how many cards total in KoT ?
Stone
. 160 new cards in booster packs
. 36 11-card packs in each display
Over 24 starter-exclusive cards
but there is no preview. Could we at least know how many cards total (number
of rares/uncommon/vampires/common) there will be in the expansion ? It's
kind of important for pre-order purposes. I've heard about 100 rares...any
official confirmation, please ?
Stone
LSJ
> the WW site gives the following info about KoT :
> .. 36 11-card packs in each display
> Over 24 starter-exclusive cards
>
> but there is no preview. Could we at least know how many cards total (number
> of rares/uncommon/vampires/common) there will be in the expansion ? It's
> kind of important for pre-order purposes. I've heard about 100 rares...any
> official confirmation, please ?
100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster assortment.
Stone
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:WCVQk.7640$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster
assortment.
man, that was fast. Thanks.
Stone
librarian
According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time,
while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered your
message before it was sent... That's what I call fast...
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com
Tetragrammaton
> Stone wrote:
>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de
>> news:WCVQk.7640$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster
>>> assortment.
>>
>> man, that was fast. Thanks.
>> Stone
>>
>>
>
> According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time,
> while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered
> your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast...
>
> best -
>
> chris
Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed.
However, what he says means that we're going to get
a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
just my 2 cents
Emiliano, NC Italy
www.italybynight.org
Orpheus
>>>> assortment.
>>>
>>> man, that was fast. Thanks.
>>> Stone
>>>
>>>
>>
>> According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time,
>> while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered
>> your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast...
>>
>> best -
>>
>> chris
>
> Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed.
> However, what he says means that we're going to get
> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
>
> just my 2 cents
>
> Emiliano, NC Italy
> www.italybynight.org
Add mine and we're up to 4 cents.
If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have to get
a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary market shops will make a
fortune on singles.
--
Orpheus
--
"Cynicism isn't maturity. Callousness isn't strength. Pretending you
don't care so you don't have to try isn't "winning" What you do with
your life matters."
Luther Manning.
The Lasombra
> If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have to get
> a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary market shops will make a
> fortune on singles.
Woo hoo!
:>
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Your best online source for information about V:TES.
Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
of booster and starter box displays.
Tetragrammaton
>>>>> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster
>>>>> assortment.
>>>>
>>>> man, that was fast. Thanks.
>>>> Stone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time,
>>> while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered
>>> your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast...
>>>
>>> best -
>>>
>>> chris
>>
>> Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed.
>> However, what he says means that we're going to get
>> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
>>
>> just my 2 cents
>>
>> Emiliano, NC Italy
>> www.italybynight.org
>
> Add mine and we're up to 4 cents.
>
> If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have
> to get a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary market shops
> will make a fortune on singles.
> --
> Orpheus
Honestly, i don't know how much secondary market will be in
the future about this set.
Even if the perspective (about buying kot booster) is the chanche to get
good reprinted rares such as mind rape, unmasking and the likes, the
counter-incentive of getting a tons of reprinted commons/uncommons is way
too much for the vast majority of stable players, that are peoples with lots
of base cards
already in their collections (more than anything else, after third edition),
and that will be not eager to buy lots of boosters by this.
No boosters sold = no rares around, no so much secondary market then.
Matthew T. Morgan
> Honestly, i don't know how much secondary market will be in
> the future about this set.
> Even if the perspective (about buying kot booster) is the chanche to get
> good reprinted rares such as mind rape, unmasking and the likes, the
> counter-incentive of getting a tons of reprinted commons/uncommons is way
> too much for the vast majority of stable players, that are peoples with lots
> of base cards
> already in their collections (more than anything else, after third edition),
> and that will be not eager to buy lots of boosters by this.
> No boosters sold = no rares around, no so much secondary market then.
And then Communists will take over!
I've opened a lot of KoT packs. Many of the reprints are cards players
want. The new cards are not especially few or far between. Each pack has
three vampires which are new.
There's a lot to like about this set, unless one is determined not to.
Matt Morgan
Tetragrammaton
I will tell when i'll open the boosters - for now, raw numbers are not
so encouraging.
Best
JH
They seem a lot better than in the 3rd Edition. 3rd Edition had 81
rares, 98 uncommons, 98 vampires and 100 commons in boosters. Of those
12 rares, 12 uncommons, all vampires and 12 commons were new cards. In
KoT, at least according to the WW's site, there are 160 new cards in
boosters. With 100 rares, 100 vampires and 100 commons that would mean
30 new rares and 30 new commons. So there are almost twice as many new
library cards in a set that has almost 100 cards less, meaning we
should get a lot less reprints than in the 3rd Edition boosters.
Frederick Scott
news:49149284$0$30958$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed.
>> However, what he says means that we're going to get
>> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
> If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have to get a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary
> market shops will make a fortune on singles.
Frivolous 'WOOHOO's by unnamed single sellers aside, I don't think they benefit
from excess artificial rarity in the card supply any more than anyone else does.
In fact, I think it's probably a bad thing for them. As always, the rules
of supply and demand prevent excess profits; the high price of artificially
rare singles stems from their additional costs incurred by having to buy more
packs to find the singles. It's not like they're finding gold in their asses
somehow just because they have to jack the price of a card up to lower the
demand and raise the supply to equal levels. Why is it people can't seem to
grasp this?
I have to imagine chase rares supported by dreck in an expansion (OK, I know
reprints aren't dreck but for a singles seller they have the same effect as
dreck) are actually bad things because high prices in cards are also unstable
ones. It's probably much easier to sell singles from expansions like Lords
of the Night, since they can sell most of the cards (at least most of the
rares) for decent, stable prices that should reliably add up to more than
they spent on the boxes. If you think about the service a singles seller
provides in exchange for his profit, it seems likely to me that the business
would be a lot more efficient (and thus profitable in comparison with the
effort expended) for that kind of an expansion than for one in which
relatively few of the cards culled from the booster packs are worth
bothering with.
Just my hack theory. I'd love to hear guys like Jeff and Chris tell
whether I'm off base or not and why or why not.
Fred
JH
Ah, forgot the uncommons. So 400 cards with 160 new cards, meaning
probably 20% of each library card rarity being new cards, which is
still slightly better than in the 3rd edition.
Peter D Bakija
> However, what he says means that we're going to get
> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd? This will be the same. How is
that a problem?
-Peter
John Flournoy
> >>news:WCVQk.7640$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >>> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster
> >>> assortment.
>
> >> man, that was fast. Thanks.
> >> Stone
>
> > According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time,
> > while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered
> > your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast...
>
> > best -
>
> > chris
>
> Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed.
> However, what he says means that we're going to get
> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
>
> just my 2 cents
Depends on your perspective - there's at least three or four players
in my playgroup that very much want the reprinted cards, as their
collections are not that extensive (yet).
-John Flournoy
The Lasombra
>If you think about the service a singles seller
>provides in exchange for his profit, it seems likely to me that the business
>would be a lot more efficient (and thus profitable in comparison with the
>effort expended) for that kind of an expansion than for one in which
>relatively few of the cards culled from the booster packs are worth
>bothering with.
>Just my hack theory. I'd love to hear guys like Jeff and Chris tell
>whether I'm off base or not and why or why not.
Bloodlines was the #1 set for individual card sellers.
Hands down, no question.
It was large enough that buying boxes was counter productive and there
was enough material that was siginificantly different that players
would be looking for different things. The Baali players were looking
for completely different things than the Blood Brothers players than
the True Brujah players, etc. etc.
Base sets sell poorly, if the reprints are not chosen carefully.
Look at the inventory I have of 3rd Edition, for example:
http://www.thelasombra.com/inventory.htm
("3rd" tab at the bottom left)
44 Far Mastery
0 Derange
I have 20 or more of 30 different rares. (All of which are listed at
$2 or less.) I am only sold out of 22 different rares. Clearly, that
set could have been much better for individual card sellers.
Lords of the Night is actually too focused for individual card sellers
to do well, because too high of a percentage of the box is valuable to
the box buyer. The 60 cards sets are the absolute worst though. If
you can get multiple complete sets from 2 boxes, you don't visit the
individual card seller at all.
Out of the 84 reprinted rares in Keepers of Tradition, I only have
about a dozen true disappointments, that didn't sell in the original
set and certainly won't sell now in the new one.
Out of 81 reprinted uncommons in Keepers of Tradition, there are
certainly a few that I feel could have remained starter only or could
have safely been skipped completely, but the rest are very good
choices.
Out of the 83 reprinted commons in Keepers of Tradition, there are
more than a dozen that I'll never be able to give away, but that is
certainly to be expected from reprinted commons.
The distribution of the set is very flat (which is amazingly good).
In the first two boxes opened, not a single rare was repeated. Out of
the first ten boxes opened, I got 3-4 of every rare, 10-11 of every
vampire, 7-8 of every uncommon, and 18 of every common.
I don't think that anyone that buys a box or two will have a real
reason to be upset with their purchase.
leon.t...@gmail.com
> in my playgroup that very much want the reprinted cards, as their
> collections are not that extensive (yet).
Yep absolutely, same with my playgroup, and probably lots of
playgroups. We're not all people who've been playing since card backs
said Jyhad and a vampire could bleed multiple times in a turn. Also I
know people who've been playing for a long time and have very large
collections but were still very happy to tear open packs of 3rd ed and
find Telepathic Tracking staring back at them.
There are other options too. If you end up with stacks of excess
reprint commons you don't need, pile them into something vaguely
resembling a deck and offer them for free to friends who are curious
about the game or people who have just started out. They will probably
appreciate it greatly.
I don't think reprints are such a bad thing. At the very very least,
it can give you an opportunity to finally make that silly deck you've
been thinking about that has 40 x (insert card here) in it.
Tetragrammaton
> On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote:
>> However, what he says means that we're going to get
>> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
>
> Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd?
I buy all the sets since 1995 - almost as many
of us do - so yes, i got both camarilla and third also
>This will be the same. How is
> that a problem?
Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me.
This happened with camarilla, but OK, was the new layout outright (from
the old cam base sets jyhad/vtes) , so still acceptable.
This happened again a *lot* with third edition, and that has been really
poor.
At least considering the overall money value we invest for the game.
James Coupe
So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want,
and calculate the cost to buy them as singles.
If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough
rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House
Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy.
If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a problem.
Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a problem.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Tetragrammaton
> In message <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes:
>> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me.
>
> So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want,
> and calculate the cost to buy them as singles.
>
> If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough
> rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House
> Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy.
>
> If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a
> problem.
>
> Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a
> problem.
It's a problem because you invest an given
amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you already got.
If you're happy with that, thus spending X to get back an overall
55-60% cards you already have in large quantities, fine enough.
But do not attribute this as a "problem i want".
James Coupe
<no...@usa.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want,
>> and calculate the cost to buy them as singles.
>>
>> If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough
>> rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House
>> Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy.
>>
>> If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a
>> problem.
>>
>> Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a
>> problem.
>
>It's a problem because you invest an given
>amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you already got.
Which part of "BUY SINGLES" is eluding you? You then won't spend a
single penny on a card you already have.
Here it is again: BUY SINGLES.
Tetragrammaton
> In message <OUdRk.19877$8%.2478@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton
> <no...@usa.com> writes:
>> James Coupe wrote:
>>> So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you
>>> want, and calculate the cost to buy them as singles.
>>>
>>> If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough
>>> rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House
>>> Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy.
>>>
>>> If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a
>>> problem.
>>
>> It's a problem because you invest an given
>> amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you
>> already got.
>
> Which part of "BUY SINGLES" is eluding you? You then won't spend a
> single penny on a card you already have.
>
> Here it is again: BUY SINGLES.
If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the player
base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the release of a new
base set, just fine.
But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given actual
vtes status.
In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving
old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach in
boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me.
Granted, i'll wait to open some KoT boosters before telling this for sure,
as previously said.
James Coupe
<no...@usa.com> writes:
>If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the player
>base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the release of a new
>base set, just fine.
They don't. As can be seen by looking round in many places, many
existing players are interested in buying some of the set, and have
expressed interest in starters, new cards, reprints etc. Not all old
players have huge collections. Not all old players have bought every
set. Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out, "You
know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but the idea
comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can buy that card(s)
in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art. Some oldbies will
be returning to the game, and may not have some of those cards. Many
players enjoy draft, and White Wolf have clearly been making some
efforts to make draft more fun, and having useful basic effects in a set
makes it useful for drafting - there are only so many ways you can vary
Computer Hacking, so why not just reprint one of the existing ones?
The oldbie who has enough of every single card that's ever been printed,
such that reprints will be of no benefit to them whatsoever, is in a
distinct minority.
And, as has been pointed out several times, if there aren't base sets,
the game is essentially inaccessible to newbies. Yes, you'll wet
yourself and say there are no newbies for you. Whatever. When a stray
newbie does come along and finds they can't get the cards everyone else
has, are they going to want to take up the game? In that way, having
base sets *does* help the oldbie, by trying to keep the game alive.
>But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given actual
>vtes status.
That's why it's not the strategy. That's why the set has 160 brand new
cards in it, full of new card goodness. Well over a third of the set is
shiny and new, like a virgin, touched for the very first time.
But for people who are so upset that they might possibly get a card they
don't need, those people can buy singles. However, people upset about
getting cards they don't need would do well to think hard about why
they're playing a CCG, where the basic distribution model does that from
the word go.
>In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving
>old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach in
>boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me.
Erm, no.
There has been no change in behaviour. No change. At all. No need to
get upset if you simply look at what White Wolf have always done. No
change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have had very
few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs being the
obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different way). Base sets
have reprints in the boosters.
Example: Sabbat War, lots of reprints. Final Nights, none in the
boosters. Bloodlines, none in the boosters. Camarilla Edition,
Tetragammaton cries himself to sleep because White Wolf put reprints in
the boosters again.
See a pattern? It's been happening *FOREVER*. White Wolf have not
suddenly done something to upset you. This has happened before. Many
times. Over many years. In plain sight for anyone who was looking.
Wizards did it too. In fact, V:TES had so few new cards in it that they
were much harder to get, relative to the *160* new cards White Wolf are
providing.
Clément
> On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" wrote:
>
> > However, what he says means that we're going to get
> > a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
>
> Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd? This will be the same. How is
> that a problem?
Although I agree a 100% with you (meaning, there is no problem at
all), I have to point out that 3rd Edition sucked. Not because it had
reprints, but because of the messed up distribution of cards in
boosters. I bought more a lot of 3rd Edition boosters because that's
what I do, but I seldom felt it was really worth it. 3rd Edition is
the exception, though.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Tetragrammaton
> In message <KMeRk.19933$8%.15060@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes:
>> If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the
>> player base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the
>> release of a new base set, just fine.
>
> They don't. As can be seen by looking round in many places, many
> existing players are interested in buying some of the set, and have
> expressed interest in starters, new cards, reprints etc. Not all old
> players have huge collections. Not all old players have bought every
> set.
Really ?
Unless you can provide some stats supporting all of that, i think your
opinion
is good as mine here.
I bet that a notable number of players *did* actually got lots of cards
from *all* of the older sets - and i'm basing this on my experience as well
as what i see in the lots of playgroups i come in contact with.
> Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out,
> "You know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but the
> idea comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can buy that
> card(s) in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art. Some
> oldbies will be returning to the game, and may not have some of those
> cards.
Some players don't like a tons of reprints too.
> Many players enjoy draft, and White Wolf have clearly been
> making some efforts to make draft more fun, and having useful basic
> effects in a set makes it useful for drafting - there are only so
> many ways you can vary Computer Hacking, so why not just reprint one
> of the existing ones ?
> The oldbie who has enough of every single card that's ever been
> printed, such that reprints will be of no benefit to them whatsoever,
> is in a distinct minority.
Please provide some stats on this , again.
Otherwise our opinions are equal here.
You think, basically ,that there are not so many players around
with lots of all the cards from the previous sets (maybe) - on the
other side my opinion is quite the contrary here.
Above all, speaking of vtes players that buy on a regular basis from WW,
and are pretty interested in the first place at buying the new set.
Those players are the ones that makes the company to get the real money -
not the casual player, nor players that are interested just in buying 20
cards or
few boosters to build a single given deck
> And, as has been pointed out several times, if there aren't base sets,
> the game is essentially inaccessible to newbies.
I'm not questioning the necessity of base sets.
I'm questioning the necessity of getting as much as of 60%
of reprints in a base set boosters, right now.
With some efforts, you can get really a *lot* of the needed reprints
in precons deck and in a player's kit, as much as it has been in third
edition (at least for four clans) and in LoTN precons.
Following the same efforts, you can get, actually, a base set with
some reprints in boosters, but with a minor % (say 20%).
Old players woudl be more satisfacted that point.
Again, i'll wait the release to tell this.
> Yes, you'll wet
> yourself and say there are no newbies for you.
I'm not wet - i'm just concerned, actually.
> Whatever. When a
> stray newbie does come along and finds they can't get the cards
> everyone else has, are they going to want to take up the game? In
> that way, having base sets *does* help the oldbie, by trying to keep
> the game alive.
Read above: i do appreciate a lot anything good as third ed. player's kit
for newbies, for example.
On the most part, i think those, along with precons, suffice to any newbie.
>> But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given
>> actual vtes status.
>
> That's why it's not the strategy. That's why the set has 160 brand
> new cards in it, full of new card goodness.
I was just answering to your "buy singles for the new set" argument,
actually.
> Well over a third of the
> set is shiny and new, like a virgin, touched for the very first time.
> But for people who are so upset that they might possibly get a card
> they don't need, those people can buy singles.
I think that "a card they don't need " doens't describe the reality in which
you're going to get as much as of 60% of reprints.
"Lots of cards they don't need" would describe better.
I could see your minimization as right if a base set would contains from 10
to
30 % of reprints in boosters (as it has been, say in anarchs or LoB) , not
60%.
> However, people upset
> about getting cards they don't need would do well to think hard about
> why they're playing a CCG, where the basic distribution model does
> that from the word go.
>
>> In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving
>> old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach
>> in boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me.
>
> Erm, no.
>
> There has been no change in behaviour. No change. At all. No need
> to get upset if you simply look at what White Wolf have always done.
After third we got 3 sets in a row with no reprints at all in boosters
(including the masterpiece base indie set that is LoTN).
OK, that has been done before.
But just before third, we got the legacy of blood base set with just a
(roughly) 30% reprints in boosters. That's enough, i think, to reasonably
see an approach in which the reprints things in boosters was kept at bay,
thus making old players satisfacted in buying boosters and new ones allowed
to get staple cards mostly from fixed cons.
In this respecr, in fact i got also upset with third edition reprint ratios
in boosters.
> No change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have
> had very few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs
> being the obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different
> way). Base sets have reprints in the boosters.
I'm upset with the ratio - not by the fact that base set
get reprints, that's understandable.
Orpheus
> In message <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes:
>> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me.
>
> So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want,
> and calculate the cost to buy them as singles.
Sounds good, but here we have very good price on pre-releases. So deciding a
week later if you want a box is gonna cost you a *lot* more !
Which is why getting more information on the repartition of the set and the
cards before they get out is important.
Chris Berger
> James Coupe wrote:
>
> > No change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have
> > had very few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs
> > being the obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different
> > way). Base sets have reprints in the boosters.
>
> I'm upset with the ratio - not by the fact that base set
> get reprints, that's understandable.
>
agree with this. The ratio in 3rd edition sucked and CE sucked. I
was hoping KoT would be much more weighted towards new cards.
Ignoring vampires, I think that 30-40% new library cards isn't too
much to ask for. Or if it was the same *number* of new library cards
that were weighted more towards commons and uncommons and if they're
rare, make them R2 (even if it means pushing some rares off the
reprint list - I can live without another Praxis Seizure, thank
you... unless it's a new city...). I'm still buying KoT and have
high hopes for the set, but I suspect I'm gonna end up with a huge
pile of crap for the giveaway box. I hope I'm wrong. There
definitely are *some* reprints I want. If 50% of the library cards in
the set could be made to be either new or "sought after" by some
reasonable definition of "sought after", I'd be happy. I don't think
I'll be *that* happy when I get my new cards, but I'm willing to
reserve final judgement until after buying a box.
In any case, KoT is definitely getting some of my money after 3rd
edition got almost none (man, I hate that set), so there's that...
Peter D Bakija
It's a base set. It needs to have reprints. 'Cause not everyone who is
playing this game has all the cards they need. Yeah, ok, maybe *you*
have all the commons you could ever need, but it seems likely that most
people, regardless of how long they have been playing, could use more of
the various uncommons and rares that are going to be reprinted in the
set (I have a billion cards, but I can still use more Torn Signposts and
Immortal Grapples and Freak Drives and 2nd Traditions and whatever. As
can the people I play with who will doubtlessly be willing to trade me
some of the more narrow use brand new cards in exchange for good staple
cards that I get more of as reprints).
If getting reprints is a problem for you, there is an incredibly easy
solution. Don't buy boosters. I'm sure the company can take the hit from
a couple people who have their panties all in a twist 'cause there are
reprints in a new base set not buying boosters. Get sets of vampires on
e-bay. Buy new single cards as singles (which will, likely, save you
money in the long run anyway). Get a couple starter decks for each clan
to get the starter only stuff. And then call it even.
I find it kind of baffling that you seem to be completely unwilling to
accept the idea that base level, entry sets to games like this need to
have reprints in boosters. Sabbat had tons of reprints. Sabbat War had
tons of reprints. Final Nights had tons of reprints. Camarilla had tons
of reprints. 3rd had tons of reprints. KoT has tons of reprints. That is
how this thing works. Having tons of reprints? Good for people who need
basic cards 'cause they are relatively new to the game. Good for people
who aren't relatively new to the game but want more staple cards. Good
for playing draft and limited tournaments.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Tetragrammaton
> On Nov 7, 7:04 pm, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" wrote:
>>
>>> However, what he says means that we're going to get
>>> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho.
>>
>> Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd? This will be the same. How is
>> that a problem?
>
> Although I agree a 100% with you (meaning, there is no problem at
> all), I have to point out that 3rd Edition sucked. Not because it had
> reprints, but because of the messed up distribution of cards in
> boosters.
Imho, the two things are related however.
The more the set is large AND it contains a notable %
of reprints (as it has been with Cam, Third and
now how it seems with the upcoming kot), the more it will result difficult
to get a decent cards distribution in boosters.
That's a matter of sheer math distribution i think.
Peter D Bakija
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote:
> It's a problem because you invest an given
> amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you already got.
So then don't invest that money. It is a really easy solution. Buy new
vampires and new cards as singles. Don't buy boosters for the new set.
The company isn't going to collapse because you don't buy a box of
boosters. Everyone around here is perfectly happy with the distribution
of the set, and so we are buying boosters. Even though we have tons of
cards. As we can use more. And anything we get way too many of, we can
hand away in piles to the new guys who *do* need them in exchange for a
couple good uncommons or rares, which helps the overall playgroup get
more cards in circulation. This is clearly a problem for you. With an
incredibly simple solution.
> If you're happy with that, thus spending X to get back an overall
> 55-60% cards you already have in large quantities, fine enough.
> But do not attribute this as a "problem i want".
Fine. Great. Don't buy the boosters. Buy singles. Problem solved.
Peter D Bakija
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote:
> If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the player
> base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the release of a new
> base set, just fine.
It isn't making anyone do anything. You are the only person involved in
this discussion making the point that you are making. It seems likely
that the vast majority of old players with all the cards in the world
are perfectly happy with the idea of buying KoT booosters. Much like
they were perfectly happy* with the idea of buying 3rd boosters and
Camarilla boosters. 'Cause that is how this sort of thing works. I have
all the VTES cards in the world (well, not actually, but plenty). I'm
totally happy to buy boosters, 'cause:
A) I'll be getting all new vampires and new cards along with the
reprints.
B) I'll be getting more of cards that I already have but can still use
more of.
C) I'll be getting more staple commons that other people in my play
group *do* need, even though I don't necessarily, and I can give/trade
to them to help out their collections.
D) We can open boosters and play Duffin Draft, which is always a totally
fun way to spend 15 minutes.
You are likely not completely alone in your feelings. But you are also
likely a minority. And all you have to do to save yourself the agita of
having to get all those reprints you so desperately don't want is to
just not buy boosters and buy singles instead. The company will survive
the hit.
> But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given actual
> vtes status.
Having a solid, entry level base set that is good for everyone but
Tetragrammaton, good for limited/draft play, and gives players who
haven't been in the game for 10+ years access to a lot of cards that
they need is a bad business strategy?
> In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving
> old cards in boosters
For fuck sake. Keepers of Tradition. It is a base set. An entry point
into the game. A jumping in point for newer players. A way for older
players to get more of the cards that they need anyway. LoTN and TR were
*not* base sets. They were not a jumping in point for newer players.
They were not a way for older players to get more of the cards they need
anyway. Can you see the difference, in a design sense?
*(people were totally happy, in theory, to buy 3rd. Until they
discovered that the cards were upside down and the stock was sub
optimal. But that had nothing to do with the design of the set. Just the
production. Which was unfortunate. But a different issue).
Blooded Sand
> > Tetragrammaton <n...@usa.com> writes:
> >> If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the
> >> player base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the
> >> release of a new base set, just fine.
>
> > They don't. As can be seen by looking round in many places, many
> > existing players are interested in buying some of the set, and have
> > expressed interest in starters, new cards, reprints etc. Not all old
> > players have huge collections. Not all old players have bought every
> > set.
>
> Really ?
> Unless you can provide some stats supporting all of that, i think your
> opinion
> is good as mine here.
> I bet that a notable number of players *did* actually got lots of cards
> from *all* of the older sets - and i'm basing this on my experience as well
> as what i see in the lots of playgroups i come in contact with.
Dude, I have in excess of 20 000 cards at least, and I play with
people who have all been playing for a minimum of 2-4 years. I have
been playing since Jyhad, but still I do not have enough of certain
cards. Freak Drives, Mind Rape and BP being high on my lost, but
others populating it quite strongly.
>
> > Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out,
> > "You know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but the
> > idea comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can buy that
> > card(s) in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art. Some
> > oldbies will be returning to the game, and may not have some of those
> > cards.
>
> Some players don't like a tons of reprints too.
I love reprints. Quite a lot of other people do too. Stop whining
about a BASE SET containing reprints, and do something constructive.
Take all those reprints you do not want, build some decks with them,
and leave them in a box where you play for new players. If someone
wants to try the game, give (not lend, give) them a deck. If they
like, let them build out of the excess junk box.
>
> > Many players enjoy draft, and White Wolf have clearly been
> > making some efforts to make draft more fun, and having useful basic
> > effects in a set makes it useful for drafting - there are only so
> > many ways you can vary Computer Hacking, so why not just reprint one
> > of the existing ones ?
> > The oldbie who has enough of every single card that's ever been
> > printed, such that reprints will be of no benefit to them whatsoever,
> > is in a distinct minority.
>
> Please provide some stats on this , again.
> Otherwise our opinions are equal here.
> You think, basically ,that there are not so many players around
> with lots of all the cards from the previous sets (maybe) - on the
> other side my opinion is quite the contrary here.
> Above all, speaking of vtes players that buy on a regular basis from WW,
> and are pretty interested in the first place at buying the new set.
> Those players are the ones that makes the company to get the real money -
> not the casual player, nor players that are interested just in buying 20
> cards or
> few boosters to build a single given deck
>
> > And, as has been pointed out several times, if there aren't base sets,
> > the game is essentially inaccessible to newbies.
>
> I'm not questioning the necessity of base sets.
> I'm questioning the necessity of getting as much as of 60%
> of reprints in a base set boosters, right now.
Dude, you make no sense... "I'm not questioning the necessity of a
base set." Base sets by their very nature contain a large number of
reprints. You want to tell the new guy who has just started that he is
not getting Majesty, deflection, 2nd trads, governs, condition, IG TS,
Taste etc (man i hate Dom;) because you don't feel liek some reprints?
> With some efforts, you can get really a *lot* of the needed reprints
> in precons deck and in a player's kit, as much as it has been in third
> edition (at least for four clans) and in LoTN precons.
> Following the same efforts, you can get, actually, a base set with
> some reprints in boosters, but with a minor % (say 20%).
> Old players woudl be more satisfacted that point.
No, YOU would be more satisfied at that point. Please do not lump me
in the same boat as you. Seeing as I have been playing this game since
the first Jyhad boxes went on sale, I think I qualify as an old
player. Yet I am not going to say "All old plyers" this or that or
whatever, because I cannot speak for them.
> Again, i'll wait the release to tell this.
>
> > Yes, you'll wet
> > yourself and say there are no newbies for you.
>
> I'm not wet - i'm just concerned, actually.
Frankly, you sound like you wet yourself. This is an idiom, the
meaning of which is that you have urinated on yourself (literally) as
well as that you will make a lot of noise and raise a big hullabaloo
about something (idiomatically)
>
> > Whatever. When a
> > stray newbie does come along and finds they can't get the cards
> > everyone else has, are they going to want to take up the game? In
> > that way, having base sets *does* help the oldbie, by trying to keep
> > the game alive.
>
> Read above: i do appreciate a lot anything good as third ed. player's kit
> for newbies, for example.
> On the most part, i think those, along with precons, suffice to any newbie.
Again with the dichotomies. You appreciate things done to bring in new
players, but you don't want reprints in a base set. make up your mind,
the spinning on the spot is making me dizzy.
> >> But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given
> >> actual vtes status.
>
> > That's why it's not the strategy. That's why the set has 160 brand
> > new cards in it, full of new card goodness.
>
> I was just answering to your "buy singles for the new set" argument,
> actually.
>
> > Well over a third of the
> > set is shiny and new, like a virgin, touched for the very first time.
> > But for people who are so upset that they might possibly get a card
> > they don't need, those people can buy singles.
>
> I think that "a card they don't need " doens't describe the reality in which
> you're going to get as much as of 60% of reprints.
> "Lots of cards they don't need" would describe better.
> I could see your minimization as right if a base set would contains from 10
> to
> 30 % of reprints in boosters (as it has been, say in anarchs or LoB) , not
> 60%.
Yah know what, i'll make you a deal. We buy a box of KoT boosters. You
get to keep all the new cards, and i will take all the IG,mind rape,
deflect,govern, 2nd trads, et al. Sounds good? The reprints (which
will be in a base set, no matter how much anybody whines about it) are
AWESOME!!!!!! I can finally hope to own more than 1 bloody mindrape.
Do you know of anyone who will trade it? Anyone???? Cos i dont. And i
always wanted more. I love some of the new cards, but man i get really
excited about some of the reprints.
>
> > However, people upset
> > about getting cards they don't need would do well to think hard about
> > why they're playing a CCG, where the basic distribution model does
> > that from the word go.
>
> >> In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving
> >> old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach
> >> in boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me.
>
> > Erm, no.
>
> > There has been no change in behaviour. No change. At all. No need
> > to get upset if you simply look at what White Wolf have always done.
>
> After third we got 3 sets in a row with no reprints at all in boosters
> (including the masterpiece base indie set that is LoTN).
> OK, that has been done before.
> But just before third, we got the legacy of blood base set with just a
> (roughly) 30% reprints in boosters. That's enough, i think, to reasonably
> see an approach in which the reprints things in boosters was kept at bay,
> thus making old players satisfacted in buying boosters and new ones allowed
> to get staple cards mostly from fixed cons.
> In this respecr, in fact i got also upset with third edition reprint ratios
> in boosters.
>
But what base sets where there? and 3rd ed was a cock up, lets agree
on this. So a GOOD base set is needed. And all reports so far seem to
indicate that this is what this one is going to be.
> > No change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have
> > had very few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs
> > being the obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different
> > way). Base sets have reprints in the boosters.
>
> I'm upset with the ratio - not by the fact that base set
> get reprints, that's understandable.
But the fact that you want the ratios lower, means you want to cut the
number of reprints, which are there primarily for the benefit of
N.E.W. P.L.A.Y.E.R.S. Get it? The new cards are to keep the oldbies
happy, the reprints are to allow us to play draft/attract newbies. So
which reprints would you cut? Make me a list that makes from the point
of view of a new player, and maybe i will grant that your argument has
a modicum of reason behind it
Tetragrammaton
> In article <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote:
>> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me.
>
> It's a base set. It needs to have reprints. 'Cause not everyone who is
> playing this game has all the cards they need. Yeah, ok, maybe *you*
> have all the commons you could ever need, but it seems likely that
> most people, regardless of how long they have been playing, could use
> more of the various uncommons and rares that are going to be
> reprinted in the set (I have a billion cards, but I can still use
> more Torn Signposts and Immortal Grapples and Freak Drives and 2nd
> Traditions and whatever. As can the people I play with who will
> doubtlessly be willing to trade me some of the more narrow use brand
> new cards in exchange for good staple cards that I get more of as
> reprints).
>
> If getting reprints is a problem for you, there is an incredibly easy
> solution. Don't buy boosters. I'm sure the company can take the hit
> from a couple people who have their panties all in a twist 'cause
> there are reprints in a new base set not buying boosters. Get sets of
> vampires on e-bay. Buy new single cards as singles (which will,
> likely, save you money in the long run anyway). Get a couple starter
> decks for each clan to get the starter only stuff. And then call it
> even.
On my side, sorry but i find that your rant is completely out
of context, given the fact that a company SHOULD actually
care both with the player base, that is the stable base that keeps
the game alive for the most part, AND with some business/marketing
strategies to care also for new potential players
So, sorry if i don't take the horse "buy singles, don't buy new boosters"
already beaten, as a serious argument , regarding stable players.
I'm pretty sure the goal of the company about selling (both to old in the
first place and to would be new ones) isn't in the "solution" you enlist
here.
> I find it kind of baffling that you seem to be completely unwilling to
> accept the idea that base level, entry sets to games like this need to
> have reprints in boosters.
You're totally wrong, so please read carefully what i said here
early about new players.
>Sabbat had tons of reprints. Sabbat War had
> tons of reprints.
Sabbat was WoTC times, so i won't take at all into account on this.
SW was the first set released AFTER so many year the game wasn't
produced, so i won't take it as valid paragon term, too.
> Final Nights had tons of reprints.
Not (at all) in boosters - please read carefully what my point is
before ranting out of context.
>Camarilla had
> tons of reprints.
Yes, in fact i'm not the only one to say that at its time it
already sucked a bit, but it was new layout outright and 6 precons starters.
So it was ok overall, and a pretty numbers of years ago after all.
> 3rd had tons of reprints.
In boosters, yes, with an awful distribution - that pretty sucked a lot
indeed.
>KoT has tons of reprints.
Not (at all) in boosters - again, please read carefully what my point is.
Frederick Scott
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Qt2ADEYV...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton
> <no...@usa.com> writes:
>>Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me.
>
> So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want,
> and calculate the cost to buy them as singles.
> If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a problem.
That's actually not true. Singles may be a better way to approach making
acquisitions from a set in which you only want some of the cards. But
it can't solve the basic problem the previous poster is citing: that
White Wolf is systematically overprinting reprints in relation to new cards
in its base sets. Or put another way, WW is systematically UNDERprinting
new cards in its base sets. If you can get the singles you need cheaper
than what you would have spent on the boxes and that meets your needs better,
great. But even then, the singles wind up being a lot more expensive than the
same ones would have been in an all-new set.
I believe that's one of the reasons Heart of Nizchetus is _so_ insanely
expensive as it is. I don't think it would have been a $20+ card in,
for instance, Lords of the Night.
Fred
Tetragrammaton
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> In article <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
>> "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me.
>> KoT has tons of reprints.
>
> Not (at all) in boosters - again, please read carefully what my
> point is.
Mis-readed LoTN for KoT, sorry.
I mean lotn dind't got reptint in boosters , of course
Clément
Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints
have anything to do with it.
I mean, if a set is very large, then it is likely that specific single
cards are harder to find (whether it's a new card or a reprint).
However, if card distribution in boosters is sufficiently flat, then
we'll get roughly even numbers of every single card of the same rarity
- which is pretty much what I'm looking for when I buy boxes of
boosters. In this sense, 3rd Edition was very screwed up (and I don't
really recall any other set I have such complaints about).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Peter D Bakija
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote:
> On my side, sorry but i find that your rant is completely out
> of context, given the fact that a company SHOULD actually
> care both with the player base, that is the stable base that keeps
> the game alive for the most part, AND with some business/marketing
> strategies to care also for new potential players
It does. That is why it is making a new base set. Which *most* old
player are likely totally happy with. Yes. There will be reprints in the
boosters that I don't need. I'll suck it up and give/trade them to
someone who *does* need them (of which there are plenty in my playgroup).
> So, sorry if i don't take the horse "buy singles, don't buy new boosters"
> already beaten, as a serious argument , regarding stable players.
How is it not a serious argument? You are probably a minority in this
discussion. And the solution *for you* is easy--don't buy boosters, just
buy singles.
> I'm pretty sure the goal of the company about selling (both to old in the
> first place and to would be new ones) isn't in the "solution" you enlist
> here.
It is a fantastic solution *for you*. Who is probably in the minority.
Most folks, old and new, will likely not have the problem you are having
with buying boosters. Could I be wrong? Sure. I could be. But I'm
probably not. You are an outlier. An understandable outlier. But an
outlier. A minority. A fringe. The set makes *you* upset. Ok. There is
an easy solution for *you*. I don't think that you projecting you being
upset to the whole player base is accurate.
> Not (at all) in boosters - please read carefully what my point is
> before ranting out of context.
My error on Final Nights (I misremembered it). But there is no "ranting
out of context" about that statement at all.
> >KoT has tons of reprints.
>
> Not (at all) in boosters - again, please read carefully what my point is.
Keepers of Tradition (KoT) has tons of reprints. In the boosters. This
is what this is all about, is it not?
Tetragrammaton
Ok, you're content with that - just fine.
No problem here - in fact i'm adressing at what my experience is.
>>
>>> Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out,
>>> "You know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but
>>> the idea comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can
>>> buy that card(s) in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art.
>>> Some oldbies will be returning to the game, and may not have some
>>> of those cards.
>>
>> Some players don't like a tons of reprints too.
>
> I love reprints. Quite a lot of other people do too. Stop whining
I'm not whining - sorry for you.
I'm pointing an already saw distribution problem in boosters actually, and a
solution as well.
Have the most of reprints in fixed dedicated cons (i already referred
to third's players kits and precons, for example) , as it has been
already on some sets (say, LoB), thus keeping the ratio of reprints in
boosters
at acceptable level.
You can have this also for base sets, and honestly i can't see how that
would be a problem.
>
> about a BASE SET containing reprints, and do something constructive.
> Take all those reprints you do not want, build some decks with them,
> and leave them in a box where you play for new players.
Already did many times, yes.
>> I'm not questioning the necessity of base sets.
>> I'm questioning the necessity of getting as much as of 60%
>> of reprints in a base set boosters, right now.
>
> Dude, you make no sense... "I'm not questioning the necessity of a
> base set." Base sets by their very nature contain a large number of
> reprints.
On a general assertion, yes.
I'm specifically referring to ratio reprints in boosters.
Hope this is clear enough
>You want to tell the new guy who has just started that he is
> not getting Majesty, deflection, 2nd trads, governs, condition, IG TS,
> Taste etc (man i hate Dom;) because you don't feel liek some reprints?
>
>> With some efforts, you can get really a *lot* of the needed reprints
>> in precons deck and in a player's kit, as much as it has been in
>> third edition (at least for four clans) and in LoTN precons.
>> Following the same efforts, you can get, actually, a base set with
>> some reprints in boosters, but with a minor % (say 20%).
>> Old players woudl be more satisfacted that point.
>
> No, YOU would be more satisfied at that point. Please do not lump me
> in the same boat as you.
Are you telling seriously you won't be happier with an higher
ratio of new cards in boosters, while buying specifically reprinted
base/staple cards moslty in fixed precons, all of this for base sets also ?
Just fine, but please don't rant if someone else would like to have his
money spent the other way.
>Seeing as I have been playing this game since
> the first Jyhad boxes went on sale, I think I qualify as an old
> player. Yet I am not going to say "All old plyers" this or that or
> whatever, because I cannot speak for them.
I qualify the same i think, and as representative of Italy
player's base as well.
Thus, if a problem is seen with this high ratio of reprints this is the
place to discuss and collect opinions.
Possibly avoiding rants or useless bad blood
<snip>
Tetragrammaton
> In article <KMeRk.19933$8%.15060@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>> If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the
>> player base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the
>> release of a new base set, just fine.
>
> It isn't making anyone do anything. You are the only person involved
> in this discussion making the point that you are making.
Read carefully (again) the t3D - i'm not the only one here,
and in Italy many players are pointing this potential problem as well,
concerned in getting a new third edition-like distribution.
>It seems
> likely that the vast majority of old players with all the cards in
> the world are perfectly happy with the idea of buying KoT booosters.
"Vast majority" is subjective at this point, i think.
The truth is that at least a percentage of players can be dissatisfied.
> Much like they were perfectly happy* with the idea of buying 3rd
> boosters and Camarilla boosters. 'Cause that is how this sort of
> thing works. I have all the VTES cards in the world (well, not
> actually, but plenty). I'm totally happy to buy boosters, 'cause:
>
> A) I'll be getting all new vampires and new cards along with the
> reprints.
>
> B) I'll be getting more of cards that I already have but can still use
> more of.
>
> C) I'll be getting more staple commons that other people in my play
> group *do* need, even though I don't necessarily, and I can give/trade
> to them to help out their collections.
>
> D) We can open boosters and play Duffin Draft, which is always a
> totally fun way to spend 15 minutes.
>
> You are likely not completely alone in your feelings. But you are also
> likely a minority.
That's your perception, yes.
Mine is on the opposite - maybe truth is in the middle.
Whatever the case, there's at least a notable percentage
can be dissatisfacted if we'll see a new 3RD boosters distribution
nightmare.
>And all you have to do to save yourself the agita
> of having to get all those reprints you so desperately don't want is
> to just not buy boosters and buy singles instead. The company will
> survive the hit.
>> But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given
>> actual vtes status.
>
> Having a solid, entry level base set that is good for everyone but
> Tetragrammaton,
Sorry again, for some unknown reason you seem confortable in picturing
me on the personal level as the only unsatisfacted - that's not true , nor
it's the case.
Believe me.
> For fuck sake. Keepers of Tradition. It is a base set. An entry point
> into the game. A jumping in point for newer players. A way for older
> players to get more of the cards that they need anyway. LoTN and TR
> were *not* base sets. They were not a jumping in point for newer
> players.
I got at least 2 new players starting playing with LoTN precons.
Last game con i attended to last week we (me and other italian princes)
introduced several newbies with LoTN starters also.
How can you say that LoTN is not jumping start point for new players is a
mistery. It has wonderful, full playable precons, with all the needed cards.
I can follow your assertion on this just with TR or, in general, with any
non-precons-produced sets last years (tr, nor, soc).
>They were not a way for older players to get more of the
> cards they need anyway. Can you see the difference, in a design sense?
Not with LoTN, sorry - it included cards for untapping (philipp
and eluding) and base blood gaining (vessel) - that's base design enough
to me.
Orpheus
>> So, sorry if i don't take the horse "buy singles, don't buy new
>> boosters" already beaten, as a serious argument , regarding stable
>> players.
>
> How is it not a serious argument? You are probably a minority in this
> discussion. And the solution *for you* is easy--don't buy boosters,
> just buy singles.
>
>> I'm pretty sure the goal of the company about selling (both to old
>> in the first place and to would be new ones) isn't in the "solution"
>> you enlist here.
>
> It is a fantastic solution *for you*. Who is probably in the minority.
> Most folks, old and new, will likely not have the problem you are
> having with buying boosters. Could I be wrong? Sure. I could be. But
> I'm probably not. You are an outlier. An understandable outlier. But
> an outlier. A minority. A fringe.
Please provide any sort of evidence of this.
Feel free to make distinctions between countries.
I know plenty of people who would agree that the ratio of reprints in
boosters could be much better than it is in KoT. I'm sure you know plenty of
people in your playgroup who think otherwise. This doesn't make some of us
the minority and you the apostle of the majority.
Also note that the people who answer in threads on this particular forum are
in no way an indication of what the majority of the players / buyers think
or would want.
OMMV and obviously do. Doesn't mean your wine is better than his or mine.
Frederick Scott
news:pdb6-9B9D70.1...@nntp.aioe.org...
> If getting reprints is a problem for you, there is an incredibly easy
> solution. Don't buy boosters. I'm sure the company can take the hit from
> a couple people who have their panties all in a twist 'cause there are
> reprints in a new base set not buying boosters. Get sets of vampires on
> e-bay. Buy new single cards as singles (which will, likely, save you
> money in the long run anyway). Get a couple starter decks for each clan
> to get the starter only stuff. And then call it even.
It's not just a problem for the individual collector who wants new cards
and doesn't want to spend money on reprints he doesn't need and can't
use. Ultimately, it's a "bad thing"(tm) when White Wolf or any game
company creates game components that aren't needed by players. The
whole artificial rarity thing, when you step back and look at it from a
larger perspective (factoring in things like singles sellers and the
secondary market) is just a way of jacking up the price of the artificially
rare thing. And yes, some 'value' is injected through the randomization
of boosters, which challenges players to trade to solve the problem of
finding which cards they particularly want. The trading is some of the
fun - but it doesn't fix issues with cards that just play too rare for
their demand.
To the extent that artificial rarity makes it possible for the game to
exist, great. But, like any other way of fixing a price level for a product,
it can be over done. If White Wolf were to just increase the price of their
cards to $20+ a booster, they'd make more money, too. But the cost of the
cards would make it unattractive to gamers and ultimately be an unproductive
strategy. Since new cards in a base set represents a relatively small
amount of the card population, the game can certainly sustain this kind of
"price increase". (Read: I'm not really trying to compare new cards in reprint
sets with increasing the booster cost several fold.) Having small numbers
of cards less available through overrarity only frustrates guys like me a bit
and the game survives it just fine. I see it as relatively minor problem, on
balance. But it's not a good thing.
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>That's actually not true. Singles may be a better way to approach making
>acquisitions from a set in which you only want some of the cards. But
>it can't solve the basic problem the previous poster is citing: that
>White Wolf is systematically overprinting reprints in relation to new cards
>in its base sets. Or put another way, WW is systematically UNDERprinting
>new cards in its base sets.
Not especially. There are new cards in every booster - all the vampires
are new, from what we've been told. And some of the vampires are good.
Really good. Not over-powered (although one or two look really quite
powerful indeed), but also interesting. If I have one criticism of
Camarilla Edition, it's that it was a bit... bland. Not that the
vampires are bad, just that it's not terribly attention-grabbing.
KoT appears to address that with:
- new Inner Circle members
- some really interesting and unusual special abilities
- some interesting discipline combinations
and so on. I'm sure there are plenty of these that will go down well.
While you're buying this, you also get the new library cards, many of
which also look interesting. And you can pick up, from what we've seen
so far, Heart of Nizchetus, Mind Rape, Jake Washington, and quite a few
other popular, useful cards.
And if you buy a handful of boosters every so often and play draft? You
have a fun time, like you would playing draft with any set, but you get
KoT cards instead of 3E cards, or whatever else. That drafting? Not
really possible without good reprints.
Frederick Scott
news:c7f85465-2523-49a2...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints
> have anything to do with it.
Absolutely, they do! Think about it: most of the set is reprints, limiting
their value to older players. Only newbies _really_ need the reprints.
Or at least, newbies need them much more than older players. But, mixed
in with the reprints, are new cards that everybody needs, new players and
old players alike. The difference in who wants the one vs. the other is
what causes the extra artificial rarity of the new cards.
To understand the problem, throw out rarity levels and just assume I wanted
to print such a set with all commons. If I were to mix one Govern the
Unaligned in with 49 new cards, it wouldn't cause much problem. If I were to
mix 49 Govern the Unaligneds in with one new card...problem. The ability of
players to sustain the demand for Govern the Unaligned, useful card though it
is, has a limit. Beyond that limit, the market just doesn't need more copies
of it, so won't buy more boxes, so won't get many copies of the new card into
circulation. That's the problem.
Fred
YouLookLikeANail
> Read above: i do appreciate a lot anything good as third ed. player's kit
> for newbies, for example.
> On the most part, i think those, along with precons, suffice to any newbie.
I'll grant you, my experience is just one data point, but that's about
one data point more than this conversation has had so far.
I started playing when Third Edition came out. I've introduced five
other people to the game since then. I didn't have anyone who already
knew the game to help out or give me commons. And, in my own personal
opinion, your assertion that precons are good enough to get newbies
started is completely wrong.
New players start out buying precons, and that's fine to get them
started. But the reason that people play CCGs rather than Hungry Hungry
Hippoes is so that they can build their own decks. That element of
creativity and discovery is the entire point. The gap between the
newbie with a !Brujah starter and the veteran player with a suitcase of
cards, who can build whatever deck he likes, is the guy with two or
three precons that he wants to customize and play around with, looking
for some packs or maybe a box that he can buy and start using. That's
how people get from point A to point B.
VTES is a game that lives and dies on its commons. That player needs to
be able to go and pick up a box of shrinkwrapped White Wolf product that
contains stuff he can use in the deck he picked out. And for "stuff he
can use", read, "reprinted commons that you might have lots of, but that
he really needs".
I'm assuming here that you're not arguing against the existence of
starter sets, just the prevalence of reprints in other big sets. If you
go with that model, then the only sets with lots of reprints would be
Sabbat, CE, and Third. You can't get the first two and the latter is
not a great place for newbies to go, for a number of reasons.
If only base sets have reprints, then this is what happens. Four
players pick up one of each of the Third Edition starters, and then
later on they get some Third boosters to flesh out their decks. Each of
them is lucky to get one card in ten that they can actually use in that
deck, because Third supports way too many clans and disciplines, and
that's assuming they don't get hosed because of distribution and end up
with nothing useful. And there are still lots of fundamental common
cards that everybody needs that they don't have, because they didn't
happen to get reprinted that time out.
They ask themselves why White Wolf is making it so hard for them to play
the game, and go back to playing Magic.
Part of that problem is just that Third sucked from a production point
of view, but that sort of thing happens, and if you only release sets
with reprints every couple of years, then the impact of that sort of
unavoidable mistake becomes catastrophic.
On the other hand, if LotN and KoT and whatever's next contains a mix of
new stuff and some of the basics that everybody needs, then they can
pick up some of each new thing and find a place for it. Their
collection grows incrementally and so does their ability to try new
things. Even more importantly, they're always picking up new stuff, so
their enthusiasm for the game is maintained.
Kill that model and newbies only ever get started if they know somebody
who can give them lots of commons out of charity. People don't get
started on their own anymore and people who do get started are a lot
less likely to develop into serious, hard-core collectors and players.
Which means fewer people to give newbies piles of commons out of
charity. And then you really do have a newbie crisis.
White Wolf's model is good. Wherever possible, include stuff to keep
newbies going. Restrict stuff that is newbie-inaccessible to small sets
with no reprints, like TR or NoR, so they're more easily avoided.
The current system is far from ideal from the POV of new players. But
suggesting that they cut back on the number of reprints is such a huge
step in the wrong direction that it boggles my mind.
Clément
> "Clément" wrote
> > Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints
> > have anything to do with it.
>
> Absolutely, they do! Think about it: most of the set is reprints, limiting
> their value to older players. Only newbies _really_ need the reprints.
> Or at least, newbies need them much more than older players. But, mixed
> in with the reprints, are new cards that everybody needs, new players and
> old players alike. The difference in who wants the one vs. the other is
> what causes the extra artificial rarity of the new cards.
I get this, but I wasn't talking about artificial rarity, just play
rarity and how flat is the card distribution in boosters. In 3rd
Edition it terribly sucked, but it doesn't mean it will suck too in
KoT.
Of course, if someone is not interested on any reprints at all, then
KoT boosters will probably suck to them, as they'll get a lot of
reprints and the new cards will be rarer to them in a relative way.
But this was not my point. What bothered me in 3rd Edition was the
huge imbalance in the number of copies I got of some cards compared to
others. Regardless of them being reprints or new cards (also, to a
lesser extent, I was unhappy with some reprint choices, but this is
another subject).
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Clément
(...)
> I get this, but I wasn't talking about artificial rarity, just play
> rarity and how flat is the card distribution in boosters.
Not "play rarity", I meant to type "plain rarity". Sorry.
> Abraço,
>
> Luiz Mello
Frederick Scott
"Clément" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:09409144-5b98-4bad...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 2:43 pm, "Frederick Scott" wrote:
> "Clément" wrote
> > Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints
> > have anything to do with it.
>
> Absolutely, they do! Think about it: most of the set is reprints, limiting
> their value to older players. Only newbies _really_ need the reprints.
> Or at least, newbies need them much more than older players. But, mixed
> in with the reprints, are new cards that everybody needs, new players and
> old players alike. The difference in who wants the one vs. the other is
> what causes the extra artificial rarity of the new cards.
>
> I get this, but I wasn't talking about artificial rarity, just play
> rarity and how flat is the card distribution in boosters.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. You need to define how you're using
the terms, here.
When I refer to "artificial rarity", I mean that certain cards are demanded
for play purposes in greater numbers than they appear in boosters and
precons. So their prices turns into a barrier to using them in decks to a
significantly greater degree than average cards.
I have no idea of what you might mean by "play rarity", as a concept
separate from "artificial rarity".
> Of course, if someone is not interested on any reprints at all, then
> KoT boosters will probably suck to them, as they'll get a lot of
> reprints and the new cards will be rarer to them in a relative way.
Right. That's exactly the original poster's point. And since there
are a *lot* of players for whom that's true to some extent or another,
the massed effect makes a difference. How much a difference it makes
is debatable. Whether there's a better way is also debatable, as an
"all-reprint" set might not be worth the effort for White Wolf to
manufacture and sell. But even so, the issue is there.
> But this was not my point. What bothered me in 3rd Edition was the
> huge imbalance in the number of copies I got of some cards compared to
> others. Regardless of them being reprints or new cards (also, to a
> lesser extent, I was unhappy with some reprint choices, but this is
> another subject).
That was true, too. But it's kind of off the topic of this thread.
Except insofar as how much it sucked to get, like, 14 copies of J.S.
Simmons an older player doesn't need even a little bit at ALL while
not getting a single of copy of Heart of Nizchetus that he couldn't
possibly have collected prior to Third Edition because it hadn't been
printed.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Clément" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:41f41ca4-0a78-4b53...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Plain rarity, if I understand what you mean, isn't actually very
important in the game at all. You can have a rare card that's total
dreck and players don't want to get one in their boosters at all
because their bathroom already contains enough toilet tissue. On
the other hand, you can have a common card that's not common enough
for how many copies players would use if they could get their hands
on that many. (Tupdog, in Legacy of Blood, was a poster child for
that situation.) The significant thing isn't how rare a card is
but how rare it is in comparison to how much it would get used in
decks, if it could be obtained - taking into account such things as
players' tolerance for switching underprinted cards back and forth
between decks. That's what I mean by "artificial rarity". And,
as far as I can see, that's the only kind of rarity that really
matters.
Fred
Tetragrammaton
> Delurking to get my oar in the water...
>
> And, in my own personal
> opinion, your assertion that precons are good enough to get newbies
> started is completely wrong.
Ok
> New players start out buying precons, and that's fine to get them
> started.
Ok, then please note that your sentence just above contraddicts with your
first one quoted just below the snipped part.
Either precons are good to get newbies started, or they aren't.
Decide :-)
> But the reason that people play CCGs rather than Hungry
> Hungry Hippoes is so that they can build their own decks. That
> element of creativity and discovery is the entire point. The gap
> between the newbie with a !Brujah starter and the veteran player with
> a suitcase of cards, who can build whatever deck he likes, is the guy
> with two or three precons that he wants to customize and play around
> with, looking for some packs or maybe a box that he can buy and start
> using. That's how people get from point A to point B.
You can get to point B just the same with an overall reprinting as we got
in LoB (about 30% of reprints in boosters) , for example, or LoTN
(no reprints in boosters at all, just in the precons).
As said elsewhere, i'm discussing the ratio in boosters reprints, not the
fact alone that a base set gets reprints.
Having from 10 % to 30% of reprints in boosters, and getting the remaining
needed ones (reprints) on precons is fine and pretty doable, and, honestly,
can't read a single argument so far that makes that worse than getting a 60%
or so of reprints in boosters instead.
> VTES is a game that lives and dies on its commons. That player needs
> to be able to go and pick up a box of shrinkwrapped White Wolf
> product that contains stuff he can use in the deck he picked out. And for
> "stuff he can use", read, "reprinted commons that you might
> have lots of, but that he really needs".
Yes, all of that can be packed in fixed (or even less-fixed) cons - no need
to inflate the boosters with a tons of reprints.
>
> I'm assuming here that you're not arguing against the existence of
> starter sets, just the prevalence of reprints in other big sets.
Reprints in boosters,however, not reprints in general - that's my point.
> If
> you go with that model, then the only sets with lots of reprints
> would be Sabbat, CE, and Third. You can't get the first two and the
> latter is not a great place for newbies to go, for a number of
> reasons.
> If only base sets have reprints, then this is what happens. Four
> players pick up one of each of the Third Edition starters, and then
> later on they get some Third boosters to flesh out their decks. Each
> of them is lucky to get one card in ten that they can actually use in
> that deck, because Third supports way too many clans and disciplines,
> and that's assuming they don't get hosed because of distribution and
> end up with nothing useful. And there are still lots of fundamental
> common cards that everybody needs that they don't have, because they
> didn't happen to get reprinted that time out.
>
> They ask themselves why White Wolf is making it so hard for them to
> play the game, and go back to playing Magic.
>
Yes - this is, actually, the same model probably we'll get again with KoT.
> Part of that problem is just that Third sucked from a production point
> of view, but that sort of thing happens, and if you only release sets
> with reprints every couple of years, then the impact of that sort of
> unavoidable mistake becomes catastrophic.
This is, more or less, what's actually could happen again with kot.
> On the other hand, if LotN and KoT and whatever's next contains a mix
> of new stuff and some of the basics that everybody needs, then they
> can pick up some of each new thing and find a place for it. Their
> collection grows incrementally and so does their ability to try new
> things. Even more importantly, they're always picking up new stuff,
> so their enthusiasm for the game is maintained.
Yes, but in fact LoTN has nothing to do with KoT, so far.
Imho, lotn is the best set WW released so far, both for the old and
new players alike. Kudos to lsj and the company for it.
> Kill that model and newbies only ever get started if they know
> somebody who can give them lots of commons out of charity.
You can get a lot of fixed common in starters.
Staple/base are only an handful of cards, nothing more and above
all nothing difficult to put in a set of starters, from time to time.
This is exactly what's happened on the fixed side of third's production,
with very good starters and a wonderful's player's kit.
This because you can have there at least 25-35 clan specific strategy
reprints , and 25-35 generic base staple, plus the base crypt.
Pretty the same happened with the LoTN precons.
All wonderful stuff for beginners to start and learn playing a lot with it.
> People
> don't get started on their own anymore and people who do get started
> are a lot less likely to develop into serious, hard-core collectors
> and players. Which means fewer people to give newbies piles of
> commons out of charity. And then you really do have a newbie crisis.
>
> White Wolf's model is good. Wherever possible, include stuff to keep
> newbies going. Restrict stuff that is newbie-inaccessible to small
> sets with no reprints, like TR or NoR, so they're more easily avoided.
>
> The current system is far from ideal from the POV of new players. But
> suggesting that they cut back on the number of reprints is such a huge
> step in the wrong direction that it boggles my mind.
I'm not asking to cut reprints - i'm saying to put the majority of those
in fixed cons, leaving a smaller percentage ratio of reprints in boosters.
In this respect, in fact, i somewhat regret the choiche of not producing 6
starters for the KoT cammies, that would have ensured the chanche of
reprinting the most cards in the precons.
But i can understand the trouble with the would be cost for that.
best
YouLookLikeANail
>> New players start out buying precons, and that's fine to get them
>> started.
>
> Ok, then please note that your sentence just above contraddicts with your
> first one quoted just below the snipped part.
> Either precons are good to get newbies started, or they aren't.
> Decide :-)
It's fine to get them started, meaning, get their first taste of the
game. It's not enough to be their entire entry point to the game. You
need to have a mechanism to transition them from "I have a starter" to
"I have enough cards to build whatever deck I want", and that mechanism
needs to be incremental. Making lots of staples available in boosters
is, from my perspective, the best way to do that, given the current
product layout.
>> VTES is a game that lives and dies on its commons. That player needs
>> to be able to go and pick up a box of shrinkwrapped White Wolf
>> product that contains stuff he can use in the deck he picked out. And for
>> "stuff he can use", read, "reprinted commons that you might
>> have lots of, but that he really needs".
>
> Yes, all of that can be packed in fixed (or even less-fixed) cons - no need
> to inflate the boosters with a tons of reprints.
The suggestion of less-fixed cons is interesting, but "what they should
do if they were willing to tinker with the packaging and set schemes" is
a different question from "what they should do given the packaging and
set scheme they have now".
>> I'm assuming here that you're not arguing against the existence of
>> starter sets, just the prevalence of reprints in other big sets.
>
> Reprints in boosters,however, not reprints in general - that's my point.
Okay.
>> If only base sets have reprints, then this is what happens. Four
>> players pick up one of each of the Third Edition starters, and then
>> later on they get some Third boosters to flesh out their decks. Each
>> of them is lucky to get one card in ten that they can actually use in
>> that deck, because Third supports way too many clans and disciplines,
>> and that's assuming they don't get hosed because of distribution and
>> end up with nothing useful. And there are still lots of fundamental
>> common cards that everybody needs that they don't have, because they
>> didn't happen to get reprinted that time out.
>>
>> They ask themselves why White Wolf is making it so hard for them to
>> play the game, and go back to playing Magic.
> Yes - this is, actually, the same model probably we'll get again with KoT.
Why do you think that will happen?
>> Part of that problem is just that Third sucked from a production point
>> of view, but that sort of thing happens, and if you only release sets
>> with reprints every couple of years, then the impact of that sort of
>> unavoidable mistake becomes catastrophic.
>
> This is, more or less, what's actually could happen again with kot.
Well, there are two big problems with Third as a core set. The
production problems are the first; that might happen with KoT, no way to
avoid it, but the sets since 3e have been solid. So I wouldn't expect
that again.
But KoT will definitely avoid the other big problem with Third - lack of
focus. Third includes, what, ten clans? That's an issue. If I decide
I want to start by focusing on 2 clans, I only have 1 card in 5 that I
can actually use. In KOT, that jumps to 1 in 3, for vampires, which is
a much nicer ratio for me. Since vampires have multiple disciplines,
the ratio of usable discipline cards increases even faster as the total
number of disciplines in the set decreases.
You wouldn't think that kind of ratio change would be that big a deal,
but I can tell you from going through boxes with new players, you'll
need a lot of boxes of Third to get enough of the basic commons to build
a workable deck. You could do it a lot faster with LotN, which only has
4 clans. I suspect 6 is about the max you would want, for this purpose.
So I would be much less hesitant to recommend KoT for a newbie as
compared to Third, given what we know about it so far.
>> On the other hand, if LotN and KoT and whatever's next contains a mix
>> of new stuff and some of the basics that everybody needs, then they
>> can pick up some of each new thing and find a place for it. Their
>> collection grows incrementally and so does their ability to try new
>> things. Even more importantly, they're always picking up new stuff,
>> so their enthusiasm for the game is maintained.
>
> Yes, but in fact LoTN has nothing to do with KoT, so far.
> Imho, lotn is the best set WW released so far, both for the old and
> new players alike. Kudos to lsj and the company for it.
Indeed. But I think the reason it's better for newbies has more to do
with the fact that it concentrates on only 4 clans, than the number of
reprints per se.
Awesome set though.
>> Kill that model and newbies only ever get started if they know
>> somebody who can give them lots of commons out of charity.
>
> You can get a lot of fixed common in starters.
> Staple/base are only an handful of cards, nothing more and above
> all nothing difficult to put in a set of starters, from time to time.
> This is exactly what's happened on the fixed side of third's production,
> with very good starters and a wonderful's player's kit.
> This because you can have there at least 25-35 clan specific strategy
> reprints , and 25-35 generic base staple, plus the base crypt.
> Pretty the same happened with the LoTN precons.
> All wonderful stuff for beginners to start and learn playing a lot with it.
I've seen players who go out and buy a box of boosters and are dismayed
to learn that they still can't build a workable deck from that, because
there are too many core cards that aren't available. Hunting for
starters to get fundamental cards that everybody needs is a bit of a
hack. A preconstructed starter is pretty clearly intended to be taken
out of the box and used; nothing on the box suggests that you need to
buy these to harvest them for cards to be able to build a workable deck
in general. That's what boosters are for, everywhere else in the CCG
world, and like it or not, your new players are mostly coming from that
world.
Maybe the solution is to produce some other new product to get these
cards into the hands of new players. Regardless, players will want to
buy boosters; doing so maintains their enthusiasm for the game; boosters
need to be appealing to them and provide them with things they need and
can use.
>> People
>> don't get started on their own anymore and people who do get started
>> are a lot less likely to develop into serious, hard-core collectors
>> and players. Which means fewer people to give newbies piles of
>> commons out of charity. And then you really do have a newbie crisis.
>>
>> White Wolf's model is good. Wherever possible, include stuff to keep
>> newbies going. Restrict stuff that is newbie-inaccessible to small
>> sets with no reprints, like TR or NoR, so they're more easily avoided.
>>
>> The current system is far from ideal from the POV of new players. But
>> suggesting that they cut back on the number of reprints is such a huge
>> step in the wrong direction that it boggles my mind.
>
> I'm not asking to cut reprints - i'm saying to put the majority of those
> in fixed cons, leaving a smaller percentage ratio of reprints in boosters.
> In this respect, in fact, i somewhat regret the choiche of not producing 6
> starters for the KoT cammies, that would have ensured the chanche of
> reprinting the most cards in the precons.
> But i can understand the trouble with the would be cost for that.
Agreed. 6 would have been awesome, but you take what you can get.
Right now, though, the number and variety of preconstructed starters
just isn't enough to be the main mechanism to get reprints into the
hands of newbies (and post-newbies who are starting to expand their
collections). Plus, people who are just starting out want to buy
boosters. That's one of the big parts of CCGs that hooks people.
That's a big party of why they're successful as a game type. I don't
think it's wise to make them less appealing to newer players.
And let's remember here, old-timers already have a significant
investment in the game. A manufacturer can and should spend less time
trying to woo you as compared to new people. You're already wooed.
Given the release method White Wolf is pursuing, putting lots of
reprints into boosters is just smart, from the perspective of acquiring
and retaining newer players. Having done this myself fairly recently,
getting started and building up your collection with their current model
is not straightforward. The more I can get common reprints in boosters
without having to do a lot of hunting around, the happier I am.
Now, that's not to say the system can't be improved. Ideally, I would
like to see a fixed and perpetually available core set with a limited
(no more than 6) number of clans which is entirely core reprints --
everything from Deflections through to Blood Dolls and Wakes. Make that
the standard entry point for players. Put the vampires from it in a
Blood Shadowed Court style box so veterans can get them without needing
the boosters, if they're so inclined. Make larger sets focusing on
Sabbat, Indies, Laibon etc. expansions to that core set, with fewer
reprints; enough to appeal to new players, but not so many as to put off
older players. Aim the small no-reprint sets like TR and NoR pretty
much exclusively for veteran players.
In a perfect world, that's what I'd want. But if we can't get that,
then there needs to be a product, ideally in booster packs, that gives
new players the pieces they need. The preconstructed setup we have now
isn't enough to do that job.
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> Ultimately, it's a "bad thing"(tm) when White Wolf or any game
> company creates game components that aren't needed by players.
But they aren't creating game components that aren't needed by players.
People need commons. Even older players need commons (I *still* don't
have enough Deflections and Telepathic Misdirections, and that is
counting the large pile of Jyhad versions that I'd like to be able to
replace with VTES backed versions. The same can be said for lots of
cards like that). I might not need 10 more Unflinching Persistence (or
whatever), but a good chunk of the commons are going to be useful to
most people.
Peter D Bakija
"Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
> Please provide any sort of evidence of this.
You'll note where I said "probably" and "I might be wrong", right?
> I know plenty of people who would agree that the ratio of reprints in
> boosters could be much better than it is in KoT. I'm sure you know plenty of
> people in your playgroup who think otherwise. This doesn't make some of us
> the minority and you the apostle of the majority.
As noted, I could be wrong. But my suspicion is that most folks aren't
real concerned with the with ratio of reprints in the boosters. Sure.
I'd be happy if there were more new cards than not. But it's ok. As it
is a base set, and it is important that base sets act as a solid entry
point for new players and as a viable support point for novice players.
I'm willing to suck up a disadvantageous extra 20% of reprints if it
makes the game more accessible to the general population.
Clément
> "Clément" wrote:
> > But this was not my point. What bothered me in 3rd Edition was the
> > huge imbalance in the number of copies I got of some cards compared to
> > others. Regardless of them being reprints or new cards (also, to a
> > lesser extent, I was unhappy with some reprint choices, but this is
> > another subject).
>
> That was true, too. But it's kind of off the topic of this thread.
> Except insofar as how much it sucked to get, like, 14 copies of J.S.
> Simmons an older player doesn't need even a little bit at ALL while
> not getting a single of copy of Heart of Nizchetus that he couldn't
> possibly have collected prior to Third Edition because it hadn't been
> printed.
This is exactly what I was talking about, except that I wasn't really
making a distinction between reprints and new cards, and whether or
not some player needs or wants any given card.
I buy boosters in boxes, more often than not, and what I expect when I
open a box is to get balanced (i.e. similar) amounts of cards within
their respective [plain] rarity. Because I already know I'll be
getting at least some cards I don't want (which I can't complain
about, since I know there are other players who want them, and the set
was not designed just for me).
(By the way, I agree with you on the importance of artificial rarity
versus plain or actual rarity. Which is why I snipped the message
parts about it, which were at least partially motivated by my
mistyping of "plain rarity").
Back to the point, all I'm saying is that a reprint that you don't
want any [more] copies of is not essentially different from a new card
that you don't want any copies of (because you hate the clan, the
Discipline, or the card just sucks etc.). In the end, you still get a
card you don't have any use for.
If a given set carries a huge % of cards you are not interested on
(because most of them are reprints, or, say, the set is Nights of
Reckoning), then you might be better of not buying boosters at all, or
splitting a box with a newbie, or with friend that enjoys playing with
different stuff than you.
On the other hand, a set with poor booster card distribution like 3rd
Edition is potentially bad to everyone, since you risk getting a
billion Tithings and no Heart of Nizchetus. Which is bad because:
a. One of them kind of sucks while the other is über good;
b. Such an imbalance in distribution creates an undesired artificial
rarity.
In my reply to Tetragrammaton, I was just pointing out that I don't
think that either set size or the existence of reprints were the
problem in 3rd Edition. The messed up card distribution was.
Other than that, I agree that the ratio of reprints in boosters, in
theory, should be friendly both to newbies and old players alike. But
is there such a thing as an ideal ratio? And if there is, how close is
KoT to this goal?
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Peter D Bakija
I've said in multiple places that it is a subjective point.
> The truth is that at least a percentage of players can be dissatisfied.
Sure. Some percentage might be dissatisfied. And there is no way to find
this percentage. So any attempt to quantify it will be pure guesswork.
But if I were to engage in such guesswork, I'd suspect it was not that
big of a percentage. Which is a guess. A subjective one.
> That's your perception, yes.
> Mine is on the opposite - maybe truth is in the middle.
> Whatever the case, there's at least a notable percentage
> can be dissatisfacted if we'll see a new 3RD boosters distribution
> nightmare.
I'm unclear on what made 3rd a "distribution nightmare". I mean, 3rd had
problems on a production front, sure. But what exactly made it a
"distribution nightmare"?
> Sorry again, for some unknown reason you seem confortable in picturing
> me on the personal level as the only unsatisfacted - that's not true , nor
> it's the case.
I don't think you are the only person who is dissatisfied. I'm sure
there are others. But I can't for the life of me imagine that it is the
majority of players, let alone a large majority of the players. This is
pure guesswork.
> How can you say that LoTN is not jumping start point for new players is a
> mistery. It has wonderful, full playable precons, with all the needed cards.
> I can follow your assertion on this just with TR or, in general, with any
> non-precons-produced sets last years (tr, nor, soc).
The boosters contain not much in the way of important basic building
block cards. About 3 cards per standard discipline, and most of them are
pretty narrowly useful. No pool gain masters in the boosters. Relying on
new players to have to buy large piles of starters to get the necessary
basic building blocks to be able to build the decks they want isn't a
great plan. 'Cause starter decks tend to be very narrow, and push you in
a very specific direction.
James Coupe
<pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>I'm unclear on what made 3rd a "distribution nightmare". I mean, 3rd had
>problems on a production front, sure. But what exactly made it a
>"distribution nightmare"?
Specifically, the bad assortment of cards into boosters, such that some
cards turned up together all the damn time. Bad for draft (you can work
out what other people are taking), and can cause problems with unhelpful
clumpiness.
Tetragrammaton
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:pdb6-700C97.1...@nntp.aioe.org...
I'm not guessing this for italy, as example.
I speak with the local princes and players, collect their thoughts, and i
can
tell that the agreement on dissatisfaction with excessive ratio reprints
in boosters it's pretty total, so far.
Sure, in other countries and other playgroups this can vary.
>> How can you say that LoTN is not jumping start point for new players is a
>> mistery. It has wonderful, full playable precons, with all the needed
>> cards.
>> I can follow your assertion on this just with TR or, in general, with any
>> non-precons-produced sets last years (tr, nor, soc).
>
> The boosters contain not much in the way of important basic building
> block cards.
> About 3 cards per standard discipline, and most of them are
> pretty narrowly useful. No pool gain masters in the boosters. Relying on
> new players to have to buy large piles of starters
With 2 starters only you get 4 vessel plus a pretty number of other base and
non base cards (say, getting 8 shambling overall by 2 of the giovanni
starters - *pretty* good); i think that's enough for any average deck base,
don't see the necessity of buying a "tons" of precons there.
2 or 4 will pretty suffice (with minimal expense)
On the other side, with similar distribution as third edition, the same
player
would be forced in buying *a lots* of boosters instead to get at least x4 of
the needed cards, for his given first deck.
As someone else here pointed, that will likely result in the new player just
giving up, or i'd say on relying on the secondary market.
Thus, a couple old players would try to buy on the secondary market mostly
to get the rares / new cards, giving up with boosters - a couple of newer
ones to get common/staple in quantities, giving up with boosters - who buy
the boosters with such ratio distributions on the primary then ?
A lesser amount of potential buyers, granted.
> to get the necessary
> basic building blocks to be able to build the decks they want isn't a
> great plan. 'Cause starter decks tend to be very narrow, and push you in
> a very specific direction.
>
Yes, and newbies actually need a specific direction, in my experience.
This is a complicated game, it takes some time to be familiar with all
the mechanics, and newbies needs to be focused on a specific deck or two
of their own, to learn better and faster.
Frederick Scott
> Back to the point, all I'm saying is that a reprint that you don't
> want any [more] copies of is not essentially different from a new card
> that you don't want any copies of (because you hate the clan, the
> Discipline, or the card just sucks etc.). In the end, you still get a
> card you don't have any use for.
That's all true but it ignores a huge point: reprints, as a class, are
much more likely to be "cards you not interested in" than new cards, if
you're an older player. Newer players don't care either way - new cards
and older cards are just as likely to be interesting. So, almost by
definition, the base sets with 80% library reprints are going to have
this problem to a much greater degree than all-new-card sets.
(OK, you can assert a nit here: reprints will usually be selected for
being "good cards". Conditioning is a lot more likely to be reprinted
than Tortured Confession. Which is good, of course. But even taking
that into account, players with well-established collections are much
more likely to have more use for a new card than a reprint.)
> If a given set carries a huge % of cards you are not interested on
> (because most of them are reprints, or, say, the set is Nights of
> Reckoning), then you might be better of not buying boosters at all, or
> splitting a box with a newbie, or with friend that enjoys playing with
> different stuff than you.
I suppose the comparison isn't completely inappropriate but I think the
effect is much more egregious with respect to base sets. Nights of
Reckoning is a complete anamoly and was mitigated quite a bit by being a
mini-expansion which was easy to collect at the time. Most players, new
or old, will want most new cards. Or, to the extent they don't want them,
the new cards will still have potential appeal to the entire set of existing
players, new and old. On the other hand, the usefulness of reprints to
older players will always automatically be lessened, no matter the reprint
because there's already a number of them in existence. We're not talking
individual players' preferences here; we're talking about an entire market
which was already had its demands for these cards partially sated.
> On the other hand, a set with poor booster card distribution like 3rd
> Edition is potentially bad to everyone, since you risk getting a
> billion Tithings and no Heart of Nizchetus. Which is bad because:
Mind you, to my knowledge the issue is not that many more Tithings were
printed the Heart of Nizchetus. Just that the randomization was so lousy
that it was possible to open many boxes - because they were from the same
part of the production run and the distributor you bought from had all
boxes from that part of the run - and not get a HoN. Meanwhile, some
other guy somewhere who was buying all boxes from a _different_ part of
the production run was getting a billion Hearts of Nizchetus and no
Tithings. It was a bad thing but I wonder if you're thinking it was
worse than it was.
Anyway, I just see it as a completely different problem that really has
no bearing on this subject. White Wolf should address it...and this is
a different thing. I don't see what it has to do with this, other than
that both problems existed in 3rd Edition.
> In my reply to Tetragrammaton, I was just pointing out that I don't
> think that either set size or the existence of reprints were the
> problem in 3rd Edition. The messed up card distribution was.
Who said there was only one problem in 3rd Edition?
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-5C4A87.1...@nntp.aioe.org...
> In article <U5kRk.219$9Z6...@newsfe01.iad>,
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> Ultimately, it's a "bad thing"(tm) when White Wolf or any game
>> company creates game components that aren't needed by players.
>
> But they aren't creating game components that aren't needed by players.
> People need commons.
*sigh*
ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game
component that isn't needed by players". I understand that some number
of reprints are needed for new players. And, yes, specific reprints will
be desired by older players. But given the makeup of the base sets, there
is absolutely an overprinting of reprints as a class. Or rather, there is
a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets.
Fred
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game
>component that isn't needed by players". I understand that some number
>of reprints are needed for new players. And, yes, specific reprints will
>be desired by older players. But given the makeup of the base sets, there
>is absolutely an overprinting of reprints as a class. Or rather, there is
>a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets.
You haven't made a case for there being "an overprinting of reprints as
a class". Sure, for oldbies who don't want those cards, they're
"overprinted". But to declare them "overprinted" you need to make that
case for the game as a whole, and you haven't.
It may also be worth noting that 400 seems to be a sweet spot for cards.
It's 4 sheets - one for each rarity. (You can, obviously, have fewer
cards by varying rarities a little, so you have a few R2 or whatever.)
If you stick with the idea of 4 sheets, however, then you can't separate
out the two issues - every new card you print will bump a reprint off
the sheet. When a large chunk of the point of a base set is to reprint
those cards, whittling away at them so that there are even fewer of them
is self-defeating.
Clément
> Most players, new
> or old, will want most new cards. Or, to the extent they don't want them,
> the new cards will still have potential appeal to the entire set of existing
> players, new and old. On the other hand, the usefulness of reprints to
> older players will always automatically be lessened, no matter the reprint
> because there's already a number of them in existence. We're not talking
> individual players' preferences here; we're talking about an entire market
> which was already had its demands for these cards partially sated.
Sure, but I'm afraid we can't be sure about the degree in which the
demand for many old cards are sated. Take the messages in this thread
for instance: some posters believe lots of people (including old
players) want reprints to address holes in their collections or to
have more copies of cards they use in many decks; other people believe
that most old players will be disappointed by the high ratio of
reprints in KoT. Most likely, no one can know for sure.
That's why I throwed the matter of player's personal preferences into
the discussion. I bought LoTN boosters knowing I would get roughly 50%
of Assamite/Quietus/FoS/Serpentis cards that I didn't want, but it was
still worth it because it was the best/faster/cheaper way to get the
Ravnos/Chimerstry/Giovanni/Necromancy stuff I was seeking. I will buy
at least two boxes of KoT boosters, because there are lots of stuff in
there that I want (many reprints included, despite of me having a
large collection) and because I read here the boxes have a flat,
balanced assortment of cards. It looks like booster boxes are the way
to go for me this time, despite the "useless" [for me] Thaumaturgy and
overprinted common cards I'm likely to get.
On the other hand, if I only wanted 10% or 20% of the cards in the
set, I would probably go for singles, or would split a box with
friends, taking only the cards I needed.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, but that's kind of how it works
with card games, and VTES is better in this sense than any other CCG I
have been touch with (not many, to be honest).
Anyway, I'm not sure we are disagreeing a lot here. I agree that too
high a ratio of reprints in boosters (even for a base set) is probably
not a good thing. On the other hand, I believe the reprints are
necessary (among other things, to mitigate the artificial rarity of
many cards) and that having them in starters is not enough.
> Mind you, to my knowledge the issue is not that many more Tithings were
> printed the Heart of Nizchetus. Just that the randomization was so lousy
> that it was possible to open many boxes - because they were from the same
> part of the production run and the distributor you bought from had all
> boxes from that part of the run - and not get a HoN. Meanwhile, some
> other guy somewhere who was buying all boxes from a _different_ part of
> the production run was getting a billion Hearts of Nizchetus and no
> Tithings. It was a bad thing but I wonder if you're thinking it was
> worse than it was.
No, no, I know it was "just" a randomization problem. But it was a
problem that pretty much turned 3rd Edition into the only VTES set
that I wondered if it was worth purchasing (even after I bought a fair
amount of boosters).
(...)
> Who said there was only one problem in 3rd Edition?
Not me! ;)
To keep it on topic, for example, one might question why some poor
cards were reprinted at all in 3rd Edition.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game
> component that isn't needed by players".
If people need them, they aren't over printed in relation to the need.
> Or rather, there is
> a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets.
There are, assuming an appropriate distribution, just as many Aid from
Bats as there are Villeins (assuming it is a common; I don't know, just
using it as an example) in the set. There isn't an under printing. One
could argue that it would make some sense to print 2 new cards for every
reprint (i.e. all the new cards should be C2 and all the reprints should
be C1) or something. But that kind of shoots the idea of "base set" in
the foot (as the highly useful Govern the Unaligned is half as common as
the less useful obfuscate S:CE card).
I found CE to work out fine. I found 3rd (excepting the upside down
backs and sub-optimal card stock) to work out fine. I suspect that KoT
will work the same.
Peter D Bakija
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> Specifically, the bad assortment of cards into boosters, such that some
> cards turned up together all the damn time. Bad for draft (you can work
> out what other people are taking), and can cause problems with unhelpful
> clumpiness.
Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I have not specific memory of bad
sorting; yeah, the backs were upside down. And I still hate the card
stock and cuts. But I don't remember the distribution being all that
bad. Not to say that it wasn't. But it didn't leave an impression.
Conversely, I played a TR/KMW draft at Origins this past summer where we
got a whole table of TR boosters that were, like, 10 vampires and a
rare...
James Coupe
<pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>In article <CWe0Nat1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>,
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>> Specifically, the bad assortment of cards into boosters, such that some
>> cards turned up together all the damn time. Bad for draft (you can work
>> out what other people are taking), and can cause problems with unhelpful
>> clumpiness.
>
>Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I have not specific memory of bad
>sorting; yeah, the backs were upside down. And I still hate the card
>stock and cuts. But I don't remember the distribution being all that
>bad. Not to say that it wasn't. But it didn't leave an impression.
Start here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/d5b2ae0cd8b6fdab
Reports of:
- vampires coming in predictable groups of 3
- uncommons coming in predictable groups of 2
and so on.
YouLookLikeANail
> sorting; yeah, the backs were upside down. And I still hate the card
> stock and cuts. But I don't remember the distribution being all that
> bad. Not to say that it wasn't. But it didn't leave an impression.
One of the players in my group bought a box of third and about half of
the commons and uncommons from the set didn't show up at all. He was
missing way more commons than any normal distribution would suggest.
Since he bought the box to help build up his base of commons for general
deckbuilding (one of the things you want a base set for), it was
definitely a source of frustration for him.
Peter D Bakija
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> Start here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread
> /d5b2ae0cd8b6fdab
>
> Reports of:
> - vampires coming in predictable groups of 3
> - uncommons coming in predictable groups of 2
>
> and so on.
Ah, yeah, Ok. Fair enough.
Let's hope we avoid that again then :-)
Frederick Scott
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:9RrLcP0h...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <ChoRk.2080$sl....@newsfe23.iad>, Frederick Scott
> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>>ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game
>>component that isn't needed by players". I understand that some number
>>of reprints are needed for new players. And, yes, specific reprints will
>>be desired by older players. But given the makeup of the base sets, there
>>is absolutely an overprinting of reprints as a class. Or rather, there is
>>a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets.
>
> You haven't made a case for there being "an overprinting of reprints as
> a class". Sure, for oldbies who don't want those cards, they're
> "overprinted". But to declare them "overprinted" you need to make that
> case for the game as a whole, and you haven't.
I've been trying to, but the argument keeps going down other avenues so
I haven't really had a chance to address why combining reprints with new
cards in the same randomized print run automatically means you're
overprinting the reprints. I've touched on it though. It's basically
just that if you print new cards and reprints together in the same print
run, the number of each type of card are bound together. As people buy
the one, they automatically get a fixed amount of the other (as a
population; not as an individual) and vica versa. But, assuming new
cards are more or less as desirable on average as the reprints, and both
sets of cards have been categorized more or less correctly as commons,
uncommons, and rares, then it's impossible not to underprint the new cards
and overprint the reprints. The reason is that SOME of your player base
already own the reprints and the demand for them is already partially
sated. Given both of the assumptions above, the demand for both should be
approximately equal, yet part of the demand for the repritns (and
frequently a large part of it) is already partially sated. How can
reprints NOT be overprinted in this scenario?
The main weakness in the argument is that reprints, unlike new cards, may
be specifically selected for their desirability (counter to my first
assumption above). Actually, they obviously are. However, I'm skepical
that this is ever going to compensate for the copies of the reprint cards
already in existance.
White Wolf may also address the problem by jiggering with the commonilty
of the new cards, to attempt to print new cards at a higher level in the
set than they normally would. (This would be counter to my second
assumption above.) In fact, they may be doing that and it's impossible
prove one way or the other since the precise commonality of a card can't
objectively be fixed. So far, though, I haven't seen any evidence of
anything like that but it's not something I can positively know.
> It may also be worth noting that 400 seems to be a sweet spot for cards.
> It's 4 sheets - one for each rarity. (You can, obviously, have fewer
> cards by varying rarities a little, so you have a few R2 or whatever.)
> If you stick with the idea of 4 sheets, however, then you can't separate
> out the two issues - every new card you print will bump a reprint off
> the sheet. When a large chunk of the point of a base set is to reprint
> those cards, whittling away at them so that there are even fewer of them
> is self-defeating.
Sure. I understand. This is all about getting a balance of new cards
and reprints so that WW can print a reprint set without taking a bath on
it. I don't dispute that new players need reprints nor that this is
probably the best way to get reprints into their hands. To be sure,
unlike the other guy, I'm not trashing the whole idea of base sets. I'm
just saying, it still causes an automatic problem by systematically
underprinting the new cards in such a set. It may not be a fixable
problem, though.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-F1E643.1...@nntp.aioe.org...
> In article <ChoRk.2080$sl....@newsfe23.iad>,
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game
>> component that isn't needed by players".
>
> If people need them, they aren't over printed in relation to the need.
Nonsense. Collectible card games being what they are, you can massively
overprint a card and there will be some people somewhere who have unfilled
desires for the card. Just because they come in random boosters. I can't
order a WwEF from White Wolf or a distributor. I have to order a booster
that may have one in it. And &#@*! it! That was 3 millionth booster I
ordered and no WwEF. Damn the luck!
Now you can argue about singles being available. But, as soon as you
bring them into the mix, no card is "needed". Singles dealers can
provide you with anything that was ever printed if the price is right.
Bottom line: your assertion holds no water. You can't tell anything
about whether a card is overprinted by showing some people somewhere
"need" them.
> One
> could argue that it would make some sense to print 2 new cards for every
> reprint (i.e. all the new cards should be C2 and all the reprints should
> be C1) or something.
You could. And I personally think that would be a good way to do it.
> But that kind of shoots the idea of "base set" in
> the foot (as the highly useful Govern the Unaligned is half as common as
> the less useful obfuscate S:CE card).
I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. If anything
"shoots the idea of 'base set' in the foot", it's having new cards in it
at all. But since the new cards have to be there, I don't see the problem
with addressing the elevated desire for the new cards by elevating their
commonality.
> I found CE to work out fine.
It didn't cause any obvious problems stemming for this, no. That's because
few of the new cards in CE were very good, for whatever reason. Baltimore
Purge was the main one I can think of and I seem to recall one or two other
moderately reasonable cards last I looked. But it's hard to tell whether it
was just luck that there were no chase rares or there was some intent there.
> I found 3rd (excepting the upside down
> backs and sub-optimal card stock) to work out fine.
Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years, not
counting The Unmasking (which became a lot more desirable when a whole set
dedicated to allies was printed without reprinting it). It didn't "work
out fine".
A lot of other 3rd Edition new cards appeared to me to be a lot more highly
priced and hard to get than they should have been, given what they were.
It's certainly true that in a game with thousands of different cards, you
can pretty much live without almost all of them. So if your answer to
players who want cards they can't find is to do without or to just deal
with the added rarity, then I'm sure you would find that it "works out
fine". After all, obnoxiously rare cards exist apart from the new cards
in base. It's just unfortunate to create such cards systematically.
At least, let's not tell people who notice the problem that they're crazy.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> Nonsense.
Your issue seems to be with "under-desire", not "overprinting" then.
Which strikes me as kind of a different issue. But maybe I'm just
confused.
> You could. And I personally think that would be a good way to do it.
Maybe. But then the kind of fringey/narrow use new cards (as new cards
tend to be more specialized than older bread and butter cards, by
design; you only need so many variations of "+1 bleed", so the new
version is going to be "+2 bleed, but with added conditionality of
some type" making it more narrowly useful) are going to outweigh the
bread a butter, building block cards. Which in a vast picture (total
cards in circulation) might work out better for some instances, but
for that particular set as an individual unit, it works out worse for
most purposes (getting basic building blocks to people who need them,
being useful for draft/limited play).
> Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years,
I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous,
not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of
them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he
didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual
evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd
Rare?
> It didn't "workout fine".
It did for my purposes. But we have already determined that you and I
have wildly different world views of what is or is not "fine" (i.e.
I'm totally fine with not having all the cards all the time; you want
all the cards, all the time, and not now, but 5 minutes ago...) in
this instance.
> A lot of other 3rd Edition new cards appeared to me to be a lot more highly
> priced and hard to get than they should have been, given what they were.
Maybe? Heart is absurdly pricey for a single for VTES, I agree. But
there are plenty of reasons that could contribute to that that have
nothing to do with distribution/circulation.
-Peter
Chris Berger
> On Nov 10, 11:32 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years,
>
> I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous,
> not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of
> them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he
> didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual
> evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd
> Rare?
>
other 3rd rares are available in other sets. Even assuming it were
the same utility as, say, Shadow Court Satyr, it's artificial rarity
would be higher because, of the people that want the Heart, no one
already had one before 3rd.
I totally agree that in a mostly-reprint set, the new cards' rarities
should be ratcheted down to account for the higher artificial rarity.
It's a simple matter of new players may want Conditioning, but most
old players don't. New players *and* old players both want, say,
Grooming the Protege, or various other 3rd ed commons. The new cards
are more in demand, regardless of utility, than reprints of the same
rarity.
Peter D Bakija
> Yeah it's harder to get than any other 3rd rare, because most of the
> other 3rd rares are available in other sets.
But there are just as many Hearts in circulation as there are, say,
3rd Golcondas. Yeah, other Golcondas exist, but that doesn't make
Heart any more "extra" rare than anything else in the set. Heart goes
for $20.00, sure. But NRA Pact (also a non reprint 3rd Rare) and
Iconnu Tuttelage (also also a non reprint 3rd Rare) sell for, like,
$5.00, just like any other generic rare. So while there certainly are
fewer total Hearts in circulation than, say, Golcondas, Heart isn't so
expensive 'cause it is super extra rare. It's 'cause people want it a
lot.
> Even assuming it were
> the same utility as, say, Shadow Court Satyr, it's artificial rarity
> would be higher because, of the people that want the Heart, no one
> already had one before 3rd.
That is the same for all non reprint Rares; if the "artifical rarity"
is the reason for the Heart going for $20.00, why aren't NRA Pact and
Iconnu Tuttelage also going for $20.00? Or Ancestor Spirit (an
"artificially rare" Rare in another large set with a lot of reprints)?
Heart goes for a lot of money 'cause it is stupidly ubiquitous and
effective. And also a rare from a big set. If Heart was a rare in a
set that wasn't the same size and not mostly reprints, it would
*still* be going for $20.00, likely.
-Peter
Blooded Sand
> On Nov 10, 11:32 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years,
>
> I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous,
> not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of
> them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he
> didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual
> evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd
> Rare?
One guy bought 3 boxes of boosters, did not get one heart. Someone
else bought one box, got about 4. No problems there that you can see?
At this point, the guy who has bought 3 boxes is willing to trade way
more than the true value of that card to get it. RL example, btw.
Salem
> On Nov 10, 6:53 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 11:32 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
>> > Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years,
>>
>> I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous,
>> not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of
>> them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he
>> didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual
>> evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd
>> Rare?
>
> One guy bought 3 boxes of boosters, did not get one heart. Someone
> else bought one box, got about 4. No problems there that you can see?
> At this point, the guy who has bought 3 boxes is willing to trade way
> more than the true value of that card to get it. RL example, btw.
>
Um, by definition, he won't be willing to trade way more than the true
value, as value is a subjective thing. He'll be willing to trade
_exactly_ what he values it at (or less). Because that's how you define
'value'.
If by 'true value' you actually mean 'what other people would be willing
to trade for it if they haven't got as screwy distribution in their
boxes than this guy' then sure. But that's kind of how the T in TCG
comes about. Although these days most people seem to be calling it a
CCG, I still like the T, and am glad not every box has a perfectly flat
distribution.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Likes the T _and_ A.
Peter D Bakija
> One guy bought 3 boxes of boosters, did not get one heart. Someone
> else bought one box, got about 4. No problems there that you can see?
That seems like an average distribution of 1 Heart per box. Isn't
that, like, better than average? There are 100 Rares in the set (well,
maybe 95 and a few R2s that show up twice on the sheet and so show up
twice as often). With 36 boosters per box, you are getting about 1/3
of a particular rare per box. So the guy who bought 3 boxes was
*likely* to get any one of a particular rare, but not guaranteed. And
if you get 4 of a given rare in 4 boxes (see: your example), you are
beating the odds significantly.
> At this point, the guy who has bought 3 boxes is willing to trade way
> more than the true value of that card to get it. RL example, btw.
So he should trade some stuff to the guy who has 4. It shouldn't be
that hard to trade for...
-Peter
Chris Berger
>
> That seems like an average distribution of 1 Heart per box. Isn't
> that, like, better than average? There are 100 Rares in the set (well,
> maybe 95 and a few R2s that show up twice on the sheet and so show up
> twice as often). With 36 boosters per box, you are getting about 1/3
> of a particular rare per box. So the guy who bought 3 boxes was
> *likely* to get any one of a particular rare, but not guaranteed. And
> if you get 4 of a given rare in 4 boxes (see: your example), you are
> beating the odds significantly.
>
And that doesn't seem like a problem to you? Brand new cards in a set
that's mostly reprints, and you have to buy 3 boxes to have a decent
chance of getting one? If it's an all new set, I might buy 2 boxes.
But who needs 3 boxes full of reprints just to get a few new cards?
It makes one want to not buy the set at all (which I basically didn't
for 3rd ed). And it's not really easy to get the new cards as singles
soon after the set comes out - they're either sold out or ridiculously
expensive.
I really think this would be alleviated by making the newer cards less
rare. I don't think that's happening with KoT, considering there are
100 rares (so no R2's, presumably), and at least a third (and I think
it's half?) of the new cards are rare. On the plus side, KoT has more
new cards than 3rd, so at least that part makes me happy.
witness1
> But who needs 3 boxes full of reprints just to get a few new cards?
> It makes one want to not buy the set at all (which I basically didn't
> for 3rd ed).
Me (assuming the reprints aren't wallpaper).
-witness1
Meej
> I really think this would be alleviated by making the newer cards less
> rare.
Yeah, the uneven, and in some cases nearly inexplicable, choices about
what, in 3rd, was R1 vs R2, etc, were really, really bothersome. Can
anyone think of *any* good explanation for why Telepathic Vote
Counting was an R2, for instance? And general-utility new rares
tended to be R1's, while Cracking the Wall - possibly a zero-utility
new rare, but at the very best interpretation a limited-utility, !Malk-
only one - was an R2. *shrug* This is the same rarity-setting-by-
dartboard feeling I get from having seen Seraph's Second (lots per
deck) as a rare while Tattoo Signal (a few per deck) was a common, and
having Twilight Camp show up as Rare when it's probably even better
when you can play a fair number of it to be sure it *does* show up
early.
- D.J.
Peter D Bakija
<2a575fb1-4a35-42cb...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> And that doesn't seem like a problem to you? Brand new cards in a set
> that's mostly reprints, and you have to buy 3 boxes to have a decent
> chance of getting one?
Well, frankly, no. It doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me.
This is a game of trading/collectible cards. At a certain point, you
need to just accept that sometimes it is hard to get some of the cards.
As games go, this one is pretty good about that (full disclosure: I
don't own a Heart. I never got one in a booster. I never felt the need
to buy one for $28.00. I probably could have swapped for one from
someone locally who had too many for some good cards if I really felt
the need).
Yeah, you need to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of getting one
Heart. You also needed to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of getting
an NRA Pact, Inconnu Tuttelage, or Black Forrest Base, all of which are
totally reasonably priced as singles on the internet. Still. So you have
a way to avoid buying 3 boxes if you don't want to.
Heart is an outlier. Basing all arguments about card distribution on
"It's insane that Heart costs $20!!!!" isn't really realistic; the
problem with Heart is not that it was particularly hard to get relative
to everything else (although, admitedly, it was kind of silly to have
made a few of the new Rares in 3rd into R2s, but not all of them, and
not all of the R2s were new cards). It was that it was insanely
effective and insanely ubiquitous, so people wanted lots and lots of
them (one for every deck!). There are just as many NRA Pacts and Black
Forest Bases in circulation, and they are, again, reasonably priced as
singles.
> If it's an all new set, I might buy 2 boxes.
> But who needs 3 boxes full of reprints just to get a few new cards?
Very few people. Luckily, most of the few new cards aren't hard to get
as singles. Heart is a wild exception, not the rule.
> I really think this would be alleviated by making the newer cards less
> rare. I don't think that's happening with KoT, considering there are
> 100 rares (so no R2's, presumably), and at least a third (and I think
> it's half?) of the new cards are rare. On the plus side, KoT has more
> new cards than 3rd, so at least that part makes me happy.
I could certainly see making the new rares R2s and the reprint rares
R1s. That seems totally reasonable. I don't think making new commons as
Cs is really necessary, as there are so many more commons in circulation
compared to rares.
Tetragrammaton
> In article
> <2a575fb1-4a35-42cb...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> And that doesn't seem like a problem to you? Brand new cards in a
>> set that's mostly reprints, and you have to buy 3 boxes to have a
>> decent chance of getting one?
>
> Well, frankly, no. It doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me.
> This is a game of trading/collectible cards. At a certain point, you
> need to just accept that sometimes it is hard to get some of the
> cards.
At a certain point,
That's fine -. this is a game, also, kept live by a consolidated
group of players all over the world, more or less.
> As games go, this one is pretty good about that (full
> disclosure: I don't own a Heart. I never got one in a booster. I
> never felt the need to buy one for $28.00. I probably could have
> swapped for one from someone locally who had too many for some good
> cards if I really felt the need).
>
> Yeah, you need to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of getting one
> Heart. You also needed to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of
> getting an NRA Pact, Inconnu Tuttelage, or Black Forrest Base, all of
> which are totally reasonably priced as singles on the internet.
Personally, i got 2 inconnu tutelage from one single box.
It never happened to me to see 2 hearts of nizchetus (or even 2 yawp
court, or 2 black forest base) popping out from the same box., however.
At maximum, one of those - more often, zero.
The Lasombra
> I don't think that's happening with KoT, considering there are
>100 rares (so no R2's, presumably), and at least a third (and I think
>it's half?) of the new cards are rare.
New rares - 16
New uncommons - 19
New commons - 17
New vampires - 124 (100 in booster, 24 in starters)
Peter D Bakija
"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote:
> At a certain point,
> That's fine -. this is a game, also, kept live by a consolidated
> group of players all over the world, more or less.
Sure. I don't deny that at a certain point, collectability issues could
become a serious stumbling point. But as CCGs go, this one has gone a
long way to avoiding that point. At least for my money.
> Personally, i got 2 inconnu tutelage from one single box.
> It never happened to me to see 2 hearts of nizchetus (or even 2 yawp
> court, or 2 black forest base) popping out from the same box., however.
> At maximum, one of those - more often, zero.
Sure. But that is just perception/whatever' Inconnu Tuttelage and NRA
Pact, say, were both R1s. Just like Heart was an R1. So unless someone
went through the cut cards before they were packed and pulled out Hearts
(highly, highly unlikely), there are just as many Hearts as NRA Pacts
(or whatever) in circulation. And while *you* never saw 2x Hearts in a
single box, chances are, someone did (if not 4...). 'Cause if you got 2
Inconnu Tuttelage out of a single box, there was the exact same chance
of getting 2 Hearts out of a box.
Heart wasn't any more rare than any other of the R1s in the set. It just
happened to be a really, really desired R1. If it wasn't as completely
capable of going in every deck ever and always being good (i.e. it had
*some* kind of limitations or specific focus), it would be $5.00-$10.00,
just like all the other 3rd Rares.
JH
So, did White Wolf lie in it's KoT adds or is that a guess?
A new expansion for Vampire: The Eternal Struggle®
• 160 new cards in booster packs
• 11 cards per booster pack
16+19+17+100 = 152 < 160
The Lasombra
>> New rares - 16
>> New uncommons - 19
>> New commons - 17
>> New vampires - 124 (100 in booster, 24 in starters)
>So, did White Wolf lie in it's KoT adds or is that a guess?
I opened 10 booster display boxes.
I have 3-4 complete sets.
The numbers above are correct.
I understand that there were a few printing errors.
Frederick Scott
On Nov 10, 1:03 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Yeah it's harder to get than any other 3rd rare, because most of the
> other 3rd rares are available in other sets.
>
> But there are just as many Hearts in circulation as there are, say,
> 3rd Golcondas. Yeah, other Golcondas exist, but that doesn't make
> Heart any more "extra" rare than anything else in the set.
Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas
for the reason you just cited.
> Heart goes
> for $20.00, sure. But NRA Pact (also a non reprint 3rd Rare) and
> Iconnu Tuttelage (also also a non reprint 3rd Rare) sell for, like,
> $5.00, just like any other generic rare.
Um, "generic rares" don't generally go for $5.00. Not in-print
rares (at least, not in-print rares after the initial price
instability fades).
It's always possible that HoN is priced as it is entirely or
almost entirely due to its utility but I'm pretty skeptical
because the price is so unusual.
There's so many factors involved in pricing a single that it's
impossible to look at prices and truly sort out which factor is
causing what effect in the singles market. But AFAICS, it's
impossible to discount the "extra rareness" stemming from being
a new card printed in a reprint set because it basically must
be causing an effect, unless one of the two asssumptions I cited
in my reply to James proved wrong.
> > Even assuming it were
> > the same utility as, say, Shadow Court Satyr, it's artificial rarity
> > would be higher because, of the people that want the Heart, no one
> > already had one before 3rd.
>
> That is the same for all non reprint Rares; if the "artifical rarity"
> is the reason for the Heart going for $20.00, why aren't NRA Pact and
> Iconnu Tuttelage also going for $20.00?
Classic false dichotomy. The prices of singles have no single cause
which preclude other causes. Heart of Nizchetus is more useful than NRA
Pack and Inconnu Tuttelage. This doesn't mean utility alone sets HoN's
price. In fact, the new-cards-in-a-reprint-set effect will simply factor
into such cards' prices on top of the price they'd go for were they
printed in an all-new-card set.
> Or Ancestor Spirit (an
> "artificially rare" Rare in another large set with a lot of reprints)?
Actually, LoB wasn't nearly as bad because the reprint cards were a
much smaller ratio of the overall print run. In fact, I really didn't
see LoB as having any significant problem with this effect at all.
This is the difference I cited in a previous post with respect to
printing 1 reprint Conditioning with 49 new cards vs. printing 49
reprint Conditionings with 1 new cards. LoB is comparable to the
former; CE, 3E, and KoT are more like the latter. It's a big
difference.
> If Heart was a rare in a
> set that wasn't the same size and not mostly reprints, it would
> *still* be going for $20.00, likely.
I very much doubt that. But it's unprovable one way or another.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:2f604646-ca46-49a7...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Doesn't matter. His point still holds true: the average new card is
in significantly higher demand overall than the average reprint - even
the average reprint selected for being a strong card. Were this NOT
true, White Wolf could issue all-reprint sets without having to spike
the mix with new cards at all. The very fact that they felt they had
to do this demonstrates the validity of the effect to which Chris
makes reference.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas
> for the reason you just cited.
Heart is no rarer than *3rd* Golcondas. Or NRA Pacts.
> Um, "generic rares" don't generally go for $5.00. Not in-print
> rares (at least, not in-print rares after the initial price
> instability fades).
$5.00 is in no way out of the realm of reason for a Rare from a current
set.
> It's always possible that HoN is priced as it is entirely or
> almost entirely due to its utility but I'm pretty skeptical
> because the price is so unusual.
The unusual price is almost specifically *because* of its utility;
again, see NRA Pact and Inconnu Tuttelage; sure, I'll give you a price
bump due to the rarity factor, but not a $15.00 price bump. If Heart
were $20.00+ because of the rarity, so would NRA Pact (which is a pretty
good card in and of itself). But it goes for about 5 bucks ($6.00 on
Lasombra; ~$5.00 on e-bay). Unless there are significantly fewer Hearts
in circulation than NRA Pacts. But there is no reason at all to believe
this is the case.
Heart is a crazy outlier.
> But AFAICS, it's
> impossible to discount the "extra rareness" stemming from being
> a new card printed in a reprint set because it basically must
> be causing an effect, unless one of the two asssumptions I cited
> in my reply to James proved wrong.
Sure. Some effect. But not a $28.00 effect. Otherwise, NRA Pact would
cost about the same.
> Classic false dichotomy. The prices of singles have no single cause
> which preclude other causes. Heart of Nizchetus is more useful than NRA
> Pack and Inconnu Tuttelage. This doesn't mean utility alone sets HoN's
> price. In fact, the new-cards-in-a-reprint-set effect will simply factor
> into such cards' prices on top of the price they'd go for were they
> printed in an all-new-card set.
Sure. Again, I'll spot you a couple bucks for the rarity issue (i.e. 1
of 16 new rares in a set of 100 rares). But $20.00? That is pure utility.
> I very much doubt that. But it's unprovable one way or another.
Fair enough.
corellion...@yahoo.com.ph
> In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7.1...@newsfe01.iad>,
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
Pardon for the intrusion, but the way 3rd ed was made out it was
awfully easy to get reprinted cards more than the new ones, which was
probably the ratio of old to new. Unfortunately, that meant some
players who opened two boxes got two hearts of nizchetus(somebody i
know personally), and someone who opened 12+ boxes to get three. So
there are times even after buying several boxes you get no heart of
nizchetus or inconnu tutelage. I personally got the latter on my 10th
box. So there were some problems there. Mirror walks were like 1 or
at most 2 per box. Yes part of the hearts cost is utility indeed,but
in the end rarity is always an issue as well. Not that im condemning
reprinting in base sets or anything, just that in the future white
wolf should tone down there are reprints to a number hopfully like
75-25 ratio (old-new). Although this is just my opinion really, not
to be taken as some doctrine.
Peter D Bakija
<b2cca0f7-f99b-4d4a...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>,
corellion...@yahoo.com.ph wrote:
> Pardon for the intrusion, but the way 3rd ed was made out it was
> awfully easy to get reprinted cards more than the new ones, which was
> probably the ratio of old to new.
There were the exact same number of each individual new card printed in
3rd as reprints (excepting the R2s, etc). It was just as easy to pull a
3rd NRA Pact as it was to pull a 3rd Golconda.
If you mean "it was easier to buy reprints as singles than it was to buy
singles of the new cards", well, sure, ok. Buying a 3rd Ed Telepathic
Counting as a single is going to be much easier than buying a 3rd Ed NRA
Pact, as lots of people have lots of Telepathic Countings compared to
NRA Pacts. But the new 3rd Ed rares (except for Heart) weren't (and
aren't) measurably more expensive than new wanted rares from other sets
(a quick look at singles on the Lasombra indicates that most of the 3rd
Ed only rares sell for about the same price as any of the other good
rares from LotN and TR, about 5-6 bucks. Not that this is the be all and
end all of data, but it's a quick check).
> Unfortunately, that meant some
> players who opened two boxes got two hearts of nizchetus(somebody i
> know personally), and someone who opened 12+ boxes to get three. So
> there are times even after buying several boxes you get no heart of
> nizchetus or inconnu tutelage.
Ok? That is how CCGs work. There are no fixed distributions. Just
likelyhoods.
> I personally got the latter on my 10th
> box. So there were some problems there. Mirror walks were like 1 or
> at most 2 per box.
There were no fewer Mirror Walks in 3rd Ed than Aid from Bats.
> Yes part of the hearts cost is utility indeed,but
> in the end rarity is always an issue as well.
Of course it is. But Heart had the exact same rarity as a bunch of other
3rd only R1s. And those *weren't* selling for $30.00. Even the good
ones. They were (and are) selling for as much as any other desirable
rare. Heart is a crazy, crazy outlier. And not 'cause it was extra rare
(in the "total number in circulation" sense; it was more scarce for
purchase, likely, as people didn't want to sell them, as everyone wanted
multiples of them, as they went in every deck all the time).
Yes. It is insane that the Heart was selling for $30.00. But that is the
*extreme* end of anything. Made of a number of factors. Only one of
which was the rarity out of the packs, which was the exact same rarity
out of the packs as a number of other, similarly new rare cards.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
preac...@gmx.at
>
> corellionlareth...@yahoo.com.ph wrote:
> > Pardon for the intrusion, but the way 3rd ed was made out it was
> > awfully easy to get reprinted cards more than the new ones, which was
> > probably the ratio of old to new.
>
> There were the exact same number of each individual new card printed in
> 3rd as reprints (excepting the R2s, etc). It was just as easy to pull a
> 3rd NRA Pact as it was to pull a 3rd Golconda.
>
> If you mean "it was easier to buy reprints as singles than it was to buy
> singles of the new cards", well, sure, ok. Buying a 3rd Ed Telepathic
> Counting as a single is going to be much easier than buying a 3rd Ed NRA
> Pact, as lots of people have lots of Telepathic Countings compared to
> NRA Pacts. But the new 3rd Ed rares (except for Heart) weren't (and
> aren't) measurably more expensive than new wanted rares from other sets
> (a quick look at singles on the Lasombra indicates that most of the 3rd
> Ed only rares sell for about the same price as any of the other good
> rares from LotN and TR, about 5-6 bucks. Not that this is the be all and
> end all of data, but it's a quick check).
>
> > Unfortunately, that meant some
> > players who opened two boxes got two hearts of nizchetus(somebody i
> > know personally), and someone who opened 12+ boxes to get three. So
> > there are times even after buying several boxes you get no heart of
> > nizchetus or inconnu tutelage.
>
> Ok? That is how CCGs work. There are no fixed distributions. Just
> likelyhoods.
You seem to continually forget that 3rd hat extreme problems with
distribution. Read James' post again.
It was hard to pull some rares out of boosters, even when buying lots
of boxes (like I did). I particulary remember HoN and NRA PAC as being
hard to get. This may have to do with bad sorting of the cards by the
manufacturer.
Some randomness is to be expected, but not that wildy varying thing in
3rd. You seem to have not bought a lot of that set, otherwise you
would have noticed.
>
> > I personally got the latter on my 10th
> > box. So there were some problems there. Mirror walks were like 1 or
> > at most 2 per box.
>
> There were no fewer Mirror Walks in 3rd Ed than Aid from Bats.
In the whole print run, yes. But given the uneven distribution (again,
see James' post about that) it was sometimes difficult to get specific
C/U/R cards - in my case, the new ones.
Other people had the same perception.
>
> > Yes part of the hearts cost is utility indeed,but
> > in the end rarity is always an issue as well.
>
> Of course it is. But Heart had the exact same rarity as a bunch of other
> 3rd only R1s. And those *weren't* selling for $30.00. Even the good
> ones. They were (and are) selling for as much as any other desirable
> rare. Heart is a crazy, crazy outlier. And not 'cause it was extra rare
> (in the "total number in circulation" sense; it was more scarce for
> purchase, likely, as people didn't want to sell them, as everyone wanted
> multiples of them, as they went in every deck all the time).
>
> Yes. It is insane that the Heart was selling for $30.00. But that is the
> *extreme* end of anything. Made of a number of factors. Only one of
> which was the rarity out of the packs, which was the exact same rarity
> out of the packs as a number of other, similarly new rare cards.
I believe, that in the first batches of 3rd Ed. boxes, the
distribution was probably especially screwed. People found very littel
HoN in the boosters they opened, less than had to be expected when
counting on a normal distribution. That led to the believe that this
high-utility card was extra-rare. Therefore the high price. Maybe now
it gets slightly better, as more and more boxes were opened, but the
impression sticks in the minds and people are accepting that the card
is overpriced.
It is also possible, that a high percentage of HoN ended up in
isolated playgroups that don't trade with the community at large. Who
knows.
The point is: HoN is harder to get than would be expected due to the
3rd Ed. distribution bugs.
Meej
> In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7.1...@newsfe01.iad>,
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas
> > for the reason you just cited.
>
> Heart is no rarer than *3rd* Golcondas. Or NRA Pacts.
But very, very few people - only the diehard collectors who must have
one of every printing - give a damn whether their Golconda is from 3rd
or not. So arguing vs. Golconda is a straw man, as it doesn't have
any effect. Your points otherwise, about NRA PAC etc, are much more
reasonable, but you keep repeating this one as if it means something,
when it doesn't.
- D.J.
Peter D Bakija
<59904456-67ee-4796...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
preac...@gmx.at wrote:
> You seem to continually forget that 3rd hat extreme problems with
> distribution. Read James' post again.
No, I'm not forgetting that. That doesn't really impact the design of
the set, and how many cards were printed.
Sure. There is a possibility that for some reason unknown to the rest of
us, due to "distribution problems" (someone in the packing plant
somewhere accidentally spilled a pot of coffee on a big pile of Hearts
destroying half of them, and then the rest of them accidentally got
packed into boxes that got sent only to South America...), there were
far, far fewer Hearts in circulation than there should have been. That
would certainly explain the high single cost. But that isn't the problem
that people seem most concerned about here, which is having a small
number of new cards in a set that is mostly reprints, which creates
"artificial rarity". Extreme distribution problems aren't "artificial
rarity". That is just "rarity".
> It was hard to pull some rares out of boosters, even when buying lots
> of boxes (like I did).
If the claim here is that it was specifically harder to pull Heart out
of boxes than any other rare, making it far rarer than all the other
rares, that is certainly an argument. But not the one that is "it is bad
to have a small number of new cards mixed in with a lot of reprints"
That is the argument of "It sucks when there are unintended distribution
problems" Which it does. And is a problem. But not one that the people
designing the set and deciding to have a small number of new cards mixed
in with a lot of reprints have any control over.
It sucked that 3rd had upside down backs and crappy cutting/stock too.
But that *also* isn't the fault of the people designing the set.
> I particulary remember HoN and NRA PAC as being
> hard to get. This may have to do with bad sorting of the cards by the
> manufacturer.
Maybe. Maybe it was just bad luck. But if it is the result of bad
sorting by the manufacturer (or that pot of coffee), it isn't a flaw in
the design of distribution, which seems to be the main villain in this
discussion.
> In the whole print run, yes. But given the uneven distribution (again,
> see James' post about that) it was sometimes difficult to get specific
> C/U/R cards - in my case, the new ones.
> Other people had the same perception.
Sure. But those cards are *somewhere* (unless after the coffee pot
incident, Smoking Man gathered up half the Mirror Walks and put them in
that big room under the Pentagon with Scully's chip). They might not
have been sent to your neighborhood due to a quirk in distribution. But
someone has them. They are in circulation. Somewhere. Again, that isn't
a problem with Mirror Walk being printed in the same numbers as the Aid
from Bats reprint. It is a problem with some sort of unfortunate,
unavoidable (other than, ya know, using a different
manufacturing/packing plant) random error. What it *isn't* is the result
of the way the set was designed to have a small number of new cards
mixed in with a large number of reprints.
> I believe, that in the first batches of 3rd Ed. boxes, the
> distribution was probably especially screwed.
Maybe it was. Maybe there *was* a spilled pot of coffee and Smoking Man
*did* steal and hide half of the Mirror Walks. Which is unfortunate and
a pain in the ass. But not the result of how the set was designed.
No one is saying "I love distribution problems!" I'm arguing that the
basic design of 3rd Ed card ratios was reasonable. And that Heart sells
for so much in the secondary market, not because it was extra, extra
rare (which, unless there was that coffee pot incident, it isn't
actually), but primarily because of unrelated factors (i.e. it is
stupidly good and so ubiquitous that people want lots of them and don't
want to sell the ones they have. Which does increase the "artificial
rarity" of the card. But that isn't the set's fault either).
Distribution problems are just that--problems. But assuming that KoT
avoids the same distribution problems (and this whole discussion is one
of, basically "KoT is going to suck! It has the same new/old ratio as
3rd! And 3rd sucked!"), then KoT should work out fine.
> It is also possible, that a high percentage of HoN ended up in
> isolated playgroups that don't trade with the community at large. Who
> knows.
Sure. But again, not a problem with the design of the set. Freak Drives
are incredibly plentiful, as individual cards go (printed in the super
overprinted Jyhad set, in VTES, in CE and 3rd as an uncommon, fixed in
multiple starter decks). Yet they *still* sell for about about $5.00
each. Which is unreasonably high for an uncommon. And it has nothing at
all to do with an artificial rarity or distribution problems. It is just
'cause Freak Drive is stupidly good and people want lots of them and
keep the ones they have. Heart is an outlier. The extreme end of the
supply and demand curve.
> The point is: HoN is harder to get than would be expected due to the
> 3rd Ed. distribution bugs.
Maybe. It also might just be that people don't want to sell them. 'Cause
it is stupidly good and stupidly ubiquitous (i.e. you can put one in
every single deck you build and get good use out of it). Heart shouldn't
be any harder to get than NRA Pact. Unless there were significant
distribution errors. But those aren't the fault of the way the set was
designed.
Peter D Bakija
<119dfcc0-7a17-4901...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> But very, very few people - only the diehard collectors who must have
> one of every printing - give a damn whether their Golconda is from 3rd
> or not. So arguing vs. Golconda is a straw man, as it doesn't have
> any effect.
I'm simply saying that there are the exact same number of Card X as
there are of Card Y, as they are both R1s in the set.
Yes. Correct. No one is fighting to get specifically a 3rd Golconda (in
fact, people are likely specifically *avoiding* 3rd Golcondas due to the
back being upside down and the cut/stock being bad). But there seem to
be two arguments here going on at the same time, that aren't the same
argument:
-Argument 1: It is bad that there is a small number of new card mixed in
with a large number of reprints.
-Argument 2: Heart is soooooo expensive as a single 'cause there were
far fewer of them in circulation!
I don't think Argument 2 is actually true, unless there were
preposterous manufacturing errors (which there may have been). But this
has nothing at all to do with Argument 1. The comment about the 3rd
Golcondas was little more than an illustration of the number of Hearts
that got printed. And someone misunderstood it. So I clarified.
> Your points otherwise, about NRA PAC etc, are much more
> reasonable, but you keep repeating this one as if it means something,
> when it doesn't.
No, no. Didn't keep repeating it. Said it once. Clarified it once or
twice 'cause someone didn't understand what I was saying.
Meej
> -Argument 1: It is bad that there is a small number of new card mixed in
> with a large number of reprints.
>
> -Argument 2: Heart is soooooo expensive as a single 'cause there were
> far fewer of them in circulation!
>
> I don't think Argument 2 is actually true, unless there were
> preposterous manufacturing errors (which there may have been).
There are far fewer "in circulation" in the sense that most folks that
have 'em, want to keep 'em. Unlike an NRA PAC, which only fits into
certain decks. Or Cracking the Wall, which doesn't fit into any. Or
Golconda, which existed so many other times that there are a whole lot
of them out there and they've passed saturation to the point of
tradeability, plus they only go in certain decks.
But if Heart had been a lot easier to get - or if it were reprinted,
fixed, in something - the price would drop, a lot, because it would be
easier to obtain and there would be a bigger circulating secondary
market/trade pool of them floating around compared to the number of
folks who want a Heart.
Which is to say, to a large extent Argument 2 isn't complete hooey.
It's getting poorly stated, but there *are* fewer Hearts moving around
than almost any other card out there - fewer to start with than
anything not in 3E other than maybe Camarilla Vitae Slave, harder to
get any way other than the secondary market than anything else other
than 3E R1's (poor distribution), and more in demand (which is your
point) so they don't *get* sold/traded as much, and when they do
they're commodities.
> But this
> has nothing at all to do with Argument 1. The comment about the 3rd
> Golcondas was little more than an illustration of the number of Hearts
> that got printed. And someone misunderstood it. So I clarified.
OK - it felt, looking on, like the replies to Argument 1 and to
Argument 2 were getting mixed up. Especially since your Golconda
point, if it was meant to relate to A1, doesn't actually have much of
anything to do with it...
> > Your points otherwise, about NRA PAC etc, are much more
> > reasonable, but you keep repeating this one as if it means something,
> > when it doesn't.
>
> No, no. Didn't keep repeating it. Said it once. Clarified it once or
> twice 'cause someone didn't understand what I was saying.
Fair enough.
- D.J.
Peter D Bakija
<4b211d59-fb44-4c2e...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> There are far fewer "in circulation" in the sense that most folks that
> have 'em, want to keep 'em.
Well, sure. Just like Freak Drive. There aren't any fewer (to any
significant number) Freak Drives in the world than there are Immortal
Grapples, and yet Freak Drive still goes for about $5.00 a pop, where
you can get a hold of Immortal Grapples for a buck or two.
But this isn't a problem with the system by which Heart was planned to
be distributed (i.e. as one of a small number of new cards in a set of
mostly reprints).
> Unlike an NRA PAC, which only fits into
> certain decks. Or Cracking the Wall, which doesn't fit into any. Or
> Golconda, which existed so many other times that there are a whole lot
> of them out there and they've passed saturation to the point of
> tradeability, plus they only go in certain decks.
Again, sure. Heart is stupidly useful and stupidly ubiquitous. Which is
why it is so expensive on the secondary market. But people keep pointing
to it as proof that the 3rd Ed model of card distribution (i.e. a small
number of new cards in a set of mostly reprints) was crap. I don't think
it actually is so much as it is just a really extreme example of what
normally happens in normal sets. Kind of a perfect storm of desire and
utility and scarcity. Which doesn't, in my mind, condemn the design of
the 3rd Ed set. It kind of condemns the Heart in and of itself (for
being so stupidly useful and ubiquitous).
> But if Heart had been a lot easier to get - or if it were reprinted,
> fixed, in something - the price would drop, a lot, because it would be
> easier to obtain and there would be a bigger circulating secondary
> market/trade pool of them floating around compared to the number of
> folks who want a Heart.
Sure. It is already cheaper on e-bay, presumably 'cause it is being
reprinted in KoT (?). But again, this doesn't strike me as a
condemnation of the way the 3rd set was designed.
> Which is to say, to a large extent Argument 2 isn't complete hooey.
> It's getting poorly stated, but there *are* fewer Hearts moving around
> than almost any other card out there - fewer to start with than
> anything not in 3E other than maybe Camarilla Vitae Slave, harder to
> get any way other than the secondary market than anything else other
> than 3E R1's (poor distribution), and more in demand (which is your
> point) so they don't *get* sold/traded as much, and when they do
> they're commodities.
Sure. But again, there are just as many Hearts in the hands of players
as there are NRA Pacts, and NRA Pacts (which is a good but not stupidly
useful, stupidly ubiquitous rare) sell for the same amount as good rares
from other, non reprint filled sets.
Heart is wacky. Heart is an outlier. Heart isn't proof that the design
of the 3rd set (and by extention the design of the KoT set) was flawed.
> OK - it felt, looking on, like the replies to Argument 1 and to
> Argument 2 were getting mixed up.
Oh, absolutely.
> Especially since your Golconda
> point, if it was meant to relate to A1, doesn't actually have much of
> anything to do with it...
Correct. The Heart = Golconda statement was just pointing out that there
aren't fewer Hearts in existence than any other 3rd R1. But irrelevant
otherwise.
Kevin M.
> I understand that there were a few printing errors.
Oh? What errors?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009 http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
The Lasombra
>> I understand that there were a few printing errors.
>Oh? What errors?
Society Hunting Ground was replaced by Society of Leopold on the
Uncommon Sheet.
Another card on the Uncommon Sheet was replaced by Ghoul Retainer.
Kevin M.
> There's so many factors involved in pricing a single that it's
> impossible to look at prices and truly sort out which factor is
> causing what effect in the singles market.
This is just a silly statement.
If it wasn't possible to figure out why a particular card was priced the
way it was then no one would buy it because no one would understand, i.e.
accept, the price...ergo no one would buy it.
Heart is absolutely priced the way it is due to its utility + its rarity.
What else could it possibly be that's causing HoN to have a pre-KoT eBay
price of ~$25.00?
Which other cards do you want me to tell you why they are priced the way
they are? ;)
Frederick Scott
news:4b211d59-fb44-4c2e...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 9:31 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> In article
> <119dfcc0-7a17-4901-8630-16310d6c3...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > -Argument 1: It is bad that there is a small number of new card mixed in
> > with a large number of reprints.
> >
> > -Argument 2: Heart is soooooo expensive as a single 'cause there were
> > far fewer of them in circulation!
> >
> > I don't think Argument 2 is actually true, unless there were
> > preposterous manufacturing errors (which there may have been).
>
> There are far fewer "in circulation" in the sense that most folks that
> have 'em, want to keep 'em.
> Which is to say, to a large extent Argument 2 isn't complete hooey.
Huh?!? Of COURSE argument 2 isn't complete hooey. How could it possibly
be wrong?!? Of COURSE a card's price relates to its rarity - that's always
true. Does anyone question this?
There seems to be some disconnect here about how a card's price gets set.
It always depends on two factors: its supply and its demand. The fact
that Heart is a great card contributes to its demand. The fact that Heart
is a 1-in-100 rare card found only in boosters affects its supply. And,
yes, the fact that it's a 1-in-100 NEW rare card in a set that sells less
rapidly due to being full of reprints affects its supply factor as well -
thus argument 1 is valid as well.
As to which effect contributes "more" to its ultimate price, that's sort
of a false question, as both factors are intricately bound to the price.
It's clear Heart would be cheaper were it a 1-in-100 rare in a new set.
How much cheaper is speculative. I'd guess it would be under $15 and
maybe under $10 but that's a huge wild-ass guess.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gfe2eh$nok$1...@aioe.org...
> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> There's so many factors involved in pricing a single that it's
>> impossible to look at prices and truly sort out which factor is
>> causing what effect in the singles market.
>
> This is just a silly statement.
>
> If it wasn't possible to figure out why a particular card was priced the
> way it was then no one would buy it because no one would understand, i.e.
> accept, the price...ergo no one would buy it.
Huh? Now THIS is a silly statement. I can't fathom what you're talking
about. Why do people have to understand what factors into a card's price
in order to buy it? People buy shit every day without that information.
All a person needs to know is whether the price seems worth it to them
for what they're getting. A lot of times people want to know more - but
it's not necessary.
> Heart is absolutely priced the way it is due to its utility + its rarity.
Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But "utility" and "rarity" are
more generalized concepts than what I was talking about when I wrote that
above. "Utility" can sub-factor into things like, "How many people want to
use Heart in one or two decks vs. 10 or 20 decks - and, are they willing to
move the card around from deck to deck?" "How willing are people to
consider doing without depending on what price level?" "Rarity" isn't
straight-forward, either. As I've alluded to elsewhere, the thing aggravating
Heart rarity is that it's a new card that's a rare in a set that's mostly
reprints. So it's obtainable as an in-print rare but we don't know how fast
boxes of boosters of 3rd Edition are selling (in comparison to Lords of the
Night, for instance). When a card becomes out-of-print, its sources dry up -
but how fast?
There's lots of factors that comprise utility and rarity. No one can keep
track of them all.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7....@newsfe01.iad>,
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas
>> for the reason you just cited.
>
> Heart is no rarer than *3rd* Golcondas.
No. But it's rarer than all Golcondas put together, and this makes a
difference to Heart's rarity. You don't seem to want to see that but
it does. The reason is that because Golcondas and MOST OF THE REST OF
3RD EDITION are reprints, 3rd Edition is less desirable to buy. And thus
people buy them less. And thus fewer Hearts are likewise bought. It
absolutely makes a difference.
...
>> But AFAICS, it's
>> impossible to discount the "extra rareness" stemming from being
>> a new card printed in a reprint set because it basically must
>> be causing an effect, unless one of the two assumptions I cited
>> in my reply to James proved wrong.
>
> Sure. Some effect. But not a $28.00 effect. Otherwise, NRA Pact would
> cost about the same.
Nope, sorry, doesn't follow. Even new-rares-in-reprint-sets vary in
price depending on their utility, just like every cards from every other
rarity level or situation.
...
> I'll spot you a couple bucks for the rarity issue (i.e. 1
> of 16 new rares in a set of 100 rares). But $20.00?
I don't know how much is attributable to the one and how much to the
other. But the effect is good for more than a couple of bucks.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> Sure. There is a possibility that for some reason unknown to the rest of
> us, due to "distribution problems" (someone in the packing plant
> somewhere accidentally spilled a pot of coffee on a big pile of Hearts
> destroying half of them, and then the rest of them accidentally got
> packed into boxes that got sent only to South America...), there were
> far, far fewer Hearts in circulation than there should have been.
Huh?!? I never heard anything about there being fewer Hearts in circulation
because of any distribution problems. "Packed into boxes sent only to
South America" is a possibility but I assumed the intended number of Hearts
in the print run all turned up somewhere. That is, no particular rare got
shorted in any print runs. Just that the different rares may have gotten
divied out to different parts of the print runs so it was quite easy to
open lots of boxes and get wildly unequal numbers of different rares.
Are you making a joke here, Peter? Or where are you getting this? As far
as I know, the only _ultimate_ reason Heart is rarer than normal is just
that it's a new card in a reprint set.
Fred