BL Rarity Sucks (Opened 2 boxes)

9 views
Skip to first unread message

PeterM

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 12:00:04 AM12/4/01
to
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?

Halcyan 2

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 12:49:55 AM12/4/01
to
>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?

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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 3:40:30 AM12/4/01
to

"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.
>
snip the details

>
> 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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 5:08:54 AM12/4/01
to
On 04 Dec 2001 05:49:55 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote:
> 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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 5:04:46 AM12/4/01
to
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.
>

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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 9:45:03 AM12/4/01
to
I went to the pre-release in Sydney, which was lots o fun. I found that it
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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 10:18:39 AM12/4/01
to
halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20011204004955...@mb-dh.aol.com>...

>
> 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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 10:27:58 AM12/4/01
to
"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. 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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 10:51:28 AM12/4/01
to
In message <7ab27d37.01120...@posting.google.com>, Aaron

<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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 11:55:29 AM12/4/01
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 12:05:29 PM12/4/01
to
How's this:

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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 1:48:38 PM12/4/01
to
>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...

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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 2:22:46 PM12/4/01
to
>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...

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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 2:33:59 PM12/4/01
to
pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) 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.
<snip>

> 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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 4:07:07 PM12/4/01
to
but opening 164 boosters and still missing 10 R1 cards, and having some u1
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

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 10:29:02 PM12/4/01
to
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.


"PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:5802b3d0.01120...@posting.google.com...

Derek Ray

unread,
Dec 4, 2001, 11:34:51 PM12/4/01
to
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

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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 12:35:57 AM12/5/01
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 1:18:16 AM12/5/01
to
> B) Don't bother with BLs. About 20% of the cards are useless before
> 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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 2:19:59 AM12/5/01
to
"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 4:35:25 AM12/5/01
to
Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<1103_10...@news.netc.pt>...

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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 5:08:19 AM12/5/01
to
"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).
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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 6:25:55 AM12/5/01
to
So what if you get a skewed distribution? That's what trading is for.


- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com

Halcyan 2

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 9:18:42 AM12/5/01
to
Now that I've finally opened my BL box, I can comment on this:

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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 10:30:05 AM12/5/01
to
Halcyan 2 wrote:
> 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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 11:11:04 AM12/5/01
to

"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).

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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 11:19:20 AM12/5/01
to
In message <nmmP7.242298$sq5.11...@news.infostrada.it>,
"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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 11:24:05 AM12/5/01
to

>
> 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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 11:24:37 AM12/5/01
to
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.

Gomi no Sensei

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 12:16:31 PM12/5/01
to
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
--
Blood, guts, guns, cuts
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

Joshua Duffin

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 12:20:19 PM12/5/01
to

"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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 12:47:55 PM12/5/01
to
James Coupe wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 2:07:31 PM12/5/01
to
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<uokq0usql7rhkunno...@4ax.com>...

> 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.
GL

> >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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 3:59:00 PM12/5/01
to

"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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 4:00:53 PM12/5/01
to

"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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 4:26:24 PM12/5/01
to
In message <8f507d2e.01120...@posting.google.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 4:39:12 PM12/5/01
to
Derek Ray wrote:
> 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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 4:53:58 PM12/5/01
to
In message <oUvP7.154838$fm5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>,
"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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 4:55:03 PM12/5/01
to
In message <3C0E964B...@removethis.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 6:51:42 PM12/5/01
to
Derek Ray wrote:
>
> In message <3C0E964B...@removethis.com>,
> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled
> something about:
> >Collectibility would not be needed for constructability were it not
> >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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 8:16:17 PM12/5/01
to
In message <3C0E6016...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott

<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

unread,
Dec 5, 2001, 10:42:41 PM12/5/01
to

"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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 12:33:34 AM12/6/01
to
>It was surprising to me that I couldn't even get a full set of
*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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 12:47:17 AM12/6/01
to
> 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).

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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 4:57:52 AM12/6/01
to
"Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<aErP7.308$tg4....@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...

> "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).
>
I opened three boxes yesterday, and completed the set opening the
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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 5:04:38 AM12/6/01
to
"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<nmmP7.242298$sq5.11...@news.infostrada.it>...


Yeah, Quake really SUCKS!! Unreal Tournament is the Best!!! CTF ALWAYS!!!

legbiter

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 6:03:10 AM12/6/01
to
"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 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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 6:57:02 AM12/6/01
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 8:55:57 AM12/6/01
to
> >"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>

> 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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 9:37:49 AM12/6/01
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 9:41:38 AM12/6/01
to
In message <NNKP7.44$bt5...@twister1.libero.it>,
"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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 1:52:45 PM12/6/01
to
As I don't agree with any of these, ...

>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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 2:45:28 PM12/6/01
to
> >> >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> >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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 2:56:57 PM12/6/01
to
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.

BernieTime

LSJ

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 3:13:02 PM12/6/01
to

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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 3:48:01 PM12/6/01
to
In message <sVPP7.176$7v6....@twister1.libero.it>,
"tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> mumbled something
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

unread,
Dec 6, 2001, 11:16:25 PM12/6/01
to

"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

unread,
Dec 7, 2001, 12:00:03 AM12/7/01