anarch this anarch that... what about black hand?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

First on anarch revolt:

Yes, it's change actually screws existing deck types... wait a
second... LSJ, didn't you say that you were trying to avoid screwing
existing deck types? (during that whole "how would you change the
grouping rule, should you feel its broke?" conversation).

Furthermore: Ah. There's that reason to go anarch. Now my Anarch Salon
will pass easier, but net less of an effect. Unsure about this
change. I wish it were reprinted with the correct text. That'd be nice.
Maybe it'll be in a starter (though I don't think so, as they'd then
should be putting up Abomnination on the card change box).

Lastly. What about Black Hand people? Anarch this, anarch that... its
most likely going to be two new sets and all they'll have to show for
it will be a few vampires, and Gehenna event hate. I'd hate to think I
bought that 1.5 boxes of black hand just for the G3 sabbat vampires...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ wrote:
> "Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1108748737.730922.90160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > First on anarch revolt:
> >
> > Yes, it's change actually screws existing deck types... wait a
> > second... LSJ, didn't you say that you were trying to avoid
screwing
> > existing deck types? (during that whole "how would you change the
> > grouping rule, should you feel its broke?" conversation).
>
> Making a legal deck illegal is to be avoided, and was brought
> up in the grouping threads. Perhaps that's what you're
misremembering.

Hmmm... I'm pretty good at that (misrememboring), when it comes to
stuff like this. Maybe I need more Ginko...

~SV

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Screaming Vermillian wrote:

> Lastly. What about Black Hand people? Anarch this, anarch that... its
> most likely going to be two new sets and all they'll have to show
> for it will be a few vampires, and Gehenna event hate. I'd hate to
> think I bought that 1.5 boxes of black hand just for the G3 sabbat
> vampires...

IMO, that is because BH was excellently executed, and has lots of very
playable (and often played) cards. Whereas Anarchs started out much too
weak, and is gradually being brought in line with the expected power
curve, and this requires printing more cards.

Plus there could be all kinds of other reasons I'm not thinking about.



--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. "

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108748737.730922.90160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> First on anarch revolt:
>
> Yes, it's change actually screws existing deck types... wait a
> second... LSJ, didn't you say that you were trying to avoid screwing
> existing deck types? (during that whole "how would you change the
> grouping rule, should you feel its broke?" conversation).

Making a legal deck illegal is to be avoided, and was brought
up in the grouping threads. Perhaps that's what you're misremembering.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108756007.664432.264570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> LSJ wrote:
>> "Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108748737.730922.90160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > First on anarch revolt:
>> >
>> > Yes, it's change actually screws existing deck types... wait a
>> > second... LSJ, didn't you say that you were trying to avoid
> screwing
>> > existing deck types? (during that whole "how would you change the
>> > grouping rule, should you feel its broke?" conversation).
>>
>> Making a legal deck illegal is to be avoided, and was brought
>> up in the grouping threads. Perhaps that's what you're
> misremembering.
>
> Hmmm... I'm pretty good at that (misrememboring), when it comes to
> stuff like this. Maybe I need more Ginko...

I love that place.


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp