Tom: Spirit link question
EricH10182
are about to kill him.
Now, if he were at, say, 5, and my spirit linked (to him) shivan dragon
attack, would he die before his points were added to his life?
Please E-mail if possible
thanx,
Dave
Russ Allbery
>Now, if he were at, say, 5, and my spirit linked (to him) shivan dragon
>attack, would he die before his points were added to his life?
Nope. He gets the life immediately when the damage is done, so he
lives.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@platinum.gvg.tek.com) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost [J.R.R. Tolkien]
Tom Wylie
>Often, my friend spirit links my creatures to neutralize them when they
>are about to kill him.
>Now, if he were at, say, 5, and my spirit linked (to him) shivan dragon
>attack, would he die before his points were added to his life?
Remember that players' life totals aren't check until end of phase, or
start or end of attack. While there's a brief pause between your taking
the damage from the dragon and your gaining the life from it, the life gain
will have offset the damage before you're checked for 0 life.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
David Kelman
receive the card?
David Kelman
kel...@fconvx.ncifcrf.gov
David Cody
David Cody
Dragon*Con
Tom Wylie
> Is it still possible to send in the postcard for the DragonCon card and
>receive the card?
Yes. None of the DragonCon cards have been sent out yet.
David Bedno
>David Kelman <kel...@ncifcrf.gov> wrote:
>> Is it still possible to send in the postcard for the DragonCon card and
>>receive the card?
>
>Yes. None of the DragonCon cards have been sent out yet.
So what did DragonCon do to get a special card made up?
If I wanted to print an "official" magic card of my very own, how much
would I have to pay?
David, thinking evil thoughts...
--
David Bedno drs...@gorn.iuma.com
Disclaimer: I speak for myself, unless you agree with me.
Conjunction junction, what's your function?
William Hunter Adams IV
>> Is it still possible to send in the postcard for the DragonCon card and
>>receive the card?
>
>Yes. None of the DragonCon cards have been sent out yet.
Gasp!! Why not? The Con was over six weeks ago. When will you
send them? Are you waiting for all the postcards to come in to mail one
big shipment? I guess I could understand that you wouldn't want them to
come trickling out, causing a collector frenzy, but it's been close to two
months. Guess I'm just a little anxious to get mine-- Whelen is my fav
artist.
Hunter Adams
--
William Hunter Adams IV | Ford:"It's unpleasently like being drunk."
aka. Pockets | Arthur:"What's so bad about being drunk?"
aka. Melinor Dareth | Ford:"Ask a glass of water."
vap...@prism.gatech.edu| ---- "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
RICHARD KENAN
: In article <34qk4l$q...@perv.hal.COM> aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
: >Yes. None of the DragonCon cards have been sent out yet.
: Gasp!! Why not? The Con was over six weeks ago. When will you
: send them? Are you waiting for all the postcards to come in to mail one
: big shipment? I guess I could understand that you wouldn't want them to
: come trickling out, causing a collector frenzy, but it's been close to two
: months. Guess I'm just a little anxious to get mine-- Whelen is my fav
: artist.
Rumor alert! Rumor alert!
Last I heard, Whelan was upset because he donated the art
for the card to WotC with the understanding that the card
would only be given free to DragonCon attendees. Now,
WotC wants to appease their huge market by later on, having
the card appear in an expansion set or in the Revised
edition. Whelan is mad, as he gave them the art for free,
believing that they would be giving the card away for free
as well. The misunderstanding has caused the delay.
This is pure rumor. Anything above that is stated as fact
is in fact pure hearsay. I have absolutely no way of knowing
whether the facts above are in any degree true, and here I
am telling you that.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
Allan T. Grohe, Jr.
> Rumor alert! Rumor alert!
>
> Last I heard, Whelan was upset because he donated the art
> for the card to WotC with the understanding that the card
> would only be given free to DragonCon attendees. Now,
> WotC wants to appease their huge market by later on, having
> the card appear in an expansion set or in the Revised
> edition. Whelan is mad, as he gave them the art for free,
> believing that they would be giving the card away for free
> as well. The misunderstanding has caused the delay.
>
> This is pure rumor. Anything above that is stated as fact
> is in fact pure hearsay. I have absolutely no way of knowing
> whether the facts above are in any degree true, and here I
> am telling you that.
--
I heard a similar rumor from a friend who was one of the directors of
Dragon Con, who said much the same thing.
Allan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan T. Grohe, Jr. On-line/Industry Representative for
iscl...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu KUGAR (Kansas University Gamers
iscl...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu and Roleplayers)
"Farewell, friend. I was a thousand times more evil than thou."
- Michael Moorcock, _Stormbringer_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Howell
>William Hunter Adams IV (vap...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
>Rumor alert! Rumor alert!
>Last I heard, Whelan was upset because he donated the art
>for the card to WotC with the understanding that the card
>would only be given free to DragonCon attendees. Now,
>WotC wants to appease their huge market by later on, having
>the card appear in an expansion set or in the Revised
>edition. Whelan is mad, as he gave them the art for free,
>believing that they would be giving the card away for free
>as well. The misunderstanding has caused the delay.
>Richard Kenan
>Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
>Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
BZZZZZZ!WHEEEEPWHEEEEPWHEEEEP!BZZZZZZZZ!
The above is, in fact, entirely false. I got to talk to Michael at
WorldCon (a very personable and charming guy), and he has given us
permission to redistribute them (since we called him to get that
permission), and is a little sheepish about the actual image, since it's a
rough acrylic, and not as "polished" as he'd like. It's still very cool,
and I can't wait to see the actual card.
Nor is it true, by the way, that the artwork was given to us for free. He
created the work for free for Dragoncon, but they/we just had permission
to use the art. For the larger distribution, we are paying Michael for use
of the work. He still retains the artwork itself.
You guys. :)
--
----+
Dave "Snark" Howell sn...@wizards.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Cyberspace Liaison Emeritus | Managing Editor, Fiction | Professional Wizard
Jazmyn Concolor
Soo..When do we poor unfortunates who didn't get to go to DragonCon for
one reason or another get our chance to order/obtain or even see this card
Michael has created? Who cares if its just one of his rough acrylics. His
'rough' pieces make some other professional artists pieces look like doggie
doo in comparison. I've seen people pay a pile of money for just a rough
pencil sketch of his. He could doodle on a napkin at lunch and someone
would give him $1000.00 for it..:)
(long time Michael Whelan fan)
Donna Yandle
RK> Last I heard, Whelan was upset because he donated the art
RK> for the card to WotC with the understanding that the card
RK> would only be given free to DragonCon attendees. Now,
RK> WotC wants to appease their huge market by later on, having
RK> the card appear in an expansion set or in the Revised
RK> edition. Whelan is mad, as he gave them the art for free,
RK> believing that they would be giving the card away for free
RK> as well. The misunderstanding has caused the delay.
RK> This is pure rumor. Anything above that is stated as fact
RK> is in fact pure hearsay. I have absolutely no way of knowing
RK> whether the facts above are in any degree true, and here I
RK> am telling you that.
The version that I heard is that Whelan is suing WotC because they only have
first rights to the card- meaning that the buyer is paying for the
priveledge to use the image. He may use it only once, unless other rights
are purchased.
-D
... * <- Tribble __ <- Tribble vs. Godzilla
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Dave Howell
> Soo..When do we poor unfortunates who didn't get to go to DragonCon for
>one reason or another get our chance to order/obtain or even see this card
>Michael has created? Who cares if its just one of his rough acrylics. His
I can't tell you yet. Sigh.
Specter
>The DragonCon card will be distributed with Duelist #3.
>
>Any problems Michael may have had with this have been worked out.
Will the ones from DragonCon have a black border and the ones in the
Duelist have a white border? (Or some distinguishable mark?)
>
>Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
>aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Specter
(Gotta get me a Duelist #3)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Eat cheese or die" - Proposed motto for the state of Wisconsin
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tom Wylie
Any problems Michael may have had with this have been worked out.
David Cody
--=> The version that I heard is that Whelan is suing WotC because they
--=> only have first rights to the card- meaning that the buyer is
--=> paying for the priveledge to use the image. He may use it only
--=> once, unless other rights are purchased.
This is BS. Mr. Whelan and WotC are on friendly terms. Look for the
D*Con card as soon as WotC can get it printed and mailed out.
David Cody
Dragon*Con
Cedric Chin
|>
|> And now I know the truth: If you bitch and moan enough, WotC with give
|> you what you want. First the 94 Sampler and then the promo cards in the
|> magazines and now this.
Bitch some more. I still don't have any friggin' mana drains...
Cedric.
Rich Shipley
: Does bring up an interesting question. Will the Duelist card have a white or black
: border? I am presuming the Dragoncon card will have a black border.
Since neither the DragonCon card or Duelist #3 have been shipped, I would
assume thay are going to be the same card. It also seems that promo cards
are hard to fit into the production schedule and probably also expensive
to produce the plates for. They may use this same card to satisfy the
other magazine promos also or just drop the idea entirely after this.
Rich
Tom Wylie
to the 10000 distributed via DragonCon. The folks at DragonCon said that,
but there was never an agreement to that effect, and they didn't have any
business trying to dictate whether more of the cards would be printed
or not. *I* thought WotC had decided not to print any more, but I guess
I was just listening to DragonCon hype or something.
Travis Eaton
>
> And, now another reason to join DC; to insure that I get my copy
> of Duelist #3. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't know about that. I joined DC several months ago (already
had duelist #1), they sent me the Duelist Supplement, but I'm still
waiting to get Duelist #2. I wouldn't say that it would insure
that you'll get a copy of Duelist #3......
Nice folks though. They sent me the rules to Jyhad and then Wizards
of the Coast delayed shipments of Jyhad (from the retailer that I
preordered and prepayed for Jyhad). So for four weeks now, I've
been able to read the rules and follow the discussion(s) on the net,
but I can't play the damn game!
But Wizards of the coast will say, "Not our fault, it is our
distributors!" "Then get new distributors!!"
> David Bedno drs...@gorn.iuma.com
> Disclaimer: I speak for myself, unless you agree with me.
> "There is only one serious question. And that is: Who knows how to
> make love stay?" - Tom Robbins, _Still Life With Woodpecker_
--
Travis Eaton
tra...@zexel.com
Mike VandeBunt
>Tom Wylie (aa...@hal.COM) wrote:
>: The DragonCon card will be distributed with Duelist #3.
>: Any problems Michael may have had with this have been worked out.
>: Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
>: aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>As someone who was at DragonCon, I don't like it. Why did we get our
>limited edition, "only 10,000 printed" cards, only to have them
>distributed in a magazine later on?
So. Has WotC said that they are printing more than 10,000 of this card?
All they said is that it is being distributed in the magazine.
--
Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va...@mixcom.com
Mike VandeBunt
>In article <35q4rj$k...@cronkite.cisco.com>, dbe...@cisco.com (David Bedno) writes:
>|>
>|> Well, as someone who had never heard of DragonCon, and couldn't have
>|> travelled halfway across the country to get 1 card anyway, I'm
>|> thrilled that they're reprinting it.
>Well, I'd be more thrilled if it were reprinted in RV or an expansion.
>I'm not paying $3.50 for a card.
>Cedric.
Evidently you are such an expert (the term godlike comes to mind) that you
would not be able to get any value from the $3.50 magazine. I figure the
card is free, and the magazine has plenty of good (IMHO) information.
David Allen
: I agree. This is just complete BS. It's the final straw that makes
: me never want to go to DragonCon again, and recomend all of my friends
: to avoid it likewise. My enemies on the other hand...
Why blame DragonCon for this? WotC made the promise, not DragonCon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Allen
Columnist, The Digital Frontier
dal...@infi.net
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite overreaction."
- Allen's Corollary to Newton's Law
David Allen
: Once again: WotC never claimed that the DragonCon card would be limited
: to the 10000 distributed via DragonCon. The folks at DragonCon said that,
: but there was never an agreement to that effect, and they didn't have any
: business trying to dictate whether more of the cards would be printed
: or not. *I* thought WotC had decided not to print any more, but I guess
: I was just listening to DragonCon hype or something.
It would seem that there is a serious lack of information on this topic. In
the absence of facts, rumour, hearsay, and gossip will fill the void. It
would behoove WotC to issue a statement addressing all the concerns raised
in these posts. It would certainly be good for business, and in keeping with
my general impression of the company thus far. If DragonCon has made
incorrect statements then these issues must be addressed.
Tom, please pass along our concerns and ask the powers that be if they might
clarify the matter.
GN6...@univscvm.csd.scarolina.edu
havent heard at all that anyone has recieved theri Dragoncon Cards in
the mail. My best friend went there and he still hasnt gotten his.
Has anyone recieved their card?
Jerrod Bloodwulf
Tom Wylie
>It would seem that there is a serious lack of information on this topic. In
>the absence of facts, rumour, hearsay, and gossip will fill the void. It
>would behoove WotC to issue a statement addressing all the concerns raised
>in these posts. It would certainly be good for business, and in keeping with
>my general impression of the company thus far. If DragonCon has made
>incorrect statements then these issues must be addressed.
I'll bring it up with "the powers that be".
Tom Wylie
>Nice folks though. They sent me the rules to Jyhad and then Wizards
>of the Coast delayed shipments of Jyhad (from the retailer that I
>preordered and prepayed for Jyhad). So for four weeks now, I've
>been able to read the rules and follow the discussion(s) on the net,
>but I can't play the damn game!
>
>But Wizards of the coast will say, "Not our fault, it is our
>distributors!" "Then get new distributors!!"
Actually, I think it's more the printer's fault in this case; the second
shipment of Jyhad (and The Dark, for that matter) theoretically should
have been out by now. And no, we can't just go out and get a new
printing company.
Tom Wylie
>Ichabod (ich...@gozer.psyc.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: I agree. This is just complete BS. It's the final straw that makes
>: me never want to go to DragonCon again, and recomend all of my friends
>: to avoid it likewise. My enemies on the other hand...
>Why blame DragonCon for this? WotC made the promise, not DragonCon.
Which promise, that the card would never be distributed any other way?
Dragon Con made that promise, not WotC, and DC had no business making that
promise, given that no agreement to that effect had been made, and they
have no say, really, in whether it gets redistributed or not.
Joe Cochran
>Which promise, that the card would never be distributed any other way?
>Dragon Con made that promise, not WotC, and DC had no business making that
>promise, given that no agreement to that effect had been made, and they
>have no say, really, in whether it gets redistributed or not.
>
So what was the EXACT agreement between Wizards of the Coast and
Dragon*Con/ACE? What EXACTLY did the contract say? That's the only
way to tell who did what to whom. The rest is just wind and kisses.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
Ichabod
>
>>This is a goof on the part of WotC, *NOT* DragonCon! Don't take out
>anger at someone who didn't have control over the problem!
>
WHAT are you talking about!? DragonCon had total control because DRAGONCON
where the ones that advertised it was never going to be printed again!!!
You trying to tell me that they have no control over THEIR OWN advertising?
DragonCon are the Liars here, not WotC!
--------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, Proprietor
The Game Cave, 11B Elliwood Ave. Charlottesville VA 22903
Please do not reply to this post, send email to:
ich...@lucifer.psyc.virginia.edu
"Character izza what you are inna the dark!" -Lord John Worfin
Tom Wylie
>So what was the EXACT agreement between Wizards of the Coast and
>Dragon*Con/ACE? What EXACTLY did the contract say? That's the only
>way to tell who did what to whom. The rest is just wind and kisses.
I doubt the exact language of the contract is appropriate for release.
All I was told is that WotC never agreed that the card would never be
distributed via avenues other than DragonCon.
Kevin Maroney
>Joe Cochran <js...@megavolt.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>>So what was the EXACT agreement between Wizards of the Coast and
>>Dragon*Con/ACE? What EXACTLY did the contract say? That's the only
>>way to tell who did what to whom. The rest is just wind and kisses.
>
>All I was told is that WotC never agreed that the card would never be
>distributed via avenues other than DragonCon.
>
>
>aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
The language of the contract will be quite appropriate for the small
claims or class-action suit, however.
Note: For the record, I do not have, nor do I want, a DragonCon voucher;
I do not want to see WotC riddled with legal action; I do not like
speculators. However, I think that WotC has brought this problem upon
themselves by allowing (or possibly encouraging) deceptive advertising of
a WotC product.
I want to see the DragonCon card; if it's interesting, I'd like to have
one or four with which to play. However, it was presented, extensively
and publicly, in forums to which WotC had ample access, as a very
exclusive item, and many people transacted business on the basis of this
presentation.
--
Kevin J. Maroney|k...@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
Never send money to someone who has the language skills of a rutabaga.
Jazmyn Concolor
Ichabod <ich...@gozer.psyc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <CwHus...@mail.auburn.edu>,
>Matthew K Mccamish <mcc...@mail.auburn.edu> wrote:
>>Tom Wylie (aa...@hal.COM) wrote:
>>: The DragonCon card will be distributed with Duelist #3.
>>
>>: Any problems Michael may have had with this have been worked out.
>>
>>limited edition, "only 10,000 printed" cards, only to have them
>>distributed in a magazine later on?
>>
>me never want to go to DragonCon again, and recomend all of my friends
>to avoid it likewise. My enemies on the other hand...
Aww..Poor baby..Did your plans to sell your DragonCon card to some poor
shmuck who couldn't make it to DragonCon and make a huge profit go poof.
Frankly I'm delighted that WotC is allowing people another chance to get this
card, since not everyone on the planet can make it to DragonCon, but certainly
most people can subscribe to the Duelist. Its a great marketing idea and I'll
bet the number of people who join the Duelist will rise dramaticly now that
there is such a incintive to join. I for one, sent my membership in a couple
weeks ago. I'm going to get my boyfriend to join as well, since he enjoys the
game for the art as well...
Jazmyn Concolor
>Tom Wylie (aa...@hal.COM) wrote:
>: Once again: WotC never claimed that the DragonCon card would be limited
>: to the 10000 distributed via DragonCon. The folks at DragonCon said that,
>: but there was never an agreement to that effect, and they didn't have any
>: business trying to dictate whether more of the cards would be printed
>: or not. *I* thought WotC had decided not to print any more, but I guess
>: I was just listening to DragonCon hype or something.
>
>
>It would seem that there is a serious lack of information on this topic. In
>the absence of facts, rumour, hearsay, and gossip will fill the void. It
>would behoove WotC to issue a statement addressing all the concerns raised
>in these posts. It would certainly be good for business, and in keeping with
>my general impression of the company thus far. If DragonCon has made
>incorrect statements then these issues must be addressed.
>
someone who has been a con director..:)
(ConFurence Art Show Director-Jazmyn)
David Cody
--=> The issue isn't why someone went to the Con, the issue is that
--=> DragonCon lied in their advertising.
--=> --------
--=> WHAT are you talking about!? DragonCon had total control because
--=> DRAGONCON where the ones that advertised it was never going to be
--=> printed again!!! You trying to tell me that they have no control
--=> over THEIR OWN advertising? DragonCon are the Liars here, not
--=> WotC! --------
--=> Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, Proprietor
Here are some FACTS.
WotC AND Dragon*Con promised a card to every attendee of Dragon*Con
featuring the art of Michael Whelan. 10,000 ONLY would every be printed.
The art for the card was submitted to WotC by their deadline. WotC did
not get the card printed in time and so the postcard/voucher route was
invented.
Here is what I speculate.
When news of the Dragon*Con card spread the collectors raised hell about it
and WotC rethought their postion. This same pressure caused
the cancellation of all the other 'magazine' or 'insert' cards.
One final fact.
WotC had to get Mr. Whelan's permission to print more than 10,000 cards
because 10,000 was all Mr. Whelan agreed to in the first place.
David Cody
Dragon*Con
Ichabod
>Ichabod (ich...@gozer.psyc.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: I agree. This is just complete BS. It's the final straw that makes
>: me never want to go to DragonCon again, and recomend all of my friends
>: to avoid it likewise. My enemies on the other hand...
>
>Why blame DragonCon for this? WotC made the promise, not DragonCon.
You've got it backwards. WotC never made the promise, DragonCon did.
And please read my sig before sending me mail again.
--------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, Proprietor
Ichabod
Jazmyn Concolor <jaz...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <CwI23...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>Ichabod <ich...@gozer.psyc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>I agree. This is just complete BS. It's the final straw that makes
>>me never want to go to DragonCon again, and recomend all of my friends
>>to avoid it likewise. My enemies on the other hand...
>
> Aww..Poor baby..Did your plans to sell your DragonCon card to some poor
>shmuck who couldn't make it to DragonCon and make a huge profit go poof.
>
with my cards, not speculate with them. I don't even care that lots
of other people will have the card and be able to play with them also.
What I care about is being lied to, and that's what DragonCon did.
Ichabod
>
>--=> The issue isn't why someone went to the Con, the issue is that
>--=> DragonCon lied in their advertising.
>--=> --------
>
>--=> WHAT are you talking about!? DragonCon had total control because
>--=> DRAGONCON where the ones that advertised it was never going to be
>--=> printed again!!! You trying to tell me that they have no control
>--=> over THEIR OWN advertising? DragonCon are the Liars here, not
>--=> WotC! --------
>--=> Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, Proprietor
>
>Here are some FACTS.
>
>WotC AND Dragon*Con promised a card to every attendee of Dragon*Con
>featuring the art of Michael Whelan. 10,000 ONLY would every be printed.
>The art for the card was submitted to WotC by their deadline. WotC did
>not get the card printed in time and so the postcard/voucher route was
>invented.
>
I never saw them do so, but I did see DragonCon do so. And we have
denials that WotC ever did. Please support your "fact." Until you do
I won't believe it.
--------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, Proprietor
Chad A. Cooper
Well, since DAvid works for Dragon Con, I have to believe him before I
believe you. and with WoC's track record, I'll believe him before I
believe WoC too.
Chad Cooper
Brian OReilly
>Well, since DAvid works for Dragon Con, I have to believe him before I
>believe you. and with WoC's track record, I'll believe him before I
>believe WoC too.
>
>
>Chad Cooper
Fine, do you think you could believe "DAvid" off on your own somewhere quiet
and not keep saying the same thing over and over again in every post about
this card? Of course I might be wrong, maybe WotC is coercing you into
playing their game and then you would have a point.
--
-------------------/The Muon is a harsh mistress\----------------------------
Evolution is all \ Brian O'Reilly / "Most people have nation-
that separates us > Northwestern University < -alities, Jews and Irish
from the animals./ ir...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu \ have psychoses." (B. Behan)
Steve Thompson
: And now I know the truth: If you bitch and moan enough, WotC with give
: you what you want. First the 94 Sampler and then the promo cards in the
: magazines and now this.
Or, phrased differently, if customers make their wishes known to WotC,
they will try to make their customers happy. It's called customer
service, and it's also called good business sense. And in my opinion,
it's resulted in the three excellent decisions you just mentioned.
Steve Thompson
: >I agree. This is just complete BS. It's the final straw that makes
: >me never want to go to DragonCon again, and recomend all of my friends
: >to avoid it likewise. My enemies on the other hand...
: This is a goof on the part of WotC, *NOT* DragonCon! Don't take out
: anger at someone who didn't have control over the problem!
Um, no, this *is* DragonCon's fault, since they were the ones who claimed
that the card would only be available through them, and that only 10.000
would ever be made. WotC announced, *before* the convention even happened
that they wanted to reprint the card, and were attempting, even then, to
work it out. I've known all along that the DragonCon card would probably
be reprinted. Why? Well, I saw DragonCon claiming it wouldn't be, and I
saw WotC saying that it might be, and I chose to believe WotC. Looks like
I chose wisely.
As you say, don't take out anger at someone who didn't have control over
the problem.
Neal Feldman
> for the card to WotC with the understanding that the card
> would only be given free to DragonCon attendees. Now,
> WotC wants to appease their huge market by later on, having
> the card appear in an expansion set or in the Revised
> edition. Whelan is mad, as he gave them the art for free,
> believing that they would be giving the card away for free
> as well. The misunderstanding has caused the delay.
>
> This is pure rumor. Anything above that is stated as fact
> is in fact pure hearsay. I have absolutely no way of knowing
> whether the facts above are in any degree true, and here I
> am telling you that.
ATGJ> I heard a similar rumor from a friend who was one of the directors of
ATGJ> Dragon Con, who said much the same thing.
Well, I am pissed because AGAIN WOTC is kowtowing to the masses of
players, totally ignoring the market of collectors and traders out there
who on THE GUARANTEES OF WOTC that there were only going to be 10,000 of
the card and it was never to be reprinted at all laid out $40-$160 for
each voucher for the card.... FOR WHAT???!
For WOTC to screw us all anally with a spiked telephone pole by
releasing the card FREE in duellist #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOTC's word means absolutely nothing today. If they say something,
ignore it unless there is no possible way for them to make any more
money or sales by doing it some other way.
... We all have our opinions, but mine is correct.
--
Neal Feldman - via FidoNet node 1:114/9
UUCP: ...!enuucp!stat!edplace!3406!5.0!Neal.Feldman
INTERNET: Neal.F...@p0.f5.n3406.z1.fidonet.org
Chad A. Cooper
: >
: >Well, since David works for Dragon Con, I have to believe him before I
: >believe WoC too.
: >
: >
: >Chad Cooper
: Fine, do you think you could believe "David" off on your own somewhere quiet
: and not keep saying the same thing over and over again in every post about
: this card? Of course I might be wrong, maybe WotC is coercing you into
: playing their game and then you would have a point.
: --
: -------------------/The Muon is a harsh mistress\----------------------------
: Evolution is all \ Brian O'Reilly / "Most people have nation-
: that separates us > Northwestern University < -alities, Jews and Irish
: from the animals./ ir...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu \ have psychoses." (B. Behan)
O.k., point taken. Fact is, I have always been a defender of WoC in the
past and usually taken up for them in these disputes. What I see as the
fundamental issue here is the credebility. Everything else is secondary
in my oppinion. You build good customer relations around honest and
integrety. If I can't believe you, I can't trust you. LEt's say for the
sake of argument, that WoC never said there would only be 10,000 cards.
They saw the Advertisements for Dragon Con and had ample time to say
something about it. ALso, they didn't seek permesion to print more than
10,000 cards from Whelan until well after the Con. The original deal
with Whelan was for 10,000 DragonCon cards to be given out at Dragon
Con. If WoC wanted to reprint the card all along, why were they so late
in getting the rights from Whelan? Inquiring minds want to know. And
yes, I'll limit my post and replies to 1. Although all the post I
responded to said basically the same thing as well.
Chad Cooper
Jazmyn Concolor
>Once again: WotC never claimed that the DragonCon card would be limited
>to the 10000 distributed via DragonCon. The folks at DragonCon said that,
>but there was never an agreement to that effect, and they didn't have any
>business trying to dictate whether more of the cards would be printed
>or not. *I* thought WotC had decided not to print any more, but I guess
>I was just listening to DragonCon hype or something.
>
-maybe- %10 of the people had enough interest in a free Magic;TG card, since
DragonCon isn't a gaming con, but a comic/SF/Fantasy con, then there would be
over 7,000 cards left over, even after a 10,000 print run.
How does this compare to the number of subscribers of the Duelist?
So even if only 10,000 had been printed and assuming speculators didn't buy
all the vouchers from people not interested in the card, then there should be
quite a number of them for the Duelist..
I didn't go to DragonCon due to not being able to afford both it and WorldCon
this year and planned to go next year, but I know from other non-gaming SF cons,
that Magic players are a minority at such cons. If it was GenCon, on the other
hand...
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>
>Well, I am pissed because AGAIN WOTC is kowtowing to the masses of
>players, totally ignoring the market of collectors and traders out there
>who on THE GUARANTEES OF WOTC that there were only going to be 10,000 of
>the card and it was never to be reprinted at all laid out $40-$160 for
>each voucher for the card.... FOR WHAT???!
Uh? Neal? I'm a collector/trader too (as well as a player), and I have
seen nothing from WotC to indicate that they are ruining my enjoyment of
that aspect of Magic:The Gathering. Sure, speculators are hurting, but so
what? It's the price paid when you speculate...it's the nature of the
beast :). Oh, the only guarantee I EVER saw from anyone even remotely
affiliated with WotC was a post which indicated that they would NOT
guarantee that any promo card released wouldn't later be made available
(either through Revised or an Expansion). Incidentally, I find it amusing
that people laid out money for a voucher that, technically, they shouldn't
be allowed to use. After all, the card was meant for DragonCon attendees,
not peole buying vouchers from DragonCon attendees.
>For WOTC to screw us all anally with a spiked telephone pole by
>releasing the card FREE in duellist #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heaven forbid that the speculators lose on an investment. What is the
world coming to. As a collector, I have no problem with this. My Argivian
Archaeologist may one day show up in Revised, I don't care. I have the
Black Bordered one. The Dragon Con card? Well, I'm a student, can't head
off to Atlanta to get it, but I certainly didn't post the vitriol that you
did when you learned it was only available to DragonCon attendees. You
have some sort of need to complain, don't you?
>WOTC's word means absolutely nothing today. If they say something,
>ignore it unless there is no possible way for them to make any more
>money or sales by doing it some other way.
This is amusing. If you believe everything you hear will remain gospel
truth, you're going to have a great deal of difficulty functioning in the
real world in the future. They have made no guarantees beyond 'Card
availability is subject to change, Expansion Sets will NOT be reprinted'.
I haven't seen them break either guarantee yet.
>... We all have our opinions, but mine is correct.
>--
>Neal Feldman - via FidoNet node 1:114/9
I was saving this for my court case with Pendragon Games (should they even
decide to go to court), but it will do here.
Bite me.
-Jeff Franzmann
The above is opinion, and opinion only. If you take it too seriously, you
really need to relax.
--
David Cody
I guess you are being amazingly dense on purpose. Perhaps you have
another axe to grind with regard to Dragon*Con?
Does it mean nothing to you that WotC had to go back to Michael
Whelan and get his permission to print more that 10,000 cards?
I also wonder why your so bent out of shape about this. Did perhaps you
or your business acquire a large amount of vouchers and you are now upset
that they have become devalued?
David Cody
Dragon*Con
Jay Elmore
>Does it mean nothing to you that WotC had to go back to Michael
>Whelan and get his permission to print more that 10,000 cards?
Well, I'm sure the WotC will have to go back and get permission from the
artists to use the artwork for any cards that they plan to use in the
Expansion Sampler or the next revision of The Gathering.
>I also wonder why your so bent out of shape about this. Did perhaps you
>or your business acquire a large amount of vouchers and you are now upset
>that they have become devalued?
Actually, no. He's stated several times that he has no vouchers. He's
just upset that a lot of people are going to take a bath on this without
any apparent explanation.
Of course, I hate speculators myself, as well... and if you speculate
there always is the risk that your investment is going to fall though.
And, just for the record, I have no vouchers, no desire for a voucher,
and was planning to pick up DUELIST #3 for the nifty Phil Foglio art in
What's, New, myself. So :P
Jay (=
--
John W. "Jay" Elmore Jr. | "I've been ionized...
joh...@calvin.linfield.edu | but I'm OK now."
or jel...@netcom.com | --Dr. E. Banzai
David Allen
: Well, since DAvid works for Dragon Con, I have to believe him before I
: believe you. and with WoC's track record, I'll believe him before I
: believe WoC too.
Well, my wife works for the federal government, but that hardly qualifies
her to speak for the United States.
David Allen
: Faith LeFebvre blessed us with this masterpiece of modern thought:
Amen! If it wasn't for all these #$%^%$# speculators, this would be a
non-issue.
The Jester off Win Way
In article <2221.2...@edplace.fidonet.org>,
Neal Feldman <Neal.F...@p0.f5.n3406.z1.fidonet.org> wrote:
>
>Well, I am pissed because AGAIN WOTC is kowtowing to the masses of
>players, totally ignoring the market of collectors and traders out there
>who on THE GUARANTEES OF WOTC that there were only going to be 10,000 of
>the card and it was never to be reprinted at all laid out $40-$160 for
>each voucher for the card.... FOR WHAT???!
Perhaps this might be an appropriate time to point out that WotC is
a gaming company, not an investment house.
WotC does not see any of the money from these $40-400 transactions
that go on among the idle rich.
--
---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---=---
Destroy all video nasties immediately or face Jupiter | Jeff White
fireball in the future! | pwe...@cats.ucsc.edu
-Sister Marie Gabriel (from The Times [London]) +--=---=---=---=---=---
Douglas G. Danforth
and have not seen one mention of what this cards is
or is supposed to do. If people are just going out
and paying $160 dollars they have no idea about
I think they deserve to get ripped off. Common
guys magic tradeing isn't a way to get rich so just
have fun with PLAYING IT!!!
--THe ULtimate D.M.
--
UME Voice, The speech recognition standard for Wall Street.
Frederick Scott
>I guess you are being amazingly dense on purpose. Perhaps you have
>another axe to grind with regard to Dragon*Con?
...and perhaps YOU have an interest in making an accusation to avoid
answering a question.
ich...@gozer.psyc.Virginia.EDU (Ichabod) asked:
>>When did WotC promise that 10000 only would ever be printed?
Since you suggested they did that, why don't you ANSWER THE QUESTION?!?
>Does it mean nothing to you that WotC had to go back to Michael
>Whelan and get his permission to print more that 10,000 cards?
What the hell does this have to do with anything? Having Whelan's permission
to distribute only 10,000 cards is NOT the same thing as promising DragonCon
attendees that only 10,000 cards could ever be printed, now is it?
>I also wonder why your so bent out of shape about this. Did perhaps you
>or your business acquire a large amount of vouchers and you are now upset
>that they have become devalued?
It may be that he did. The motives behind his posts have no relation to
DragonCon's (vs. WotC's) culpability in the issue. On the other hand, maybe
he just hates people with a vested interest deliberately obfuscating the
issue. I know I do.
Fred
Specter
Wait, you'll believe the guy who works for DragonCon, but not the guy
who works who WotC? You've already made up your mind, and nothing, not
even facts (WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN YET!) will ever change it.
Specter
('Round here, we call people like this stubborn.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Eat cheese or die" - Proposed motto for the state of Wisconsin
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Specter
> > Last I heard, Whelan was upset because he donated the art
> > for the card to WotC with the understanding that the card
> > would only be given free to DragonCon attendees. Now,
> > WotC wants to appease their huge market by later on, having
> > the card appear in an expansion set or in the Revised
> > edition. Whelan is mad, as he gave them the art for free,
> > believing that they would be giving the card away for free
> > as well. The misunderstanding has caused the delay.
> >
> > This is pure rumor. Anything above that is stated as fact
> > is in fact pure hearsay. I have absolutely no way of knowing
> > whether the facts above are in any degree true, and here I
> > am telling you that.
>
> ATGJ> I heard a similar rumor from a friend who was one of the directors of
> ATGJ> Dragon Con, who said much the same thing.
>
>Well, I am pissed because AGAIN WOTC is kowtowing to the masses of
>players, totally ignoring the market of collectors and traders out there
>who on THE GUARANTEES OF WOTC that there were only going to be 10,000 of
>the card and it was never to be reprinted at all laid out $40-$160 for
>each voucher for the card.... FOR WHAT???!
You're right. WotC should never kowtow to the umpteen thousand players who
didn't make it to DragonCon and should support the current "I have this
card and you don't! Neener, neener, neener!" policy. If you paid any
money for the card besides the DragonCon registration fee, then I'm _real_
sorry that you lost money, but tough shit.
>For WOTC to screw us all anally with a spiked telephone pole by
>releasing the card FREE in duellist #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such a vivid imagination. You hang out on alt.sex.bondage?
BTW, the card may be free, but you still have to pay for the magazine.
(I know it's only $3.50 instead of the collector only price of $100, but
hey, it seems that WotC _does_ want to keep cards available.)
>WOTC's word means absolutely nothing today. If they say something,
>ignore it unless there is no possible way for them to make any more
>money or sales by doing it some other way.
Kark off. Let me guess. You're one of those slobs who shelled out money
for the DragonCon card hoping to trade/sell it later for an immense
profit. I cry for you. I really do. But mostly, I laugh my ass off.
>
>.... We all have our opinions, but mine is correct.
Prove it. For all I know, you're a highly excited figment of my imagination.
>--
>Neal Feldman - via FidoNet node 1:114/9
>UUCP: ...!enuucp!stat!edplace!3406!5.0!Neal.Feldman
>INTERNET: Neal.F...@p0.f5.n3406.z1.fidonet.org
Specter
(Perhaps you're a bit of beef, or some undigested gravy....)
Ichabod
>another axe to grind with regard to Dragon*Con?
No I'm not being dense. You're contradicting WotC, and I'm asking for
some proof that you're right. Are you so dense that you can't see that?
Sure I have another axe to grind with DragonCon, but I've already ground
that axe elsewhere.
>
>Does it mean nothing to you that WotC had to go back to Michael
>Whelan and get his permission to print more that 10,000 cards?
That means exactly nothing to me. It has no bearing on whether or not
WotC advertised ahead of time or guaranteed in writing that the card would
be limited to con goers. DragonCon and the Duelist being two seperate deals
there could easily be two seperate negotiations. WotC may not have been sure
if they wanted to reprint it at the time of DragonCon, so waited to
negotiate the Duelist deal.
>
>I also wonder why your so bent out of shape about this. Did perhaps you
>or your business acquire a large amount of vouchers and you are now upset
>that they have become devalued?
>
My business did no such thing. I did no such thing. I don't even care that
lots of other people will be getting the card that I thoght was going to
be so rare. What I care about (as I have stated before in this thread) is
that DragonCon lied to me in an attempt to get my money. That really
pisses me off.
--------
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien, Proprietor
Jay Elmore
Neal Feldman <Neal.F...@p0.f5.n3406.z1.fidonet.org> wrote:
> ATGJ> I heard a similar rumor from a friend who was one of the directors of
> ATGJ> Dragon Con, who said much the same thing.
>Well, I am pissed because AGAIN WOTC is kowtowing to the masses of
>players, totally ignoring the market of collectors and traders out there
>who on THE GUARANTEES OF WOTC that there were only going to be 10,000 of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please, show us something _from_WotC_ that says "We will only print
10,000 copies of the DragonCon cards, ever." If I see some proof along
those lines, then I will admit that WotC has screwed up. However, since
everyone seems to reply to calls of "Where did WotC say this?" with
"Doesn't matter, they lied!", I'm going to tend to support WotC.
>the card and it was never to be reprinted at all laid out $40-$160 for
>each voucher for the card.... FOR WHAT???!
For the chance to take a bath when the speculation didn't pan out.
Happens in the stock market all the time.
>For WOTC to screw us all anally with a spiked telephone pole by
>releasing the card FREE in duellist #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep. However, since some of us a) didn't get a chance to go to DragonCon,
and b) figured that the card would show up at some point somewhere else,
we were sensible and saved our money.
Also... what "we", kemosabe? _I'm_ not getting screwed. I didn't pay
diddly for a card voucher which, if I have heard correctly, is
non-transferrable anyway. I'm going to be able to pick up my copy of
Duelist from by comic store (which I get at 20% off, to boot!) and get a
FREE copy of a card that I would have had no other way to obtain.
>WOTC's word means absolutely nothing today. If they say something,
>ignore it unless there is no possible way for them to make any more
>money or sales by doing it some other way.
Sez you. Apparently not everyone thought that the DragonCon card would
never be seen again, or we wouldn't have this problem. I distinctly
remember a post months ago where it said that they were considering
making the card available to Convocation members. I took the hint; why
didn't you guys?
>... We all have our opinions, but mine is correct.
Oh, THAT's mature...
Ichabod
Jay Elmore <jel...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <dcodyCw...@netcom.com>, David Cody <dc...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>I also wonder why your so bent out of shape about this. Did perhaps you
>>or your business acquire a large amount of vouchers and you are now upset
>>that they have become devalued?
>
>Actually, no. He's stated several times that he has no vouchers. He's
>just upset that a lot of people are going to take a bath on this without
>any apparent explanation.
>
am bent out of shape because I was lied to (as far as I can tell) by
DragonCon in an attempt to get my money.
David Zink
gea...@VIPER.ENGR.SCAROLINA.EDU writes:
>In article <35nm0b$r...@perv.hal.COM>, aa...@hal.COM (Tom Wylie) writes:
>>The DragonCon card will be distributed with Duelist #3.
>Specter
>(Gotta get me a Duelist #3)
I think that's the idea (clinking sound of coffers overflowing).
kudelka todd robert
Specter
Well, the latest rumor around here (as opposed to last week's rumors)
has it that the DragonCon dragon is called the Phase Dragon (Summon
Phase Dragon) and it has a casting cost of 2WWGGRRBBUU. It's supposed
to be 10/10 flying, trample, rampage: 2. Also has an upkeep of spending
WGRBU. At least, that's the rumors.
Specter
Specter
Well, I was planning on getting a Duelist #3 before all this happened
(yes, really) for the articles and the Artwork. Also the continuation
of the Mark Poole 'comic'.
Kevin Maroney
Specter <gea...@VIPER.ENGR.SCAROLINA.EDU> wrote:
>Well, I was planning on getting a Duelist #3 before all this happened
>(yes, really) for the articles and the Artwork. Also the continuation
>of the Mark Poole 'comic'.
You mean the really pretentious one with bad grammar and proofreading?
--
Kevin J. Maroney|k...@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
Never send money to someone who has the language skills of a rutabaga.
David Zink
gea...@VIPER.ENGR.SCAROLINA.EDU writes:
>Wait, you'll believe the guy who works for DragonCon, but not the guy
>who works who WotC? You've already made up your mind, and nothing, not
>even facts (WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN YET!) will ever change it.
I believe both of them, since they are in agreement. The DragonCon
guy says WotC definitely told them it was limited to 10,000. And Tom
admits that he may have confirmed this rumor, having been misled by
DragonCon's advertising.
If so, WotC will probably have to wriggle hard to escape the fraud
charges.
Think deeply about the nature of Tom's admission.
Kevin Maroney
The Jester off Win Way <pwe...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>WotC does not see any of the money from these $40-400 transactions
>that go on among the idle rich.
Unfortunately, I have sworn not to contribute to this discussion until
more facts come out, so I cannot point out that presumably WotC mdae
money by licensing the card to DragonCon as a promotional in the first place.
Donald Tsang
>
>Well, I am pissed because AGAIN WOTC is kowtowing to the masses of
>players, totally ignoring the market of collectors and traders out there
>who on THE GUARANTEES OF WOTC that there were only going to be 10,000 of
>the card and it was never to be reprinted at all laid out $40-$160 for
>each voucher for the card.... FOR WHAT???!
I hope WotC is listening, and refuses to send cards to anyone who "paid
for vouchers", which, as I understood, were non-transferrable...
>For WOTC to screw us all anally with a spiked telephone pole by
>releasing the card FREE in duellist #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was released "Free" at DragonCon, too... with the price of registration.
You want to buy my Duellist #3 for $40 when it comes? At least _that's_
clearly transferrable...
Donald
Specter
>In article <365f5b$9...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
>Specter <gea...@VIPER.ENGR.SCAROLINA.EDU> wrote:
>>Well, I was planning on getting a Duelist #3 before all this happened
>>(yes, really) for the articles and the Artwork. Also the continuation
>>of the Mark Poole 'comic'.
>
>You mean the really pretentious one with bad grammar and proofreading?
Yes, that's the one. :)
Tom Wylie
>Will the ones from DragonCon have a black border and the ones in the
>Duelist have a white border? (Or some distinguishable mark?)
As far as I know, the two cards will be indistinguishable. Given the hoops
that Carte Mundi is probably having to jump through to print up copies of
just one card, I don't know that we're going to make them print up two...
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Tom Wylie
>I believe both of them, since they are in agreement. The DragonCon
>guy says WotC definitely told them it was limited to 10,000. And Tom
>admits that he may have confirmed this rumor, having been misled by
>DragonCon's advertising.
>Think deeply about the nature of Tom's admission.
It means that *if* I said it would be limited to 10000 cards - and I don't
know that I did, I was just trying to cut off one possible source of rumors -
then one person - who isn't even an employee of the company, mind you -
had his facts wrong. Having one semi-official person unclear on the
facts doesn't strike me as the basis for a fraud claim.
Frederick Scott
>Let's say for the
>sake of argument, that WoC never said there would only be 10,000 cards.
>They saw the Advertisements for Dragon Con and had ample time to say
>something about it. Also, they didn't seek permesion to print more than
>10,000 cards from Whelan until well after the Con. The original deal
>with Whelan was for 10,000 DragonCon cards to be given out at Dragon
>Con. If WoC wanted to reprint the card all along, why were they so late
>in getting the rights from Whelan? Inquiring minds want to know.
Read my lips: "THEY CHANGED THEIR MINDS". Try to keep in mind here that
WotC's "original intentions" in the matter are irrelevant unless they actually
did something illegal or immoral in the process of changing course. So the
question is not "did they intend to limit their production of the card to
10,000?" but "did they assure anyone that no more than 10,000 would ever be
printed?".
Fred
Fooman
> ATGJ> I heard a similar rumor from a friend who was one of the directors of
> ATGJ> Dragon Con, who said much the same thing.
>Well, I am pissed because AGAIN WOTC is kowtowing to the masses of
>players, totally ignoring the market of collectors and traders out there
>who on THE GUARANTEES OF WOTC that there were only going to be 10,000 of
>the card and it was never to be reprinted at all laid out $40-$160 for
>each voucher for the card.... FOR WHAT???!
I just wanted to point out to the people who keep saying that WOTC lied
when they said only 10,000 cards would be made: did it ever occur to you
that perhaps 10,000 people never even made it to DragonCon? Most cons
I've been to have only seen a maximum of 3500 people. A World Con might
see 10,000 people or more, but I doubt a local gaming convention would ever
hope to see that many people show up. My point being that WOTC are probably
just including the balance of the cards they printed in the Duelist.
Just my $0.02
Mrs. Foo
>For WOTC to screw us all anally with a spiked telephone pole by
>releasing the card FREE in duellist #3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>WOTC's word means absolutely nothing today. If they say something,
>ignore it unless there is no possible way for them to make any more
>money or sales by doing it some other way.
>... We all have our opinions, but mine is correct.
Andrew Brecher
Tom Wylie does not speak for WotC and never has. He has made this abundantly
clear in the past.
-Andrew Brecher (andrew_...@brown.edu) <insert disclaimer here>
Iikka Stephen Matthias Paavolainen
Jazmyn Concolor <jaz...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Frankly I'm delighted that WotC is allowing people another chance to get this
>card, since not everyone on the planet can make it to DragonCon, but certainly
>most people can subscribe to the Duelist. Its a great marketing idea and I'll
Will the card be coming only to subscribers or can us folks over the pond who
don't like to subscribe magazines from the US (due to high shipping costs)
be able to get it when they buy Duelist from the store?
>bet the number of people who join the Duelist will rise dramaticly now that
>there is such a incintive to join. I for one, sent my membership in a couple
>weeks ago. I'm going to get my boyfriend to join as well, since he enjoys the
>game for the art as well...
Iikka Stephen Matthias Paavolainen
Phase Dragon?
Neal Feldman
TW>
TW> Any problems Michael may have had with this have been worked out.
TW>
TW>
TW> Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
TW> aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
What about the problem almost everyone who traded/paid for a voucher has
with it?
I guess we can all just get screwed, eh?
Thanks a lot WOTC!
Maybe someday your word will be worth something... right now I would not
even wipe my bum with it.
... Practice safe eating: use condiments
David Allen
: What about the problem almost everyone who traded/paid for a voucher has
: with it?
: I guess we can all just get screwed, eh?
If you didn't attend DragonCon, then according to the rules you would not be
allowed to get the card (via the voucher). If you bought a voucher, you were
gambling on your ability to deceive WotC into sending you one. It is one
thing to trade somebody for a card, it is another to trade or buy a voucher
that requires you to *lie* in order to get the card. If we are going to
accuse WotC of lying, then let's use the same ethical standard all around.
The card was (is) to be provided *free* to attendees. It takes a pretty low
individual to complain about something they receive free. If you paid for
the voucher or traded for it, see above paragraph.
As to claims and counter-claims made by individuals, no judgement may be
made until the principles (WotC and DC) make statements (that can be
verified as legitimate).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Allen
Columnist, The Digital Frontier
dal...@infi.net
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite overreaction."
- Allen's Corollary to Newton's Law
Fiona Vidal-Hall
very interesting, even if some have not, I'm afraid to say, had the world's
best netiquette.
I'm particularly facinated in the posts of David Cody of DragonCON.
He stated very clearly that WofC promissed that the card would not
reprinted/re-rereleased (which I don't remember), in, I believe, two
separate posts. WofC has stated that they made no such promise.
It seems to me that one of these two parties must be wrong and/or
misinformed.
Unless I'm missing something, the statements of David Cody of
DragonCON, and those of WofC, cannot both be correct.
I'm real curious to know which is correct. I have no desire to see
anyone sue anyone else. I don't even want anyone to badmouth anyone else.
What I _would_ like to see is evidence supporting both DragonCON and
WofC statements -- ideally from members of those organizations.
I would respectfully disagree with the most venerable Tom Wylie that
the contents of the original agreement (if such a thing exists on paper)
would be inappropriate for this forum. Seeing such a document (if it
exists) would be the one thing that might decide this debate.
Clearly assumtions were made by one or more parties that were not correct. And although there has been alot of support for both sides of this debate,
I've yet to see _any_ evidence to support _either_ side.
Having not been involved with any aspect of this, I would like to
confirm one thing that can be easily verified. Did DragonCON, in their
written literature/ads -- well, what exactly did they promise? (This is
_not_ to question their right to make such promises -- I honestly have no
idea.)
I'm really not interested in personal opinions. I'm interested in
facts. ("Just the facts, m'am") Mr. Wylie and Mr. Cody -- I'd love to know
what the original agreement was. Was it written down? (If not, forget this
whole issue.) Are the Duelist Dragon's the other 6,500 - 7,000 Dragons of the
original 10,000? (This can surely be easily confirmed or denied.)
As long as we're dealing with rumours and opinions -- this conversation
can go on forever. For the sake of both civility and internet storage space,
I ask that WofC and DragonCON come forward with some more solid evidence.
Thanks for listening.
Jeremy White
vi...@acs.bu.edu
Brian D. Wilson
>I've been following these posts, which, in their own special way, have been
>very interesting, even if some have not, I'm afraid to say, had the world's
>best netiquette.
>
> I'm particularly facinated in the posts of David Cody of DragonCON.
>
> He stated very clearly that WofC promissed that the card would not
>reprinted/re-rereleased (which I don't remember), in, I believe, two
>separate posts. WofC has stated that they made no such promise.
If you like I can ask David about any agreement next time I talk with him
(we're on the same BBS with about 6 or 7 other of the DC higher-ups...).
The way I read it all through the planning stages and in my chats with David
and others, the idea was to have a card to be given out only at Dragon Con,
to Dragon Con attendees... originally the card was to be given out at DC,
but they didn't have time to get it printed. so we got those keen vouchers
instead.
On a related note, what if my home address has changed since DragonCon?
I've tried to notify liason @ wizards and questions@wizards, and haven't
gotten back a reply. Can anyone help? (tom... :-) ) Thanks!
.
oh yea, I'm using vi.... oops...
--
Brian Wilson -- bwi...@sb.dcs.uga.edu
Remember: Only you can help to destroy the internet! Post often!
Specter
> TW> The DragonCon card will be distributed with Duelist #3.
> TW>
> TW> Any problems Michael may have had with this have been worked out.
> TW>
> TW>
> TW> Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
> TW> aa...@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
>
>What about the problem almost everyone who traded/paid for a voucher has
>with it?
>
>I guess we can all just get screwed, eh?
>
>Thanks a lot WOTC!
>
>Maybe someday your word will be worth something... right now I would not
>even wipe my bum with it.
Check your dictionary. Look up "non-transferable"
Robert J. Greanias
pointless flame-wars on the listserv, and it looks as if you
want to do the same here. Either PROVIDE US with PROOF, not
'public opinion gossip', regarding your allegation that WotC
stated that they would not do what you're bitching about or just
admit you're a bit peeved that you're not going to be making
the money you'd hoped. We all see your auction posts on r.g.d.m,
so we KNOW you've got a financial interest in this.
WotC has no obligation to provide you with a no-risk stock market.
Now before you come back saying 'They DO have an obligation to
uphold their word', you'll have to provide proof that they made the
statements that you're claiming they made. Odds are it's more
the Urban Legend of the DragonCon card you're putting stock in than
any official statement released by WotC.
Perhaps you've lost enough faith in WotC to give up the trade
entirely. Sell off all your cards, as you have no guarentee that
moxes/lotus/GOMs etc won't appear somewhere else - thus devaluating
your precious collection. Bail now Neil! Then you won't have to
worry about 'being screwed' by these WotC folks, and we won't have
to listen to your pre-pubecent whining.
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Question : If a married couple from Iowa move to California and then |
| get a divorce, are they still legally brother and sister? |
| |
| Rob Greanias grea...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
David DeLaney
>Could some kind soul tell me what exactly is on the Dragon*Con card?
>Phase Dragon?
AFAIK nobody but the WotC people know, yet, and they're not telling until
it's officially released. I'm quite sure the first few net-connected people
who get theirs in the mail will all tell us all about it...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableFUTPLEX
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ net.legends FAQ It's Long Past Time (9/13)!!1!
Chad A. Cooper
: I just wanted to point out to the people who keep saying that WOTC lied
: that perhaps 10,000 people never even made it to DragonCon? Most cons
: I've been to have only seen a maximum of 3500 people. A World Con might
: see 10,000 people or more, but I doubt a local gaming convention would ever
: hope to see that many people show up. My point being that WOTC are probably
: just including the balance of the cards they printed in the Duelist.
: Just my $0.02
: Mrs. Foo
That is incorrect, they are printing much more than the initial 10,000 cards.
Chad Cooper
Jeff Scott Franzmann
>What about the problem almost everyone who traded/paid for a voucher has
>with it?
The only problem they will have is getting their card in the first
place, as the vouchers are supposed to be non-tranferable. If you
do manage to get your card, you've committed fraud.
>I guess we can all just get screwed, eh?
Yup. Welcome to the world of speculation.
>Thanks a lot WOTC!
>
>Maybe someday your word will be worth something... right now I would not
>even wipe my bum with it.
They have yet to break their word. They HAVE changed their mind, but
they never promised that the card would be limited to 10,000. They
may have thought that they wouldn't print it again at the time, but
no statement was ever made by WotC to that effect.
SIncerely,
Jeff Franzmann
--
Tom Wylie
>Will the card be coming only to subscribers or can us folks over the pond who
>don't like to subscribe magazines from the US (due to high shipping costs)
>be able to get it when they buy Duelist from the store?
The card will be included with the copies of the magazine sold over the
counter.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
Tom Wylie
>On a related note, what if my home address has changed since DragonCon?
>I've tried to notify liason @ wizards and questions@wizards, and haven't
>gotten back a reply. Can anyone help? (tom... :-) ) Thanks!
The proper place to send this question would be cust...@wizards.com.
All non-rules questions should go there.
Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for
Joseph William Dixon
: Well, I was planning on getting a Duelist #3 before all this happened
: (yes, really) for the articles and the Artwork. Also the continuation
: of the Mark Poole 'comic'.
Well, I could do without the Mark Poole comic, but I joined the Convocation
to get the Duelist subscription because of Foglio's "What's New?" strip -
one of my all-time favorites... :) [of course, I plan on entering any DC
sanctioned tournies in the area :]
IE I too planned on getting #3 long before the announcement of the D*C
card being reprinted...
--
* Joseph W. Dixon *
* aa...@cfn.cs.dal.ca *
Jazmyn Concolor
>In article <365809$6...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>
> gea...@VIPER.ENGR.SCAROLINA.EDU writes:
>>Wait, you'll believe the guy who works for DragonCon, but not the guy
>>who works who WotC? You've already made up your mind, and nothing, not
>>even facts (WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN YET!) will ever change it.
>
can do what they damm well please with their game. DragonCon was just
trying to cash in on someone elses success to promote their convention.
They certainly don't give a damm about the game, just how many people
come to the con and spend money. This is common for most SF cons though
and certainly nothing new or even remarkable..ie. Would you attend a
con with nobodys as the GOHs? Most people wouldn't. Big names attract
people like flies to sh...well...you know what I mean. :)
WotC is a big name that DragonCon used to attract people to the con
and the free cards were just another carrot to hang in front of the
donkey (fans) so to speak..
From the lack of comunication I've seen at cons before, its likely that
DragonCon got their wires crossed in the card deal with WotC. One can't
tell without seeing a writen agreement, providing DragonCon directors had
enough sense to get things in writing..
>I believe both of them, since they are in agreement. The DragonCon
>guy says WotC definitely told them it was limited to 10,000. And Tom
>admits that he may have confirmed this rumor, having been misled by
>DragonCon's advertising.
>
>If so, WotC will probably have to wriggle hard to escape the fraud
>charges.
>
Depends on what was in the 'writen' agreement. If it ain't on paper, it
won't stand up in court.
More then likely, DragonCon wanted a limited card, but never cleared it
with WotC first before advertising. Looks like a screwup on DragonCons
part and not WotC.
Krikket
>David Zink <zi...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I believe both of them, since they are in agreement. The DragonCon
>>guy says WotC definitely told them it was limited to 10,000. And Tom
>>admits that he may have confirmed this rumor, having been misled by
>>DragonCon's advertising.
>...
>>Think deeply about the nature of Tom's admission.
>It means that *if* I said it would be limited to 10000 cards - and I don't
>know that I did, I was just trying to cut off one possible source of rumors -
>then one person - who isn't even an employee of the company, mind you -
>had his facts wrong. Having one semi-official person unclear on the
>facts doesn't strike me as the basis for a fraud claim.
Given all this screaming back and forth as to who promised what, when
were, and how... I'm kinda suprised that one of the people who are
accusing WotC of flat-out-lying to produce a copy of the post in which
the promise was made.
Not that it would effect things, for since as Tom pointed out *IF* he
said it (there is *NO* evidence to this point that he did!) it was in
error. But to continue on making accusations without even consulting
archives seems to be a bit... futile, meaningless, and foolhardy.
I for one would like to see a copy of this alleged message, preferably
complete with message ID's intact.
--
<><><><><><>
Krikket kri...@mcs.com (<- Regular Inbound Mail)
Voice (708)665-9732 an6...@anon.penet.fi (<- True Anon Mail)
Pager (708)319-1977 #include<sig.virus> #include#<std.disclaimers>
Reverend Officer Dr. Pope Douglas L. Krick D.D. Ms.D. Rh.D., Universal
Life Church, Discordian, Assistant Minister of the Church of the
Literate, Keeper of the Sacred Chao, Protector of the Flame, Priest of
the Temple of Wyrd, and Just Generally Holier Than Thou since 1991.
Kevin Maroney
>The card will be included with the copies of the magazine sold over the
>counter.
Cool. I look forward to getting one. (Just for the record.)
har...@ulogic.com
-rmh
har...@ulogic.com
>
>I guess you are being amazingly dense on purpose. Perhaps you have
>Whelan and get his permission to print more that 10,000 cards?
>
Does it mean nothing to you that Dragon*Con did not get an
agreement that WotC couldn't do this?
Unless D*C had it in writing, they had no business making
any assurances about exclusivity.
-rmh
Don Perrin
While flailing on the keyboard, on or about 17:39 26 Sep,
Fooman did bestow upon the world this gem:
> I just wanted to point out to the people who keep saying
> that WOTC lied when they said only 10,000 cards would be
> made: did it ever occur to you that perhaps 10,000 people
> never even made it to DragonCon? Most cons I've been to
> have only seen a maximum of 3500 people. A World Con
> might see 10,000 people or more, but I doubt a local
> gaming convention would ever hope to see that many people
> show up. My point being that WOTC are probably just
> including the balance of the cards they printed in the
> Duelist.
DragonCon had somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 in attendance this year. It is
not a local con. Also, if the circulation of the Duelist is above 30,000, then
the distribution would outstrip the "balance" by 10 to 30 times!
I think that WotC should have kept the card as just a DragonCon card, and gone
with a separate, but equivelent card for the Duelist. It would have kept
everybody happy. If WotC has decided that the DragonCon card is/was a mistake,
just don't repeat the mistake.
This thread has gone way beyond proportion. WotC is a fair and just company. I
believe that they may have made a mistake on this issue, but their past track
record, including inventing such a great set of games (!) should put them
Waaaaaay into the black. Give them a break! After all, they're just giving away
the cards. It's not as if anyone has paid them for the honor of all your
vitriol.
Don Perrin
Jay Elmore
Neal Feldman <Neal.F...@p0.f5.n3406.z1.fidonet.org> wrote:
>What about the problem almost everyone who traded/paid for a voucher has
>with it?
Well, you probably couldn't get a card ANYWAY, since vouchers were
supposedly non-transferable.
>I guess we can all just get screwed, eh?
Guess so. Should have just saved your money and waited like the rest of us!
Jay (=
--
John W. "Jay" Elmore Jr. | "I've been ionized...
joh...@calvin.linfield.edu | but I'm OK now."
or jel...@netcom.com | --Dr. E. Banzai
Sleight of Mind
: Iikka Stephen Matthias Paavolainen <ipaa...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote:
: >Will the card be coming only to subscribers or can us folks over the pond who
: >don't like to subscribe magazines from the US (due to high shipping costs)
: >be able to get it when they buy Duelist from the store?
: The card will be included with the copies of the magazine sold over the
: counter.
The guy at my store promised me that he would lake out all the cards and
sell the magazines for $10 @ and resell the cards for $20. I liken him
to a rectal sphincter.
-rick
--
---
GAT/MU 2.1 d---- H+ s+ g+6 au0 a19 w+++(--) v(---)>* | M:tG
C++++ UAS+++ P+ 3+ L+ E---- N+++(*) K+>+++++ | o
W--- M+$ V-- po--- Y+ t j--IRC G++(++++)>---->+++ | o o
b+++ B- e* u---* h!>++@ f* r++ n+ y-**$ | o o
fingerForTheePGPpublikKey <http://garlic.com/~ribarbe/magic.html>
Joseph William Dixon
: What about the problem almost everyone who traded/paid for a voucher has
: with it?
A) The vouchers are non-transferable, at least according to people who
can post without an insult in every other sentence....
B) WotC said from the start that *ANY* card that they produce is fair
game to be reprinted, the D*C card isn't an exception. [personally, I
would have voted for it to be in the Sampler instead of Duelist - my view
is that the Sampler should contain the previous year's promo cards as
well as expansion reprints]
C) WotC has absolutely no legal responsibility to maintain the "value"
of the cards [which is exactly 1/15th or 1/8th of the booster price, no
matter the rarity, depending on whether it's Revised, Legends or one of
the smaller expansions. Which is, around here, $0.20-$0.30 per card,
Revised. Anything beyond that is pure greed, and WotC barely sees
anything of the retail value of any cards they produce... (I'm guessing
15-30% of retail is what they actually get, but I'm probably wrong on
that point).] In fact, the only legal responsibility they have for their
cards, other than watching out for copyright infringements and making
sure they pay the artists their royalties or commissions, is that each
Booster has 15 cards [for RV & Legends], 8 cards [for the other
expansions], or 60 cards [Starter] in them, no less and no more, and
*that's* only because the # of cards are printed on the packaging [I
*think* - I haven't looked at a booster wrapper recently, and the Starter
Deck box doesn't say how many cards, dunno about the display boxes].
: I guess we can all just get screwed, eh?
You can, if you can actually find a woman who can put up with you, but
personally I'll just wait for Duelist #3 to arrive in my mailbox... *shrug*
: Thanks a lot WOTC!
Yeah WotC! Thanks for doing this favor for the majority of players and
collectors who couldn't go to Dragon*Con or afford a non-transferable
voucer...
: Maybe someday your word will be worth something... right now I would not
: even wipe my bum with it.
And I wouldn't line the bottom of a bird cage with your comments...
[BTW, as has been said before, WotC *never* publicly stated, at least in
r.g.d., that the D*C card would never be reprinted, and in fact, through
Tom, we were given warning that *every* card they produce could be
reprinted at any time.... Besides, for someone's word to be worthless,
they have to knowingly lie, or make a mistake in something they said,
find out about the mistake and not apologize or explain, none of which
actually applies to WotC in this instance]
Joseph William Dixon
: In article <365j6a$9...@panix2.panix.com>, k...@panix.com (Kevin Maroney) writes:
: >You mean the really pretentious one with bad grammar and proofreading?
: Yes, that's the one. :)
Heh, who cares if the grammar is bad, other than English teachers? :)
The speech may be a bit stilted, but is closer to normal modes of speech
than most comics usually are... :)
[still prefer "What's New?", tho, since I've been a fan of it since
about issue 72 or 73 of Dragon Magazine... {:-]
Kevin Maroney
Joseph William Dixon <aa...@cfn.cs.dal.ca> wrote:
> Heh, who cares if the grammar is bad, other than English teachers? :)
> The speech may be a bit stilted, but is closer to normal modes of speech
>than most comics usually are... :)
> [still prefer "What's New?", tho, since I've been a fan of it since
>about issue 72 or 73 of Dragon Magazine... {:-]
Kids today. There's no learnin' 'em.
Bad grammar in a published work of fiction says two things: you don't
know how to use words correctly, and you don't care to find out.
And don't brag about starting Dragon with issue #72. I _ended_ my
ten-year run around #77. (Dragon wasn't monthly when I started getting it.)
Kids.
Terence Lo
[snip]
>*think* - I haven't looked at a booster wrapper recently, and the Starter
>Deck box doesn't say how many cards, dunno about the display boxes].
On the side of my RV Starter box, in small print, 4th line down:
"Contents: 60 cards & rulebook."
Terry.
te...@laue.bioche.ubc.ca