Consumer revolution?

Hello everybody I just wanted to know how many boxes of CE you bought to have all the new vamps you need. With 1 box and 7 decks i still can't find even the basics to build a complete 3rd group cript, and nobody in my city seems to have enough vamps to trade. I'm starting to think (it's late now, i know. I think slooowly) that 2 vamps in every booster are not enough. what do you all think out there? maybe i'm just the most pretentious consumer ever ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmmm...I'm not much of a set collector but I haven't really had *too much* trouble getting the vamps I need. Then again, maybe that's because I haven't used too much Group 3 vamps! I bought 2 booster boxes and have gotten a handful of loose boosters here and there from tourneys and such but I haven't had that much of a problem. I know some people in my playgroup who have also been scrambling to get various vamps but I just don't really see the problem. On a different note, have you thought about having some draft events? Drafting from a sealed deck tourney is always a decent way to round out your collection... Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] I have had a similar problem. I have only just managed to get Tyler and Hrothulf to complete the set of vamps (through trading), and I still haven't managed to get doubles of any really useful vamps that would make me jump to group 3 crypts (except fleshing out group 2), and I have opened about 50 or so boosters. However, with only 11 cards in a booster pack, I probably wouldn't want more than 2 vamps in a booster, although if the number was to go up to 12, a third vamp wouldn't be a bad thing. Just my 10pence worth (If anyone wants to mail me their needs for CE vamps, then do so and I'll see what I have to trade, as I am still in need of some more!) Andy "Slytherin" Brown VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge SET awakens, watch out all non-believers

"Andrea" <aea...@yahoo.it> schreef in bericht news:f27fffb8.0301...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I've had some help from an Ancient Hearts display. I've had 1 Tremere starter, 1 CE display and 1 AH display. So far, I'm still missing out, but I _do_ have 3 Muaziz ... I mean ... MwuhahahahhaZiz ... -- http://vtes.sentientbeings.com - V:TES Collection and Deck builder http://www.finalfantasygoodies.nl - Final Fantasy Collectibles.

Andy Brown <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<3E22A49B...@sanger.ac.uk>... > Andrea wrote: > > I have had a similar problem. I have only just managed to get Tyler > and Hrothulf to complete the set of vamps (through trading), and I still > haven't managed to get doubles of any really useful vamps that would > make > me jump to group 3 crypts (except fleshing out group 2), and I have > opened about 50 or so boosters. > > However, with only 11 cards in a booster pack, I probably wouldn't want > more than 2 vamps in a booster, although if the number was to go up to > 12, > a third vamp wouldn't be a bad thing. > > Just my 10pence worth > > (If anyone wants to mail me their needs for CE vamps, then do so and > I'll > see what I have to trade, as I am still in need of some more!) this makes me think of another question. I was used to trade old V rarity vamps for 2 commons. (uncommon= 3commons and rare = 3 uncommons). but now that vamps are so rare if somebody have CE vamps to trade HOW do YOU ALL manage this?

"Andrea" <aea...@yahoo.it> wrote in message news:f27fffb8.03011...@posting.google.com... [snip] > I was used to trade old V rarity vamps for 2 commons. (uncommon= > 3commons and rare = 3 uncommons). but now that vamps are so rare if > somebody have CE vamps to trade HOW do YOU ALL manage this? The new good/popular vamps I usually trade for 1 uncommon. But then all uncommons have varying values. In answer to your previous question; I have had no bother trading for group 3 vamps that I need and those I haven't found I have bought as singles ranging from $0.50 to $2.00. Having said that, I have only been looking for Malkavians, tremere and a fer Toreador. John

[ quoted text not captured ] Assuming I did some trading to get what I could use, I would probably have enough. I've opened around 5 boxes. CE vampires have the same rarity as R2s. BTW, bit of a tangent, for those who already have comprehensive collections, CE is really about trying to get uncommons and vampires. The latter are obviously the bulk of the new cards (and relatively rare). The former includes such winners as Freak Drive and Torn Signpost. But, it also has a lot to do with the rares just not being that good collectively.

>this makes me think of another question. >I was used to trade old V rarity vamps for 2 commons. (uncommon= >3commons and rare = 3 uncommons). but now that vamps are so rare if >somebody have CE vamps to trade HOW do YOU ALL manage this? I value them in a range from: toss in (CE available in the precons or not very useful one I have 5+ of) to low value rare. Put another way, somewhere above a common and below a valued rare depending upon how useful the card is.

>CE vampires have the same rarity as R2s. BTW, bit of a tangent, for those >who >already have comprehensive collections, CE is really about trying to get >uncommons and vampires. The latter are obviously the bulk of the new cards >(and relatively rare). The former includes such winners as Freak Drive and >Torn Signpost. But, it also has a lot to do with the rares just not being >that >good collectively. > Yes. I've had my fill of R2's that were reprinted and have the same old art. Anyone need any more Tasha Morgans or Mr. Winthrops? =P Halcyan 2

I'm starting to think (it's late > now, i know. I think slooowly) that 2 vamps in every booster are not > enough. > what do you all think out there? 2 vampires in each boost is WAY enough for my tastes. I have lots of doubles of all the ones I want and many I don't. > maybe i'm just the most pretentious consumer ever ;) No, but you're a collector. Some of us are mainly players, and therefore don't play all the clans and use some as trading baits for the ones they want. -- Orpheus http://no.exit.free.fr http://cypheranima.free.fr http://mandragons.free.fr "I wish I was a sailor A thousand miles from here I wish I had a future Anywhere" David Bowie

> 2 vampires in each boost is WAY enough for my tastes. I have lots of doubles > of all the ones I want and many I don't. It is just about right. We had about 8 booster displays of CE and we do not have 4 copies of each vampire (We usually acquire at least 4 copies of each vamp, because that is the maximum we include in one crypt for trick decks). > No, but you're a collector. Some of us are mainly players, and therefore > don't play all the clans and use some as trading baits for the ones they > want. I am no collector, I am a player but there is not one single clan, sect whatever I have not played yet. I hate tweaking the same old deck for months (maybe that愀 why I do not win tourneys ;-)). It gets annoying after some time. I do not like the other players in the playgroup to play always the same clans or decks because if they bring new decks every time there is a challenge, otherwise you can almost guess the outcome of a game. Someone made a good point about "useless" rares. There are some rares which are good but you cannot include more than 1 in a single. So if you have 2-3 of these it is enough. But it sucks to swap the Dreams of the Sphinx from deck to deck :-) -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de johanne...@vekn.de

"Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> wrote in message news:3e23413a$0$270$626a...@news.free.fr... > 2 vampires in each boost is WAY enough for my tastes. I have lots of doubles > of all the ones I want and many I don't. Heh, clearly you don't play a lot of "my deck only works if I get out Marty Lechthansi" type decks. :-) There are quite a few CE vampires that I want to own 5 or 6 of, so that I can make decks based around them. (Tyler, Helena, Jaroslav Pascek, etc.) Granted, not everyone likes to make those kinds of decks, and they're not necessarily *good* decks. But to me, in a set like CE, where all the vamps are new and most of the new cards are vamps, there's enough demand for the vamps for there to be at least 2 in a pack. 3 would be even better for my taste, I think - 3 in a 12-card pack most likely better than 3 in 11 - but 2 is probably a decent compromise between people like me and people like you... since in theory you could trade the extra copies of vamps you don't want to me for stuff that you do. :-) > No, but you're a collector. Some of us are mainly players, and therefore > don't play all the clans and use some as trading baits for the ones they > want. Well, I don't consider myself more of a collector than a player - I've never put together complete sets in binders of any expansion - but I admit that I do buy an awful lot of cards, and like to have enough to play *all* the clans, not just some of them. Josh and let me tell you, i had to do some ebay-purchasing to get enough true brujah for that...

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20030113145453...@mb-cs.aol.com... > CE vampires have the same rarity as R2s. BTW, bit of a tangent, for those who > already have comprehensive collections, CE is really about trying to get > uncommons and vampires. The latter are obviously the bulk of the new cards > (and relatively rare). The former includes such winners as Freak Drive and > Torn Signpost. But, it also has a lot to do with the rares just not being that > good collectively. Which is a good thing for the game, mostly (that the rares aren't that good), since it means that you don't have to buy *totally* absurd amounts of cards to get enough multiples of "the good stuff". But I'd say that there are plenty of good rares in CE, it's just that people with large collections may already have enough of them, since they are mostly not "more powerful in large numbers" cards, after the CE changes to Temptation of Greater Power and Hostile Takeover. Derange, Giant's Blood, Ivory Bow, Magic of the Smith, Millicent Smith, Protected Resources, Smiling Jack, Society of Leopold, Soul Gem all stand out to me as things that even people with significant collections might need more of. Not that your point isn't valid, and (I think) partly a result of people arguing on the newsgroup that "useful in large multiples" cards should be uncommon if not common (and now they mostly are). Of course, the vampires being all new, there's a lot more of them that *everyone* needs multiples of, compared to the rares, which are mostly reprints of things that've been printed a lot. Josh you own it

In article <b017q7$kd502$1...@id-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Heh, clearly you don't play a lot of "my deck only works if I get >out Marty Lechthansi" type decks. :-) There are quite a few CE >vampires that I want to own 5 or 6 of, so that I can make decks >based around them. (Tyler, Helena, Jaroslav Pascek, etc.) You know, I ran the stats for this once, and the boost from 4 to 5 is negigible (in % of crypt draws where you don't get at least 1 of <Vamp>), like 90 to 92% or something. Lessee, odds of drawing at least one, given number of copies: 3 copies: 74.54% 4 copies: 85.85% 5 copies: 92.92%. 6 copies: 96.96% So 4 copies gives you a Marty 5 out of every 6 games, roughly, while 5 copies raises it to around 10 in 11. I dunno, I'm happy with 5 in 6. YMMV. gomi -- there's a place called heaven and a place called hell there's a place called prison and a place called jail and daddy's probably on his way to all of them, except one...

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > You know, I ran the stats for this once, and the boost from 4 to 5 is > negigible (in % of crypt draws where you don't get at least 1 of <Vamp>), > like 90 to 92% or something. > > Lessee, odds of drawing at least one, given number of copies: > > 3 copies: 74.54% > 4 copies: 85.85% > 5 copies: 92.92%. > 6 copies: 96.96% > > So 4 copies gives you a Marty 5 out of every 6 games, roughly, while 5 > copies raises it to around 10 in 11. I dunno, I'm happy with 5 in 6. > YMMV. The percentages are right, but the roughlies are a little rougher than need be. 4 of 12 gives you a better than 6 of 7 chance. 5 of 12 gives you a better than 13 of 14 chance Computing it the other way, for better comparison: 4 of 12: 14.14% chance of not getting Marty. (less than 1/7 = 14.28%) 5 of 12: 7.07% chance of not getting Marty. (less than 1/14 = 7.1428%) So adding the fifth cuts your chances of being stranded without Marty by half (not exactly what anyone would consider a negligible change). If you're happy with 6 in 7, though, cutting it by half may not be worth the increased chances of drawing too many, of course. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On 14 Jan 2003, Gomi no Sensei wrote: > So 4 copies gives you a Marty 5 out of every 6 games, roughly, while 5 > copies raises it to around 10 in 11. I dunno, I'm happy with 5 in 6. > YMMV. MMV. ;) I mean, what if (hypothetically) you've got a bunch of no life-havin', fiending Jyhad junkies that play 6 games a week? And what if you're a weenie hating, 'gimmee my ten-caps or give me death' kind of guy? That'd be one game of Jyhad a week down the pooper! No thanks, man! David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E2467C0...@white-wolf.com... > Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > You know, I ran the stats for this once, and the boost from 4 to 5 is > > negigible (in % of crypt draws where you don't get at least 1 of <Vamp>), > > like 90 to 92% or something. > > > > Lessee, odds of drawing at least one, given number of copies: > > > > 3 copies: 74.54% > > 4 copies: 85.85% > > 5 copies: 92.92%. > > 6 copies: 96.96% > > > > So 4 copies gives you a Marty 5 out of every 6 games, roughly, while 5 > > copies raises it to around 10 in 11. I dunno, I'm happy with 5 in 6. > > YMMV. > > The percentages are right, but the roughlies are a little rougher than need be. > > 4 of 12 gives you a better than 6 of 7 chance. > 5 of 12 gives you a better than 13 of 14 chance Yeah, like David, I find 85% insufficient (4 copies in 12). 5 is enough if I can afford to not have the vamp right away once in a while (93%), but for real peace of mind (when the deck is *totally* based on the vamp and can't really do *anything* without it), I like the 97% chance (6 in 12). Things that only happen 15% of the time actually happen pretty often... only one game in six, on average, yes, but if you play four rounds in a tournament, the chance of drawing at least one *all* of those four games is only 52%. (ie, 48% of not getting your "key" vamp in the initial four, in at least one round.) Josh i don't got no time to play around what is this

go...@panix.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > So 4 copies gives you a Marty 5 out of every 6 games, roughly, while 5 > copies raises it to around 10 in 11. I dunno, I'm happy with 5 in 6. > YMMV. Origins, friendly game, 5 copies (out of 12) of Dragos in "DATTHNGVBD". Dragos was not in the opening crypt, nor was he the first vampire drawn off the top of the crypt, nor was he the next one drawn. At this point, I was pretty much gone already, and wouldn't have time to pay for yet another draw off the top of the crypt for a (near) certain Dragos *and* transfer him out. I really really wish I had a 6th copy of Dragos. Maybe I do these days, but I'm not sure. ...sigh... Xian

In message <b01u02$kge0p$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E2467C0...@white-wolf.com... >> Gomi no Sensei wrote: >> > You know, I ran the stats for this once, and the boost from 4 to 5 is >> > negigible (in % of crypt draws where you don't get at least 1 of <Vamp>), >> > like 90 to 92% or something. >> > >> > Lessee, odds of drawing at least one, given number of copies: >> > >> > 3 copies: 74.54% >> > 4 copies: 85.85% >> > 5 copies: 92.92%. >> > 6 copies: 96.96% >> > >> > So 4 copies gives you a Marty 5 out of every 6 games, roughly, while 5 >> > copies raises it to around 10 in 11. I dunno, I'm happy with 5 in 6. >> > YMMV. >> >> The percentages are right, but the roughlies are a little rougher than need be. >> >> 4 of 12 gives you a better than 6 of 7 chance. >> 5 of 12 gives you a better than 13 of 14 chance > >Yeah, like David, I find 85% insufficient (4 copies in 12). 5 is >enough if I can afford to not have the vamp right away once in a >while (93%), but for real peace of mind (when the deck is *totally* >based on the vamp and can't really do *anything* without it), I >like the 97% chance (6 in 12). My Cailean-gets-a-Combat-Shotgun deck uses 5 Cailean. Keep in mind that if I don't have a Cailean first turn, I can always get a weenie, fish, and turn my chances into the next-higher-up for a small delay. 4 in 12 isn't enough... >Things that only happen 15% of the time actually happen pretty >often... only one game in six, on average, yes, but if you play You mean like rolling doubles on a set of dice? 16.6%. =) No, I definitely don't trust 4 in 12. =) -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

xb...@qwest.net (Xian) wrote in message > I really really wish I had a 6th copy of Dragos. Maybe I do these > days, but I'm not sure. > > ...sigh... > > Xian well now you have stated that to build a single vamp deck you need at least 5, maybe 6 copyies of that vampire. 2 vamps in a single booster, Johannes Walsh stated that in 8 "booster displays" he doesn't have 4 copy of every vamp, so to have at least 2 copy of important vampires (not all but at least the basics) you need 4 booster displays (i hope this definition is used for "boxes") and some trading. btw i'm not a collector, i'm just a player with tons of blood puppy and not the vamps i need :| sure now it's late to start polemics about the number of vamps in every booster. thank you all for sharing your impressions AND WAIT FOR MY TRADING EMAILS! :) Reagards Andrea