BL Rarity Sucks (Opened 2 boxes)
PeterM
after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the
draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got.
U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf
Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes
IMNSHO.
U2 cards, ranged from as little as 2 in a few cases to 7-8.
C1 cards. the numbers ranged from 4-8 total after 2 boxes. so 2-4 C1
cards per box? doesn't seem common to me.
C2 cards. ranged from 8-14 or so again considering 2 boxes.
The other main observation I had was I opened the boxes and left the
cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the
cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very
little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into
the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily
starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting.
IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1),
but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3
Initally, by the end 8.
What's up with that?
Halcyan 2
>cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the
>cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very
>little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into
>the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily
>starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting.
>IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1),
>but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3
>Initally, by the end 8.
>
>What's up with that?
Didn't we also see a lot of this in Sabbat War or something? A lot of the cards
seemed to be clumped (alphabetically) so you'd have all the cards for some part
of the alphabet (say A-G) but would have like nothing from some other parts
(N-U).
Halcyan 2
pallando
"PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com...
> Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares,
> after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the
> draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got.
>
>
> What's up with that?
there is a good strategy against this phenomenon. open a lot of boxes. i
don't mean buy a lot of boxes. just pool yours with those of one, two or
three friends. open all the boxes and split up the cards as evenly as
possible. in this way you'll get a near perfect distribution of cards.
if you want to be on the safe side make sure that the boxes come from more
than on case. i'm not sure it really makes a difference but it is fairly
easy to do.
we openened 10 boxes in this way. after that we had 144 R1 cards which is
exactly 40% of the rares. the number of R1 per box was a steady 14 or 15.
there were usually 10 or so of each U1 and about twice that number of each
U2.
of course this method won't deliver you a number of rares that is divisible
through any number of participants. but it works well for commons and
uncommons, and gives you a good starting position for the rares. there will
be some leftover rares but i'm sure everyone can devise a strategy to split
up those cards.
last but not least opening boosters and sorting cards is so much more fun if
done in a group. "hey, look at this cool card, it ..."
regards
pallando
Flux
> Didn't we also see a lot of this in Sabbat War or something? A lot of the cards
I'll tell you one thing I already saw in BL that reminds me of SW: I've seen a couple of boosters with only
10 cards, at least one with 12, and one with one of the commons replaced by what appears to be a
Rumble Robots promo misprint...
Flux
Carsten isselhorst
>
> Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares,
> after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the
> draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got.
>
I opened only 1 box and i was surprised that i got all commons and
uncommons as well as 30 different rares, so I think that there isn't so
much clumping. It seems the cards are distributed well ( or I had good
luck :) ).
One has to see if the distribution is really a problem by the time when
a lot of displays have been opened.
Callan O'Donohoe
seemed that some boxes were predisposed towards some bloodlines and their
cards than others.
apart from that the mix of cards is much better than DS.
"PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com...
PeterM
>
> Didn't we also see a lot of this in Sabbat War or something? A lot of the cards
> seemed to be clumped (alphabetically) so you'd have all the cards for some part
> of the alphabet (say A-G) but would have like nothing from some other parts
> (N-U).
That's pretty much what I noticed. Though I'm not sure if it was
alphabetically related, I still find it unbelievable I'm missing 5
uncommon vamps after 2-plus boxes. That's just not cool.
Aaron
> last but not least opening boosters and sorting cards is so much more fun if
> done in a group. "hey, look at this cool card, it ..."
Opening boxes in a group also can have a very good cost/effect for all
people involved, as we found out at gencon. After playing a sealed
event, we had 1 box of VTES and 4 people. At first we thought there
were going to be problems dividing them up(all drafts should be
re-drafted if time allows. That keeps people from drafting out all
the rares. When you are done, gather all the rares and re-draft them
for fairness)
After we pulled out all the rares, we put it to who had the most VP in
the tournament. The 3 of us then pulled 1 rare at a time. Well since
different people wanted different cards it ended up being a great
deal. If possible I will open boxes in a group again.
Imagine you get 3 people together, and buy 3 boxes of bloodlines.
Open one and take out the rares. I go first and we rotate till they
are all gone. Now I have 1/3 of a box. But the real great thing is,
I'm trying to get Blood brothers and gargoyles, while someone else is
trying to draft samedi and Trujah, and the other guy wants baali and
Kiasid. After 3 boxes, you all have strong decks, and not as much
junk. Works well for collectors trying to get 3-4 cards from a set or
new players. Usually they can trade 1-2 of their rare picks for
double their regular uncommons/commons. Giving them more to play
with, and me less to carry around. Look for friends with different
agendas, and it will work out well.
Aaron
James Coupe
<roans...@yahoo.com> writes:
>"pallando" <pall...@gmx.at> wrote:
>> last but not least opening boosters and sorting cards is so much more fun if
>> done in a group. "hey, look at this cool card, it ..."
>
>Opening boxes in a group also can have a very good cost/effect for all
>people involved, as we found out at gencon. After playing a sealed
>event, we had 1 box of VTES and 4 people.
What has long been a useful way of combating the fact that all
mechanical randomisation processes have some inadequacies is to go along
and buy your box with friends. If you're each buying a box, buy three
boxes between the three of you (say). Then dole out roughly one third
of the boosters from each box, so you each get the right amount in the
end.
--
James Coupe When correctly viewed
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Everything is lewd
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 I could tell you things about Peter Pan
13D7E668C3695D623D5D And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man
Sorrow
> mechanical randomisation processes have some inadequacies is to go along
> and buy your box with friends. If you're each buying a box, buy three
> boxes between the three of you (say). Then dole out roughly one third
> of the boosters from each box, so you each get the right amount in the
> end.
Except that this problem has cropped up in Sabbat War, was still evident
in Final Nights and we're starting to hear about the same thing happening
in Bloodlines. While I will admit that there can be mechanical failure some
times, you would think that measures would have been taken to reduce the
probability of this happening.
I don't know about you, but when I opened the boxes of Final Nights I
purchased (2 boosters, 1 starter), I ended up with roughly the following:
15 each of 8 or 9 different, distinct, commons
8 each of 4 or 5 different, distinct, commons
4 each of 5 or 6 different, distinct, uncommons
2 each of 1 or 2 different, distinct, uncommons
1 each of 6 or 7 different, distinct, uncommons
wtf?
With such crappy distribution, there was no way in hell that I was going to
go out and buy more boosters. I ended up filling out my collection and
getting the cards (common through rare) from secondary markets. It was
surprising to me that I couldn't even get a full set of *commons*. It wasn't
_that_ large of an expansion. If this continues, it won't be worth it for me
to get even a box for future expansions and just get *all* the cards I need
from the secondary market. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels
this way. In the end, this is only going to hurt WW. They *really* need
to get this rectified...
Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden
freakdrivr
Peter (Prince of Toronto) and I bought 4 boxes between us - (144 rares) fine...
between us we're still missing 5 cards. that's pretty insane...
jds
Halcyan 2
>8 each of 4 or 5 different, distinct, commons
>4 each of 5 or 6 different, distinct, uncommons
>2 each of 1 or 2 different, distinct, uncommons
>1 each of 6 or 7 different, distinct, uncommons
>
>wtf?
>With such crappy distribution, there was no way in hell that I was going to
>go out and buy more boosters. I ended up filling out my collection and
>getting the cards (common through rare) from secondary markets. It was
>surprising to me that I couldn't even get a full set of *commons*. It wasn't
>_that_ large of an expansion. If this continues, it won't be worth it for me
>to get even a box for future expansions and just get *all* the cards I need
>from the secondary market. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels
>this way. In the end, this is only going to hurt WW. They *really* need
>to get this rectified...
Really? I thought Final Nights was pretty good. I bought a single box of
boosters and ended up with an entire set of all the common and uncommon cards
so that was pretty cool. Now as for the rares... =P
Halcyan 2
Curevei
>fine...
>
>between us we're still missing 5 cards. that's pretty insane...
No, it isn't. Putting aside the actual probability calculations and just
approximating, 4 boxes is about right (rounding off to the nearest box) for a
set like FN that had 46/8 to get close to or to complete a set with no trading.
Bloodlines bears little resemblance to FN.
Anyone completing a set just by opening up 4 boxes got lucky.
"He's a ... he's a reverse vampire. They ... they crave the Sun."
Shaun McIsaac
> Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares,
> after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the
> draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got.
>
> U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf
> Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes
> IMNSHO.
> What's up with that?
That's nothing. I opened a box and 1/5th of the cards are *USELESS*
to me b/c I didn't pull enough Salubri or *any* True Brujah.
Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made
all the scarce vampires rare as well, so you need to open around 3
boxes to get enough Trujah/Salubri to make a competitive deck using
Obeah or Temporis. If you don't, a good 1/5th of the BL cards are
going to be useless. The standard discipline versions of cards
requiring temporis largely aren't worth playing (exhibit A, rewind
time - 2 blood to reduce a bleed by 1? Blood doll back twice and
you're 1 blood better, without an untapped pre vamp). You can use The
Stranger Among Us to reduce the need for Scarce vamps in the crypt,
but this means playing multiple copies of card (to ensure you see it)
that isn't useful the second time you draw it. It would be like
playing 5 of a particular HG. Your deck might need that first one but
2-5 rather suck. Alternatively you can play 4-5 of the scarce
vampires, which gives you a good chance of seeing one in the opening
crypt. The scarce mechanic keeps you from playing more, but that's
fine.
That mechanic, when combined with only having 3 Trujah to begin with,
would have been enough to keep people from playing a crypt with a
single BL clan. Making the vampires rare too means that you either:
A) Spend a *lot* on packs. At least $150 to get the three scarce
clans.
B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before
you read their text.
Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It
reminds me a lot of the early runs of the 1st Star Wars CCG. There
were many cards in that game that required Darth Vader, Luke, Obi Wan,
(aka the "mains"). People who weren't interested in plunking down
more than $200 didn't stand the slightest of chances of being able to
play decks based on those cards, because the mains were of course
rare. Thankfully, BLs avoided one of the pitfalls of Star Wars in
that the BL cards aren't way more powerful than those of the other
sets.
I do hope there is improvement in the Camarilla set.
Stefan Ferenci
cards only 3 times is a sign of
a bad distributed set and a rarity scheme that was created to rip people
off.
stefan
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20011204142246...@mb-ft.aol.com...
Mark Allen
got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the
bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet. My
numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of
boosters.
"PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com...
Derek Ray
smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about:
>That's nothing. I opened a box and 1/5th of the cards are *USELESS*
>to me b/c I didn't pull enough Salubri or *any* True Brujah.
This surprises me, actually. I have two boxes en route; it'll be
curious to see what sort of distribution I hit.
>Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made
Now I *KNOW* V:TES is doing well. People are pissing and moaning about
money and cost. It simply isn't a "real" CCG, oops, TCG, if someone
isn't bitching about how the parent company isn't out to screw everyone.
Welcome back to the big time, V:TES. =)
Just like online Quake is full of auto-aim bots, and anyone who kills
you must be using one, right? Or all backgammon programs "clearly"
override the random number generator to get exactly the rolls they need
at the right time.
>all the scarce vampires rare as well, so you need to open around 3
Currently, I'm delighted with the idea.
I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be
uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill.
I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) --
and I will probably do fairly well with only 2 copies of each, as I can
plug Blanche and Matthias in to avoid duplication (just in case I want
to bring a second scarce vamp out, or get mine burned via Force of Will
or something).
>boxes to get enough Trujah/Salubri to make a competitive deck using
>Obeah or Temporis. If you don't, a good 1/5th of the BL cards are
>going to be useless. The standard discipline versions of cards
>requiring temporis largely aren't worth playing (exhibit A, rewind
>time - 2 blood to reduce a bleed by 1? Blood doll back twice and
Serves you right for trying to make a Rewind Time deck in the first
place, doesn't it? Lesson: overfocussing your deck is not always the
correct approach.
And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's
inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never
BAD. Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also
is never bad. Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can
always be freely cycled.
Of course, I just listed a bunch of Obeah cards, didn't I? Oops.
Anyway, the point still holds, as the Salubri are ALSO scarce.
I suggest waiting until you have more than just exhibit "A" available.
>you're 1 blood better, without an untapped pre vamp). You can use The
>Stranger Among Us to reduce the need for Scarce vamps in the crypt,
I wouldn't go THAT far, although one or two copies included in a deck is
probably a good idea.
>but this means playing multiple copies of card (to ensure you see it)
>that isn't useful the second time you draw it. It would be like
>playing 5 of a particular HG. Your deck might need that first one but
>2-5 rather suck. Alternatively you can play 4-5 of the scarce
>vampires, which gives you a good chance of seeing one in the opening
>crypt. The scarce mechanic keeps you from playing more, but that's
>fine.
This is the approach I will/would use, and it works rather effectively
(4/12 works out to about 86% chance of getting one in your opening
crypt; well out of the reach of anything except astonishing bad luck).
>That mechanic, when combined with only having 3 Trujah to begin with,
>would have been enough to keep people from playing a crypt with a
>single BL clan. Making the vampires rare too means that you either:
>A) Spend a *lot* on packs. At least $150 to get the three scarce
>clans.
Disposable income. CCGs are a "luxury" game. Their market isn't the
starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have
obnoxiously lots of disposable income.
>B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before
>you read their text.
I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release
had an inferior-out that was either:
A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor,
inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or
B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind,
inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge")
This doesn't strike me as "useless" by a long shot.
>Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It
Sets like this are not intended for new players. New players should go
spend their money on Sabbat War, or V:TES/Jyhad boxes, or even Final
Nights. Or the new Cammie set, when it finally gets here.
These are intended as "support" for existing clans. One would expect
that one would have some of the existing clans FIRST.
--
Derek
...Vampire Squirrel has come to bite your nuts!
GreySeer
> starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have
> obnoxiously lots of disposable income.
Don't know about that, they just tend to be obsessive I think. You know,
buying boxes of bloodlines and then having to live off pot noodles for a
month :)
> >B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before
> >you read their text.
>
> I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release
> had an inferior-out that was either:
>
> A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor,
> inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or
>
> B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind,
> inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge")
>
> This doesn't strike me as "useless" by a long shot.
Most of them have inferiors of "normal" disciplines that either give them
something they don't have ( like a Dominate dodge ) or isn't quite as good
as an existing card that you would use but is still useful. Psychomacia at
pre does the same as, but isn't as good as Change of Target. The BL
discipline versions also seem to be geared towards not needing a lot of them
either or at least enabling you to reduce the number of cards required to
support it. Nose of the Hound being a good example. If you use it's spi or
SPI you need fewer manuver cards.
> >Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It
>
> Sets like this are not intended for new players. New players should go
> spend their money on Sabbat War, or V:TES/Jyhad boxes, or even Final
> Nights. Or the new Cammie set, when it finally gets here.
>
> These are intended as "support" for existing clans. One would expect
> that one would have some of the existing clans FIRST.
A few of the BL are playable on their own, but yes, generally they are meant
to support other clans, which I think it does well.
X_Zealot
> you read their text.
I love this comment. Not only have you hit the nail on the head, but I
think you have sold yourself short. I think that all the cards from VTES in
all the expansions are 100% useless before you read their text. In fact,
if you are illiterate, then you can't play VTES. This would probably
explain why there is such a high play ratio of European players to American
players. Please for heaven sake, Read the Cards!! This might be the reason
you are having such a hard time with bloodlines. I hope this helps.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
GreySeer
news:6ViP7.88636$8n4.6...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
You implying that a lot of Americans are illiterate, I'll agree with that :)
Hmm, I might try getting foreign language versions of cards ( do they make
em? ) just to confuse everyone :)
David
I bought 5 boosters yesterday, one of them had 14 cards (5 vampires),
another one 8 cards (no vampire) and one 10 cards (missing an unco),
the last two boosters had 11 cards !!!!!!!!
Bad luck or what ?!?
It sucks
Tetragrammaton
news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com...
> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>,
> smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about:
> Now I *KNOW* V:TES is doing well. People are pissing and moaning about
> money and cost. It simply isn't a "real" CCG, oops, TCG, if someone
> isn't bitching about how the parent company isn't out to screw everyone.
> Welcome back to the big time, V:TES. =)
One thing is to have a "real" CCG. The other is to open boosters
and find less cards than you expected to find in those boosters.
That's happened the 7 times, when me and a friend of mine opened
a box of SW boosters (actually, missing all the rares in those boosters and
some of the uncommons).
So you would do better believing and put more care about
all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things
don't happen, usually.
Or, at least, don't happen more than once.
But, as i read from other players on this thread,
with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in
booster again..
And, to aother point, with "real" CCG, one doesn't get a cavalcade of
all-looking-the-same-vampires, painted
by the same artist, to spare money and keeping low the cost, but so HIGH the
% of rarities
in the whole sets.
> Just like online Quake is full of auto-aim bots, and anyone who kills
> you must be using one, right? Or all backgammon programs "clearly"
> override the random number generator to get exactly the rolls they need
> at the right time.
This is not the point.
You're dealing with sincere players' observations as with
senseless children's cry.
This is not a good approach, i think.
Just my thought
Emiliano
Ps: and I play Unreal Tournament only, Quake sucks...;)
<snip>
Ben Peal
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
Halcyan 2
I agree that the distribution really sucks!
It's rather annoying when you open a booster pack, and among the 7 common
cards, you end up with 3 copies of the same card!
And even within my box of BL, I ended up with many duplicate rares. I never had
that problem with SW or FN (I guess the R2's are really R2's then).
I am glad I ended up with a decent amount of the scarce vampires though. 1
Nagaraja, 2 Trujah, and 2 copies each of 2 Salubri (2 x Matthias, 2 x Miriam).
Besides the Salubri duplicates, I did end up with quite a handful of duplicate
rares, which was rather annoying. 2 Basilisk's Touch, 2 Echo of Harmonies, 2
Herald of Topheth, etc.
BTW: #1. Does superior Echo of Harmonies bypass any title restrictions that
vote card may have?
#2. I'm a little confused about Falcon's Eye and the whole "normal prey,
predator, or target restrictions" thingy. Is it just like Eagle's Sight?
LSJ
> BTW: #1. Does superior Echo of Harmonies bypass any title restrictions that
> vote card may have?
No. You have to meet the requirements (clan, title, sect, whatever). And you
pay the cost (if any). And you get the inherent vote (which counts as your
1 PA vote).
> #2. I'm a little confused about Falcon's Eye and the whole "normal prey,
> predator, or target restrictions" thingy. Is it just like Eagle's Sight?
Yes, except that blocking is non-optional.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Jon Stahler
"Mark Allen" <alle...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2wgP7.1210$iO6.9...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com...
> Strange. I had completely the opposite experience. I opened 3 boosters
and
> got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the
> bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet.
My
> numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of
> boosters.
>
rares (and didn't expect to), I did get one each of the Trujah, Nagaraja,
and was only one short for a complete Salubri run. In fact, I'm really only
a few rares away from a complete set (about 10 shy).
Granted, I only got 5 Slaughterhouses, but still...how many do I really
need.
(Here's the comment that will undoubtedly get me in a lot of trouble here)
(Some of) You people b!+ch too much...just enjoy the game (and trade, trade,
TRADE!!!).
Derek Ray
"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
about:
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com...
>> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>,
>> smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about:
><snip>
>
>> Now I *KNOW* V:TES is doing well. People are pissing and moaning about
>> money and cost. It simply isn't a "real" CCG, oops, TCG, if someone
>> isn't bitching about how the parent company isn't out to screw everyone.
>> Welcome back to the big time, V:TES. =)
>
>One thing is to have a "real" CCG. The other is to open boosters
>and find less cards than you expected to find in those boosters.
>That's happened the 7 times, when me and a friend of mine opened
>a box of SW boosters (actually, missing all the rares in those boosters and
>some of the uncommons).
That is the fault of the printer, not the fault of WW. I'm sure that
issue has long since been resolved (by WW either finding another
printer, or bitching to the current printer such that those errors do
not happen again). I'm sorry that you got screwed by the printer, but
I'm sure it came as a surprise to WW as well.
Blaming the game for an incompetent printing company is just about as
dumb as it gets.
>So you would do better believing and put more care about
>all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things
>don't happen, usually.
Horseshit.
>Or, at least, don't happen more than once.
Unbelievable Horseshit.
>But, as i read from other players on this thread,
>with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in
>booster again..
It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange
distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I
whine? No, I just traded, and I'm VERY happy with what I have right
now.
>And, to aother point, with "real" CCG, one doesn't get a cavalcade of
>all-looking-the-same-vampires, painted
>by the same artist, to spare money and keeping low the cost, but so HIGH the
>% of rarities
>in the whole sets.
There is a certain logic to using Shy for so much of the art,
unfortunately; he's done a lot of Vampire art in the past for WW, and
he's apparently popular among the V:tM crowd. The artwork being the
same then becomes an additional marketing tool.
I personally think he needs to wake up and discover "color" and
"texture", and so do a lot of people, but we could well be in the
minority.
>> Just like online Quake is full of auto-aim bots, and anyone who kills
>> you must be using one, right? Or all backgammon programs "clearly"
>> override the random number generator to get exactly the rolls they need
>> at the right time.
>
>This is not the point.
Really? I think it is, myself. "Wah, we can't get all the rares and
make a complete set for only $100! Waaaaahhh!"
If it were that easy, what would be the point?
>You're dealing with sincere players' observations as with
>senseless children's cry.
>This is not a good approach, i think.
You can be sincerely senseless as well as just sincere, too.
X_Zealot
>
> You implying that a lot of Americans are illiterate, I'll agree with that
:)
>
I wish this was a joke, believe me; it is not.
XZ
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>But, as i read from other players on this thread,
>>with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in
>>booster again..
>
>It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange
>distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I
>whine?
I've just been out and bought my first boxes.
I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's
bothered.
Gomi no Sensei
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>I've just been out and bought my first boxes.
>
>I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's
>bothered.
Please do.
gomi
pronounces it 'CHEE-squared' just to annoy the wife
--
Blood, guts, guns, cuts
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts
Joshua Duffin
"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9ulkpf$17v$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <HddlcNxF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>,
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >I've just been out and bought my first boxes.
> >
> >I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's
> >bothered.
>
> Please do.
>
> gomi
> pronounces it 'CHEE-squared' just to annoy the wife
It amuses me to think that your wife can be annoyed by that.
:-)
You're going to do a chi-squared test on your own
distribution too, right gomi?
Josh
and what if it doesn't look random from the test? we
already know it's not, truly...
Frederick Scott
>
> In message <klhs0u0hmlk8sujnj...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
> <lor...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>But, as i read from other players on this thread,
> >>with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in
> >>booster again..
> >
> >It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange
> >distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I
> >whine?
>
> I've just been out and bought my first boxes.
>
> I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's
> bothered.
Sheesh, I got my degree too long ago. I can't even begin to remember
what this is.
But if it's a way of testing randomness of events/distribution (as the
context suggests), please do. I'd love to see how the Bloodlines
distribution stacks up.
I think the expectations and preferences of most players is that the
distribution actually be non-random - in terms of being biased towards
having as few copies of each type of card within each box as possible
for the rarity level of that card. Players might be seeing real clumping
but I wouldn't be totally surprised if they were just seeing true
randomness and are disappointed with it.
Fred
Shaun McIsaac
> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>,
> smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about:
>
> >That's nothing. I opened a box and 1/5th of the cards are *USELESS*
> >to me b/c I didn't pull enough Salubri or *any* True Brujah.
>
> This surprises me, actually. I have two boxes en route; it'll be
> curious to see what sort of distribution I hit.
> >Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made
><flames deleted>
Yah, fuck you too.
> >all the scarce vampires rare as well, so you need to open around 3
> Currently, I'm delighted with the idea.
>
> I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be
> uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill.
> I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) --
When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight"
copies of one vampire? Or even five?
> >boxes to get enough Trujah/Salubri to make a competitive deck using
> >Obeah or Temporis. If you don't, a good 1/5th of the BL cards are
> >going to be useless. The standard discipline versions of cards
> >requiring temporis largely aren't worth playing (exhibit A, rewind
> >time - 2 blood to reduce a bleed by 1? Blood doll back twice and
> Serves you right for trying to make a Rewind Time deck in the first
It hadn't crossed my mind to make a deck based around a card that cost
2 blood for a clan that doesn't have particularly great blood gain
(though the assembly is rather nice). However I wouldn't mind being
able to play a domain of evernight or RT in a deck. They're neat
cards. I think I should be able to use them.
> place, doesn't it? Lesson: overfocussing your deck is not always the
> correct approach.
Who's said anything about focusing? I'm not going to include even 1
copy of a card I can't play. Packing in cards you consistently can
not use isn't toolboxing, it's bad deck design.
> And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's
> inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never
> BAD.
Unfortunately for that argument, restoration is crap too IMO. You're
pitching a card for 1 blood (at inferior). If that was good then so
is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only
saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as
there is with the leave torpor action.
> Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also
> is never bad.
Never was a scouting mission fan myself, though this is an improvement
over a "restoration". The Obeah off clan cards are considerably
better than the Temporis ones, so far as I've seen.
> Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can
> always be freely cycled.
Which pre clan was short on manuevers?
> Of course, I just listed a bunch of Obeah cards, didn't I? Oops.
> Anyway, the point still holds, as the Salubri are ALSO scarce.
> I suggest waiting until you have more than just exhibit "A" available.
I do, however I have no intention of going over more than that.
> >That mechanic, when combined with only having 3 Trujah to begin with,
> >would have been enough to keep people from playing a crypt with a
> >single BL clan. Making the vampires rare too means that you either:
> >A) Spend a *lot* on packs. At least $150 to get the three scarce
> >clans.
>
> Disposable income. CCGs are a "luxury" game. Their market isn't the
> starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have
> obnoxiously lots of disposable income.
A) In case you haven't noticed, there is a recession going on.
B) Of the few dozen regulars in our area, the majority are college
students -- 96% of all college students know how to stretch $4.37 into
5 meals -- you figure it out.
C) When you go to truly large tournament (minimum 200 players), you
still don't see an overwhelming number of people with cash falling out
of their wallets.
D) Imposing start up costs are *NOT* a good way to get more people
into the game.
> >B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before
> >you read their text.
>
> I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release
> had an inferior-out that was either:
>
> A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor,
> inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or
Which means that they are *still useless* if you can't use the BL
discipline, because the cards they mimic do have a superior that you
can use for another, potentially greater, effect. Spirit Marionette
is orders of magnitude weaker than Scouting Mission if you have at
least some DOM and no obeah.
> B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind,
> inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge")
There's already a S:D for dom minions. It's called dodge. The "do
not replace" line is largely unimportant. There are a few truly new
effects, and even less you'd want to play for just the off clan
inferior.
> >Sets like this make the game *VERY* unfriendly to new players. It
> Sets like this are not intended for new players. New players should go
> spend their money on Sabbat War, or V:TES/Jyhad boxes, or even Final
> Nights. Or the new Cammie set, when it finally gets here.
*mumbles something about portal and starter*
Well this is a wonderful attitude if you want to keep the game
relegated to a relatively tiny market with no more than a few 100
players worldwide. I for one wouldn't mind seeing tournaments that
draw more than 32 players on a regular basis. I also wouldn't mind it
if people would drop the elitist attitude, but I'm not holding my
breath.
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Really? I think it is, myself. "Wah, we can't get all the rares and
> make a complete set for only $100! Waaaaahhh!"
>
> If it were that easy, what would be the point?
Wow.
That's as crushing an indictment of V:tES and CCG's in general
as I've ever heard.
- Jason Bell
Jason Bell
"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> Just my thought
>
> Emiliano
>
> Ps: and I play Unreal Tournament only, Quake sucks...;)
Ha, I think I've seen you on UT as Tetragrammaton.
I'm mere mortal, in case you remember seeing me.
- Jason Bell
Derek Ray
smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com>...
>> This surprises me, actually. I have two boxes en route; it'll be
>> curious to see what sort of distribution I hit.
>GL
>
>> >Money^H^H^H^H^HWhite Wolf, in their infinite accounting wisdom, made
>><flames deleted>
>
>Yah, fuck you too.
I'll offer you a deal. You don't whine and I won't flame.
>> Currently, I'm delighted with the idea.
>> I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be
>> uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill.
>> I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) --
>
>When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight"
>copies of one vampire? Or even five?
Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that
maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare,
instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill,
because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most.
Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I?
>It hadn't crossed my mind to make a deck based around a card that cost
>2 blood for a clan that doesn't have particularly great blood gain
>(though the assembly is rather nice). However I wouldn't mind being
>able to play a domain of evernight or RT in a deck. They're neat
>cards. I think I should be able to use them.
I think you'll be perfectly able to use them. Consider trading?
If you didn't get the Trujah, you certainly got some OTHER cards in
those rare slots. I bet you can find someone with some Trujah pretty
easily.
>> And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's
>> inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never
>> BAD.
>
>Unfortunately for that argument, restoration is crap too IMO. You're
>pitching a card for 1 blood (at inferior). If that was good then so
I'm not sure what world you play in, but being able to put two blood on
a vampire is certainly useful. Superior Restoration is even better;
Minion Tap a big-ass vampire, play superior Restoration, and now you
have plenty of blood to spend on actions next turn.
Maybe Restoration isn't as mind-numbingly good like 5th Tradition or
Govern the Unaligned. But it ain't black or white; cards aren't either
"awesome" or "sucky".
The whole idea behind the inferior-out disciplines is so that if you
don't draw your BL vamps, or if your BL vamps get hosed, you'll actually
be able to PLAY the cards in your hand. With only about 5 different
vamps per BL clan, this is pretty much necessary, as it will be very
difficult to play some of these clans all by themselves.
NO, you don't put Renewed Vigor in with the intent to play it and gain
two blood. You put it in your deck so that your Salubri can play it and
refill someone. But if your Salubri gets his head blown off and
diablerized, you can at least PLAY the damn card, instead of just
sitting there and looking at hand jam.
>is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only
>saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as
>there is with the leave torpor action.
However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it,
you can still eat the vampire.
>> Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also
>> is never bad.
>
>Never was a scouting mission fan myself, though this is an improvement
>over a "restoration". The Obeah off clan cards are considerably
>better than the Temporis ones, so far as I've seen.
Hell, at least you can PLAY the card, right? Sheesh. What do you want,
the inferiors to all read "I win"?
>> Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can
>> always be freely cycled.
>
>Which pre clan was short on manuevers?
Oh, you mean the Ventrue, who only have one maneuver card available,
that card only at superior, and who would be much better off sticking in
another Skin of Steel anyway?
I guess you must have been talking about THAT clan. Not to mention that
many people believe in mono-PRE decks... you have heard of weenie PRE
bleed, right?
>> I suggest waiting until you have more than just exhibit "A" available.
>
>I do, however I have no intention of going over more than that.
I am not surprised.
>> Disposable income. CCGs are a "luxury" game. Their market isn't the
>> starving artist types, it's the "gamer" crowd, most of whom have
>> obnoxiously lots of disposable income.
>
>A) In case you haven't noticed, there is a recession going on.
Yep. I bet WW has noticed too. Did you know that production costs for
a CCG do not mysteriously diminish when there is a recession?
>B) Of the few dozen regulars in our area, the majority are college
>students -- 96% of all college students know how to stretch $4.37 into
>5 meals -- you figure it out.
Then those same college students can get jobs. I know a lot of college
students. I've noticed that the broke ones don't have jobs, and the
ones with money DO. Occasionally the broke ones also have jobs, but
those are the ones who are helping put themselves through college,
usually. For them, I sympathise, but frankly, not everyone is entitled
to everything.
>C) When you go to truly large tournament (minimum 200 players), you
>still don't see an overwhelming number of people with cash falling out
>of their wallets.
Perhaps you just don't know what to look for.
>D) Imposing start up costs are *NOT* a good way to get more people
>into the game.
I don't care if the sets cost $5 per box. If I am introducing new
people to the game, I will point them at the Sabbat War/Final Nights
starter decks, or the discount V:TES/Jyhad boxes.
BLOODLINES IS NOT A GOOD SET TO START A NEWBIE ON. Sheesh.
>> I don't know about you, but most of the cards I saw at the pre-release
>> had an inferior-out that was either:
>>
>> A) identical to an existing effect for that discipline (Renewed Vigor,
>> inferior-out requires Fortitude, identical to Restoration), or
>
>Which means that they are *still useless* if you can't use the BL
>discipline, because the cards they mimic do have a superior that you
>can use for another, potentially greater, effect. Spirit Marionette
Which would cost you a SECOND card slot *or* would deny you the use of
the BL discipline entirely, as you replaced Renewed Vigor with
Restoration.
Hardly useless.
>is orders of magnitude weaker than Scouting Mission if you have at
>least some DOM and no obeah.
Fortunately, you didn't put it in for the +1 bleed, you put it in to rip
off someone's minion at +1 stealth and bleed with that minion.
It's a good thing you can bleed with it when someone comes and burns the
guy who just stole their minion though, isn't it? And let's see, the
Salubri disciplines are AUS/FOR/OBE... hmm.. that fits with..
AUS/FOR/DOM... hmm.. hey, look! A whole clan full of yellow guys who
will probably be able to use this card and also be in my crypt!
Gosh! How CLEVER!
>> B) a completely new effect for that discipline (Absorb the Mind,
>> inferior-out requires Dominate, "Strike: Dodge")
>
>There's already a S:D for dom minions. It's called dodge. The "do
>not replace" line is largely unimportant. There are a few truly new
>effects, and even less you'd want to play for just the off clan
>inferior.
So what's your point? This is a set focussed on the BLOODLINES, not the
existing uber-powerful Dominate discipline.
You want a Dodge? Put in a dodge. You want a steal-one-blood and
steal-one-master effect that your Lasombra can use too if they need to?
Put in Absorb the Mind.
Are you following me here? Do you have the picture? Is the
transmission clear, Houston?
>*mumbles something about portal and starter*
Mumble, mumble, whatever. Speak up if you want to be heard; I don't
understand vague allusions to "portal" or "starter", I don't play Magic.
>draw more than 32 players on a regular basis. I also wouldn't mind it
>if people would drop the elitist attitude, but I'm not holding my
>breath.
I wouldn't mind if people didn't spend their whole time pissing and
moaning. I can't afford more than two boxes of Bloodlines, myself, but
I intend to make the best of what I can manage. And I'll do pretty damn
well, because I'm a bright lad.
I COULD waste all my time bitching on the newsgroup about random
distribution, instead, and never actually get anything done. Wow,
that's a GREAT idea.
Frederick Scott
> I think it is, myself. "Wah, we can't get all the rares and
> make a complete set for only $100! Waaaaahhh!"
>
> If it were that easy, what would be the point?
??? Um, PLAYING THE GAME would be the point, obviously! If we could
get rid of the silly collectible aspect of the game and just make it
a constructed deck card with reasonable prices (production value plus
fair profit) for whatever cards we felt like owning, it would be a *much*
better game - excepting it doesn't work economically so White Wolf goes
out of business and stops designing and manufacturing more cards. Or
just stops before they go out of business. Either way, that part would
suck.
Collectibility would not be needed for constructability were it not
for business aspect of this kind of game.
Fred
Derek Ray
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about:
V:TES, and all CCGs, are luxury items. Complaining about the costs of
luxury items is, frankly, a waste of time. Trying to determine whether
the price is "fair" is even more a waste of time, since there's nothing
really to compare it TO.
Derek Ray
Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled
something about:
>??? Um, PLAYING THE GAME would be the point, obviously! If we could
>get rid of the silly collectible aspect of the game and just make it
>a constructed deck card with reasonable prices (production value plus
>fair profit) for whatever cards we felt like owning, it would be a *much*
>better game - excepting it doesn't work economically so White Wolf goes
>out of business and stops designing and manufacturing more cards. Or
>just stops before they go out of business. Either way, that part would
>suck.
Spot on. Full marks, that man.
>Collectibility would not be needed for constructability were it not
>for business aspect of this kind of game.
My point exactly.
Frederick Scott
>
> In message <3C0E964B...@removethis.com>,
> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled
> something about:
> >for business aspect of this kind of game.
>
> My point exactly.
Oh, OK, sorry. Didn't realize that's what you were angling at.
Thought you might have been advocating the joy of collectability for
collectability's sake, which always seemed pretty mindless and
annoying to me. Rumor has it that certain parties actually like that.
Fred
James Coupe
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>> I'll sit down and do a chi-squared test on the rares, if anyone's
>> bothered.
>
>Sheesh, I got my degree too long ago. I can't even begin to remember
>what this is.
My A levels were only a few years ago...
>But if it's a way of testing randomness of events/distribution (as the
>context suggests), please do. I'd love to see how the Bloodlines
>distribution stacks up.
Basically, a chi-squared test takes every possibility and calculates how
often it should occur if the distribution occurs *exactly*. e.g. over
100 cards, you have should 1 copy of this R1, 2 copies of that R2 etc.
It then calculates the difference - in a complex mathematical way -
between the perfect distribution and the actual distribution. If it
goes outside a certain tolerance, you can reject the null hypothesis
(that is, most usually, that the distribution you were using for the
test was appropriate for this circumstance).
The Nosferatu Stuff
"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote:
> better game - excepting it doesn't work economically so White Wolf goes
> out of business and stops designing and manufacturing more cards. Or
> just stops before they go out of business. Either way, that part would
> suck.
I don't know if I buy that. I can't imagine that white wolf would go out of
business if the game was not collectable. I can't see them changing that,
seeing as how it already is collectable. But I don't see how making the
ratio of "rare" to "common" cards a little less dramatic would ruin the
profitability of the game? I can't imagine that I would buy any less cards
if the makeup of the packs were: 5 commons, 4 uncommons, 2 rares. And I
can't think of anyone that would? Who is going to cheap out? Most people I
know have gotten maybe 2 boxes of each set. Myself I like 4 boxes. I would
still get 4. I don't think that changing that would break the white wolf
company.
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
The Fanboy
*commons*. It >wasn't _that_ large of an expansion.
After buying 4 boxes of Jyhad, not counting various boosters bought
individually over that timespan -- I did not have ANY Enhanced Senses
or Telepathic Misdirections. I didn't get any until I was only
missing two rares from a set! It happens.
Based on my results from buying/winning Sabbat War boosters, odds are
about %80 that I'll get one of the following cards:
Hand of Conrad
Changeling Skin Mask
Up Yours
Occassionaly I'll get a different rare, but not very often. I have 15
copies of Up Yours from the Sabbat War expansion. It happens.
Most people I've talked to have not had the problems you report with
Final Nights -- I didn't buy any boxes, but from buying individual
boosters, I've had no trouble at all getting enough commons from
across the board for my purposes, and a complete set of vamps
w/adequate duplicates (not counting the 4 rare vamps).
Fanboy
The Fanboy
> and find less cards than you expected to find in those boosters.
> That's happened the 7 times, when me and a friend of mine opened
> a box of SW boosters (actually, missing all the rares in those boosters and
> some of the uncommons).
Two words: Fallen Empires.
For those of you not in the know, Fallen Empires was notorious about
poor distribution. Packs with only six cards were abundant -- there
was a display in a local store in Houston that you could TELL had been
shorted cards. Hold a "full" booster next to these, and they were
about half the thickness -- obviously missing cards. An entire box.
Some boxes were miscut throughout, so that the top half of the card
would be the text of White Card A, and the bottom half would be the
picture of Black Card B. Some had this on the backs, but perfectly
functional fronts -- unplayable because the card is "marked" when
placed face down.
> So you would do better believing and put more care about
> all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things
> don't happen, usually.
Except they do -- probably to all games that make it past the first
expansion.
Jyhad, back in the day, had cases that had 4 rares instead of 1 rare
and three uncommons. THat's also a distribution error -- a massive
one -- but one that works out to the purchasers favor.
Fanboy
Dave Tait
> "Mark Allen" <alle...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:2wgP7.1210$iO6.9...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com...
> > Strange. I had completely the opposite experience. I opened 3 boosters
> and
> > got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the
> > bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet.
> My
> > numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of
> > boosters.
> >
> I have to agree. I opened two boxes yesterday. While I did not get all the
> rares (and didn't expect to), I did get one each of the Trujah, Nagaraja,
> and was only one short for a complete Salubri run. In fact, I'm really only
> a few rares away from a complete set (about 10 shy).
>
penultimate booster of the 3rd box. Distribution seemed perfect, with
2 of most of the R2s and 1 of the most of the R1s.
Ulugh Beg
Yeah, Quake really SUCKS!! Unreal Tournament is the Best!!! CTF ALWAYS!!!
legbiter
> Strange. I had completely the opposite experience. I opened 3 boosters and
> got all the rares. Even more shock was that I got exactly what the
> bloodlines checklist said I should get ie. one per sheet, two per sheet. My
> numbers check out perfect. I think you just got a bad 'packing order' of
> boosters.
i agree with mark. After 3 boxes i am missing only:
Call the Great Beast
Iron Heart
[both are R1s]
and i shouldn't have much trouble trading for those, since i have
doubles of the following R1s:
Armor of Terra
Condemnation: Betrayal
Defender of the Haven
Engling Fury*
Erebus Mask
High Top*
Sight Beyond Sight
The Wildebeest*
Obviously it follows that i got all the R2s, Us and Cs in my three
boxes, including all the vampires. *indicates Ahrimanes/Spiritus cards
- i seem to have been quite lucky with these, for some non-reason.
>
>
> "PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares,
> > after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the
> > draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got.
> >
> > U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf
> > Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes
> > IMNSHO.
> >
> > U2 cards, ranged from as little as 2 in a few cases to 7-8.
> >
> > C1 cards. the numbers ranged from 4-8 total after 2 boxes. so 2-4 C1
> > cards per box? doesn't seem common to me.
> >
> > C2 cards. ranged from 8-14 or so again considering 2 boxes.
> >
> > The other main observation I had was I opened the boxes and left the
> > cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the
> > cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very
> > little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into
> > the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily
> > starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting.
> > IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1),
> > but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3
> > Initally, by the end 8.
> >
> > What's up with that?
Overall it's just random bad luck, but as Derek says, from another
point of view it is GOOD luck since you will have PILES of cards that
other people desperately want. Go out and TRADE!!!!!
Orpheus
of
> business if the game was not collectable. I can't see them changing that,
> seeing as how it already is collectable.
There are, in France out least, some pretty good card games out there which
are not collectible. So they're not "trading games", but you can buy a few
different starters if you want to play certain factions, and eventually they
can put more out.
As it is, VTES or any other TCG (what does "CCG" mean ?) can't change back
to "non-collectible", but these games have proven the liability of other
types of functionning. Of course, they will have to get more different games
out, but well, there could have been one starter per clan, with the
possibility to mix the decks (or not...), and eventually some extensions for
each (or global).
As I don't know if they exist in other countries, naming these games would
be useless, but they usually descend from the old (and excellent) Family
Business card game. Other ressemble more Illuminati ; others are much
funnier.
The point is : TCG bring in a lot of money. We, players, are always suckers
in that type of games. But we love to PLAY, and some love to collect, so we
buy anyway. That's how it works, and that's why I never played Magic and
came very lately to VTES. If we play, we have to accept these "rules". But :
that is not the only way to put out a card game.
--
Orpheus, Prince of Nowhere (and suburbs)
http://no.exit.free.fr
http://cypheranima.free.fr
news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone
audio...@yahoogroups.com
tetragrammaton
> >news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com...
> >> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>,
> >> smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about:
> ><snip>
> Blaming the game for an incompetent printing company is just about as
> dumb as it gets.
I'm not blaming the game.
I'm blaming the company that produces the game (actually the WW),
for trusting a printer that has done "some" mistakes with the SW set, and,
from what i read, had done them again with BL.
> >So you would do better believing and put more care about
> >all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things
> >don't happen, usually.
>
> Horseshit.
?
>
> >Or, at least, don't happen more than once.
>
> Unbelievable Horseshit.
>
??
> >But, as i read from other players on this thread,
> >with BL we're going to get blatant errors in distribution of cards in
> >booster again..
>
> It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange
> distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I
> whine? No, I just traded, and I'm VERY happy with what I have right
> now.
>
I'm not speaking about random-eness, just about actual defective boosters
a-gain, back with BL.
> >And, to aother point, with "real" CCG, one doesn't get a cavalcade of
> >all-looking-the-same-vampires, painted
> >by the same artist, to spare money and keeping low the cost, but so HIGH
the
> >% of rarities
> >in the whole sets.
>
> There is a certain logic to using Shy for so much of the art,
> unfortunately; he's done a lot of Vampire art in the past for WW, and
> he's apparently popular among the V:tM crowd. The artwork being the
> same then becomes an additional marketing tool.
>
> I personally think he needs to wake up and discover "color" and
> "texture", and so do a lot of people, but we could well be in the
> minority.
The only logic for that is the financial one.
Sparing money.
Just that.
> If it were that easy, what would be the point?
>
To believe in what other people says about the game,
even when they think differently from you,
and not just dealing with them as with squabbling children.
That could help you at getting people close to your point of view, or at
least
in making your point of view easier to understand.
> >You're dealing with sincere players' observations as with
> >senseless children's cry.
> >This is not a good approach, i think.
>
> You can be sincerely senseless as well as just sincere, too.
I don't think they were sensless.
If you think so, you're sensless as well, dealing with and aswering to
sensless
statements from others.
You seem clever enough to not do such a sensless thing, however.
Ciao
Emiliano, prince of Rome
> --
Brian
Hey, everybody.
Second, as to whether the Nagaraja, Salubri, and True Brujah vampires
should all be rare: I believe they should be, and here are my
reasons. (Keep in mind I'm a player, not a collector.)
1. You don't want more than one.
If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka
rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in
conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not.
Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay
another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have
more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I
consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different
versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as
many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many
as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than
Condemnation: Languid.
2. Their effects are indeed exotic.
I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does
something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot.
And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand
size so long as she's ready is VERY weird. Personally, I'd need a
REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do
anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you
can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever. But
if all you want is NEC DOM, there's plenty of other vamps out there.
And about the Salubri: How often do you say, "Gee, this vampire
doesn't have any bleed or fight disciplines, but he can hunt and then
untap"? I don't foresee many decks using him, he's not exactly the
next Jimmy Dunn.
3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans.
If they were, they'd have more than three vampires each, and
they'd be made widely available. They're NOT. They're for a lark,
like making a seven-discipline deck (aus dom for obf pot pro tha) or a
deck with a card limit of 1. Tough to pull off, but rewarding. Or in
tournament play, maybe to catch one's opposition off guard. Who
knows, maybe Rewind Time will make Brujah POT PRE the next staple
deck, or Obeah will bring rush Vicissitude combat or Ventrue Antitribu
(who lack 5th Tradition) to the forefront.
I wouldn't put any money on it. I don't think these vamps were
made for tourneys. I think they were made for the same reasons
Ur-Shulgi was made: For completeness' sake, and for style's. You
know you're probably not going to use him, but he IS pretty cool.
There probably will be a rare or two that I feel I simply MUST have.
I know I've opened two boxes of Sabbat War and still don't have a
Powerbase: Montreal, which is the only rare I really care about from
the set. But all in all, I think White Wolf deserves a little credit.
I'm going to play Baali. I'm going to recruit as many as I can, and
then race the pool loss with blood dolls and social charms. And you
know what? Their best cards--Sense the Sin, Conflagration, and
Psychomachia--are all common.
Derek Ray
"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
about:
>> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> >news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com...
>
>> Blaming the game for an incompetent printing company is just about as
>> dumb as it gets.
>
>I'm not blaming the game.
>I'm blaming the company that produces the game (actually the WW),
>for trusting a printer that has done "some" mistakes with the SW set, and,
>from what i read, had done them again with BL.
What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to
KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes?
I'm sure they used whoever they used for the FN expansion, and I don't
recall the FN expansion having any "defective" boosters. Were they
supposed to change printers after a company did a GOOD job?
>> >So you would do better believing and put more care about
>> >all of these "pissing & moaning", since in "real" CCG these nasty things
>> >don't happen, usually.
>>
>> Horseshit.
>
>?
Your statement about "in real CCGs these things don't happen", implying
that such print screwups are restricted ONLY to V:TES, is absolute and
complete horseshit.
>> It's called "random distribution being truly random". I had strange
>> distribution in FN too -- I got NONE of certain R2s, R1s, etc. Did I
>> whine? No, I just traded, and I'm VERY happy with what I have right
>> now.
>
>I'm not speaking about random-eness, just about actual defective boosters
>a-gain, back with BL.
Considered talking to WW about it? I'm not sure what they can offer as
a solution, but they can certainly take it out of the printer's hide.
However, also consider this: with the amount of cards that must be
printed at one time, screwups like this are quite possible, especially
considering that machines are sorting them. While I'm sure a few boxes
are opened for "quality testing" purposes, if those boxes happen to not
catch a buggered-up one, then shit happens.
Life is not always pretty.
>> There is a certain logic to using Shy for so much of the art,
>> unfortunately; he's done a lot of Vampire art in the past for WW, and
>> he's apparently popular among the V:tM crowd. The artwork being the
>> same then becomes an additional marketing tool.
>>
>> I personally think he needs to wake up and discover "color" and
>> "texture", and so do a lot of people, but we could well be in the
>> minority.
>
>The only logic for that is the financial one.
>Sparing money.
>Just that.
Paranoid and wrong, but you've got your whiner-blinders on and can't see
it. So get you some Kleenex, wipe away the tears, and read the stuff
above. WW has stated repeatedly that it would like to provide more draw
for the V:tM crowd... and reusing the familiar artwork is CERTAINLY an
effective way to do that. If it were ALSO cheap to do so, then it would
be stupid for them to NOT do it.
>> If it were that easy, what would be the point?
>
>To believe in what other people says about the game,
>even when they think differently from you,
>and not just dealing with them as with squabbling children.
Then they shouldn't act like squabbling children. My god, man, look at
how people are acting! Just LOOK at them!
Making declarations like "WW is out to screw us" and the like are NOT
going to help advance any rational argument. If you have a problem, try
stating it CLEARLY, without all the hyperbole attached, and try to back
it up with some kind of evidence. Then try to listen to other people
when they back THEIRS up; you totally ignored my Shy explanation above,
despite it making an awful lot of sense.
Game companies are not here to cater to our whims. They're here to make
money. Understanding the way a CCG must operate in order to make money
is vital to understanding why some things end up they way they do (why a
rarity scheme even exists, for example).
Curevei
>1. You don't want more than one.
I think four is about right. If I really want to use one, I'd think about
three copies for that deck. Fourth copy is for another deck where I throw it
in because it has the right disciplines.
> If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka
>rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in
>conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not.
> Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay
>another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have
>more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I
>consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different
>versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as
>many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many
>as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than
>Condemnation: Languid.
Except, they are all different in terms of specials and discipline spreads.
>2. Their effects are indeed exotic.
> I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does
>something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot.
Are vampires ever hard to use when you've already factored them into how you
build a deck?
>And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand
>size so long as she's ready is VERY weird. Personally, I'd need a
>REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do
>anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you
>can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever. But
>if all you want is NEC DOM, there's plenty of other vamps out there.
>And about the Salubri: How often do you say, "Gee, this vampire
>doesn't have any bleed or fight disciplines, but he can hunt and then
>untap"? I don't foresee many decks using him, he's not exactly the
>next Jimmy Dunn.
Being exotic means that you are more likely to want to build an entire deck
around using a vampire. The Stranger Among Us by itself just doesn't cut it
for facilitating this. Also, their disciplines aren't necessarily exotic.
Synesios has presence and two votes. Nagaraja don't have a new discipline.
They just recombine the old.
>3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans.
> If they were, they'd have more than three vampires each, and
>they'd be made widely available. They're NOT. They're for a lark,
>like making a seven-discipline deck (aus dom for obf pot pro tha) or a
>deck with a card limit of 1. Tough to pull off, but rewarding. Or in
>tournament play, maybe to catch one's opposition off guard. Who
>knows, maybe Rewind Time will make Brujah POT PRE the next staple
>deck, or Obeah will bring rush Vicissitude combat or Ventrue Antitribu
>(who lack 5th Tradition) to the forefront.
> I wouldn't put any money on it. I don't think these vamps were
>made for tourneys. I think they were made for the same reasons
>Ur-Shulgi was made: For completeness' sake, and for style's. You
>know you're probably not going to use him, but he IS pretty cool.
All cards should attempt to be equally desirable to play. If rare vampires are
just for lark decks, should never have been made in the first place. Every
card made could have been a different card. I have no tolerance anymore for
poorly conceived cards. It doesn't take much effort to try and design only
good cards.
Specifically with B, the idea of introducing 12 bloodlines rather than a more
managable number, like 6, was a mistake. Also, there are 10 cards AFAICT that
are nonvampire uncommons. I believe there are slightly more than 10 rare
vampires. Not really a fix to just switch the two groups as there would still
be too many rares in the set, but I found it sort of interesting.
tetragrammaton
> >> >news:uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com...
> >
> What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to
> KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes?
>
About the printer(s) mistakes, well, that's life,
i don't expect nothing in particular.
To another side, i excpected NOT the raising above 1/3 of total rares in
the set.
This is just what happened with BL.
<snip>
> >?
>
> Your statement about "in real CCGs these things don't happen", implying
> that such print screwups are restricted ONLY to V:TES, is absolute and
> complete horseshit.
>
I was just para-phrasating your boast about "welcome back to the *real* V
:tES".
<snip>
> Considered talking to WW about it? I'm not sure what they can offer as
> a solution, but they can certainly take it out of the printer's hide.
>
I already done it before, when that nasty thing it's happened to me with SW.
Now i'll wait to get and open my BL boosters, re-submitting notices to WW
for any defective booster(s) i may get.
.
> However, also consider this: with the amount of cards that must be
> printed at one time, screwups like this are quite possible, especially
> considering that machines are sorting them. While I'm sure a few boxes
> are opened for "quality testing" purposes, if those boxes happen to not
> catch a buggered-up one, then shit happens.
>
> Life is not always pretty.
I know, so i don't see the reason why to tease or deal the way you do
with players just saying that thay have *not* a pretty time, opening
bad boosters.
<snip>
> >The only logic for that is the financial one.
> >Sparing money.
> >Just that.
>
> Paranoid and wrong, but you've got your whiner-blinders on and can't see
> it. So get you some Kleenex, wipe away the tears, and read the stuff
> above. WW has stated repeatedly that it would like to provide more draw
> for the V:tM crowd... and reusing the familiar artwork is CERTAINLY an
> effective way to do that. If it were ALSO cheap to do so, then it would
> be stupid for them to NOT do it.
So, tell me, why we already got two sets full of
all-looking-the-same-vampires ?
I don't mind too much about it, since i like both Snelly and Shy works, but
speaking of graphic variety, a *true* card game like ours should deserve it.
> >> If it were that easy, what would be the point?
> >
> >To believe in what other people says about the game,
> >even when they think differently from you,
> >and not just dealing with them as with squabbling children.
>
> Then they shouldn't act like squabbling children. My god, man, look at
> how people are acting! Just LOOK at them!
>
> Making declarations like "WW is out to screw us" and the like are NOT
> going to help advance any rational argument. If you have a problem, try
> stating it CLEARLY, without all the hyperbole attached, and try to back
> it up with some kind of evidence
I can see that some players just reported here their bad experiences with
cards distribution in boosters.
And some others reported their good time with BL distribution.
That's evidence for me.
For those who got "good" boxes, no problem, the game is OK.
For all the others, you may consider that a *bit* of angry is inside them,
so, if you would like to clear their mind with a reasoning, you could do
that
in a less teasing way.
>. Then try to listen to other people
> when they back THEIRS up; you totally ignored my Shy explanation above,
> despite it making an awful lot of sense.
>
I'm not sure to have got your Shy explanation, then.
You just pointed that he has done lot of artworks for the V:tM before (and i
know that,
since i got so many books of V:tM), so that he somewhat "have to"
paint all the vamps cards for the future expansions, since that becomes a
marketing tool....
I don't know if you're one of the employed at the WW, dealing with that
marketing stuff.
If you are, explain me better about that.
If you are not, tell me how you can tell for sure all that stuff about
marketing tools.
Ciao
Emiliano
<snip>
> --
BernieTime
I'm wishing that the ultra rare Bloodlines vampires had at least
one of their number in an uncommon slot.
That way all those Temporis cards (for instance) are more likely
to see play in sealed/draft formats.
BernieTime
LSJ
A U1 vampire appears with only 50% more frequency than an R2.
Having 3 R2 means you have a 71% chance of seeing one (or more)
of the vampires in 20 boosters (4 boosters per player at a 5-player
drafting pod).
Having 2 R2 and 1 U1 only boosts that to 76%.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Derek Ray
about:
>> >> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>> What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to
>> KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes?
>
>About the printer(s) mistakes, well, that's life,
>i don't expect nothing in particular.
So you were just posting to make noise. Got it.
>To another side, i excpected NOT the raising above 1/3 of total rares in
>the set. This is just what happened with BL.
This is a completely different issue than complaining about defective
boosters in BL. I do not see how they are related, unless by chance
some boosters get packaged without the rare card. I don't recall any
such reports.
Why have you latched onto this number "1/3"? Does it actually have any
significance at all? Where did it come from? Why should it matter if
1/3, 1/5, or 1/2 of the set is "rare" ... OTHER than how difficult it
will be to complete a "set", something which matters only to collectors?
>> Your statement about "in real CCGs these things don't happen", implying
>> that such print screwups are restricted ONLY to V:TES, is absolute and
>> complete horseshit.
>
>I was just para-phrasating your boast about "welcome back to the *real* V
>:tES".
This is an incomprehensible statement, and a very obvious misquote of
me. I'm going to chalk it up to language differences.
I made a statement welcoming V:TES back to the "big time", and noting
that I can tell V:TES has made it back because of all the bitching and
complaining. Why, you ask? Because "no complaining" can be directly
translated into "no interest". The more complainers there are, the more
happy players there are -- and complainers are always in the minority.
><snip>
>> Considered talking to WW about it? I'm not sure what they can offer as
>> a solution, but they can certainly take it out of the printer's hide.
>
>I already done it before, when that nasty thing it's happened to me with SW.
>Now i'll wait to get and open my BL boosters, re-submitting notices to WW
>for any defective booster(s) i may get.
Doesn't that seem like a more effective thing to do than ranting on the
newsgroup BEFORE you even open your Bloodlines boosters? Won't you feel
a bit foolish if you don't get any defective boosters?
>> Life is not always pretty.
>
>I know, so i don't see the reason why to tease or deal the way you do
>with players just saying that thay have *not* a pretty time, opening
>bad boosters.
If someone got a truly defective booster, I feel sorry for them.
Contacting WW directly seems like the best option -- posting about it
here isn't going to help matters at all.
However, if someone is just pissy because they didn't get all the rares
by purchasing only 1 box of Bloodlines..., I couldn't care less. If
someone is going to rant about how terrible BL is because of this, I'll
treat them they way they deserve: as a spoiled child.
>> above. WW has stated repeatedly that it would like to provide more draw
>> for the V:tM crowd... and reusing the familiar artwork is CERTAINLY an
>> effective way to do that. If it were ALSO cheap to do so, then it would
>> be stupid for them to NOT do it.
>
>So, tell me, why we already got two sets full of
>all-looking-the-same-vampires ?
Because reusing familiar artwork (along with existing V:tM characters)
is an excellent way to draw in players who haven't ever played the game
before? "Hey, look! It's (name)! I always thought he was really
cool..."
>I don't mind too much about it, since i like both Snelly and Shy works, but
>speaking of graphic variety, a *true* card game like ours should deserve it.
I don't like Snelly's OR Shy's work. But I can at least understand why.
Fortunately, the library cards are all done by a BUNCH of different
artists. Hurrah for graphic variety!
>I can see that some players just reported here their bad experiences with
>cards distribution in boosters.
If the boosters weren't defective, then it's simply a function of random
distribution. I will post my own booster distribution below, and you
can see.
Note that randomness of distribution will be exaggerated in smaller
samples of that distribution. If you buy half a box, you're more likely
to get weird distributions than if you buy 2 boxes.
>And some others reported their good time with BL distribution.
>That's evidence for me.
>For those who got "good" boxes, no problem, the game is OK.
The only "bad" boxes are the ones with defective boosters.
>For all the others, you may consider that a *bit* of angry is inside them,
>so, if you would like to clear their mind with a reasoning, you could do
>in a less teasing way.
I have to get their attention first; case in point, look at you. If I
hadn't ripped your head off with that last post, you would never have
even considered what I'm about to say in this post. You still might
not, but I figure I have a better chance, at least.
It's equvalent to slapping someone who's having hysterics.
>I'm not sure to have got your Shy explanation, then.
>You just pointed that he has done lot of artworks for the V:tM before (and i
>know that, since i got so many books of V:tM), so that he somewhat "have to"
>paint all the vamps cards for the future expansions, since that becomes a
>marketing tool....
Correct. People are more likely to buy stuff if it can be directly
connected to stuff they already like. This is why "Britney Spears"
action figures sell out like hotcakes, and why "Susie - Blonde Pop Star"
action figures would not. If people like Shy's artwork, they're more
likely to buy the game when they see that Shy has done the artwork.
When you have figures from your V:tM sales that tell you "we have a
bunch of people here who like Shy's artwork", then it becomes even
EASIER to make the decision to reuse it.
>I don't know if you're one of the employed at the WW, dealing with that
>marketing stuff.
I am not, nor have I ever been, employed by White Wolf.
>If you are not, tell me how you can tell for sure all that stuff about
>marketing tools.
Because I'm 29 years old, I've worked in several different major
corporations for approximately 12 years now, I'm quite intelligent, and
I paid attention to what was happening around me -- NOT just what was
related to my own job. You can learn a lot this way, if you try.
Marketing is a common theme in capitalistic America -- it's something
most people learn the basics of in high school, if not sooner. When
exposed to it at close range, you can learn a whole lot more.
After a certain point, it's just common sense. I mean, if the ONLY
concern were money, they could use some bum off the street corner
drawing stick figures, right? Or more realistically, some "starving
artist" type at a convention desperate for a chance -- pay him half
market rate, endure the comparatively horrible quality he produces, and
never use him again.
THAT is what "only money" looks like.
--------------------
(rarity distribution, as promised above)
Out of 2 boxes, I received approximately:
5 of each C1
10 of each C2
2 of each U1 (mostly vampires)
5 of each U2 (mostly vampires)
2 of most R2s, EXCEPT for:
Le Dinh Tho (none)
True Faith (none)
1 of each R1, EXCEPT:
Call the Great Beast
Darkling Trickery
Defender of the Haven
Draught of the Soul
Erebus Mask
High Top
Nightmare Curse
Shroud of Absence
Sight Beyond Sight
The Wildebeest
Some variance was in there, but never more than 1-off for any given card
(for example, I picked up 11 Stone Quills), and very little at ALL for
the rares. I would expect the variance to increase somewhat for 1 box,
and nearly level out at 3 boxes.
For the scarce-vamp panickers, I currently have 3 Nagaraja, 6 Trujah,
and 7 Salubri. I am more than capable of making a deck using
Temporis/Obeah cards, and especially so after I do a little trading.
Wes
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Le Dinh Tho (none)
> True Faith (none)
Strangely, I ended up with a few extras of both. Contact me and we'll do
some trades :)
Cheers,
WES
The Nosferatu Stuff
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only
> >saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as
> >there is with the leave torpor action.
>
> However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it,
> you can still eat the vampire.
I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor' was
it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and
play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't
that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out
for only 1 blood?
Either way when ever you encounter a vampire in torpor you get the chance to
diab him.
> Hell, at least you can PLAY the card, right? Sheesh. What do you want,
> the inferiors to all read "I win"?
I playtested that card! It's okay because it's going to be R1. =)
Wes
"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor'
was
> it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and
> play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't
> that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out
> for only 1 blood?
Humanitas is used for 'rescue' actions and *not* for 'leave torpor' actions.
They are similar but different actions...
In V:tM terms, 'Humanitas' would actually be better for leaving torpor than
for rescuing. Vampires with high Humanity scores must spend less time in
torpor than those who are closer to the Beast.
On the other hand, when one vampire rescues another from torpor, the
rescuing vampire has to be at least two generations (maybe three?) than the
rescued vampire... a concept that did not make it into V:tES.
Cheers,
WES
tetragrammaton
> >> What do you expect them to do? Especially since they don't even get to
> >> KNOW that things are screwed up until people start opening boxes?
> >
> >About the printer(s) mistakes, well, that's life,
> >i don't expect nothing in particular.
>
> So you were just posting to make noise. Got it.
>
No, i'm posting to support people that dislike to find
bad boosters (either due to distribution or for defective ones).
And you're pointing that people should not "whining", since
that is a thing that *sometimes* happens.
I can't see how this is a good point.
> >To another side, i excpected NOT the raising above 1/3 of total rares in
> >the set. This is just what happened with BL.
>
> This is a completely different issue than complaining about defective
> boosters in BL. I do not see how they are related, unless by chance
> some boosters get packaged without the rare card. I don't recall any
> such reports.
>
> Why have you latched onto this number "1/3"? Does it actually have any
> significance at all? Where did it come from? Why should it matter if
> 1/3, 1/5, or 1/2 of the set is "rare" ... OTHER than how difficult it
> will be to complete a "set", something which matters only to collectors?
Significance...?
This is just plain matemathics, my friend.
For collectors, having more than 33 % of the rares in a set means
more money to spend finding those rares.
Maybe they don't mind, since this CCG is a luxury thing, ok.
For players, that's just crap since (giving possibilities here):
A) Most of the rares in the set are unuseful for playing terms (eg: twisting
the knife)
OR
B)Most of the rares are useful for playing the game and/or for setting up a
strategy (eg: pulled fangs)
Say, if we got A, then having more than 33% of rares is crap, becuse players
got a set with many not-so-useful cards, and that rare slot in the booster
could have
been spared for something better...
If B, then is anyway crap for players, that will have an hard time looking
for so many rares cards to play with.
Having a set with a more balanced proportion of common-uncommon-rare make
things easier
for players, i think.
And, since the community supporting the game is made mostly of players,
a general not-good feeling is in the background when such a "high % rare
set" comes out
(say, oh my! so many rewind time to find to build a deck with....).
> This is an incomprehensible statement, and a very obvious misquote of
> me. I'm going to chalk it up to language differences.
>
> I made a statement welcoming V:TES back to the "big time", and noting
> that I can tell V:TES has made it back because of all the bitching and
> complaining. Why, you ask? Because "no complaining" can be directly
> translated into "no interest". The more complainers there are, the more
> happy players there are -- and complainers are always in the minority.
>
Ok
> ><snip>
<snip>
> >I already done it before, when that nasty thing it's happened to me with
SW.
> >Now i'll wait to get and open my BL boosters, re-submitting notices to
WW
> >for any defective booster(s) i may get.
>
> Doesn't that seem like a more effective thing to do than ranting on the
> newsgroup BEFORE you even open your Bloodlines boosters? Won't you feel
> a bit foolish if you don't get any defective boosters?
I'm not ranting, i just pointed that.
> >> Life is not always pretty.
> >
> >I know, so i don't see the reason why to tease or deal the way you do
> >with players just saying that thay have *not* a pretty time, opening
> >bad boosters.
>
> If someone got a truly defective booster, I feel sorry for them.
> Contacting WW directly seems like the best option -- posting about it
> here isn't going to help matters at all.
Why not ?
If you don't like, you don't read and don't answer to such posts, then.
Let those "whining" players "cry" just between themselves.
Just report (as you're doing below) your experience with boosters opening.
>
> However, if someone is just pissy because they didn't get all the rares
> by purchasing only 1 box of Bloodlines..., I couldn't care less. If
> someone is going to rant about how terrible BL is because of this, I'll
> treat them they way they deserve: as a spoiled child.
>
<snip all the stuff about shy, point taken>
> >I can see that some players just reported here their bad experiences with
> >cards distribution in boosters.
>
> If the boosters weren't defective, then it's simply a function of random
> distribution. I will post my own booster distribution below, and you
> can see.
>
> Note that randomness of distribution will be exaggerated in smaller
> samples of that distribution. If you buy half a box, you're more likely
> to get weird distributions than if you buy 2 boxes.
>
This is not always true, me & a friend of mine opened in common 7 boxes
of SW, and we don't even collected a single whole collection,
still missing a fair number of rares (10) (apart getting as many as 7
defectives boosters
with no rares).
> The only "bad" boxes are the ones with defective boosters.
>
> >For all the others, you may consider that a *bit* of angry is inside
them,
> >so, if you would like to clear their mind with a reasoning, you could do
> >in a less teasing way.
>
> I have to get their attention first; case in point, look at you. If I
> hadn't ripped your head off with that last post, you would never have
> even considered what I'm about to say in this post. You still might
> not, but I figure I have a better chance, at least.
You can get attention even without that, i think.
Else, you're dealing the same way you don't like
about those "whining" players:
with hyperboles and over-talked statements.
>
> It's equvalent to slapping someone who's having hysterics.
>
<snip again the shy rasoning, seeying your point>
Ciao
Emiliano
LSJ
>
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >is ascendance. Perhaps you were thinking of Rapid Healing? The only
> > >saving grace here is that if it's blocked there's no free lunch as
> > >there is with the leave torpor action.
> >
> > However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it,
> > you can still eat the vampire.
>
> I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor' was
> it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and
> play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't
Yes, unless you are useing the No Repeat Actions rule, since they are
both "leave torpor" types.
> that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out
> for only 1 blood?
No. Humanitas's card text does that. "Rescue" is not "Leave".
> Either way when ever you encounter a vampire in torpor you get the chance to
> diab him.
Not unless the rules or card text says so.
Joshua Duffin
news:n1YP7.13640$g96.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > However, Rapid Healing *is* a "leave torpor" action. If you block it,
> > you can still eat the vampire.
>
> I thought Rapid Healing was a 'Rapid Healing Action' and 'leave torpor'
was
> it's own action? In other words if you try to rapid heal, get blocked and
> play change of target, you can still try a 'leave torpor' action? Isn't
> that also what prevents a vampire with humanatis from getting himself out
> for only 1 blood?
>
> Either way when ever you encounter a vampire in torpor you get the chance
to
> diab him.
You're right, but the "encounter a vampire in torpor" isn't used
anymore, as I understand it. Whenever a vampire blocks an action
of a vampire in torpor, he gets the chance to diablerize. Also,
he can take an action to diablerize a vampire in torpor. But
"rescue a vampire from torpor", "leave torpor", and "diablerize
a vampire in torpor" are all different action types, now.
In case you didn't already know that. ;-)
Josh
repeating readily available information
LSJ
> You're right, but the "encounter a vampire in torpor" isn't used
> anymore, as I understand it. Whenever a vampire blocks an action
> of a vampire in torpor, he gets the chance to diablerize.
Only in the instances where the rules allow it.
If, for example, Rapid Healing failed to extend the diablerie opportunity
to the blocker, then the blocker would have no diablerie opportunity.
> Also,
> he can take an action to diablerize a vampire in torpor. But
> "rescue a vampire from torpor", "leave torpor", and "diablerize
> a vampire in torpor" are all different action types, now.
Right.
Joshua Duffin
news:3C10E227...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > You're right, but the "encounter a vampire in torpor" isn't used
> > anymore, as I understand it. Whenever a vampire blocks an action
> > of a vampire in torpor, he gets the chance to diablerize.
>
> Only in the instances where the rules allow it.
> If, for example, Rapid Healing failed to extend the diablerie opportunity
> to the blocker, then the blocker would have no diablerie opportunity.
That would be kind of cool. I eagerly await the day that an action
usable by a vampire in torpor is printed which does not allow a
blocking vampire to diablerize. :-)
As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your
ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type?
Josh
not healing too rapidly right now
LSJ
> As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your
> ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type?
It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type"
is defined).
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your
> > ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type?
>
> It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type"
> is defined).
So it's because the text uses the key words "leaves torpor"? The
text of the NRA rule doesn't use it as an example, and the card
is clearly not a "standard" "leave torpor" action since it doesn't
cost 2 blood. OTOH, Scouting Mission is not a standard bleed
action since it's a bleed at +1, so maybe this makes sense after
all. :-)
Josh
the word is the key
The Nosferatu Stuff
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your
> > ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type?
>
> It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type"
> is defined).
Okay, you got me thinking now. By type, what that that mean if this
happens:
Noals full Lolita is hanging around in torpor from Bernie's (typical sunday
game)
I drop a spare fortitude master card on her
I graverob her at inferior with Cardano, who of course freak drives.
Lolita rapid heals out of torpor and gains a blood(shes at 4 now)
She force of wills, bleeds Bernie for a meger 3 which he takes.
She is back in torpor with 3 blood.
At this point I get confused.
1) Lolita freak drives, she can't rescue herself, at least under NRA right?
Because they are both "leave torpor" 'types' of actions?
2) If the graverobbing had been at superior putting Lolita into the ready
region instead of torpor, could Cardano attempt to rescue Lolita? Since he
has already taken a "pull your ass out of torpor" 'type' of action?(see
graverobbing) Since the normal rescuse is also a "pull your ass out of
torpor" 'type' of action?
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > As an aside, Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action only by your
> > > ruling of 19980126, right? Otherwise it would be its own type?
> >
> > It's a "leave torpor" "type" by the text of the NRA rule (where "type"
> > is defined).
>
> Okay, you got me thinking now. By type, what that that mean if this
> happens:
> Noals full Lolita is hanging around in torpor from Bernie's (typical sunday
> game)
> I drop a spare fortitude master card on her
> I graverob her at inferior with Cardano, who of course freak drives.
> Lolita rapid heals out of torpor and gains a blood(shes at 4 now)
> She force of wills, bleeds Bernie for a meger 3 which he takes.
> She is back in torpor with 3 blood.
>
> At this point I get confused.
>
> 1) Lolita freak drives, she can't rescue herself, at least under NRA right?
> Because they are both "leave torpor" 'types' of actions?
She can't take the "leave torpor" action, right, since she has already
take a "leave torpor" type action this turn.
> 2) If the graverobbing had been at superior putting Lolita into the ready
> region instead of torpor, could Cardano attempt to rescue Lolita? Since he
> has already taken a "pull your ass out of torpor" 'type' of action?(see
> graverobbing) Since the normal rescuse is also a "pull your ass out of
> torpor" 'type' of action?
Graverobbing isn't a "rescue a vampire from torpor" action type, no.
(card text).
Shaun McIsaac
> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>,
> smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) mumbled something about:
> >> I would much rather see the scarce vamps rare, than have them be
> >> uncommon and me sitting staring at six to eight copies of Blanche Hill.
> >> I will NEVER need more than four copies of her (or any scarce vamp) --
> >
> >When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight"
> >copies of one vampire? Or even five?
>
> Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that
> maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare,
> instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill,
> because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most.
> Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I?
More than four copies of any vampire is a waste. Scarce has nothing
to do with it.
> >It hadn't crossed my mind to make a deck based around a card that cost
> >2 blood for a clan that doesn't have particularly great blood gain
> >(though the assembly is rather nice). However I wouldn't mind being
> >able to play a domain of evernight or RT in a deck. They're neat
> >cards. I think I should be able to use them.
> I think you'll be perfectly able to use them. Consider trading?
Zero sum gain. Unless you get a screwy distribution (which ended up
happening), or you have someone you trade with buy a *lot* BLs,
trading wouldn't help as it would simply mean that you can play XYZ
and they can't.
> >> And I will disagree with you on at least three cards: Renewed Vigor's
> >> inferior-out is equivalent to basic Restoration. This action is never
> >> BAD.
> >Unfortunately for that argument, restoration is crap too IMO. You're
> >pitching a card for 1 blood (at inferior). If that was good then so
> I'm not sure what world you play in, but being able to put two blood on
> a vampire is certainly useful.
Since this only nets you 1 more blood than hunting, I refer you again
to the ascendance. Cards that only mean the loss or gain of one blood
are generally pretty weak. 1 pt of pool loss to your prey is ok.
> >> Spirit Marionette's inferior-out reads "bleed at +1", which also
> >> is never bad.
> >Never was a scouting mission fan myself, though this is an improvement
> >over a "restoration". The Obeah off clan cards are considerably
> >better than the Temporis ones, so far as I've seen.
> Hell, at least you can PLAY the card, right? Sheesh. What do you want,
> the inferiors to all read "I win"?
Ah, I see. There is no middle ground between ascendance and a "Die
Button."
> >> Repulsion's inferior-out kicks ass for Presence, and can
> >> always be freely cycled.
> >Which pre clan was short on manuevers?
> Oh, you mean the Ventrue, who only have one maneuver card available,
> that card only at superior, and who would be much better off sticking in
> another Skin of Steel anyway?
Fake Out, Unflinching Persistence, Zip Gun if you want it. That's
without bothering to get generic equipment, or the 7 of them with some
amount of celerity.
<snip money>
Sorry, I must be alone in that I don't want CCGs to turn into Golf.
> >D) Imposing start up costs are *NOT* a good way to get more people
> >into the game.
> I don't care if the sets cost $5 per box. If I am introducing new
> people to the game, I will point them at the Sabbat War/Final Nights
> starter decks, or the discount V:TES/Jyhad boxes.
> BLOODLINES IS NOT A GOOD SET TO START A NEWBIE ON. Sheesh.
Again, making sets that aren't newbie friendly is fine, so long as you
don't want any more players. Otherwise they will be put off by it.
> Gosh! How CLEVER!
Indeed.
Shaun McIsaac
> First, I'd like to say I'm new here.
> Hey, everybody.
>
> Second, as to whether the Nagaraja, Salubri, and True Brujah vampires
> should all be rare: I believe they should be, and here are my
> reasons. (Keep in mind I'm a player, not a collector.)
>
> 1. You don't want more than one.
> If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka
> rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in
> conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not.
> Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay
> another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have
> more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I
> consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different
> versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as
> many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many
> as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than
> Condemnation: Languid.
You only want one or two in play (3 pool isn't bad if you're using
enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to
ensure you get 1. If you've got ten or more cards requiring a
particular discipline I find it a real pain when only 3 vamps in the
crypt have it, as you will see the ten library cards but not always
the vamp to play it (nm if he gets killed somehow - another
annoyance).
> 2. Their effects are indeed exotic.
> I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does
> something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot.
> And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand
> size so long as she's ready is VERY weird.
Really? Increased hand size is a pretty nice thing. For that matter,
all the Nagaraja seem solid as long as you're using their disciplines.
> Personally, I'd need a
> REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do
> anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you
> can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever.
Without the Revelations, you can bleed your grandprey =)
> 3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans.
Not on their own, but I sincerely hope they were supposed to be
something you could mix with another clan and win with.
> There probably will be a rare or two that I feel I simply MUST have.
> I know I've opened two boxes of Sabbat War and still don't have a
> Powerbase: Montreal, which is the only rare I really care about from
> the set. But all in all, I think White Wolf deserves a little credit.
The non scarce clans/cards are largely fine, as far as I've seen them.
There are some tweaks that should have been made IMO; Absorb the Mind
(dom and MYT, especially) is a bit too unusual for a common slot,
Engling Fury is too useful for the cats to be R1, etc
James Coupe
McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes:
>> >When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight"
>> >copies of one vampire? Or even five?
>>
>> Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that
>> maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare,
>> instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill,
>> because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most.
>> Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I?
>
>More than four copies of any vampire is a waste. Scarce has nothing
>to do with it.
True if you're playing a "usual" deck where you might want one vampire a
lot, but also want to get out three or four vampires.
Good decks have been done with lots of copies of one vampire, however.
--
James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near
668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky
And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind
Frederick Scott
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
> firstco...@aol.com (Brian) wrote in message
> news:80bafd85.01120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>First, I'd like to say I'm new here.
>>Hey, everybody.
>>
>>Second, as to whether the Nagaraja, Salubri, and True Brujah vampires
>>should all be rare: I believe they should be, and here are my
>>reasons. (Keep in mind I'm a player, not a collector.)
>>
>>1. You don't want more than one.
>>
>
> You only want one or two in play (3 pool isn't bad if you're using
> enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to
> ensure you get 1.
You may want 12 in the crypt to get only the 1 every single time you
draw it - then play the Soul-Gem-add-one-discipline-card game. I'm
imagining a Huitzy-and-the-Beast deck, for instance.
>>2. Their effects are indeed exotic.
Be careful! Just because vampires have "exotic" specials and exotic
discipline cards available to them doesn't make them exotic. They
may turn out to have a very useful discipline combination which fits
into a very common type of deck to great advantage, and their exotic
specials and discipline cards become frosting on the cake. That is
not the kind of a card you want as a rare.
Fred
Chris Shorb
7 boosters, and I had all C1 & 2, all U1 & 2, and I was missing just 14
rares. However, after a third box, I was still missing 11 rares.
Diminishing returns I guess. I am not really disappointed. Any one
want Iron Heart - I now own 4.
best-
chris
PeterM wrote:
>
> Well frankly I'm dissapointed. While I expected to be missing rares,
> after opening 2 boxes (15 to be exact) plus the 4 boosters in the
> draft, I am shocked at the number of commons and uncommons I got.
>
> U1 vampires. I got as many as 5 (Ublo-Satha) to NONE for Saxum, Wolf
> Valentine, Jerry, Ilse, Erinyl!!! That's ridiculous after 2 boxes
> IMNSHO.
>
> U2 cards, ranged from as little as 2 in a few cases to 7-8.
>
> C1 cards. the numbers ranged from 4-8 total after 2 boxes. so 2-4 C1
> cards per box? doesn't seem common to me.
>
> C2 cards. ranged from 8-14 or so again considering 2 boxes.
>
> The other main observation I had was I opened the boxes and left the
> cards in order as they were in the booster. As I began to sort the
> cards, I noticed I was getting A LOT of *certain* cards, and very
> little of others. By the time I was halfway through sorting and "into
> the second box" I more or less noticed the reverse trend, luckily
> starting to get more of the cards I wasn't getting.
> IOW I believe I opened about a box and got 1, maybe 2 Repulsions (U1),
> but by the time I was finished I had 6. Ditto for Missing Voice. 2-3
> Initally, by the end 8.
>
> What's up with that?
--
chris shorb
<www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development)
prince of torrance, california
Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle
Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>
Brian
>
> I think four is about right. If I really want to use one, I'd think about
> three copies for that deck. Fourth copy is for another deck where I throw it
> in because it has the right disciplines.
"You don't want more than one" was intended as a title for the
following paragraph, and not as a separate argument. I should also
have specified "in play", as that's what the following paragraph was
all about.
If just any 3 True Brujah won't work in your deck, if you NEED 3
Synesios, trade your Nu and your Krassimir. Most boxes seem to come
with about 6 scarce vampires in them.
> >I consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different
> >versions for versatility
> Except, they are all different in terms of specials and discipline spreads.
I was assuming people would be using True Brujah for their Temporis,
or Salubri for their Obeah. The off-disciplines are nice, and help
them fit in other decks, but without their signatures it's like using
Emerson Bridges for his Potence. With the Nagaraja, however, they are
too easily meshed with Giovanni bleed, so I agree with you in that
perhaps THEY shouldn't have been rare.
> >2. Their effects are indeed exotic.
> > I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does
> >something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot.
>
> Are vampires ever hard to use when you've already factored them into how you
> build a deck?
Sure. I factored Spiridonas into lots of decks he didn't belong in as
"my bleeder". He was real hard to use, cause one discipline was often
all he had in common with the rest of the deck.
More to the point, I intended "hard to use" to mean "unlikely to see
play in great quantity". Just because you CAN build a deck around a
vamp doesn't mean it will work, or that everyone will build a similar
deck, so it doesn't necessitate the card as a common or even an
uncommon.
> Being exotic means that you are more likely to want to build an entire deck
> around using a vampire.
I disagree. Ezmerelda has a VERY exotic ability, and yet I've never
seen her in play. To have a deck based around a vampire, it has only
to be powerful on its own. Take Rob Treasure's Lazverinus deck, for
example. +2 strength and a title: no X+2 blood for +X bleed, no
prey-burns-all-his-locations, nothing too out of the ordinary. Just a
lot of strength and five powerful disciplines.
Besides, building your entire deck around one vampire is in the
minority among competitive deckbuilding strategies. One Rob Treasure
doesn't mean all Lazverini should be commons. (Check out
www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rob to see the deck I'm talking
about.)
> The Stranger Among Us by itself just doesn't cut it
> for facilitating this. Also, their disciplines aren't necessarily exotic.
> Synesios has presence and two votes. Nagaraja don't have a new discipline.
> They just recombine the old.
Again, Nagaraja may be the exception. As for Synesios, is 2 votes +
PRE worth 8, on its own? Don't you use any other disciplines? If you
want, say, Aus, For, or Dom, or need a Camarilla title, I can assure
you there are quite a few better buys than him.
> >I think they were made for the same reasons
> >Ur-Shulgi was made: For completeness' sake, and for style's. You
> >know you're probably not going to use him, but he IS pretty cool.
> All cards should attempt to be equally desirable to play. If rare vampires are
> just for lark decks, should never have been made in the first place. Every
> card made could have been a different card. I have no tolerance anymore for
> poorly conceived cards. It doesn't take much effort to try and design only
> good cards.
Equally desirable to play, in the same numbers as each other? Some
cards must be printed copiously; others, not so much. Ur-Shulgi is
probably quite desirable to play, in one deck, somewhere. Out of
thousands. So he gets to be R1, and Govern the Unaligned is "more
desirable to play"...unless you're that Provision of the
Silsila/Minion Tap deck that uses the big guy.
A poorly conceived card is subjective: Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. Earlier, I saw a lament posted about how badly Gift of
Bellona sucked. To me, after making a !Salubri combat deck with
plenty of weapons, it's gold. Since it's rare, I'm counting on about
5 guys like him for every 1 like me, so I can get as many as would be
effective. Perhaps the playtesters, after much playtesting, found the
True Brujah to be of very limited use, and so the supply was lessened
accordingly.
I also put forth that it DOES take much effort to try and design only
good cards, because you have to take a large number of other factors
into account. But why don't you ask LSJ? He writes in frequently,
and I'll bet he knows SOMEBODY who desigs the cards, if he doesn't
himself.
> Specifically with B, the idea of introducing 12 bloodlines rather than a more
> managable number, like 6, was a mistake. Also, there are 10 cards AFAICT that
> are nonvampire uncommons. I believe there are slightly more than 10 rare
> vampires. Not really a fix to just switch the two groups as there would still
> be too many rares in the set, but I found it sort of interesting.
No Gargoyle deck would want Create Gargoyle or Patrol to be moved to a
rare slot. At the same time, 2 Blanche Hill, a rare, proved too many
for me. The uncommon Read the Winds requires ani and aus (so it
shouldn't be common), but it is very desirable in large quantity in
the right Tzimisce deck (so it shouldn't be rare). I wouldn't want
the vampires moved to those uncommon slots, or them to the vamps' rare
ones.
I find the rarity in the set to have worked out very well. I bought a
box, and got almost everything I could have wanted from it. For
vampires, I believe I got all the uncommon ones, with 2 copies of most
of them. I got Synesios, 2 Blanche Hill (I traded one to a guy who
opened 2 Matthias) and 3 Nagaraga. All I need now is one more
Contagion, one more Wolf Valentine (VAL for), some Sense the Sin, some
Gift of Bellona, and a bunch of Swords of Righteousness. I expect to
have acquired all of these by the end of the week. I'll have 2
working decks almost entirely from my box, and the potential for many
more. Then, I'll probably use my two Salubri (which is all I need) in
a !Ventrue deck for their Obeah 5th Tradition-equivalent.
There is one matter, however, that needs addressing about the
distribution. As happy as I am with my box, my friend Bob bought
another box from the same place (Discordia Games). He got, card for
card, the same rares as I did. Our uncommons appear to match, too.
Is this just an EXTREMELY AMAZING coincidence? Cause it leads me to
believe that the packs aren't exactly random.
Brian
> > If White Wolf were to make, say, Dragos, Lambach, and Meshenka
> > rare, that would be a problem. See, those three work well in
> > conjunction with one another. True Brujah, on the other hand, do not.
> > Though their disciplines match closely, their scarcity means you pay
> > another NINE POOL to recruit the trio. Since I'm never going to have
> > more than one Trujah, they might as well be the same guy, so I
> > consider "True Brujah" to be one unique vampire, with three different
> > versions for versatility. From this standpoint, you get 3 times as
> > many of this "combined" rare than of a normal R2, or 6 times as many
> > as a R1. And that's good. I want better odds to get a Trujah than
> > Condemnation: Languid.
>
> You only want one or two in play (3 pool isn't bad if you're using
> enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to
> ensure you get 1. If you've got ten or more cards requiring a
> particular discipline I find it a real pain when only 3 vamps in the
> crypt have it, as you will see the ten library cards but not always
> the vamp to play it (nm if he gets killed somehow - another
> annoyance).
If you've got ten or more cards requiring Temporis, then they're
probably usable with Obfuscate, Presence, or Potence, precisely for
that circumstance. Same goes for Obeah, except it mixes with
different things. Remember, you're not supposed to be dependent upon
a scarce clan. They are the crackers, not the soup. Say, a Setite
bleed deck can use Synesios (PRE obf ser TEM POT) very easily due to
his matching disciplines. Then, their Domain of Evernight becomes
either a basic +1 stealth (usually of use) or occasionally a Freak
Drive. Their Clotho's Gift is sometimes a Kindred Intelligence, other
times an overpowered Rutor's Hand. And if one of the 2 Synesios or 2
Stranger Among Us doesn't come up, no biggie.
> > 2. Their effects are indeed exotic.
> > I suppose it's the accepted rule of thumb that if a card does
> > something too entirely weird or hard to use, stick it in the R1 slot.
> > And I have to say, a vampire with an action that gives you +1 hand
> > size so long as she's ready is VERY weird.
>
> Really? Increased hand size is a pretty nice thing. For that matter,
> all the Nagaraja seem solid as long as you're using their disciplines.
Yes, they are. In the previous post, I renig on the Nagaraja: I
could use a few of these guys. Their rarity didn't seem misplaced,
however, as I got three in my box. As for increased hand size, sure,
it's great. But just not when it's instead of something better, like
near-unblockable bleeds for 6, which that chick is easily capable of.
I look at using her just for the hand size like using Carlotta just
for the recycling. Both cost 7 and have better things to do.
> > Personally, I'd need a
> > REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do
> > anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you
> > can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever.
>
> Without the Revelations, you can bleed your grandprey =)
Good point. However, I used to (over)play Spiridonas, and I used
Revelations in about 2/3 of the decks with him in it. I found that
Rev at basic usually cleared either 1) Nothing of importance or 2)
One of my Ventrue prey's 3 deflections. Archon Investigation was the
only card it really shined against, when my prey had one. Discard is
underrated--just not much.
> > 3. These clans are not supposed to be playable clans.
>
> Not on their own, but I sincerely hope they were supposed to be
> something you could mix with another clan and win with.
Oh, probably. I have some ideas.
> The non scarce clans/cards are largely fine, as far as I've seen them.
> There are some tweaks that should have been made IMO; Absorb the Mind
> (dom and MYT, especially) is a bit too unusual for a common slot,
> Engling Fury is too useful for the cats to be R1, etc
Yeah, I also thought Engling Fury was great, but who knows, the
playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something
else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a
Leather Jacket. And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the
Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box).
Time will tell. If I check Lasombra's Tournament Winning Deck Archive
in a couple months, and I see a deck with 6 Salubri in the crypt and
another with a metric butt-ton of Rewind Time, I'll stand corrected.
Until then, may your box be/have been as bountiful as mine.
LSJ
> Most boxes seem to come
> with about 6 scarce vampires in them.
Yep:
1 pack out of every 5 should contain an R2 vampire (one of the scarce
ones or Huitzilopochtli).
9 out of 10 of those (9 of 50, or about 1 of 6) should contain a scarce
vampire.
> There is one matter, however, that needs addressing about the
> distribution. As happy as I am with my box, my friend Bob bought
> another box from the same place (Discordia Games). He got, card for
> card, the same rares as I did. Our uncommons appear to match, too.
>
> Is this just an EXTREMELY AMAZING coincidence? Cause it leads me to
> believe that the packs aren't exactly random.
"Exactly Random" is impossible with current technology.
Still, it is a fairly large coincidence that two boxes (picked "at random")
would contain exactly the same set of rares.
The uncommons are not tied to the rares in any way, so that would only
add to the coincidence factor.
James Coupe
<firstco...@aol.com> writes:
>Yeah, I also thought Engling Fury was great, but who knows, the
>playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something
>else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a
>Leather Jacket.
Oh, I don't know. It's pretty good if you end up doing Minion Tap/Blood
Doll type action and you want to get the blood back, which makes it
fairly different to Leather Jacket which can never get blood back.
> And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the
>Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box).
Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic
regardless of rarity.
But a Dominate deck might as well include Dodge! anyway, since it's
unlikely that it's going to draw anything else for combat. (And if it
is, using dodges isn't likely to be the best option anyway.)
James Coupe
>playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something
>else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a
>Leather Jacket.
Oh, I don't know. It's pretty good if you end up doing Minion Tap/Blood
Doll type action and you want to get the blood back, which makes it
fairly different to Leather Jacket which can never get blood back.
> And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the
>Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box).
Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic
Brian
> >Leather Jacket.
>
> Oh, I don't know. It's pretty good if you end up doing Minion Tap/Blood
> Doll type action and you want to get the blood back, which makes it
> fairly different to Leather Jacket which can never get blood back.
Certainly, the cards have different uses. But their similarity is
strong: You get a cool but small effect which helps your vampire stay
ready, and then you untap at the end of the turn.
> > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the
> >Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box).
>
> Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic
> regardless of rarity.
This string of posts is about Bloodlines' rarity, and whether they are
appropriate, so it is not the time to ignore the rarity. I don't
believe Absorb the Mind is problematic, but I do believe it will be
used widely, justifying a commons slot.
> But a Dominate deck might as well include Dodge! anyway, since it's
> unlikely that it's going to draw anything else for combat. (And if it
> is, using dodges isn't likely to be the best option anyway.)
Sure, for an all-Dominate deck, Dodge! is fine. What about a
combat-capable deck with Dominate in it, like, say, Lasombra and
Kiasyd? My Tremere could use a replaceable dodge, too, before the
second-round carnage begins :)
Derek Ray
firstco...@aol.com (Brian) mumbled something about:
>> > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the
>> >Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box).
>>
>> Ignore the rarity. If the card is problematic, it is problematic
>> regardless of rarity.
>
>This string of posts is about Bloodlines' rarity, and whether they are
>appropriate, so it is not the time to ignore the rarity. I don't
>believe Absorb the Mind is problematic, but I do believe it will be
>used widely, justifying a commons slot.
Why would you steal one blood at close range only when you can play
Earth Swords instead and do 2R or 3R damage?
Absorb the Mind belongs right where it is.
>Sure, for an all-Dominate deck, Dodge! is fine. What about a
>combat-capable deck with Dominate in it, like, say, Lasombra and
>Kiasyd? My Tremere could use a replaceable dodge, too, before the
They should be using Arms of the Abyss at superior, where they get to
hit back as well as dodge. ;) (And they have lots more superior OBT
than DOM =)
>second-round carnage begins :)
...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long
range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which is
it? ;)
Brian
> >believe Absorb the Mind is problematic, but I do believe it will be
> >used widely, justifying a commons slot.
>
> Why would you steal one blood at close range only when you can play
> Earth Swords instead and do 2R or 3R damage?
I wouldn't, I'd dodge.
> Absorb the Mind belongs right where it is.
You know it's a common? It seems like there's some confusion here,
cause you say it belongs right where it is (which is what I said)
except you say it like you're disagreeing.
> >Sure, for an all-Dominate deck, Dodge! is fine. What about a
> >combat-capable deck with Dominate in it, like, say, Lasombra and
> >Kiasyd? My Tremere could use a replaceable dodge, too, before the
>
> They should be using Arms of the Abyss at superior, where they get to
> hit back as well as dodge. ;) (And they have lots more superior OBT
> than DOM =)
You're right, Arms is probably better cause the myt/MYT ability blows.
It's just that I hate it when a basic thing like a dodge or a
maneuver for zero isn't common. I still have but one copy of Shadow
Step.
> >second-round carnage begins :)
>
> ...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long
> range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which is
> it? ;)
Actually, there is the occasional 2 Increased Strength + Sewer Lid for
7R, or Gangrel that stays close, or now Conflagration...I think I'll
drop 1 Apportation and 1 Theft of Vitae, and add 2 Absorb the Mind,
until they make a Bond with the Mountain that's free (it costs Maggie
Schaefer all her blood!) Sometimes a dodge is important to have when
your clan doesn't have S:CE. Blythe and Maggie, no dominate, but
they're not as important as like Bryan VD or Justine.
I love her. "Magdelena Schaefer, Caitiff of Doom."
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> ...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long
> range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which is
> it? ;)
That would be fine, if there were a card that gives a maneuver
and a press, but since there's not, Dodge plus press into the
payoff round looks like the best available card (assuming you
want to send your opponent to torpor instead of just making
him thirsty).
Rare, unfortunately.
- Jason Bell
Halcyan 2
>beholder. Earlier, I saw a lament posted about how badly Gift of
>Bellona sucked. To me, after making a !Salubri combat deck with
>plenty of weapons, it's gold. Since it's rare, I'm counting on about
>5 guys like him for every 1 like me, so I can get as many as would be
>effective. Perhaps the playtesters, after much playtesting, found the
>True Brujah to be of very limited use, and so the supply was lessened
>accordingly.
Ha ha! I think Gift of Bellona *does* suck. I'd be more than happy to trade
away my copy...
>I find the rarity in the set to have worked out very well. I bought a
>box, and got almost everything I could have wanted from it. For
>vampires, I believe I got all the uncommon ones, with 2 copies of most
>of them. I got Synesios, 2 Blanche Hill (I traded one to a guy who
>opened 2 Matthias) and 3 Nagaraga. All I need now is one more
>Contagion, one more Wolf Valentine (VAL for), some Sense the Sin, some
>Gift of Bellona, and a bunch of Swords of Righteousness. I expect to
>have acquired all of these by the end of the week. I'll have 2
>working decks almost entirely from my box, and the potential for many
>more. Then, I'll probably use my two Salubri (which is all I need) in
>a !Ventrue deck for their Obeah 5th Tradition-equivalent.
I agree. Just like with Final Nights (where I got a set of all the commons and
uncommons in a single box), in my single box of Bloodlines, I managed to get a
set of all the commons and uncommons as well. Quite handy IMO. (Though I did
annoyingly get some duplicate rares in the one box. But I guess it's okay).
Ended up with 2 Matthias, 2 Miriam, 1 Krassimir, 1 Nu, and 1 Nagaraja reseacher
lady.
>There is one matter, however, that needs addressing about the
>distribution. As happy as I am with my box, my friend Bob bought
>another box from the same place (Discordia Games). He got, card for
>card, the same rares as I did. Our uncommons appear to match, too.
By looking at other people's haves and needs list, it seems that a lot of
people ended up with very similar rares as I did, or drastically different
ones.
>Is this just an EXTREMELY AMAZING coincidence? Cause it leads me to
>believe that the packs aren't exactly random.
Seems that way.
Halcyan 2
Derek Ray
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) mumbled something about:
>Ha ha! I think Gift of Bellona *does* suck. I'd be more than happy to trade
>away my copy...
Dibs!
Let me find you a Shotgun Ritual... ;)
Derek Ray
"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about:
Sending opponents to torpor full just means they come back, though. I'd
much rather move a little blood off them first for my own Blood Dolls,
and to make it that much more of a nuisance. Actually, I've had quite a
bit more success by combining Weather Control's inferior with nothing
but Thefts -- vamps go to torpor empty, I end up about 3/4 capacity or
down only 1 blood.
If my only defense against someone's strike is a Dodge (at close range
no less), that makes me cringe even more... additional strikes,
environmental damage, and the like aren't all that uncommon. And a
number of strikes (the !Salubri have one themselves, in Vengeance of
Samiel) these days are coming with "This strike cannot be Dodged."
attached to them.
Besides, then you go to the second round, and you're STILL at close
range. Yes, you can Blood to Water first, but now you've spent 3 blood
off your vampire and gotten no guarantee of torpor or vamps burning from
it -- and you HAD to stay at close range to do it, meaning you still
have to survive their strike in round 2.
Now, if it were like Flash, it would be excellent (as you note above).
Or even a THA version of Circle wouldn't be that bad -- press, with an
optional maneuver? Yes, certainly! Theft at close, Walk at long, and I
can include some Apportations if I want to be at long both rounds.
>Rare, unfortunately.
I can't see any good reason to have this card NOT be rare. It's S:CE
for the Gargoyles, which is a very rare thing for them to be doing,
considering they're all about combat. And while it's a good defensive
card for the Tremere (much like Vampiric Speed is an excellent defensive
card for the PRE/CEL bleed crowd), it really doesn't do much to help
their offense at all.
I built a Gargoyle deck over the weekend to play, and I looked at that
card briefly, and deliberately left it out. Totally at cross-purposes
to what you want these guys to be doing.
Shaun McIsaac
> > > 1. You don't want more than one.
> > enchant kindred), but you may well want about 4 in the crypt, to
> > ensure you get 1. If you've got ten or more cards requiring a
> > particular discipline I find it a real pain when only 3 vamps in the
> > crypt have it, as you will see the ten library cards but not always
> > the vamp to play it (nm if he gets killed somehow - another
> > annoyance).
>
> If you've got ten or more cards requiring Temporis, then they're
> probably usable with Obfuscate, Presence, or Potence, precisely for
> that circumstance.
Yes, but you might not want those effects (especially when the off
clan level is categorically different from the in clan one; compare
domain of evernight vs engling fury).
> Same goes for Obeah, except it mixes with
> different things. Remember, you're not supposed to be dependent upon
> a scarce clan. They are the crackers, not the soup. Say, a Setite
> bleed deck can use Synesios (PRE obf ser TEM POT) very easily due to
> his matching disciplines. Then, their Domain of Evernight becomes
> either a basic +1 stealth (usually of use) or occasionally a Freak
> Drive. Their Clotho's Gift is sometimes a Kindred Intelligence, other
> times an overpowered Rutor's Hand. And if one of the 2 Synesios or 2
> Stranger Among Us doesn't come up, no biggie.
Rutor's Hand only cost blood once though, so I don't see it being
inferior to TEM version of CG.
> As for increased hand size, sure,
> it's great. But just not when it's instead of something better, like
> near-unblockable bleeds for 6, which that chick is easily capable of.
How?
> I look at using her just for the hand size like using Carlotta just
> for the recycling. Both cost 7 and have better things to do.
Carlotta - or the SF - recycling 5ths, PTOs, and so forth is usually
worthwhile, if you're bothering to include her in the first place.
Carlotta's a 7 cap with only dom; there are plenty of minions at 7 or
below with DOM (and at least one stealth discipline).
> > > Personally, I'd need a
> > > REAL good reason for my vampire with Necromancy and Dominate to do
> > > anything other than bleed the crap out of my prey; I don't care if you
> > > can increase my hand size, Revelations-on-a-stick, or whatever.
> > Without the Revelations, you can bleed your grandprey =)
> Good point. However, I used to (over)play Spiridonas, and I used
> Revelations in about 2/3 of the decks with him in it. I found that
> Rev at basic usually cleared either 1) Nothing of importance or 2)
> One of my Ventrue prey's 3 deflections. Archon Investigation was the
> only card it really shined against, when my prey had one. Discard is
> underrated--just not much.
With the built in Rev, you can get all 3 of the deflections. I'm not
saying to do that instead of bleeding, but when your prey has Dom it
may be worth checking out.
> > The non scarce clans/cards are largely fine, as far as I've seen them.
> > There are some tweaks that should have been made IMO; Absorb the Mind
> > (dom and MYT, especially) is a bit too unusual for a common slot,
> > Engling Fury is too useful for the cats to be R1, etc
> Yeah, I also thought Engling Fury was great, but who knows, the
> playtesters may have found themselves forever wishing it was something
> else when they drew it. At basic Spiritus it's about the same as a
> Leather Jacket.
> And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the
> Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box).
Just play "Dodge". The Ventrue have S:CE or inf Staredown. The malks
have read intentions. The Lasombra have arms of the abyss. The
tremere could use this if they can't trade for enough apportations..
but even then, I'd rather theft most of the time (and blood fury the
rest of the time, if my combat is purely Tha).
> Time will tell. If I check Lasombra's Tournament Winning Deck Archive
> in a couple months, and I see a deck with 6 Salubri in the crypt and
> another with a metric butt-ton of Rewind Time, I'll stand corrected.
> Until then, may your box be/have been as bountiful as mine.
RT isn't something you'd want to build a deck over. Domain of
Evernight + Clotho's Gift is possible though. If Nu had DOM or dom
(giving him a skill card as needed), Trujah "bloat" with superior GtU,
superior EK, tem Clotho's Gift, and superior Scouting Mission would be
rather nasty. Give Nu a CG, play one DoE on one of the first 3
actions and use the other untaps for the rest. 3 blood off of Nu to
bring out Sheldon for no pool (to protect that Tabriz Assembly :)).
Unfortunately only the lowest cap Trujah has dom, so you have to
settle for 4 blood back and doing 1-2 other actions. Each turn. Why
do I want Rewind Time again?
No decision yet on what to do with the Salubri. Renewed Vigor is
nice, but For/Aus wasn't really lacking for 5th trads (3 princes and 3
justicars, and five of them have DOM thrown in for free). I suspect
Neutral Guard and Repulsion might end up being a key for them, though
I'll admit to not looking into it too deeply.
Shaun McIsaac
> BernieTime wrote:
> > Hindsight is always (well mostly) 20/20.
> > I'm wishing that the ultra rare Bloodlines vampires had at least
> > one of their number in an uncommon slot.
> > That way all those Temporis cards (for instance) are more likely
> > to see play in sealed/draft formats.
> A U1 vampire appears with only 50% more frequency than an R2.
> Having 3 R2 means you have a 71% chance of seeing one (or more)
> of the vampires in 20 boosters (4 boosters per player at a 5-player
> drafting pod).
> Having 2 R2 and 1 U1 only boosts that to 76%.
Perhaps, but you wouldn't want to draft BL anyways. The slave
mechanic would royally screw the gargoyles, and there would still be a
vampire shortage beyond that if you're only drafting 4 boosters. If
you were doing, say, 5-7 packs of BLs, 4 of vtes/jyhad, and 3 of
sabbat, then maybe you could do it.
Brian
> > probably usable with Obfuscate, Presence, or Potence, precisely for
> > that circumstance.
>
> Yes, but you might not want those effects (especially when the off
> clan level is categorically different from the in clan one; compare
> domain of evernight vs engling fury).
Don't want the effect? Guess that makes it not such a great card.
Worked into the playtesting, most likely, was how useful the basic-out
should be; whether it will be a similar effect for something not so
astounding like gaining a couple blood, or whether the effect will be
totally different or even awful and neutered just to get it out of
your hand.
Perhaps, we can generalize the Temporis and Obeah decks into two
types:
1) Splash decks, using only 1-2 vamps with the discipline "in case it
comes up", as I suggested with Synesios.
2) Plunge decks, using Temporis or Obeah as a major function of the
deck.
If you're leaning toward number 2), then yeah, the vamps should have
been easier to get--unless White Wolf didn't think that the latter
would (or should) be viable.
Ah, well, it's all speculation, from this end. I don't know what WW
does to playtest. All I know is that the roleplaying books are fun to
read, and that they made 3 new sets after I thought my hobby was going
to keel over, so I love 'em.
> > As for increased hand size, sure,
> > it's great. But just not when it's instead of something better, like
> > near-unblockable bleeds for 6, which that chick is easily capable of.
>
> How?
She has DOM NEC, so she plays Govern + Seduction + Conditioning. If a
second vampire tries to block, she plays Spectral Divination for +1
stealth. If that vampire adds intercept, she plays Call of the Hungry
Dead at superior. You are now bleeding your prey at 6 bleed/1
stealth, and his two best (only?) blockers can't do jack about it.
And if he plays Deflection, your grandprey isn't restricted by the
Seduction or the CotHD.
Unless your prey has 3 minions who are all intercept-capable and two
ways to add that intercept, you're going through. Easier with Ex
Nihilo, but then, there goes your blood.
My Baali are thinking about Legal Manipulations + Lost in Crowds +
Sense the Sin (superior) + Elder Impersonation + Psychomachia for
something very similar.
> > I look at using her just for the hand size like using Carlotta just
> > for the recycling. Both cost 7 and have better things to do.
>
> Carlotta - or the SF - recycling 5ths, PTOs, and so forth is usually
> worthwhile, if you're bothering to include her in the first place.
> Carlotta's a 7 cap with only dom; there are plenty of minions at 7 or
> below with DOM (and at least one stealth discipline).
I stand my ground on the Nagaraja chick, but I think you have me on
Carlotta. I didn't think about using her with Protect Thine Own.
> With the built in Rev, you can get all 3 of the deflections.
If you don't bleed with anyone for 3 turns, forcing him to hold the
deflections, you'll have that option. I'd rather go knock on the
wrong door a few times.
> I'm not
> saying to do that instead of bleeding, but when your prey has Dom it
> may be worth checking out.
Hey...maybe I SHOULD do it instead of bleeding! I mean, if I'm pretty
confident they have a deflection, I conserve cards and possibly blood
to drop a deflection without hitting my grandprey. Discarding "to run
them out" is what I'm against, cause if their deck is built right, it
won't run out. Discarding on a toolbox deck also could be very
potent.
> > And Absorb the Mind: Think of the rush to get the
> > Dominate Dodge, if it were uncommon (that is, about two per box).
>
> Just play "Dodge". The Ventrue have S:CE or inf Staredown. The malks
> have read intentions. The Lasombra have arms of the abyss. The
> tremere could use this if they can't trade for enough apportations..
> but even then, I'd rather theft most of the time (and blood fury the
> rest of the time, if my combat is purely Tha).
Check the rest of this thread, it was brought to my attention earlier
how much better Arms of the Abyss is than Absorb the Mind. I also
wrote about those Tremere buggers--how occasionally, something REAL
BAD comes your way, and a dodge becomes lots better than a theft.
Mainly I don't like a Dodge or a Maneuver or a +1 Bleed etc. to be
more than common, if it costs 0 and works at basic, on principle.
> > Time will tell. If I check Lasombra's Tournament Winning Deck Archive
> > in a couple months, and I see a deck with 6 Salubri in the crypt and
> > another with a metric butt-ton of Rewind Time, I'll stand corrected.
> > Until then, may your box be/have been as bountiful as mine.
>
> RT isn't something you'd want to build a deck over. Domain of
> Evernight + Clotho's Gift is possible though. If Nu had DOM or dom
> (giving him a skill card as needed), Trujah "bloat" with superior GtU,
> superior EK, tem Clotho's Gift, and superior Scouting Mission would be
> rather nasty. Give Nu a CG, play one DoE on one of the first 3
> actions and use the other untaps for the rest. 3 blood off of Nu to
> bring out Sheldon for no pool (to protect that Tabriz Assembly :)).
> Unfortunately only the lowest cap Trujah has dom, so you have to
> settle for 4 blood back and doing 1-2 other actions. Each turn.
Don't overdo it and get a hand full of Dominate masters and Temporis
Freak Drives, but if you can make it consistent, it sounds powerful,
original, and fun. How would you get 4 blood a turn, though? Don't
you play No Repeat Actions?
> Why do I want Rewind Time again?
You'd want Rewind Time to stop Hostile Takeovers without wasting your
master phase actions, or while still allowing for Direct
Intervention/Rotschreck/Archon Investigation. I'd play with 2 or 3.
> No decision yet on what to do with the Salubri. Renewed Vigor is
> nice, but For/Aus wasn't really lacking for 5th trads (3 princes and 3
> justicars, and five of them have DOM thrown in for free). I suspect
> Neutral Guard and Repulsion might end up being a key for them, though
> I'll admit to not looking into it too deeply.
Hey, Neutral Guard! I forgot about that! Maybe I can use them with
!Ventrue, after all. Thanks.
Shaun McIsaac
> In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>, Shaun
> McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes:
> >> >When was the last time you played a serious deck with "six to eight"
> >> >copies of one vampire? Or even five?
> >> Isn't that what I just said? Doesn't this all support my position that
> >> maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have the scarce vamps be rare,
> >> instead of uncommon? I don't want six to eight copies of Blanche Hill,
> >> because I will NEVER put that many in a deck. Four is the most.
> >> Of course, I just SAID that, didn't I?
> >More than four copies of any vampire is a waste. Scarce has nothing
> >to do with it.
> True if you're playing a "usual" deck where you might want one vampire a
> lot, but also want to get out three or four vampires.
> Good decks have been done with lots of copies of one vampire, however.
There are a few winning decks with 5+ copies of a single vampire..
usually they become 1, 2, or 3 vampire decks at that point. However
those are a pretty substantial minority, and even if they're more
common than I think they are, that would just reinforce my position
that vamps shouldn't be rare as getting 3 copies of a particular R2
vampire is a minor pain, and 12 is nightmarish.
Andrew Paris
live around the corner from the local store here and every other day I
get myself some boosters.)
Up till now I got myself just five boosters of the Bloodlines set.
Curiously enough booster 1 and 3 contained the same 11 cards. To make
it even stranger booster 2 and 5 also were identical. (Booster 1 and 2
were from a different box as the other 3.)
So now I have 33 different cards instead of 55.
In a few weeks from now , after buying booster after booster, of
course I won't regret having a lot of cool cards more than once.
But right now I'm a bit annoyed about the seeming total lack of
card-randomness in the packs I bought.
It is as if there are maybe fifty -or-so (one for every rare?)
different BL-boosters out there all containing EXACTLY the same cards
as opposed to an infinite number of randomly composed boosters.
Anyway, I guess after buying just five boosters it would be a little
early to jump to any such conclusion, so I'll just wait and see.
Andrew.
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>
> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>
> >> ...and here, the Tremere have the option to steal TWO blood at long
> >> range (as a common), and you pass it up in favor of a dodge =) Which
is
> >> it? ;)
> >
> >That would be fine, if there were a card that gives a maneuver
> >and a press, but since there's not, Dodge plus press into the
> >payoff round looks like the best available card (assuming you
> >want to send your opponent to torpor instead of just making
> >him thirsty).
>
> Sending opponents to torpor full just means they come back, though. I'd
> much rather move a little blood off them first for my own Blood Dolls,
> and to make it that much more of a nuisance. Actually, I've had quite a
> bit more success by combining Weather Control's inferior with nothing
> but Thefts -- vamps go to torpor empty, I end up about 3/4 capacity or
> down only 1 blood.
[snip yet more stuff about how Derek runs Thaumaturgy]
Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play
Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who
want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round
are screwed for the second time. First was when Apportation
didn't make the trip into Sabbat Wars, denying Thaumaturgy
the press on/maneuver versatility provided thereby, and
the second time by making the dodge+press similarly difficult
to obtain. Looks like we all have to play Thaumaturgy combat
the way you would prefer to play it. Personally, I would like
more choices on how to do it.
- Jason Bell
Derek Ray
>Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play
>Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who
>want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round
>are screwed for the second time. First was when Apportation
Actually, you'd have been screwed anyway. It isn't that I necessarily
WANT to play Thaumaturgy this way, it's that it just isn't effective any
other way (read: doesn't even kill things, much less win games).
There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" mechanic
from working the way it was intended:
- the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude
- the prevalence of other, far more effective first-round combat
And it really IS that simple. On top of that, you have the inherent
problem with putting vamps in torpor via agg: they can rescue
themselves, meaning you either stop the rescue somehow or your combat
was largely pointless.
Telepathic Tracking is a great card, and gets around S:CE just
wonderfully... if you have superior Auspex. Hannigan and Aisling were a
much-needed addition (only two vamps with AUS/THA less than 8-cap), but
they can only make up so much of your crypt. And once you start leaning
towards AUS/THA, you start leaning towards intercept. I'm still not
sure that a pure Eagle's Sight/etc. intercept deck based around these
two can't work, but intercept decks just took a beating with the Table
Wins rule, so it may not matter.
Thoughts Betrayed is also a great card, and handles S:CE and most other
combat decks. However, it is expensive, and the vamps you need to play
it with are either very large, or have inferior THA (meaning they won't
be able to make up the blood cost of TB, much less handle being punched
for 1 in two rounds). From my experience, the large vamps with DOM/THA
just work better for this sort of thing ... but then you add in all the
issues with playing large vampires and being at an action deficiency.
Rutor's Hand would solve everything if it weren't only a +1 stealth
action that people will sacrifice a vampire to block.
So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere.
Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of
Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two
blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that
they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very
unlikely.
Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that
punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable strategy.
Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you killed --
Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional strikes, ...
the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out there. So now
you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH rounds, because the
stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as well in round 2.
Apportation comes to the rescue here... unfortunately, this means that
you now MUST have superior THA, so some of your options above for
dealing with S:CE just got a little messier.
This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat
strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with
all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows, and
a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle with
since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to mention the
occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards of the trade.
>didn't make the trip into Sabbat Wars, denying Thaumaturgy
>the press on/maneuver versatility provided thereby, and
>the second time by making the dodge+press similarly difficult
>to obtain. Looks like we all have to play Thaumaturgy combat
>the way you would prefer to play it. Personally, I would like
>more choices on how to do it.
Well, you know what? I've spent a lot of time with the Tremere trying
to make them work, and I've gone through all those choices already.
What exactly "cool combo" were you going to put out there that would be
effective? Let's go down the list of options they have that include
second-round cards:
[A] Thoughts Betrayed + Theft at close + Press + Walk of Flame
Pros: Opposing minion in torpor with 3 blood missing
Opposing minions with 2 or less blood burned
Proof against S:CE
Proof against most combat
Only requires 4 cards
Adding Blood to Water almost guarantees burn
Cons: Opposing minion may not be empty -- rescue viable
Potence Signpost and Gangrel/Tzimisce agg still beat it
Adding in maneuvers makes combo too many cards
Requires DOM/THA -- expensive vamps
Expensive -- still leaves you down 2 blood
Adding in Blood to Water leaves you down 4 blood!
Weak against Fortitude
Assessment: Not cost-effective.
Solution: Play Trap instead of press cards. Replace all Walks with
Thefts, play one per round. Strike-hands for 1 to put opposing minion
in torpor at end. Still end up down blood against minions with less
than 6 blood, but less vulnerable to clumping and minions no longer able
to rescue self. Alternatively, play with big minions and 5th Tradition
to make up for the Blood to Water.
[B] maneuver, Theft, press, maneuver, Walk of Flame
Pros: All cards are free
Only requires one superior discipline
Single card (Apportation) serves as maneuver/press
Burns minions with 2 or less blood
Requires only 3 distinct cards
Proof against close-range combat
Cons: EXTREMELY vulnerable to S:CE
Somewhat vulnerable to Dodge
Requires enormous amount of Apportation
Takes up lots of deck space -- little room for "oust prey"
Weak against long-range combat
Weak against Fortitude
Opposing minion may not be empty -- rescue viable
Assessment: Not effective at killing minions.
Solution: Use weenies with THA skill cards and Haven Uncovered to "run
them out" of S:CE. Use Trap/Weather Control, throw out Apportation
entirely as too many card slots, replace all Walk with Theft. Play with
Chantry and Humanitas to help offset vampire loss to opposing combat and
your own Weather Controls. Still difficult to win games, but will make
a lot of minions dead AND empty.
[C] Spirit's Touch intercept, maneuver with ST, Theft, press with
Telepathic Tracking, maneuver with TT, Walk of Flame
Pros: Proof against S:CE
Proof against close-range combat
Only 1 card isn't free
Burns minions with 2 or less blood
Requires only 4 cards
Is inherently reactive, can save strike cards
Gleefully stops "rescue" actions
Works with only AUS/tha
Cons: Requires intercept deck -- hard to win games
Weak against counter-maneuvers and Dodge
Weak against zero-stealth decks
Weak against Giovanni (Seduction/Call)
Weak against long-range combat
Weak against Fortitude
Requires enormous amount of Telepathic Tracking
Assessment: Possibly the most effective combat available to the
Tremere, but suffers from the inherent weakness all intercept decks face
when their prey takes nothing but (D) actions. Difficult to win games
with this style.
Solution: Add in a splash of Apportation for emergency maneuvers and/or
free presses. Play with Anarch Revolt, Smiling Jack, and lots of Blood
Dolls -- your only card that costs blood comes AFTER the Theft, so you
should always have 1 blood available to pay for it.
[D] Bond with the Mountain, maneuver w/Apportation, Walk of Flame
Pros: Requires only 3 cards -- very reliable
Only costs 1 blood total
Burns empty minions
Works with only superior THA
Cons: Vulnerable to S:CE
Vulnerable to Dodge
Vulnerable to Fortitude
Vulnerable to most close-range combat
Vulnerable to long-range combat
Constant blood drain off minions
Opposing minion will not be empty
Adding in Blood to Water leaves you down 4 blood!
Assessment: Only potentially viable in bruise-and-bleed format, and
realistically, not even then. Deflection is still common, and Perfect
Clarity would mean a 3-blood cost per action. Most decks that block
will be carrying either S:CE, Fortitude, or nasty combat.
Solution: Use weenies with THA/dom (or tha/dom and skill cards) and
take NOTHING but bleed actions. Pack lots of Conditioning for when the
bleeds do get through, and hope that they run out of defense and
Deflections before your predator ousts you.
----------
Anyway. I haven't touched on Thelerity yet, or any of a number of other
options and deck variants. But you see the problem -- the whole
reliance-on-a-second-round thing is the Tremere's weak point, and while
everyone fixates on "get to a second round!"... it's just not the most
effective way to play them. Splashing 2-4 Walk of Flame in a deck just
for surprise value is functional... trying to consistently get to round
2 isn't. I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the
weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case.
James Coupe
>Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play
>Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who
>want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round
>are screwed for the second time.
Lying low may well be unhelpful for such a deck, whereas being able to
advance in a semi-serious manner (that is, not as seriously as the
second round) in the first round is going to help matters.
Combat deviated from fairly obvious designer intent - the Tremere, from
the looks of the card set, should have had the ability to compete well
in combat, but in the second round. The obvious power of first round
combat, as is seen now, seems unlikely to have been wanted.
A few avenues do exist to slightly level the playing field in the first
round - combat defence loses out to Telepathic Tracking, Soul Burn etc.;
combat offence has some not insignificant problems coping with
Apportation, and various useful ranged first round strikes (and long
range combat has the perennial problem of Dodges - save for additional
strikes in most instances - which could be supplemented now with Absorb
the Mind, potentially).
These can then be usefully combined with second round combat, having had
some chance to weaken them in the first round. Save for Mages on Speed
deck styles (that is, combined with additional strikes), it's relatively
hard for a Tremere deck to do serious damage, along the lines of a
Nosferatu deck throwing down Increased Strength, Torn Signpost, Fists of
Death and Undead Strength, or a Brujah deck throwing down Torn Signpost
and Blur, or whatever. Utilising *both* first and later rounds
effectively is necessary in a battle of combative oneupmanship.
(Not, of course, that the Tremere have to be played exclusively
combatively.)
Matt Latham
> In message <H2_R7.252847$HA6.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason
> Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes:
> >Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play
> >Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who
> >want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round
> >are screwed for the second time.
>
> Lying low may well be unhelpful for such a deck, whereas being able to
> advance in a semi-serious manner (that is, not as seriously as the
> second round) in the first round is going to help matters.
Sure. But the traditional banes of the Tremere combat deck (one based on a
LR Theft or Soul burn or such in the first round and then maybe Blood to
Water and Walk of Flames in round 2) are the simple "poke for 1" agg damage
blast from Gangrel, or really any agg first round strike. Coma and
Entombment are problematic as well. Sure, we can maneuver around it, but
Gangrel for certain have Quick meld as a powerful Tremere killer, and my
local metagame for certain uses them. Both OBT and OBF have maneuvers
available for the "go to torpor" strike people. S:CE used to be troublesome
but Telepathic Tracking at superior helps mitigate that. Tremere combat
decks are card heavy, and can rarely expect to have access to two maneuvers
in the same round.
An effect like the dominate Strike:Dodge, and even better the Thaumaturgy
Dodge with an optional press, is a great option to have. Most certainly,
play to your metagame, but in mine, I know I will throw a few of those dodge
with a press cards in my deck for that time when you just dont wanna die in
round 1.
I know when I saw the card I instantly found it intriguing. Amazing, no. But
intriguing to see the flexability given to the Tremere.
Matt
"Dominate got a friggin Dodge? That's it... I want a potence bleed modifier
now!"
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> mumbled something about:
>
> >Well congratulations then, you've got cards that let you play
> >Thaumaturgy the way that you want to, while those who
> >want to lay low first round and make it to the agg round
> >are screwed for the second time. First was when Apportation
>
> Actually, you'd have been screwed anyway. It isn't that I necessarily
> WANT to play Thaumaturgy this way, it's that it just isn't effective any
> other way (read: doesn't even kill things, much less win games).
Right, after all, what could I possibly do to an opposing vampire in
torpor when all I have is this clan with Dominate as an in-clan discipline?
I can assure you that my Gangrel poke Graverobbing deck has many
times wreaked havok on a table, and I was hoping to try the model
without needing to equip with Dominate masters.
> There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" mechanic
> from working the way it was intended:
>
> - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude
> - the prevalence of other, far more effective first-round combat
That's three things. The possibility of a bigger stick is a constant
regardless of the deck you are using, so that point can be discounted.
The fact that your opponent has combat defenses in his deck is no
reason to abandon combat on your own terms. If you do, you may
as well not play, because of "the prevalence of" bleed defense against
bleed, delaying tactics against vote, and, as you stated, combat
defense against combat. This is a compelling argument against
any deck, and therefore not a compelling argument at all.
> And it really IS that simple. On top of that, you have the inherent
> problem with putting vamps in torpor via agg: they can rescue
> themselves, meaning you either stop the rescue somehow or your combat
> was largely pointless.
Ah, but I have a plan.
...
> So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere.
So? Also for every combat deck without Grapple or tons of Psyche!.
> Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of
> Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two
> blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that
> they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very
> unlikely.
YMMV, but I have not seen much damage prevention, either
around here or in the DragonCon tournament we both played in.
I see it splashed in Ventrue decks and in the occasional weenie
trap deck.
> Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that
> punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable strategy.
> Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you killed --
> Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional strikes, ...
> the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out there. So now
> you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH rounds, because the
> stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as well in round 2.
> Apportation comes to the rescue here... unfortunately, this means that
> you now MUST have superior THA, so some of your options above for
> dealing with S:CE just got a little messier.
None of this is true. The only thing you've described that can handle
dodge+press is additional strikes and IG. And that's fine, since
celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press
is great if I don't like the look of the combat I've gotten into, I
have an extra back door.
> This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat
> strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with
> all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows, and
> a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle with
> since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to mention the
> occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards of the trade.
This is getting absurd. Are you always paralyzed with fear in this
way when constructing decks, or are you just spewing forth pointlessly?
You sound a bit like Vezzini (sp?) from Princess Bride who can't
make a decision on which cup to drink, so he keeps talking about it.
I'd hate to have to play rock-paper-scissors with you.
And of course I'm actually doing -damage- at range, aggravated
damage, actually.
> >didn't make the trip into Sabbat Wars, denying Thaumaturgy
> >the press on/maneuver versatility provided thereby, and
> >the second time by making the dodge+press similarly difficult
> >to obtain. Looks like we all have to play Thaumaturgy combat
> >the way you would prefer to play it. Personally, I would like
> >more choices on how to do it.
>
> Well, you know what? I've spent a lot of time with the Tremere trying
> to make them work, and I've gone through all those choices already.
> What exactly "cool combo" were you going to put out there that would be
> effective? Let's go down the list of options they have that include
> second-round cards:
Perhaps you've spent far too much time wracking your brain for
an all-beating combo. I'd just like an efficient way of getting
to the second round, where I can use Thaumaturgy's scarier
aggravated strikes. I like dodge+press, I like it a lot, but I won't
be able to play it because it's inexplicably rare.
[enormous snip]
I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the
> weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case.
You've got to be kidding now. Exactly how many presses
to end have you seen played? I've certainly not seen
enough to entertain them as something I've really got to
consider when building my combat strategy.
- Jason Bell
Flux
news:n_vS7.268748$HA6.50...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com:
>
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg"
>> mechanic from working the way it was intended:
>>
>> - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude - the prevalence
>> of other, far more effective first-round combat
>
> That's three things. The possibility of a bigger stick is a constant
> regardless of the deck you are using, so that point can be discounted.
Not quite. Many times the 'bigger stick' is the either the same strategy,
but more focused/with better card draw _OR_ some other strategy that kills
you but has a different set of flaws (ie, POT vs Claws & FOR - POT is
beaten by Claws, but Claws can't deal with S:CE and sending a full vampire
to torpor isn't as effective as sending him empty).
In this case there are many other strategies that can beat the Tremere and
will have the same or less weak points as they do, so they're always a
better choice.
> The fact that your opponent has combat defenses in his deck is no
> reason to abandon combat on your own terms. If you do, you may
> as well not play, because of "the prevalence of" bleed defense against
> bleed, delaying tactics against vote, and, as you stated, combat
> defense against combat. This is a compelling argument against
> any deck, and therefore not a compelling argument at all.
But if the counter to your strategy has a negligible cost most decks will
include it, so you won't have a chance most of the time, as opposed to
other decks which will be nullified only some of the time.
>> So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere.
>
> So? Also for every combat deck without Grapple or tons of Psyche!.
... but most of those have other advantages.
>> Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of
>> Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two
>> blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that
>> they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very
>> unlikely.
>
> YMMV, but I have not seen much damage prevention, either
> around here or in the DragonCon tournament we both played in.
> I see it splashed in Ventrue decks and in the occasional weenie
> trap deck.
I've been seeing lots of damage prevention around here lately. OTOH, I can
only remember two recent decks that use S:CE, and one of those is my
Ventrue+Samedi deck that includes tons of FOR too.
>> Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that
>> punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable
>> strategy. Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you
>> killed -- Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional
>> strikes, ... the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out
>> there. So now you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH
>> rounds, because the stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as
>> well in round 2. Apportation comes to the rescue here...
>> unfortunately, this means that you now MUST have superior THA, so some
>> of your options above for dealing with S:CE just got a little messier.
>
> None of this is true. The only thing you've described that can handle
> dodge+press is additional strikes and IG. And that's fine, since
...and Scorpion Sting, Skin Trap, Veil of Silence, Carrion Crows, Arms of
the Abyss...
> celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press
> is great if I don't like the look of the combat I've gotten into, I
> have an extra back door.
>
>> This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat
>> strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with
>> all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows,
>> and a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle
>> with since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to
>> mention the occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards
>> of the trade.
>
> This is getting absurd. Are you always paralyzed with fear in this
> way when constructing decks, or are you just spewing forth pointlessly?
> You sound a bit like Vezzini (sp?) from Princess Bride who can't
> make a decision on which cup to drink, so he keeps talking about it.
> I'd hate to have to play rock-paper-scissors with you.
>
> And of course I'm actually doing -damage- at range, aggravated
> damage, actually.
...if you survive to the second round.
> [enormous snip]
> I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the
>> weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case.
>
> You've got to be kidding now. Exactly how many presses
> to end have you seen played? I've certainly not seen
> enough to entertain them as something I've really got to
> consider when building my combat strategy.
Against Tremere? Quite a few...
Most combat decks will include several press cards, and many non-combat
decks have ways of pressing to end too. If they know they're dealing with
a 2nd round deck and can't send you to torpor on the 1st round, they'll
surely use those presses to stop combat from continuing...
Flux
Derek Ray
>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> Actually, you'd have been screwed anyway. It isn't that I necessarily
>> WANT to play Thaumaturgy this way, it's that it just isn't effective any
>> other way (read: doesn't even kill things, much less win games).
>
>Right, after all, what could I possibly do to an opposing vampire in
>torpor when all I have is this clan with Dominate as an in-clan discipline?
Get blocked trying to Grave Rob it, since you don't have stealth?
This is assuming you can even put the vampire in torpor in the first
place -- see the first objection reading "doesn't even kill things".
>I can assure you that my Gangrel poke Graverobbing deck has many
>times wreaked havok on a table, and I was hoping to try the model
>without needing to equip with Dominate masters.
Gangrel have Protean, which provides the absolutely-necessary stealth
required for such an action, and first round aggravated hand damage,
which trumps large quantities of the most "common" combat (Potence IG
being the big one). The Tremere have neither.
Besides, you don't need Dominate masters for that trick. You just need
4 copies of Iliana in the crypt.
>> There are two things that stop THA's "second round groovy agg" mechanic
>> from working the way it was intended:
>>
>> - the prevalence of Strike: Combat Ends and Fortitude
>> - the prevalence of other, far more effective first-round combat
>
>That's three things. The possibility of a bigger stick is a constant
>regardless of the deck you are using, so that point can be discounted.
No, I'm sorry, it cannot be discounted. It is much, much easier to find
a bigger stick against the Tremere than against, say, weenie Potence IG.
The reason weenie Potence IG works is because it is very difficult to
deal with, either in terms of combat defense or in terms of beating it
up first. Potence trumps almost all close-range combat because of IG,
and the fact that non-hand strikes are not even -playable-. There are
only two ways to "hit back" against Potence IG; poke it with agg hand
damage, or hit back for more with your own POT. This is not so for the
Tremere -- their combat does not automatically negate the opposition's
in the way IG does.
>The fact that your opponent has combat defenses in his deck is no
>reason to abandon combat on your own terms. If you do, you may
...unless that combat defense is most likely going to render all your
combat worthless, in which case you have built a bad deck.
>as well not play, because of "the prevalence of" bleed defense against
>bleed, delaying tactics against vote, and, as you stated, combat
>defense against combat. This is a compelling argument against
>any deck, and therefore not a compelling argument at all.
Bleed defense can be countered very easily, if you take the time to
build the deck properly. Delaying Tactics can be ignored if you bother
to put more than one vote card in your deck. And combat defense can be
countered if you build the combat deck properly.
You, however, advocate building the combat deck in question without
taking into account combat defenses and opposing combat. This will
produce a sucky deck, and is indeed a VERY compelling argument.
>> And it really IS that simple. On top of that, you have the inherent
>> problem with putting vamps in torpor via agg: they can rescue
>> themselves, meaning you either stop the rescue somehow or your combat
>> was largely pointless.
>
>Ah, but I have a plan.
Right. The usual plan is "I'll just poke the guy blocking the Grave
Robbing action into torpor as well". It sounds like a great idea, and
maybe someday it'll even work. Gangrel using stealth is a MUCH better
idea.
>> So S:CE is, and always will be, a large problem for the Tremere.
>
>So? Also for every combat deck without Grapple or tons of Psyche!.
And every combat deck without Grapple, Psyche!, or an effective way
around S:CE tends to lose, too.
>> Fortitude is a problem because while both Weather Control and Theft of
>> Vitae are unpreventable, Walk of Flame isn't. If you're stealing two
>> blood from them in the first round, you at least have a HOPE that
>> they'll be empty and unable to play Skin of Steel, but this is very
>> unlikely.
>
>YMMV, but I have not seen much damage prevention, either
>around here or in the DragonCon tournament we both played in.
>I see it splashed in Ventrue decks and in the occasional weenie
>trap deck.
And there were what, four or five different Ventrue decks there? Also
Horrid Form was around in Joe's deck, and I know there were two !Ventrue
decks in the tournament. That's 7 decks that would completely shrug off
your Walk of Flame. We aren't even going to go into the multiple
Potence IG-based decks that I saw, which would have killed you in round
1, or the piles of S:CE that would have turned your Walk into wallpaper.
Locally, I usually see either a lot of prevention, a lot of "hit back",
and the occasional S:CE. But the "hit back" seems to work best.
>> Handling other first-round combat is a problem. Against decks that
>> punch for 1, remaining at close and Thefting for 2 is a viable strategy.
>> Against any deck intending to hit back, this will get you killed --
>> Tzimisce/Gangrel agg poke, Potence IG, Celerity additional strikes, ...
>> the list is pretty long these days. Lots of combat out there. So now
>> you NEED maneuvers, and you need maneuvers in BOTH rounds, because the
>> stuff that will kill you in round 1 works just as well in round 2.
>> Apportation comes to the rescue here... unfortunately, this means that
>> you now MUST have superior THA, so some of your options above for
>> dealing with S:CE just got a little messier.
>
>None of this is true. The only thing you've described that can handle
>dodge+press is additional strikes and IG. And that's fine, since
Unfortunately, all of it is true. Combat decks that do not prepare for
plain old Dodge lose, so you'll always see combat that can handle Dodge.
>celerity doesn't come bundled with fortitude much. And dodge+press
Celerity doesn't have to come with Fortitude -- it will kill you in
round 1, and will never have to worry about your 2nd round agg.
>is great if I don't like the look of the combat I've gotten into, I
>have an extra back door.
Gangrel play DotB/Scorpion Sting -- forget dodging.
Assamites have additional strikes -- dead in round 1.
!Gangrel will be using Shadow Feint (no Dodge).
Potence IG is -the- most common combat, in many forms.
POT/CEL is close by -- additional strikes.
Tzimisce just play two Horrid Forms and will get you in round 2.
Lasombra play Arms of the Abyss/Entombment. Splat.
!Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge.
Thoughts Betrayed has made a bit of a resurgence itself.
Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats will cost you 2 extra blood and cancel your
press. OR, it'll go ahead and sacrifice a vampire to let you die.
You won't get to use the back door. You'll be dead in round 1.
>> This hasn't even begun to take into account the long-range combat
>> strategies being employed these days: Assamites are on the prowl with
>> all sorts of nastiness, Animalism has the ever-common Carrion Crows, and
>> a Disguised Improvised Flamethrower is nothing you want to tangle with
>> since you aren't actually doing -damage- at range. Not to mention the
>> occasional gun deck or Ivory Bow. But these are hazards of the trade.
>
>This is getting absurd. Are you always paralyzed with fear in this
>way when constructing decks, or are you just spewing forth pointlessly?
No, I'm actually mentioning the types of EFFECTIVE combat I've seen
played in tournaments. I could go through the wack-ass shit that I see
locally, but I wouldn't expect to see it in a tournament, so I haven't
listed it. But all of the above are definitely likely to be present. I
certainly expect to see a LOT of Disguised Imp. Flamethrowers these days
-- it's non-unique permanent agg damage for only 2 pool, a great dropin
for any OBF bleed deck.
What you also don't seem to understand is that if your vampire goes to
torpor while sending theirs to torpor, you lose. An Ivory Bow is very
common in many decks -- it will miss you in round 1, and then you'll
both be in torpor in round 2. This is not good.
>You sound a bit like Vezzini (sp?) from Princess Bride who can't
>make a decision on which cup to drink, so he keeps talking about it.
>I'd hate to have to play rock-paper-scissors with you.
>
>And of course I'm actually doing -damage- at range, aggravated
>damage, actually.
Theft of Vitae doesn't do damage, though, so you'd better be Dodging.
And I'm going to be naturally dubious of ANY combat strategy that
involves sending yourself to torpor as well (barring the !Salubri who
have that neat "rescue vampire for free and it gains 1 blood" card).
>> Well, you know what? I've spent a lot of time with the Tremere trying
>> to make them work, and I've gone through all those choices already.
>> What exactly "cool combo" were you going to put out there that would be
>> effective? Let's go down the list of options they have that include
>> second-round cards:
>
>Perhaps you've spent far too much time wracking your brain for
>an all-beating combo. I'd just like an efficient way of getting
Perhaps I've just had a lot of experience trying to make the Tremere
actually be able to both kill things and oust people.
>to the second round, where I can use Thaumaturgy's scarier
>aggravated strikes. I like dodge+press, I like it a lot, but I won't
>be able to play it because it's inexplicably rare.
You could always proxy it. You could also trade for it.
Of course, it was made rare not because of its THA effect, but because
of its VIS effect -- S:CE for that particular clan is simply not going
to be the most effective thing to do with them.
What we'd like to do isn't always the most effective thing to do.
>[enormous snip]
>I didn't even list "press to end" above as one of the
>> weaknesses, by the way -- it'll ALWAYS be the case.
>
>You've got to be kidding now. Exactly how many presses
>to end have you seen played? I've certainly not seen
SHITLOADS. Read Intentions is a press to end. Aid from Bats is a press
to end. Flash and Psyche! are both presses to end. Rat's Warning is a
press to end. Amria is a press to end. Hidden Strength is a press to
end. Immortal Grapple is a press to end. Rigor Mortis is a press to
end. Sewer Lid can be a press. Strength of the Bear can be a press.
Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction are presses in case you somehow survive
round 1 of that combat. Chameleon's Colors is a press. And with the
prevalence of Trap combat anymore, a couple of Boxed In are finding
their way back into decks.
It's amazing how those little "optional presses" that are commonly
overlooked can come into play when you least expect them. They're not
as common as "hit back in round 1 and kill your vampire" or "S:CE", by a
long shot, but an awful lot of cards give an optional press.
>enough to entertain them as something I've really got to
>consider when building my combat strategy.
In a clan with a card reading "press/maneuver", I would certainly
recognize that someone is going to find a way to press to end combat
against me, and maybe include a few more of those than normal.
--
"Grod come smash THAT vampire now."
Curevei
too late to change it now, even though my comments are even further off topic
(B rarity).
>The reason weenie Potence IG works is because it is very difficult to
>deal with,
The reason weenie Potence works as a deck is that it's a weenie deck. It can
conserve enough pool to survive long enough to destroy all of its predator's
vampires.
>either in terms of combat defense or in terms of beating it
>up first.
Pure Pot/IG is beaten by wake-Zip Gun as well as numerous other simple
defenses. This is why you see variations of weenie Pot with Sacrament of
Carnage. Pot/Cel or Pot/Obf are harder to deal with. There's no reason that
pure Pot/IG deck should be effective.
BTW, for much the same reason - lack of maneuvers - we've yet to see the Blood
Brothers do anything in close combat.
>Potence trumps almost all close-range combat because of IG,
>and the fact that non-hand strikes are not even -playable-. There are
>only two ways to "hit back" against Potence IG; poke it with agg hand
>damage, or hit back for more with your own POT. This is not so for the
>Tremere -- their combat does not automatically negate the opposition's
>in the way IG does.
I assume by "combat" you mean offensive combat.
>!Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge.
Why will they see play a lot? A dedicated !Salubri deck has one trick - beat
the crap out of you with melee weapons. That's not a very good trick. So, I
would rarely expect to see a dedicated !Salubri deck after the first
experimentation. Now, maybe you mean a splash for Sense Vitality or the like,
but then, I wouldn't expect a lot of Vengeance of Samiel.
BTW, for those who haven't played or played against a !Salubri melee weapon
deck, if you have the choice of blocking your predator's Adonai Computer
Hacking when you know your predator has Burning Touch in hand or blocking Doris
equipping with Brass Knuckles, the latter is the obvious choice.
Halcyan 2
>the crap out of you with melee weapons. That's not a very good trick. So, I
>would rarely expect to see a dedicated !Salubri deck after the first
>experimentation. Now, maybe you mean a splash for Sense Vitality or the
>like,
>but then, I wouldn't expect a lot of Vengeance of Samiel.
>
>BTW, for those who haven't played or played against a !Salubri melee weapon
>deck, if you have the choice of blocking your predator's Adonai Computer
>Hacking when you know your predator has Burning Touch in hand or blocking
>Doris
>equipping with Brass Knuckles, the latter is the obvious choice.
Aha! Finally Blood Fury will regain its position for usefulness! And Soul Burns
will be good at avoiding weapon damage from non-guns!
Halcyan 2
Derek Ray
cur...@aol.com (Curevei) mumbled something about:
>This thread should have had its subject changed long ago. I think it may be
>too late to change it now, even though my comments are even further off topic
>(B rarity).
(shrug) I'd agree, but i'm not too worried. At least it stays within
the same thread, so previous messages can be chased down.
>>The reason weenie Potence IG works is because it is very difficult to
>>deal with,
>
>The reason weenie Potence works as a deck is that it's a weenie deck. It can
>conserve enough pool to survive long enough to destroy all of its predator's
>vampires.
Most POT decks can do that as well. But weenie POT has the advantage in
that it can be killing its prey's vampires at the same time as its
predator's, losing little to no speed in the process.
>>either in terms of combat defense or in terms of beating it
>>up first.
>
>Pure Pot/IG is beaten by wake-Zip Gun as well as numerous other simple
>defenses. This is why you see variations of weenie Pot with Sacrament of
Weenie POT generally includes 6-8 Fake Out for just this reason -- and
I've always recommended including at least 6 Traps instead of the Fake
Outs, because it hoses all defensive maneuvers, as well as most
Fortitude decks.
Which numerous other simple defenses were you thinking of?
>Carnage. Pot/Cel or Pot/Obf are harder to deal with. There's no reason that
>pure Pot/IG deck should be effective.
Besides Fake Out and Trap, you mean. POT/CEL is the most difficult to
deal with, but also more difficult to win games with because it requires
larger vamps and falls further behind in the action tree.
>BTW, for much the same reason - lack of maneuvers - we've yet to see the Blood
>Brothers do anything in close combat.
Which seems odd, as Trap would be even better here when combined with
Superior Mettle. Most of what trouble I'd expect the Blood Brothers to
have would be from losing blood at an insane rate -- their SAN cards can
get awful expensive.
>>damage, or hit back for more with your own POT. This is not so for the
>>Tremere -- their combat does not automatically negate the opposition's
>>in the way IG does.
>
>I assume by "combat" you mean offensive combat.
Right. S:CE/Dodge/run-away/Zip Gun are "combat defense", not combat.
>>!Salubri will be seen a lot, and have Vengeance of Samiel -- no dodge.
>
>Why will they see play a lot? A dedicated !Salubri deck has one trick - beat
Because people look at them and shout "OH COOL!" and then load up ten
Brass Knuckles, twelve Rush actions, four Haven Uncovereds, and a ton of
VAL cards into a deck. That, and just judging from the general reaction
I've seen in the various forums, apparently they're quite popular in the
RPG. So you'll always see them, whether or not the deck they're in is
terribly effective.
>the crap out of you with melee weapons. That's not a very good trick. So, I
It is if you can get the melee weapons equipped. But that's the obvious
weak point in any deck built around them -- getting the equip action
through.
Gift of Bellona's superior helps, as does Creepshow Casino.
>would rarely expect to see a dedicated !Salubri deck after the first
>experimentation. Now, maybe you mean a splash for Sense Vitality or the like,
>but then, I wouldn't expect a lot of Vengeance of Samiel.
I would. They've got to have SOMETHING to defend themselves when they
get blocked, and Vengeance of Samiel is also a +2 damage hand strike
that can't be dodged. (+2 only at superior, yes, but if I'm splashing
someone in for Sense Vitality, it's going to be Wolf Valentine.)
>BTW, for those who haven't played or played against a !Salubri melee weapon
>deck, if you have the choice of blocking your predator's Adonai Computer
>Hacking when you know your predator has Burning Touch in hand or blocking Doris
>equipping with Brass Knuckles, the latter is the obvious choice.
Doris has the weenie advantage, of course. The first game I played with
my !Salubri deck, Wolf had his Bang Nakh out before my prey had a
vampire on the table.
I'm currently debating if scattering OBF skill cards onto them and
playing them as an intercept deck is a safer way to go or not.
Disguised Weapon/Poker/Aura Reading, and only THEN Sword of the
Righteous if your opponent doesn't have S:CE in hand.