Engling Fury and rarity

Ben Swainbank wrote in that other thread: > There were a bunch of Bloodlines utility-cards that seemed > to be inappropriately rare the first time around: Blessing > of the Name, Blissful Agony, Darkling Trickery, Engling Fury, > Hag's Wrinkles, Gift of Bellona... > > Unfortunately, they seem to repeating the same mistakes the > second time around. Looking at the 10 Ahrimanes decks in the Tournament Winning Deck Archive, the average number of Engling Furies in them is 2.5. The most that any deck used was 5. If people are only putting 2 or 3 in their deck, then it seems to me that Engling Fury is fine as a rare. Blessing of the Name and Blissful Agony are not what I would consider to be general purpose utility cards, and as such I think it's fine that they're rare. Gift of Bellona got the tough break that Concealed Weapon was changed with Camarilla Edition, and Concealed Weapon is the better card for the task. All of them are inexpensive enough (money wise or trade value wise) that it shouldn't matter what rarity they are. Similarly to the !Salubri cards, I've never been concerned that Hag's Wrinkles is rare. You can argue about the utility, but acquiring them is very easy. I do use 7 or 8 in my Anarch Samedi deck, but I'll probably cut a few of them so I can add a few Forced March. I can see the frustration with Darkling Trickery. If you do choose to use it in a deck, you're going to want at least 8 of it, and the effect of the card is very much in line with most staple, common combat cards. - Ben Peal

fudjo wrote: > > Looking at the 10 Ahrimanes decks in the Tournament Winning > Deck Archive, the average number of Engling Furies in them > is 2.5. The most that any deck used was 5. If people are > only putting 2 or 3 in their deck, then it seems to me that > Engling Fury is fine as a rare. How many Engling Furies do the players of those decks own? I'm guessing the average is around 2.5. Blood gain transients (Life in the City? Zillas Tears?) tend not to fall into the maybe-one-or-two-in-a-deck category. > > .. Blissful Agony are not what I would > consider to be general purpose utility cards, S:CE cards are not "utlity cards"? It's a great card. Strong combat defense with a fun and nasty side effect. Only rarity and (now historic) lack of good crypt support have kept this card (and the Anti-Salubi) down. But, you say, the !Salubir are a combat clan! No they aren't. They suck at combat. They should be a Blissful Agony clan. A deck with 10-12 of these would be sweeet. -Ben Swainbank

Howdy, > > .. Blissful Agony are not what I would > > consider to be general purpose utility cards, > > S:CE cards are not "utlity cards"? It's a great card. Strong combat > defense with a fun and nasty side effect. Only rarity and (now > historic) lack of good crypt support have kept this card (and the > Anti-Salubi) down. > > But, you say, the !Salubir are a combat clan! No they aren't. They suck > at combat. They should be a Blissful Agony clan. A deck with 10-12 of > these would be sweeet. Yeah, I've built that deck. It took a lot of effort to collect the 12 Blissful Agony (actually, I think I collected 15, but 12 is all it really needs), mostly, I think because few people have more than 1, and many people like to keep one of each card for collection purposes. Combined with Vampiric Disease and a shedload of Burning Touch, the deck is pretty effective (at least in my limited testing environment). A better selection of vampires will hopefully help. It's more or less a bruise 'n' bleed deck in concept, except that the bruise is via VD and combat with other players' vampires. Well, and I use Wakes and intercept to multiply the combats, so it's not really very much like standard bruise 'n' bleed, but also not much like intercept combat either, with the large bleed component. I've tried to build combat decks with the !Salubri, and I agree, it's a complete dead end. There are just too many ways to trump combat that is based on melee weapons. If there were fourish more !Salubri weenies that might be different, but swarm just isn't an option with the current crypt selection. Even after having collected my shedload of Blissful Agony, I was still surprised and somewhat annoyed to see if reprinted as rare - while it is useful in small amounts, the only thing stopping it from being used in large amounts (and making !Salubri a lot more playable) is availability. Hope that helps, Alex

fudjo wrote: > Looking at the 10 Ahrimanes decks in the Tournament Winning > Deck Archive, the average number of Engling Furies in them > is 2.5. The most that any deck used was 5. If people are > only putting 2 or 3 in their deck, then it seems to me that > Engling Fury is fine as a rare. Well, what's the average number of Strength of the Bear in those decks? I'm guessing 0.0. If that one gets reprinted as a common I'll concede that the reprint rarities were poorly thought out. Anyway, I could envision a deck with ten or more Engling Furies. It's hard to beat blood gain and untap in one card. > Blessing of the Name and Blissful Agony are not what I would > consider to be general purpose utility cards, and as such I > think it's fine that they're rare. Well, few decks use Blessing of the Name, but those that do use a whole lot. Blissful Agony, as others have said, is insanely good even for a S:CE. Once there are more !SAL with VAL--as I'm assuming will happen in this expansion, since in the RPG Africa was the home of a bunch of Warrior Salubri--we'll see more of what the card is capable of. I no longer want 60 of them thanks to the change to the inferior (old Blissful Agony + Eye of Hazimel = free stackable unpreventable damage), but I'll put at least a few in every Valerian deck and want many more in some. > Gift of Bellona got the > tough break that Concealed Weapon was changed with Camarilla > Edition, and Concealed Weapon is the better card for the task. > All of them are inexpensive enough (money wise or trade value > wise) that it shouldn't matter what rarity they are. Yeah, Weighted Walking Stick also crowds out Gift. It won't see action except in some unique melee weapon nutpuncher decks. > ...I've never been concerned > that Hag's Wrinkles is rare. You can argue about the utility, > but acquiring them is very easy. I do use 7 or 8 in my > Anarch Samedi deck, but I'll probably cut a few of them so > I can add a few Forced March. You could build a Una-style deck that equips ten times in a turn, had you enough Hag's Wrinkles. That's the extreme version, but I've built relatively few Samedi decks that don't use four or more Hag's Wrinkles. It's what the clan can do.

Ben Swainbank wrote: > How many Engling Furies do the players of those decks own? I'm > guessing the average is around 2.5. Well, I don't know the contents of any of these players' collections, but we live in a world where several people out there have built decks with 8-10 War Ghouls, or 10+ Embrace weenies. I don't think it's a stretch to think that maybe those who love Ahrimanes will spend the time, money, and/or trading effort to get Engling Furies. Furthermore, even if these players wanted more Engling Furies, they found a way to win 10 tournaments amongst them without needing more. That's very telling. > Blood gain transients (Life in the City? Zillas Tears?) tend not to > fall into the maybe-one-or-two-in-a-deck category. In the case of Engling Fury, I would go so far as to say that you don't want much more than 4 in a deck, as Ahrimanes decks tend to be very card intensive. Both their offenses (bleed cards plus Animalism combat) and their defenses (untap plus lots of intercept) are typically card intensive. Card slots are at a premium. Re: Blissful Agony > S:CE cards are not "utlity cards"? It's a great card. Strong > combat defense with a fun and nasty side effect. The side effect is fun, but typically it just deals a damage each to two other vampires. It's a fine card, but because it only provides S:CE at superior, I wouldn't call it "great". I suppose you could use Blooding by the Code, but then what're you doing with the +1 strength? > Only rarity and (now historic) lack of good crypt support > have kept this card (and the Anti-Salubi) down. Rarity keeps nothing down. Never has, never will. I do agree that their crypt is horrible. Hopefully that will change with Legacies of Blood. > But, you say, the !Salubir are a combat clan! No they aren't. > They suck at combat. They should be a Blissful Agony clan. > A deck with 10-12 of these would be sweeet. How would you oust your prey? - Ben Peal

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> schreef in bericht news:1130258585.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Ben Swainbank wrote in that other thread: >> There were a bunch of Bloodlines utility-cards that seemed >> to be inappropriately rare the first time around: Blessing >> of the Name, Blissful Agony, Darkling Trickery, Engling Fury, >> Hag's Wrinkles, Gift of Bellona... >> >> Unfortunately, they seem to repeating the same mistakes the >> second time around. > > Looking at the 10 Ahrimanes decks in the Tournament Winning > Deck Archive, the average number of Engling Furies in them > is 2.5. The most that any deck used was 5. If people are > only putting 2 or 3 in their deck, then it seems to me that > Engling Fury is fine as a rare. > While I -mostly - agree with your conclusion (one of the cards need to be rare, Engling Fury is probably the best choice), the above migth mix reason and consequence... Isn't it possible that the average number is 2.5 just because the card is so rare?

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > While I -mostly - agree with your conclusion (one of the cards need > to be rare, Engling Fury is probably the best choice), the above > migth mix reason and consequence... Isn't it possible that the average > number is 2.5 just because the card is so rare? Then explain War Ghoul decks or Ravnos Clown Car decks. Again, rarity keeps nothing down. Never has, never will. - Ben Peal

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130267710....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Ben Swainbank wrote: >> How many Engling Furies do the players of those decks own? I'm >> guessing the average is around 2.5. > > Well, I don't know the contents of any of these players' collections, > but we live in a world where several people out there have built > decks with 8-10 War Ghouls, or 10+ Embrace weenies. I don't > think it's a stretch to think that maybe those who love Ahrimanes > will spend the time, money, and/or trading effort to get Engling > Furies. I think there's a pretty significant difference. How many Tzimisce decks can be build without War Ghouls? Probably quite a few. War Ghouls are not a Tzimisce staple. They're just one of many ways you can go with Tzimisce deck. Engling Furies, however, are so generally useful to an Ahrimane deck that it doesn't make sense to see it as anything but an Ahrimane staple. It goes in Ahrimane bleed deck, it goes in the vote deck, it goes in the combat deck. It might not work in every deck or be equally necessary but it's hard to argue that it's a good inclusion in many of them. There's a big difference between cards like War Ghoul and Embrace and cards like Engling Fury and Darkling Trickery and that difference is exactly why the former are fine as rares even if when they're seen packed in large numbers in certain decks where the latter should be commons. > Furthermore, even if these players wanted more Engling Furies, > they found a way to win 10 tournaments amongst them without > needing more. That's very telling. I don't think that's a reason to say Engling Furies should be rare. If you have cards people _would_ use if they could but they choose to settle for less due to lack of resources, then you're creating "good rare" (overpriced) cards. Rich players in a CCG already have enough of an advantage just by the fact of their having larger collection without giving them cards they can afford and poorer players can't. Good rare cards are ultimately bad for the game, at least when the problem gets too obnoxious. Fred

rarity keeps seeling boxes of boosters. if you wanna build a war ghoul deck, you must use the WG of at least 18 boxes (for 12-14 WG). not keep "cornercase" cards filling my shoebox, not prevent abuse as we can see on breed ravnos. not even diference good decks from bad decks as in M:tG. i agree with most rarity changes on sets. flesh of marble or freak drive are the best examples. if some cards change from "wallpaper common" to "wallpaper LoB:R" i dont care. WW is a company and they know how to sell cards. we know how to get entertainment from the game. pd:i dont wanna be rude. i explain what i think about the game and the change. if the decision were in my hands, i dont reprint some cards, but i dont own a company. Byez!

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130269134.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> While I -mostly - agree with your conclusion (one of the cards need >> to be rare, Engling Fury is probably the best choice), the above >> migth mix reason and consequence... Isn't it possible that the average >> number is 2.5 just because the card is so rare? > > Then explain War Ghoul decks or Ravnos Clown Car decks. I'm not sure what a Ravnos Clown Car deck is but War Ghoul decks need a certain number of War Ghouls because that's what the deck does to win. Engling Furies, on the other hand, are marginal BUT POSITIVE additions to any Ahrimane deck - meaning players would most likely prefer to include them if they had them but the difference is somewhat marginal. And they would most likely prefer to include them in most or all Ahrimane decks. This is not a good situation just because each Engling Fury doesn't add a sizable improvement to a deck. It's just like a Mox cards in Type 1 Magic decks. When pressed to explain why they're so important, good players often have a hard time. After all, a Mox Ruby is (for instance), no better than a basic Mountain in almost every respect except for the occasional time you draw them in your opening hand (or quite early) and also have land to put out. Doesn't seem like all that big a deal, no matter how carefully you explain it to a beginner. Yet Moxen were still highly sought-after cards. The reason is that the advantage, though marginal, is a pure advantage with very little drawback. Since people will always strive for any edge in a competition and since there weren't enough Moxen to put in every single Magic deck that need them, they became good rare cards. As are Engling Furies. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Comparing Engling Fury to Moxen is ridiculous. I mean, making them more accessible would be nothing but good in my mind, but that's a pretty ludicrous analogy. That said, I think they're an ok rare. I mean, gaining blood and untapping is way better than hunting, but not as good as voter-capping or beating people up and tasting usually. It's less card intensive (and less risky) than the latter two options, though, so a few in the deck is always a decent idea, but most of the time you aren't going to be happy to see a bunch of them in your hand at once. > Fred

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> schreef in bericht news:1130269134.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> While I -mostly - agree with your conclusion (one of the cards need >> to be rare, Engling Fury is probably the best choice), the above >> migth mix reason and consequence... Isn't it possible that the average >> number is 2.5 just because the card is so rare? > > Then explain War Ghoul decks or Ravnos Clown Car decks. easy: I have 7 or nine War Ghouls without looking for them, 6 Ravnos Carnivals and only one EF. If I borrow cards from players in my playgroup for a tournement, I can easily get to 15-20 War Ghouls, 15 Ravnos Carnivals but I don't think the whole play group has more than 4 EF > > Again, rarity keeps nothing down. Never has, never will. I think you mean shouldn't. Before Immortal grapple became an uncommon, how many people could make a deck with 12 of them? Some could, but most people didn't have enough copies.

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > I think you mean shouldn't. Before Immortal grapple became an uncommon, how > many people could make a deck with 12 of them? Some could, but most people > didn't have enough copies. Ahh, winning the arms race. Those were good days... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, easily spilled liquids to naked people." -Brittni Meil

<jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message news:1130273434.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> The reason is that the advantage, though marginal, is a >> pure advantage with very little drawback. Since people will >> always strive for any edge in a competition and since there >> weren't enough Moxen to put in every single Magic deck that >> need them, they became good rare cards. As are Engling >> Furies. > > Comparing Engling Fury to Moxen is ridiculous. I mean, making them more > accessible would be nothing but good in my mind, but that's a pretty > ludicrous analogy. Well, OK, do you have a particular reason for this assertion? Actually, I think the analogy - as far as it goes - is quite apt. Of course it's not a perfect analogy. No analogy is. Ultimately, Moxen are not like anything else in the world except other Moxen. > That said, I think they're an ok rare. I mean, gaining blood and > untapping is way better than hunting, but not as good as voter-capping > or beating people up and tasting usually. Well, sure. But those things take combos of cards and setup. Engling Furies do the work with a single card. That is a huge thing in a collectible card game. (And why they're so flexible and usable in many different types of decks, as I pointed out in my previous post.) > It's less card intensive (and > less risky) than the latter two options, though, so a few in the deck > is always a decent idea, but most of the time you aren't going to be > happy to see a bunch of them in your hand at once. Sure. For that matter, you don't want to see too many Mox in your hand at the same time. You don't want to see too many Blood Dolls or Wakes or Parity Shifts or Protect Thine Owns...you get the picture. So I fail to see your point here. Like everything else, Engling Furies are going to have their saturation point - which is a lot higher over the whole population of gamer/collectors than their rarity makes available. (But it didn't sound like you were disputing that.) Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > I think there's a pretty significant difference. How many > Tzimisce decks can be build without War Ghouls? > Probably quite a few. War Ghouls are not a Tzimisce > staple. They're just one of many ways you can go with > Tzimisce deck. > > Engling Furies, however, are so generally useful to an > Ahrimane deck that it doesn't make sense to see it as > anything but an Ahrimane staple. It goes in Ahrimane > bleed deck, it goes in the vote deck, it goes in the > combat deck. It might not work in every deck or be > equally necessary but it's hard to argue that it's a good > inclusion in many of them. People pay $25 for War Ghouls. They pay $8 for Engling Furies. If a given deck needs 10 War Ghouls, then you're looking at $250 in money or trades. There are plenty of people willing to put in that amount of effort to build a War Ghoul deck. If that's the case, then it's reasonable to expect that people would put in $80 of effort to get 10 copies of Engling Fury for an Ahrimanes deck if it was better to build the deck that way. However, they don't. They are apparently fine with 1-5 copies. I did ask Grant Garvin (who has the high count in the TWDA at 5 copies) if he felt that his deck would be better if he upped the count of Engling Furies. He said that he did use 6 in a later version (and he owns 8 or 9), but he has concerns about going higher than that: "That deck requires the untap and press combat to flow *really* smoothly. When it stalls, the deck is screwed, and more Engling isn't going to get you out of that situation." "I think it is fine as a rare, as while I have been tempted to shove a ton in the deck, it always would have made me worry about stalling." When asked if he owned more than 5 copies of Engling Fury at the time he won the tournament: "Yep. I had seven at the time. I cut two from the first draft of the deck due to it, as expected, jamming during combat when I wanted a press or crows." >> Furthermore, even if these players wanted more Engling >> Furies, they found a way to win 10 tournaments amongst >> them without needing more. That's very telling. > > I don't think that's a reason to say Engling Furies should be > rare. If you have cards people _would_ use if they could but > they choose to settle for less due to lack of resources, then > you're creating "good rare" (overpriced) cards. Rich players > in a CCG already have enough of an advantage just by the > fact of their having larger collection without giving them cards > they can afford and poorer players can't. Good rare cards > are ultimately bad for the game, at least when the problem > gets too obnoxious. I do acknowledge that it's a theoretical problem, and one that has manifested itself in other CCGs. However, I don't see any evidence at all that it's occuring with Engling Fury. It's possible that this problem exists for Direct Intervention. You're making the assumption that people would play with more copies of Engling Fury if they owned them. In the example of Grant Garvin, he owns 8 or 9, but doesn't use all of them in his deck, and he has very sound reasons for it. Now, for the sake of argument, it's possible that there exists another kind of Ahrimanes deck that would want more copies of Engling Fury, but so far nobody's found it, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that intercept-combat (the style Grant used) is the best style for them. - Ben Peal

Fred Scott wrote: > I'm not sure what a Ravnos Clown Car deck is... By "Ravnos Clown Car", I mean "Ravnos Carvnival/Embrace Horde". It's like a clown car that opens its doors and Ravnos come streaming out. :) > but War Ghoul decks need a certain number of War Ghouls because > that's what the deck does to win. Engling Furies, on the other hand, > are marginal BUT POSITIVE additions to any Ahrimane deck - > meaning players would most likely prefer to include them if they had > them but the difference is somewhat marginal. If a player feels they need 10 copies of War Ghoul because that's what the deck needs to win, then they'll seek out 10 copies of War Ghoul. If a player feels they need 10 copies of Engling Fury because that's what the deck needs to win, then they'll seek out 10 copies of Engling Fury. One of them is a $25 card and 10-12 copies of it are used in its deck. One of them is an $8 card and 1-5 copies of it are used in its deck. I'm pretty sure that means that players feel that they don't need as many copies of Engling Fury. I'm pretty sure that it also means that Ahrimanes decks aren't as good overall as War Ghoul decks. - Ben Peal

In article <1130258585.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote: > Looking at the 10 Ahrimanes decks in the Tournament Winning > Deck Archive, the average number of Engling Furies in them > is 2.5. The most that any deck used was 5. If people are > only putting 2 or 3 in their deck, then it seems to me that > Engling Fury is fine as a rare. I've seen your other replies, but being one of the guys with an Ahrimanes deck in the TWD archive, I can tell you that if I had more than 2 Engling Furies, I would have used more. I could get more if I wanted to, but one of the reason that I never did is because I'm reluctant to spend this much to get such a card; I feel cheated to have to give such good cards to get an Engling Fury as I feel it should've been Uncommon or even Common. (The same is true for Darkling Trickery and is the reason I never got any.)

Jeroen Rombouts: >> Then explain War Ghoul decks or Ravnos Clown Car decks. > > easy: I have 7 or nine War Ghouls without looking for them, 6 Ravnos > Carnivals and only one EF. If I borrow cards from players in my playgroup > for a tournement, I can easily get to 15-20 War Ghouls, 15 Ravnos > Carnivals but I don't think the whole play group has more than 4 EF That simply means that you and your group haven't spent your money/trading towards Engling Furies. Give me 5 of those War Ghouls, and I can get you plenty of Engling Furies. Not to mention that the supply of Engling Furies is going to go up in 3 weeks. >> Again, rarity keeps nothing down. Never has, never will. > > I think you mean shouldn't. No. I mean exactly what I said. It doesn't keep anything down. If it's the best possible strategy for that deck, then people will put the effort into getting those cards. > Before Immortal grapple became an uncommon, how many > people could make a deck with 12 of them? Some could, > but most people didn't have enough copies. Well, Jyhad boxes were $6 at the time... ;) Even still, there were people (*cough* Peter Bakija *cough*) who put the effort into acquiring Immortal Grapples, and they reaped the benefits of it, much as those who went after Freak Drive. - Ben Peal

Charles Lechasseur wrote: > I've seen your other replies, but being one of the guys with > an Ahrimanes deck in the TWD archive, I can tell you that > if I had more than 2 Engling Furies, I would have used more. > I could get more if I wanted to, but one of the reason that I > never did is because I'm reluctant to spend this much to get > such a card; I feel cheated to have to give such good cards > to get an Engling Fury as I feel it should've been Uncommon > or even Common. (The same is true for Darkling Trickery > and is the reason I never got any.) Cool! A voice of dissent! :) Assuming you had unlimited access to Engling Furies, how many would you have included in your deck? Your input is especially interesting here, because the deck you used was a vote deck, not the typical intercept-combat deck. :) - Ben Peal

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, fudjo wrote: > > That simply means that you and your group haven't spent your > money/trading towards Engling Furies. Give me 5 of those War > Ghouls, and I can get you plenty of Engling Furies. > > Not to mention that the supply of Engling Furies is going to go up in > 3 weeks. > As will the demand. Some players think the demand will increase more than the supply. If they're right, then their best bet now is to buy up all the Engling Furies and sell them in about a month. That's what I did with Read the Winds right before Lambach's Legion. I wouldn't say I made a killing, but I did make a profit. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130281182.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > People pay $25 for War Ghouls. They pay $8 for Engling > Furies. If a given deck needs 10 War Ghouls, then you're > looking at $250 in money or trades. There are plenty of > people willing to put in that amount of effort to build a War > Ghoul deck. If that's the case, then it's reasonable to > expect that people would put in $80 of effort to get 10 > copies of Engling Fury for an Ahrimanes deck if it was > better to build the deck that way. I disagree. You're still missing the point that War Ghouls are a very specific deck. Of course, some of us might infer from the above that War Ghouls are too expensive and ought to made more common, somehow. But never mind that, the point is, if you don't have War Ghouls, you don't build a War Ghoul deck and there's lots of OTHER things you can do with your Tzimisce vampires and Vississitude disciplie minion cards that are arguably optimal. On the other hand, if you don't have Engling Furies, you don't make as good an Ahrimane deck as whatever type of Ahrimane deck you were trying to build. The difference may be somewhat marginal (hence the $8 Engling Furies that "only" cost $8), but it's pure advantage. So for money, you get pure advantage on any Ahrimane deck. That's bad, if the advantage (and hence the badness) is limited. There's a danger in comparing prices of rare cards and drawing conclusions only from the prices without making any discernment how the prices got to be that way. A card can be more expensive because people just think it's a neat card. Or because it was printed less recently. Engling Furies were printed in Bloodlines, which James was saying was recently reprinted. I don't know when or if Sabbat War boosters have ever reprinted. And the desire to build Tzimisce decks in general is obviously going to outstrip the desire to build Ahrimanes decks. > I did ask Grant Garvin (who has the high count in the TWDA > at 5 copies) if he felt that his deck would be better if he > upped the count of Engling Furies. He said that he did use 6 > in a later version (and he owns 8 or 9), but he has concerns > about going higher than that: "That deck requires the untap > and press combat to flow *really* smoothly. When it stalls, > the deck is screwed, and more Engling isn't going to get you > out of that situation." Sure. But, again, beside the point. As I pointed out in another post, all cards (no matter how good, from Giant's Bloods to Wake with Evening's Freshness) have saturation points. But you can't just take the saturation point into account - you also have to think about the number of different types of decks in which the card might be used. War Ghouls, only a War Ghoul deck. Engling Fury, all Ahrimane decks (or most all). > You're making the assumption that people would play with > more copies of Engling Fury if they owned them. I think they would, yes. > In the > example of Grant Garvin, he owns 8 or 9, but doesn't use > all of them in his deck, and he has very sound reasons for > it. OK. But that's just one particular case. He's gone out and acquired more than he has need for, that's fine. But don't make the mistake of assuming a single anecdote proves the rule. This issue is more about the people who have only acquired one or two and want more. > Now, for the sake of argument, it's possible that there > exists another kind of Ahrimanes deck that would want > more copies of Engling Fury, but so far nobody's found it, Nobody's found it or nobody - who actually has as many as they'd use - has happened to have won a 10+ player tournament with it and reported it to Jeff? Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > I disagree. You're still missing the point that War > Ghouls are a very specific deck. I'm not missing that point at all. > Of course, some of us might infer from the above > that War Ghouls are too expensive and ought to made > more common, somehow. But never mind that, the > point is, if you don't have War Ghouls, you don't build a > War Ghoul deck and there's lots of OTHER things you > can do with your Tzimisce vampires and Vississitude > disciplie minion cards that are arguably optimal. > > On the other hand, if you don't have Engling Furies, you > don't make as good an Ahrimane deck as whatever type > of Ahrimane deck you were trying to build. The difference > may be somewhat marginal (hence the $8 Engling Furies > that "only" cost $8), but it's pure advantage. So for money, > you get pure advantage on any Ahrimane deck. That's > bad, if the advantage (and hence the badness) is limited. If you want to build the best Ahrimanes deck that can possibly be built, you will want X Engling Furies. If you want to build the best War Ghoul deck that can possibly be built, you will want Y War Ghouls. More people want to build the best War Ghoul deck than the best Ahrimanes deck, _and_ you need more War Ghouls to build the best War Ghoul deck (Econo Ghoul excepted) than you need Engling Furies to build the best Ahrimanes deck. Hence War Ghouls cost $25 and Engling Furies cost $8. I do acknowledge that it's annoying that there's a rare card that strictly makes Ahrimanes decks better, but it has yet to be demonstrated that one would want more than 5 or 6 to build the _best_ Ahrimanes deck possible. That's really not an unsurmountable number from the perspective of building a tournament deck, and you don't need many (or any at all) for the sake of a casual deck. > Sure. But, again, beside the point. As I pointed out in > another post, all cards (no matter how good, from Giant's > Bloods to Wake with Evening's Freshness) have saturation > points. But you can't just take the saturation point into > account - you also have to think about the number of > different types of decks in which the card might be used. > War Ghouls, only a War Ghoul deck. Engling Fury, all > Ahrimane decks (or most all). It's not at all unusual for a Tzimisce to splash in one or two War Ghouls, and Mata Hari decks love 'em. >> In the example of Grant Garvin, he owns 8 or 9, but >> doesn't use all of them in his deck, and he has very >> sound reasons for it. > > OK. But that's just one particular case. He's gone out and > acquired more than he has need for, that's fine. But don't > make the mistake of assuming a single anecdote proves > the rule. Don't make the mistake of throwing out sound reasoning. Grant's reasons for not going higher than 5 or 6 are very sound. > This issue is more about the people who have only > acquired one or two and want more. If you want to build what you think is the best deck possible, then go trade for them or buy them. $8, while somewhat expensive for a V:TES card, is not egregiously expensive, and it's not an unsurmountable obstacle to try to trade for two or three. If you're just playing casually, then play with the one or two that you have, and if you happen across another one, see if you can get it. >> Now, for the sake of argument, it's possible that there >> exists another kind of Ahrimanes deck that would want >> more copies of Engling Fury, but so far nobody's found it, > > Nobody's found it or nobody - who actually has as many > as they'd use - has happened to have won a 10+ player > tournament with it and reported it to Jeff? Maybe someone's found it and they're not telling us. In the meantime, 10 tournaments have been won by Ahrimanes decks that haven't needed more than 5. I'm more than happy to invoke "until proven otherwise" here. - Ben Peal

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130287769.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> I disagree. You're still missing the point that War >> Ghouls are a very specific deck. > > I'm not missing that point at all. You seem to be. At least, we're certainly thinking about how to evaluate demand for a card in different ways. > If you want to build the best Ahrimanes deck that can > possibly be built, you will want X Engling Furies. > > If you want to build the best War Ghoul deck that can > possibly be built, you will want Y War Ghouls. Agreed. But: 1) Number of War Ghoul decks players desire to build != Number of Anhrimanes players desire to build which could use Engling Furies. I'd concede there's more of the former but..., 2) The ratio of the number of decks built using Tzimisce resources (Tzimisce vampires, Tzimisce minion cards, and Vississitude discipline minion cards) to War Ghoul decks != the ratio of the number of decks built using Ahrimanes resources (Ahrimanes vampires, Ahrimane clan minion cards, and Spiritus discipline minion cards) to such decks that could make use of some number of Engling Fury cards. This is to say, unlike the Ahrimanes, many more Tzimisce decks work better WITHOUT War Ghouls and would not prefer to add a War Ghoul at all. This is important in terms of how easy it is to consume Tzimisce resources without the deckbuilder longing for some rare card he lacks the resources to acquire. > More people want to build the best War Ghoul deck > than the best Ahrimanes deck, _and_ you need more > War Ghouls to build the best War Ghoul deck (Econo > Ghoul excepted) than you need Engling Furies to > build the best Ahrimanes deck. Hence War Ghouls > cost $25 and Engling Furies cost $8. But that's not the only reason for these costs to be as they are. You are failing to take into account the point about relatively how many Tzimisce decks need War Ghouls vs. how may Ahrimanes decks need Engling Furies. That's an extremely important factor. > It's not at all unusual for a Tzimisce to splash in one or > two War Ghouls, and Mata Hari decks love 'em. Sure. And if every Tzimisce deck wanted to, then I'd say there should more War Ghouls in the game just like there needed to be more Freak Drives in the game. (And perhaps there needs to be, anyway.) But I suspect this effect is a pretty small blip on the radar screen. >>> In the example of Grant Garvin, he owns 8 or 9, but >>> doesn't use all of them in his deck, and he has very >>> sound reasons for it. >> >> OK. But that's just one particular case. He's gone out and >> acquired more than he has need for, that's fine. But don't >> make the mistake of assuming a single anecdote proves >> the rule. > > Don't make the mistake of throwing out sound reasoning. I don't think it's sound reasoning based on my own way of looking at relative rarity issues. In that light, your example is an exception rather than a rule. Grant's reasons are sound, I agree. But how one looks at the use of cards in deck construction in a single specific deck doesn't by itself dictate the overall demand for a card. >> This issue is more about the people who have only >> acquired one or two and want more. > > If you want to build what you think is the best deck possible, > then go trade for them or buy them. $8, while somewhat > expensive for a V:TES card, is not egregiously expensive, > and it's not an unsurmountable obstacle to try to trade for > two or three. Sure. But again, this misses the point. What bothers me about the current situation (and, as Gregory Stuart Pettigrew notes may actually _worsen_ when LoB is released) is that so many more sets of Ahrimanes vampires exist (and supporting Spiritus minion cards) than Engling Furies can be found for, that many, MANY builders of Ahrimanes decks will have to do without. Again, this is a different situation than for builders of Tzimisce decks - who just have to find other themes in order to use their vampires and common Vissitude cards effectively. >>> Now, for the sake of argument, it's possible that there >>> exists another kind of Ahrimanes deck that would want >>> more copies of Engling Fury, but so far nobody's found it, >> >> Nobody's found it or nobody - who actually has as many >> as they'd use - has happened to have won a 10+ player >> tournament with it and reported it to Jeff? > > Maybe someone's found it and they're not telling us. > In the meantime, 10 tournaments have been won by > Ahrimanes decks that haven't needed more than 5. Haven't needed more than five? Or haven't had more than the number they wound up using. You interviewed one guy. One guy has spoken up to say he would have used more than he had. Until proven otherwise, I think it's fair to say nothing at all has been proven at all in this regard. Fred

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > Until proven otherwise, I think it's fair to say nothing at all has been > proven at all in this regard. > *twitch* *snicker* *twitch* [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: >> More people want to build the best War Ghoul deck >> than the best Ahrimanes deck, _and_ you need more >> War Ghouls to build the best War Ghoul deck (Econo >> Ghoul excepted) than you need Engling Furies to >> build the best Ahrimanes deck. Hence War Ghouls >> cost $25 and Engling Furies cost $8. > > But that's not the only reason for these costs to be > as they are. You are failing to take into account > the point about relatively how many Tzimisce decks need > War Ghouls vs. how may Ahrimanes decks need Engling > Furies. That's an extremely important factor. I suspect that there are many factors that both you and I are not realizing or leaving out. The only factor that does matter is the difficulty the deckbuilder may face when trying to acquire the cards he or she wants for the deck. Again, in the case of Engling Fury, it's an expensive rare, but getting the amount that you'd want for a tournament deck isn't insurmountable, especially for someone who is gung-ho about tournaments. Getting 4-6 of them will take some effort, but it most definitely can be done. 4-6 of them also seems about the right number for the classic intercept-combat archetype, and quite probably for the stealth-vote archetype. > I don't think it's sound reasoning based on my own way of > looking at relative rarity issues. In that light, your example > is an exception rather than a rule. Grant's reasons are sound, > I agree. But how one looks at the use of cards in deck > construction in a single specific deck doesn't by itself dictate > the overall demand for a card. Grant's reasons are valid for the Ahrimanes intercept-combat archetype. I would also go so far as to say that those reasons are also valid for the stealth-vote archetype, which has similar concerns about card flow. >> Maybe someone's found it and they're not telling us. >> In the meantime, 10 tournaments have been won by >> Ahrimanes decks that haven't needed more than 5. > > Haven't needed more than five? Or haven't had more than > the number they wound up using. They did win tournaments, didn't they? > Until proven otherwise, I think it's fair to say nothing at all has > been proven at all in this regard. Tell me why you would need more than 5 Engling Furies. *shrug* Maybe Legacies of Blood will change how many we want to use. Maybe it will increase demand. We won't know until it comes out. In the meantime, we already know that we can be successful without having a pile of them, and that getting a few of them can be done with some effort. This really isn't a problem. - Ben Peal

Greg, don't be a dick. - Ben Peal

In message <1130281720.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, fudjo <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> writes: > By "Ravnos Clown Car", I mean "Ravnos Carvnival/Embrace Horde". > > It's like a clown car that opens its doors and Ravnos come streaming > out. :) Ben wins the "Great Mental Image of the Day" award. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Frederick Scott wrote: > <jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message > news:1130273434.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> The reason is that the advantage, though marginal, is a > >> pure advantage with very little drawback. Since people will > >> always strive for any edge in a competition and since there > >> weren't enough Moxen to put in every single Magic deck that > >> need them, they became good rare cards. As are Engling > >> Furies. > > > > Comparing Engling Fury to Moxen is ridiculous. I mean, making them more > > accessible would be nothing but good in my mind, but that's a pretty > > ludicrous analogy. > > Well, OK, do you have a particular reason for this assertion? > Actually, I think the analogy - as far as it goes - is quite apt. > Of course it's not a perfect analogy. No analogy is. Ultimately, > Moxen are not like anything else in the world except other Moxen. Engling Fury's not part of a first-turn win combo? > > That said, I think they're an ok rare. I mean, gaining blood and > > untapping is way better than hunting, but not as good as voter-capping > > or beating people up and tasting usually. > > Well, sure. But those things take combos of cards and setup. > Engling Furies do the work with a single card. That is a huge > thing in a collectible card game. (And why they're so flexible > and usable in many different types of decks, as I pointed out > in my previous post.) Yeah, it's useful. > > It's less card intensive (and > > less risky) than the latter two options, though, so a few in the deck > > is always a decent idea, but most of the time you aren't going to be > > happy to see a bunch of them in your hand at once. > > Sure. For that matter, you don't want to see too many Mox in your > hand at the same time. You don't want to see too many Blood Dolls > or Wakes or Parity Shifts or Protect Thine Owns...you get the > picture. So I fail to see your point here. Like everything else, > Engling Furies are going to have their saturation point - which > is a lot higher over the whole population of gamer/collectors > than their rarity makes available. (But it didn't sound like you > were disputing that.) Ummm... about the only time you'd see multiple moxen in your hand in that game was first turn, when you'd be *plenty* happy to see, play, and use them. That was the whole reason they were so good. And while you're right about Parity Shift and the rest, those are mostly cards that directly help you either staying in the game, or oust your prey, so while the comparison is apt in some ways, seeing these cards clump together is nearly always better than not seeing them at all, which is not something I'd say about Engling Fury. > Fred

> If you want to build the best Ahrimanes deck that can > possibly be built, you will want X Engling Furies. > > If you want to build the best War Ghoul deck that can > possibly be built, you will want Y War Ghouls. If N players want X engling furies, and M players want Y War Ghouls, then you can compare the demand by comparing NX to MY. However, War Ghoul is more fun to play with, and much easier to trade away should it come to that. I do not believe I would have an easy time trading away Engling Furies if I decided not to use them. So now we factor in that players want War Ghouls a lot and Engling Fury a little, just because War Ghoul is impressive and Engling Fury is not. So we multiply by desires D and d. Since "NXd" is less than "MYD", people are willing to acquire the war ghouls, should they be in short supply. However, It looks from here like "NX" is greater than "MY", so there are more homes for Engling Fury, should excess of each be printed. Dig? > More people want to build the best War Ghoul deck > than the best Ahrimanes deck, _and_ you need more > War Ghouls to build the best War Ghoul deck (Econo > Ghoul excepted) than you need Engling Furies to > build the best Ahrimanes deck. Hence War Ghouls > cost $25 and Engling Furies cost $8. I disagree with your reasoning here. The SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR in how much a rare card is worth is Bigness. Just like M:TG players will pay too damn much for ANYTHING that gets printed with the word "dragon" on it, we have our share of expensive cards: War Ghoul Call the Great Beast Week of Nightmares Final Nights 11-caps (all 4) And so on. I suspect that all of these owe their cash value mostly to bigness, and secondarily to that supply-and-demand thing. How many TWD's have Call the Great Beast in them, like one? What about Ambrogino and company? Note that even when Dreams was in shorter supply than War Ghoul, people still payed more for War Ghoul then Dreams. This could NOT have been because of supply and demand, as more Dreams than WG's are needed for the average deck. > I do acknowledge that it's annoying that there's a rare > card that strictly makes Ahrimanes decks better, but > it has yet to be demonstrated that one would want more > than 5 or 6 to build the _best_ Ahrimanes deck possible. > That's really not an unsurmountable number from the > perspective of building a tournament deck, and you > don't need many (or any at all) for the sake of a casual > deck. You don't need any Conflagration for a casual Baali deck. I imagine 2-5 copies is about what Baali decks use. I imagine that if it was rare, you'd probably still see 2-5 per deck, but you'd see less Baali decks in general. That's what we're talking about with Engling Fury, is that it _belongs_ in the deck, so it should be common. You seem to only be thinking about what's good for the game from a competitive standpoint--perhaps because you've likely won more tournaments than anyone else ever. Or perhaps you've won more tournaments than anyone because you think this way. Whatever's going on, it appears that you seem to think: What cards do I need to win? -OK, I'll go about getting those. where many players often think: What cards do I have? -OK, I'll build something from this. > Don't make the mistake of throwing out sound reasoning. > Grant's reasons for not going higher than 5 or 6 are very > sound. Sound reasoning is useless without good data to reason from. I will say that the question here is, "Do players have enough Engling Fury?" Good data would be a cross section of V:TES players. Bad data would be only asking players who all have the same answer. Only looking at TWD's is only asking players who have the same answer. They all have at least enough copies of Engling Fury to win a tournament, by definition. So no offense, but it's useless data. > >> Now, for the sake of argument, it's possible that there > >> exists another kind of Ahrimanes deck that would want > >> more copies of Engling Fury, but so far nobody's found it, There are: My Ahrimanes deck wants more copies than the 0 currently in it, Aaron's Ahrimanes deck wants more than the 2 in it, Bob never built an Ahrimanes deck because he has 0 copies, etc. There's 3 Ahrimanes decks that need more. And THAT's the reason Engling Fury should be more available. One more thing, Ben: If rarity never affects the appearance of a deck on the archive, then tournaments are no measure of a card's proper rarity. -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > More people want to build the best War Ghoul deck > > than the best Ahrimanes deck, _and_ you need more > > War Ghouls to build the best War Ghoul deck (Econo > > Ghoul excepted) than you need Engling Furies to > > build the best Ahrimanes deck. Hence War Ghouls > > cost $25 and Engling Furies cost $8. > > I disagree with your reasoning here. > > The SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR in how much a rare card is worth is Bigness. > Just like M:TG players will pay too damn much for ANYTHING that gets > printed with the word "dragon" on it, we have our share of expensive > cards: > > War Ghoul > Call the Great Beast > Week of Nightmares > Final Nights 11-caps (all 4) > > And so on. I suspect that all of these owe their cash value mostly to > bigness, and secondarily to that supply-and-demand thing. How many > TWD's have Call the Great Beast in them, like one? What about > Ambrogino and company? > > Note that even when Dreams was in shorter supply than War Ghoul, people > still payed more for War Ghoul then Dreams. This could NOT have been > because of supply and demand, as more Dreams than WG's are needed for > the average deck. I'm not so sure "bigness" is the best way to describe what you're getting at, but I see your point. Don't forget that UNIQUENESS has a huge impact on V:TES. This plays a very large part of why Dreams is not as sought as War Ghouls. The other is that Dreams doesn't always affect "table position" while War Ghoul certainly does. > > >> Now, for the sake of argument, it's possible that there > > >> exists another kind of Ahrimanes deck that would want > > >> more copies of Engling Fury, but so far nobody's found it, > > There are: My Ahrimanes deck wants more copies than the 0 currently in > it, Aaron's Ahrimanes deck wants more than the 2 in it, Bob never built > an Ahrimanes deck because he has 0 copies, etc. There's 3 Ahrimanes > decks that need more. > > And THAT's the reason Engling Fury should be more available. > > One more thing, Ben: If rarity never affects the appearance of a deck > on the archive, then tournaments are no measure of a card's proper > rarity. > > -- Brian I just wish we had Uncommons again. Sticking with Rare, Vampire, Common really doesn't cover the spectrum enough. I really don't mind when we have a handful of library cards taking up Uncommon slots, like in Black Hand. I think that some of these reprinted Bloodlines Rares would have been very appropriate with that rarity change. Jeff

jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: > I just wish we had Uncommons again. Sticking with Rare, Vampire, Common > really doesn't cover the spectrum enough. I really don't mind when we > have a handful of library cards taking up Uncommon slots, like in Black > Hand. ... and in Legacies of Blood (according to the partial spoiler so far)? > I think that some of these reprinted Bloodlines Rares would have > been very appropriate with that rarity change. Swapping some of the new uncommons/vampires to the rare sheet?

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130297509.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >>> More people want to build the best War Ghoul deck >>> than the best Ahrimanes deck, _and_ you need more >>> War Ghouls to build the best War Ghoul deck (Econo >>> Ghoul excepted) than you need Engling Furies to >>> build the best Ahrimanes deck. Hence War Ghouls >>> cost $25 and Engling Furies cost $8. >> >> But that's not the only reason for these costs to be >> as they are. You are failing to take into account >> the point about relatively how many Tzimisce decks need >> War Ghouls vs. how may Ahrimanes decks need Engling >> Furies. That's an extremely important factor. > > I suspect that there are many factors that both you and I > are not realizing or leaving out. Perhaps. But I think the ones that matter for purposes of this issue have been mentioned. > The only factor that does > matter is the difficulty the deckbuilder may face when trying > to acquire the cards he or she wants for the deck. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. The point that other things can be done with Tzimisce and Vississitude cards that do not call for War Ghouls but that it's likely to be unusual to build an Ahrimanes deck that would not function better without Engling Fury cards matters to me. >> Until proven otherwise, I think it's fair to say nothing at all has >> been proven at all in this regard. > > Tell me why you would need more than 5 Engling Furies. Again, not the point. The point that most ALL Ahrimanes decks require around five Engling Furies is why they should be commons. > *shrug* Maybe Legacies of Blood will change how many we > want to use. Maybe it will increase demand. We won't know > until it comes out. In the meantime, we already know that we > can be successful without having a pile of them, and that > getting a few of them can be done with some effort. This really > isn't a problem. I think it's a deceptive notion to suggest that pure-advantage-for- money isn't a problem in a CCG if the advantage gained is modest. But I think I've beaten that point to death already. Fred

<jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message news:1130331686.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message >> news:1130273434.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> The reason is that the advantage, though marginal, is a >> >> pure advantage with very little drawback. Since people will >> >> always strive for any edge in a competition and since there >> >> weren't enough Moxen to put in every single Magic deck that >> >> need them, they became good rare cards. As are Engling >> >> Furies. >> > >> > Comparing Engling Fury to Moxen is ridiculous. I mean, making them more >> > accessible would be nothing but good in my mind, but that's a pretty >> > ludicrous analogy. >> >> Well, OK, do you have a particular reason for this assertion? >> Actually, I think the analogy - as far as it goes - is quite apt. >> Of course it's not a perfect analogy. No analogy is. Ultimately, >> Moxen are not like anything else in the world except other Moxen. > > Engling Fury's not part of a first-turn win combo? Beside the point. Moxen was never a good rare card because it's part of first turn win combo. >> > It's less card intensive (and >> > less risky) than the latter two options, though, so a few in the deck >> > is always a decent idea, but most of the time you aren't going to be >> > happy to see a bunch of them in your hand at once. >> >> Sure. For that matter, you don't want to see too many Mox in your >> hand at the same time. You don't want to see too many Blood Dolls >> or Wakes or Parity Shifts or Protect Thine Owns...you get the >> picture. So I fail to see your point here. Like everything else, >> Engling Furies are going to have their saturation point - which >> is a lot higher over the whole population of gamer/collectors >> than their rarity makes available. (But it didn't sound like you >> were disputing that.) > > Ummm... about the only time you'd see multiple moxen in your hand in > that game was first turn, when you'd be *plenty* happy to see, play, > and use them. That was the whole reason they were so good. Actually no - not if you didn't have enough spells to play (counting Moxen as virtual "land" cards). That's called getting mana-geysered and many a Magic game has been lost that way. > And while you're right about Parity Shift and the rest, those are > mostly cards that directly help you either staying in the game, or oust > your prey, so while the comparison is apt in some ways, seeing these > cards clump together is nearly always better than not seeing them at > all, which is not something I'd say about Engling Fury. I think that's a bogus comparison. You don't want see either extreme with any card. I don't see how it makes a difference which bad thing you'd prefer to the other. And in any event, what point are you trying to make? Drawing too many of any card is bad - period. Even Moxen. (Though you'd have to assume you could have more than five mox in a deck to worry much about it.) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe I need to pay a little closer attention to detail. :) Jeff

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1130355030.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] It's a tough call, indeed. Those darn cardsheets are just never quite the right size, are they? Fred

LSJ wrote: > > > I think that some of these reprinted Bloodlines Rares would have > > been very appropriate with that rarity change. > > Swapping some of the new uncommons/vampires to the rare sheet? Here's the real issue. The idealized utility=rarity bumps up against exactly X cards going onto the rare sheet. I would suggest dropping the reprinted BL Commons from the Rare sheet (and the set) altogether. And doubling up on some "utility rares" (old and new). -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Here's the real issue. The idealized utility=rarity bumps > up against exactly X cards going onto the rare sheet. > > I would suggest dropping the reprinted BL Commons from the > Rare sheet (and the set) altogether. And doubling up on > some "utility rares" (old and new). Unfortunately, it's too late for that now. I do agree in principle, though. In the case of commons reprinted as rares, those commons easily could have been left out (and replaced with other rares or "doubled-up" rares), as new players could pretty easily ask other players for them. Alas. - Ben Peal

Frederick Scott wrote: > "fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message > > *shrug* Maybe Legacies of Blood will change how many we > > want to use. Maybe it will increase demand. We won't know > > until it comes out. In the meantime, we already know that we > > can be successful without having a pile of them, and that > > getting a few of them can be done with some effort. This really > > isn't a problem. > > I think it's a deceptive notion to suggest that pure-advantage-for- > money isn't a problem in a CCG if the advantage gained is modest. > But I think I've beaten that point to death already. > Pure-advantage-for-money is a necessary evil if you are going to sell cards for your card game. Even if every card was common, it still costs more to buy enough packs to get 30 or more Computer Hackings for a deck vs buying enough packs to get 8-12. Since there will always be an advantage gained, then if the advantage is only modest there isn't a problem. There is a problem if the advantage becomes substantial. If VTES online ever takes off, then Pure-advantage-for-money goes away there. Even if it costs something to play online, it costs everyone the same, so there is no advantage to gain by throwing more money at it. Later, ~Rehlow

"Rehlow" <news...@rehlow.com> wrote in message news:1130366962.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> I think it's a deceptive notion to suggest that pure-advantage-for- >> money isn't a problem in a CCG if the advantage gained is modest. >> But I think I've beaten that point to death already. > > Pure-advantage-for-money is a necessary evil if you are going to sell > cards for your card game. Even if every card was common, it still costs > more to buy enough packs to get 30 or more Computer Hackings for a deck > vs buying enough packs to get 8-12. Sure. I agree (so far), this is a ground rule for CCGs. > Since there will always be an advantage gained, then if the advantage > is only modest there isn't a problem. There is a problem if the > advantage becomes substantial. Nope. This I do not agree with at all. Any "advantage-for-money" issues are bad. While some forms of advantage-for-money properties are unavoidable, it doesn't do to simply divide them into "big" and "small" categories because "small" advantage-for-money characteristics are not necessary the useful ones. "Useful" a-f-m properties are ones that bring the company selling it profit. (There may be other uses for it but I can't think of any.) So the point is to maximize White Wolf's profit while minimizing the advantage-for-money - not simply minimizing the advantage. That is, optimize the ratio of profit-to-moneyed-advantage. Having common cards that can be used in large numbers is not a very bad thing because it leaves people the choice of buying a limited number of packs and doing without decks that need so many of a single common or buying the same number of packs and trading for the common - thus giving up other types of decks one could build - or just buying enough packs to get that many of the particular common. I think people understand and accept the concept of investing in a CCG to whatever point makes them happy. But printing all the components to the standard Ahrimanes decks except for one generally useful but artificially very rare component is a lot more frustrating than is worth the profit White Wolf is likely to be getting from it. There will always be Ahrimanes cards in existence that simply can never be optimally used, no matter how customers choose to invest or trade with each other. The better way to do this is exemplified by Ben's War Ghoul deck: cards that don't really make decks better but represent unusual and popular choices for deckbuilding. The other Tzimisce/Vicissitude cards can still be used for other types of optimized Tzimisce decks. The War Ghouls themselves can be expensive as hell and not hurt the game much at all. Fred

Brian Moritz wrote: > However, War Ghoul is more fun to play with, and much easier > to trade away should it come to that. I do not believe I would > have an easy time trading away Engling Furies if I decided not > to use them. You would have a difficult time trading away an $8 rare? That's weird. > However, It looks from here like "NX" is greater than "MY", so > there are more homes for Engling Fury, should excess of each > be printed. I think you're not factoring in the fact that people put War Ghouls into decks other than War Ghoul decks. > I disagree with your reasoning here. > The SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR in how much a rare card is > worth is Bigness. Just like M:TG players will pay too damn much > for ANYTHING that gets printed with the word "dragon" on it... There are no "big" cards in the Power 9. Yes, there are in M:TG (to use the industry term) "kiddie cards" - cards that have little to no tournament value but fetch relatively high prices because they're "big" - but the cards with the highest cost in Type II and Extended are the ones with the most tournament value. For example, among the current high sellers are Umezawa's Jitte, Pithing Needle, Cranial Extraction, Gifts Ungiven, Glimpse the Unthinkable, and the "shock lands" - not a big shiny creature amongst them. Even the big shiny creatures that were expensive in the past couple of years (Kokusho, Arcbound Ravager, Darksteel Colossus) were expensive because they had high tournament usefulness. Right now, Shivan Dragon is a $4-$5 card. (though the new art sucks) >...we have our share of expensive cards: > > War Ghoul > Call the Great Beast > Week of Nightmares > Final Nights 11-caps (all 4) > > And so on. I suspect that all of these owe their cash value mostly > to bigness, and secondarily to that supply-and-demand thing. How > many TWD's have Call the Great Beast in them, like one? What > about Ambrogino and company? War Ghoul and Week of Nightmares owe their cash value to their utility in top-tier tournament decks and their scarcity. The Final Nights 11-caps owe their cash value to a combination of scarcity and the feeling that you need a handful of a given one of them to build a deck around it. Bigness might be a factor. Similarly to the Final Nights 11-caps, Call the Great Beast owes its cash value to a combination of scarcity and the feeling that you need a bunch of it to build a deck with it, typically 8 or so. Basically, the price of a card is based mainly on the following: - Usefulness - Quantity desired in a deck - Scarcity - "bigness" > You don't need any Conflagration for a casual Baali deck. I > imagine 2-5 copies is about what Baali decks use. I imagine > that if it was rare, you'd probably still see 2-5 per deck, but > you'd see less Baali decks in general. That's what we're > talking about with Engling Fury, is that it _belongs_ in the > deck, so it should be common. In the case of Conflagration, there really aren't viable alternatives. In the case of Engling Fury, what's wrong with Life in the City and Taste of Vitae? > You seem to only be thinking about what's good for the > game from a competitive standpoint--perhaps because > you've likely won more tournaments than anyone else ever. > Or perhaps you've won more tournaments than anyone > because you think this way. Whatever's going on, it > appears that you seem to think: > > What cards do I need to win? > -OK, I'll go about getting those. > > where many players often think: > > What cards do I have? > -OK, I'll build something from this. That's only part of what I'm thinking (and I agree that many/most players think as you state). Among the things I think about with respect to development and the game are: - What cards does a given deck/archetype need to win? - How expensive (money, effort, trading) are these cards? - If these cards are very expensive, does that prohibit casual players from playing that deck/archetype, or are there alternatives (including not using the card at all)? If you don't have copies of Engling Fury, you're certainly at a disadvantage at the tournament level (Taste of Vitae might be a viable alternative, Life in the City less so), but you're certainly not prohibited from playing Ahrimanes at the casual level (Taste of Vitae and Life in the City are fine alternatives at that level - Brujah and !Nos do fine with Taste). If you don't have enough copies of War Ghoul, you're obviously prohibited from playing a War Ghoul deck at the tournament level. At the casual level, you can still at least play other Tzimisce decks, and even one War Ghoul is still good in them. Would it have been nice if Engling Fury was common or uncommon? Sure, I'd be fine with it. However, I don't think it's an injustice that it's still rare. > Only looking at TWD's is only asking players who have the > same answer. They all have at least enough copies of Engling > Fury to win a tournament, by definition. So no offense, but it's > useless data. Horseshit. If you can demonstrate that players can be successful with Ahrimanes without 6-10 copies of Engling Fury, then that's useful. If 10 people can win at the tournament level with Ahrimanes (the most of any Bloodlines clan in the TWDA, btw, and more than 4 clans that have been around for 10 years) without 6-10 copies of Engling Fury, then what does that say for people playing at the casual level? Might we see more Ahrimanes decks in the TWDA if there were more Engling Furies running around? Seems probable, since there would be more players with a few Engling Furies, and 10 decks with a few Engling Furies are already there. Would it be significantly more? *shrug* Is it insurmountably hard to get 2-4 Engling Furies for a tournament deck? Getting 2-4 copies of an $8 card will take some work, sure - it is a _collectible_ card game, after all - but it's not _that_ difficult. > My Ahrimanes deck wants more copies than the 0 currently > in it, Aaron's Ahrimanes deck wants more than the 2 in it, Bob > never built an Ahrimanes deck because he has 0 copies, etc. > There's 3 Ahrimanes decks that need more. > > And THAT's the reason Engling Fury should be more available. Buy them or trade for them if you want to build a tournament version, or experiment with Taste of Vitae. If you're just playing casually, use Taste of Vitae or Life in the City. The absence of Engling Fury does not make the Ahrimanes inoperable. > One more thing, Ben: If rarity never affects the appearance > of a deck on the archive, then tournaments are no measure > of a card's proper rarity. I was just using the entries in the TWDA as an indicator of how many of a given "utility" card people were using, and whether the amount they were using was suited to that "utility" card being rare. Certainly the rarity/expense of War Ghoul affects the number of people who are playing War Ghoul decks in tournaments - it's a top-tier deck that in my opinion is, as a result, underrepresented in the TWDA. I don't think that Ahrimanes are at all underrepresented in the TWDA. - Ben Peal

Fred Scott wrote: >> The only factor that does matter is the difficulty the >> deckbuilder may face when trying to acquire the cards >> he or she wants for the deck. > > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. The point > that other things can be done with Tzimisce and Vississitude > cards that do not call for War Ghouls but that it's likely to > be unusual to build an Ahrimanes deck that would not function > better without Engling Fury cards matters to me. At the tournament level, it's probably better to use Engling Fury instead of Taste of Vitae, but I could very well be wrong about that. At the casual level, it's totally fine to use Taste of Vitae or Life in the City. As I've said elsewhere, the absence of Engling Fury does not render an Ahrimanes deck inoperable. >> Tell me why you would need more than 5 Engling Furies. > > Again, not the point. The point that most ALL Ahrimanes > decks require around five Engling Furies is why they should be > commons. 10 tournament victories indicates to me that you're not required to have 5 Engling Furies in a competitive Ahrimanes deck. It's also not prohibitively difficult to acquire 2-5 $8 rares. - Ben Peal

> Ben Swainbank wrote: >> I would suggest dropping the reprinted BL Commons from the >> Rare sheet (and the set) altogether. And doubling up on >> some "utility rares" (old and new). "fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote: > In the case of commons reprinted > as rares, those commons easily could have been left out > (and replaced with other rares or "doubled-up" rares), > as new players could pretty easily ask other players for > them. > There must be something in the New England water, which breeds all of this common sense. :-) DZ AW

David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > :-) > DZ > AW I must not be drinking the same water :) Josh who still thinks there are reasonable justifications for old commons being reprinted in the rare slot of a new set

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:XKWdnWwQbOc...@comcast.com... > David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote: > >> There must be something in the New England water, which breeds all of >> this >> common sense. > > I must not be drinking the same water :) > Well, Cambridge has that aquifer underneath it... maybe you're drinking their Crazy-water? ;-) > Josh > who still thinks there are reasonable justifications for old commons > being reprinted in the rare slot of a new set > I like to discuss them: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/879abd8911238909?dmode=source&hl=en DZ AW ...2 out of 3 Boston VEKN (current or ex-) Princes prefer not reprinting commons as rares, and chew Dentyne for a healthy smile.

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130373990....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >>> The only factor that does matter is the difficulty the >>> deckbuilder may face when trying to acquire the cards >>> he or she wants for the deck. >> >> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that. The point >> that other things can be done with Tzimisce and Vississitude >> cards that do not call for War Ghouls but that it's likely to >> be unusual to build an Ahrimanes deck that would not function >> better without Engling Fury cards matters to me. > > At the tournament level, it's probably better to use Engling > Fury instead of Taste of Vitae, but I could very well be wrong > about that. At the casual level, it's totally fine to use Taste of > Vitae or Life in the City. That's your particular value judgement. Personally, I aim to have all my decks work as well in casual play as in tournament play. For me, the main difference is that casual play is where I might try to experiment some and the inevitable result is that my average deck will be weaker. But I find it no less frustrating to use a sub-optimal deck in casual play than in tournament play. And I would never, for instance, build a deliberately sub-optimal deck based on the rationale that it's "only for casual play". Therefore, I find this a lousy excuse for printing egregiously unequal amounts of different components of a clan's cards and thus creating a horrible bottleneck in one of the components - even if it's not an absolutely crucial one. In short, it's not the same thing to say, Tzimisce decks that are not War Ghoul decks can be perfectly functioning decks based on other Tzimisce strategies but Ahrimanes decks lacking Engling Furies can be sub-optimal, non-tournament decks. > As I've said elsewhere, the absence > of Engling Fury does not render an Ahrimanes deck inoperable. I agree. But I think the fact that it isn't as good a deck is something that makes for bad rarity policy in a CCG. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > At the tournament level, it's probably better to use > > Engling Fury instead of Taste of Vitae, but I could > > very well be wrong about that. At the casual level, > > it's totally fine to use Taste of Vitae or Life in > > the City. > > That's your particular value judgement. Personally, I > aim to have all my decks work as well in casual play as > in tournament play. For me, the main difference is that > casual play is where I might try to experiment some and > the inevitable result is that my average deck will be > weaker. Well, as you say, we have different value judgements with respect to this. I use casual games to test out decks until I attain proof of concept, at which point I seek harder-to-acquire cards that would make the deck better. This way, I can still have fun playing the game with the cards I have, spending the effort towards tournament card acquisition only when I need to (or when it's convenient). > But I find it no less frustrating to use a sub-optimal > deck in casual play than in tournament play. And I > would never, for instance, build a deliberately sub- > optimal deck based on the rationale that it's "only > for casual play". Huh. I do that all the time. Well, maybe not so much deliberately sub-optimal, but rather building a deck knowing that even at its optimal design point, it'll still only ever be 2nd tier at best (if that). Sometimes I just have cards I've never used that I feel like trying out for the same of trying them out. Every so often, one of these decks shows itself to be better than it appears. Sometimes I'll just build something 'cause it's got some subjective "fun" feel to it, for when I don't feel up for a really competitive game, but rather just want to hang out with the crew and play some games and have fun. > Therefore, I find this a lousy excuse for printing > egregiously unequal amounts of different components > of a clan's cards and thus creating a horrible > bottleneck in one of the components - even if it's > not an absolutely crucial one. Well, as you say, we have different value judgements, and my opinion as to whether the bottleneck is egregious definitely differs from yours. In the case of Engling Fury, I don't think it's egregious at all. The rarity of Engling Fury poses a collecting challenge, but I don't think it creates a hardship. > In short, it's not the same thing to say, Tzimisce > decks that are not War Ghoul decks can be perfectly > functioning decks based on other Tzimisce strategies > but Ahrimanes decks lacking Engling Furies can be > sub-optimal, non-tournament decks. I'm also not completely convinced that Ahrimanes decks are strictly sub-optimal by using Taste of Vitae instead of Engling Fury. I definitely intend to test this out. Pros: - higher upside (damage from Crows + Bats, or Crows + Howler - combat is very frequent, as you're blocking a lot or getting blocked since your actions are only ever at 2 stealth Cons: - S:CE will drive you nuts - have to be in combat to use it It could also be the case that a mix of Taste and Engling is the better plan. > > As I've said elsewhere, the absence of Engling > > Fury does not render an Ahrimanes deck inoperable. > > I agree. But I think the fact that it isn't as good > a deck is something that makes for bad rarity policy > in a CCG. If you only need a few of them, and acquiring them isn't a hardship, then I'm fine with it. I'm even more fine with it if there are alternatives that can be explored. - Ben Peal

In article <1130282639.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote: > Cool! A voice of dissent! :) > > Assuming you had unlimited access to Engling Furies, how > many would you have included in your deck? I think 4, maybe 6 (not such, would've had to playtest it a bit). They are essentially "free" when you like in a low-intercept environment (which is no longer true around here, but pretty much was back then) and nicely supplement the Voter Caps to fuel Minion Tap. Hmm, maybe 6 is too many. Maybe I'll have the opportunity to verify it one day.

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> schreef in bericht news:1130454147.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Well, as you say, we have different value judgements > with respect to this. I use casual games to test out > decks until I attain proof of concept, at which point > I seek harder-to-acquire cards that would make the > deck better. As an aside, you don't play casual games with proxies? We do all the time. It's a great way of trying out a concept without having to go through the hassle of acquiring the card before you can test the viability of a deck.

(Not so much a commentary on the relative merits of printing Engling Fury as a rare any more. And I'm not that interested in the EF-vs.-Taste-of-Vitae issue.) "fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130454147.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> > At the tournament level, it's probably better to use >> > Engling Fury instead of Taste of Vitae, but I could >> > very well be wrong about that. At the casual level, >> > it's totally fine to use Taste of Vitae or Life in >> > the City. >> >> That's your particular value judgement. Personally, I >> aim to have all my decks work as well in casual play as >> in tournament play. For me, the main difference is that >> casual play is where I might try to experiment some and >> the inevitable result is that my average deck will be >> weaker. > > Well, as you say, we have different value judgements > with respect to this. I use casual games to test out > decks until I attain proof of concept, Sure. This is experimentation. > at which point > I seek harder-to-acquire cards that would make the > deck better. This way, I can still have fun playing > the game with the cards I have, spending the effort > towards tournament card acquisition only when I need > to (or when it's convenient). > >> But I find it no less frustrating to use a sub-optimal >> deck in casual play than in tournament play. And I >> would never, for instance, build a deliberately sub- >> optimal deck based on the rationale that it's "only >> for casual play". > > Huh. I do that all the time. Well, maybe not so > much deliberately sub-optimal, but rather building > a deck knowing that even at its optimal design point, > it'll still only ever be 2nd tier at best (if that). Sure. But notice that is not the same thing as building a deliberately sub-optimal decks. I may not like fried chicken as much as spaghetti for lunch, but I'll still eat it some of the time for variety's sake. And when I do, I don't leave the salt off... > Sometimes I just have cards I've never used that I > feel like trying out for the same of trying them out. > Every so often, one of these decks shows itself to > be better than it appears. Gosh. That sounds an AWFUL lot like experimentation. > Sometimes I'll just build something 'cause it's got > some subjective "fun" feel to it, for when I don't > feel up for a really competitive game, but rather > just want to hang out with the crew and play some > games and have fun. I guess I don't do that so much. For one thing, I REALLY doubt I make as effective of a "fun" deck as you do. My "fun" decks tend to mostly be fun for my predator, heh! But yea, I guess if I threw variety onto my list of things to accomplish in informal play, it would be a more accurate description. Fred

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > As an aside, you don't play casual games with proxies? > We do all the time. It's a great way of trying out a > concept without having to go through the hassle of > acquiring the card before you can test the viability > of a deck. For V:TES, I don't play with proxies. I can usually test for proof of concept by using alternate cards when needed. For head-to-head ccgs, I'll go the proxy route. Still, I agree that proxies are a fine way to try out an idea before you start trading around and buying. - Ben Peal

Fred Scott wrote: > And I'm not that interested in the EF-vs.-Taste-of-Vitae > issue. Er...why? I certainly don't want to pressure you into a discussion you don't want to have, but I do find this peculiar. If it can be shown that Taste of Vitae is at least as good as Engling Fury in an Ahrimanes deck, isn't that highly beneficial information to would-be Ahrimanes players? (As an aside, I don't view this as a "my argument vs. your argument" thing. I like exploring the game to find out what is and isn't possible.) >> Sometimes I'll just build something 'cause it's got >> some subjective "fun" feel to it, for when I don't >> feel up for a really competitive game, but rather >> just want to hang out with the crew and play some >> games and have fun. > >I guess I don't do that so much. For one thing, I >REALLY doubt I make as effective of a "fun" deck >as you do. My "fun" decks tend to mostly be fun for >my predator, heh! Heh, you'd be surprised by some of my "fun" decks, then. Some of them test the limits of my "I don't ever take decks apart" patience. :) - Ben Peal

"fudjo" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:1130529321....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> And I'm not that interested in the EF-vs.-Taste-of-Vitae >> issue. > > Er...why? I certainly don't want to pressure you into a > discussion you don't want to have, but I do find this > peculiar. If it can be shown that Taste of Vitae is at > least as good as Engling Fury in an Ahrimanes deck, > isn't that highly beneficial information to would-be > Ahrimanes players? Just a personal thing with strategy arguments. If the facts are fairly apparent and agreed upon by all parties, then you can go from there in a discussion. But I find far too many disputes about strategy in the game boil down to "my facts" vs. "your facts", which in turn hinges on a number of things the opposing parties will never resolve: personal style and approach to strategy and tactics, local metagame, the differing observations each has experienced in games they've watched, and so on. If you're right that Taste of Vitae makes an effective substitute for Engling Fury, then I'd agree that you probably have something. Then the Engling Fury thing starts looking more like War Ghouls in Tzimisce decks: just a matter of strategy choices which the fortunate ones who have obtained Engling Furies can make and the others have to go the Taste of Vitae route. But you pointed at what I think is the huge shortcoming to ToV in your own post: they have to be used in combat against opponents who don't don't Dodge or S:CE your strikes. Therefore, for my money, they are likely to be far too inconsistent to use as a satisfactory replacement for Engling Fury. > (As an aside, I don't view this as a "my argument vs. > your argument" thing. I like exploring the game to > find out what is and isn't possible.) Absolutely. I learn a great deal about the game by being wrong in these Usenet discussions. (Of course, I've been wrong so often in this place, you'd think I'd be a damn expert by now. But no. :-P ) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Taste of Vitae: * Must be played in combat, exposing one's minion to danger * Must successfully inflict damage in combat, no effect if Dodged/Prevented * Must be played at end of a round, Obedience/Strike: Combat ends thwart it * Must survive the combat, not a given by any means * Taste of Vitae is variable in effect, from 0 to any number of blood gained * Opposing vampires may be low on blood, nullifying effect * Can't be played vs non-vampires * No untap after combat except via another card * Can be played multiple times in a single combat, once per round Engling Fury: * +1 stealth undirected action, exposing vampire to predator and prey blocks * Gains 2 blood without fail, regardless of other table considerations * Free untap if successful * Is not a hunt and so avoids effects with modify hunting * Only one Engling Fury per vampire per turn Pretty clear to me Engling Fury is superior. I'd almost always want EFs over ToVs if forced to pick. The downsides are small, the largest being only one per turn per vampire. But ToV has more serious restrictions while Ahrimanes can fight well, they're not truly a combat clan. Just fuel for the fire. ;) Jeff

Fred Scott: > Just a personal thing with strategy arguments. If > the facts are fairly apparent and agreed upon by > all parties, then you can go from there in a > discussion. But I find far too many disputes about > strategy in the game boil down to "my facts" vs. > "your facts", which in turn hinges on a number of > things the opposing parties will never resolve: > personal style and approach to strategy and > tactics, local metagame, the differing observations > each has experienced in games they've watched, > and so on. Oh, definitely. In head-to-head games, there's almost always a clear, objective answer. In multiplayer games, things are subjective and less clear. > If you're right that Taste of Vitae makes an effective > substitute for Engling Fury, then I'd agree that you > probably have something. Then the Engling Fury > thing starts looking more like War Ghouls in Tzimisce > decks: just a matter of strategy choices which the > fortunate ones who have obtained Engling Furies > can make and the others have to go the Taste of > Vitae route. But you pointed at what I think is the > huge shortcoming to ToV in your own post: they have > to be used in combat against opponents who don't > don't Dodge or S:CE your strikes. Therefore, for my > money, they are likely to be far too inconsistent to > use as a satisfactory replacement for Engling Fury. Another problem with Taste is that you have to be dishing out extra damage to make it more beneficial than Engling, and there will likely be times where you're just punching for one. On the flip side, I can certainly see Engling Fury getting blocked, since you're usually only ever taking the action at 2 stealth. My expectation is that Taste of Vitae is slightly less effective than Engling Fury, but that's not going to stop me from trying it out. At which point we can get into a "my facts" vs. "your facts" discussion. ;) - Ben Peal

Jeff Kuta wrote: > Pretty clear to me Engling Fury is superior. No intercept in your play group? :) - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The worst thing for an intercept deck that wants to take actions is sitting next to another intercept deck. An Ahrimanes deck with a Rotschrecky predator would probably not prefer Engling Fury to Taste of Vitae. Matt Morgan

> Taste of Vitae: > * Must be played in combat, exposing one's minion to danger > * Must successfully inflict damage in combat, no effect if > Dodged/Prevented > * Must be played at end of a round, Obedience/Strike: Combat ends > thwart it > * Must survive the combat, not a given by any means > * Taste of Vitae is variable in effect, from 0 to any number of blood > gained > * Opposing vampires may be low on blood, nullifying effect > * Can't be played vs non-vampires > * No untap after combat except via another card > * Can be played multiple times in a single combat, once per round I just want to chime in that since Taste of Vitae obviously can't operate in a vacuum, that consideration for on of the most played Animalism cards, Carrion Crows, must be considered to effectively negate the dodge handicap of Taste as its damage is environmental. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Ben said: > You would have a difficult time trading away an $8 rare? > That's weird. Yes. Engling Fury is just not an "exciting" card, so people don't want to trade another $8 rare for it--I certainly don't. > > I disagree with your reasoning here. > > The SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR in how much a rare card is > > worth is Bigness. Just like M:TG players will pay too damn much > > for ANYTHING that gets printed with the word "dragon" on it... > > There are no "big" cards in the Power 9. Really? I suppose I was thinking Type II, but even in Type I, I think it holds: "Take an extra turn after the current one" is arguably the biggest effect in the game. "Shuffle all cards in hand, graveyard, and library together" is pretty impressive, plus it's one of the "Draw 7" cards. Ask a Type I player "What's the best card in the whole game?", and they'll usually answer either Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall. Plus, either can cost $1500. I don't know how much bigger than that you're looking for. Perhaps I shouldn't have given "dragon" as an example. I was thinking about the release of Rathi Dragon in Tempest. For other examples, I hear Twincast was $20 prerelease weekend, and still doesn't get used in almost any tournament level deck. Time Warp comes to mind. These are all cards which are expensive only sometimes because they were tournament cards, and always because they are impressive spells. Maybe I should have said, "Flashiness", or "How impressed will my opponent be when I play THIS baby". Beta cards cost more than their unlimited counterparts, which cannot be due to tournament value, since they're exactly the same cards, just one is more impressive. > Yes, there are in M:TG (to use the industry term) "kiddie cards" - > cards that have little to no tournament value but fetch relatively > high prices because they're "big" Um...paying 12 for a 7/7 isn't impressive, it's wasteful. Erhnam Djinn is "bigger", in this way, than Craw Wurm. Yes, beginning players are impressed enough by the numbers in the bottom corner, but the thing I'm trying to describe is a quality cards have when, on their own, they get noticed--either because they change the game significantly when played, they do something no other card does, or even just because they're hyped up. These are "big" cards, and players are attracted to these cards. Another way to look at it is, the quality that Urza's Bauble lacks entirely. :) (Urza's Bauble can be a very strong addition to a deck, but it's the minor-est effect in existence. That's why I think it's the perfect example of the opposite of what I'm talking about.) > - but the cards with the highest > cost in Type II and Extended are the ones with the most > tournament value. For example, among the current high sellers > are Umezawa's Jitte, Pithing Needle, Cranial Extraction, Gifts > Ungiven, Glimpse the Unthinkable, and the "shock lands" - not > a big shiny creature amongst them. Even the big shiny creatures > that were expensive in the past couple of years (Kokusho, > Arcbound Ravager, Darksteel Colossus) were expensive because > they had high tournament usefulness. Umezawa's Jitte is powerful in Type 2 and borderline to broken in Limited. The thing has an AMAZING effect on the game, it'd be hard for them to design something BIGGER. Pithing Needle, I'll give you, it doesn't feel "impressive" really. But Gifts Ungiven? FOUR DEMONIC TUTORS ISN'T BIG??? I think rare land is another topic entirely. Lands being rare is shit and a big reason why I don't play anymore. That would be the V:TES equivalent of most vampires being rare, and it's basically gouging the player...I do think it's a special circumstance in this cost-discussion. > Right now, Shivan Dragon is a $4-$5 card. (though the new art sucks) Sure, Slappy's been around for what, 12 years? Not impressive anymore. Of _course_ he's not still pulling in $12. Shivan Dragon isn't "big" anymore--imagine if Ur-Shulgi had been around since Day 1. I doubt he would have the same "feel", since we'd have seen plenty of decks use him. I imagine that alone would have halved his price. (You'd have to somehow adjust for rarity, make him exactly as rare as he is now, cause otherwise if he was in Jyhad there'd be like 12 million copies of him, but I think you can understand what I'm saying.) > War Ghoul and Week of Nightmares owe their cash value to > their utility in top-tier tournament decks and their scarcity. OK, I think War Ghoul's price is high because ALL of the factors are in play on him--he's big, he's rare, he's usable in multiples, etc. Still, I think if War Ghoul was as powerful (cost/effect) but not as powerful (total effect) it would be worth quite a bit less money. If nothing else, people wouldn't think he's as cool or be as interested in building the deck. And Week of Nightmares is almost always one of 1-2 copies in the deck. How many players need more than 2 copies, ever? I own and use more Creepshow Casinos than WoN's. I think if scarcity influenced price all that much, Week would cost less $. I think it's the tournament level and the bigness that make it so expensive. > The Final Nights 11-caps owe their cash value to a combination > of scarcity and the feeling that you need a handful of a given one > of them to build a deck around it. Bigness might be a factor. What kind of a deck, a winning deck? With like 4-6 copies of one of the FN 11-caps? Unlikely. In fact, even a casual deck, I'm not sure why you'd need more than 2 or 3 tops. > Similarly to the Final Nights 11-caps, Call the Great Beast owes > its cash value to a combination of scarcity and the feeling that you > need a bunch of it to build a deck with it, typically 8 or so. I use 7, but I found them quickly, before the layout change even. I didn't find "scarcity" to be an issue at all. Now that they've been reprinted, and after a few bloodlines packs, I have 10 or 11, I have surplus. Maybe somewhere else they're hard to find, but I'd still bank on multiplicity and Bigness being the overwhelming influences in this card's value. > Basically, the price of a card is based mainly on the following: > > - Usefulness Agree > - Quantity desired in a deck Strongly agree--any rare you can need 10 of is expensive. > - Scarcity I disagree. Scarcity has to be pretty exaggerated, like "Only a rare in Sabbat", to affect the price. And even then, Marianna and Dan don't break the bank, and they're arguably the least available cards around...they're the only two vampires who are not in print, right? Regular rares, unless they also fall into one of the other categories here, don't usually go for that much money. > - "bigness" I no longer support my claim that it's the #1 factor, as I now believe "quantity desired in the average deck" is the #1. However, I believe bigness still comes in at #2, simply because a card with only this one quality (out of these four) will still cost plenty. (Assuming it's a rare.) > In the case of Conflagration, there really aren't viable > alternatives. In the case of Engling Fury, what's wrong with > Life in the City and Taste of Vitae? If your Ahrimanes don't fight, Taste of Vitae is all wrong. Conflagration is often redundant for Mary the Black, since she can already pay 1 for agg, and Presence can avoid combat often enough that I'm not sure they really "need" conflagration to be competitive. Well, "to be as competitive as they are", anyway. > Among the things I think about with > respect to development and the game are: > > - What cards does a given deck/archetype need to win? > - How expensive (money, effort, trading) are these cards? > - If these cards are very expensive, does that prohibit > casual players from playing that deck/archetype, or are > there alternatives (including not using the card at all)? Just because a deck can still win without something (or with less of it) doesn't mean players don't want to use lots of it anyway. If players would like to use it in multiples, I would hope it would be available in multiples. I definitely think that if Engling Fury and War Ghoul were both uncommon, we'd see more of both, but that just shows that there aren't enough. > If you don't have enough copies of War Ghoul, you're obviously > prohibited from playing a War Ghoul deck at the tournament > level. At the casual level, you can still at least play other > Tzimisce decks, and even one War Ghoul is still good in them. How good is it for the game if our new players can't acquire 12 War Ghoul and then get stomped by a 12 War Ghoul deck? It sounds discouraging. I like that new players can build virtually any deck they can imagine within their first couple months if they're willing to get out there and trade, and any deck which costs so much as to serve as a counterexample seems like a bad thing. > Would it have been nice if Engling Fury was common or > uncommon? Sure, I'd be fine with it. However, I don't think > it's an injustice that it's still rare. Not an injustice, simply inappropriate. The same way Dreams being in two starters is "appropriate". > > Only looking at TWD's is only asking players who have the > > same answer. They all have at least enough copies of Engling > > Fury to win a tournament, by definition. So no offense, but it's > > useless data. > > Horseshit. If you can demonstrate that players can be > successful with Ahrimanes without 6-10 copies of Engling > Fury, then that's useful. 4-5 is still too many. It would be better if the card were made more available. This is possibly a misunderstanding underlying our debate: The question was not, in my mind, whether Ahrimanes are strong. The question was whether existing players would benefit from more circulation of Engling Fury. If we are discussing where we would have put the rarity of a card, I'm not certain rarity of other cards is relevant, unless you want to look to precedent. If we had been asking only whether Ahrimanes were strong, I would have said, "Yeah, they're really good," and we would never have been talking about rarity in the first place. So, if we're arguing about what I thought we were arguing about--which is, how rare Engling Fury should be--then we should determine whether most players feel they have too many, about the right count, or too few Engling Furies. Since my experience leads me to believe that most players feel they have too few, I would want to know how many people feel they have too few, and by how many. Asking the ten people who clearly have enough copies to make TWDA would not be helpful in figuring out whether to print more because they are no longer in the market for the card. Similarly, if I wanted to sell hot dogs, I would not ask, "Who's full?". > If 10 people can win at the > tournament level with Ahrimanes (the most of any Bloodlines > clan in the TWDA, btw, and more than 4 clans that have been > around for 10 years) without 6-10 copies of Engling Fury, > then what does that say for people playing at the casual level? It says something unrelated to Engling Fury's rarity. If players want more of it, more should be printed, regardless of what other cards are strong. It says that players can succeed without it--but then, a card's rarity should not be based off of the decks that don't use it. > Might we see more Ahrimanes decks in the TWDA if there > were more Engling Furies running around? Seems probable, > since there would be more players with a few Engling Furies, > and 10 decks with a few Engling Furies are already there. > Would it be significantly more? *shrug* Who cares? Players are short on Engling Fury either way. > Is it insurmountably hard to get 2-4 Engling Furies for a > tournament deck? Getting 2-4 copies of an $8 card will > take some work, sure - it is a _collectible_ card game, after > all - but it's not _that_ difficult. It's not insurmountable, no, but IMHO, It's harder than it should be and harder than it's worth. > Buy them or trade for them Not worth it. Maybe I don't speak for all players on this, but certainly some portion of us. Question: At what point does "buy them or trade for them" become not a good idea, in your book? I believe there exists a point when a card is not difficult to get, but many players will no longer put out the effort because it's not worth it to them, and I wonder if you agree with this or if you think "buy them or trade for them" is always good advice to keep the proper cards getting to the proper people. -- Brian

Brian Moritz wrote: > Ben said: > > You would have a difficult time trading away an $8 rare? > > That's weird. > > Yes. Engling Fury is just not an "exciting" card, so people > don't want to trade another $8 rare for it--I certainly don't. Email me your want list. :) > > > I disagree with your reasoning here. The SINGLE BIGGEST > > > FACTOR in how much a rare card is worth is Bigness. Just > > > like M:TG players will pay too damn much for ANYTHING that > > > gets printed with the word "dragon" on it... > > > > There are no "big" cards in the Power 9. > > Really? I suppose I was thinking Type II, but even in Type I, > I think it holds: > > "Take an extra turn after the current one" is arguably the > biggest effect in the game. > > "Shuffle all cards in hand, graveyard, and library together" > is pretty impressive, plus it's one of the "Draw 7" cards. > > Ask a Type I player "What's the best card in the whole game?", > and they'll usually answer either Black Lotus or Ancestral > Recall. Plus, either can cost $1500. I don't know how much > bigger than that you're looking for. The Power 9 is the Power 9 mainly because of how strong their game effect is, and less so because of some "MegaDragonzor Pwns Joo" factor. > Beta cards cost more than their unlimited counterparts, which > cannot be due to tournament value, since they're exactly the > same cards, just one is more impressive. Right, there's an aesthetic value for some people, and a collector value for some people. > Umezawa's Jitte is powerful in Type 2 and borderline to > broken in Limited. The thing has an AMAZING effect on > the game, it'd be hard for them to design something BIGGER. Right, but the picture of the Jitte is just some prongy knife thing, and note the words "effect on the game". > But Gifts Ungiven? FOUR DEMONIC TUTORS ISN'T BIG??? Again, "effect on the game". > I think rare land is another topic entirely. Lands being > rare is shit and a big reason why I don't play anymore. > That would be the V:TES equivalent of most vampires being > rare, and it's basically gouging the player...I do think > it's a special circumstance in this cost-discussion. Yeah, it really sucks that if you want to build a tournament-grade Magic deck, you have to buy a bunch of $20 cards (the shock lands will probably reach $30 - we can't keep them in stock at $20). At least in V:TES, nearly all the rare vamps are crappy. Heh...speaking of which, have there ever been "bigger" cards in V:TES than Ian Forestal and Nephandus? :) > And Week of Nightmares is almost always one of 1-2 copies > in the deck. How many players need more than 2 copies, > ever? I own and use more Creepshow Casinos than WoN's. > I think if scarcity influenced price all that much, Week > would cost less $. I think it's the tournament level > and the bigness that make it so expensive. If you're playing a tournament-caliber Ravnos deck, you're using 1-2 copies of Week of Nightmares. Its effect is just that strong, and why its cost is so high despite the low number you use in a deck. > > The Final Nights 11-caps owe their cash value to a > > combination of scarcity and the feeling that you need > > a handful of a given one of them to build a deck > > around it. Bigness might be a factor. > > What kind of a deck, a winning deck? With like 4-6 copies > of one of the FN 11-caps? Unlikely. In fact, even a casual > deck, I'm not sure why you'd need more than 2 or 3 tops. *shrug* They suck anyway. :) > > - Scarcity > > I disagree. Scarcity has to be pretty exaggerated, like > "Only a rare in Sabbat", to affect the price. If two cards have the same effectiveness and the same number required in a deck, but one is scarcer than the other, the most scarce one will cost more. > And even then, Marianna and Dan don't break the bank, and > they're arguably the least available cards around...they're > the only two vampires who are not in print, right? See: "effectiveness" > > In the case of Conflagration, there really aren't viable > > alternatives. In the case of Engling Fury, what's wrong > > with Life in the City and Taste of Vitae? > > If your Ahrimanes don't fight, Taste of Vitae is all wrong. So don't use Taste in that deck. Most Ahrimanes decks are intercept-combat decks, so they'll want to consider Taste. > > Among the things I think about with > > respect to development and the game are: > > > > - What cards does a given deck/archetype need to win? > > - How expensive (money, effort, trading) are these cards? > > - If these cards are very expensive, does that prohibit > > casual players from playing that deck/archetype, or are > > there alternatives (including not using the card at all)? > > Just because a deck can still win without something (or with > less of it) doesn't mean players don't want to use lots of it > anyway. However, if the deck couldn't win without something, then players _definitely_ would want it. If the deck can win without something, then people will want that thing less. > If players would like to use it in multiples, I would hope > it would be available in multiples. I definitely think that > if Engling Fury and War Ghoul were both uncommon, we'd see > more of both, but that just shows that there aren't enough. Or it shows that some people want them more than other people. > How good is it for the game if our new players can't acquire > 12 War Ghoul and then get stomped by a 12 War Ghoul deck? > It sounds discouraging. New players can certainly build other tier one tournament decks. > > Would it have been nice if Engling Fury was common or > > uncommon? Sure, I'd be fine with it. However, I don't > > think it's an injustice that it's still rare. > > Not an injustice, simply inappropriate. > > The same way Dreams being in two starters is "appropriate". I hear the Brujah, !Nosferatu, and Anathema starters have 2 Taste of Vitae. (!Brujah and Nosferatu starters have 1) > > If you can demonstrate that players can be successful > > with Ahrimanes without 6-10 copies of Engling Fury, > > then that's useful. > > 4-5 is still too many. It would be better if the card were > made more available. I certainly wouldn't object to Engling Fury becoming uncommon or common. I just don't think it's necessary. I also disagree that 4-5 is "too many". > This is possibly a misunderstanding underlying our debate: > > The question was not, in my mind, whether Ahrimanes are strong. > The question was whether existing players would benefit from > more circulation of Engling Fury. Would existing players benefit from being cognizant of a possible viable alternative that is less rare and less expensive? It's not cut and dry that Engling Fury is superior to Taste of Vitae. (My Ahrimanes deck is now suitably modified and awaits testing.) > If we are discussing where we would have put the rarity of > a card, I'm not certain rarity of other cards is relevant, > unless you want to look to precedent. I'm fine with precedent. (yikes...can 'o worms there...) > So, if we're arguing about what I thought we were arguing > about--which is, how rare Engling Fury should be--then we > should determine whether most players feel they have too > many, about the right count, or too few Engling Furies. Dude, I can complain endlessly about how I don't have enough copies of all sorts of cards. > Since my experience leads me to believe that most players > feel they have too few, I would want to know how many > people feel they have too few, and by how many. Asking > the ten people who clearly have enough copies to make TWDA > would not be helpful in figuring out whether to print more > because they are no longer in the market for the card. > > Similarly, if I wanted to sell hot dogs, I would not ask, > "Who's full?". If I was looking to buy hot dogs, I would definitely ask that. I would also ask, "How many hot dogs did you eat before you became full?" I would then plan my meal accordingly. > > If 10 people can win at the tournament level with > > Ahrimanes (the most of any Bloodlines clan in the > > TWDA, btw, and more > > than 4 clans that have been around for 10 years) > > without 6-10 copies of Engling Fury, then what does > > that say for people playing at the casual level? > > It says something unrelated to Engling Fury's rarity. > If players want more of it, more should be printed, > regardless of what other cards are strong. If a player is looking to build a competitive/successful deck with a given card, they'll want to know how many of that card they'll need and how difficult it will be to attain them. If you can demonstrate that they need fewer than they expect (as the 10 entries in the TWDA do), then the task of acquiring those cards becomes easier for them. If you're a developer trying to decide what should be rare and what should be common, among the criteria is "what do players need a few of and what do players need a lot of?" > It says that players can succeed without it--but then, a > card's rarity should not be based off of the decks that > don't use it. Basing a card's rarity on the amount of it that is used seems perfectly fine to me. Certainly you'll have to factor in other criteria, but using that criteria alongside the others makes sense. > > Might we see more Ahrimanes decks in the TWDA if there > > were more Engling Furies running around? Seems probable, > > since there would be more players with a few Engling > > Furies, and 10 decks with a few Engling Furies are > > already there. Would it be significantly more? *shrug* > > Who cares? Players are short on Engling Fury either way. I'll say this until I'm blue in the face: You either buy or trade to get the few that you need/want, or you use alternatives. > > Is it insurmountably hard to get 2-4 Engling Furies > > for a tournament deck? Getting 2-4 copies of an $8 > > card will take some work, sure - it is a _collectible_ > > card game, after all - but it's not _that_ difficult. > > It's not insurmountable, no, but IMHO, It's harder than it > should be and harder than it's worth. Then use alternatives. > > Buy them or trade for them > > Not worth it. Maybe I don't speak for all players on this, > but certainly some portion of us. Then use alternatives. > Question: At what point does "buy them or trade for them" > become not a good idea, in your book? When the difficulty to acquire a card for a top-tier deck becomes prohibitive and alternatives do not exist. In the case of War Ghoul, you can build successful decks with 1 or 2, but I still think the supply should be increased. Also, the supply of Direct Intervention should be increased if there are no plans to ban/modify it. > I believe there exists a point when a card is not difficult > to get, but many players will no longer put out the effort > because it's not worth it to them... Not everyone is going to want to pay the same amount for the same thing. > and I wonder if you agree with this or if you think "buy > them or trade for them" is always good advice to keep the > proper cards getting to the proper people. I'm fine with using free market economics to get the proper cards to the proper people, so long as it doesn't adversely affect the game environment/balance. In the case of Engling Fury, I think it has yet to be demonstrated that its scarcity is hurting the game environment/balance. - Ben Peal

> The Power 9 is the Power 9 mainly because of how strong their > game effect is, and less so because of some "MegaDragonzor > Pwns Joo" factor. Big is impressiveness, big is hype, big is people want this card, ***POWERFUL*** ***OR NOT***. If many people want to own a card ***who have no intention of playing it***, then it's Big. That's what makes a card's price go up. Seriously. And your statement above, I disagree. They first BECAME the Power Nine because of their game effect (though, Time Walk and Ancestral always had bigness). But now, The Power Nine have become legendary, and have clout way beyond any playability concern. Some are pre-sealed now just so they won't be played and will retain value. Today, no single card, in any card game, has more Big than Black Lotus. The next 8 runners-up are probably the rest of the Power Nine, followed by Library of Alexandria and Mana Drain. And I say that Mana Drain has more tournament value than Timetwister; has for years. People open a pack of a new set, any card game, and already decide which cards they want to acquire, before any tournament value has been decided. Regardless of that value, in some cases. Like I said, Twincast, Time Warp. But if there are people who want it just cause it's big, it WILL sell. > > Umezawa's Jitte is powerful in Type 2 and borderline to > > broken in Limited. The thing has an AMAZING effect on > > the game, it'd be hard for them to design something BIGGER. > > Right, but the picture of the Jitte is just some prongy > knife thing, and note the words "effect on the game". Doesn't matter. If people who haven't seen the Kamigawa block yet have heard of Jitte, It's Big. I bet people trade for it with no intention of building a deck around it all the time, just to have more of the damn thing. > > But Gifts Ungiven? FOUR DEMONIC TUTORS ISN'T BIG??? > > Again, "effect on the game". Again, the HYPE. It _happens_ to have a large effect, but the IDEA that you're tutoring for four things is a catchy idea regardless of the reality of the card, making it big. > At least in V:TES, nearly all the rare vamps are crappy. > > Heh...speaking of which, have there ever been "bigger" > cards in V:TES than Ian Forestal and Nephandus? :) Right, Ian's all talk. :) > > And even then, Marianna and Dan don't break the bank, and > > they're arguably the least available cards around...they're > > the only two vampires who are not in print, right? > > See: "effectiveness" Weenie presence is one of the tournament-deck archetypes. PRE on a 4-cap isn't effective? > > Just because a deck can still win without something (or with > > less of it) doesn't mean players don't want to use lots of it > > anyway. > > However, if the deck couldn't win without something, then > players _definitely_ would want it. If the deck can win > without something, then people will want that thing less. Equivocation of terms for "want less": The number of people who want the card will be unchanged. The number of that card they will want will remain unchanged. The amount that they need it to play will go down, but they would still use the same number if they had their druthers. It doesn't make these players non-competitive, but slightly less competitive. (Assuming that the "something" is better (slightly) than the other option, and that people are being rational.) > > If players would like to use it in multiples, I would hope > > it would be available in multiples. I definitely think that > > if Engling Fury and War Ghoul were both uncommon, we'd see > > more of both, but that just shows that there aren't enough. > > Or it shows that some people want them more than other > people. ? I don't understand your response. If some people want them more, then they will accumulate in those peoples' collections--that will happen regardless of supply. So what does it have to do with whether there are enough or not? > I certainly wouldn't object to Engling Fury becoming uncommon > or common. I just don't think it's necessary. Sure, not necessary. What about, from scratch? If you used your mighty Temporis skillz and went back in time to before Bloodlines was printed, and you used Dominate to control LSJ, what rarity would Engling Fury have? Cause if I had those, it'd be uncommon. (And of course I'd have a lot more money. Time control + mind control is pretty strong.) > Dude, I can complain endlessly about how I don't have > enough copies of all sorts of cards. Um...sure, but players might think you're mocking them. Don't you have more decks than anyone else anywhere? > If you're a developer trying to decide what should be rare > and what should be common, among the criteria is "what do > players need a few of and what do players need a lot of?" Based on theoretical tournament decks, or a cross-section of all decks? Because if it's tournament decks, Corruption should be ultra-rare. I argue that non-tournament decks factor in, and Corruption should be printed common, so people can use it at all. If just what tourney players need is used, Engling was...acceptable as a rare. As there also exist casual decks and players' whims, I would say uncommon. > > Who cares? Players are short on Engling Fury either way. > > I'll say this until I'm blue in the face: You either buy > or trade to get the few that you need/want, or you use > alternatives. And I'll say this back: If you're Ben Peal. If you're NOT a competitive tournament player, or are also one, your casual decks will always take a back seat to other decks or real-world concerns such that $8 a few times per deck doesn't happen. Yes, if it's a priority, it will happen. If it's not? Players need the cards to be available. I'll bet you didn't have any trouble getting enough Wakes or Blood Dolls before they were put frantically into starters and tournament packs, but many people didn't, and they sent out more. And I applaud that decision. As available as those cards were, someone deemed that more of them would be better. And don't tell me about necessity in a deck; this is only a response to "buy or trade to get the few that you need/want": That even though that's always an option, that's not always enough. > > It's not insurmountable, no, but IMHO, It's harder than it > > should be and harder than it's worth. > > Then use alternatives. OK, now apply to 80% of Ahrimanes players. > > > Buy them or trade for them > > > > Not worth it. Maybe I don't speak for all players on this, > > but certainly some portion of us. > > Then use alternatives. Say this to 80% of all Ahrimanes players. In the end, only the 10 guys in your sample will have enough. > > Question: At what point does "buy them or trade for them" > > become not a good idea, in your book? > > When the difficulty to acquire a card for a top-tier > deck becomes prohibitive and alternatives do not exist. That last part may be where we disagree. To me, if card X is the best card for the job, and card Y is sub-par, then alternatives do NOT exist, if I'm entering a tournament with this deck. > In the case of War Ghoul, you can build successful > decks with 1 or 2, but I still think the supply should > be increased. Also, the supply of Direct Intervention > should be increased if there are no plans to ban/modify > it. Yeah, I'd say the "must-reprints" at this point are: Direct Intervention War Ghoul Freak Drive (still) Powerbase: Montreal > In the > case of Engling Fury, I think it has yet to be demonstrated > that its scarcity is hurting the game environment/balance. I suppose I'm mostly arguing that people want more than there are, so there should be more. You're arguing that it hasn't affected the _game_, even if individuals may wish they had more. I can accept both of those as true and non-mutually-exclusive. Call it? -- Brian

The answer you both want is contained in the question both of you have failed to ask. A hint at it can be found here: firstco...@aol.com wrote: >Ben wrote: >> Who cares? Players are short on Engling Fury either way. >> I'll say this until I'm blue in the face: You either buy >> or trade to get the few that you need/want, or you use >> alternatives. > > And I'll say this back: If you're Ben Peal. If you're NOT a > competitive tournament player, or are also one, your casual decks will > always take a back seat to other decks or real-world concerns such that > $8 a few times per deck doesn't happen. Yes, if it's a priority, it > will happen. If it's not? The question is: What kinds of players do you want "enough" cards to be easily available to? -- Joe Student, who can afford maybe a couple starters and some boosters per set that comes out, and has to make do from there with occasional booster single purchases? He doesn't play tournaments, just weekly with the friends. -- Ralph Gruntjob, who makes an OK living for himself but doesn't have a whole lot of money left for toys, so he buys a box and maybe some starters out of each set, and then mostly trades and buys a few singles? He may show up at local tournaments, but doesn't often win; he's just there for fun. -- Janet Suburbia (Weiss?), who's married with no kids yet, plays V:TES on the side, and both she and her husband work so they have quite a bit of disposable income... enough for a couple boxes of boosters and starters per set, along with some major trades and singles purchases? She shows up at ALL local tournaments, and may travel to one major per year. -- Ben Peal, who has a high-paying job and focuses a lot of his spare time around V:TES; meaning that he has resources available to spend towards V:TES that very few others do, and as such has gallons of most cards and goes all over the country(-ies) to play. When you've defined your target audience, it should be easy to determine how much Engling Fury, War Ghoul, etc. you need to print. -- Derek insert clever quotation here

Derek Ray wrote: > The answer you both want is contained in the question both of you have > failed to ask. A hint at it can be found here: > > { snip explanation for space } > > When you've defined your target audience, it should be easy to determine > how much Engling Fury, War Ghoul, etc. you need to print. > The target audience should probably be Joe Gruntjob, though a market analysis study would probably be necessary to determine, a) how many Joe Gruntjobs there are compared to Ben Peals, b) whether or not Ben Peals will still buy a lot of cards even if the game is aimed more at the Joe Gruntjobs, and c) whether Joe Gruntjob will still buy his share of cards if the game is aimed more at Ben Peal. Decipher games seem to always cater to the Ben Peals (actually, they cater more to the especially obsessive fan boys who may never even play the game, but must have a full set of the bridge crew or whatever). Jyhad has always at least put up the illusion of catering to the Gruntjobs. In the Real World, more businesses than not make their money by selling to the working or lower class. You can sell yachts that .01% of the population will spend $200k on, or you can sell cheeseburgers that 90% of the population will spend 69 cents on (per burger, of course). Most of the time the second business model makes more money. And as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, businesses keep sprouting up to further make money off the poor - stuff like Payday Loans and Household Finance (which gives out extremely high-interest loans to people who can barely afford to pay them back). So, should it be easy to determine how many Engling Furies need to be printed? Well, enough for Joe Gruntjob to buy a box and get about 5 of them... How's that?

Brian Moritz wrote: > > The Power 9 is the Power 9 mainly because of how strong > > their game effect is, and less so because of some > > "MegaDragonzor Pwns Joo" factor. > > Big is impressiveness, big is hype, big is people want this > card, ***POWERFUL*** ***OR NOT***. And...uh...how many non-powerful cards are "big" in Magic right now? > If many people want to own a card ***who have no intention of > playing it***, then it's Big. That's what makes a card's > price go up. Seriously. That can be one factor, sure. > And your statement above, I disagree. They first BECAME the > Power Nine because of their game effect (though, Time Walk > and Ancestral always had bigness). But now, The Power Nine > have become legendary, and have clout way beyond any > playability concern. Some are pre-sealed now just so they > won't be played and will retain value. Today, no single card, > in any card game, has more Big than Black Lotus. The next 8 > runners-up are probably the rest of the Power Nine, followed > by Library of Alexandria and Mana Drain. And I say that Mana > Drain has more tournament value than Timetwister; has for > years. Yeah, the Power 9 has a lot of hype and bigness factor, but you don't see people chasing after Cyclopean Tombs for a Type 1 deck. > People open a pack of a new set, any card game, and already > decide which cards they want to acquire, before any tournament > value has been decided. Regardless of that value, in some > cases. Like I said, Twincast, Time Warp. They make a judgement based on what they expect the value to me. Some cards sure look like they're going to be good, and even if they're not used in any deck in the format at the time, they _might_ used in Extended, so there's still that expected value. > But if there are people who want it just cause it's big, it > WILL sell. Sure, kiddie cards exist. > > > Umezawa's Jitte is powerful in Type 2 and borderline to > > > broken in Limited. The thing has an AMAZING effect on > > > the game, it'd be hard for them to design something BIGGER. > > > > Right, but the picture of the Jitte is just some prongy > > knife thing, and note the words "effect on the game". > > Doesn't matter. If people who haven't seen the Kamigawa block > yet have heard of Jitte, It's Big. I bet people trade for it > with no intention of building a deck around it all the time, > just to have more of the damn thing. They trade for more of them because they're expensive. They're expensive because they're powerful in the game. How big is Arcbound Ravager now? > > > But Gifts Ungiven? FOUR DEMONIC TUTORS ISN'T BIG??? > > > > Again, "effect on the game". > > Again, the HYPE. It _happens_ to have a large effect, but the > IDEA that you're tutoring for four things is a catchy idea > regardless of the reality of the card, making it big. Gifts Ungiven is a very good card. It's also less expensive than a shock land. > > > And even then, Marianna and Dan don't break the bank, and > > > they're arguably the least available cards around...they're > > > the only two vampires who are not in print, right? > > > > See: "effectiveness" > > Weenie presence is one of the tournament-deck archetypes. PRE > on a 4-cap isn't effective? It's effective, but how many decks out there want Mariana? The answer: pretty much just weenie presence So, as obviously good as she is in that deck, she doesn't have a lot of utility beyond that. > > > Just because a deck can still win without something (or with > > > less of it) doesn't mean players don't want to use lots of it > > > anyway. > > > > However, if the deck couldn't win without something, then > > players _definitely_ would want it. If the deck can win > > without something, then people will want that thing less. > > Equivocation of terms for "want less": > The number of people who want the card will be unchanged. The > number of that card they will want will remain unchanged. The > amount that they need it to play will go down, but they would > still use the same number if they had their druthers. It doesn't > make these players non-competitive, but slightly less competitive. Uh...where on earth do you get this idea? If the need for a card is less, then how does the demand stay the same? > > > If players would like to use it in multiples, I would hope > > > it would be available in multiples. I definitely think that > > > if Engling Fury and War Ghoul were both uncommon, we'd see > > > more of both, but that just shows that there aren't enough. > > > > Or it shows that some people want them more than other > > people. > > ? I don't understand your response. If some people want them more, > then they will accumulate in those peoples' collections--that will > happen regardless of supply. So what does it have to do with whether > there are enough or not? So on one hand you're telling me that there aren't enough cards, but on the other hand you're telling me that some people can't be bothered to trade for them, despite the fact that acquiring a few Engling Furies isn't cost-prohibitive. I don't get it. > > I certainly wouldn't object to Engling Fury becoming uncommon > > or common. I just don't think it's necessary. > > Sure, not necessary. What about, from scratch? If you used your > mighty Temporis skillz and went back in time to before Bloodlines > was printed, and you used Dominate to control LSJ, what rarity would > Engling Fury have? > > Cause if I had those, it'd be uncommon. (And of course I'd have a > lot more money. Time control + mind control is pretty strong.) Certainly I would have preferred that it be uncommon. However, I'm not upset that it's rare - and not because I'm Mr. Suitcase. > > Dude, I can complain endlessly about how I don't have > > enough copies of all sorts of cards. > > Um...sure, but players might think you're mocking them. Don't you > have more decks than anyone else anywhere? Yes, I bought a set of shelves to store my V:TES cards. Yes I have a zillion decks built. Do I have enough Rock Cats for my Rock Cat deck? No. Do I have enough Mind of a Killer for the Mind of a Killer deck I want to build? Hell no. Do I have enough Neutral Guard in case the rumors about Saulot are true? No. I'm also not unsympathetic to the needs and wants of players who don't spend anywhere nearly as much money as I do on this game. Often times when I'm trading with other players, I tell them that as much as I want the card I'm asking for, they really shouldn't trade it to me because of how useful or valuable it is. I've also spent a lot of my V:TES "career" demonstrating that you don't need gobs of rares to build successful tournament decks. > > If you're a developer trying to decide what should be rare > > and what should be common, among the criteria is "what do > > players need a few of and what do players need a lot of?" > > Based on theoretical tournament decks, or a cross-section of all > decks? Because if it's tournament decks, Corruption should be > ultra-rare. I argue that non-tournament decks factor in, and > Corruption should be printed common, so people can use it at all. AMONG THE CRITERIA. > > > Who cares? Players are short on Engling Fury either way. > > > > I'll say this until I'm blue in the face: You either buy > > or trade to get the few that you need/want, or you use > > alternatives. > > And I'll say this back: If you're Ben Peal. If you're NOT a > competitive tournament player, or are also one, your casual > decks will always take a back seat to other decks or real-world > concerns such that $8 a few times per deck doesn't happen. Yes, > if it's a priority, it will happen. If it's not? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA USE TASTE OF VITAE!!!!!!!!!!! NNNNERRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH > Players need the cards to be available. I'll bet you didn't have > any trouble getting enough Wakes or Blood Dolls before they were > put frantically into starters and tournament packs, but many people > didn't, and they sent out more. And I applaud that decision. Maybe that also had something to do with Wakes and Blood Dolls not being in the boosters of any expansion that White Wolf printed. (I applauded the decision, too) And yeah, the $6 boxes of Jyhad certainly helped my stock of Wakes and Blood Dolls. > As available as those cards were, someone deemed that more of them > would be better. And don't tell me about necessity in a deck; this is > only a response to "buy or trade to get the few that you need/want": > That even though that's always an option, that's not always enough. > > > > It's not insurmountable, no, but IMHO, It's harder than it > > > should be and harder than it's worth. > > > > Then use alternatives. > > OK, now apply to 80% of Ahrimanes players. TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE > > > > Buy them or trade for them > > > > > > Not worth it. Maybe I don't speak for all players on this, > > > but certainly some portion of us. > > > > Then use alternatives. > > Say this to 80% of all Ahrimanes players. > In the end, only the 10 guys in your sample will have enough. TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE TASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAETASTEOFVITAE > Yeah, I'd say the "must-reprints" at this point are: > <snip> > Powerbase: Montreal Now there's a "big" card. Wow, is PB:Montreal overrated. > > In the > > case of Engling Fury, I think it has yet to be demonstrated > > that its scarcity is hurting the game environment/balance. > > I suppose I'm mostly arguing that people want more than there are, > so there should be more. You're arguing that it hasn't affected > the _game_, even if individuals may wish they had more. I can > accept both of those as true and non-mutually-exclusive. > > Call it? I don't have more time to argue 'cause I have a plane to Budapest to catch, so, sure. Deal. :) - Ben Peal

Chris Berger wrote: >Decipher games seem to always cater to the Ben Peals... Unless the words "wants to burn down" and "hellish rampage" are included, do not ever use "Ben Peal" and "Decipher" in the same sentence. Of course, I know you bastards too well. Within moments, we'll see posts such as: "Ben Peal wants to burn down all of his pants and underwear in a hellish rampage, then go to the Deciper warehouse and have a big tea party with all the character cards from Decipher's games." - Ben Peal

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Derek Ray wrote: > The answer you both want is contained in the question both of you have failed > to ask. > > The question is: What kinds of players do you want "enough" cards to be > easily available to? > [snip] > -- Janet Suburbia (Weiss?), who's married with no kids yet, plays V:TES on > the side, and both she and her husband work so they have quite a bit of > disposable income... enough for a couple boxes of boosters and starters per > set, along with some major trades and singles purchases? She shows up at ALL > local tournaments, and may travel to one major per year. > I'd like to publicly state that I'm a Janet Weiss (slut!), and I need more Engling Furies (and a whole host of other cards, too). And more Cow Bell! I'll never be a Ben Peal (mostly because my hair doesn't grow that long), but also because I abhor singles purchases. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Mwhahahah! <clickity-clackity of my keyboard> Doh! Beaten to the punch. XZ