GROUP 4 + ULTIMATUM !!!
Orpheus
I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in
the Anarchs.
Whether this is true or not isn't the point here (I'm not a playtester so
can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet). If you want to
discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't
dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and
now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). But it needs to
STOP NOW !!!
The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I
guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will
already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE
and NOW :
I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
out, I will :
- stop buying new products
- resign from my Princeship
I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread.
If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the
opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up
until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have
to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), am
still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still
encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the
difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the
day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat.
It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want.
Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off,
--
Orpheus
http://cypheranima.free.fr
http://no.exit.free.fr
news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone
"After all, what is an angel but a demon yet to fall ?"
(Nancy A. Collins)
David Cherryholmes
> I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
> out, I will :
What's so special about group 5? Isn't it the group 4 possibility that's
got you pissed off?
"I dare you to cross this line!"
"OK, I dare you to cross *this* line!"
"OK, I...."
David Cherryholmes
Prince of Durham, NC
Orpheus
> got you pissed off?
>
> "I dare you to cross this line!"
>
> "OK, I dare you to cross *this* line!"
>
> "OK, I...."
I get your meaning, and yes it's pissed me off some. But for now, it seems
to concern very few vampires, and it's too late to do anything about it. It
IS bad, as you can't play them with any of their Sabbat counterparts, any DS
or AH Camarilla, any Independant or Bloodlines !!! But as long they're
Cammies, only a few vampires are really interesting to play from group 2, so
it IS a problem but not of the worst kind. Anyway, I play Sabbat most of the
time. Trouble is, the first Camarilla vmapires weren't "anybody" in the WoD,
while Sabbat introduced some very background vampires like Lucita, Gratiano,
Lambach etc. It wouldn't make any sense playing without these. Also, many
players have had no access to VTES vampires, only to re-issued (why in hell,
then !!!) Group 2 Cammies, so they will be able to play Group 3 and 4. On
the other hand, a Group 5 or Group 4 vampires would mean you can't use any
of the newly printed or reprinted vampires, and that would be the end, for
me and I think many others.
In one word as in many : if group 4 really come out, we can't do anything
about it except stopping it all right away, and I know some people will. But
I prefer to prevent any further harm and to say : stop it now. We could even
add the "no more Group 4" part, but I don't think that would be effective.
Or would it ? How many of you would stop buying new extensions if they
sprinkled them adition with new Group 4 Cammies ? I'm afraid it's too late
for that one threat, but one never knows...
Yours,
Orpheus
Joshua Duffin
"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:apri1s$jru$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr...
> I get your meaning, and yes it's pissed me off some. But for now, it seems
> to concern very few vampires, and it's too late to do anything about it.
It
> IS bad, as you can't play them with any of their Sabbat counterparts, any
DS
> or AH Camarilla, any Independant or Bloodlines !!! But as long they're
> Cammies, only a few vampires are really interesting to play from group 2,
so
> it IS a problem but not of the worst kind. Anyway, I play Sabbat most of
the
> time. Trouble is, the first Camarilla vmapires weren't "anybody" in the
WoD,
> while Sabbat introduced some very background vampires like Lucita,
Gratiano,
> Lambach etc. It wouldn't make any sense playing without these. Also, many
> players have had no access to VTES vampires, only to re-issued (why in
hell,
> then !!!) Group 2 Cammies, so they will be able to play Group 3 and 4. On
> the other hand, a Group 5 or Group 4 vampires would mean you can't use any
> of the newly printed or reprinted vampires, and that would be the end, for
> me and I think many others.
Look, if you don't believe in grouping, you don't believe in
grouping, but I'm not sure that boycott threats are going to
change any decisionmakers' minds at White Wolf.
The grouping rule is supposed to keep the playing field level for
newer players who will never have access to group 1 vampires. In
the future, they might also not have access to group 2, 3, etc
vampires. The grouping rule guarantees that they'll always have
access to a comparable pool of most-recently-printed vampires as
the one that longtime players have access to.
It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too
easy to build.
If you don't believe that these are problems - and I think they
are relatively small problems given the existing cardsets and the
likely availability of vampires in the future - then grouping is
a bad idea. But quitting the game over it seems kind of like
cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's not like you can't
keep playing with your existing vampires and crypts. You just
wouldn't be able to mix in the highest-group vampires with some
of the vampires you already own.
Group 4 seems like it would be annoying because there would probably
be only a few vampires in group 4 and they could only be used with
group 3 vampires. This is quite a bit like the situation when
Dark Sovereigns came out - there were only the original-set vamps,
and then you got a few more vamps to add to them for the Camarilla
clans in DS. It's just that we're so far past that point now that
people would find it frustrating to have so *little* crypt diversity
available in the new grouping combination.
And I do think that grouping rules are probably a lot more bad than
good for the game overall; since there's so much existing availability
of vampires with particular disciplines already - especially at the
lower capacity levels - adding more duplication seems like much less
harm than pissing off a significant number of players by not allowing
new vampires to mix with the old ones.
Still, I'm not quitting the game over it. :-)
Josh
easy to please
Frederick Scott
> Group 4 seems like it would be annoying because there would probably
> be only a few vampires in group 4 and they could only be used with
> group 3 vampires. This is quite a bit like the situation when
> Dark Sovereigns came out - there were only the original-set vamps,
> and then you got a few more vamps to add to them for the Camarilla
> clans in DS. It's just that we're so far past that point now that
> people would find it frustrating to have so *little* crypt diversity
> available in the new grouping combination.
>
> And I do think that grouping rules are probably a lot more bad than
> good for the game overall; since there's so much existing availability
> of vampires with particular disciplines already - especially at the
> lower capacity levels - adding more duplication seems like much less
> harm than pissing off a significant number of players by not allowing
> new vampires to mix with the old ones.
>
> Still, I'm not quitting the game over it. :-)
I know we're not supposed to post just to say me, too. But these last
three paragraphs express my point of view pretty accurately. I would
add one thing to your last sentence however: White Wolf has to give
players a good reason to buy new cards even if they don't quit the game
over it right away. Why does anyone want to buy a vampire they can't
use very often? There aren't enough group three vampires out now to
justify group fours, not by a long shot.
I suppose it would depend on what else is in Anarchs to determine whether
it would get bought as a set. Perhaps it will. I still hate getting
cards you can't use in amongst the useful stuff, though. And I also
think at some point, you have to look at whether you're needlessly
irritating people.
Fred
Dave Brereton
Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
news:3DC1642C...@removethis.com...
> There aren't enough group three vampires out now to
> justify group fours, not by a long shot.
If you look at it there are almost as many group 3 as group 1 vampires. 15
from each clan (-1 clan) and no Catieff (but there are Sabbat in CE so it's
pretty much a wash). So there are aproximitly even numbers of group 1 and 3
vampires currently. How many vamps would you say is enough for group 3?
Group 1 has 125 (ballpark) and group 2 has 300 (ballpark), how many group 3
should we get Fred? Group 2 is the biggest group by far. It seems that
keeping group 1 and group 3 the same size would be a logical idea as they
both have access to group 2. One could speculate that grouping could follow
a pattern: small group, big group, small, big.... and so on. If that
pattern were followed you would have access to aprox 400 vampires in any
combination of groups. If Group 3 never gets another vampire it would allow
as many as 4 ( most likley 3) expansions to be released with group 4
vampires. That's a lot of expansions! I like expansions!
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:3DC1642C...@removethis.com...
> > There aren't enough group three vampires out now to
> > justify group fours, not by a long shot.
>
> If you look at it there are almost as many group 3 as group 1 vampires.
I realize that. But that's not a workable criterion. The problem is the
utility of a group 4 vampire both in a pure sense and in relation to other
vampires. Actually, the latter is what I truly care about but I concede
it's a bit unfair: the utility of a given group of vampires must necessarily
change over time as new vampires in the same group and adjoining groups are
printed. So I included the "in a pure sense" version to express the point
that it's only right to print a card that has at least *minimal* utility
even as it's printed - even if you promise to make it more useful later.
In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a
group 4 vampire as it gets printed, not whether there's balance between
groups 1 and 3. Group 1 and 3 vampires have all of group 2 to play with
which, is a much larger group than group 3. Group 2 vampires have everything
until new group 4s come out. Of course, there's a question of how likely
you are to use, say, a group 1 vampire with a group 2 vampire given that
they are often if different clans. So it's not really possible to compare
the two situations.
So the answer to your question is that it's a thoroughly subjective. But
Josh's statement was on the money: any Group 4 vampire coming out at this
point will be subject to so little diversity in its use that people will
find it frustrating (to own).
> One could speculate that grouping could follow
> a pattern: small group, big group, small, big.... and so on. If that
> pattern were followed you would have access to aprox 400 vampires in any
> combination of groups. If Group 3 never gets another vampire it would allow
> as many as 4 ( most likley 3) expansions to be released with group 4
> vampires. That's a lot of expansions! I like expansions!
Sure. The *problem* with that view is that until more expansions come out,
the usefulness of the early vampires printed in it will tend to suck.
Fred
James Coupe
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a
>group 4 vampire as it gets printed
As has been pointed out, in a very real sense, things like the Ravnos
were in a league of their own when printed - a whole 10 vampires who you
could basically play with themselves or not at all.
Sasha, can't cross unless you're just looking for 2 cap weenies.
Tsigane, poor cross unless you *really* want Auspex weenies. (At the
time, why? And even now, inferior Auspex wouldn't be great.)
Salbatore Bokkengro - for/pro at 4 capacity. Ricki and Roman would be
better choices, possibly Chandler (who came out in DS)
(You could, conceivably, be SalBok a number of the above in Trap/Undead
Persistence decks, but these weren't particularly well explored at the
time.)
Andre - getting too big to cross over just for the ani/for. Where does
the Celerity fit in? Smallest ani/for/cel was Quinton
McDonnell. (Potential ani/for/cel/chi with Constantin.)
Joaquina - first non-Chimerstry superiors - ANI CHI FOR, with a +1
stealth equip. So with Ani/For you go to the Gangrel again. At
5 they have Raven and Camille (though at the time, many people
played them as the same vampire) with ani/FOR/PRO, Bear Paw with
ANI for pro; at 6, Zack with ani/for/pro/+1 strength and Badger
with ani FOR PRO. So yes, the cheapest source of ANI FOR
(Sarisha Veliku competes in AH), but not a stupendously good
cross-over. Superior Animalism gave you +1 life on a number of
retainers, Drawing out the Beast's damage at superior, optional
presses with Conquer the Beast (a very poor card), destroy
equipment with Canine Horde (better now than it was, equipment
being very poor and unused), intercept from Cat's Guidance, not
just untap (one of the best flexible cats in the set at the
time), nothing on Army of Rats, a press on Aid from Bats (if you
weren't getting pinged by S:CE, that's not bad) and Rats Warning
(usable, but better for the Nosferatu/Spawning Pool).
Shepherd's Innocence, introduced in Dark Sovereigns, gives you a
very powerful steal card, but it's focused only at Animalism -
you need other people to be playing Animalism, and you need to
be able to get the action through, which is difficult if the
Animalism cards on the table are Raven Spy with a cat guiding
them for backup.
There were, in fact, days before Carrion Crows and my love for
the card. The only downside to Carrion Crows is that Gratiano
can't play it.
Vaclav - ANI CHI for pot. Well, the Potence might work reasonably well
in a Nosferatu deck. At 6, he's a cheap source of ANI pot
(Nigel and Calebros are cheaper, but aren't available right
now). Unfortunately, ani/pot was generally regarded as pants
relative to cel/pot and obf/pot, both potent forces. With only
ANI/for, the Gangrel are really outclassing him at this point,
unless you desperately need ANI. Only Bear Paw (5) has ANI for,
neither of the sixes do, then you hit Gunther and Gitane. But
you're probably using Protean too at that size.
Natalia - +1 bleed, dom/for. Conceivably, that's a Ventrue deck. They
don't have +1 bleed that small. But they do have DOM/FOR/PRE
and titles at 7 capacity (Walter the Sweaty), though you could
try some bizarre Animalism tag-team with Timothy Crowley. The
Dominate works not badly with new Ravnos and stuff, but it
didn't transfer well outside the clan back then.
Tereza Rostas - with only FOR and three inferiors, 8 capacity is getting
big. Ani/Aus isn't a big thing at the time, no Tzimisce,
smallest is Thomas Thorne at 6. Ani/For/Pot/Aus. A Sheldon
tag-team, maybe. Except Sheldon has ANI AUS for POT at 9
capacity, and three votes. Still, the FOR might come in handy.
But you're really getting too big to not be using a special
ability heavily (hers is pants) or lots of disciplines.
Darius - with FOR/PRO/ani, and a fairly neat special - you get to see a
card anyway - you could make a potentially convincing argument
(even if you decided against it) for him to go in a Gangrel
deck. But you have got competition from Gitane and Ingrid and
Katarina, not to mention Wynn for a mere 1 capacity point more,
with his built in rush. Doable, but not supremely pressing.
Kostantin - well, you've got ANI/dom/FOR, for that Timothy Crowley deck,
but it's not really that pressing. The steal equipment is nice
if it happens, but you can't plan for it, so you're unlikely to
put him in a deck thinking "Yes, I will bring him out and steal
equipment and rule the world." That celerity isn't really
making him a big out of clan fiend either.
So, none of them are super, extra special madly needed out of clan,
though you could make a case for some in some decks, just about. Who,
if you're playing Ravnos, are you going to bring *into* the clan to mix?
You're picking up a lot of Chimerstry, so maybe a few small ani/for
types to weenify the deck slightly, using the bigger vampires for
Sensory Deprivation. Use some ani for intercept retainers, maybe, and
Fortitude to defend something. Maybe you have the Rack out and want it
defended - the Ravnos were in dire problems with blood gain after all.
They (the ani/for intruders) could use the Computer Hackings you put in
for a bleed angle, but not the Fata Morgana you were using both for
stealth *and* for bleed (if you had CHI).
So how many decks could you seriously lend them to? And how many could
you seriously get loans from? Not really very many at all. They were a
clan without "many potential crypt-fellows". How many people quit the
game because the Ravnos were printed though? I can't remember any for
that reason. The V:TES angle, yes. The Ravnos angle? Not that I can
recall.
Later, with Ancient Hearts, you get Lazar Dobrescu - a very nice snaffle
for the Ventrue or the Gangrel, to be honest. Sarisha - well, maybe you
*can* do something with ANI/dom/FOR. You've got a small cluster now -
Natalia, Timothy, Sarisha. Worth a go, perhaps. Still no Carrion Crows
for Animalism fun when blocked on a bleed, though. You have to rely on
Scorpion Sting (just came in), maybe, or Aid from Bats, pinging at them
and preventing any damage to you, and throwing down Conditioning when
they don't block. Doable, perhaps, at the time. Petru Sipos - well,
the SER is incompatible with the Setites - nothing else makes him cross
over. Stealing blood in torpor? Well, if you can get them to torpor,
maybe. Slow, too. Might as well just hit them into torpor and use
Taste of Vitae. Not a fantastic vampire for matching up crypt-mates.
Yet I still don't know anyone who quit because the Ravnos were printed,
even though they had extremely limited crypt-mate potential, even after
3 extra vampires were printed for them.
--
James Coupe
PGP 0x5D623D5D uk.* Committee Elections in progress
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
13D7E668C3695D623D5D See uk.net.news.announce for more details
Joshua Duffin
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:IyoRy8mQ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <3DC17F10...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>
> >In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a
> >group 4 vampire as it gets printed
>
> As has been pointed out, in a very real sense, things like the Ravnos
> were in a league of their own when printed - a whole 10 vampires who you
> could basically play with themselves or not at all.
This is certainly true. But there you did have 10 new vampires who
went together as a clan, with their "new clan skill" to lend them
interest. If we were to get, say, 3 vampires for each Camarilla
clan in Group 4 in Anarchs, you would only have 3 vamps that went
together for any one clan - so the only time you'd want to use Group
4 vamps instead of Group 2 vamps for any particular deck is if those
specific Group 4 guys fit *so well* into your deck idea that they'd
be better than any number of Group 2 guys.
The situation only gets "worse" (or "harder to use" or "more narrow")
if there are fewer than 3 vamps per Cam clan, too.
If there were 10, that'd probably be enough to make them pretty usable.
That would require some 60 slots devoted to Cam vamps, though, which
might be an awful lot for what may be a fairly small set.
Josh
vamp it up
Frederick Scott
>
> In message <3DC17F10...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
> >In either case, the question is about how many potential crypt-fellows a
> >group 4 vampire as it gets printed
>
> As has been pointed out, in a very real sense, things like the Ravnos
> were in a league of their own when printed - a whole 10 vampires who you
> could basically play with themselves or not at all.
Yes, but that was then and this is now. (As has also been point out.) Now,
there are so many other things to play that don't have that problem that
vampires who do are much more useless. Thus, arguments based on comparing
the two situations are invalid. Sorry to dismiss your entire carefully
constructed argument due to that one point, but unfortunately, it's got a
huge flaw.
Fred
Jeff Kuta
> It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too
> easy to build.
One other effect of grouping is that it allows WW to redistribute Sect
Titles where appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if some group 4
vampires hold European Prince titles. This wouldn't bother me in the
least.
In any case, as long as all the Groups are legal for standard
tournament play, no one can really accuse White Wolf of not listening
to the concerns of its players. It may not be a perfect solution, but
it's definitely reasonable.
Jeff
Joshua Duffin
"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:621dd332.02103...@posting.google.com...
> "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<apriku$4dltd$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> > It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too
> > easy to build.
>
> One other effect of grouping is that it allows WW to redistribute Sect
> Titles where appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if some group 4
> vampires hold European Prince titles. This wouldn't bother me in the
> least.
I think they could do that even without grouping, though? If you're
referring to the practice of "reassigning" the vampire to which the
title of "Prince of City X" belongs?
Sure, without grouping you could have all the Princes of the same
cities in the same crypt, but I personally doubt that that's too big
a problem, given how many princes it's already possible to put in a
crypt. Plus, the ones from the same city would contest titles if
you brought them both out...
> In any case, as long as all the Groups are legal for standard
> tournament play, no one can really accuse White Wolf of not listening
> to the concerns of its players. It may not be a perfect solution, but
> it's definitely reasonable.
If you believe that the problem is a serious problem, then yeah. I've
kind of come to the conclusion that the problem's not large enough to
need curing, compared to the other quirks the game has that aren't
curable (or don't seem to be on the list for curing). :-)
Josh
eating the perfect bite
James Coupe
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>This is certainly true. But there you did have 10 new vampires who
>went together as a clan, with their "new clan skill" to lend them
>interest. If we were to get, say, 3 vampires for each Camarilla
>clan in Group 4 in Anarchs, you would only have 3 vamps that went
>together for any one clan - so the only time you'd want to use Group
>4 vamps instead of Group 2 vamps for any particular deck is if those
>specific Group 4 guys fit *so well* into your deck idea that they'd
>be better than any number of Group 2 guys.
The very obvious alternative is that a different theme (or themes) is
explored.
Instead of, say, having Fortitude as a common out of clan discipline for
<Clan X>, you give the new vampires Celerity instead, creating a new
niche.
Compare Euro-Brujah. You wouldn't use them - in Dark Sovereigns -
because they were so much better than your Group One (V:TES) vampires,
per se. You'd use them because they worked entirely differently to your
group one vampires.
Of course, bit DOM/POT at the time was *potentially* usable with the
Giovanni. But, like the Ravnos, you'd find the inclusion of Necromancy
on most of the Giovanni would mean that the Dominate/Potence angle would
be slightly watered down, and for 8 pool, that's a lot of 'waste' you've
got there.
At this point, you don't have to make them *better* than the group 2
vampires, you just change the focus. Group 2 has <x> so let's give
these <!x>. Say, instead of Brujah with Dominate as a little cluster,
create, say, a cluster of Brujah with Dementation. (No-one has it so
far.) Or give the Toreador a big Animalism side-line, maybe a splash of
Vic on one of them. (Ira Rivers, [3], has ani. Alexandra [2] has ANI.)
Maybe throw the Ventrue some Necromancy, as well as dom/for/pre. How
about a cluster of Independent Ventrue, calling Free States Rant?
Ventrue Headquarters in play, maybe even an Assembly. And these
Necromancing Ventrue upstarts, having got into business with the
Giovanni, manage to get the nasty vampires hunted down by the Society of
Leopold and then raise them from the dead. Or Tremere with Serpentis,
letting you, err, accelerate the usage of Temptation.
Would any of those be useful? Perhaps, perhaps not. Obviously, you'd
want to play-test and find useful canon vampires or get White Wolf to
'invent' some and so on. But they wouldn't be *better* than group 2.
Donal and Constanza and Volker would still kick ass, just as they do
now. But the Dementation Brujah would be able to do very different
things.
Daniel Figueiredo
> (Nancy A. Collins)
Like I said so many times already, if your playgroup agrees, just
ignore the grouping rules! That is what we are doing here and doing
fine. Even the Camarilla-Clan haters don´t complain. This
perfect-crypt-paranoia is just that, paranioa (for now at least). No
amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with
WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored. WW has its reasons for
doing what it is doing (I REALLY hope so). So just enjoy the game, the
best CCG there is in my opinion. Wait until WW does something you cant
ignore so easilly to stop playing or actively boicott the game. The
grouping rule is just a silly number on the card if you don´t let it
get to you. It would have ruined the card´s look had the new layout
and all the changes not been made. The way it is now, the little
number does not even amount to that! You are not even sure that group
4 is coming in the Anarchs (or are you?). i wouldn´t be surprised if
it did, although any group 4 vampires in the anarchs would surely be
Independants, and less likely Sabbat, almost sure they wouldn´t be
Bloodlines and pretty sure they wouldn´t be camarilla. So try not to
stress just now, we are almost a year away from anarchs....
Frederick Scott
>"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>...
> > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the
> > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up
> > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have
> > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
> Like I said so many times already, if your playgroup agrees, just
> ignore the grouping rules! That is what we are doing here and doing
> fine. Even the Camarilla-Clan haters don´t complain.
Without endorsing Orpheus's campaign, I really think your reply is hardly an
answer for it. One can do anything desired with one's own cards, it's true.
But with a game, you need like-minded people to do it. The shortcomings of
"house rule" play, even when the house rules are fairly obvious, are well-
documented: aside from the lack of tournament and tournament prize support,
you deprive yourself of experience in the "real" game and thus - to some
extent - cut yourself out of tournaments that exist that are supported by
the central organization. You also make it difficult to play in non-
tournament environments you run into while traveling. And CCGs have a much
more serious issue in this sense than, say, board games or RPGs. CCGs
involve deckbuilding, so you automatically create a serious inconvenience
for yourself if you choose to jump back and forth between different
environments. You can't just "forget one set of rules" and start playing
by the other. You have to have separate decks built (or are somehow
convertible on location) which are appropriate for each environment you
play in.
On a completely different tact, all the cards that get printed over time
are designed, playtested, and are ultimately finalized under only one
environment. I realize the grouping rule is somewhat subtle in terms of
its balance issues, so I'm not sure any obvious problems caused by this
will arise. (At least not soon, I would expect.) But over time, it might
cause problems. And if it does, you can bet that the incentives for the
designers to fix these will hover long about zero, as their obvious
response to any such problems would be: "Use the real rules we give you."
I wouldn't discourage you from doing anything you like that allows you to
have fun with your cards. I just wanted to point out that the fact the
grouping rule exists and is now part of the game is truly important. Like
it or not, we now have to live with it and treat its implications as
serious ones, whether any local group uses them or not.
> No amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with
> WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored.
That might be true. I do think expressing displeasure about what they do
when you can do so with good reasoning ultimately has an effect, though.
And I don't think you can nor should wave your hand over the effects of
the grouping rule so easily.
Fred
Jeff Kuta
> Dave Brereton wrote:
> > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DC1642C...@removethis.com...
> > > There aren't enough group three vampires out now to
> > > justify group fours, not by a long shot.
> >
> > If you look at it there are almost as many group 3 as group 1 vampires.
For reference, there are 114 Group 1, 372 Group 2, and 100 Group 3
vampires (not counting Xaviar) according to the Monger. There are 7
Group 3 vampires with access to Protean by the way.
> So the answer to your question is that it's a thoroughly subjective. But
> Josh's statement was on the money: any Group 4 vampire coming out at this
> point will be subject to so little diversity in its use that people will
> find it frustrating (to own).
Consider this: Sabbat War, Final Nights and Bloodlines each had
roughly 60 new vampires. I would expect/hope the Anarchs to have
somewhere in that neighborhood. Figure maybe 10 new vampires would be
group 4? That leaves 150 Group 3 vampires to mix with the 10 Group 4
vampires. While this is hardly ideal, it isn't that terrible either.
> > One could speculate that grouping could follow
> > a pattern: small group, big group, small, big.... and so on. If that
> > pattern were followed you would have access to aprox 400 vampires in any
> > combination of groups. If Group 3 never gets another vampire it would allow
> > as many as 4 ( most likley 3) expansions to be released with group 4
> > vampires. That's a lot of expansions! I like expansions!
>
> Sure. The *problem* with that view is that until more expansions come out,
> the usefulness of the early vampires printed in it will tend to suck.
My speculation is that only titled Gangrel will be in the Group 4
category, or perhaps those special vampires which are very new to the
WoD storyline. Having the DS/AH titled Gangrel mixing with the new
Anarch Gangrel just seems wrong to me. Perhaps this is a way they're
fixing that problem. Granted, they won't have access to the 372 Group
2 vampires, but in my experience, the Gangrel didn't mix a whole lot
with other clans, aside from the odd Malkavian Madness Network Table
Dance craziness. Perhaps being Anarchs that's just as well. ;)
My feeling is that we're just in a transition phase. White Wolf had to
do SOMETHING, and this is what they chose so naturally there will be
some growing pains associated with it. If they got on a regular track
(ack!) where the odd-numbered Groups were generally Camarilla focused
and even-numbered groups were Independent/Anarch/Sabbat oriented, that
would be a "good thing." (tm) It may take us a while to get there (and
I certainly hope they DO take their time (except perhaps with one more
expansion). I think very few people want to recycle their entire
collections every 2 years.
Jeff
Frederick Scott
> My speculation is that only titled Gangrel will be in the Group 4
> category, or perhaps those special vampires which are very new to the
> WoD storyline. Having the DS/AH titled Gangrel mixing with the new
> Anarch Gangrel just seems wrong to me.
Why is that? There were the group one set of Camarilla vampires that
can mix with the group two Camarillas which, in turn, can be mixed with
the group three Camarilla vampires. Although Gangrel are now
independent (for really silly storyline reasons :-{, but that's a
different subject), their clan is really spaced the same way as the
Camarilla clans. So it seems totally reasonable that a new set of 10
Group three Gangrel is precisely what's called for. Group fours would
not be able to mix with Group twos, which is certainly unfair compared
to the other six original clans.
I realize this would allow for Cammie Gangrel mixed with independent
Gangrel, but I'm not sure that's as strange as all that. I think one
would expect the process of pulling the Gangrel out of the Camarilla
would not be an instantaneous thing, anyway. Such a crypt would seem to
represent a set of conservative and radical Gangrel mixing during the
changeover.
> Perhaps this is a way they're
> fixing that problem. Granted, they won't have access to the 372 Group
> 2 vampires, but in my experience, the Gangrel didn't mix a whole lot
> with other clans, aside from the odd Malkavian Madness Network Table
> Dance craziness.
Perhaps. They do mix fairly well with other Gangrel however.
> My feeling is that we're just in a transition phase. White Wolf had to
> do SOMETHING, and this is what they chose so naturally there will be
> some growing pains associated with it. If they got on a regular track
> (ack!) where the odd-numbered Groups were generally Camarilla focused
> and even-numbered groups were Independent/Anarch/Sabbat oriented, that
> would be a "good thing." (tm) It may take us a while to get there (and
> I certainly hope they DO take their time (except perhaps with one more
> expansion). I think very few people want to recycle their entire
> collections every 2 years.
Actually, I agree with all that (accepting the concept that grouping is a
good thing at all notwithstanding) except for the part about Anarchs. As
you point out, there are more group one vampires than current group threes.
The reason for this is exactly because there aren't currently any Gangrel
or any Caitiff, as there were in group one. These are precisely the subject
matter for Anarchs, are they not? Hence, one would expect to find them
also in group three. And if anything, group three ought to be larger than
group one just because it would make the stress of the changeover to group
four easier.
There really ought to be a better way to this. To me, it would make more
sense to wait until the next large expansion containing many independent
vampires to start group four in bulk. Starting it as part of a small
expansion featuring vampires that, by all rights, ought to be group three
seems very strange. Not very well thought out, IMO.
Fred
jspektr
>
> I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in
> the Anarchs.
I suspect this is not true, but in any case, I don't buy Cam, and have
no intentions of buying Anarchs, so the grouping rule already cost
White Wolf my business with group 3. That, and the amateurish design
changes.
Maybe they'll eventually reprint some of the stuff from the old sets
that is still hard to find, with the old design, and call it "VTES:
Classic Edition" or something. That'd be something I'd buy.
JSpektr
Orpheus
rather than answering many times to each of you I'll just try to answer on
the whole.
- First, I'm not really "campaining", as I don't run for elections and don't
expect anything for my personnal profit here. I just protest in my name and
the name of many players I know, because I want this game to stay what we
love, and not to become progressively just another soulless commercial
machine. I have nothing to win except the pleasure to see the game stay the
way I deem best, and I put my Princehood on the stake (I am a man of word,
and will do what I said no matter what) ; I also wanted to express what I
think is the PoV of many players, but judging from your answers I may be
mistaken, lots of you don't seem to care.
- I didn't threaten to quit the game, Josh, just to stop buying and
promoting it. You can't do something you don't believe in anymore, can you ?
As of now, I still believe in this game, I'm just stating what will make me
so disgusted I will have to quit. I will probably still play it (have enough
cards to last me a century), but it won't give anymore more money to WW? so
if enough people say the same it will give them something to think about.
- Just ignoring the Group rules isn't a solution IMO because it won't be
allowed in tournaments, and the game balance will be thought out with these
rules in mind. Someone spoke of Brujah with Dem as opposed to Euro-Brujahs ?
What if the group 4 give 5 new Brujahs with Dom ? 6 more Malks with Pre ?
Etc. It just won't be worth playing Sabbat (or fucking Bloodlines !!!)
anymore if your Cammie opponents can chose from 324 (random number)
vampires, so you cannot just ignore grouping.
- The reason "new players can't get their hands on old vampires" isn't
valid. Old vampires can be reprinted, as they did with Group 2 in starters
(even though most group 2 vampires stink and we could have done without,
except for the freaks who want to try the dreaded qui/pro/tha combo, for
example...). Good reasons for creating groups are : 1) we want to make new,
better vampires than in the original edition without giving too big of an
edge to Camarilla, and 2) we want to change who owns the titles (but then
why reprint the old Inner Circle ?!), and as Joshua just said, even that is
a half-valid reason. Bad reason is : we want to sell new cards, and don't
care about the players, so we make lots of vampires not playable together,
and sod'em all. I hope that's not the whole of the thing, and that's why I'm
making this plea (turning into a War Cry) to WW.
- Let's be clear : we don't NEED any new groups. I'd agree with the one
saying that new discipline combos would be interesting, but that wouldn't
justify a new group (who cares if there are 4 new Brujahs with Dem but
without their 3 basic disciplines, they wouldn't count as 4 more Brujahs or
as 4 more Malks, it's a whole new thing !!). As long as there are as many
new Sabbat / Cammies / Indies, there can be lots of them without it creating
any problem. The only ones who will suffer are Bloodlines, except of course
if some new vampires from other Clans include their disciplines. But anyway,
they won't suffer less with a Group 4 (not mixeable with them at all).
- Now, Group 4 Sabbat and Indies would mean : all your old Sabbatics and
Indies are to be thrown away and replaced, OR there is no interest in buying
new vampires. It would stink, and there is no valid reason to this that I
can see. Same can be said with Group 5, which would render obsolete all the
new vampires that just came out. That, for me, would be the proof of the
"screw you" politics. And PLEASE don't tell me that old vampires would still
be tournament legal, we all know where it will end if we start on that road
(for some people the thing is already done with Group 3, for others it will
be with Group 4 ; I say some damage has been done but it's not a killing
blow yet ; please stop it theren though !!).
Did I forget anything ?
Yes : please speak up, all who think that Group 4 Cammies are THE limit to
what can be done without killing our game !!!
Orpheus
Derek
<apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about:
> Hello all,
>
> I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in
> the Anarchs.
Assured? By who?
And you *believed* them?
Why?
> The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that
> I guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension
> will already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition
> HERE and NOW :
God, what a fucking stupid idea.
Let me rephrase this: WHAT A FUCKING STUPID IDEA.
It has been demonstrated here for well over four years that ultimatums,
ranting, and childish foot-stamping has little to no effect on the
powers-that-be, other than to cause them to firm up their position.
It has also been demonstrated here, for well over four years, that calm,
well-reasoned, well-thought-out arguments which contain useful suggestions
as to alternatives are, in fact, listened to by those same powers.
So what do you do? Get up on your soapbox, like an IDIOT, and start ranting
and jumping up and down like a maniac, as if it would ever have the
slightest effect. You clueless twat.
> I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever
> comes out, I will :
>
> - stop buying new products
> - resign from my Princeship
Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway.
I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are undoubtedly
reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his Princeship immediately, as a
person with this attitude is no longer a suitable ambassador for the game,
nor is he capable of making the correct value judgements necessary to run
tournaments and distribute information and/or prize support to a city. I'm
sure someone will be glad to step up in Marseille and take his place.
I believe that this should happen irrespective of whether group 4 vampires
are present in the Anarch set or not -- this sort of attitude isn't what I
want to see associated with this game, EVER.
> I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...),
I say you are a liar.
I think you should stop work on your new site, and abandon all association
with V:TES. Someone like you is simply out for his own glory, as opposed
to the mythical "good of the game". You've heard a rumor (as yet
unfounded) that something MAY happen that you won't like, and as a result
you post crap like THIS? How pathetic.
Disagreeing is one thing. A Prince should be capable of finding a FAR
better means to express his disagreement than stupid-assed pulings such as
this one.
> am still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will
I say you are a liar here, too. You are not motivated, as your words above
show. You are, in fact, attempting to DE-promote V:TES. No Prince should
ever act this way, especially in a PUBLIC FORUM.
> It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want.
Let me make something clear to you, child.
Business is not about what YOU want.
Business is about making money. The best way to make money is to give
people what they want. But most people don't know what they want. You
certainly don't. As a result, businesses employ many people to study what
people say over the course of time, and determine from that what they
really want.
And what they really want is for the game to continue as long as possible.
That's what group 3 was designed to do -- to allow the game to continue as
long as possible, without removing any parts of the game. So what if group
4 happens? Group 3 wasn't the end of the world, despite all the blithering
and shrieking and sky-is-falling garbage posted here and on other forums.
Why should group 4 be?
> Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off,
Get lost.
-- Derek
Orpheus
> >
> > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out
in
> > the Anarchs.
>
> Assured? By who?
>
> And you *believed* them?
>
> Why?
It doesn't matter, as I've said already, read again and try to understand.
> > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is
that
> > I guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension
> > will already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a
petition
> > HERE and NOW :
>
> God, what a fucking stupid idea.
Ok, I'll cut your insults. I don't know who you think you are, but you have
no idea who I am either, and nothing gives you the right to speak to me as
you did. Whether or not this idea is stupid is just a point of view. Whether
or not I am stupid is not in your power to judge, and if you want to get
flaming re-read the usenet and this group's etiquette. To me you just proved
one thing : you're a no-brainer only able to resort to insults rather than
proving your points (which is stupid of you, because for a fraction of a
second you nearly had an argument saying that ultimatums didn't get
anywhere, but a) you're wrong, as the changes from the May Rulings proved,
and b) you just proved your immaturity and inintelligence, not to mention
lack of respect). I won't fall into your game. But if you really want to
play the asshole, go do it somewhere else, or do dare tell me this to my
face and see if I don't smash the brainless piece of ass that you use for a
head into an even more useless clump of dried shit.
Not greeting you,
Orpheus
Matthew T. Morgan
> Did I forget anything ?
Yeah. Why exactly are you so sure the Anarch set will be group 4? If I
remember correctly, the Xavier card that was such a topic of debate a few
weeks ago had a 3 on it. I'm thinking the Anarch set will be all group 3.
I'd certainly be interested in evidence to the contrary. Maybe I missed
something.
-Matt
Daniel Figueiredo
> Without endorsing Orpheus's campaign, I really think your reply is hardly an
> answer for it. One can do anything desired with one's own cards, it's true.
> But with a game, you need like-minded people to do it. The shortcomings of
> "house rule" play, even when the house rules are fairly obvious, are well-
> documented: aside from the lack of tournament and tournament prize support,
> you deprive yourself of experience in the "real" game and thus - to some
> extent - cut yourself out of tournaments that exist that are supported by
> the central organization. You also make it difficult to play in non-
> tournament environments you run into while traveling. And CCGs have a much
> more serious issue in this sense than, say, board games or RPGs. CCGs
> involve deckbuilding, so you automatically create a serious inconvenience
> for yourself if you choose to jump back and forth between different
> environments. You can't just "forget one set of rules" and start playing
> by the other. You have to have separate decks built (or are somehow
> convertible on location) which are appropriate for each environment you
> play in.
>
> On a completely different tact, all the cards that get printed over time
> are designed, playtested, and are ultimately finalized under only one
> environment. I realize the grouping rule is somewhat subtle in terms of
> its balance issues, so I'm not sure any obvious problems caused by this
> will arise. (At least not soon, I would expect.) But over time, it might
> cause problems. And if it does, you can bet that the incentives for the
> designers to fix these will hover long about zero, as their obvious
> response to any such problems would be: "Use the real rules we give you."
>
Apart from the deckbuilding issues you put forth, not using the
grouping rule is hardly a "house rule". When you play any given game
of V:TES, the grouping rule only prohibits you to use certain group
combinations within your own crypt, not within the game table.
Vampires from non-compatible groups can by the "real rules" be in a
same game, even a same methuselahæ„€ controlled area, if he manages to
steal or borrow them. So the game already conforms 100% to using all
and/or any vampires in a given game. Not using the grouping rule would
only affect your deckbuilding, and nothing else in the game. After the
game starts, 0% of the rules have to be changed or ignored. So itæ„€
not really a house rule. You get my point here? I HATE house rules. I
really do. This is just using all the "real cards" with the "real
rules", only building the crypt anyway we want to (again, conforming
to all the other "real rules"). If limiting your crypt is limiting
your fun or enjoyment of the game, donæ„’ limit it.
However, you do make correct points on just about everything else
you said. Mainly about how you would have to change your deck (just
your crypt most of the time) when going from environment to
environment. But itæ„€ not like we shift environments that much (at
least most of us donæ„’), and when we do, It will probably be to play
in a tournament. And the opportunity to play V:TES doesnæ„’ just pop
out of the ground like that. So almost always, we will have time to
make such changes to our decks. My point is, ignoring the grouping
rule isnæ„’ as complicated or difficult to do like you make it sound.
Just that. I惴 not trying to make people ignore the rule, just
pointing out to them that for now, you can so easilly ignore it that
it should be no reason to quit the game for. Not using the grouping
rule is about as "wrong" as thinking you ALWAYS have to play exactly
the same way, wanting everyone else to play exactly the same way or
not play at all. The game gets played exactly the same with no
grouping rule (for now, as no card or effect affects or pertains to
the grouping rule).
> I wouldn't discourage you from doing anything you like that allows you to
> have fun with your cards. I just wanted to point out that the fact the
> grouping rule exists and is now part of the game is truly important. Like
> it or not, we now have to live with it and treat its implications as
> serious ones, whether any local group uses them or not.
>
> > No amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with
> > WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored.
>
> That might be true. I do think expressing displeasure about what they do
> when you can do so with good reasoning ultimately has an effect, though.
> And I don't think you can nor should wave your hand over the effects of
> the grouping rule so easily.
>
What effect has expressing our displeasure had until now? Zip.
Unless you call poeple quitting and getting all riled up and ranting
an effect. I consider it a reaction, a reaction to not getting any
effect from expressing displeasure. WW has not said a word about why
or how they made the changes did they? Did they try to explain what
their thought process was? Did they try to point out future
developments of the game that would greatly benefit from the changes
they have made? No. They even ignored any and all questions regarding
any decision of theirs in the CE expansion during the developer chat.
All they answered were questions pertaining to the future expansion(s)
and broader aspects of the game. No specific or direct question
regarding any CE "touchy" subject was answered, and i惴 sure most of
the questions made were regarding them. Don愒 get me wrong here, i惴
not mad with you or anyone else and I completely understand your
thoughts, but mine are that FOR NOW, yes, we can wave hands over the
grouping rule. FOR NOW, yes, all our arguments and stuff will be
ignored. I惻l be the first one to help WW if they ever ask for it, be
it just with my opinions about the game or anything else. I惻l be the
first one to stress out and threaten to quit or boicott if it will
help the game. I donæ„’ think that ever will help though.
Look forward to your comments on this.
> Fred
Curevei
In general, people who aren't bothered by something don't say so. So, I can
understand a company tuning out a certain level of complaint.
I have some complaints relating to CE, but I'm not the least bit bothered by
the grouping rule. I don't care if there are 4s, 5s, or whatever, though it
seems to me that 5s are quite a long ways away. The game could very well stop
being produced before they would come in.
I just don't see why it's so important. It's no more a sales ploy than power
rares, ultrarares, and the like. Those have far more effect on competitiveness
from my perspective, making them much more important to worry about.
Jeff Kuta
> On Thursday 31 October 2002 09:17 in message
> <apre0s$2io$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about:
>
> > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever
> > comes out, I will :
> >
> > - stop buying new products
> > - resign from my Princeship
>
> Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway.
Oh boy, here comes a REAL Command of the Harpies! ;)
> I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are undoubtedly
> reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his Princeship immediately...
[snippage since I really know nothing about the French VTES scene]
spinney99
>
> I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in
> the Anarchs.
if true, possibly Indy gangrels who don't want to mix with Euro-prince
gangrels, or panders and caitiffs. in panders' case, if there were a
lot (15+,) i'd want them to be group4. in caitiffs' case, they'd mix
with group3 cammies and group5 cammies. long time before we'd need
more weenpunes=possibly good?
> Whether this is true or not isn't the point here (I'm not a playtester so
> can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet). If you want to
> discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't
> dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and
> now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). But it needs to
> STOP NOW !!!
i'm not a playtester either, whether it's true or not could be germane
to the point, and you're obviously leading up to the "ultimatum"
promised in the thread title.
> The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I
> guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will
> already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE
> and NOW :
by your own admission, too late, if there happens to be a group4
pander.
>
> I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
> out, I will :
>
> - stop buying new products
> - resign from my Princeship
>
> I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread.
NOT I. this "i'll suicide if you don't prove your love for me by
doing exactly as i dictate" tactic is shit in life, as well as with
respect to the game. orpheus, i don't know you, but i urge you to
re-examine how dire the situation you're portraying actually is. i
feel confident in saying that i could build a dangerous, fun, or even
tournament-worthy deck with only Jyhad backs. i don't expect that to
change, partly due to finite crypting, now ensured by the grouping
rule. in other words, every expansion just adds permutations to the
original fun, but we don't have to have every card to enjoy the game.
HOW is this WW extorting us into buying new product? if i want a few
weighted walking sticks (and i do,) then i can trade, buy singles, buy
boxes and toss the ubercommons into a local free-box, or resist the
urge to buy and put 30 free weapons + 25 new concealed weapon onto my
35-card core deck. there's more than 1 way to skin this "problem."
yeah, in my perfect world, i don't get my 135th blood doll or one
millionth enhanced senses in the same pack with my wwstick, but that's
the informed choice i made.
> If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the
> opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up
> until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have
> to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
>
> I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), am
> still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still
> encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the
> difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the
> day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat.
"my whole cult will suicide if you don't prove your love for me by
doing exactly as i dictate" is a far stretch of your princely
obligation to promote the game. i strongly urge you to re-consider
almost everything you said.
>
> It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want.
>
> Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off,
> --
> Orpheus
>
i've had bad bitch-post days too. things are actually pretty good in
this game. not saying we shouldn't object to that with which we
disagree, but the drama and threats are counterproductive.
>
> "After all, what is an angel but a demon yet to fall ?"
> (Nancy A. Collins)
"nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'..."
(billy preston)
==
ps other posters already had varied interesting posts in this thread,
but i decided to respond to the original post.
here, try this on for size:
Doc ReTardis
True Brujah
11 cap, group7
TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san
Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose
a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood
Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires
of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt.
(If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group
numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are
immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile.
Frederick Scott
> Apart from the deckbuilding issues you put forth, not using the
> grouping rule is hardly a "house rule". When you play any given game
> of V:TES, the grouping rule only prohibits you to use certain group
> combinations within your own crypt, not within the game table.
> Vampires from non-compatible groups can by the "real rules" be in a
> steal or borrow them. So the game already conforms 100% to using all
> and/or any vampires in a given game. Not using the grouping rule would
> only affect your deckbuilding, and nothing else in the game. After the
> not really a house rule. You get my point here?
Actually, I do not. All the facts you give are true but irrelevant.
Lots of things are possible across a table that are not possible within
one's own area. For instance, using Goth Band to move a counter from
an opponent's Dreams of the Sphinx to your own Palla Grande doesn't make
it meaningless to change the rules to allow moving counters from your
_own_ Dreams to your own Palla Grande. What types of crypts are allowed
and not allowed determine the makeup of your metagame, which makes it
undeniably a different game. (See more discussion of the metagame
issues below if you don't understand what I'm saying, here.)
Any rules that are not the official rules are _by definition_ "House
Rules". Denying this is a semantic argument. If you don't agree with
my definition, call them anything you like. Call them "BIDZUNK RULES"
or "COYFERTBURGER RULES" or use any term you like. It doesn't matter.
The point I'm trying to make is simply that they're different from the
universal rules that are understood in other places. By virtue of this
fact, in turn, *automatically* leads to all the issues I raised in my
previous post. These are serious issues and that leads me to conclude
that simply ignoring any potential problems caused partially by the
grouping rule by ignoring grouping itself is not an answer to them.
> However, you do make correct points on just about everything else
> you said. Mainly about how you would have to change your deck (just
> your crypt most of the time) when going from environment to
> environment. But it´s not like we shift environments that much (at
> least most of us don´t), and when we do, It will probably be to play
> in a tournament. And the opportunity to play V:TES doesn´t just pop
> out of the ground like that. So almost always, we will have time to
> make such changes to our decks. My point is, ignoring the grouping
> rule isn´t as complicated or difficult to do like you make it sound.
It may not be where you play. However, if you live somewhere where
you would wind up popping back and forth between the two constantly,
it gets a lot more irritating. And personally, I really would never
want to play by house rules (or Coyfertburger Rules, if you will) just
because I don't have mental horsepower to keep with two different
game environments so I want to focus on the real one. Hell, I have
a hard enough time just trying to keep up with the one without
constantly falling on face. That, by itself, makes proposing such
rules a poor answer for (I suspect) many people.
> Not using the grouping
> rule is about as "wrong" as thinking you ALWAYS have to play exactly
> the same way, wanting everyone else to play exactly the same way or
> not play at all. The game gets played exactly the same with no
> grouping rule (for now, as no card or effect affects or pertains to
> the grouping rule).
I disagree, due to the metagame issues I referred to above. As certain
decks become viable under your rules that would be illegal under the
grouping rules, this affects all other decks in your metagame, whether
legal under grouping rules or not. Grouping-legal decks that might be
pointless to play under grouping rules may take on a critical role in
a non-grouping environment and vice versa. Because of this, the game is
actually *not* "played exactly the same with no group rule".
> > > No amount of ranting and/or arguments until now have seemed to work with
> > > WW. So your boicott will probably be ignored.
> >
> > That might be true. I do think expressing displeasure about what they do
> > when you can do so with good reasoning ultimately has an effect, though.
> > And I don't think you can nor should wave your hand over the effects of
> > the grouping rule so easily.
>
> What effect has expressing our displeasure had until now? Zip.
...
> WW has not said a word about why or how they made the changes did they?
> Did they try to explain what their thought process was? Did they try to
> point out future developments of the game that would greatly benefit from
> the changes they have made? No.
I think you make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be valid. No,
they did not visibly react to complaints about the layout nor the grouping
rules, if that's what you mean. That doesn't completely invalidate the
concept that it's pointless to complain. First of all, by the time we
discovered about these things, it was too late anyway. They were not
going to recall card already printed. Granted, it wasn't a "good thing",
IMHO, to spring this on us but it still doesn't automatically imply that
complaining is pointless. Even if they didn't care to change their minds
about some things, it doesn't mean they'll never change their minds about
anything else based on various forms of customer feedback. Such a policy
would be insane. I believe feedback on past issues has made a number of
differences. For example, I notice they didn't use the rarity scheme from
Final Nights that I and some others complained about in either Bloodlines
or Camarilla Edition. (That was about there being a very few R1s in a set
containing many R2s, which gives the feeling of "super-rares".) It might
be coincidence, as no one has ever promised not to repeat the practice.
But it might not be.
Does this all mean it is or is not pointless to complain about cards in
Anarchs being printed in group four? (Assuming the rumor is even true,
of course.) I couldn't say. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't hurt to try,
as long as the comments are constructive.
> They even ignored any and all questions regarding
> any decision of theirs in the CE expansion during the developer chat.
"Ignored"? I think you mean that they didn't answer such questions, which
is not the same thing. They don't want to expose how various kinds of
decisions get made for various reasons. I don't know what those reasons
are, exactly. But I might speculate that sometimes they have to do with
not wanting to state who has what kinds of input into what kinds of
decisions so that those exact people needn't come under undue scrutiny and
pressure by the customer population. If we know such-and-such a person
makes decisions about card rarity levels and an expansion comes out in
which certain rarity decisions are rather unpopular, sometimes people have
been known to start making very personal comments about that person. Many
of us loved to hate Ryan Dancy, for example, because we knew various stuff
about what he had control over which we didn't like the results. A *lot*
of unflattering things got said about Ryan. Ryan was an executive,
however - prepared to take the credit and the blame for the decisions he
made. I have little doubt that Steve Wieck receives input on all kinds of
things that might not have popular outcomes from people he doesn't want to
get caught in the middle of huge flamewars taking personal blows. Hence,
when asked how various decisions get made, exactly, the reply is likely to
be, "No comment...". It's what I'd do.
None of this means they never listen. They may listen or they may not.
If they do listen, they may be persuaded or they may not. I know they
will never be persuaded if we don't talk.
Fred
Thomas Pichler
> I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever
> comes out, I will :
>
> - stop buying new products
> - resign from my Princeship
>
The grouping rule has its advantages - changes to Majesty et al. aside,
would you really want pre weenie decks to have yet another X unique
vampires of capacities 1-4 available? Or how about pot weenies? Or how
about 12 different Ventrue princes (and in the long run, 8 of those with
obfuscate, too)? Or...
It is, however, a question of whether or not the arrival of yag (yet
another group) is sensibly timed.
Personally I'd say, that particular line would be pretty much crossed by
any group 4 vampires in The Anarchs, unless The Anarchs would be huge
enough a set to have 3+ group 4 vampires per clan that gets any.
[Effectivly being a DS replacement for CE.]
There should be group 4 Independent/Sabbat vampires eventually - several
Sabbat decks, for example, would gain too powerful a crypt if another
Sabbat set with 15 vampires (goup 3) came out.
There'd even have to be group 5 vampires some time down the road, when
all group 3/4 option (and those are aplenty) are exhausted - it doesn't
need to happen for a few years yet, and consequently shouldn't happen
for a few years, but it'll be inevitable in the long run. (At 8 month
intervals between sets and 4 sets [Anarchs, Sabbat, Independent, next
Cammie], 32 months would be a quick estimate.)
I'll be basing my personal decision on if/when to quit buying VTES on
these considerations.
Thomas
Orpheus
> remember correctly, the Xavier card that was such a topic of debate a few
> weeks ago had a 3 on it. I'm thinking the Anarch set will be all group 3.
As I said, I'm not sure of anything and don't give that much weight to
rumors. But it seems important to me to anticipate, just in case, and say to
WW what we think about what would happen, just in case it is true, so that
we can avoid in advance that kind of things. If the rumor is wrong, then it
is even time to say : "nay" even to the whole idea of Group 4, so let's do
it !! I'm not the one who would be the more bothered about Cammie Group 4,
because I don't play Camarilla most of the time ; on the other hand, when I
do, I love to play Muaziz, Donal, Alexandra, Alexandra etc (there are few
good DS and AH vampires, but they're very good). So speak up all of you
before anything is done, and maybe we can change things "before they happen"
(ah, Temporis...).
Yours,
Orpheus
reyda
::
:: The grouping rule is supposed to keep the playing field level for
:: newer players who will never have access to group 1 vampires.
you'll always have access to group 1 vampires. you can buy all this jyhad
old stock on the internet, and old vampire will give eagerly give (or trade)
lots of them to newbies.
I don't see what the problem is with the grouping. If it's only the
dial-a-vamp and weenie madness that may occur, i don't think it's a real
threat.
Orpheus
any
> > > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever
> > > comes out, I will :
> > >
> > > - stop buying new products
> > > - resign from my Princeship
> >
> > Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway.
>
> Oh boy, here comes a REAL Command of the Harpies! ;)
LOL. It would be if anybody granted him any Harpie authority, he's just a
snotling Malkavian using his Clan ability. ;-)
> > I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are undoubtedly
> > reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his Princeship immediately...
>
> [snippage since I really know nothing about the French VTES scene]
Be reassured, he doesn't know anything about it either. If he did he's know
that I organise the second biggest tournaments of France (right after Paris)
in a city where, before me, NOBODY played official rules. But then, I don't
have to justify myself to people who speak without knowing anything nor
respecting anyone, do I ? I liked your humorous view of the scene, though.
Yours, Orpheus
Orpheus
in
> > the Anarchs.
>
> if true, possibly Indy gangrels who don't want to mix with Euro-prince
> gangrels, or panders and caitiffs. in panders' case, if there were a
> lot (15+,) i'd want them to be group4. in caitiffs' case, they'd mix
> with group3 cammies and group5 cammies. long time before we'd need
> more weenpunes=possibly good?
I think new Caitiff would just have to be Group 3, as we don't want them to
be mixeable with Group 1, so I'm not too worried about that. I agree that
"lots of new Panders" would have to be group 4, but we don't NEED lots of
new panders, as most of them were reissued in the already reprinted Sabbat
War ; just a few maybe to make up for
the ones from Sabbat never reprinted (and that most people will never have
access to).
> > The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is
that I
> > guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension
will
> > already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition
HERE
> > and NOW :
>
> by your own admission, too late, if there happens to be a group4
> pander.
Yes. But it's not too late to stop all the rest, is it ? If we never protest
when we don't want a thing to happen or don't like a thing that happened,
then things we don't like will keep on happening.
> > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever
comes
> > out, I will :
> >
> > - stop buying new products
> > - resign from my Princeship
> >
> > I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this
thread.
>
> NOT I. this "i'll suicide if you don't prove your love for me by
> doing exactly as i dictate" tactic is shit in life, as well as with
> respect to the game. orpheus, i don't know you, but i urge you to
> re-examine how dire the situation you're portraying actually is.
First, let me say I'm glad to "meet" someone who can expose his point
intelligently and politely, taking into account the fact he knows nothing
about me, after the attitude of some people here. Hello Spiney.
Second, you DO have a point in comparing this reaction to "lovestruck
suicidal" attitude and stating that this has never led to anything good,
except that I'm clear-headed and adult enough not to attempt "suicide". BUT
I would no longer be able to endorse a game I don't believe in anymore, so
I'm trying to keep it the way me and my players love it. I agree that this
may not have been the best way to do it, I was kind of pissed off just at
the thought of what could happen if Group 4 Sabbat or Group 5 Cammies ever
wame out (the infernal spiral, when will it stop etc.), and felt that
something had to be done. I still feel that way, and seing tha tthe
"ultimatum" thread doesn't work, let all discuss and see what would seem
acceptable or not to us. I know this wouldn't be acceptable to me and, once
and for all, I never said I'd quit playing and sell back all my cards (maybe
I would but I don't know about that), what I said was : I wouldn't buy any
new stuff and I wouldn't promote the game anymore. And yes, I'm aware that a
firm has to sell new cards, and that power rares and groups are a way to do
that, but I hate both these technics. Up to now, I feel that there isn't any
obvious shift in power in the cards (more like anti-weenie ones), although
there is such a shift in vampires, but that would be another discussion.
> i
> feel confident in saying that i could build a dangerous, fun, or even
> tournament-worthy deck with only Jyhad backs. i don't expect that to
> change, partly due to finite crypting, now ensured by the grouping
> rule. in other words, every expansion just adds permutations to the
> original fun, but we don't have to have every card to enjoy the game.
I agree. Which is a good reason why many people, I think wouldn't buy an
extension which would render totally obsolete the vampires which have been
recently issued / re-issued, even if it had some good cards.
> HOW is this WW extorting us into buying new product? if i want a few
> weighted walking sticks (and i do,) then i can trade, buy singles, buy
> boxes and toss the ubercommons into a local free-box, or resist the
> urge to buy and put 30 free weapons + 25 new concealed weapon onto my
> 35-card core deck. there's more than 1 way to skin this "problem."
> yeah, in my perfect world, i don't get my 135th blood doll or one
> millionth enhanced senses in the same pack with my wwstick, but that's
> the informed choice i made.
I agree with that, but it's not getting to the point. What you're saying is
you won't have to buy any new extension, and it's exactly what I've been
saying, adding the fact that I would not buy some extensions which would go
contrary to what I like in the game (like, playing Lucita, Krassimir,
Carlotta etc, and no amount of non-compatible power-vampires would make me
drop my favourite vampires) ; therefor, I would adopt the trading tactics if
a few cards interest me in such an extension. But htat wouldn't give WW as
much money as if I really wanted to get most of the nesw cards.
> > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the
> > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW.
Up
> > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we
have
> > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
> >
> > I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new
site...), am
> > still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will
still
> > encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the
> > difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter,
the
> > day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat.
>
> "my whole cult will suicide if you don't prove your love for me by
> doing exactly as i dictate" is a far stretch of your princely
> obligation to promote the game. i strongly urge you to re-consider
> almost everything you said.
LOL. No I won't, I'm a David Coresh fan.
Seriously, I don't feel that I'm stretching anything. If we, Princes, have
one thing to do, it is to be the link between WW executives and the
playerbase. Therefore it goes two ways : we have to transmit what WW wants
us to towards our players, but il also goes the other way around, and I know
the feelings of my players on the subject. I totally agreed with the
creation of Group 3, and explained the thing to some players who could have
taken iot badly. As I wouldn't agree with a Group 5, I couldn't fill my role
as is asked of me, nor would I want to. So allow me to reconsider nothing.
> > It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want.
> >
> > Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off,
> > --
> > Orpheus
> >
>
> i've had bad bitch-post days too. things are actually pretty good in
> this game. not saying we shouldn't object to that with which we
> disagree, but the drama and threats are counterproductive.
You may be right about this. So, all drama taken out, let's talk about it
and show our feelings (which doesn't mean I would change my position on what
I would do, namely stop buying and promoting, but I think at this point it
has become nothing but a personnal choice, and irrelevant to the whole of
the discussion). But my "Whacko stunt" did have one merit, though : people
reacted, albeit not in the way I would have thought, and that, in itself, is
a good thing to me.
I disagreed with the guy who said, before the release of CAMA ED, "I won't
say anything because I'm a playtester but this future "3" thing is awful,
let's all stop playing", because :
a) as a playtester he should have shut his mouth
b) the Group 3 thing wasn't bad IMO, except that it set a precedent that can
be bad (the following months / years will tell us exactly how bad)
c) he made a whole fuss over something that most people didn't find worth
it.
That is not what I'm doing here, because I'm working on an hypothesis and
saying how I would react. And hoping some people who express themselves (I
know you're out there) also would disagree with these things, and would
react in a way or another, probably one bad for WW's sales. I know that
there will be an enormous fuss on this forum every time a new group will
come out, so I prefer us to anticipate and say "don't do it" rather than
"oh, evil men, you shouldn't have done it" in 42 threads of 238 messages
each.
> ps other posters already had varied interesting posts in this thread,
> but i decided to respond to the original post.
> here, try this on for size:
>
> Doc ReTardis
> True Brujah
> 11 cap, group7
>
> TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san
> Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose
> a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood
> Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires
> of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt.
> (If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group
> numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are
> immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile.
And Senile ? ;-)
Interesting concept, but for such a big vampire he lacks too many SUP
disciplines, he would obviously need POT and either FOR or SAN (yes, he
would be big, but for 3 more points than Hrothulf, he should be).
Yours,
Orpheus
Orpheus
> > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever
> > comes out, I will :
> >
> > - stop buying new products
> > - resign from my Princeship
> >
> What's the point?
Already answered to previous poster.
> The grouping rule has its advantages - changes to Majesty et al. aside,
> would you really want pre weenie decks to have yet another X unique
> vampires of capacities 1-4 available? Or how about pot weenies?
Already answered...
> Or how
> about 12 different Ventrue princes (and in the long run, 8 of those with
> obfuscate, too)? Or...
I obviously agree, but your statement seems distorded to me. If we don't
need more Ventrue Obf Princes, so let's just not issue any new ones !!! We
can issue Ventrue Princes with Dem, San, Myt, new specials which remind you
at your untap that you left the pizza in the oven and shouldn't forget to
take it out before it's a lump of coal, etc, the possibilities are infinite.
And when that runs out, as they will need to sell more cards, there are
still infinite possibilities, as has already been suggested, with
mixeable-or-not werewolves/mages/hunters/wraiths/changelings (in other
words, current allies) extensions, or non-mixeable Dark Ages extension (but
that would be something else thematically, even if the commercial purpose
would be evident, it would be more than made up for by the thematic
interest).
> It is, however, a question of whether or not the arrival of yag (yet
> another group) is sensibly timed.
> Personally I'd say, that particular line would be pretty much crossed by
> any group 4 vampires in The Anarchs, unless The Anarchs would be huge
> enough a set to have 3+ group 4 vampires per clan that gets any.
> [Effectivly being a DS replacement for CE.]
I agree, although not to your last point : why reprint DS / AH vampires just
to render them moot right away ??? If they really wanted to issue new Inner
Circles or Euros Princes, the only thing they had to do was declare DS and
AH Group 1, and there would have been no more problem !!!! So, bad timing,
or bad planning ? Bad anyway.
> There should be group 4 Independent/Sabbat vampires eventually - several
> Sabbat decks, for example, would gain too powerful a crypt if another
> Sabbat set with 15 vampires (goup 3) came out.
Again, moot. A few more Sabbat vampires sprikled over each new edition will
be enough, no need to make a whole set of new ones.
> There'd even have to be group 5 vampires some time down the road, when
> all group 3/4 option (and those are aplenty) are exhausted - it doesn't
> need to happen for a few years yet, and consequently shouldn't happen
> for a few years, but it'll be inevitable in the long run. (At 8 month
> intervals between sets and 4 sets [Anarchs, Sabbat, Independent, next
> Cammie], 32 months would be a quick estimate.)
And where does it stop ?
> I'll be basing my personal decision on if/when to quit buying VTES on
> these considerations.
Your choice, and I respect it. But let's be careful about not allowing
gradually that anything goes. If we don't want some changes to happen, I
think we'll have to be more strict than that.
All "ultimatum" thing put aside, I think that if most of us show no interest
in buying such new extensions, while we have already expressed what we WOULD
buy, it seems sensible (and smart) to me that WW adapted its commercial
planning to what players / customers would plan to do, if only to increase
their future sales, wouldn't it ?
Orpheus
Arpeges
15% of Vtes sales are made in France (dixit : WW ceo in an interview in
french mag "Black Lotus", assuming my memory is correct).
For such a small country, regarding to the huge potential of US, it is a
huge number.
Let's see what happened some times ago with Magic. This CCG has been the
most sold in France (I'm not considering Pokemon which is not the same
marketing target). Expansions after expansions, WotCoast introduced a nasty
selling system with Type1 and Type2. Tournaments are now almost exclusively
played in Type 2. The definition of Type 2 is : a combination between the
last 3 or 4 expansions sold in store.
By this way, regarding the frequency of new expansions apparition, players
wanting to play in tournaments are OBLIGED to buy new expansions to stay at
the level.
NOTHING can let us think such a commercial way will NOT be attempted when we
will have groupe 4, 5, 6, which could occur, cause Vtes is well-sold around
the world (dixit WW ceo...).
As it is well-sold, it must be encouraged that way, taken care of. That is
what the game brainers are doing (thank you LSJ...) by being there to answer
to players, to introduce a community aspect in the game etc... But the
commercial and marketing departments, in order to have the game grow, need
to improve the sales. This is called the Raisonnement Marginal in economy
(in french. Dunno the translation. Will never work in US -( ).
SO, it is POSSIBLE, in few years, as the game will sales better again, that,
in order to sale it better, such a "magic-style" tournament rule appears,
letting us play only with some group vampires. In this case, we will be
OBLIGED to buy expansions.
As nothing of this could merely happen if no other group 5 and more are
sold, I think it is clever to tell WW that some people want to buy
expansions, merely if they are well designed like those ones we have got for
the moment, but don't want to be obliged to buy them.
One more time again, I'm just talking about a correlation to Orpheus'
reflexion, and I thought people should think of that.
Vtes won't live forever if it doesn't succeed in acquiring new players.
Let's think what are the ways a CCG company has got to get them, and for
that, look at the competitors' marketing actions, as companies often copy on
each other.
Arpeges (ready for Derek's flame)
Darky
argument used by WW to print group 3 (overpowered camarilla crypts)
would be pretty obsolete here.
If there were to be group 4 sabbat/indep vampires printed i would like
to see them only being incompatible with group 2 vampires and not with
group 1 vampires as well.
just my 2 ct.
Daniel Figueiredo
> Jeff Kuta wrote:
>
> There really ought to be a better way to this. To me, it would make more
> sense to wait until the next large expansion containing many independent
> vampires to start group four in bulk. Starting it as part of a small
> expansion featuring vampires that, by all rights, ought to be group three
> seems very strange. Not very well thought out, IMO.
>
> Fred
Totally agree! Group 4 should only come into existence with new
independent clan vampires. Since the Sabbat now have much less
vampires for their individual clans. You can´t think of the grouping
rule as only affecting the group as a whole, you have to consider the
different clans that make up that group and what they need, how they
stand. A very nice thing would have to have some more sabbat, cammie,
even a few bloodline vamp or two still in group 3 (I really doubt any
new vamp from now on will be group 2 or 1 again), and have the
independents appear as group 4 in bulk in another expansion for them
a-la Final Nights. 2 or 3 group 3 independants until then wouldn´t
hurt either. And group 4 could also contain the much ignored and
shunned until now antitribu clans still missing. The excuse that their
numbers are small and such is simply NOT TRUE. After you print scarce
bloodlines, ANY antitribu is worth printing. And, by the RPG
standards, the Assamite Antitribu are one of the largest antitribu
there are, clearly larger than the Ventrue antitribu, for example, and
now much larger than the Tremere antitribu as well. Some other aspects
of the game would do well to show up in future expansions, like the
Black Hand (the sabbat one, not the "true" one) and mayne even a
monitor or two from the Iconnu. And you can´t bring the Black Hand
into the game without bringing the !Assamites into the game.
legbiter
> Hello all,
>
> the Anarchs.
> can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet). If you want to
> discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't
> dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and
> now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!). But it needs to
> STOP NOW !!!
> guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will
> already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE
> and NOW :
>
> GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
> out, I will :
>
> - stop buying new products
> - resign from my Princeship
>
> opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up
> until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have
> to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
>
> I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...), am
> still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still
> encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the
> difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the
> day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat.
>
>
> Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off,
> --
> Orpheus
>
> (Nancy A. Collins)
Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the
groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply
to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a
few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies
into the game without breaking the old ones? Isn't it OBVIOUS that
grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the
game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? i
personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the
Dark Ages expansion!
You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it
seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack
cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-)
Daniel Figueiredo
> Actually, I do not. All the facts you give are true but irrelevant.
> Lots of things are possible across a table that are not possible within
> one's own area. For instance, using Goth Band to move a counter from
> an opponent's Dreams of the Sphinx to your own Palla Grande doesn't make
> it meaningless to change the rules to allow moving counters from your
> _own_ Dreams to your own Palla Grande. What types of crypts are allowed
> and not allowed determine the makeup of your metagame, which makes it
> undeniably a different game. (See more discussion of the metagame
> issues below if you don't understand what I'm saying, here.)
>
> Any rules that are not the official rules are _by definition_ "House
> Rules". Denying this is a semantic argument. If you don't agree with
> my definition, call them anything you like. Call them "BIDZUNK RULES"
> or "COYFERTBURGER RULES" or use any term you like. It doesn't matter.
> The point I'm trying to make is simply that they're different from the
> universal rules that are understood in other places. By virtue of this
> fact, in turn, *automatically* leads to all the issues I raised in my
> previous post. These are serious issues and that leads me to conclude
> that simply ignoring any potential problems caused partially by the
> grouping rule by ignoring grouping itself is not an answer to them.
>
Well, you may be right in THEORY, but in practice, when we play,
group and no group rule has made no difference yet. And don´t think we
wouldn´t know. We´ve been playing this game from day 1. And I never
said anything about not using grouping rules in tournaments, as prince
I always use 100% official rules, be the tournaments sacntioned or
not. I am also not trying to discuss the merit of the grouping rule.
It exists. Too bad, or great, whatever. I am fully aware of the
implications of the group rule in the present game, and have as good
idea as you do about any implications it might have in the future.
I´ll try once more to get my point(s) across. Please remember that
English is not my native tongue so don´t be mad if you don´t get it,
it is probably just my fault for not using the best words for
expressing myself.
1) We have the grouping rule.
2) We always use it in competitive play.
3) 90% of the time we don´t play competitively (I guess most people
don´t most of the time either)
4) Yes, it is good to express our opinions about the game, whether WW
listens, does something about it or not. (If they are listening and/or
doing something about it, they should let us know don´t you think? Not
WHAT they are doing if the don´t want to, but at least that they ARE
doing something).
5) Not using the grouping rule has not yet affected any of our games,
and we play once a week at least, and most of us have bought at least
a booster or 10 from the CE.
6) We have decided that for now, we will play like this because it is
more fun and enjoyable. Someone in some recent post mentioned nothing
would keep him from using his favourite vampires. RIGHT ON!!
7) We are not ignoring any problems because we haven´t found any that
are really happening yet, like I said, in practice, not using the
grouping rule has led to nothing but more diverse crypts.
8) I agree with you that the group thing CAN and probably will become
a problem in the future.
9) Fact remains that WW is either not listening or not letting us know
that it is. Of course, how could they know we would react the way we
did to the CE? They not only weren´t listening, they didn´t ask our
opinion and/or thoughts about what they were about to do.
I understand what you said about WW wanting to avoid problems with
their people getting pressure from the players if they started to open
all doors. but they don´t have to name names. They really don´t. All
they need to do is say We, WW, are planning to do this and that, or
We, WW WILL be doing this and that, or We, WW would like to know your
thoughts on such and such. We can all guess that Steve and LSJ have
some influence, probably a lot in the decision-making process. I don´t
see hardly anyone flamimg them though. First, it would be childish to
do so. (yes, some players would, and have done, childish things, but
they will do them regardless) Second, it would probably be the most
counter-productive thing we can do. To start criticising WW employees
about their job if they ever DO decide to share who they are with us.
It would probably just make them shut up again and leave us in the
dark (where we are now). The changes to rarity schemes WW has made
until now probably have nothing to do with complaints from people
here. It has probably something to do with the fact that this is WW´s
first card game, and they are experimenting with various rarity
schemes. Every expansion of theirs until now had different ones. Every
expansion has met some form of criticism regarding rarity schemes. Are
they changing because of us? I don´t think so. I think they are
changing to find something they are comfortable with, and maybe,
something that won´t get flamed (highly unlikely due to the
aformentioned childish players). but like I said, we are in the dark
about all this. WW´s not commenting, not asking questiongs and not
shedding any light on their thoughts. I hope you are right in thinking
that this is best for the game. I really do.
Some more cents (soon we´ll have a dolar!)
And i´m very pleased to be discussing with sharp minds and educated
people. :))
Frederick Scott
>
> I think new Caitiff would just have to be Group 3, as we don't want them to
> be mixeable with Group 1, so I'm not too worried about that. I agree that
> "lots of new Panders" would have to be group 4, but we don't NEED lots of
> new panders, as most of them were reissued in the already reprinted Sabbat
> War ; just a few maybe to make up for the ones from Sabbat never
> reprinted (and that most people will never have access to).
There were actually 11 original Pander in The Sabbat - the same as any other
Sabbat clan. Only 5 were reprinted. The other 6 could be reprinted with a
group two marker, I suppose. New ones would always be welcome, but not in
group 4 in the absence of large number of new group 4 Sabbat vampires.
Fred
Peter Muto
Mind you group 4, 5 plus would be a small price to pay for get Orpheus
off the Conclave and STFU.
Snapcase
> you'll always have access to group 1 vampires. you can buy all this jyhad
> old stock on the internet, and old vampire will give eagerly give (or trade)
> lots of them to newbies.
I agree that Jyhad and VTES vamps will be readily available to most
new players in the near future. There may be a point where they are
not, though.
> I don't see what the problem is with the grouping. If it's only the
> dial-a-vamp and weenie madness that may occur, i don't think it's a real
> threat.
It seems that someone at the R&D team feels that both of those ideas
are a potential problem. With all of the complaints/flames that
appear whenever someone posts a weenie Dominate or weenie Presence
deck, I'd stake a claim that many players feel that weenies don't need
any more help.
-Snapcase
Orpheus
> off the Conclave and STFU.
Fuck you assholes. You don't know me and don't know of my work promoting
this game. You have no right to judge me. And your opinions, or the bunch of
crap you're shitting from the assholes you use as mouths, are worth nothing
to me. I take the time to read the very interesting, even if sometimes
contrary to my opinions, posts some people have put here, and answering
them. I won't waste my time and energy reading another line from simpletons
like you ; if you won't to mess with somebody, find one you can't look at in
the eyes and let's see if you're so bold.
Will all absence of respect due,
Orpheus
skippy
[snip]
> create, say, a cluster of Brujah with Dementation.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
drool
Oscar Garza
Prince of College Station Tx
The Crazy Aggie
Snapcase
> I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in
> the Anarchs.
By who? Is this a credible source? How did they come by their
information?
> A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't dramatical, it's just useless (they
> just re-released group 2 Cammies, and now you can't mix them anymore with the
> enw vampires ?!).
I'd be upset but a good portion of the DS/AH Camarilla vampires suck.
And group 4 Cammies can be combined with the group 3 Cammies (which
they're likely meant to be).
> If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the
> opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW. Up
> until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have
> to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
Hmm... I didn't feel "forced to buy" Cam Ed. I thought "hey, those
new (insert clan here) look pretty cool. Lemme buy a box and trade
all the Malkavians I get for the (insert clan here) vamps I didn't get
in the box."
> But I also know what will the difference in sales will be the day when I
> won't. Or, for that matter, the day when any of my players will see Group 5
> Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat.
This begs the question, "What's the big deal?".
I'm more disappointed with the library backgrounds than anything. I'm
putting forth a request to at least have the master card background
reverted to the old one (so I can tell what the hell something is
across the table).
-Snapcase
reyda
:: Good. I always thought you were an incompetent anyway.
utterly false. Orpheus is one of the coolest princes on the planet. I
attended his first tournament and it was far better than expected.
:: I would like to request (of those involved with VEKN who are
:: undoubtedly reading this) that Orpheus be removed from his
:: Princeship immediately, as a person with this attitude is no
:: longer a suitable ambassador for the game, nor is he capable of
:: making the correct value judgements necessary to run tournaments
:: and distribute information and/or prize support to a city. [...)
Orpheus has started to gather the scattered players from south of france and
his tournaments become more and more popular. He's promoting the game in a
way you cannot imagine. What he won't support is the commercial abuse the
introduction of group 4 and 5 may represent. Don't misjudge him.
I know you're good at flaming people, sometime some bozo just need a kick in
the ass to start to walk in the right direction. But the problem is
orpheus's worries are shared by more than one player. I don't want to have
to cycle my vamps every six months. I don't like the grouping idea for
starters, but i'll use it since tournament rules require it.
:: I say you are a liar.
::
:: I think you should stop work on your new site, and abandon all
:: association with V:TES. Someone like you is simply out for his
:: own glory, as opposed to the mythical "good of the game".
no, no, you're wrong my friend =)
Orpehus seeks entertainment thru V:tes and glory thru music.
:: [...] You are not motivated, as your
:: words above show. You are, in fact, attempting to DE-promote
:: V:TES. No Prince should ever act this way, especially in a PUBLIC
:: FORUM.
A prince is still a human being, not a robot under the order of WW or any
other company. Besides this, the prince work is on a benevolent basis,
meaning he's not even paid to promote the game. Nothing forces him to agree
every WW decision.
:: Business is about making money. The best way to make money is to
:: give people what they want.
Another way is to give them new expansion every 6 months, with more and more
power cards to collect, and suppres previous sets from the competition, as
Magic the gathering does. Magic is making money and has a solid player base,
i understand it can be a model for those marketing guys at WW. But which
v:tes player would like to see v:tes walk that way ?
If we have to protest , it's now or never, and its on this forum where WW
actually reads our stuff. Period.
reyda
Jon Stahler
"skippy" <ski...@dontspammetamu.edu> wrote in message
news:apubhe$47j$1...@news.tamu.edu...
>
> [snip]
>
> > create, say, a cluster of Brujah with Dementation.
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!
> drool
No kidding. Play Lunatic Eruption on your PREDATOR'S vampires, sit back and
watch them hurl themselves at you. Fun!!!
Curevei
>True Brujah
>11 cap, group7
>
>TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san
>Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose
>a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood
>Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires
>of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt.
>(If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group
>numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are
>immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile.
There are thematic elements here I don't get, though maybe it's because they
weren't intended to be thematic. Potence? Sanguinus? And, I'd just have his
circle text be "Doc is a member of all Circles."
Jeff Kuta
> "Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:621dd332.02103...@posting.google.com...
> > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<apriku$4dltd$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > It also is supposed to keep "perfect crypts" from becoming too
> > > easy to build.
> >
> > One other effect of grouping is that it allows WW to redistribute Sect
> > Titles where appropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if some group 4
> > vampires hold European Prince titles. This wouldn't bother me in the
> > least.
>
> I think they could do that even without grouping, though? If you're
> referring to the practice of "reassigning" the vampire to which the
> title of "Prince of City X" belongs?
>
> Sure, without grouping you could have all the Princes of the same
> cities in the same crypt, but I personally doubt that that's too big
> a problem, given how many princes it's already possible to put in a
> crypt. Plus, the ones from the same city would contest titles if
> you brought them both out...
What I really was trying to get at is I don't think it would
necessarily be appropriate for titled Camarilla Gangrel to be mixing
with titled Anarch Gangrel in the same crypt. IMO the Group 4
designation should ONLY be used where there is a significant Storyline
problem they are trying to solve. I would expect there are a handful
of "transitional" Gangrel in the mix which are the Group 3 bunch, some
Cammies, most not. I really haven't followed the storyline one bit so
I am purely speculating. I guess it's to late to argue now. :)
Jeff
Gomi no Sensei
Jeff Kuta <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What I really was trying to get at is I don't think it would
>necessarily be appropriate for titled Camarilla Gangrel to be mixing
>with titled Anarch Gangrel in the same crypt.
Why?
>IMO the Group 4
>designation should ONLY be used where there is a significant Storyline
>problem they are trying to solve.
That's strictly an aesthetic backstory problem -- I'd strongly object to
using the club of rules mechanics to prohibit a mere aesthetic problem.
It is currently legal to have minions from clans and sects that (in
backstory) loathe each other powerfully in the same crypt; how much less
jarring is it, from a backstory perspective, to have cam Gangrel and indep
Gangrel together?
gomi
--
Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless
it comes as the handmaid of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing
if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument
to further the ends of despotism or anarchy. --Theodore Roosevelt
Akaisuisei
1 - I think that "grouping" vamps was a disgusting commercial choice since
the born of CE
2 - We usually shun that stupid rule during our league here in Bologna, and
I personally refused to play according to it in any
tournament...sadly...just skipping tournaments.
3 - Orpheus is definitely right ! I think that to ignore the rule "en
masse" will be a good choice, but I'm really, (REALLY), thinking to give-up
any further buying too if WW will do the same disgusting choices previosly
done by Wizards of The Coast with "Magic".
4 - Go On Orpheus !
Akaisuisei
Orpheus
Thanks a lot for your support, but I don't want this thing to become too
personnal. It's not like I'm leading a crusade against WW or anything. I'm
just trying to bring them to what I think is reason (and I have many
confirmations, including private mail, that I'm not the only one thinking
this ; but we've also seen that some people think the opposite). Also, when
Group 3 came out, I didn't think it was a bad thing, but as many people
said, the trouble is with the precedent, and it can go to lengths where lots
of us won't follow.
I do not, and will not as long as I'm a Prince not endorse playing by
houserules, be it in tournaments or friendly games. I also think that, if
ever the group 5 comes out, I won't suddenly decide to mix them with the
Group 3 : it would be too easy, and once you choose which rule to apply and
which not, it's like when you start creating groups : there's no reason for
stopping. I just won't play them, period.
I think and hope that WW is not turning into Wizards. Time only will tell.
Yours,
Orpheus
Derek
<apsuuo$o92$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out
> in
>> > the Anarchs.
>>
>> Assured? By who?
>>
>> And you *believed* them?
>>
>> Why?
>
> It doesn't matter, as I've said already, read again and try to understand.
It certainly does matter. If there aren't any group 4 vampires in Anarchs,
then you look even more of a blithering idiot than you already do, and your
inability to run a Princely domain is even more demonstrated, because you
did all this on... inaccurate information.
Now YOU go read, child.
> Ok, I'll cut your insults. I don't know who you think you are, but you
I'm Derek Ray. I've been playing this game for a long damn time, and I love
it just as much as you say you do. The difference is that I actually THINK
about things and why they may need to happen, and you appear to just cry
like a little baby.
> have no idea who I am either, and nothing gives you the right to speak to
> me as you did. Whether or not this idea is stupid is just a point of view.
You posted. That gives me the right to respond. I don't know who you think
YOU are, as a matter of fact. You think you know what's best for this
game? You haven't been involved anywhere NEAR enough to know what's best
for this game, nor do you have anywhere NEAR the full picture of what's
actually happening (for example, you do not know what the sales figures for
this game are)... making your post just a pile of blithering CRAP.
YOU ARE (were) A PRINCE.
YOU ARE AN AMBASSADOR OF THIS GAME.
What can you POSSIBLY believe gives you the excuse to stand in a public
forum, AS AN AMBASSADOR AND PROMOTER OF THIS GAME, and take the position
that you have? HOW can you possibly consider this to be putting the game
in a good light? What new player who sees this is going to want to buy any
V:TES at all, whether it be Sabbat War, Camarilla Edition, Anarchs, or the
new Yer Mom expansion being released in 2004?
> Whether or not I am stupid is not in your power to judge, and if you want
> to get flaming re-read the usenet and this group's etiquette. To me you
> just proved one thing : you're a no-brainer only able to resort to insults
> rather than proving your points (which is stupid of you, because for a
I demonstrated all the points that needed to be made in my previous post;
that ultimatums do nothing, reasoning does everything, and your first post
contained NOTHING but ultimatums...per its title.
> fraction of a second you nearly had an argument saying that ultimatums
> didn't get anywhere, but a) you're wrong, as the changes from the May
No, I am CORRECT. Did you not read anything from May? No rulings were even
considered for change until Josh Duffin posted his well-reasoned arguments
for the changes to occur. You can ask LSJ directly, but I've talked to him
about MANY different things over the past few years, both in person and on
the net; let me assure you, if you don't have actual good reasons, you're
going to get a blank stare and a facial expression that reads "so what?"
All the ranting, crying, and foot-stamping proved nothing. And let me
assure you, there was a lot more of that for the 7/7 rulings... and NONE of
those changed as a result. I don't know where you get off thinking
anything was "proved", but you need to go back and do more research,
because you are DEAD WRONG here.
Ultimatums do nothing, and never have.
> Rulings proved, and b) you just proved your immaturity and inintelligence,
> not to mention lack of respect). I won't fall into your game. But if you
> really want to play the asshole, go do it somewhere else, or do dare tell
> me this to my face and see if I don't smash the brainless piece of ass
> that you use for a head into an even more useless clump of dried shit.
Speaking of immaturity, I see that you degenerate into the typical USENET
response of threats over a computer. I couldn't care less; I would repeat
anything I said on USENET to someone's face. And yes, I would repeat it to
your face if I were ever to see you. Rest assured I will definitely let
you know when I finally get around to visiting the UK, and if I manage to
make it down to Europe/France at the same time (would really like to meet
reyda one of these days), so much the better.
-- Derek
Derek Ray
<aptpu1$t6c$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about:
> whole of the discussion). But my "Whacko stunt" did have one merit, though
> : people reacted, albeit not in the way I would have thought, and that, in
> itself, is a good thing to me.
I accept your admission that you have no idea what is actually happening, or
what the opinion of most people is about this game and the possibility of
group 4. I know far more about what is occurring in V:TES France than you
think, by the way; don't be so quick to blow your own horn.
I also accept your admission that your ultimatum is a "whacko stunt". I
assume you will be retracting the ultimatum now, with an apology?
> That is not what I'm doing here, because I'm working on an hypothesis and
> saying how I would react. And hoping some people who express themselves (I
> know you're out there) also would disagree with these things, and would
> react in a way or another, probably one bad for WW's sales. I know that
So if you can't have it your way you want to ruin it for everyone?
Is that what you're saying here?
It sure looks like it to me.
-- Derek
Derek Ray
<3dc271a3$0$261$7a62...@news.club-internet.fr>, Arpeges mumbled something
about:
> Vtes won't live forever if it doesn't succeed in acquiring new players.
> Let's think what are the ways a CCG company has got to get them, and for
> that, look at the competitors' marketing actions, as companies often copy
> on each other.
>
> Arpeges (ready for Derek's flame)
Why? You made the counterpoint quite effectively.
V:TES will die without new players. Grouping rules encourage new players to
join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players
without having to have all the old cards. The V:TES grouping rules are
significantly better than many other options (such as type 2) for grouping,
as players can still use their old cards. I can make an Anvil/Tura
Vaughn/Theo Bell/Donal/Constanza/Don Cruez deck, for example, using the new
Will of the Council and Tension in the Ranks, and it runs much better than
it EVER did previously.
Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants. Spinney99 said
it superbly: the tone of his entire post was "my cult and i will suicide
if you don't do what I want." I can't possibly respect a person who
conveys that attitude, much less a person who is ostensibly an ambassador
and promoter of this game.
-- Derek
Orpheus
or
> what the opinion of most people is about this game and the possibility of
> group 4. I know far more about what is occurring in V:TES France than you
> think, by the way; don't be so quick to blow your own horn.
I never said I had no idea. I said I am no playtester, and therefore have no
proof or can't be 100% sure. Even if I was, I wouldn't want to start a "oh
my god they're doing it" panic thing. I prefer to prevent than heal. Good
for you if you're informed.
> I also accept your admission that your ultimatum is a "whacko stunt". I
> assume you will be retracting the ultimatum now, with an apology?
Not at all. Retract ? No, I expressed my opinion and said what I would do in
the face of the events I described. Apologize for what ? I didn't insult
anybody in anyway (except in answer to provocations), and only put some
myself on the line. So I don't think I own anyone an apology. Now, that my
move was bolder than needed, maybe so. But it didn't harm anybody but
myself, and even now I think it was worth it. It's a free planet, ain't it ?
> > That is not what I'm doing here, because I'm working on an hypothesis
and
> > saying how I would react. And hoping some people who express themselves
(I
> > know you're out there) also would disagree with these things, and would
> > react in a way or another, probably one bad for WW's sales. I know that
>
> So if you can't have it your way you want to ruin it for everyone?
> Is that what you're saying here?
>
> It sure looks like it to me.
Sorry Derek (by the way, hope you're not the same Derek who previously
insulted me), but we don't seem to speak the same language (but then, I'm no
english native). I don't want to ruin anything for anybody. My only goal is
to express an opinion, which many players here and elsewhere share, and to
try to change things from within, to keep alive the game I and these people
love. Is saying that we don't want new groups popping up on a regular basis
"ruining" anything for anyone ?? I'm ready (and willing !) to buy whole new
inventive extensions for Jyhad (even if they are not compatible at all with
the old extension, like a Dark Age version) as long as I will feel that it
will bring something new and interesting to the game, and not be motivated
only by commercial purposes. Playing Dark Ages versions of the Lasombra is
one thing, playing modern Times Lasombra and not be able to play Gratiano or
Lucita would royally suck. And if I have to chose between new Lasombras, no
matter how overpowered, and these characters from the novels and books of
WW, my choice is already done. Does that example make my PoV clearer to you
? Also, I already pointed out that I would find it silly and disgusting to
render obsolete vampires that just got reprinted, hence my desire not ever
to see Group 4 Indies or Sabbat (Bloodlines would be worse than anything, as
they could need some more help, and not a variation of crypt). Yeah, I know,
you can still play the old vampires in different groups. Right. So why
bother buying the new ones ? I'm no Rockfeller, and if I bought so many
vampires I intend to play them as long as I enjoy it (and I hope that will
be a very long time), including new guys, but not throwing all the old ones
away. Group 3 Cammies I could understand, for me that's qhere it's got to
stop.
Now, I never said I'd burn all the Group 5 (or 584,678 for that matter)
vampires I would see, nor did I threaten to put a bomb in WW's building if
they issued new groups, did I ? I just said my involvment as a consumer and
a promoter of the game would stop, and that I thought (and hoped, for I hate
blind followers) that I wouldn't be the only one to react so. Does this
hamper in any way your freedom to spend all your money for Group 6 Austin
Circle Blood Brothers ? Methinks not.
So I won't ruin anything for you (couldn't even if I wanted it, and don't
see why I could want such a thing). But I won't ruin myself buying cards I
don't need just because of an intelligent but disgusting commercial
strategy. I just hope WW will not take this turn for the worse.
Orpheus
Orpheus
to
> join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players
> without having to have all the old cards.
Although this may be true for VTES vampires, it is not the case for recently
printed / reprinted vampires. Why, for instance, make DS / AH vampires group
2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW intends to soon make new
Group 4 Inner Circles ? This would, to me, lack all logic except the "we
don't care about our customers' logic.
The V:TES grouping rules are
> significantly better than many other options (such as type 2) for
grouping,
> as players can still use their old cards. I can make an Anvil/Tura
> Vaughn/Theo Bell/Donal/Constanza/Don Cruez deck, for example, using the
new
> Will of the Council and Tension in the Ranks, and it runs much better than
> it EVER did previously.
No dispute on that point.
> Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants.
Wrong. It is what all my players told me they didn't want. As soon as Group
3 came out, we all had the same reaction (except the ones who were instantly
allergic to Group 3) : this can be a nice way of getting on with the game,
but it has to stop right there, for at least some years, because if it
doesn't it will turn into Magic. And you may have noticed that I'm not the
only one to think that, even here.
Spinney99 said
> it superbly: the tone of his entire post was "my cult and i will suicide
> if you don't do what I want." I can't possibly respect a person who
> conveys that attitude, much less a person who is ostensibly an ambassador
> and promoter of this game.
I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am not
paid to do this, have no material advantage, and invest time and energy in
promoting this game, for one reason only : I like doing it. My reward is
getting new players to the game, hearing that people had fun at my events,
etc. If I was an employee with a salary, I'd do what my boss wants and shut
up. As I'm not, I only do what I enjoy doing, and you should understand that
I could not keep on going if I felt utterly betrayed. That is the feeling I
would have in the aforementionned situations. Humor put aside, I have no
cult, and am not the least bit suicidal. But I'll only do what I believe in.
Is taht clearer to you now ?
As for the respect, I had private and public proofs of it from some people I
didn't know who felt that my plee was theirs. Guess you can't be everyone's
idol, uh ? Nor do I want it or care about it.
Ok, I don't think I'll have time to answer so many (often personnal)
arguments over the next days, so don't think I retreat, but I feel like I've
said all I needed to. The rest is only empty rethorics, and far too
personnal attacks (at least you argumented calmly here). Let some other
people express themselves on the subject, I've done my part.
Orpheus
Derek Ray
<apvduq$ikh$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about:
>> V:TES will die without new players. Grouping rules encourage new players
> to
>> join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players
>> without having to have all the old cards.
>
> Although this may be true for VTES vampires, it is not the case for
> recently printed / reprinted vampires. Why, for instance, make DS / AH
> vampires group 2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW intends
> to soon make new Group 4 Inner Circles ? This would, to me, lack all logic
> except the "we don't care about our customers' logic.
And do you know that WW is intending to make new group 4 ICs?
Of course not. This is silly, random speculation. Your logic is
functional, but is based on certain assumptions that simply don't hold
water yet; namely, that group 4 ICs will exist. You don't know that;
nobody does.
You give WW's designers and playtesters little credit for identifying
obvious conflicts between its most recent printing and later printings, and
as a result are demonizing WW un-necessarily and pre-emptively.
>> Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants.
>
> Wrong. It is what all my players told me they didn't want. As soon as
However, what your players told you they didn't want was based on even less
information than you yourself possess.
> Group 3 came out, we all had the same reaction (except the ones who were
> instantly allergic to Group 3) : this can be a nice way of getting on with
> the game, but it has to stop right there, for at least some years, because
> if it doesn't it will turn into Magic. And you may have noticed that I'm
> not the only one to think that, even here.
That's fine. But you have no knowledge of whether or not any group 4
vampires exist, no knowledge of what those vampires ARE, ...and making
rabble-rousing ultimatums based on rumors (because that IS all you've got,
is rumors) is simply poor judgement, plain and simple -- and EXTREMELY
inappropriate for a Prince.
I don't agree that it has to "stop right there", but others have made that
argument more eloquently than I care to at this point. However, I will
note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with
OBF/DOM/PRE/FOR/cel/vic, and a special ability that reads "+2 bleed. 4
votes. Your prey burns a pool on their untap for each locations they
control, or burns the location." is hardly going to be the end of the
world, is it?
> Spinney99 said
>> it superbly: the tone of his entire post was "my cult and i will suicide
>> if you don't do what I want." I can't possibly respect a person who
>> conveys that attitude, much less a person who is ostensibly an ambassador
>> and promoter of this game.
>
> I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am
Then believe in the game you love -- don't assume that its creators, who
have carefully put out four expansions that did not suck, are going to
suddenly put out a fifth expansion that DOES suck.
I recall a significant hue and outcry over group 3... what happened there?
I am minded to quote something about "storm in a teacup", and the famous
"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", but I'm old and decrepit and
too lazy to look up the source.
> suicidal. But I'll only do what I believe in. Is taht clearer to you now ?
Then do your game a favor: think before speaking.
> I've said all I needed to. The rest is only empty rethorics, and far too
> personnal attacks (at least you argumented calmly here). Let some other
> people express themselves on the subject, I've done my part.
Many careless people assume that because I am capable of loading a post with
two handsful of vitriol, I am incapable of making a rational argument.
This simply attests to some sloppy thinking on the part of those posters.
However, I would disagree with the last four words of your sentence... you
still have a LOT more work to do.
-- Derek
Peter D Bakija
> Why, for instance, make DS / AH vampires group
> 2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW intends to soon make new
> Group 4 Inner Circles ?
Why print the AH and DS vampires as group 2? Because it gives all the
"middle" players (people who got in after AH and DS were hard to get but
before CE came out) access to these previously non reprinted vampires.
'Cause they are completely useable with CE, and will continue to be so, even
and if they print group 4 vampires. If there is a particular group 2 vampire
from AH/DS that was reprinted in CE that you really want to use, there is
going to be a crypt that makes them worth using, even if it is only made of
group 2 and group 3 vampires.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@bigplanet.com
http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6
"I need a doctor, kinda, sorta. What's wrong with me?
He said there's a skid mark on my aorta and there's no remedy."
-The Donnas
spinney99
if you choose to have him be a member of a circle, he is additionally
a blood brother, and therefore must pay his scarceness for them as
well.
picture him as a vampiric "doctor who," a tardis-wielding fiend who
obviously has some sort of affinity with going back and snagging vamps
of any era, and who may do a special time-loop to be there at the
formation of a blood brother circle, as an "extra" participant. a
methuselah using his services can find herself ruing the day she met
this "ultrapowerful" vamp. orpheus said he needed more superiors at
his capacity, but like so much of what he's said lately, i strongly
disagree. he's grossly overpowered, if anything. with each new
expansion, his power grows.
certainly, he was mostly meant to show that even the loathesome (?)
grouping rule could spur game mechanics to allow babies their bottles,
if desired.
i can't believe that this view that the grouping rule is a terrible
thing has even the support it has. IT PROTECTS US FROM EXACTLY WHAT
ORPHEUS/REYDA/&co. CLAIM IT PROMOTES!!! my old cards will always be
competitive and any buying i do is strictly my own desire for MORE.
black cat has yet to be fully explored, same with many other original
vamps. so if i buy a group5 vamp, it's my own inability to resist
buying, not the fault of the company trying to balance a desire for
sales with inclusion for us oldsters. then again, a lot of hatfields
and mccoys play with card limits, too, and that has little to do with
the reality of the game, WW, VEKN, or me.
-john sporemage.
"i didn't expect the improvised flame-thrower to draw its fuel from
there..."
Darky
you might want to look up the background on blood brothers here ;)
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in
> message news:<3DC238A3...@removethis.com>...
>
> > Rules".
> > The point I'm trying to make is simply that they're different from the
> > universal rules that are understood in other places. By virtue of this
> > fact, in turn, *automatically* leads to all the issues I raised in my
> > previous post. These are serious issues and that leads me to conclude
> > that simply ignoring any potential problems caused partially by the
> > grouping rule by ignoring grouping itself is not an answer to them.
>
> Well, you may be right in THEORY, but in practice, when we play,
> group and no group rule has made no difference yet. And don´t think we
> wouldn´t know. We´ve been playing this game from day 1.
Sorry...I think you wouldn't know. From the other thinks you wrote in
your posts, I do not think you could know because you don't jump back
and forth between environments constantly. Doing it once in a while in
official VEKN tournaments does not allow local players a reasonable
amount of experience with which to create a separate metagame.
> And I never
> said anything about not using grouping rules in tournaments, as prince
> I always use 100% official rules, be the tournaments sacntioned or
> not.
I wasn't accusing you of anything. In a non-sanctioned tournament,
however, you are allowed to do as you like. Thus I was simply making
no assumptions about what rules you used in your tournaments.
> I´ll try once more to get my point(s) across. Please remember that
> English is not my native tongue so don´t be mad if you don´t get it,
> it is probably just my fault for not using the best words for
> expressing myself.
(elided list of points)
I believe I understand what you're trying to say and I'm not at all
mad. These doesn't really seem to be anything new, here, so there's
no point to respond to it as I believe I have already responded to them.
> I understand what you said about WW wanting to avoid problems with
> their people getting pressure from the players if they started to open
> all doors. but they don´t have to name names. They really don´t. All
> they need to do is say We, WW, are planning to do this and that, or
> We, WW WILL be doing this and that, or We, WW would like to know your
> thoughts on such and such.
No, they don't. They can reveal or not reveal anything they like about
their decision-making process and it says nothing about whether anyone
listens to us. I will repeat: if we talk, White Wolf may listen or they
not. And if they listen, they may be persuaded or they may not. No
failure to be persuaded at any time ever proves that they may not be
persuaded the next time. It's that simple. You seem to keep trying to
read into their actions more than what these actions actually prove.
That is a mistake.
> The changes to rarity schemes WW has made
> until now probably have nothing to do with complaints from people
> here. It has probably something to do with the fact that this is WW´s
> first card game, and they are experimenting with various rarity
> schemes. Every expansion of theirs until now had different ones. Every
> expansion has met some form of criticism regarding rarity schemes. Are
> they changing because of us? I don´t think so.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Of course they make mistakes.
Determining the popular rarity for cards is another one of the many
subjective things in a CCG and certainly impossible to ever please
everybody. And each of their four expansions has been printed under
completely different conditions, attempting to do completely different
things. Sabbat War was a kind-of, sort-of, mostly reprint of The Sabbat
with a few new cards. Final Nights was a balls-out expansions of the
independent clans. Camarilla Edition was intended as a new base set.
And Bloodlines was completely different than everything else. Of course
they make changes every time. I don't know if they listen to what we
say, but I'm pretty well impressed by how they've avoided what I would
personally consider the worst mistakes. Just for that alone, I'm willing
to give them the benefit of the doubt. There's companies out there that
act like "Blunder" is their middle name.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the
> groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply
> to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a
> few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies
> into the game without breaking the old ones?
I try not to be too hostile to it despite disagreeing with it. But I
had to post in response to this because...well...I don't actually see
that this is the "only way to introduce new strategies into the game
without breaking the old ones". I'm not even sure what you could mean
by such a claim.
> Isn't it OBVIOUS that
> grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the
> game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? i
> personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the
> Dark Ages expansion!
I guess I can see the potential for things like independent Gangrel
replacing Camarilla Gangrel over time - for whatever it's worth. But I
don't think your Dark Ages expansion idea works without some more futzing,
frankly. Otherwise you're going to need to explain things like .44 Magnums
and RPG Launchers in the dark ages.
> You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it
> seems to me.
Didn't see it.
Fred
Raille
>>Doc ReTardis
>>True Brujah
>>11 cap, group7
>>
>>TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san
>>Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose
>>a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood
>>Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires
>>of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt.
>>(If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group
>>numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are
>>immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile.
So if you draw all 4 of your Doc's into your uncontrolled region and you
only had 4 in your crypt, your going to be ousted. Perhaps this should
read, if you do not have Doc in your crypt ot uncontrolled region whould
be better.
However, this card means that a Judge would have to periodically stop by
and check out your cards. Thats just too much work.
Raille
Raille
> On Thursday 31 October 2002 23:12 in message
> All the ranting, crying, and foot-stamping proved nothing. And let me
> assure you, there was a lot more of that for the 7/7 rulings... and NONE of
> those changed as a result. I don't know where you get off thinking
> anything was "proved", but you need to go back and do more research,
> because you are DEAD WRONG here.
Actually a lot of the complaints created by the 7/7 rulings and the
subsequent attempts to correct the alleged inconsistancies by the NJL
and other parties, have be incorporated into the current game play in
bits and pieces. Not 100% mind you, but it happened.
Player involvement CAN make a difference. It just has to be rational
and fit within the game structure.
Raille
Orpheus
players
> > to
> >> join the game, because they will be able to compete with old players
> >> without having to have all the old cards.
> >
> > Although this may be true for VTES vampires, it is not the case for
> > recently printed / reprinted vampires. Why, for instance, make DS / AH
> > vampires group 2 and reprint them in starters if, for example, WW
intends
> > to soon make new Group 4 Inner Circles ? This would, to me, lack all
logic
> > except the "we don't care about our customers' logic.
>
> And do you know that WW is intending to make new group 4 ICs?
I don't know at all, and don't pretend at all. It is a working hypothesis.
It is also, as someone pointed out, the only valid reason I would find for
creating a group 4, to stick with the WoD storyline.
> Of course not. This is silly, random speculation.
Your logic is
> functional, but is based on certain assumptions that simply don't hold
> water yet; namely, that group 4 ICs will exist. You don't know that;
> nobody does.
Repeat : working hypothesis. If I knew for sure that they will come out, or
won't, I wouldn't tell anyway. You can replace IC with Euro-Princes, Obf
Ventrue, San !Tremere or what the heck you like. Try to see the meaning
behind the words, and not to stop at some rethoric details. I know you can
do it.
> You give WW's designers and playtesters little credit for identifying
> obvious conflicts between its most recent printing and later printings,
and
> as a result are demonizing WW un-necessarily and pre-emptively.
I don't demonize anyone. Did you hear me say "WW sucks, they're assholes,
they lead this game to shit" ? No. What I said was : I'm afraid this is a
possible way for things to go, and I don't want it, as many players don't.
As for the designers credits, I think hearing what players want or do'nt may
only be useful to them. And I prefer to intervene pre-emptively than say
later "oh, man, it's too late but hey, that's bad !!". They didn't warn us
B4 making any major change lately, right ? So it's up to us to warn them of
what we'd like or not.
> >> Orpheus just doesn't like it because it isn't what HE wants.
> >
> > Wrong. It is what all my players told me they didn't want. As soon as
>
> However, what your players told you they didn't want was based on even
less
> information than you yourself possess.
Wrong again. We agree on things based upon what we know : the group rulings.
And as much as most of the players accepted the Group 3 thing without
problem, everyone said at the time, and still says, that Group 4 and up
would open the way to many, many abuses. This is based on only one type of
information : the Group rules.
> > Group 3 came out, we all had the same reaction (except the ones who
were
> > instantly allergic to Group 3) : this can be a nice way of getting on
with
> > the game, but it has to stop right there, for at least some years,
because
> > if it doesn't it will turn into Magic. And you may have noticed that I'm
> > not the only one to think that, even here.
>
> That's fine. But you have no knowledge of whether or not any group 4
> vampires exist, no knowledge of what those vampires ARE, ...and making
> rabble-rousing ultimatums based on rumors (because that IS all you've got,
> is rumors) is simply poor judgement, plain and simple -- and EXTREMELY
> inappropriate for a Prince.
Man, can you read ? Did I EVER say : "I'm sure that WW will issue Group 4
and warn you all" ?! No, I didn't. What I did say was : "this rumor brings a
question about how we would react to new groups. This is how I would react,
and why."
As for what a Prince should or not do, I totally agree with Reyda's post on
the subject. And I think we HAVE to bring back to WW the thoughts of our
playerbase. As the Conclave Mailing List isn't made for this, here is the
most appropriate place to do so IMO. Hey, if / when WW employs me and pays
me whole lotta bucks to find new ways to sell you loads of cards, be assured
that I'll conceive every possible way to make you empty your wallet, and
you'll probably like it. For now, all I care about is me, my players, and
this game in general from the player and buyer's viewpoint. My Princeship
means I'm appointed to promote the game, which I do. It doesn't prevent me
from having opinions or expressing them.
> I don't agree that it has to "stop right there", but others have made that
> argument more eloquently than I care to at this point. However, I will
> note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with
> OBF/DOM/PRE/FOR/cel/vic, and a special ability that reads "+2 bleed. 4
> votes. Your prey burns a pool on their untap for each locations they
> control, or burns the location." is hardly going to be the end of the
> world, is it?
LOL. Yeah, sure !!! Especially for a cost of 6. And seeing as every vampire
in group 8 will be like him, nobody will want Group 6 anymore, so the
playerbase will split between :
1) the ones who buy and buy
2) the ones who refuse to play group 8, and after a while get tired of
getting their asses kicked by the ones who do, and in turn split into 2 more
categories :
a) the ones who play among themselves with no vampire of group 8
b) the ones who make the houserule of ignoring groups (that already
happened)
How is that supposed to help the game in any way ?
> > I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am
>
> Then believe in the game you love -- don't assume that its creators, who
> have carefully put out four expansions that did not suck, are going to
> suddenly put out a fifth expansion that DOES suck.
Everyone can make mistakes, so it is up to us to tell them what is the game
we love to play. Which I did.
> I recall a significant hue and outcry over group 3... what happened there?
>
> I am minded to quote something about "storm in a teacup", and the famous
> "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", but I'm old and decrepit and
> too lazy to look up the source.
I wasn't against group 3. And believe me, if ever Group 4 or 5 gets out, the
outcry will be much, much worse.
As for the "old and decrepit" part, you should try a Giant's Blood, this out
to get you up. ;-)
> > suicidal. But I'll only do what I believe in. Is taht clearer to you now
?
>
> Then do your game a favor: think before speaking.
I do. Do me a favor : read before answering.
The way I launched this thread may not have been the best one, but as I said
people make mistakes. Mine was to underestimate the way people just follow
with what is given to them. It seems that many here want only to buy more
and more, not caring about the contents. Too bad.
> > I've said all I needed to. The rest is only empty rethorics, and far too
> > personnal attacks (at least you argumented calmly here). Let some other
> > people express themselves on the subject, I've done my part.
>
> Many careless people assume that because I am capable of loading a post
with
> two handsful of vitriol, I am incapable of making a rational argument.
> This simply attests to some sloppy thinking on the part of those posters.
Many people assume that, because I prefer rational, calm and interesting
discussions, I am incapable of flaming. Now you know better.
But even when you're not flaming, you display an enormous amount of
"mauvaise foi", which is an intranslatable (or I don't know the word) way to
say that despite being, I think, intelligent, you see only what you wanna
see, and overlook anything that wouldn't suit your thoughts (which I try not
to do, and some interesting counter-arguments have been displayed, to which
I have answered in honesty). In other words : you brass the air and make me
lose my time. Not a very nice thing to do, Derek, time is precious to me,
Temporis or not.
> However, I would disagree with the last four words of your sentence... you
> still have a LOT more work to do.
Yeah, if I want to get to you, sure. For the rest, I know what I have to do,
thank you.
--
Orpheus
http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band)
http://no.exit.free.fr (online novel)
http://necrobones.free.fr (card game site)
news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone
"And the corridors of Power, they're an ocean away
We're the 51st State of America"
New Model Army
Orpheus
> Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the
> groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply
> to everyone who thinks your way.
Ok.
> Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a
> few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies
> into the game without breaking the old ones? Isn't it OBVIOUS that
> grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the
> game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards?
No, it is not obvious at all. Rather the opposite. It has been and will be
argued enough that you may see there are quite different, and valid opinions
about it.
> i
> personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the
> Dark Ages expansion!
Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But
this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would be a
totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards I
guess) extension, which makes you speak of groups in the minus (or maybe you
have inside info ? by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow
mixing with Group 1...). People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE
to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play tonight,
Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in New
York 2003 !!!). I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would
be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players. What
wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or you
can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will). Do you get the
difference in my book ?
> You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> the cards into the game,
I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the Dev's
Chat ?
> and think about how that could be done, it
> seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack
> cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-)
LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough. But seriously, I
don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug addict.
But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no matter
how badly cut.
I don't.
Orpheus
in
> > the Anarchs.
>
> By who? Is this a credible source? How did they come by their
> information?
Ok, for the last time :
I AM NOT SURE OF ANYTHING ABOUT SUCH A RELEASE, BUT THINK IT HAS TO BE
DISCUSSED NOW ANYWAY.
Sorry for shouting, but maybe this way everyone will see it and stop asking
the same questions. For the details see numerous previous answers.
> > A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't dramatical, it's just useless
(they
> > just re-released group 2 Cammies, and now you can't mix them anymore
with the
> > enw vampires ?!).
>
> I'd be upset but a good portion of the DS/AH Camarilla vampires suck.
Yes, they do. Some others are great and seen at every tournament, though,
like Arika, Muaziz, Donal etc. And as I've already said, if they sucked so
much, why make them Group 2 and reprint them ? Because WW was afraid of the
players reaction and preferred to fuck them in the ass later, but with more
vaseline ??
> And group 4 Cammies can be combined with the group 3 Cammies (which
> they're likely meant to be).
Sure. But not with the hundreds of Group 2 vampires that have been printed
in the last 3 years, and the latest only what, 6, 9 months ago ?
> > If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the
> > opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW.
Up
> > until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we
have
> > to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
>
> Hmm... I didn't feel "forced to buy" Cam Ed. I thought "hey, those
> new (insert clan here) look pretty cool. Lemme buy a box and trade
> all the Malkavians I get for the (insert clan here) vamps I didn't get
> in the box."
Same here, because they were compatible to most of the vampires I'd bought
(I joined the game with SW). Even if I understand and sort of approve Group
3, I can also understand why people who had all the vampires in Group 1
could be pissed off by this. But the more Groups come, the worts the
situation will become, is all I'm saying.
> > But I also know what will the difference in sales will be the day when I
> > won't. Or, for that matter, the day when any of my players will see
Group 5
> > Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat.
>
> This begs the question, "What's the big deal?".
Ok, if you have to ask I can't do anything for you. Now, if you really want
to know, read what people have written on this thread, newsgroup etc. If you
still don't see the big deal, I'll have to ask you your monthly income.
> I'm more disappointed with the library backgrounds than anything. I'm
> putting forth a request to at least have the master card background
> reverted to the old one (so I can tell what the hell something is
> across the table).
>
> -Snapcase
THAT is a lost case. They have made this decision, once again, without
asking anyone, and it may have been a mistake or not. I'm getting used to
the new layout, but the thing I cannot get used to is having old and new
vampires side by side and not looking like they belong in the same game, not
mentionning the same Clan. And Masters layout suck. But I don't think WW
will ever turn from this decision. Hell, it will even be an argument to sell
more Group 4 Sabbat, like "See, they have the new layout !!!".
:-(
spinney99
> Curevei wrote:
> >>Doc ReTardis
> >>True Brujah
> >>11 cap, group7
> >>
> >>TEM, PRE, pot, aus, chi, for, san
> >>Independent. 2 votes. When Doc ReTardis enters play, you may choose
> >>a circle. Doc ReTardis counts as and may play cards as a Blood
> >>Brother of that circle. When Doc ReTardis is in your crypt, vampires
> >>of any combination of group numbers are allowed to be in your crypt.
> >>(If, during play, your crypt contains an illegal combination of group
> >>numbers of vampires, but no copies of Doc ReTardis, you are
> >>immediately ousted.) Scarce. Sterile.
>
> So if you draw all 4 of your Doc's into your uncontrolled region and you
> only had 4 in your crypt, your going to be ousted. Perhaps this should
ousted immediately. one of the drawbacks to such a powerful
pan-grouping ability. intentional deterrent to playing this cheeser.
> read, if you do not have Doc in your crypt ot uncontrolled region whould
> be better.
>
> However, this card means that a Judge would have to periodically stop by
> and check out your cards. Thats just too much work.
amen. it's (as stated) mainly a junk card-suggestion, designed to
show that there _could_ be a card mechanic based on groupings. also,
i'm not very familiar with the magical process of Blood Brother
creation, so the Doc must've found some process in his time-travels
that provides him the ability to count as a member of said circle...
what that is, or even could be, is beyond me.
-spinspore
perhaps he was originally a last-surviving member of said circle, who
over long years and Tardis use became a trujah... circa 3250ad.
>
> Raille
Derek Ray
Raille mumbled something about:
> Derek wrote:
>> On Thursday 31 October 2002 23:12 in message
>
>> All the ranting, crying, and foot-stamping proved nothing. And let me
>> assure you, there was a lot more of that for the 7/7 rulings... and NONE
>> of
>> those changed as a result. I don't know where you get off thinking
>> anything was "proved", but you need to go back and do more research,
>> because you are DEAD WRONG here.
>
> Actually a lot of the complaints created by the 7/7 rulings and the
> subsequent attempts to correct the alleged inconsistancies by the NJL
> and other parties, have be incorporated into the current game play in
> bits and pieces. Not 100% mind you, but it happened.
Which ones are you thinking of?
The only complaint made by the NJL that has been addressed (off the top of
my head; please add in any I've missed) was the complaint about errata, and
"cards don't do what they say they do" making it difficult for new players.
NOBODY disagreed with the premise -- of course it'd be nice to play a game
where the cards did what they said! But if you recall, when the 7/7
rulings were issued, WotC was still in control of the game and there were
going to be NO new printings. It was either play a broken game, or issue
errata. Given that choice, the game was preserved with errata.
The demands of the NJL for no errata on the spot were unreasonable given the
current circumstances, and were correctly ignored. Once the circumstances
changed (WW took the game back over and printings started to happen again),
reprints of old cards matching the errata issued for those cards started to
happen -- WWEF being the first and most obvious.
> Player involvement CAN make a difference. It just has to be rational
> and fit within the game structure.
Yes, I agree completely. But the loud shouting and ranting created by 7/7
didn't accomplish a single thing. What accomplished far more was the
return of the game to White Wolf, where suddenly the entire baseline from
which to begin assessing things changed.
-- Derek
Derek Ray
Orpheus mumbled something about:
>> And do you know that WW is intending to make new group 4 ICs?
>
> I don't know at all, and don't pretend at all. It is a working hypothesis.
> It is also, as someone pointed out, the only valid reason I would find for
> creating a group 4, to stick with the WoD storyline.
It is not a "working hypothesis"! It is foolish speculation. I repeat, you
KNOW NOTHING. When your baseline argument is random guessing, how can you
possibly expect to produce anything useful from it?
"If WW prints ICs for all the bloodlines and makes them group 4, that will
suck!" Well, of COURSE it will! For god's sake, man, wake up and smell
the coffee. You can speculate for years, and you won't get anywhere.
>> Of course not. This is silly, random speculation.
> Your logic is
>> functional, but is based on certain assumptions that simply don't hold
>> water yet; namely, that group 4 ICs will exist. You don't know that;
>> nobody does.
>
> Repeat : working hypothesis. If I knew for sure that they will come out,
Repeat: RANDOM GUESSING.
> or won't, I wouldn't tell anyway. You can replace IC with Euro-Princes,
> Obf Ventrue, San !Tremere or what the heck you like. Try to see the
> meaning behind the words, and not to stop at some rethoric details. I know
> you can do it.
Orpheus, what I'm pointing out to you is that there IS no meaning behind
your words. All you demonstrate is more rhetoric along the lines of "THE
SKY MAY BE FALLING!"
> > You give WW's designers and playtesters little credit for identifying
>> obvious conflicts between its most recent printing and later printings,
> and
>> as a result are demonizing WW un-necessarily and pre-emptively.
>
> I don't demonize anyone. Did you hear me say "WW sucks, they're assholes,
> they lead this game to shit" ? No. What I said was : I'm afraid this is a
> possible way for things to go, and I don't want it, as many players don't.
No, Orpheus, this is not what you said.
You waved your flag in the air and said "If it goes this way, it will
DEFINITELY BE WRONG, and I will LEAD A CRUSADE to BOYCOTT the future sets!
All who are with me, stand now!" It was very dramatic, filled with
hyperbole, and it was a total crock of shit.
One doesn't lead crusades against things which aren't demons, Orpheus. You
cannot pretend that your initial post was a rational argument; please do us
both the favor of not trying.
> As for the designers credits, I think hearing what players want or do'nt
> may only be useful to them. And I prefer to intervene pre-emptively than
> say later "oh, man, it's too late but hey, that's bad !!". They didn't
> warn us B4 making any major change lately, right ? So it's up to us to
> warn them of what we'd like or not.
Your second attempt at doing this was a far better means of broaching the
subject than declaring an ultimatum.
>> However, what your players told you they didn't want was based on even
> less
>> information than you yourself possess.
>
> Wrong again. We agree on things based upon what we know : the group
> rulings. And as much as most of the players accepted the Group 3 thing
> without problem, everyone said at the time, and still says, that Group 4
> and up would open the way to many, many abuses. This is based on only one
> type of information : the Group rules.
Right. And you know nothing about whether there will be group 4 vampires,
or what those vampires will be. Can you not see that there are many ways
to implement a group 4, and not ALL of them are wrong?
But you attempted to paint the entire situation as bad. You were sadly
incorrect there, and you are sadly incorrect now. You jumped to
conclusions based on wildly inaccurate information, and now you are paying
the price for it.
>> That's fine. But you have no knowledge of whether or not any group 4
>> vampires exist, no knowledge of what those vampires ARE, ...and making
>> rabble-rousing ultimatums based on rumors (because that IS all you've
>> got, is rumors) is simply poor judgement, plain and simple -- and
>> EXTREMELY inappropriate for a Prince.
>
> Man, can you read ? Did I EVER say : "I'm sure that WW will issue Group 4
> and warn you all" ?! No, I didn't. What I did say was : "this rumor brings
> a question about how we would react to new groups. This is how I would
> react, and why."
Yes, Orpheus, I can read. This is what you said:
"I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in
the Anarchs."
So there's one open lie. You DID, in fact, say that you were sure that WW
would issue Group 4. And the rest of your message certainly reads like a
warning to us...
"Whether this is true or not isn't the point here ... A few Group 4
Camarilla vampires isn't dramatical, it's just useless (they just
re-released group 2 Cammies, and now you can't mix them anymore with the
enw vampires ?!). But it needs to STOP NOW !!!"
And from there, you went RIGHT downhill...
"I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
out, I will :
- stop buying new products
- resign from my Princeship
I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread."
Now, if this isn't a crusade, then I don't know what it is. It certainly
isn't just a statement of your own opinions -- it's a call to arms. Trying
to pretend otherwise at this point to save face is just pathetic, and
assuming that we'll all believe you is even more pathetic.
> As for what a Prince should or not do, I totally agree with Reyda's post
> on the subject. And I think we HAVE to bring back to WW the thoughts of
> our playerbase. As the Conclave Mailing List isn't made for this, here is
> the most appropriate place to do so IMO. Hey, if / when WW employs me and
There was NO appropriate place for your previous message.
> players, and this game in general from the player and buyer's viewpoint.
> My Princeship means I'm appointed to promote the game, which I do. It
> doesn't prevent me from having opinions or expressing them.
Can you not see that declaring a crusade to boycott the product if things
don't go your way is the complete opposite of promoting the game? Are you
really this stupid?
>> I don't agree that it has to "stop right there", but others have made
>> that
>> argument more eloquently than I care to at this point. However, I will
>> note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with
>> OBF/DOM/PRE/FOR/cel/vic, and a special ability that reads "+2 bleed. 4
>> votes. Your prey burns a pool on their untap for each locations they
>> control, or burns the location." is hardly going to be the end of the
>> world, is it?
>
> LOL. Yeah, sure !!! Especially for a cost of 6. And seeing as every
> vampire in group 8 will be like him, nobody will want Group 6 anymore, so
> the playerbase will split between :
More foolish, unfounded speculation and "sky-is-falling" crap. What if he
cost 11? What then?
It seems you're shifting focus here, Orpheus. Is the REAL concern of your
players that there will be unwarranted power escalation in future groups?
Now THAT's a possibly valid concern -- but why not address that issue
directly, instead of tilting at windmills?
> 1) the ones who buy and buy
> 2) the ones who refuse to play group 8, and after a while get tired of
> getting their asses kicked by the ones who do, and in turn split into 2
> more categories :
> a) the ones who play among themselves with no vampire of group 8
> b) the ones who make the houserule of ignoring groups (that already
> happened)
All of this is foolish speculation, and based on the assumption that WW will
make a series of poor business decisions, and that the game designers will
do a whole bunch of stupid things (such as create a power escalation
curve).
> How is that supposed to help the game in any way ?
It wouldn't. But again, you're giving absolutely no credit to WW or its
designers here; you are assuming the worst, where you should be assuming
the best. Again, FOUR EXPANSIONS which didn't suck... and a group 3 rule
that everyone swore would be the death of the game, and in fact has turned
out to be absolutely insignificant.
>> > I am and will be the ambassador of the game I love and believe in. I am
>>
>> Then believe in the game you love -- don't assume that its creators, who
>> have carefully put out four expansions that did not suck, are going to
>> suddenly put out a fifth expansion that DOES suck.
>
> Everyone can make mistakes, so it is up to us to tell them what is the
> game we love to play. Which I did.
How very Napoleonic. You should wait until someone actually makes a mistake
before telling them they've made one, Orpheus. Right now you've got no
indication that a mistake is even being MADE.
>> I recall a significant hue and outcry over group 3... what happened
>> there?
>>
>> I am minded to quote something about "storm in a teacup", and the famous
>> "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", but I'm old and decrepit
>> and too lazy to look up the source.
>
> I wasn't against group 3. And believe me, if ever Group 4 or 5 gets out,
> the outcry will be much, much worse.
More unfounded speculation. You haven't the slightest idea about this,
because you haven't the slightest idea what group 4 or 5 might contain.
What if group 5 were all Dark Ages Camarilla clans? That would make an
awful lot of sense, now wouldn't it -- you wouldn't want those vampires to
be playable with ANY of the previous Camarilla vamps, would you?
> The way I launched this thread may not have been the best one, but as I
> said people make mistakes. Mine was to underestimate the way people just
> follow with what is given to them. It seems that many here want only to
> buy more and more, not caring about the contents. Too bad.
You are a fool, Orpheus. If you read ANYTHING anyone else has posted here,
then you would know that this isn't true. It's just that everyone else
THINKS, and UNDERSTANDS how a business must run... and also understands how
a game of this complexity needs to be designed in order to be viable.
> But even when you're not flaming, you display an enormous amount of
> "mauvaise foi", which is an intranslatable (or I don't know the word) way
(un)Fortunately for you, I do not require the translation.
A literal translation would be "bad faith", but that's not correct and means
something entirely different in English. The closest equivalent in English
might be "poor judgement and excessive confidence in that judgement", and
even that doesn't quite capture the meaning.
> to say that despite being, I think, intelligent, you see only what you
> wanna see, and overlook anything that wouldn't suit your thoughts (which I
> try not to do, and some interesting counter-arguments have been displayed,
> to which I have answered in honesty). In other words : you brass the air
> and make me lose my time. Not a very nice thing to do, Derek, time is
> precious to me, Temporis or not.
No, Orpheus, I see EVERYTHING, and I assess EVERYTHING... and THEN I speak.
I considered the potential impact of group 4 a long, long time ago, and
dismissed it as irrelevant if done properly. Group 5 isn't even on the
horizon yet, and is not worth considering, as there are also many ways to
do group 5 properly.
We have no indication at this time that group 4 is going to be done
improperly, or that group 4 even exists yet. We do, however, have four
indications (one per expansion, including the group 3 rulings) that WW and
the game designers are capable of making intelligent decisions that don't
screw the playerbase.
It is only logic, Orpheus. But it's non-hysterical logic, based on solid
assumptions and foundations.
>> However, I would disagree with the last four words of your sentence...
>> you still have a LOT more work to do.
>
> Yeah, if I want to get to you, sure. For the rest, I know what I have to
> do, thank you.
Don't misunderstand your situation right now, Orpheus. You stuck your neck
out carelessly, and now you've got to convince EVERYONE that it shouldn't
be chopped off. I'm far from the only person who believes that you're
making a huge, unwarranted outcry over nothing.
-- Derek
CurtAdams
> I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
>GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
>out, I will :
>- stop buying new products
>- resign from my Princeship
Grouping is a brilliant idea, the best fix for a hard problem.
There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start
the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I
will continue to enthusiastically support V:tES as long as
WW continues with it's excellent work at improving
balance and playability with great ideas like grouping.
I'll even support it more enthusiastically by pointing out
to newbies that grouping is making suitcases quit
because they can't lord it over the newbies with their
collections. I'll probably buy more too.
Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group.
That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes
substantially over this the game is in serious trouble.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
legbiter
> legbiter wrote:
> >
> > Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the
> > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply
> > to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a
> > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies
> > into the game without breaking the old ones?
>
> I try not to be too hostile to it despite disagreeing with it. But I
> had to post in response to this because...well...I don't actually see
> that this is the "only way to introduce new strategies into the game
> without breaking the old ones". I'm not even sure what you could mean
> by such a claim.
Because the old guys and gals have all the old cards and would gain
from the new cards [so that their already-functional old decks would
get even better]; whereas the new, incoming people would only have the
new cards, and could not compete except [a] is everone was playing new
cards, or [b] if the new cards and vampires were better than the old
ones. But under groupings, everyone is equal, no-one is better, and
the old guys n gals do not lose their good ol' decks.
>
> > Isn't it OBVIOUS that
> > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the
> > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards? i
> > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the
> > Dark Ages expansion!
>
> I guess I can see the potential for things like independent Gangrel
> replacing Camarilla Gangrel over time - for whatever it's worth. But I
> don't think your Dark Ages expansion idea works without some more futzing,
> frankly.
Undoubtedly you are right. But this is a concept thing, as i'm sure
you understand.
Otherwise you're going to need to explain things like .44 Magnums
> and RPG Launchers in the dark ages.
GREAT man, that Leonardo da Vinci.
>
> > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> > the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it
> > seems to me.
>
> Didn't see it.
What, the project, or why grouping is good for it?
>
> Fred
legbiter
> > Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the
> > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply
> > to everyone who thinks your way.
>
> Ok.
>
> > Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a
> > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies
> > into the game without breaking the old ones? Isn't it OBVIOUS that
> > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the
> > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards?
>
> No, it is not obvious at all. Rather the opposite. It has been and will be
> argued enough that you may see there are quite different, and valid opinions
> about it.
Sorry brother, but i do not see the validity of the objections to it.
Rather, i see the conservative Scumbag Gamer rampant. in fact i would
even count myself in that group; my INITIAL reaction to the groupings
rule and to the changes in card appearance was hostile, but now i have
undergone a TOTAL conversion and am WHOLLY in favour of them. As for
WHY i think it is OBVIOUS that this is the only way forward, see my
reply to Fred. For those who can't be bothered to look, i believe the
groupings rule keeps the old deck-styles intact but allows new people
to compete - something that couldn't be achieved in any other way that
i can see.
>
> > i
> > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the
> > Dark Ages expansion!
>
> Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But
> this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would be a
> totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards I
> guess) extension,
Maybe, maybe not. i used to think like you. Groupings now makes me
think the whole thing could be done in such a way that ALL the
expansions could be compatible. i'ld prefer that.
which makes you speak of groups in the minus (or maybe you
> have inside info ?
No
by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow
> mixing with Group 1...).
Sure, what's wrong with that?
People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE
> to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play tonight,
> Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in New
> York 2003 !!!).
Alright, but you know as well as i do that in the typical RPG session
it is the clash between the ancient and the modern which is half the
fun. Groupings imposes a certain integrity upon that in the card game,
so i'ld have thought it would be welcomed with open arms by the
RPGers.
I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would
> be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players.
Right, so we agree, basically. i knew we would.
What
> wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or you
> can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will). Do you get the
> difference in my book ?
Not really, and sorry if i am being dim ... but i just don't see that
ANY of the old decks i built has been nuked by the new expansion,
rather it seems to me a load of old cards that were gathering dust in
my folders suddenly look awfully tasty, and that this would be true
whether or not i had bought new cards.
>
> > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> > the cards into the game,
>
> I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the Dev's
> Chat ?
Not on developer's chat AFAIK, but it's kinda obvious from what he has
done in rehabilitating Rowan Ring, the Monocle and Concealed weapon.
i'm sure he would like to go further, if he could and if the new cards
could be balanced. i will say no more.
>
> > and think about how that could be done, it
> > seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack
> > cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-)
>
> LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough.
What, not even water? <awestruck silence>
But seriously, I
> don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug addict.
> But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no matter
> how badly cut.
i'll confess to being an addict, right enough. i don't accept that i
patronise dodgy pushers.
>
> I don't.
Cool, so you are sticking to the best-cut dope and you aren't an
addict, right? ;-)
legbiter
Rest assured I will definitely let
> you know when I finally get around to visiting the UK, and if I manage to
> make it down to Europe/France at the same time (would really like to meet
> reyda one of these days), so much the better.
>
> -- Derek
Cool, so please let me know when and where to pick you up, brother.
And you DID remember to give Lasombra Jeff his 16 USD, right?
legbiter
fellow>
>
> I know you're good at flaming people, sometime some bozo just need a kick in
> the ass to start to walk in the right direction. But the problem is
> orpheus's worries are shared by more than one player. I don't want to have
> to cycle my vamps every six months. I don't like the grouping idea for
> starters, but i'll use it since tournament rules require it.
But you DON'T have to. ALL your old decks still work except for the
ones based on abusing Second and Fifth Tradition, Embrace or
ToGP/Hostile takeover, and that's not because of the grouping rule,
but because of much-needed changes to individual library cards. Some
of them may work better because of new cards; and some decks that you
would NEVER have dreamed could be competitive now are, because of
cards like harass, high ground, [new] rowan ring, [new] concealed
weapon, tension in the ranks and weighted walking stick. Scott is
EXPANDING the game, or maybe rehabilitating it is the right phrase,
and you don't have to spend a single euro-cent to benefit from his
work.
>
<snip>
>
> :: Business is about making money. The best way to make money is to
> :: give people what they want.
>
> Another way is to give them new expansion every 6 months, with more and more
> power cards to collect, and suppres previous sets from the competition, as
> Magic the gathering does. Magic is making money and has a solid player base,
> i understand it can be a model for those marketing guys at WW. But which
> v:tes player would like to see v:tes walk that way ?
> If we have to protest , it's now or never, and its on this forum where WW
> actually reads our stuff. Period.
Though i accept the right to protest, i STILL find this particular
spat bewildering. You can still play all your old decks. If you want,
you can spice them up with some of your old cards that you wouldn't
otherwise have played. People who invest in CE won't necessarily be
able to make better decks than you can, because of grouping. So you
gain from CE whether you buy it or not. On the other hand, if you
WANT, you can buy into the expansion and make some funky new decks,
equally as powerful as, but different from, the old decks you built.
Whatever your decision, you need to beware the bright-eyed and
bushy-talied young 'uns with their all-group 2/3 crypts and totally
new [but NOT more powerful] strategies. This seems to me to be win,
win and thrice win, for all concerned. How is this cynical marketing?
How is it pushing the power-curve? What am i missing?
>
> reyda
Raille
>>Actually a lot of the complaints created by the 7/7 rulings and the
>>subsequent attempts to correct the alleged inconsistancies by the NJL
>>and other parties, have be incorporated into the current game play in
>>bits and pieces. Not 100% mind you, but it happened.
>
>
> Which ones are you thinking of?
Well we first used something akin to the table win. We called it the
last man standing, which measured simply the ability of a player to have
staying power and that person of course always got 2 vps, which in the
current game setting usually means a table win.
Then we also started to run calculations of how well rated a player was
as a % of wins.
<ego>
There have been a lot of bits of errata made to cards that paralleled
changes teh NJL worked on. Of course these cards had already been
highlighted by all parties involved that they needed corrections, so We
can't really claim anything here, but as a long time player involved in
many aspects of the game, these little bit seem to indicate that in our
breif heydey we were not simple making waves we actually help set the
template for the furture game.
Ok. The drugs are wearing off and the ego is deflating. :)
</ego>
Raille
Jeff Kuta
> On Friday 01 November 2002 21:40 in message
> <apvduq$ikh$1...@news-reader10.wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus mumbled something about:
> note that printing a group 4 vampire named "ROSCOE P. COLTRAIN" with
We already have a card "Flash" so I'm all for Roscoe!
berni...@attbi.comholdlespam
Per my recollection; our stance on this particular topic was that if a
card needed to be completely rewritten so as not to be broken, that it
should be banned rather than to receive errata.
At a time when it didn't appear that there would ever be another
expansion printed, the stance was quite reasonable.
>changed (WW took the game back over and printings started to happen again),
>reprints of old cards matching the errata issued for those cards started to
>happen -- WWEF being the first and most obvious.
>
>> Player involvement CAN make a difference. It just has to be rational
>> and fit within the game structure.
>
>Yes, I agree completely. But the loud shouting and ranting created by 7/7
>didn't accomplish a single thing. What accomplished far more was the
>return of the game to White Wolf, where suddenly the entire baseline from
>which to begin assessing things changed.
What 7/7 accomplished was to drive away a large number of players from
the newsgroup and the game. Primarily as people who were voicing
concerns and queries were blatantly attacked and turned away from the
NG..
Times have certainly changed for the better when White Wolf regained
control of their product. While I still don't agree with everything
that comes down that pipe, it's usually something I can live with.
There is soooo much ground that has yet to be explored that I cannot
conceive of seeing a Group 5+ for a very long time.
>-- Derek
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:<3DC39027...@removethis.com>...
> > legbiter wrote:
> > >
> > > Definitely NOT ME. i'm absolutely BEWILDERED by this hostility to the
> > > groupings rule - i know it's not just you, so this is kind of a reply
> > > to everyone who thinks your way. Doesn't ANYBODY except, well, quite a
> > > few people see that this is the ONLY way to introduce new strategies
> > > into the game without breaking the old ones?
> >
> > I try not to be too hostile to it despite disagreeing with it. But I
> > had to post in response to this because...well...I don't actually see
> > that this is the "only way to introduce new strategies into the game
> > without breaking the old ones". I'm not even sure what you could mean
> > by such a claim.
>
> Because the old guys and gals have all the old cards and would gain
> from the new cards [so that their already-functional old decks would
> get even better]; whereas the new, incoming people would only have the
> new cards, and could not compete except [a] is everone was playing new
> cards, or [b] if the new cards and vampires were better than the old
> ones. But under groupings, everyone is equal, no-one is better, and
> the old guys n gals do not lose their good ol' decks.
Oh. I guess I wouldn't term that "introducing new strategies". That's just
adding new cards to the game. Any new card may introduce a new strategy or
improve an old one. There's a segment of people out here (I'm one of them)
who would agree with you that grouping has a beneficial effect in this sense.
However, whether it was really an important enough benefit vs. the cost is
another question. And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem
in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious
problem anyway.
> > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> > > the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it
> > > seems to me.
> >
> > Didn't see it.
>
> What, the project, or why grouping is good for it?
I didn't see the project, whatever it is you're talking about.
Fred
reyda
:: Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I guess Praxis seizure : Hazzard would be a great idea too (^.^;)
Orpheus
> <snip praise of Orpheus, who has always struck ME as a dam' fine
> fellow>
Thanks for that. Nice to see that some people can disagree with me without
putting me right away in the asshole department. It must be a maturity
thing...
Isn't it OBVIOUS that
> > > grouping creates an entirely-desirable chronological direction to the
> > > game, which could be extended backwards as well as forwards?
> >
> > No, it is not obvious at all. Rather the opposite. It has been and will
be
> > argued enough that you may see there are quite different, and valid
opinions
> > about it.
>
> Sorry brother, but i do not see the validity of the objections to it.
> Rather, i see the conservative Scumbag Gamer rampant. in fact i would
> even count myself in that group; my INITIAL reaction to the groupings
> rule and to the changes in card appearance was hostile, but now i have
> undergone a TOTAL conversion and am WHOLLY in favour of them. As for
> WHY i think it is OBVIOUS that this is the only way forward, see my
> reply to Fred. For those who can't be bothered to look, i believe the
> groupings rule keeps the old deck-styles intact but allows new people
> to compete - something that couldn't be achieved in any other way that
> i can see.
Only idiots don't change their minds, so I guess you're not as conservative
as you say. And I may yet change mine on that subject, if there are some new
elements I couldn't take into consideration, but I dount it as I've given a
lot of thought to the question.
My point is that I could understand the use of making new vampires in Group
3 instead of re-issuing Group 1, if only for one reason : the vampires
weren't as well balanced as their followers, and some Clans were really
advantaged over others ; also, there could have been copyright problems with
the pictures, but then this could be overcome ; last, the "new" vampires
stick to the background and the old didn't. AAMOF, I'd have liked to see DS
and AH included in Group 1, if only never to see Arika's face again... Err,
I mean so that the new ones would totally fit the background. Now, if
rectifying this is the reason for Group 4, they should have done it before.
If it is not, what could be the reason ? Renewing sales ? As we both said,
there are whole lots of new ideas out there that can be used and don't
involve grouping (allies, which could make for 5 extensions - not all
commercially viable, agreed, so let's say 3 - , Dark Ages, maybe a High Tech
version, etc). Furthermore, you can still issue lots of compatible vampires
which wouldn't make the game cheesy. An argument for Grouping has been that
you could avoid making too easy some combos ; an excellent counter-argument
has been that new, however improbable, combos could still be found. Some
people even took to playing Vic / Pre, so what is impossible ?
Of course, all the old decks will be playable, BUT :
- we have lots of vampires to chose from in the old groups, even if some
more couldn't hurt, so why start all over again with new, non-compatible
ones (say, Group 4 Sabbat) ? Why put aside all the background characters ?
Is it necessary to include many new vampires (just a few wouldn't justify a
new grouping) in the extensions to come ? My answer is : no. I would buy
extensions with good cards and not-so-many vampires, I have already enough
to chose from (not mentionning Group 1, as some people may not have them).
So the only argument for buying new vampires is that they will raise the
power curve, as has already been done in Group 3 compared to 1 (or most of
2, who sucked anyway). This means, as I've already said, that the players
not buying new extensions will have to face new, bigger vampires, or get
their asses kicked. That is, to me, forcing a cosumer to buy-or-leave. Of
course, we cannot know for sure there will be a power surge, but then what
argument will there be for buying new vampires ? I see no use to them. Do
you think many people will want to play Giovanni without Carlotta/Isabel,
!Brujah without Jacko, Lasombra without Gratiano/Talley/Monçada, !Ventrue
without Lazve, Power Ventrue without Arika, True Brujah without any True
Brujah in it ? ;-)
Answer : only if more powerful vampires are issued. Nut Carlotta will always
stay Carlotta to me (yeah, she's ugly, but does she *censored* !!!).
> > > i
> > > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the
> > > Dark Ages expansion!
> >
> > Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But
> > this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would
be a
> > totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards
I
> > guess) extension,
>
> Maybe, maybe not. i used to think like you. Groupings now makes me
> think the whole thing could be done in such a way that ALL the
> expansions could be compatible. i'ld prefer that.
Dark Ages could be compatible with everything in term of Library cards
except guns and modern vehicles / weapons, I guess, but vampires would have
to be changed. Also, what about the Sabbat / Camarilla cards, including
Crusades (there were Princes) ? What about modern Bloodlines ?
> by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow
> > mixing with Group 1...).
>
> Sure, what's wrong with that?
Well, if it's done in the minus it would be so as not to miw them with
existing extensions. Also, why make it compatible with old vampires rather
then new ones ? I wouldn't see the point for that.
> People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE
> > to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play
tonight,
> > Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in
New
> > York 2003 !!!).
>
> Alright, but you know as well as i do that in the typical RPG session
> it is the clash between the ancient and the modern which is half the
> fun. Groupings imposes a certain integrity upon that in the card game,
> so i'ld have thought it would be welcomed with open arms by the
> RPGers.
Sorry, I don't understand you point here, care to develop ?
> I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would
> > be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players.
>
> Right, so we agree, basically. i knew we would.
Sure, can't disagree on everything, can we ? ;-)
And we both enjoy playing, and the perspective of new, fun ways to play ;
where we don't agree about is what exactly would or wouldn't be fun to play.
> What
> > wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or
you
> > can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will). Do you get
the
> > difference in my book ?
>
> Not really, and sorry if i am being dim ... but i just don't see that
> ANY of the old decks i built has been nuked by the new expansion,
> rather it seems to me a load of old cards that were gathering dust in
> my folders suddenly look awfully tasty, and that this would be true
> whether or not i had bought new cards.
See arguments above. Some Group 3 clans are not that good, say, many people
prefer the Group 1 titled Ventrue (except if they play Obf), so mine
wouldn't gather too much dust. But for what is to follow, time will tell...
> > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> > > the cards into the game,
> >
> > I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the
Dev's
> > Chat ?
>
> Not on developer's chat AFAIK, but it's kinda obvious from what he has
> done in rehabilitating Rowan Ring, the Monocle and Concealed weapon.
> i'm sure he would like to go further, if he could and if the new cards
> could be balanced. i will say no more.
Hum, inside info for sure... ;-)
> > > and think about how that could be done, it
> > > seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack
> > > cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-)
> >
> > LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough.
>
> What, not even water? <awestruck silence>
What for ????
Ok, most of the time I put water in it. By the way, ever tasted Absynthe ?
:-))
> But seriously, I
> > don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug
addict.
> > But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no
matter
> > how badly cut.
>
> i'll confess to being an addict, right enough. i don't accept that i
> patronise dodgy pushers.
> >
> > I don't.
>
> Cool, so you are sticking to the best-cut dope and you aren't an
> addict, right? ;-)
LOL. Damn it, I'm unmasked.
Orpheus, glad to be able to talk politely and without personnal attacks.
Thomas Pichler
> > > I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> > > GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever
> > > comes out, I will :
> > >
> > > - stop buying new products
> > >
> > Or how
> > about 12 different Ventrue princes (and in the long run, 8 of those
> > with obfuscate, too)? Or...
>
> I obviously agree, but your statement seems distorded to me. If we don't
> need more Ventrue Obf Princes, so let's just not issue any new ones !!!
> We can issue Ventrue Princes with Dem, San, Myt, new specials
Hmm, okay. Forget obf. Think dom for pre. If, eventually, there were 12
princes with 5-6 levels of in-clans and 42 with mostly (non-obf) out of
clans, what would be the point? The first 12 would see play, the other
42 would (mostly) not.
Better have (mostly) useful vampires in different groups than that, imo.
> And when that runs out, as they will need to sell more cards, there are
> still infinite possibilities, as has already been suggested, with
> mixeable-or-not werewolves/mages/hunters/wraiths/changelings (in other
> words, current allies) extensions, or non-mixeable Dark Ages extension
>
Non-mixable? Is that non-mixable "crypt", which would make little
difference as compared to a grouping rule, or non-mixable buttloads of
cards, which would mean "I'm not about to buy another damn CCG"?
[The latter might still actually be an advantage for WW though,
potentially drawing fans of the other storyteller games, I suppose.]
> > It is, however, a question of whether or not the arrival of yag (yet
> > another group) is sensibly timed.
> > Personally I'd say, that particular line would be pretty much crossed
> > by any group 4 vampires in The Anarchs, unless The Anarchs would be
> > huge enough a set to have 3+ group 4 vampires per clan that gets any.
> > [Effectivly being a DS replacement for CE.]
>
> I agree, although not to your last point : why reprint DS / AH vampires
> just to render them moot right away ??? If they really wanted to issue
> new Inner Circles or Euros Princes, the only thing they had to do was
> declare DS and AH Group 1, and there would have been no more problem
> !!!! So, bad timing, or bad planning ? Bad anyway.
Not entirely true. The CE vampires alone would be a rather limited
selection for crypt building, so reprinting the group 2 vampires in the
starters was important to give new players better chances of playing
competetively without chasing down back stock of old sets (easy enough
for DS, granted, but not so for AH).
> > There should be group 4 Independent/Sabbat vampires eventually -
> > several Sabbat decks, for example, would gain too powerful a crypt if
> > another Sabbat set with 15 vampires (goup 3) came out.
>
> Again, moot. A few more Sabbat vampires sprikled over each new edition
> will be enough, no need to make a whole set of new ones.
>
The same would have been true of Camarilla vampires. Aside from that,
new players might beg to differ, considering that aside from reprinted
starters (and thus, small selections of vampires for only 4 Sabbat
clans), no Sabbat set can be considered easily available at this time.
> > There'd even have to be group 5 vampires some time down the road, when
> > all group 3/4 option (and those are aplenty) are exhausted - it
> > doesn't need to happen for a few years yet, and consequently shouldn't
> > happen for a few years, but it'll be inevitable in the long run. (At 8
> > month intervals between sets and 4 sets [Anarchs, Sabbat, Independent,
> > next Cammie], 32 months would be a quick estimate.)
>
> And where does it stop ?
>
Theoretically, not ever. [Practically, it seems doubtful a group 5
Camarilla base set could sell well, but that's a library card problem -
there's only so many more master: discipline cards old players need
(quick estimate, if I never draw one again it'll be too soon), but a
base set that can't support new players would be pointless. Problems of
CE squared, basically.]
Thomas
Peter Muto
The reality is I think WW is brilliant. The thing is crypt cards and
library cards are very very different; they have a very different
function/utility to players. Here's the thing:
IF WW instituted a "Type II" thing where all of a sudden my 15 Jyhad
Flesh of Marble's are now kindling I'd freak out.
BUT if I have to continually buy group 4, 5, 6 etc. vampires, even
buying a vampire identical to older ones but with different names and
group numbers, that's fine. WW has to make money, and create *some*
incentive for players to buy cards. Remember, nearly EVERY SINGLE card
EVER printed is tournament legal. That's impressive. Sure you can't
mix a small group together but at this point, I'd guess less than 25%
of all Magic cards every printed are legal. We have it good folks. I
could even live with Jyhad vamps becoming illegal if they basically
reprinted them all with different names and group #'s. Library cards
are a different matter though, which is my point.
Remember, crypt cards is not a card that you need millions of like
some library cards. I mean the absolute most you would ever *need* of
a vampire is 12 technically, realistically 2-6 of each vampire is
plenty.
I think the group thing strikes a perfect balance between encouraging
new and old players to buy new cards, from every new set without
alienating anyone too much (the people who over-react always
over-react)
I think in the end the group thing has very little to do with
preventing a "Dial-A-Crypt" scenario as I think others have pointed
out that such a scenario would not "break" the game.
legbiter
OK, so i THINK we agree about this, if i accept your implicit point
that new cards may NOT introduce/potentiate new strategies. i'm happy
to do that - playtesting doesn't always snip the stinkers.
> However, whether it was really an important enough benefit vs. the cost is
> another question.
The cost being an increase in complexity, correct? i too dislike
increased complexity, but in this case think it was necessary.
And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem
> in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious
> problem anyway.
This is true, potentially. i think in the future, or past, it might be
necessary to group library cards.
>
> > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> > > > the cards into the game, and think about how that could be done, it
> > > > seems to me.
> > >
> > > Didn't see it.
> >
> > What, the project, or why grouping is good for it?
>
> I didn't see the project, whatever it is you're talking about.
The project is the rehabilitation of the banned/useless list through
rewording. Already we have Concealed weapon, Rowan ring, Patagia and
Monocle of clarity back. i think this process is likely to continue,
if Scott thinks it can be done in a balanced way, but it has
implications. i will say no more.
>
> Fred
Derek Ray
<22fea992.02110...@posting.google.com>, legbiter mumbled
something about:
Yes, I did. Immediately on my return. ;)
-- Derek
Frederick Scott
>
> The reality is I think WW is brilliant. The thing is crypt cards and
> library cards are very very different; they have a very different
> function/utility to players. Here's the thing:
> IF WW instituted a "Type II" thing where all of a sudden my 15 Jyhad
> Flesh of Marble's are now kindling I'd freak out.
Most of my comments will be at the bottom. I had stop here and point
out, however, that you're obviously comparing apples with oranges.
No one proposed a "Type II" thing for library cards any more than
anyone proposed one for crypt cards. The analogous rules for library
cards would be to print group numbers on the library cards - like the
crypt cards - and invent some rule about which group-numbered library
cards could be used in the same library deck. As they say for vampires,
"You can *STILL* use your Flesh of Marbles...this is NOT like Type II,
after all...". Enjoy!
> BUT if I have to continually buy group 4, 5, 6 etc. vampires, even
> buying a vampire identical to older ones but with different names and
> group numbers, that's fine. WW has to make money, and create *some*
> incentive for players to buy cards. Remember, nearly EVERY SINGLE card
> EVER printed is tournament legal. That's impressive. Sure you can't
> mix a small group together but at this point, I'd guess less than 25%
> of all Magic cards every printed are legal. We have it good folks. I
> could even live with Jyhad vamps becoming illegal if they basically
> reprinted them all with different names and group #'s. Library cards
> are a different matter though, which is my point.
> Remember, crypt cards is not a card that you need millions of like
> some library cards. I mean the absolute most you would ever *need* of
> a vampire is 12 technically, realistically 2-6 of each vampire is
> plenty.
You've stated a bunch of true facts that miss the central point,
though. Variety of cards is power - period. This is every bit as true
of library cards as crypt cards. It doesn't matter how many library
library cards it takes to make a crypt. What matters is the ability
to combine different combinations of cards - for instance Aid from Bats
with Carrion Crows. Combinations of library cards are much more likely
than crypt cards to confer advantage to longer-time players if the
newbies can't get them. Note, I said *if*. Frequent reprinting of
key library cards actually tends to mute the advantage quite a bit to
prevent too much real advantage. But one can conclude that if the
newbie disadvantage is the sole reason for grouping, then you ought to
group library cards, too - rather than bothering to reprint any.
> I think the group thing strikes a perfect balance between encouraging
> new and old players to buy new cards, from every new set without
> alienating anyone too much (the people who over-react always
> over-react)
It's a balance. It's completely subjective to suggest it's a "perfect"
one. I guess I'm glad they didn't do it to library cards, though by
logic one would certain expect that, too.
> I think in the end the group thing has very little to do with
> preventing a "Dial-A-Crypt" scenario as I think others have pointed
> out that such a scenario would not "break" the game.
I'm not really sure what are saying, if not that the group thing is to
prevent D-A-C. It is not to sell vampire cards, certainly. They will
sell more new vampire cards by allowing the existing players to use new
vampires with their current vampires.
Fred
Frederick Scott
I see. If that's what it is, then I have to say I'm against it. Or at
least, I'm against bothering to try and dredge up every old, forgotten
card and attempting to do something about it. Every single one of these
puppies is another card that has copies out in the card population that
don't do what they SAY they do. That's bad! It's one thing to errata
overpowered cards. (And let's not kid ourselves, folks. Reprinting is
scarcely better than errata.) It's quite another to take an underpowered
piece of wallpaper which is doing relatively little harm except serving
as a laughing stock and a good example of how NOT to design future cards
and turn it into a true negative.
This process is turning particularly obnoxious when only slight changes
are made to old cards, so it's hard to spot when one comes up in play.
We need to start asking ourselves: WHY do this? What is the point
supposed to be?!? It's beginning to seem like the game is being gripped
by overly rigid and anal retentive motives that can't let a past mistake,
however harmless, just lie there. Worse, I feel like the reprints I'm see
are getting rather spotty play-testing at times, leading to a worse game
rather than a better one - even if you don't count the inaccurate pieces
of cardboard in circulation, which I do.
Please, let's stop this!
Fred
Karol Magda
grouping>
> And grouping vampires doesn't solve the analogous problem
> > in terms of library cards, which to me, it seems like a more pernicious
> > problem anyway.
>
> This is true, potentially. i think in the future, or past, it might be
> necessary to group library cards.
Definitely.
Take MtG Type 1 for instance. Only like 5 cards from each new set are
playable in that format. Slightly more are playable for Type 1.5 ,
even more for Extended , like 10-15 percent of a new set is playable
in Type 2 and lot of the cards are playable in Block Constructed (one
big and two small set with common theme both in backstory and card
mechanics).
<example>
If you add 100 new cards to base of 2000+ cards the impact of the 100
new cards is small unless you create power escalation curve. Which is
BAD thing (and even Wizards are aware of this as seen in current sets,
contrary to what many peoples seems to believe here)
</example>
I would not like to see that happen in V:TES. (insignificance of new
cards or power escalation) I am not saying it is happening now, it's
might start to be a problem in distant (or not so distant) future.
The Block Constructed type of tournaments are considered to be:
1) most balanced of constructed formats
-mainly because it's easier to catch possible broken combos in testing
where only 500 cards exists in format compared to 2000+ cards format
2) most popular of constructed formats (and yes Wizards do
polls/researchs and DO care about their customers)
-because many cards otherwise not playable in other constructed
formats are playable here (or biggest percentage of cards you buy are
actually playable besides in draft)
-new players can compete with old players
The extended format (where you can use cards from last 3-4 such
cycles) is also very popular (although sometimes not very balanced)
The problem is that even in extended cards phase out in T1 void.
(because it becomes impossible to balance it) The problem with block
constructed is that every two or so years the block changes
completely.
So is there any similarity between this and current V:TES situation ?
I believe it is.
Grouping of vampires basically creates kind of 'block constructed'
crypt but the catch is that no crypt 'cycle' phase out entirely (you
can STILL play with group 1 vampires). It also enables to print new
and interesting vampires which do have an impact (and think about how
many of new CE vampires would not have an impact if grouping rule
didn't existed)
Grouping of library cards would open vast posibilities for new cards
and abilities which do have an impact and are not broken (and it may
become a problem otherwise in (not so) distant future)
It would also combine the essence of two most popular MtG constructed
formats:
- Block Constructed with it's ability to use most of cards you buy in
actual game
- Extended with it's ability to choose from vast/different deck
archetypes
It would also solve newcomers vs old players issue:
Newbies would be able to compete with old players (because current
group block of library/crypt card would not be weaker or stronger than
previous one, just different one)
Assuming the content of each new group cycle would be interesting old
players WOULD buy the set (I definitely bought Camarilla because of
cool new cards not because of the power level of cards - I can still
win without single new CE card in my crypt or library) and they would
still be able to play with their old favourite decks in order to
invoke fear in hearts of fellows players.
Karol
legbiter
> Legbiter, while under the influence of pastaga, said :
>
> > <snip praise of Orpheus, who has always struck ME as a dam' fine
> > fellow>
>
> Thanks for that. Nice to see that some people can disagree with me without
> putting me right away in the asshole department. It must be a maturity
> thing...
Well, thank YOU right back! However, IIUC Derek isn't cross with you
because of your views - he is cross with you because he thinks the way
you are expressing them is likely to be counterproductive for your
chances of getting something done about them, and might even damage
the game. i think he is right on the first count, but i do not think
the game will be damaged by free speech and open discussion.
i actually think there is more mileage in retuning the clans than you
seem to, and hence i disagree with you that more vampires necesarily
means more powerful vampires. Just to give ONE example, the Tremere
were obviously meant to have a fight dimension, but it doesn't really
work very well because Thaumaturgy takes such a long time to get
going, meshes so poorly with the other disciplines in that clan, and
is so feeble against virtually any other kind of combat. Oliver Thrace
and the one who can ditch tha cards for +1 bleed are a way round that,
it seems to me.
>
> > > > i
> > > > personally look forward IMMENSELY to the group 0/-1/-2 vampires of the
> > > > Dark Ages expansion!
> > >
> > > Not speaking about groupings, I would look forward to Dark Ages too. But
> > > this is an entirely different thing !! Can't you see ? Dark Ages would
> be a
> > > totally different and mostly uncompatible (except for some neutral cards
> I
> > > guess) extension,
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. i used to think like you. Groupings now makes me
> > think the whole thing could be done in such a way that ALL the
> > expansions could be compatible. i'ld prefer that.
>
> Dark Ages could be compatible with everything in term of Library cards
> except guns and modern vehicles / weapons, I guess, but vampires would have
> to be changed. Also, what about the Sabbat / Camarilla cards, including
> Crusades (there were Princes) ? What about modern Bloodlines ?
i think there are several possible ways round this. If i were on the
design team [i'm not] i would be thinking about a meta-rule or Big
Master card which abolished sect, or possibly a general text on all
the vampires: "Dark Age [sectless]".
>
> > by the way, Group 0 wouldn't exist because it would allow
> > > mixing with Group 1...).
> >
> > Sure, what's wrong with that?
>
> Well, if it's done in the minus it would be so as not to miw them with
> existing extensions. Also, why make it compatible with old vampires rather
> then new ones ? I wouldn't see the point for that.
i think the idea would be that the old vampires could have known the
oldest ones, but the young ones couldn't .... so that would set limits
to their ability to form coteries. But then the different coteries can
get together for some good ol' anachronistic fun.
>
> > People who don't want to play Dark Ages won't HAVE
> > > to, and it would be more like in the RPG : "well, what do we play
> tonight,
> > > Dark Ages or modern times ? Of COURSE you can't play you DA Crusader in
> New
> > > York 2003 !!!).
> >
> > Alright, but you know as well as i do that in the typical RPG session
> > it is the clash between the ancient and the modern which is half the
> > fun. Groupings imposes a certain integrity upon that in the card game,
> > so i'ld have thought it would be welcomed with open arms by the
> > RPGers.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand you point here, care to develop ?
Sure, my point is that the groupings rule, probably unintentionally,
essentially gives you a limited pool of vampires from which to pick
your coterie [crypt]. Roughly speaking, if you go for group 1/2 you
are working with one temporal snap-shot of vampiric society, and if
you go for group 2/3 then you are choosing a later one.
>
> > I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it would
> > > be a smart commercial move, and still respectful to the players.
> >
> > Right, so we agree, basically. i knew we would.
>
> Sure, can't disagree on everything, can we ? ;-)
> And we both enjoy playing, and the perspective of new, fun ways to play ;
> where we don't agree about is what exactly would or wouldn't be fun to play.
OK, if you say so. But it's still not completely clear to me that we
DO disagree. i think you have read something into WW policy which i
don't see.
>
> > What
> > > wouldn't be is getting into WotC stuff like "buy the new extension or
> you
> > > can't play (or at least not as well as the ones who will).
Here's the bit with which i agree in principle, and here's the bit
that i don't think IS part of WW policy, in fact quite the reverse.
Do you get
> the
> > > difference in my book ?
> >
> > Not really, and sorry if i am being dim ... but i just don't see that
> > ANY of the old decks i built has been nuked by the new expansion,
> > rather it seems to me a load of old cards that were gathering dust in
> > my folders suddenly look awfully tasty, and that this would be true
> > whether or not i had bought new cards.
>
> See arguments above. Some Group 3 clans are not that good, say, many people
> prefer the Group 1 titled Ventrue (except if they play Obf), so mine
> wouldn't gather too much dust. But for what is to follow, time will tell...
Some group 3 clans are not as good at group 1 at certain things, but
they are better at others. eg Ventrue; lots of stealth in group 3,
more compatibility with !Ventrue, but less raw voting power.
Different, i suggest, but equal - and you need different strategies to
bring this out.
>
> > > > You also need to think about Scott's Big Project of reintegrating ALL
> > > > the cards into the game,
> > >
> > > I don't know about that. What is it about ? Has it been said on the
> Dev's
> > > Chat ?
> >
> > Not on developer's chat AFAIK, but it's kinda obvious from what he has
> > done in rehabilitating Rowan Ring, the Monocle and Concealed weapon.
> > i'm sure he would like to go further, if he could and if the new cards
> > could be balanced. i will say no more.
>
> Hum, inside info for sure... ;-)
Well, not exactly. Scott and i had a little private chat at Zopfcon
while he was preparing Aidan's grits and i was making coffee. Scott
plays his cards close to his chest so i am really not sure whether i
am encouraging him to do something which is already underway, or
lobbying for him to start doing it. In other words, i am saying no
more so as not to create TOO much misinformation.
>
> > > > and think about how that could be done, it
> > > > seems to me. Meanwhile, i recommend putting less of that tasty crack
> > > > cocaine into your next glass of pastis ;-)
> > >
> > > LOL. I take my pastaga pure with ice, it's quite enough.
> >
> > What, not even water? <awestruck silence>
>
> What for ????
>
> Ok, most of the time I put water in it. By the way, ever tasted Absynthe ?
> :-))
No, but i once fell off a Greek mountain after a night of drinking
Raki [similar but worse]. Next time we meet i will show you the scar.
>
> > But seriously, I
> > > don't feel like the one who's been smoking crack here. Or the drug
> addict.
> > > But some people here obviously are addicts, and want their dope no
> matter
> > > how badly cut.
> >
> > i'll confess to being an addict, right enough. i don't accept that i
> > patronise dodgy pushers.
> > >
> > > I don't.
> >
> > Cool, so you are sticking to the best-cut dope and you aren't an
> > addict, right? ;-)
>
> LOL. Damn it, I'm unmasked.
>
> Orpheus, glad to be able to talk politely and without personnal attacks.
No problem, i think you WOULD have a point if grouping did the things
you seem to think it does. i, however, see the situation in much less
apocalyptic terms and, in fact, have come to regard grouping as a
really cool new game mechanic.
LSJ
> I never said I had no idea. I said I am no playtester,
"I am no playtester" is equivalent to "I have no idea", since the only people
who have any idea are the ones who are bound by a non-disclosure agreement
not to tell you anything about it.
--
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/
vermillian
> Another thing comes in mind.
> 15% of Vtes sales are made in France (dixit : WW ceo in an interview in
> french mag "Black Lotus", assuming my memory is correct).
>
> For such a small country, regarding to the huge potential of US, it is a
> huge number.
>
> Let's see what happened some times ago with Magic. This CCG has been the
> most sold in France (I'm not considering Pokemon which is not the same
> marketing target). Expansions after expansions, WotCoast introduced a nasty
> selling system with Type1 and Type2. Tournaments are now almost exclusively
> played in Type 2. The definition of Type 2 is : a combination between the
> last 3 or 4 expansions sold in store.
>
> By this way, regarding the frequency of new expansions apparition, players
> wanting to play in tournaments are OBLIGED to buy new expansions to stay at
> the level.
>
> NOTHING can let us think such a commercial way will NOT be attempted when we
> will have groupe 4, 5, 6, which could occur, cause Vtes is well-sold around
> the world (dixit WW ceo...).
>
> As it is well-sold, it must be encouraged that way, taken care of. That is
> what the game brainers are doing (thank you LSJ...) by being there to answer
> to players, to introduce a community aspect in the game etc... But the
> commercial and marketing departments, in order to have the game grow, need
> to improve the sales. This is called the Raisonnement Marginal in economy
> (in french. Dunno the translation. Will never work in US -( ).
>
> SO, it is POSSIBLE, in few years, as the game will sales better again, that,
> in order to sale it better, such a "magic-style" tournament rule appears,
> letting us play only with some group vampires. In this case, we will be
> OBLIGED to buy expansions.
Technically, we wouldn't... we'd be forced to purchase the new cards
for the vampires... library cards have no markings... this isn't a
HUGE deal, as we could always just trade for 12 vampires from someone
else.
> As nothing of this could merely happen if no other group 5 and more are
> sold, I think it is clever to tell WW that some people want to buy
> expansions, merely if they are well designed like those ones we have got for
> the moment, but don't want to be obliged to buy them.
>
> One more time again, I'm just talking about a correlation to Orpheus'
> reflexion, and I thought people should think of that.
>
> Vtes won't live forever if it doesn't succeed in acquiring new players.
What does grouping have to do with aquiring new players?
> Let's think what are the ways a CCG company has got to get them, and for
> that, look at the competitors' marketing actions, as companies often copy on
> each other.
~SV
vermillian
Well, that's not true... If each of those extra vampires have very
little continuity with other vampires, so be it. But if we reach the
DAV status, that's a bit much.
But to be honest, I think there needs to be more (larger capacity)
vampires of any given clan. It makes it possible to work some combos
(like, as for now, there are NO Malkavians with necromancy. Not
fair.).
~SV
vermillian
> Hello all,
>
> I have been assured that some group 4 Camarilla vampires will come out in
> the Anarchs.
Assured huh?
> Whether this is true or not isn't the point here (I'm not a playtester so
> can't be sure ; if I was I wouldn't speak about it yet).
Then why bring it up?
> If you want to
> discuss it start a new thread. A few Group 4 Camarilla vampires isn't
> dramatical, it's just useless (they just re-released group 2 Cammies, and
> now you can't mix them anymore with the enw vampires ?!).
They did that so newbies could have access to them.
> But it needs to
> STOP NOW !!!
Please provide reasons for why you're posting something that's
essentially flame bait. As it is, this post resembles, closely, a
troll. If so, I'll admit, I'm troll bait.
> The reason why I'm launching this now and not waiting for Anarchs is that I
> guess game conception needs time, and that by then the new extension will
> already be thought over. So I'm launching an ultimatum and a petition HERE
> and NOW :
>
> I, Orpheus, Prince of Marseille, France, hereby declare that if any
> GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
> out, I will :
>
> - stop buying new products
> - resign from my Princeship
What about independent vampires? So if any G4 Indies come out you'll
quit too? I'd like to know. Its important.
> I ask EVERYBODY who shares these feelings to add a "me too" to this thread.
Come now, that's bad nettiquette. This is looking more and more like a
troll...
> If White Wolf sees that a product designed to "force us to buy" has the
> opposite effect, I think and hope that they will stop the insanity NOW.
Please provide support of your arguements.
> Up
> until now they have heeded our thoughts and needs, more or less, so we have
> to show them what we want, or rather what we DON'T WANT !!!
>
> I must say that I still love this game (just wait to see my new site...)
Good.
>, am
> still motivated to continue my job of promoting it, and for now will still
> encourage people to buy new extensions. But I also know what will the
> difference in sales will be the day when I won't. Or, for that matter, the
> day when any of my players will see Group 5 Cammies or Group 4 Sabbat.
>
> It's up to us, guys, let's show the businessmen what we want.
What do you want? Why do you want it?
> Sincerely yours, and more than a little pissed off,
Any one more than a little pissed off about a game needs to take a
walk in the park, clear your head and not think about card combos...
It helps me out alot from time to time. Maybe you should try it?
~SV
vermillian
> Indies are to be thrown away and replaced, OR there is no interest in buying
> new vampires. It would stink, and there is no valid reason to this that I
> can see. Same can be said with Group 5, which would render obsolete all the
> new vampires that just came out. That, for me, would be the proof of the
> "screw you" politics. And PLEASE don't tell me that old vampires would still
> be tournament legal, we all know where it will end if we start on that road
Um... No I'm afraid I don't know where that will lead...
Could you please elaborate with careful reasoning.
~SV
Snapcase
> legbiter wrote:
> >
> > The project is the rehabilitation of the banned/useless list through
> > rewording. Already we have Concealed weapon, Rowan ring, Patagia and
> > Monocle of clarity back.
>
> I see. If that's what it is, then I have to say I'm against it. Or at
> least, I'm against bothering to try and dredge up every old, forgotten
> card and attempting to do something about it. Every single one of these
> puppies is another card that has copies out in the card population that
> don't do what they SAY they do. That's bad!
Why? If it's an entirely useless card (Oxford University for
example), people aren't using the old copies anyway. When they
reprint it, it's just like they had printed a new card. It ALSO has
the advantage of already being in circulation so people can use the
old copies as well as the new copies (just have to remember what it
does or use a marker on it or something).
> It's quite another to
> take an underpowered piece of wallpaper which is doing relatively little
> harm except serving as a laughing stock and a good example of how NOT to
> design future cards and turn it into a true negative.
How is it a "true negative" that Rowan Ring is a legal card again? Or
that Oxford University actually has a place in some decks now?
> Worse, I feel like the reprints I'm see are getting rather spotty play-
> testing at times, leading to a worse game rather than a better one
Examples?
-Snapcase
jspektr
> Though i accept the right to protest, i STILL find this particular
> spat bewildering. You can still play all your old decks. If you want,
> you can spice them up with some of your old cards that you wouldn't
> otherwise have played. People who invest in CE won't necessarily be
> able to make better decks than you can, because of grouping. So you
Personally, the grouping rule irritates me because I'm left with a
choice of either not using my old vampires, or not buying new
vampires. You can't do both, unless you want to maintain two separate
collections of vampires that you can't mix, which seems a bit
ridiculous to me. End result? White Wolf has told me they don't want
me as a customer, and I am willing to cooperate with them.
What is bewildering about people being mad about WW telling them they
can't play with the new toys unless they put away their old toys? Just
because you really like the old toys shouldn't mean you're excluded
from everything that will come out from now on.
JSpektr
jspektr
> orph...@wanadoo.fr writes:
>
> >GROUP 5 vampire, or any Sabbatic (or Bloodlines) GROUP 4 vampire ever comes
> >out, I will :
>
> >- stop buying new products
> >- resign from my Princeship
>
Do you know what other solutions there were for fixing it? It would
seem to me that claiming it is best, when it's the only solution
that's been presented, is a bit excessive.
For all we know, there were dozens of solutions that were much better
than grouping. Just because you don't know what those solutions are,
doesn't mean they don't exist.
> There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start
> the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I
You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and
Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40,
along with tons of staple cards.
Or you could do like we do, and give away vampires and commons to new
players. I have a huge box of commons, uncommons and vampires that I
let all our new players go through and take what they want. Seems like
they don't have to be very rich at all to play without grouping.
> will continue to enthusiastically support V:tES as long as
> WW continues with it's excellent work at improving
> balance and playability with great ideas like grouping.
From my perspective, grouping reduces playability. It reduces the
number of combinations of vampires that can go into a crypt, and
personally, I don't see the claimed benefits that are supposed to
offset this huge limitation. Many people are ignoring the grouping
rules, and so far none of them report any problems. That may be
evidence that White Wolf was simply incorrect in their assumptions
that grouping was necessary.
> I'll even support it more enthusiastically by pointing out
> to newbies that grouping is making suitcases quit
> because they can't lord it over the newbies with their
> collections. I'll probably buy more too.
I think people with large collections might be quitting because WW has
told them they can't use their old cards with the new cards. Their
motivation for buying new cards is gone, and for some people the game
stops being fun when they stop getting new cards. Maybe you do have
old players that "lord it over newbies" but we don't here, and I'm not
even sure how having lots of rares gives them that much of an
advantage. Rares in VTES make trick decks easier, but in my experience
it rarely makes them better than a focused deck made from commons.
>
> Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group.
> That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes
> substantially over this the game is in serious trouble.
Why? What kind of trouble would that create?
JSpektr
Derek Ray
<196f2577.02110...@posting.google.com>, jspektr mumbled
something about:
> legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message
> news:<22fea992.0211...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Though i accept the right to protest, i STILL find this particular
>> spat bewildering. You can still play all your old decks. If you want,
>> you can spice them up with some of your old cards that you wouldn't
>> otherwise have played. People who invest in CE won't necessarily be
>> able to make better decks than you can, because of grouping. So you
>
> Personally, the grouping rule irritates me because I'm left with a
> choice of either not using my old vampires, or not buying new
> vampires. You can't do both, unless you want to maintain two separate
> collections of vampires that you can't mix, which seems a bit
> ridiculous to me. End result? White Wolf has told me they don't want
> me as a customer, and I am willing to cooperate with them.
This is a blatant misstatement of the facts.
You can use the old vampires. Or the new. Just not both AT THE SAME TIME.
You can maintain an "old" crypt for a deck, and a "new" crypt for the same
deck. Depending on which vampires you choose to include, the focus of the
deck could change entirely.
End result? Much ado about nothing.
> What is bewildering about people being mad about WW telling them they
> can't play with the new toys unless they put away their old toys? Just
Because that's not what WW told you.
That's just what you WANT WW to have told you, so you can have a good old
foot-stamping tantrum over your toys. But they didn't.
> because you really like the old toys shouldn't mean you're excluded
> from everything that will come out from now on.
But you're not. Tension in the Ranks works great with Anvil and Don Cruez.
You can still bring Didi, Ozmo, Gilbert, and Mariel to a tournament and
play the good old OBF/DOM stealth-bleed bonanza.
I'm willing to bet that none of the library cards in the new set say
"Playable only by a group 3+ vampire."
-- Derek
Derek Ray
something about:
> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message
> news:<20021102145923...@mb-mc.aol.com>...
>>
>> Grouping is a brilliant idea, the best fix for a hard problem.
>
> For all we know, there were dozens of solutions that were much better
> than grouping. Just because you don't know what those solutions are,
> doesn't mean they don't exist.
However, I note that you haven't come up with one yet, weren't able to at
the time, and it's no longer relevant since grouping IS here and it's now a
dead subject.
Grouping was a good solution. Maybe not the best, but it didn't suck.
>> There's no way I could honestly suggest new players start
>> the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I
>
> You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and
> Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40,
> along with tons of staple cards.
This won't help at all when I haul out my copies of Artemis, Olivia, and
other Sabbat-only vampires.
Not to mention that not everyone has access to the Internet, not everyone
has access to eBay, and not everyone is willing to purchase from eBay.
> Or you could do like we do, and give away vampires and commons to new
> players. I have a huge box of commons, uncommons and vampires that I
> let all our new players go through and take what they want. Seems like
> they don't have to be very rich at all to play without grouping.
Not everyone has a playgroup with plenty of vampires and commons to give
away. It shouldn't be a criteria that you HAVE to get freebies from
someone (see "twinked up in EQ") in order to play.
>> will continue to enthusiastically support V:tES as long as
>> WW continues with it's excellent work at improving
>> balance and playability with great ideas like grouping.
>
> From my perspective, grouping reduces playability. It reduces the
Your perspective as a new player who hasn't seen the abominations that can
be produced by someone who really wants to put effort into it, you mean?
> number of combinations of vampires that can go into a crypt, and
> personally, I don't see the claimed benefits that are supposed to
> offset this huge limitation. Many people are ignoring the grouping
What, you mean the ones where a new player doesn't have to compete with a
dial-a-crypt of the midrange vamps, including a bunch that he's never seen
before? I doubt anyone, yourself especially, has REALLY taken a good look
at the problem. I don't think it's so much the weenie hordes being a
problem as it is the mid-range guys, personally.
> rules, and so far none of them report any problems. That may be
> evidence that White Wolf was simply incorrect in their assumptions
> that grouping was necessary.
Daniel Figuerido is the only person I've seen openly state that he's
ignoring the grouping rules. I submit that the opinion of one playgroup is
insufficient "evidence" for anything.
>> I'll even support it more enthusiastically by pointing out
>> to newbies that grouping is making suitcases quit
>> because they can't lord it over the newbies with their
>> collections. I'll probably buy more too.
>
> I think people with large collections might be quitting because WW has
> told them they can't use their old cards with the new cards. Their
I think you're wrong. As stated in a previous message, that's not what WW
has told them at all, and anyone who quits for those reasons has not really
thought about things at all.
> motivation for buying new cards is gone, and for some people the game
> stops being fun when they stop getting new cards. Maybe you do have
I think the game is 8 years old, and a set was just released that didn't
have that many new cards for veterans to purchase. No, I imagine they
AREN'T buying that much of the new set. It wasn't aimed at them, unlike
the previous THREE.
I think a lot of veterans are having Real Life(tm) overtake them. This game
is 8 years old, and appealed mostly to college students anyway at its peak.
This makes the average player age something above 25.
Two of our local players have brand-new children. They're out of the
picture for the foreseeable future. Three just got married. So much for
THAT free time. Two have moved away recently. One is about to.
None of this was caused by the Camarilla Edition, and absolutely none of it
was caused by the grouping rules.
> old players that "lord it over newbies" but we don't here, and I'm not
> even sure how having lots of rares gives them that much of an
> advantage. Rares in VTES make trick decks easier, but in my experience
> it rarely makes them better than a focused deck made from commons.
Having 40 Freak Drives can be a pretty damn solid advantage.
>> Currently there's about 15 vamps per clan per group.
>> That's exactly where it should stay. If any group goes
>> substantially over this the game is in serious trouble.
>
> Why? What kind of trouble would that create?
When the optimal crypt for a given deck type includes vampires from
hard-to-get previous expansions, it's pretty damn easy to see that this
screws new players with no access to those same hard-to-get previous
expansions. eBay is not the answer, and never will be.
-- Derek
Thomas Pichler
>
> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote in message
> news:<20021102145923...@mb-mc.aol.com>...
> > the game without grouping (unless they're very rich). I
>
> You could direct them to eBay, where they can get all the Jyhad and
> Dark Soveriegns vampires they could possibly want for around $40,
> along with tons of staple cards.
>
Won't she be happy when group 4 Sabbat vampires arrive and she doesn't
need to chase down the in some cases dearly expensive group 2 ones?
Thomas