?
-They changed the card's backs.
-They tried to copy Magic for too long and wanted VTES to be as succesful.

//Doc.

--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje

begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

Julian Lighton

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 5:16:41 PM6/9/04

to

In article <133b01c4b2342ec6...@news.teranews.com>,

Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:tJCdnWJfHaH...@io.com...
>> In article <2ioojjF...@uni-berlin.de>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> >> >> Vampire/Jyhad
>> >> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
>> >> >Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the
>> >> >flaws of Magic when...
>> >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.
>> >This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed.
>>
>> No, it's just correct.

It's a matter of opinion. I don't have one, not having ever played
Vampire. Shadowfist is a very good multiplayer game, however. (It is
possible that I may be biased. :)

>> A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist
>> considerably better.
>>
>> >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers
>> >of InQuest magazine.
>>
>> Which is a good sample why?
>
>Because its the Only sample. There are not enough fist players to get a
>statistically significant sampling.

Yes there are.

>Now if you can pull off another vote and have a higher turn out than the
>inquest vote, then you can make a claim that fist is better. Until then
>Vtes is supreme.

If people who have played Vampire but not Shadowfist think Vampire is
the best multiplayer CCG ever, does that mean they are right, or that
they have not played the better game?

(Of course, the same can be said of those who have played Shadowfist
but not Vampire, who think Shadowfist is the best.)

Popularity polls only work when those polled have sufficient
familiarity with the subject. Due to the expense of following a CCG,
most people don't widely sample the field. Consider what CCG would win
an InQuest poll for the best CCG ever. It it really the best, or just
the most popular?

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 6:16:34 PM6/9/04

to

In article <UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,

David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
>news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com...

>> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.
>Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in
>_your_ Cheerios this morning..?

Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're a troll

Aside from that...you're wrong.

>only becuse there are now so many cards... By contrast (and since you seem
>to _want_ to get in a 'my opinion is worth more than yours' contest), the
>cartoonish style of Shadowfist is cute, but approaches tedium quickly for
>me.

Fist does not have a single art style.

>Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really
>comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules.

You can play online...

>and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, come to
>think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in multiplayer Shadowfist would
>roughly result in the same effect as in VTES. The only difference; you have
>to play it out to the bitter end...

Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the very factors
that allow multiple players to gang up to take down, or more often, slow down,
a leader also allow a weaker player to grab a win if the table exhausts
itself.

Unless, of course, you are sitting for two hours with one card left in your
deck and a hand full of junk (but then, you -can- always just discard cards
and force yourself out of the game, since running through your deck is the one
way to "oust" yourself in Fist).

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 6:44:27 PM6/9/04

to

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:30:31 -0500, Sorrow wrote:

>This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed.
>However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers
>of InQuest magazine.

No, it wasn't a vote. It was a bit of fluff by the staff writers.
The title of the article was "Lord of Chaos" and what they were
thinking of was what they call chaos games, "a game where eight ain't
enough". I suppose that's why they included Magic the Gathering - a
game that doesn't have any proper multiplayer rules as I recall - just
a bunch of variant formats.

Their selections were LotR, Magic, Game of Thrones, B5 and Vampire.
Read what they had to say about Vampire. "Two is okay; four is
ideal". They didn't even know that the tournament standard for
Vampire is five players. Clueless.

Andrew

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 10:10:50 PM6/9/04

to

Sez "Matt Green"

: > >> Vampire/Jyhad

: > >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
Multiplayer
: > >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when...
: >
: > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.
:
: Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and
: condescending in on-line fora?

"[VtES] deserves the 'Best Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title.": Not arrogant,
not elitist, not condescending.

"Sorry, but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.": Arrogant, elitist, and
condescending.

Buh?

Bob Rossney
r...@well.com

Frisco Del Rosario

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 12:56:08 AM6/10/04

to

In article <64a19912.04060...@posting.google.com>,
cu...@caramail.com (cure) wrote:

> Netrunner

The most outstanding game.

Alex Broadhead

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 1:05:37 AM6/10/04

to

Howdy,

> I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
> would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested
> ???
> No more than 2 lines per game!!!
> I don't know most of the game and it is possible to have some of them
> cheap on ebay it is why I want to know the one which are good or bad!

You might be interested to know that you can preview many of these
games online here:

http://www.ccgworkshop.com

Here's a direct link to their list of games with status indicators:

http://www.ccgworkshop.com/game.list.jsp

You can cheaply or freely try many of them out - often with the
guidance of people who already know the rules - before spending
anything on cards. And, of course, you can get plenty of opinions in
real-time chat too...

As for the games:

> Call of Cthulhu - Awaiting this with some trepidation. It may be the deathblow for the other HP Lovecraft based game, which is my favorite. Looks to be 2-player only, though, so maybe it'll just be a good complement.

> Harry Potter - Bought a few starters - never tried it out. Looks mighty simplistic.

> Illuminati - Broken, but can still be a heck of a lot of fun as long as no one's really playing to win. Kind of complicated, mechanically. The non-CCG is probably better. Steve Jackson apparently won't let CCGW implement it, which seems like a big mistake to me.

> Magic - An OK 2-player game, back in the day. Addiction-model marketing so obvious that only the addicts play anymore, though.

> Mythos - My favorite. Very original and well-designed mechanics, but only really works multi-player. Not quite so well-designed cardset, but I'm working on that on CCGWorkshop... How can you resist a game with a card entitled 'Thirty-Five Abominable Adulations of the Bloated One'?

> Pokemon - Bought some remaindered starters - never played. Looks mighty simplistic.

> Shadowfist - Played a couple of times when it first came out, and it seemed like a pretty unpredictable, fun game. I think it's finally playing on CCGW, so maybe I'll try it again...

> Star Trek - Collected the Decipher version after it crashed in value. Even that was a mistake. The rules change in major ways every time they release anything and the cardset is full of wallpaper. Stinks.

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 4:17:03 AM6/10/04

to

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Matt Green wrote:

>Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and
>condescending in on-line fora? I've met you IRL and you seem a perfectly
>reasonable fellow, likewise the other 'fist players involved in the 'dice'
>discussion the other month were really personable once they stopped
>over-reacting and started posting constructively.

The other guys you're probably referring too are New Yorkers - 'nuff
said :) Me, I favour a provocative net style as it makes more
interesting reading - like a pungent editorial or a debating show such
as Crossfire or Question Time. Paradoxically, I don't like extended
debate and discussion during the play of these games - just a
background of witty banter. Hence the apparent difference perhaps.

Game forums often have routine wars between the "fanboys" and the
"whiners" and I'm sometimes assigned to the latter camp. When taken
to task about this recently, I cited an amusing story by Robert
Sheckley which I was pleased to find is online now. It's worth
sharing and is only 5000 words or so:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheckley3/sheckley31.html

Andrew

Daneel

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 4:23:00 AM6/10/04

to

cu...@caramail.com (cure) wrote in message news:<64a19912.04060...@posting.google.com>...

I'm not sure what you'd gather from a description max 2 lines long...
Unless you are looking for "this is great!" vs. "this sucks...". ;)

> Arcadia

Great mood. Absolutely no balance whatsoever. If you are into RPGs,
you can play this card game as a "mule" entertainment (building
characters and selecting waylays as if you were roleplaying).
Incredibly easy to create übers.

> Guardians
> >following the advice of some people I bought a couple of cheap box
> (starter, booster and dagger isle)... I will test the game beginning
> of july!

Do you know any good options for buying this CCG? It was reprinted in
Hungary (but only the basic set, no expansions yet), but I'm still
looking to complete my original collection of the absolutely most
fabulous and beautiful card game ever invented. I usually browse for
it one the web, but it's either too expensive (with the added cost of
shipping) or (esp. on EBay) requires Paypal (which sadly does not
deliver into my country).

Words of warning: though not primarily intended as one, where the game
really shines is multiplayer. Try to (i) play 4 player games (which
balance out rather nicely), and (ii) try to make sure the decks are
(roughly) the same league. Too often a two-player game will be decided
(if not over) very early in the game.

Bye,

Daneel

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 4:50:41 AM6/10/04

to

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>...

> That aside, the majority of the VTES players out
> there aren't from the goth subculture, nor are they Vampire RPG types. The
> typical VTES player is a strategic-minded gamer with the rare trait of
> actually enjoying social interaction while gaming.

Yes. When I started roleplaying (quite a long time ago) I was in my
angsty I-wear-black-to-show-the-world-I-know-everyone-hates-me kind of
period. Now I dress lighter, but I still have no sense of strategy
(and am still diligently antisocial). It's good to be the atypically
typical VTES player. ;)

> The artword for VTES strikes a wide range of quality, if
> only becuse there are now so many cards...

Euphemism. Allow me to rephrase. The artwork of VTES generally sucks.
;) It's not dark enough to be Dark, and it's not vivid enough to be
Vivid... It's Ragish blood-n-gore plus some photocopies from C.
"Xerox" Shy, topped with hilariously outrageous changes in the card
layouts and one major aspect of thematic consistency - the uniform
presence of inconsistency.

Bye,

Daneel

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 8:55:40 AM6/10/04

to

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message

news:Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com...

> In article <UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,
> David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
> >"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
> >news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com...
> >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.
> >Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed
in
> >_your_ Cheerios this morning..?
>
> Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're a troll

Taking what was basically an opinion thread, and twisting it into a
cross-posted pissing match over who's CCG is best certainly is trollish...

> Aside from that...you're wrong.
>

Heh. So you're making it an Olympic Team pissing contest with Andrew, then?
Fine. Opinions aren't 'wrong', Joshua, they're just opinions... But hey, I
_did_ respond to this (stupid me), so lets spin the wheels for a few
rounds...

> >Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really
> >comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules.
>
> You can play online...

I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about how multiplayer tabletop
Shadowfist stacks up by using CCG Workshop... Multiplayer interaction
online is never the same as when people sit down to a real, wooden table to
have it out, regardless of the game played. Were you implying here that the
player interaction of Shadowfist is so simplistic, that an IRC window and an
online card shuffler is adequate to depict this 'Best Multiplayer Game'..?
;-) VTES has Deckbot, and a CCG Workshop project in the works, but I'd
never recommend either to a person as a means of grasping the game's
depth...

>
> >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, come
to
> >think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in multiplayer Shadowfist
would
> >roughly result in the same effect as in VTES. The only difference; you
have
> >to play it out to the bitter end...
>
> Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the very
factors
> that allow multiple players to gang up to take down, or more often, slow
down,
> a leader also allow a weaker player to grab a win if the table exhausts
> itself.
>

Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's scenario was
for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full of powerhouse tourney
style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment such that a comparatively weak deck
can 'grab the win', it doesn't seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic
multiplayer, as it is a random fortune multiplayer game. Not my cup of
coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to
play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the
end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)

But insofar as comparing VTES to Fist in this new scanario you redirected us
to above, given a player with a deck of equivalent power to the table, who
is just down on his luck, the chance for a comeback is roughly equivalent.
I've seen a wealth of people bounce back on a VTES table, often because
their prey got a bit too Machiavellian (sp?) with their table manipulations,
but just as often because the player got their game up and running. This
sceraio is a wash between the two games... No net gain for either...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

vermillian

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 10:12:34 AM6/10/04

to

cu...@caramail.com (cure) wrote in message news:<64a19912.04060...@posting.google.com>...

> Hello,

> I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
> would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested
> ???
> No more than 2 lines per game!!!

How about three?

> .hack//enemy
> 7th Sea
How many pirate collectable strategy games are there? Lots of cards,
theme decks can work, but discoutinued and deck construction a bit
tough for noobs.

> Age of Empires

Tons of book keeping, lots of counters, and requires a ton of cards to
make certain aspects of the game playable.

> Arcadia
> Babylon 5
> Battletech
> Beyblade
> Bionicle
> Buffy
> Call of Cthulhu

Not out yet, but will probably suffer from FFGs wacky swingy balance
and poor design decisions like AGOT did.

> Creepy Freaks
> CrossGen
> Cyberpunk

Bulky piece of crap. Nothing happens for a long time. 3 ways to win,
but one's nearly impossible, the other's are solitare. The main one
(100 op points) makes you want to cry "How the hell am I going to get
five!?!"

> D&D Miniatures

Great game for DnDers if you've got tons of cash.

> DC HeroClix
> DC/Marvel TCG (Upper Deck)
> Deck Protectors
> Doomtown
> Doomtrooper
> Dragonball Z/Dragonball GT

What I've seen from the video game on Game Boy Advance its a piece of
crap. Power rares ruling the day and rediculous powers on individual
characters seem to dominate.

> Duel Masters

One of the most balaned and exciting ccgs I've ever played. Seriously.
Check it out.

> Firestorm
> Galactic Empires
> Game of Thrones

One of the better ones, but poor design choices and a poor set forced
my friends out of it. A decent game worth checking out none the less.

> Gaming Supplies

> Guardians
> >following the advice of some people I bought a couple of cheap box
> (starter, booster and dagger isle)... I will test the game beginning
> of july!
>

> Harry Potter

Real simple, but enjoyable for a bit. Buy a box or two or a starter or
four, just cause.

> Hercules
> Highlander
> Hum Aliens
> Hyborian Gates
> Illuminati

Lots of cards, lots of tokens, but a good thematic game. Goofy, and
questionable game play, a bit bulky, and uses dice.

> Initial D
> L5R/LBS
> Looney Tunes
> Lord of the Rings
> Lord of the Rings Miniatures
> Lost Colony
> Mage Knight
> Magic
> Magic - Foreign
> Magi-Nation
> Marvel HeroClix
> Marvel Recharge
> Marvel/DC TCG (Upper Deck)
> MechWarrior
> Middle Earth
> MLB Showdown
> Monster Rancher
> Mythos
> NBA Showdown
> NeoPets
> Netrunner

Good two player game, but corp had the cards to beat out the runners.
Had they printed more expansions this might have been different.

> NFL Showdown
> On The Edge

Funny little tiered game. Basic game play, emulating magic, but
nothing too exciting ever happened IMO.

> Ophidian 2350
> Other/Unlisted Gaming Boxes
> Overpower
> Pokemon
> Rage

Some cards were useless... in the first set. Don't buy a CCG that
prints 50% wallpaper in set one.

> Redemption
> RIFTS
> Sailor Moon
> Scooby Doo
> Settlers of Catan (Board Game)

Great board game. Good for all ages.

> Shadowfist
> Shadowrun
> Simpsons
> Spycraft
> Star Trek
> Star Wars CCG (Decipher)

VOMIT ALL OVER THE PLACE!!! Great concept but then they require you
play with main characters pretty much, so this requires rares.

> Star Wars TCG (WOTC)

Blarg! DIce! But nice looking cards and mechanics.

> SW: Jedi Knights
> SW: Young Jedi
> Tomb Raider
> Ultimate Combat
> Vampire/Jyhad

Out dated, static. Games take too long. Deck building unrewarding as
most games are determined by other people's poor decisions, only 25%
of the time in your favour.

> WarCry
> Warhammer 40K
> Warlord
> WCW Nitro
> Wheel of Time
> Wizard in Training
> WWE Raw Deal
> Wyvern
> Xena
> X-Files
> Yu-Gi-Oh
> YuYu Hakusho

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 10:49:22 AM6/10/04

to

"Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> wrote in message
news:KqPxc.73602$Ly.12698@attbi_s01...

Condescending arrogant and elitist perhaps because Andrew so often assumes
that his opinion is of greater value than others... Within the context of
the topic (mere solicited opinion) of the thread, Andrew assuming his opnion
is best certainly _is_ elitist. His online attitude is, in Matt Green's
experience, indicative of the posting habits of other Shadowfist players who
frequent the online community. I've had a lesser number of similar
experiences, so I wouldn't paint the lot with a single brush. I do know
that Matt Green is one of those who frequents more online communities than
I, though, so I value his opinion in this.

I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full
props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game in
multiplayer , and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we see
before us. Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion
of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is... Whatever he's
like IRL, he consistently posts with a grating, 'Holier than Thou' attitude,
especially when it pertains to VTES.

If there was ever a single community which _might_ be supportive of
anothers' efforts at raising interest in a good, multiplayer TCG from the
early days of game play, VTES is it. VTES and 'Fist have a similar
historical arc, in that both sustained through a long dark on the backs of a
few avid fans. Any pre-disposition that the VTES community online (as a
whole) might have had towards trying 'Fist has been likely knocked out of
them by the consistently unsavory posts of a select few, led by Mr.
Davidson. Way to go Andrew, alienating your favorite game to a group
pre-disposed towards actually liking multiplayer TCGs...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 11:15:18 AM6/10/04

to

> >Fist does not have a single art style.
>
> Well, yes and no. There's considerable variation, but a large
> percentage of the art is of the same basic style.
>
> Of course, that style is more "realistic, or as realistic as you can
> get with insane kung fu, cyborged demons, etc.", not "cartoonish".
>
> (http://www.shadowfist.com/html/7M_card_preview.htm for example.)
>

Thankyou for proving just how cartoonish the art style in Shadowfist still
is.

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 11:42:53 AM6/10/04

to

On 10 Jun 2004 07:12:34 -0700, vermillian wrote:

>> 7th Sea
>How many pirate collectable strategy games are there?

Ther's about to be another one - Pirates of the Spanish Main. Their
main appeal seems to be the opportunity to do the accent. :)

>> Duel Masters
>
>One of the most balaned and exciting ccgs I've ever played. Seriously.
>Check it out.

Really? I had supposed that it was YuGiOh clone. Tell me more.

Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 11:55:03 AM6/10/04

to

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:15:18 -0400, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:

>> (http://www.shadowfist.com/html/7M_card_preview.htm for example.)
>>
>
>Thankyou for proving just how cartoonish the art style in Shadowfist still
>is.

I'm not understanding you. The first piece, for example, is a
painting by Rob Alexander - a CCG artist who has done work for others
CCGs, starting with Magic. I thought that the essence of a cartoon
was that it is done with a pen/pencil and block colour, not with a
brush. Or that it was a caricature rather than realistic. Shadowfist
has one or two pieces like that (Shaking the Mountain, for example)
but they haven't been popular. And I don't see any at that link.

Cartoonish art can be ok if it's done well. I quite liked INWO's art
which seemed eye-catching and witty. On the Edge's was too crude for
most people though.

Andrew

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 12:03:26 PM6/10/04

to

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message

news:ab3gc0pm8k3u03fbu...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:18:12 GMT, David Zopf wrote:
>
> >For inexperienced players, yes. I'll admit the slow play early on tends
to
> >convince a lot of people to not stick with the game. Most groups with
even
> >a moderate level of experience can reduce game lengths to less than two
> >hours, often less than an hour. If your attention span cannot tolerate
> >that, well then, you shouldn't be playing a multiplayer game... As with
all
> >games, circumstances of deadlock can arise.
>
> You misunderstand me - I don't mind games which take over an hour - I
> was quite happy playing a four hour Shadowfist game the other weekend.
> But it wouldn't have been so much fun if it had been Vampire and one
> or more players had to sit out for most of that time.
>

Again, I'll put it back to you; for what value of 'Fun' is it fun to sit
around for X hours in a game you have little to no chance of winning, or
even positively participating? If your premise is one weak deck at a table
of powerhouses, then VTES wins out as the better multiplayer, based on the
fact that it releases the weak player from the game earlier. My
recreational time is limited, and if I was in that four hour 'Fist game and
being obviously outclassed (and not learning more about the game by sticking
around), I'd be looking to get out and go play something (even another 'Fist
game) where I wasn't so much as a speed bump to another's victory... If
'Fist's environment is such that an obviously outclassed deck and/or player
has a fair chance to win by sticking it out to the end of a long game, then
it shouldn't really be classified as a strategic multiplayer CCG, but is
rather a random, fun multiplayer CCG.

> Your estimates of Vampire game length seem understated.

Maybe. I play with experienced players quite a lot.

> There's a
> current thread observing that many tournament games are timing out
> with the current time limit of two hours.

Correction, the current time limit is a minimum of two hours. Longer time
limits may be established, if desired. This is the reason I chose not to
participate in that thread, the solution to tables timing out is already in
the rules.

> And, in the finals, where
> we may suppose all the players to be experienced, even more time is
> required, it seems.

A separate problem from the 'early oust' issue. Finals may be lengthened,
such that the full strategic capabilities of the players may be realized.

> But it's not the length of time that's the
> problem so much as the fact that players are eliminated during this
> time and so can't play any more.
>

In the VTES circles I've played in, the players ousted early don't mill
about and drool waiting for the current game to finish(OK, maybe Derek, but
that was only when he was eyeballing my glass of MacAllan's)... They play
pick up games, they try out other CCGs, they start a new VTES table with the
first four ousted (a 'self-righting' mechanism for differences is deck
strength, BTW, if people choose to play the same decks again.) It may be
that your local group has made you accustomed to very small groups where
those players _must_ wait for that multiplayer game to end before another
may begin. Sorry for you if thats the case. I had that problem for a
while, living in Charlotte. In playgroups of six or more, with the first
game being a four player, it is typically a twenty minute wait for the next
four-player VTES game to get started.

> >Conversely, dog-piling a single player is much easier (even encouraged)
in
> >Shadowfist's environment.
>
> You can dog-pile in Shadowfist but it's not especially rewarding as
> there are no points for ousting someone in that game and it's almost
> impossible to do. Players can bounce back quite quickly and I get
> lots of practise at that myself, as I'm often a tall poppy. If you're
> worried about this then it's easy to pack your deck with cards that
> let you thrive upon punishment - like a bloodstained HK movie hero or
> Hollywood terminator type. Hence card titles like "Is that All You
> Got?" and "That Which Does Not Kill Me..."
>

I'll have to take your word for it, but I still value the 'limited direct
interaction' principle, maybe a bit overmuch. I don't see it as being
preserved in the Shadowfist multiplayer rules.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Noal McDonald

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 2:06:38 PM6/10/04

to

(cure) wrote:
> DC HeroClix

Eh? This isn't a card game.

> Doomtown

Played it for quite a while when it first came out and enjoyed it when
it quite a bit. However, the expansions came out so quickly that I
couldn't keep up and eventually shelved it for good.

> Magic

It's okay. *shrug* I'm proud to be able to say that I've never spent
so much as a penny on the game.

> Marvel HeroClix

Also, not a card game. However, I do play it sporadically and enjoy
it.

> Settlers of Catan (Board Game)

Awesome game, including any of the expansions & spinoffs. Except
Starfarers. That one is ridiculously easy to master.

> Vampire/Jyhad

The best TCG ever. Bar none. The people that play it are far superior
people to other TCG players. (Yes, I'm proud to be an elitist
bastard.)

Btw, I didn't see Bloodwars, the AD&D spinoff, listed. Not saying it
was the best, but I enjoyed playing it.

Regards,
Noal

Julian Lighton

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 3:02:53 PM6/10/04

to

In article <2004061011...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>,

You seem to have a different definition of "cartoonish" than I. To me,
it suggests the art of Phil Foglio, or the art in INWO. While Phil has
done some Shadowfist art, so has Drew Tucker. Neither of their styles
are typical of Shadowfist art.

Shadowfist is an action-movie game. The art tries to capture that feel.

Julian Lighton

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 3:23:29 PM6/10/04

to

In article <gTYxc.25087$YW7...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,

David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com...

>> >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say,

>> >come to think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in
>> >multiplayer Shadowfist would roughly result in the same effect as
>> >in VTES. The only difference; you have to play it out to the
>> >bitter end...
>>
>> Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the
>> very factors that allow multiple players to gang up to take down,
>> or more often, slow down, a leader also allow a weaker player to
>> grab a win if the table exhausts itself.
>>
>Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's scenario was
>for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full of powerhouse tourney
>style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment such that a comparatively weak deck
>can 'grab the win', it doesn't seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic
>multiplayer, as it is a random fortune multiplayer game.

Multiplayer Shadowfist is much more skill-dominant than it is
deck-construction-dominant. A good player with a bad deck always has a
chance. He'd have a better chance with a good deck, but he cannot be
counted out.

Yes, sometimes the winner of a game is determined by who got lucky,
but the same players do well consistently. Two of the players from the
2002 World Championships final were in the 2003 final, and neither of
the other finalists from 2002 were there, or it probably would have
been three.

> Not my cup of
>coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to
>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the
>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)

Games between well-matched good players can take a long time,
especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a
consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players
aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total
amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates
a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't.

Julian Lighton

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 3:32:53 PM6/10/04

to

In article <iD%xc.551$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,

David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
>news:ab3gc0pm8k3u03fbu...@4ax.com...

>> >Conversely, dog-piling a single player is much easier (even encouraged)
>> >in Shadowfist's environment.
>>
>> You can dog-pile in Shadowfist but it's not especially rewarding as
>> there are no points for ousting someone in that game and it's almost
>> impossible to do. Players can bounce back quite quickly and I get
>> lots of practise at that myself, as I'm often a tall poppy.

Furthermore, jumping on the weak player is usually bad play for
everybody except the guy in the lead.

>> If you're
>> worried about this then it's easy to pack your deck with cards that
>> let you thrive upon punishment - like a bloodstained HK movie hero or
>> Hollywood terminator type. Hence card titles like "Is that All You
>> Got?" and "That Which Does Not Kill Me..."
>
>I'll have to take your word for it, but I still value the 'limited direct
>interaction' principle, maybe a bit overmuch. I don't see it as being
>preserved in the Shadowfist multiplayer rules.

It's not. Shadowfist's multiplayer rules use the "you against the
world" principle. If you don't like games like that, you won't like
Shadowfist.

Still, it's entirely possible to take on the world, and kick all their
butts.

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 3:48:18 PM6/10/04

to

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message
news:10chd9h...@corp.supernews.com...

> In article <gTYxc.25087$YW7...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
> >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
> >news:Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com...
>
> >> >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say,
> >> >come to think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in
> >> >multiplayer Shadowfist would roughly result in the same effect as
> >> >in VTES. The only difference; you have to play it out to the
> >> >bitter end...
> >>
> >> Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the
> >> very factors that allow multiple players to gang up to take down,
> >> or more often, slow down, a leader also allow a weaker player to
> >> grab a win if the table exhausts itself.
> >>
> >Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's scenario was
> >for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full of powerhouse tourney
> >style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment such that a comparatively weak
deck
> >can 'grab the win', it doesn't seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic
> >multiplayer, as it is a random fortune multiplayer game.
>
> Multiplayer Shadowfist is much more skill-dominant than it is
> deck-construction-dominant.

In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions to
skill in playing the game.

> A good player with a bad deck always has a
> chance. He'd have a better chance with a good deck, but he cannot be
> counted out.
>

I see this happening through two elements, the 'ignore the down-trodden'
dynamic, and the 'trip the leader' dynamic that Shadowfist lends itself to.

> Yes, sometimes the winner of a game is determined by who got lucky,
> but the same players do well consistently. Two of the players from the
> 2002 World Championships final were in the 2003 final, and neither of
> the other finalists from 2002 were there, or it probably would have
> been three.
>
> > Not my cup of
> >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to
> >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the
> >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)
>
> Games between well-matched good players

Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced players
and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess the
effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at a
table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to
consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response...

> can take a long time,
> especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a
> consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players
> aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total
> amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates
> a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't.

Your points, while not a response to Andrew's scenario, are well taken, but
can be assumed to apply equally to VTES. The pool (life) total which you
expend to amass offensive and defensive resources in VTES is also what keeps
you in the game. If we are assuming well-matched, good players, we can also
assume they have the sense enough to build decks which replenish this
valuable resource, and so it has only an modest, indirect effect on VTES
game length. The pool total of players erodes over time as they exert
themselves against one another, but the total blood pool available is much
the same as the bank in Monopoly; it is theoretically infinite.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Noal McDonald

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 4:05:08 PM6/10/04

to

"David Zopf" wrote:
> I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full
> props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game in
> multiplayer , and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we see
> before us. Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion
> of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is... Whatever he's
> like IRL, he consistently posts with a grating, 'Holier than Thou' attitude,
> especially when it pertains to VTES.

I've met him IRL multiple times. He's a quiet shrew. Quite the
opposite of the confrontational "gentleman" we know and love online.

Regards,
Noal

Noal McDonald

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 4:26:54 PM6/10/04

to

(Joshua Kronengold) wrote:
> BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in
> cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free, online
> (at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box).

Would you care to explain how, for the benefit of those that came in
late to this bru-ha-ha?

I'm always interested in trying out new games. But before I do, a
couple of quick questions.

Is there a tendency for 'Fist players to show up with a milk crate of
extra card stock to get new players started as there is in Jyhad?

How essential are rare cards to a winning deck in 'Fist?

Regards,
Noal

Julian Lighton

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:09:43 PM6/10/04

to

In article <bb705c59.04061...@posting.google.com>,

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>(Joshua Kronengold) wrote:
>> BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in
>> cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free, online
>> (at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box).
>
>Would you care to explain how, for the benefit of those that came in
>late to this bru-ha-ha?

There's a site where you can play on-line for free. ccgworkshop or
something like that. (I don't play there, since I don't do Windows.)

You can get the rulebook from shadowfist.com.

>I'm always interested in trying out new games. But before I do, a
>couple of quick questions.
>
>Is there a tendency for 'Fist players to show up with a milk crate of
>extra card stock to get new players started as there is in Jyhad?

For somebody who drops by, we're more likely to lend a deck to get
them started playing, but people who are building up their collections
are likely to have surplus cards donated.

>How essential are rare cards to a winning deck in 'Fist?

Most of the major utility cards are common. Rares tend to be
specialized cards or big unique hitters. You need hitters, but it's
rare to need a specific hitter.

There are also very playable premade starter decks, which contain a
selection of useful cards.

The Fanboy

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 1:40:18 AM6/11/04

to

> 7th Sea
Success seemed to revolve around how many Hammocks you owned. Star
Card syndrome killed its fun for me.

> Battletech
WoTC attempting to use L5Rs victory condition. Fun game, but
Mechwarrior Dark:Age and old-school Battletech are better if you like
the genre.

> Deck Protectors
Not a card game.

> Doomtown
Very fun for about a month, then it grows tiresome. Poker as a
semi-randomizing mechanic was a nice touch.

> Firestorm
Card-based RPG, not really a CCG. Fun idea. Tiresome attempt to get
upgrade to your charactters.

> Harry Potter
Played like War, IIRC. Not very well designed.

> Hyborian Gates
Good, if you like pictures of half-naked men. Granted, there were
busty, ripped half-naked women too, but there were more men. *bleh*

> Illuminati
VERY good multiplayer game. Easy to learn, and everyone's removed
from play at once. Gets old after several games, however.

> L5R/LBS
L5R is an excellent game, with great design. Wish I'd gotten to play
more before my collection got so out of date.

> Magic
Was fun for the first few years. Escalation has killed the fun and
turned it into a prepubsecent spooge-fest.

> MechWarrior
Really enjoyed the one game I played, but the mechanics seemed a bit
lop-sided.

> Netrunner
Much better dueling game than M:TG ever was.

> Rage
Version 1: Timing issues made the game unplayable after three
expansions.
Version 2: Attempts to fix timing issues didn't work.

> Settlers of Catan (Board Game)

WHEEEEE!!!!! I suck at this game, but it's so much fun!

> Shadowrun
Enjoyed the one game I played. Walked away thinking I'll never want
to play it again.

> Star Wars CCG (Decipher)
Killed by the rarity scheme. What rares you owned determined how
likely you were to win.

> Vampire/Jyhad
Only CCG I continue to support anyomre. Great mechanics, if not a bit
clunky...

kelly

Frisco Del Rosario

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 4:47:28 AM6/11/04

to

In article <f987c6cd.04061...@posting.google.com>,
vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote:

> > Netrunner
>
> Good two player game, but corp had the cards to beat out the runners.

Not true at all. Straight out of a starter box, the game is even.
However, one of Netrunner's problems was that while a game between two
beginners was a coin flip, and a game between two experienced players was
an equal fight, a game between two players with a fair bit of experience
strongly favored the Corporation -- therefore, Netrunner gained an
undeserved reputation for one-sidedness.

> Had they printed more expansions this might have been different.

Showing that he knows nothing of which he speaks. The first expansion,
Proteus, seemed to be meant to address the (non-existent) Corporation's
advantage, but it went much too far, and nearly ruined the game in the
Runner's favor.

The second, "Classic," expansion was really supposed to come out first,
and it is a much more reasonable set of cards. Unfortunately, Netrunner
was already dead upon its arrival.

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 6:09:35 AM6/11/04

to

On 10 Jun 2004 18:33:39 -0700, noodleboy wrote:

>> #5 - Lord of the Rings
>>
>> I'm sure it can be played multiplayer. Have never seen it myself.
>
>I play LotR multiplayer quite a lot, although never in a tourney
>environment.

I've played multiplayer LotR a few times and seen played by others
even more. It's quite interesting as an example of a MP game in which
collusion, dogpiling and the like are almost eliminated - much more so
than VTES. This makes almost a pure race game and that makes it too
dry and predictable for my taste. But it's better than the two-player
version IMO.

Andrew

Chris Mattern

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 9:42:51 AM6/11/04

to

vermillian wrote:

> cu...@caramail.com (cure) wrote in message
> news:<64a19912.04060...@posting.google.com>...
>> Hello,
>> I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
>> would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested
>> ???
>> No more than 2 lines per game!!!
>
> How about three?
>
>

>> Duel Masters
>
> One of the most balaned and exciting ccgs I've ever played. Seriously.
> Check it out.
>

I was amazed by this myself when I bought the GBA video game that just
came out. Really nice. Now if I can just bring myself to play a game
whose first expansion is called "Evo-Crushinators of Doom" (is Trogdor
in it?)
--
Christopher Mattern

"Which one you figure tracked us?"
"The ugly one, sir."
"...Could you be more specific?"

Chris Mattern

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 9:48:31 AM6/11/04

to

Andrew S. Davidson wrote:

Yep, it's good. The basic mechanics is a severely stripped down
Magic (still has Magic's five colors, although the names have
been changed). You only have creatures and sorceries, and you
play lands by using your spell cards (when you do that, the
spell doesn't do anything but produce mana). The creature
combat system is all-new and the heart of the game. I've been
having a lot of fun unravelling the proper tactics to use
in it.

Geoff

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 11:54:35 AM6/11/04

to

cu...@caramail.com (cure) wrote in message news:<64a19912.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> Hello,
> I did a simple thing, I copy the full list of TCG from potomac and I
> would like that you write down your opinion about the one you tested
> ???

> Illuminati

Talking about INWO here? I still have the original deluxe non-tcg
box, and I like it. INWO the tcg version was ok, but there was so
much text on the cards and the cards are always at such odd angles in
play that I found it a real pain to play. Never got into it further.

> L5R/LBS

Tried it, didn't like, don't like what they did with the Japanese
mythology. The fact that they refer to Musashi's book by its title is
a compete misnomer.

> Magic

Sold my collection shortly after legends. Not interested in getting
back into it, verges on being broken and unfun too often.

> Shadowfist

Totally kicks ass! My favorite card game at this point. If you're
into kung fu and baction movies at all, I can't recomend checking this
out enough! I seriouslly love the fact that 'comeback' is built into
the game, and you don't have to 'oust' a player to win.

> Star Trek

Awkward. Didn't feel like star trek.

> Star Wars CCG (Decipher)
> Star Wars TCG (WOTC)

I don't think dice should be involved in a tcg at all. Not as a
random generator anyways.

> Vampire/Jyhad

The ultimate 'chess' game of ccgs imo. Will always be a favorite,
although lately the lack of players and fatigue is setting in.

G

Geoff

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:05:00 PM6/11/04

to

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com>...

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote:
>
> >> Vampire/Jyhad
> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer
> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when...
>
> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.

I think VTES and Shadowfist are both superior multiplayer ccgs for
different reasons, and the dwindling life in vtes has nothing to do
with it.

VTES was built from the ground up to be specefically multiplayer and
it shows. It is the ultimate chess/political card game. In that
regard it is the best at focusing and providing for mp interaction.

Shadowfist is great for the built in comeback, joint attack/defence,
and the 'never quite out' player features. Does this make it the best
mp game? Maybe, depending on how much you value them.

Overall, I have to say I prefer shadowfist right now because it is fun
and fast, not because it has better mp functionality, which I'm not
sure it does.

G

Geoff

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:12:25 PM6/11/04

to

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:<40C77CF9...@freemail.nl>...
> Raille wrote:
> >

Keep in mind I love both games, but;

>
> Pro's about Jyhad/VTES:
> -it's not over in 5-10 minutes

Exceedingly rare in fist, although possible with trick dueling decks.

> -you have to actually think

umm, yeah...your point?

> -you have to talk to other players (coherent talk, not just 'Lightning
> Bolt on your Hypnotic Spectre')

Tabletalk is pretty important in Fist.

> -(in Jyhad at least) the cards are pretty and dark :)

In fist, the cards are dramatic and flashy!

> -it's about vampires, how cool can you get?

Its about kung fu, demons, tanks, evil sorcerors...and oh yeah,
vampires! :)

> -it was built to be multiplayer, and is fun for all players.

Fist was built to be either MP or duel, and is definitely fun for all
players. I wouldn't say the same for VTES at all.

G

Julian Lighton

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 1:41:07 PM6/11/04

to

In article <6W2yc.610$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,

David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message
>news:10chd9h...@corp.supernews.com...

>> >> >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say,
>> >> >come to think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in
>> >> >multiplayer Shadowfist would roughly result in the same effect as
>> >> >in VTES. The only difference; you have to play it out to the
>> >> >bitter end...
>> >>
>> >> Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the
>> >> very factors that allow multiple players to gang up to take down,
>> >> or more often, slow down, a leader also allow a weaker player to
>> >> grab a win if the table exhausts itself.
>> >>
>> >Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's
>> >scenario was for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full
>> >of powerhouse tourney style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment
>> >such that a comparatively weak deck can 'grab the win', it doesn't
>> >seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic multiplayer, as it is a
>> >random fortune multiplayer game.
>>
>> Multiplayer Shadowfist is much more skill-dominant than it is
>> deck-construction-dominant.
>
>In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions to
>skill in playing the game.

Thus, bringing a bad deck to the table is much worse for you than it
is in Fist.

>> > Not my cup of
>> >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to
>> >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the
>> >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)
>>
>> Games between well-matched good players
>
>Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced players
>and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess the
>effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at a
>table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to
>consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response...

You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)...

The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched
good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes
far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the
equilibrium. So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour
game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or
somebody underestimates him.)

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 1:51:22 PM6/11/04

to

On 11 Jun 2004 09:05:00 -0700, Geoff wrote:

>VTES was built from the ground up to be specefically multiplayer and
>it shows. It is the ultimate chess/political card game. In that
>regard it is the best at focusing and providing for mp interaction.

Vampire was actually designed to dampen down multiplayer politics.
hence the structure of a circle of duels rather than a true
free-for-all. The ultimate political card game must be something
Lunch Money in which the card play is not as important as the human
factors. And I once played in a big Survivor CCG tournament. Now
_that_ was political. I didn't make it past the first round...

And I don't see where you're getting the chess aspect from as there is
little positional play in VTES. If you want that sort of thing try
Doomtown, where the players actually talk about "playing chess" as
they manoeuver about the layout of saloons, mines and other
properties.

>Overall, I have to say I prefer shadowfist right now because it is fun
>and fast

YMMV. There was an amazing final game in a Shadowfist event at
Origins last year. This had no time limit and took 9 hours! But
that's something of a record ...

vermillian

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 2:08:19 PM6/11/04

to

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<060hc0dmv3lhfetfm...@4ax.com>...

You could say its a Yu-Gi-Oh! clone, but I'd say its Yu-Gi-Oh! done
right. In yugi some say we have a problem with large creatures yu
can't gang up on. This would be a problem in DM but there are so many
cards that nuetralize fatties it makes it worth while.

It has an interesting mechanic in that attacking someone (killing one
of their five sheilds, cards from the top of their deck from the set
up) gives them card advantage (they put that card back into their
hand). There's no math to keep track of, only three card types, its
had two years of playtesting in Japan first (WotC got it off of
someone else as a result of settlement). Pick up a starter (not the
fire/darkness decks, though these are good) and five boosters and
you'll start to be clammering for more, and racking your head about
how to win. Trust me, its pretty darn good (shame its target audiance
is as it is. But it is fun making fun of the names! Burninator of The
Liquid People! or some such non-sense.)

vermillian

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 2:11:48 PM6/11/04

to

fri...@appleisp.net (Frisco Del Rosario) wrote in message news:<frisco-1106040145180001@meriweather>...

> In article <f987c6cd.04061...@posting.google.com>,
> vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote:
>
> > > Netrunner

> > Had they printed more expansions this might have been different.
>
> Showing that he knows nothing of which he speaks.

My apologies. I have only limited experience playing this game. That
is, any one I've played doesn't have a full set of either expansion,
just a box or so boosters of a collection of both sets. Usually this
is enough to get a feel for a game (it is true of Magic, VTES, Spell
Fire, Duelmaster, Clicky games, etc...). I know SOMEthing of which I
speak, but you apparently know more. I bow down to your Netrunner
superiority.

~SV

vermillian

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 2:13:21 PM6/11/04

to

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> (cure) wrote:

> Btw, I didn't see Bloodwars, the AD&D spinoff, listed. Not saying it
> was the best, but I enjoyed playing it.

Yeah, I've got a bit of that BW thing too. I loved Planescape
atmosphere and the art was all what's his face... Interesting game
play, reminded me a bit of what some people would think vampire was
supposed to be about.

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 2:39:56 PM6/11/04

to

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message

news:cs3fc01flnqt3d23p...@4ax.com...
> Their selections were LotR, Magic, Game of Thrones, B5 and Vampire.
> Read what they had to say about Vampire. "Two is okay; four is
> ideal". They didn't even know that the tournament standard for
> Vampire is five players. Clueless.
>
...Or maybe they simply prefer four player games?

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 2:42:45 PM6/11/04

to

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message

news:1v3gc0d0f9rgf70vq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Matt Green wrote:
>
> Game forums often have routine wars between the "fanboys" and the
> "whiners" and I'm sometimes assigned to the latter camp. When taken
> to task about this recently, I cited an amusing story by Robert
> Sheckley which I was pleased to find is online now. It's worth
> sharing and is only 5000 words or so:
>
>
http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheckley3/sheckley31.html
>

...Good story. You do realize, though, that if you see yourself as Cordle,
then (in the context of this thread), Shadowfist is your 'Mavis'... Are you
doing right by her?

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Chris Mattern

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 2:53:06 PM6/11/04

to

vermillian wrote:

> Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
> news:<060hc0dmv3lhfetfm...@4ax.com>...
>> On 10 Jun 2004 07:12:34 -0700, vermillian wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Duel Masters
>> >
>> >One of the most balaned and exciting ccgs I've ever played. Seriously.
>> >Check it out.
>>
>> Really? I had supposed that it was YuGiOh clone. Tell me more.
>
> You could say its a Yu-Gi-Oh! clone, but I'd say its Yu-Gi-Oh! done
> right. In yugi some say we have a problem with large creatures yu
> can't gang up on. This would be a problem in DM but there are so many
> cards that nuetralize fatties it makes it worth while.

Also there is fact that in DM, fatties aren't an impregnable defense.
In DM, you can kill somebody who has got a creature bigger than
anything you've got, even if that creature can block (and it usually
can't). In Yu-Gi-Oh, that's just not possible.

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:16:18 PM6/11/04

to

> YMMV. There was an amazing final game in a Shadowfist event at
> Origins last year. This had no time limit and took 9 hours! But
> that's something of a record ...
>

I heard there was a B5CCG final that took 3 days...

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:55:59 PM6/11/04

to

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message

news:10cjrlj...@corp.supernews.com...

> In article <6W2yc.610$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
> >
>> >In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions
to
> >skill in playing the game.
>
> Thus, bringing a bad deck to the table is much worse for you than it
> is in Fist.
>

It sure is, and thats a good thing... People learn quickly to bring good
decks to competitive sessions, and the overall unbalancing impact of the
weak player on the total competitive environment is lessened (although his
local impact on each game varies).

> >> > Not my cup of
> >> >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on
to
> >> >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until
the
> >> >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)
> >>
> >> Games between well-matched good players
> >
> >Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced
players
> >and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess
the
> >effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at
a
> >table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to
> >consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response...
>
> You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)...

Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below)
until your post right here.

> The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched
> good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes
> far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the
> equilibrium.

So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't
give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No
wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. If a new player upsets the equilibrium
so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least
as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. A new
point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as
they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties
of the game before being ousted. I still dispute Andrew's assertion that
this ousted player must then sit on his thumbs until the whole of the
current game is over...

> So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour
> game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or
> somebody underestimates him.)
>

A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: random fun
'Fist v. strategic fun VTES. Presumably, a veteran 'Fister would have to
tolerate this unbalanced equilibrium on a regular basis, if 'Fist is to
grow, since new players are a regular factor in a healthy, growing game.
That cannot be a happy situation for the veteran (strategic minded)
player...

The 'luck' win for the new player in VTES is a comparatively rare thing.
VTES players win simply by learning to build good decks and play the game
well. Luck has little to do with it. New players lose often, but can have
a lot of fun and learn quite a bit while so doing. If that's a problem for
you potential multiplayer CCGers out there (yes, both of you) who are still
bothering to read this atrocity of a thread, then I urge you: DO NOT play
VTES, go pick up Shadowfist instead.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:55:58 PM6/11/04

to

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message

news:10cjrlj...@corp.supernews.com...

> In article <6W2yc.610$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
> >
>> >In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions
to
> >skill in playing the game.
>
> Thus, bringing a bad deck to the table is much worse for you than it
> is in Fist.
>

It sure is, and thats a good thing... People learn quickly to bring good
decks to competitive sessions, and the overall unbalancing impact of the
weak player on the total competitive environment is lessened (although his
local impact on each game varies).

> >> > Not my cup of

> >> >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on
to
> >> >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until
the
> >> >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)
> >>
> >> Games between well-matched good players
> >
> >Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced
players
> >and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess
the
> >effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at
a
> >table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to
> >consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response...
>
> You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)...

Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below)

until your post right here.

> The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched

> good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes
> far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the
> equilibrium.

So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't

give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No
wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. If a new player upsets the equilibrium
so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least
as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. A new
point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as
they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties
of the game before being ousted. I still dispute Andrew's assertion that
this ousted player must then sit on his thumbs until the whole of the
current game is over...

> So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour

> game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or
> somebody underestimates him.)
>

LSJ

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 5:12:01 PM6/11/04

to

David Zopf wrote:
> "Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote:

>>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the
>>>>>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)
>>>>Games between well-matched good players
>>>Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced

>>You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)...
>
> Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below)
> until your post right here.
>
>>The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched
>>good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes
>>far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the
>>equilibrium.

Julian's point in "Games between well-matched players" seems to have been
a response to your invocation of the 4-hour game in which a weak player
could be stuck.

Julian's point at the time seemed to me to be that if one presupposes
a weak player at a table of lions, then the time that the player is
"stuck" is not at the four hour level. Conversely, if one invokes a
four hour game as a possibility for players to be "stuck" playing then
one excludes the possibility of a weak player among the table of
lions.

At least, that's how I read Julian's initial response of "Games
between well-matched players" in response to your juxtaposition
of the weak player and a 4-hour game ideas.

Now back to the mac vs. pc wars...

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Timlagor

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 7:48:48 PM6/11/04

to

LSJ expounded:

Well I certainly haven't read all or indeed much of this thread but this
strikes me as worth commenting on. It's perfectly possible for a poor
player (with a poor deck) to be kept in a long game with 4 very good
players by the other players actively keeping him there.

Without commenting on the abilities of players involved I have seen
plenty of people kept in play by their prey and/or "allies" for
considerable periods of time.

Frisco Del Rosario

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 11:24:30 PM6/11/04

to

In article <f987c6cd.04061...@posting.google.com>,
vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote:

> fri...@appleisp.net (Frisco Del Rosario) wrote in message
news:<frisco-1106040145180001@meriweather>...

> > vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote:
> > > Had they printed more expansions this might have been different.
> >
> > Showing that he knows nothing of which he speaks.

> My apologies. I have only limited experience playing this game. That
> is, any one I've played doesn't have a full set of either expansion,
> just a box or so boosters of a collection of both sets. Usually this
> is enough to get a feel for a game (it is true of Magic, VTES, Spell
> Fire, Duelmaster, Clicky games, etc...).

I'll repeat myself: one of Netrunner's problems was that players were
deeming it one-sided after "getting a feel" for the game, when their
impressions were surely based on too little experience.

I know SOMEthing of which I
> speak, but you apparently know more. I bow down to your Netrunner
> superiority.

Bad choice of words, for which I am sorry.

unread,

Jun 13, 2004, 11:55:46 AM6/13/04

to

Chris Mattern <matt...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<G8OdnbsUdop...@comcast.com>...

> >
> >> Duel Masters
> >
> > One of the most balaned and exciting ccgs I've ever played. Seriously.
> > Check it out.
> >
> I was amazed by this myself when I bought the GBA video game that just
> came out. Really nice. Now if I can just bring myself to play a game
> whose first expansion is called "Evo-Crushinators of Doom" (is Trogdor
> in it?)

Yeah... the set names get a litte better after this one... But I think
its kinda' fun. Why be totally serious, its a frippin' card game. Any
attempt to have a serious and deep intellectual name is SOOOO
pretensious.

~SV

Geoff

unread,

Jun 13, 2004, 1:52:29 PM6/13/04

to

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<8hboc056e12cb37hl...@4ax.com>...

> On 12 Jun 2004 15:47:06 -0700, Geoff wrote:
>
> >In general, the game was designed to be multiplayer only.
>
> No. The rules indicate that Vampire can be played by two players and
> that seems the most common mode of play at my local store.

Good grief, you see people play 2player vtes and you believe that is
the norm? Far from it Andrew, vtes is not a very good game 2 player.
Certainly it is 'legal' to play with just 2 players, but the fact is
that the game was designed specefically for multiplayer play and it
plays best that way.

For further evidence, this is from an inteview with the creator
himself;
"Garfield: It was the first TCG as heavily oriented toward multiplayer
play."

> And, even
> if you start with more than two players, the elimination mechanism
> will ensure that you're down to two at some point.

Naturally.

> If the game wasn't
> designed to work with two players, it wouldn't work at all.
>

That's spurious. Whether it was or wasn't, that wouldn't preclude
working as a duel. And this is the difference; that the game was
designed to be multiplayer, not for dueling.

> It's a while since I played it and I forget the details but my memory
> is that the B5 CCG was more clearly a game that only made sense
> multiplayer. You want the players to be representing each of the
> major powers - the Humans, Centauri, Narns and Minbari - as there's a
> balance between these which doesn't make sense if one is missing.
>

A similar comparison can be drawn with VTES; you need a prey
obviouslly, and preferably somebody who isn't your prey as your
predator, and again preferably somebody crosstable who is neither.
Thus the ideal number of players is a minimum of 4.

G

Robert Rossney

unread,

Jun 13, 2004, 11:11:08 PM6/13/04

to

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:Sx_xc.7529$X56....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...

: Condescending arrogant and elitist perhaps because Andrew so often assumes
: that his opinion is of greater value than others...

You know, if I could read peoples' minds, I'd be making a fortune on the
poker circuit, not blathering on Usenet.

: I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full
: props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game
in
: multiplayer, and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we
see
: before us.

That is, he disagreed with you. The specific exchange that you objected to
contained nothing that a reasonable person would construe as "pissing," or,
as you say later, "holier than thou." Here it is again, in case you've
forgotten what you're raging against:

>> Vampire/Jyhad
>> My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
>> Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title.
>

> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.

: Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion
: of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is...

Now you have me wondering what I'd rather have: the ability to read
peoples' minds, or the ability to have my personal idiosyncratic opinion
magically coincide with the invisible masses'. It's a tough call.

Bob Rossney
r...@well.com

atomweaver

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 8:59:10 AM6/14/04

to

"Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> wrote in message news:<gH8zc.30649$eu.7484@attbi_s02>...

> "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message
> news:Sx_xc.7529$X56....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
> : Condescending arrogant and elitist perhaps because Andrew so often assumes
> : that his opinion is of greater value than others...
>
> You know, if I could read peoples' minds, I'd be making a fortune on the
> poker circuit, not blathering on Usenet.
>

I don't need to read minds, Andrew has a clear reputation for
deliberate agitation. His posts make it quite clear that his opinion
is, in his own eyes, of vastly greater value than any others. Even
without that history, Andrew himself has admitted to his conscious
choice in posting styles, here;

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2608904671d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=1v3gc0d0f9rgf70vqj18oc0g8ftmmdtpr1%404ax.com

You have to go and read the (entertaining) story to grasp fully how
Andrew sees his online self.

> : I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full
> : props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game
> in
> : multiplayer, and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we
> see
> : before us.
>
> That is, he disagreed with you.

...Which, in itself, is fine. That he felt compelled to post a reply
to create an 'opinion debate' (we can use that phrase instead of
'pissing match' if you prefer) is where he went astray.

>
> >> Vampire/Jyhad
> >> My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best
> >> Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title.
> >
> > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.
>

(This was about the opinion thread matters. Quoted without the
supporting context, but fine.)

> : Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion
> : of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is...
>

(This was about Andrew's posting style, in general, and not about the
'opinion debate' at all. Quoted out of context.)

> Now you have me wondering what I'd rather have: the ability to read
> peoples' minds, or the ability to have my personal idiosyncratic opinion
> magically coincide with the invisible masses'. It's a tough call.
>

I can tell you what you _don't_ need any more of; the ability to edit
away all surrounding context to the point where quoted snippets of
text are warped to support your angle. This little montage above is
masterful work... Pat yourself on the back!

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 10:09:44 AM6/14/04

to

"Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3455369...@news.eclipse.co.uk...

That is becasue you're a wise person. This thread is mostly a waste of
space, as most 'opinion debates' are...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 11:02:56 AM6/14/04

to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:Bepyc.5159$Di3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> David Zopf wrote:
> > "Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote:
> >>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
> >>>>>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until
the
> >>>>>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)
> >>>>Games between well-matched good players
> >>>Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced
> >>You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)...
> >
> > Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below)
> > until your post right here.
> >
> >>The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched
> >>good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes
> >>far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the
> >>equilibrium.
>
> Julian's point in "Games between well-matched players" seems to have been
> a response to your invocation of the 4-hour game in which a weak player
> could be stuck.
>
> Julian's point at the time seemed to me to be that if one presupposes
> a weak player at a table of lions, then the time that the player is
> "stuck" is not at the four hour level. Conversely, if one invokes a
> four hour game as a possibility for players to be "stuck" playing then
> one excludes the possibility of a weak player among the table of
> lions.
>

Julian's only explicit point at the time of my response was:

"Games between well-matched good players can take a long time,
especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a
consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players
aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total
amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates
a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't."

Quoted in full. If Julian wanted to bring this back around to the 'lamb
among lions' potion of this opinion debate, it is upon him to do so
explicitly (which he did, after some 'urging' ;-) You've gotten too good at
'filling in the blanks' for poorly worded questions and responses, Scott...

> At least, that's how I read Julian's initial response of "Games
> between well-matched players" in response to your juxtaposition
> of the weak player and a 4-hour game ideas.
>

I wouldn't assume that from the quoted text above, which is where the debate
stood at the time I made my comment.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

LSJ

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 11:14:30 AM6/14/04

to

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:A6jzc.25510$176....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...

> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message

> > David Zopf wrote:
> > > "Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote:
> > >>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the
> > >>>>>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?)
> > >>>>Games between well-matched good players

> Julian's only explicit point at the time of my response was:

> "Games between well-matched good players can take a long time,
> especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a
> consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players
> aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total
> amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates
> a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't."

> Quoted in full. If Julian wanted to bring this back around to the 'lamb
> among lions' potion of this opinion debate, it is upon him to do so
> explicitly (which he did, after some 'urging' ;-) You've gotten too good at
> 'filling in the blanks' for poorly worded questions and responses, Scott...

You wrote: The weak player is stuck until the end (did Andrew say 4 hours?).

Implying that the weak player faces a four hour period of being stuck.

The response Julian gave was to explain that games between well-matched
players who play conservatively can take a long time, but most games don't.

Implying, in context, that the weak player doesn't face a four hour period of
being stuck.

I wouldn't think that those inferences fell to my skill at filling in the
blanks, but, apparently, YMMV.

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 12:53:02 PM6/14/04

to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message

news:cakf9l$hj7$1...@hartwell.cse.sc.edu...

> "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:A6jzc.25510$176....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > David Zopf wrote:
> > Julian's only explicit point at the time of my response was:
>
> > "Games between well-matched good players can take a long time,
> > especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a
> > consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players
> > aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total
> > amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates
> > a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't."
>
> > Quoted in full. If Julian wanted to bring this back around to the 'lamb
> > among lions' potion of this opinion debate, it is upon him to do so
> > explicitly (which he did, after some 'urging' ;-) You've gotten too
good at
> > 'filling in the blanks' for poorly worded questions and responses,
Scott...
>
> You wrote: The weak player is stuck until the end (did Andrew say 4
hours?).
>
> Implying that the weak player faces a four hour period of being stuck.
>

I did not mean this as an implicit typical time, but rather as an explicit
maximum time. I didn't know how long the exact time would be (it is
certainly variable), but there was the possiblity (from Andrew's comments)
that the time could be as long as four hours. Implicit may be the
(erroneous) assumption that I meant that _every_ 'Fist game with a new
player amongst an experienced group results in a long, friutless game for
the newbie. If that was what was taken away from my comments, it wasn't my
intention to imply such. That's the problem with taking comments beyond
their explicit content, and its why I wouldn't (won't) debate implicit
points. There's enough problems with clearly understanding the explicit
points, as it is...

> The response Julian gave was to explain that games between well-matched
> players who play conservatively can take a long time, but most games
don't.
>

...and doesn't address the 'lamb with lions' angle at all.

> Implying, in context, that the weak player doesn't face a four hour period
of
> being stuck.
>

This is where you lose me. There was nothing in my experience, or the posts
up to that time, which would give me _any_ indication that a new player
could upset the power balance of 'Fist to the degree that games are
fore-shortened so much. How can I (or anyone unversed in multiplayer 'Fist)
make such an assumption until it is made explicit? I'm only responding to
the observations of experienced multiplayer 'Fist players, here (along with
my own (two player) shadowfist experience, and a fast read-through of the
rules pretaining to multiplayer games).

> I wouldn't think that those inferences fell to my skill at filling in the
> blanks, but, apparently, YMMV.
>

Yep. I'm not ready to make any such assumption, and its not my place to do
so.
Understanding that, you can see, I hope, how Julian's response looked to me
more like a redirection to a new topic, rather than a response to the topic
at hand. That he meant to imply more than what he actually wrote is now
clear.

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

LSJ

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 1:24:18 PM6/14/04

to

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:OJkzc.1361$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message

> > Implying, in context, that the weak player doesn't face a four hour period
> of
> > being stuck.
> >
> This is where you lose me. There was nothing in my experience, or the posts
> up to that time, which would give me _any_ indication that a new player
> could upset the power balance of 'Fist to the degree that games are
> fore-shortened so much. How can I (or anyone unversed in multiplayer 'Fist)
> make such an assumption until it is made explicit? I'm only responding to
> the observations of experienced multiplayer 'Fist players, here (along with
> my own (two player) shadowfist experience, and a fast read-through of the
> rules pretaining to multiplayer games).

This being, I pressume, exactly the reason that Julian made it explicit
(that 4-hour games are unusual and only happen in games between
well-matched players who also happen to all be playing conservatively)
in the response to which you took issue -- as an explanation of the
factors needed for a four-hour game. In order to counter the idea that
that had been put forth in the post to which he was repsonding --
that the weak player could be stuck in a four hour game .

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 2:04:12 PM6/14/04

to

In article <bb705c59.04061...@posting.google.com>,
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>(Joshua Kronengold) wrote:
>> BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in
>> cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free,
>> online (at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box).
>Would you care to explain how, for the benefit of those that came in
>late to this bru-ha-ha?

As mentioned, it's on ccgworkshop -- there's also a link off of shadowfist.com

>Is there a tendency for 'Fist players to show up with a milk crate of
>extra card stock to get new players started as there is in Jyhad?

To a degree, yes -- a lot of players end up getting given cards when they
start out.

>How essential are rare cards to a winning deck in 'Fist?

As Julian said...not. Fist rarity has usually the many-per-deck cards as
common, the somewhat harder to use cards as uncommon, and the unique hitters
(useful, but you only want so many in a given deck) and wierd cards (which
you might want five of, but only in specific "trick" decks) as rares.

The fixed starters, in addition to having a lot of useful commons, each have
good hitters of one sort or another -- in fact, several contain top-level
thugs for their factions (of special note are the Dragon and Hand decks, which
contain some of the highest regarded hitters anywhere, but all the decks have
at least one good hitter), so they're very useful to players starting out.

--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^-- "Get your mind right and you can make a stick /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ your wand and the sky your hat and a puddle |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\ your magic..." -- Granny Weatherwax '---''(_/--' (_/-'

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 2:11:10 PM6/14/04

to

In article <10cfuvb...@corp.supernews.com>,
Julian Lighton <jl...@fragment.com> wrote:
>In article <Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com>,
>Joshua Kronengold <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
>>In article <UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>,
>>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>>>Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in
>>>_your_ Cheerios this morning..?
>>Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're a troll
>Whether somebody who cross-posts to the Jyhad group just to stir its
>residents up might well be considered one, however.

True.

>>>only becuse there are now so many cards... By contrast (and since you seem
>>>to _want_ to get in a 'my opinion is worth more than yours' contest), the
>>>cartoonish style of Shadowfist is cute, but approaches tedium quickly for
>>>me.
>>Fist does not have a single art style.
>Well, yes and no. There's considerable variation, but a large
>percentage of the art is of the same basic style.
>
>Of course, that style is more "realistic, or as realistic as you can
>get with insane kung fu, cyborged demons, etc.", not "cartoonish".

Ok, granted, though how realistic it is varies a lot (and there's a lot of
variation beyond realism; the old Queen of the Ice Pagoda isn't all that
stylistically similar to Final Brawl). And yeah, it's nowhere near
cartoonish.

>>>Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really
>>>comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules.
>BTW, "deplorable" is not the word I think you mean here.

What David meant, you mean? I'm not responsible for his vocabulary and usage.
:)

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 2:23:22 PM6/14/04

to

In article <i7oyc.25240$jZ3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,

David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't
>give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No
>wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well.

Fist grows just fine. (it doesn't have a lot of money behind it for full-page
advertising, but that's another question).
More particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side, tend
not to leave.

Why would you think otherwise?

>If a new player upsets the equilibrium
>so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least
>as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length.

Upsetting the equilibrium of a game is a significant part of strategy, just
like anything else.

It's entirely possible that a new player will end up playing kingmaker if
they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but it's just as likely that
they'll end up putting the game into a quick win-spiral for one player early
on (ie, a quick learning experience), or that they'll be a non-factor
(probably the most likely possiblity for a new player that's completely
outclassed, if not by that much), or that the rest of the table will exhaust
itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends.

>point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as
>they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties
>of the game before being ousted.

It's more likely, IMO, that they'll just get outsted quickly, hand six blood
to their predator, and go off to do something else (or alternatively, get all
their vampires burned by their prey and sit there helpless for the rest of the
game).

>A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: random fun
>'Fist v. strategic fun VTES.

Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know.

The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both
games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate.

You are not, and your statements make this more clear the more you write.

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 2:31:58 PM6/14/04

to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message

news:cakmt1$p9d$1...@hartwell.cse.sc.edu...

I'm at my limit on free posting time, Scott. If this is important to you,
email me, or give me a call, else we can go another few rounds tomorrow...

Compare what Julian said

'Games between well-matched good players can take a long time,
especially if the players are conservative in style.'

with what you want to imply from it;

'ONLY Games between well-matched good players can take a long time,
especially if the players are conservative in style.'

The latter cannot be arrived at without prior knoweldge of multiplayer
'Fist, which I don't have. I'm left with the former, and took it at face
value. In response to a section on the lamb with lions debate, it reads to
me as a redirection, not as a reply. A further clarification from Julian
made his intention with the comment clear. Sorry to bore the rest of you
(Julian included) with this, an already resolved issue.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 4:22:13 PM6/14/04

to

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com...

> In article <i7oyc.25240$jZ3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
> David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
> >So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't
> >give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment.
No
> >wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well.
>
> Fist grows just fine. (it doesn't have a lot of money behind it for
full-page
> advertising, but that's another question).
> More particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side,
tend
> not to leave.
>
> Why would you think otherwise?
>

Personal experience, only (a poor metric, but mine may be better than some.)
I travel a week out of every month with my job mostly in the US, but
occasionally in Europe, and have a habit of stopping by local gaming stores
in my free evening time. In the 75-100 gaming stores I've been in, I've
seen boxes of 'Fist on shelves (most often, Year of the Dragon, sometimes
Throne War) at about half of those stores. I've talked with most of those
stores' owners,asking about all the games played in their store. 'Fist was
never mentioned (I've found a few Spellfire groups, though), even when it is
on the shelves. I have never observed people playing Shadowfist, other than
at my own request for an occasional game. All that amounts only to personal
experience, but if it was growing 'fine', I would think that such experience
would be enough to net at least _one_ instance of the game being played, or
at least actively sold. So there's my supporting eveidence. And since this
thread is ultimately still a debate over opinion (which multiplayer CCG is
'best') anyways, I'm happy to support fruitless debate with shaky
statistics.

Now, I'd like to ask you to support your own generalization that; "More

particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side, tend not

to leave." My guess is, you're using the same poor metric as I (personal
experience)... For the record, I've tried Fist from theVTES side, and
haven't left.

> >If a new player upsets the equilibrium
> >so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at
least
> >as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length.
>
> Upsetting the equilibrium of a game is a significant part of strategy,
just
> like anything else.
>

...Sorry. By 'upsetting the equilibrium' I was re-stating more succinctly
Julian's point that it is the new player's inexperience and mistakes that
causes the short game to occur. You're talking here about a deliberate
strategy of upsetting table balance, which I can appreciate as a game
element for experienced players, but is something separate from the point
being made. That a player might manipulate a game in such a manner would
pre-suppose that they weren't a new, inexperienced, player...

> It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing kingmaker

if
> they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but it's just as likely
that

> (2) they'll end up putting the game into a quick win-spiral for one player
early
> on (ie, a quick learning experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor

> (probably the most likely possiblity for a new player that's completely

> outclassed, if not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will

exhaust
> itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends.
>

I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're
experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the
opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario? You seem to be saying here
(correct me if I'm wrong) that any of these four scenarios is equally
possible (or do you value one or more over the others?).

Who has the right of it for Fist, then, you or Julian?

>
> >point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as
> >they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true
subtlties
> >of the game before being ousted.
>
> It's more likely, IMO, that they'll just get outsted quickly, hand six
blood
> to their predator, and go off to do something else (or alternatively, get
all
> their vampires burned by their prey and sit there helpless for the rest of
the
> game).
>
> >A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: random
fun
> >'Fist v. strategic fun VTES.
>
> Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know.
>

I presume nothing. This 'debate' as you very generously call it, is a
consequence of Andrew's supplanting his opinion over my own (something he
didn't choose to do for those who posted favorably about other games, I
note). This, as with all 'opinion debates' are nothing more than glorified
pissing matches that ultimately benefit no one. All content of this thread
derived from his response to my initial post should be suspect by everyone,
owing to its highly subjective nature. Its all garbage, merely of varying
degrees of stink :-)

So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist players, such
as yourself (its all I have). A game wherein the new player, by their
inexperience, so alters the nature of the game, is IMO a game of random fun,
if one assumes that there will always be a relatively regular number of new
players (an assumption that I hold as a necessary condition for healthy
games in a state of growth). If you expect a randomizing element (the new
player) to be consistently present, you can expect the system to continue to
behave randomly. Note, also, that I don't dispute the possibility for this
in VTES, but its liklihood is vastly reduced compared to the perceived level
suggested by Julian.

> The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both
> games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate.
>

I know that to be true of only Andrew, specifically, from prior posts
showing a good knoweldge of both VTES and Shadowfist. Hell, even here
above, I'm assuming _you_ know what you're talking about when you speak of
multiplayer 'Fist, despite the fact that what you say contradicts Julian's
experience, whom I've known to post on 'Fist matters from other forums...
Am I giving you too much credit?

> You are not, and your statements make this more clear the more you write.
>

I think I made it quite clear _myself _when i said 'I don't know multiplayer
Shadowfist from direct experience'. You needed more than that to draw such
a sterling conclusion? Don't get all 'ad hominem' on me at this late a
point in the game, you were doing well up until this.

The conclusions I draw are from observations about Shadowfist made by people
who, as you and I both say, know more than I about it. You can dispute the
observations of your 'Fist peers, and thats a valid ground for disputing my
conclusions as well, due to their derivative nature. If my conclusions are
wrong due to a misrepresentation of Shadowfist, I'm not pleased by such a
misrepresentation, but then, I'm not seeing it as a valid reson to withold
comment on those observations, either.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Joshua Duffin

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 4:46:45 PM6/14/04

to

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message

news:VNnzc.25535$rP6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...

>
> "Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
> news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com...

> > Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know.

> >
> I presume nothing. This 'debate' as you very generously call it, is a
> consequence of Andrew's supplanting his opinion over my own (something
he
> didn't choose to do for those who posted favorably about other games,
I
> note). This, as with all 'opinion debates' are nothing more than
glorified
> pissing matches that ultimately benefit no one. All content of this
thread
> derived from his response to my initial post should be suspect by
everyone,
> owing to its highly subjective nature. Its all garbage, merely of
varying
> degrees of stink :-)

I don't know if it's at all useful for me to jump in at this point, not
having followed the thread very carefully. But I used to play Fist
pretty competitively, and still do play VTES pretty competitively. I
find them both to be excellent multiplayer games, with quite a bit of
strategy involved on each side. I don't know if one is actually a
better multiplayer game design than the other or not, though I do think
that Fist 4-player (which was my preference for multiplayer Fist back in
the day) usually takes less time to play than VTES 5-player, while still
being a satisfying experience. (eg the Fist tournament games didn't
usually run into their time limit, which was I think around 75 minutes,
whereas VTES tournament games pretty often run into the 2-hour time
limit, perhaps especially in finals.)

VTES has (mechanics-wise) better tiebreakers if games do time out (or at
least did when I last played tournament Shadowfist), but a timed-out
VTES game is still pretty unsatisfying (IMO). :-)

(I don't play Shadowfist much anymore mainly because I don't have the
free time to keep up with more than one CCG these days... and there
weren't as many conveniently-located Shadowfist players in my area as
there were VTES players. I do miss it though, it was an awfully fun
game, and I bet it still is.)

Josh

ps hi joshua & julian! long time no see. :-)

Julian Lighton

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 6:00:21 PM6/14/04

to

In article <VNnzc.25535$rP6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,

David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com...

>> >If a new player upsets the equilibrium so with his mistakes, they
>> >can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least as often as a
>> >VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length.
>>
>> Upsetting the equilibrium of a game is a significant part of
>> strategy, just like anything else.
>>
>...Sorry. By 'upsetting the equilibrium' I was re-stating more succinctly
>Julian's point that it is the new player's inexperience and mistakes that
>causes the short game to occur.

No, the lack of such mistakes may cause the game to become static.

The "short game" (which isn't necessarily that short) is far more the
natural order of things.

> You're talking here about a deliberate
>strategy of upsetting table balance, which I can appreciate as a game
>element for experienced players, but is something separate from the point
>being made. That a player might manipulate a game in such a manner would
>pre-suppose that they weren't a new, inexperienced, player...
>
>> It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing
>> kingmaker if they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but
>> it's just as likely that (2) they'll end up putting the game into a
>> quick win-spiral for one player early on (ie, a quick learning
>> experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor (probably the most
>> likely possiblity for a new player that's completely outclassed, if
>> not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will exhaust
>> itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends.
>>
>I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're
>experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the
>opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario?

You do not understand me correctly. All I've really said is that (5)
the game deadlocks, isn't likely with a weak player at the table.

>> >point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as
>> >badly as they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn
>> >the true subtlties of the game before being ousted.
>>
>> It's more likely, IMO, that they'll just get outsted quickly, hand
>> six blood to their predator, and go off to do something else (or
>> alternatively, get all their vampires burned by their prey and sit
>> there helpless for the rest of the game).
>>
>> >A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference:
>> >random fun 'Fist v. strategic fun VTES.
>>
>> Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know.

[...]

>So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist players, such
>as yourself (its all I have). A game wherein the new player, by their
>inexperience, so alters the nature of the game, is IMO a game of random fun,

You assume that equilibrium is the natural state of the game, and it
isn't. Most of the time, he game is dynamic, with players rising and
falling, jockeying for position and trying to stop somebody else from
winning without weakening their own position.

>if one assumes that there will always be a relatively regular number of new
>players (an assumption that I hold as a necessary condition for healthy
>games in a state of growth). If you expect a randomizing element (the new
>player) to be consistently present, you can expect the system to continue to
>behave randomly.

Yet the system doesn't behave randomly. Good players do better than
new players.

>> The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both
>> games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate.
>>
>I know that to be true of only Andrew, specifically, from prior posts
>showing a good knoweldge of both VTES and Shadowfist. Hell, even here
>above, I'm assuming _you_ know what you're talking about when you speak of
>multiplayer 'Fist, despite the fact that what you say contradicts Julian's
>experience, whom I've known to post on 'Fist matters from other forums...
>Am I giving you too much credit?

He's the number five ranked player in the world. I hear he knows a little.

Andrew S. Davidson

unread,

Jun 15, 2004, 3:48:13 AM6/15/04

to

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:22:13 GMT, David Zopf wrote:

>Personal experience, only (a poor metric, but mine may be better than some.)
>I travel a week out of every month with my job mostly in the US, but
>occasionally in Europe, and have a habit of stopping by local gaming stores

>in my free evening time. In the 75-100 gaming stores I've been in...

Shadowfist is certainly thin on the ground. VTES has a larger, more
organised player base but even that game is hard to get pick-up play
for. The typical gaming store will have games of big selling kiddie
games like Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Duelmasters going on (not sure about
Pokemon now). Whatever adult games you find depends upon whatever has
caught on locally - L5R, LotR, Vs, Star Wars, whatever. They are all
quite patchy in my own experience of game stores in the UK and USA -
there are too many games for one store to be able to support them all
well.

Getting as many as five competent players together for a game of a CCG
usually requires planning. My Shadowfist play takes place at a weekly
club meeting and a couple of regular monthly tournaments. There's a
similar scene for VTES in London. If your travels ever bring you
here, drop me a line and I can hook you up.

Andrew

David Zopf

unread,

Jun 15, 2004, 8:40:14 AM6/15/04

to

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message

news:ucatc01pvgdvsce20...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:22:13 GMT, David Zopf wrote:
>
> >Personal experience, only (a poor metric, but mine may be better than
some.)
> >I travel a week out of every month with my job mostly in the US, but
> >occasionally in Europe, and have a habit of stopping by local gaming
stores
> >in my free evening time. In the 75-100 gaming stores I've been in...
>
> Shadowfist is certainly thin on the ground. VTES has a larger, more
> organised player base but even that game is hard to get pick-up play
> for. The typical gaming store will have games of big selling kiddie
> games like Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Duelmasters going on (not sure about
> Pokemon now). Whatever adult games you find depends upon whatever has
> caught on locally - L5R, LotR, Vs, Star Wars, whatever. They are all
> quite patchy in my own experience of game stores in the UK and USA -
> there are too many games for one store to be able to support them all
> well.
>

A fair and accurate assessment. Pokemon TCG, as far as I've seen, has been
supplanted by YuGiOh (and Duelmasters) as The Cartoon-Driven Kids TCG. I
haven't seen much recent evidence of sales or active play, although the
cards are still all around.
I've seen evidence of L5R about as often as VTES (and not much of either,
one store in eight... maybe?), most places are quite ambivalent on LotR. As
you say, it needs a local champion to keep it together. At the very least,
the demo monkey prince list for VTES gives one the outside chance of falling
into a game, but I've found that the short-notice nature of my travel
usually precludes getting a game organized in time, unless the local group
is sufficiently big (say, 15 or more active players).

> Getting as many as five competent players together for a game of a CCG
> usually requires planning. My Shadowfist play takes place at a weekly
> club meeting and a couple of regular monthly tournaments. There's a
> similar scene for VTES in London. If your travels ever bring you
> here, drop me a line and I can hook you up.
>

Thanks. For right now, my only UK customer is in Gateshead (_theres_ a road
trip from London), but a week of sales calls is possible. If that happens,
I'm definitely extending it over a weekend, and I've a coupon for a
discounted stay at Legbiter Manor ;-)

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 15, 2004, 1:26:10 PM6/15/04

to

In article <2j6h5nF...@uni-berlin.de>,

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I do miss it though, it was an awfully fun game, and I bet it still is.

You bet it is...even without a Duffin in an afro! :)

You still based in Milwaulkee these days?

>ps hi joshua & julian! long time no see. :-)

No kidding! You should make Origins. Or Gencon.

Joshua Kronengold

unread,

Jun 15, 2004, 1:54:00 PM6/15/04

to

In article <VNnzc.25535$rP6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,

David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com...
>> In article <i7oyc.25240$jZ3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
>> David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote:
>> >So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't
>> >give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment.
>No
>> >wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well.
>>
>> Fist grows just fine. (it doesn't have a lot of money behind it for
>full-page
>> advertising, but that's another question).
>> More particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side,
>tend
>> not to leave.
>>
>> Why would you think otherwise?
>>

>on the shelves. I have never observed people playing Shadowfist, other than
>at my own request for an occasional game. All that amounts only to personal
>experience, but if it was growing 'fine', I would think that such experience
>would be enough to net at least _one_ instance of the game being played, or
>at least actively sold.

More particularly, Fist popularity is currently stable -- it's growing enough
to replace the inevitable dropouts, but not enough to be in the kind of growth
spurt a game tends to be in when it's "new".

This is actually fairly usual when a game is undercapitalized, IMEX.

But from what I've seen, people who leave fist tend to do so -because- of its
lack of popularity in some areas, not because they dislike the game.

>...Sorry. By 'upsetting the equilibrium' I was re-stating more succinctly
>Julian's point that it is the new player's inexperience and mistakes that
>causes the short game to occur.

As julian mentioned, this was an overgeneralization and misreading on your
part -- the presence of a new player will tend to avoid one of the breakdown
stages of Fist -- an arbitrarily long game often ending in deck exhaustion by
at least one player, but will generally produce a "normal" game.

>> It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing kingmaker
>if
>> they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but it's just as likely
>that
>> (2) they'll end up putting the game into a quick win-spiral for one player
>early
>> on (ie, a quick learning experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor
>> (probably the most likely possiblity for a new player that's completely
>> outclassed, if not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will
>exhaust
>> itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends.

>I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're
>experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the
>opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario?

As said, Julian's statements were referring to cases 1-4 (plus case 6: new
player gets lucky, and takes advantage of several other player's bad starts,
and case 7: new player catches on fast, resulting in a normal game, but not an
over-long game); the point is more that a new player is generally going to
avoid case 5: game is played cautiously and well, and nobody can manage to get
(or keep) a decisive advantage for a long while.

>You seem to be saying here
>(correct me if I'm wrong) that any of these four scenarios is equally
>possible (or do you value one or more over the others?).

All 6 are reasonably possible, varying with the skill of a the player, the
quality of the deck (since new players are frequently loaned decks, and since
experienced players occasionally build stinkers of a deck that only show their
badness in play, these can vary seperately), but I wouldn't call them "equal".

If one player doesn't outclass the others in some way, a win spirial is
relatively unlikely (but still possible).

>Who has the right of it for Fist, then, you or Julian?

We are not in disagreement on this matter.

>I presume nothing. This 'debate' as you very generously call it, is a
>consequence of Andrew's supplanting his opinion over my own

At this point, that's a side conversation, IMO.

>So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist players, such
>as yourself (its all I have).

Nevertheless, characterizing Fist as random and Jyhad as strategic in
comparison is somewhat insulting. I'd appreciate if if you'd refrain from
that sort of thing.

>> The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both
>> games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate.
>I know that to be true of only Andrew, specifically, from prior posts
>showing a good knoweldge of both VTES and Shadowfist. Hell, even here
>above, I'm assuming _you_ know what you're talking about when you speak of
>multiplayer 'Fist, despite the fact that what you say contradicts Julian's
>experience, whom I've known to post on 'Fist matters from other forums...
>Am I giving you too much credit?

My Fist qualifications are probably beyond reproach (um...5th ranked player in
the world; winner @ '97 Gencon Nationals (Multi); 2nd place in dueling last
year; etc). My Vampire experience is much smaller, partially becuase it's
just an amazingly expensive game to play, IMEX -- the large card pool combined
with the need to have large numbers of powerful commons made it (at least in
the early days) much more expensive than Fist, which has smaller decks, a
different rarity scheme, and a 5/deck max. But I've played my share, from
stealth/bleed (or attempts at slealth/bleed/vote) to playing my bad, or other
people's better combat decks.

>a sterling conclusion? Don't get all 'ad hominem' on me at this late a
>point in the game, you were doing well up until this.

As said, I'm not about to unless I find myself facing misleading conclusions
drawn from false textual analysis.

FWIW, btw -- Fist is reasonably popular (ie, there are formal playgroups at
stores or in open clubs, in addition to whatever informal playgroups there are
or aren't) in NYC, Toronto, somewhere in Texas, Philly, and various parts of
California.

(and, I'm sure, varous places that didn't spring to mind).