Why so many new rules?

<ashur.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143580893.111192.149860@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Is it only me (and my playgroup) that think the preview of NoR suggests
> a helluva lot new rules? What is the point with this? Is it only to
> confuse the game futher to make it absolutely impossible to learn for
> newbies? I think WW should recognize this problem before its to late.

There's no question from seeing the previews: we're in for some major
rule mechanic feature creep! We won't know until we get the cards and
get used to using them but I suppose there's hope that it isn't _only_ "to
confuse the game further (etc...)". If they turn out to be well thought
out, well balanced, and well tested, there's a fair chance that Imbued
will make the game more interesting for experienced players. However,
you've certainly put your finger on the drawback: the game becomes more
complex and difficult to teach and master. It's only a small margin
of extra difficulty but, yes, it adds up over time if it continues.

I've heard this is a well-known phenomenom of CCGs: in order to keep
people interested, new cards are eventually not enough. The game
company has to add whole new segments to a game which have their own
special rules and terminology: 'advanced' vampires, anarchs, the Black
Hand, Red Listed vampires, trophy cards, events, reflex functions, and
now the Imbued and at least two new types of library cards that go with
them. Sigh. Of course, I look forward to using the new cards but I'm
whistling in the dark about how far this game can go on while continually
adding new chrome.

One thing I sort of think is wrong, though: this much new complexity
seems like a real poor choice for a 60-card "mini-expansion". If
the intent was to put out a new product in less than nine months
and so create a mini-expansion as a fig leaf to claim the nine-month-
between-expansions schedule hadn't been forgotten, I think it would
have been better to pump out a new bloodline or something and keep
the Imbued for its own full-fledged expansion. It just seems like if
you're going to create a whole new class of influenced minions and
multiple new types of library cards to support it, one would tend
to expect way more than 60 new cards to go into it.

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

"XZealot" <xzealot.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1143581697.131102.280800@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> ashur.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Is it only me (and my playgroup) that think the preview of NoR suggests
>> a helluva lot new rules? What is the point with this?
....
> You don't have to play with them if you don't want to.

Bleh. This is a CCG where other peoples' decks count, too. In short,
yes, you certainly do.

Fred
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

> >Is it only me (and my playgroup) that think the preview of NoR suggests
> >a helluva lot new rules?
>
> It might help if you checked to see if anyone else has started a similar
> thread, if you're worried it's only you.

Other people have already stated their worries in other threads, f.i.
Screaming Vermillian in the last NoR preview's sighting.

When NoR comes out we will see if these new rules were really necessary for
card flow or not. But I agree already that this game is becoming very
complicated for a new player.

Time will tell...

Orpheus
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

Why do you doubt I don´t know "what we are talking about"? I see many
new rules and mechanics, and I have problems teaching a good game to
newbies. That is what I talk about.

And don´t give me that "you don´t have to play with the new
stuff"-thing. That doesn´t work in established international
tournament enviroment. And besides, I want the new stuff to be good
stuff, not good and complicated stuff.
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

Fred Scott wrote:
> I've heard this is a well-known phenomenom of CCGs: in order to keep
> people interested, new cards are eventually not enough. The game
> company has to add whole new segments to a game which have their own
> special rules and terminology: 'advanced' vampires, anarchs, the Black
> Hand, Red Listed vampires, trophy cards, events, reflex functions, and
> now the Imbued and at least two new types of library cards that go with
> them. Sigh. Of course, I look forward to using the new cards but I'm
> whistling in the dark about how far this game can go on while continually
> adding new chrome.
>
> One thing I sort of think is wrong, though: this much new complexity
> seems like a real poor choice for a 60-card "mini-expansion". If
> the intent was to put out a new product in less than nine months
> and so create a mini-expansion as a fig leaf to claim the nine-month-
> between-expansions schedule hadn't been forgotten, I think it would
> have been better to pump out a new bloodline or something and keep
> the Imbued for its own full-fledged expansion. It just seems like if
> you're going to create a whole new class of influenced minions and
> multiple new types of library cards to support it, one would tend
> to expect way more than 60 new cards to go into it.

Got to agree with Fred on this one and I posted something similar a
while back. The argument I was presented with was that it's like a
toe in the water and lets the players test some options without the
company committing to a big expansion. If the Imbued don't work or
aren't popular they can discard the concept and it's easy for
tournaments to 'ban' (not really in Jyhad character I know) that set
from the game.
I can't help but look at the WoD range and see a possible trend. WW
have a successful range of products and the new WoD has been generally
well received. They have a successful card game (high in longevity but
no threat to the frantic 2 player games for penetration). Why not WoD
the card game as well? You could easily envisage a Mage card game with
the same basic structure as Jyhad. The core mechanics of Bleed,
intercept, combat, master cards etc would be easily translatable and
you could have a number of game modules that can be used interactively
or stand alone. A mage game or a WoD game where Magi, Vamps and
Werewolves are all allowed. NoR would be an interesting way to test if
that were possible as the Imbued are the cross over group for each game
perhaps the term Monster is deliberately chosen?
The rules would be complex for the full WoD games but fairly simple for
the modules (well at least at first). You could even use this as a
selling point. A relatively simple Werewolf game might encourage new
players to try out and I they get hooked then having 'cut their teeth'
(pardon the pun couldn't resist) on that version there would link into
the other modules which would include the existing Vampire one. They
tried other games ie Rage with little success but it wasn't a great
game. The core mechanics for Jyhad are well tested and so a Werewolf
version of the same game I am sure would shift a few units. On the
tournament front you could run as just Jyhad or Jyhad + Mage or
whatever.
Just an idea .... Hmmm might knock up a dummy mage module just to see
if it integrates
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

ashur.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
> Why do you doubt I don´t know "what we are talking about"? I see many
> new rules and mechanics, and I have problems teaching a good game to
> newbies. That is what I talk about.

Just as a helpful aside, it is always a good idea to quote the relevent
text that you are replying to, so everyone else knows what you are
talking about...

-Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

Fred Scott wrote:
> I've heard this is a well-known phenomenom of CCGs: in order to keep
> people interested, new cards are eventually not enough. The game
> company has to add whole new segments to a game which have their own
> special rules and terminology: 'advanced' vampires, anarchs, the Black
> Hand, Red Listed vampires, trophy cards, events, reflex functions, and
> now the Imbued and at least two new types of library cards that go with
> them. Sigh. Of course, I look forward to using the new cards but I'm
> whistling in the dark about how far this game can go on while continually
> adding new chrome.
>
> One thing I sort of think is wrong, though: this much new complexity
> seems like a real poor choice for a 60-card "mini-expansion". If
> the intent was to put out a new product in less than nine months
> and so create a mini-expansion as a fig leaf to claim the nine-month-
> between-expansions schedule hadn't been forgotten, I think it would
> have been better to pump out a new bloodline or something and keep
> the Imbued for its own full-fledged expansion. It just seems like if
> you're going to create a whole new class of influenced minions and
> multiple new types of library cards to support it, one would tend
> to expect way more than 60 new cards to go into it.

Got to agree with Fred on this one and I posted something similar a
while back. The argument I was presented with was that it's like a
toe in the water and lets the players test some options without the
company committing to a big expansion. If the Imbued don't work or
aren't popular they can discard the concept and it's easy for
tournaments to 'ban' (not really in Jyhad character I know) that set
from the game.
I can't help but look at the WoD range and see a possible trend. WW
have a successful range of products and the new WoD has been generally
well received. They have a successful card game (high in longevity but
no threat to the frantic 2 player games for penetration). Why not WoD
the card game as well? You could easily envisage a Mage card game with
the same basic structure as Jyhad. The core mechanics of Bleed,
intercept, combat, master cards etc would be easily translatable and
you could have a number of game modules that can be used interactively
or stand alone. A mage game or a WoD game where Magi, Vamps and
Werewolves are all allowed. NoR would be an interesting way to test if
that were possible as the Imbued are the cross over group for each game
perhaps the term Monster is deliberately chosen?
The rules would be complex for the full WoD games but fairly simple for
the modules (well at least at first). You could even use this as a
selling point. A relatively simple Werewolf game might encourage new
players to try out and I they get hooked then having 'cut their teeth'
(pardon the pun couldn't resist) on that version there would link into
the other modules which would include the existing Vampire one. They
tried other games ie Rage with little success but it wasn't a great
game. The core mechanics for Jyhad are well tested and so a Werewolf
version of the same game I am sure would shift a few units. On the
tournament front you could run as just Jyhad or Jyhad + Mage or
whatever.
Just an idea .... Hmmm might knock up a dummy mage module just to see
if it integrates
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

Fred Scott wrote:
> <ashur RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143580893.111192.149860@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Is it only me (and my playgroup) that think the preview of NoR suggests
> > a helluva lot new rules? What is the point with this? Is it only to
> > confuse the game futher to make it absolutely impossible to learn for
> > newbies? I think WW should recognize this problem before its to late.
>(snipped)
> One thing I sort of think is wrong, though: this much new complexity
> seems like a real poor choice for a 60-card "mini-expansion".

One thing is for sure: i simply cannot find all these new rules and
cards so atractive as the rest. I'll wait to see what's coming next and
what other players say about this to make a final decision on buying or
not...
It seems another game being forced into V:tES... just my feeling.

..- Luis Duarte
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

jibbajibba wrote:
> Just an idea .... Hmmm might knock up a dummy mage module just to see
> if it integrates

Back in the days Michael Eichler had developed a complete VTES
compatible Mage game (the test cards should still hover somewhere in my
closet) but WW never seemed interested.

--
johannes walch
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

ashur DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> Why do you doubt I don´t know "what we are talking about"? I see many
> new rules and mechanics, and I have problems teaching a good game to
> newbies. That is what I talk about.
>
> And don´t give me that "you don´t have to play with the new
> stuff"-thing. That doesn´t work in established international
> tournament enviroment. And besides, I want the new stuff to be good
> stuff, not good and complicated stuff.

You don't have to play with it.

You can play without it.

I said nothing about your ability to play, which pretty much has alot
more to do with your ability than a little 60 card expansion.

Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

Johannes Walch wrote:
> jibbajibba wrote:
> > Just an idea .... Hmmm might knock up a dummy mage module just to see
> > if it integrates
>
> Back in the days Michael Eichler had developed a complete VTES
> compatible Mage game (the test cards should still hover somewhere in my
> closet) but WW never seemed interested.
>

I have the disc right here.....

Comments welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

On 29 Mar 2006 07:14:08 -0800, "jibbajibba" <jibbajibba DeleteThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Just an idea .... Hmmm might knock up a dummy mage module just to see
>if it integrates


Michael Eichler, former prince of Rammstein, Germany, built an entire
mage game based on V:TES rules. It was a pretty well developed
project. You might try looking him up if you have a serious interest
in the project.
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules? 

"jibbajibba" <jibbajibba RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143643253.318027.227260@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Fred Scott wrote:
>> One thing I sort of think is wrong, though: this much new complexity
>> seems like a real poor choice for a 60-card "mini-expansion". If
>> the intent was to put out a new product in less than nine months
>> and so create a mini-expansion as a fig leaf to claim the nine-month-
>> between-expansions schedule hadn't been forgotten, I think it would
>> have been better to pump out a new bloodline or something and keep
>> the Imbued for its own full-fledged expansion. It just seems like if
>> you're going to create a whole new class of influenced minions and
>> multiple new types of library cards to support it, one would tend
>> to expect way more than 60 new cards to go into it.
>
> Got to agree with Fred on this one and I posted something similar a
> while back. The argument I was presented with was that it's like a
> toe in the water and lets the players test some options without the
> company committing to a big expansion. If the Imbued don't work or
> aren't popular they can discard the concept and it's easy for
> tournaments to 'ban' (not really in Jyhad character I know) that set
> from the game.

Huh?!? Who's reasoning that way?!? That's horrible: you _can't_ put
a toe in the water when uncorking new rules. The cards are there!
The rules are there! Once added to the game, there's no way to
undo it (realistically, at least). In fact, adding new mechanics to
a game is exactly _not_ amendable to just dabbling with. You might
as well go whole hog or not at all.

> I can't help but look at the WoD range and see a possible trend. WW
> have a successful range of products and the new WoD has been generally
> well received. They have a successful card game (high in longevity but
> no threat to the frantic 2 player games for penetration). Why not WoD
> the card game as well? You could easily envisage a Mage card game with
> the same basic structure as Jyhad. The core mechanics of Bleed,
> intercept, combat, master cards etc would be easily translatable and
> you could have a number of game modules that can be used interactively
> or stand alone. A mage game or a WoD game where Magi, Vamps and
> Werewolves are all allowed. NoR would be an interesting way to test if
> that were possible as the Imbued are the cross over group for each game
> perhaps the term Monster is deliberately chosen?

The thing is, if it were the plan to modularize the thing the way you're
suggesting, I don't think it would be a good idea to go about it this
way. If that were the plan, the first step would be to introduce the
Hunter module as a completely separate, standalone game. You may have
planned out how the two combine. You may have even gone through play
testing. But you'd start with a standalone separate module so it
wouldn't be a risk to the existing game. And you would probably
introduce the combined game as a set of optional rules for playing
both together. That way, if people _liked_ the combination, you'll
sell more cards. But if they don't, you haven't gummed up what you've
got nor risked a backlash. You definitely would _not_ introduce a 60-
card expansion while increasing the existing game's completity before
you knew how people like it.

Fred

....and they wouldn't even have to worry about any 9-month expansion
schedules...
 >> Stay informed about: Why so many new rules?