3rd Edition Thoughs

Adequate card stock (survives the bend test) The premature wear on the edges sucks. Players loved the solid booster packs rather than some of the very thin wrappers that past sets have featured. Can anyone help me with why the starter decks are split into two sealed sections. It appeared that all the rares and vampires were in one "section" so I cannot imagine that it is for demo or teaching purposes. The draft effects are coolness The cards themselves are interesting. Why bother with uncommons? Why not just print all vampires as uncommon, have a rare slot, and everything else is common. It would make sooo much sense. New players get the card they need, older players get decent amounts of the new stuff. Maybe the odd uncommon like Black hand did but nothing new... just reprints where we do not need to see whole bunches of the cards. And why the frell are there no references to the imbued in the rulebook? We have trophy and redlist in the rules, but I stll have to haul around 5 rules cards to figure out those freakish imbued. I do not even think that the imbued appear in the glossary or even get a mention in the rule book. This of course led to hopeful speculation at the pre-release that the imbued would like to be forgotten by White Wolf or perhaps our wildest dreams would come true and they would be banned. Since the next set is rumored (confirmed?) to be a sixty card set there will be no starters and no imbued rules in their either. Sad. -John P. Winnipeg

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in message news:Jm_Kg.2599$Y_2...@newsfe19.lga... > Adequate card stock (survives the bend test) > > The premature wear on the edges sucks. > > Players loved the solid booster packs rather than > some of the very thin wrappers that past sets have featured. > > Can anyone help me with why the starter decks are split > into two sealed sections. It appeared that all the rares and > vampires were in one "section" so I cannot imagine that it > is for demo or teaching purposes. > The decks in the player's kit are also wrapped and about the same thickness; we speculated that it was an assembly line issue, i.e., easier to set up all the wrapping equipment to wrap everything all the same size, as opposed to resetting it to wrap the starters in a single packet. > The draft effects are coolness > Amen! > The cards themselves are interesting. > Yep. > And why the frell are there no references to the imbued > in the rulebook? We have trophy and redlist in the rules, > but I stll have to haul around 5 rules cards to figure out > those freakish imbued. I do not even think that the imbued > appear in the glossary or even get a mention in the rule book. > This of course led to hopeful speculation at the pre-release that the > imbued would like to be forgotten by White Wolf or perhaps our > wildest dreams would come true and they would be banned. > Since the next set is rumored (confirmed?) to be a sixty card > set there will be no starters and no imbued rules in their either. > Sad. > Didn't even notice that... sign me up for Club Hopeful Speculation. :) But I do find it odd that they were missing, particularly since there had to be a number of other changes to this rulebook (regent, draft effects, etc.). I got at least one rulebook that was trimmed so that the page numbers were missing, but that wasn't a universal problem, and it wasn't that a big a problem to boot. - Pat

John P. <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote: > And why the frell are there no references to the imbued > in the rulebook? 1.5 Crypt Cards "...Some advanced expansions include other types of crypt cards. Details for these types can be found on the web site...." Note: SOME advanced expansionS. Note: other typeS of crypt cards. Setting us up for something, or just trying to use the most generic wording?

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:0dWdnd5zhtxNJmHZ...@comcast.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That is interesting. John P. Winnipeg

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in message news:Jm_Kg.2599$Y_2...@newsfe19.lga... > Why bother with uncommons? Why not just > print all vampires as uncommon, have a rare slot, > and everything else is common. It would make sooo > much sense. Eh? What about cards that are less useful in large numbers than common cards but more useful in larger numbers than rare cards? I don't understand the question. The usefulness of having an uncommon ratio is obvious. Actually, every card in the game probably varies a bit in what their "ideal" numbers should be and such theorectical ideals probably vary with time (that is, as newer editions shift the metagame utility of existing cards). But delving into such complexities probably wouldn't earn White Wolf any money so we get common, uncommon, and rare. What's a game theory nerd to do? Well, at least let's keep the uncommons, where possible. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > Eh? What about cards that are less useful in large > numbers than common cards but more useful in larger > numbers than rare cards? > > I don't understand the question. The usefulness > of having an uncommon ratio is obvious. Actually, > every card in the game probably varies a bit in > what their "ideal" numbers should be and such > theorectical ideals probably vary with time (that is, > as newer editions shift the metagame utility of > existing cards). But delving into such complexities > probably wouldn't earn White Wolf any money so we > get common, uncommon, and rare. What's a game > theory nerd to do? > > Well, at least let's keep the uncommons, where > possible. > > Fred There are no uncommons.... only 110 R2s. Begin painful math.... Given: Each 3rd Ed. booster contains 11 cards 5 commons, 2 uncommons, 3 vamp, 1 Rare There are 100 different commons in boosters, all of which appear to be reprints There are 100 different uncommons in boosters There would seem to be 100 different vampires in the boosters. (I'm uncertain exactly how many of the 124 vampires are starter only, excluding the reprinted vamps but I suspect 100 is the number.) There are 90 different rares, 80 R1 and 10 R2. ------------------ We get 5 commons per booster 36 boosters a box 100 commons to select from 5 * 36 / 100 = 1.8 of each common in one box ------------------ We get 2 uncommons per booster 36 boosters 100 uncommond to select from 2 * 36 / 100 = 0.72 of each uncommon in one box or one and a half boxes for a complete set of uncommons (on average) ------------------ Similarly for vampires: 3*36/100 = 1.08 of each vampire in one box ------------------ Rares: 36 Rares in a box 80% of those rares are R1. 36 * 0.80 = 28.8 R1s / 80 R1s total = 0.36 of each R1 per box or a complete set of R1s in three boxes. 20% of those rares are R2. 36 * .20 = 7.2 R2s / 10 R2s total = 0.72 of each R2 per box (one and a half boxes to get a full set) ---------------------- Now if you have been paying attention you will notice that what white wolf has done here is made uncommons the same rarity as R2s. So you buy a box of 36 boosters and you expect to get 0.72 of each uncommon and 0.72 of each R2. The theory of rarities with respect to VTES has always seemed to be that the rares are cards you do not need a whole bunch of (eg: Praxis seizures, Crusades) although there have been exceptions (eg War Ghouls). By cramming uncommons into boosters in addition to the vampire slots (where a few uncommons used to reside) and having so many uncommons in a set, they have elevated uncommons to R2s. So while my initial post said to do away with uncommons and put them in the common slot, your response was that we needed uncommons. What has actually happened though is that there is no uncommons, just 110 R2s in the set with 3 R2s and either another R2 or an R1 in the booster. I would rather see a proliferation of the new cards than have a hard time finding them. Now if White Wolf had decided to print 7 commons in each booster (7c 3v 1R) and made the existing commons into C2s the following occurs: C2: 1.68 copies per box (you get 12 less of the reprinted commons in a single box) c1: 0.84 copies per booster (you get 12 more uncommons which includes new cards per box of boosters) and the R2s are actually slightly more rare than C2s. If we made the reprinted commons cards C3 and the "uncommons" C2 you would get 1.5 of each reprinted common in a box and 1.0 of each common. Are more "uncommons" per box and less "commons" that important? While they are to me, and anybody trying to make Tupdog decks or Mexico City circle blood brothers probably thinks so cause this jerking around the rarities is what made them difficult to get in sufficient numbers. Well I've done more math here than I like to do in several years. Ignore it as you please. Call a common a common, an uncommon an uncommon. Uncommons need to be more plentiful than rares and commons must be more plentiful than both. Either cut down the number of uncommons in a set or deal with it in some other manner please. -John P. Winnipeg

John P. wrote: > There are no uncommons.... only 110 R2s. > Begin painful math.... > Alternately, there are 110 Uncommons and only 80 Rares. > Given: > > Each 3rd Ed. booster contains 11 cards > 5 commons, 2 uncommons, 3 vamp, 1 Rare > > There are 100 different commons in boosters, all of which appear to be > reprints > You haven't looked at the setlist, have you? I mean, your math is spot on, but a quick scan gives me at least 10 new commons. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > John P. wrote: > > There are no uncommons.... only 110 R2s. > > Begin painful math.... > > Alternately, there are 110 Uncommons and only 80 Rares. Indeed. CE had the reverse proportion of Uncommons and Vampires. As the vampires in CE were all new and the C/U/R sheets mostly reprints, this led to some concern voiced about the number of pack purchases required to complete a set. With 3E in pretty much the same boat (albeit with a larger percentage of new library cards in the boosters), well, here we are. R2's have historically been closer to U's than to R's, except for SW and BL, where R2 fell exactly at the midpoint between R and U. > > Given: > > > > Each 3rd Ed. booster contains 11 cards > > 5 commons, 2 uncommons, 3 vamp, 1 Rare > > > > There are 100 different commons in boosters, all of which appear to be > > reprints > > > > You haven't looked at the setlist, have you? I mean, your math is spot > on, but a quick scan gives me at least 10 new commons. 12 new C 12 new U 3 new R2 9 new R1

"John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1157480626.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Eh? What about cards that are less useful in large >> numbers than common cards but more useful in larger >> numbers than rare cards? >> >> I don't understand the question. The usefulness >> of having an uncommon ratio is obvious. Actually, >> every card in the game probably varies a bit in >> what their "ideal" numbers should be and such >> theorectical ideals probably vary with time (that is, >> as newer editions shift the metagame utility of >> existing cards). But delving into such complexities >> probably wouldn't earn White Wolf any money so we >> get common, uncommon, and rare. What's a game >> theory nerd to do? >> >> Well, at least let's keep the uncommons, where >> possible. > > There are no uncommons.... only 110 R2s. Well, sure. If you want to look at it that way, there are no commons. Only 100 R5s. Or 100 U2-and-1/2s. This point seems to have no profound implications I can perceive nor any that you've communicated so far. So WtF?!? (long and obvious calculations ellided for brevity...) > Now if you have been paying attention you will notice that what white > wolf has done here is made uncommons the same rarity as R2s. Sure. All rarity levels can be likewise be compared to other rarity levels by multiplying the relative instance indicator. You find this profound? > So you buy a box of 36 boosters and you expect to get > 0.72 of each uncommon and 0.72 of each R2. > > The theory of rarities with respect to VTES has always seemed to be > that the rares are cards you do not need a whole bunch of (eg: Praxis > seizures, Crusades) although there have been exceptions (eg War > Ghouls). By cramming uncommons into boosters in addition to the vampire > slots (where a few uncommons used to reside) and having so many > uncommons in a set, they have elevated uncommons to R2s. > > So while my initial post said to do away with uncommons and put them in > the common slot, your response was that we needed uncommons. What has > actually happened though is that there is no uncommons, Of course there are uncommons. The cards in the uncommon slots are uncommons. The point that their commonality is exactly equal to an R2 is interesting on some rarity-geek level but it really doesn't alter the fact. It does illuminate the point that you should never try to understand rarity from just the textual, subjective description of the rarity level (that is, "rare", "uncommon", or "common") alone. Accurate information includes all the factors: number of slots in the pack, instances printed on the card sheet, total number of cards on the card, and price of the pack. I just take all this as understood by anyone who wants to discuss. > I would rather see a proliferation of the new cards than have a hard > time finding them. I'm not sure what this statement means. "Proliferation" is a poor choice of words, I think, to convey your meaning. Do you mean that you want to see lots of different new cards designed and printed? Or that you want to see the new cards that _have_ been designed and printed get into the hands of more people? Or possibly something else? > Now if White Wolf had decided to print 7 commons in each booster (7c 3v > 1R) and made the existing commons into C2s the following occurs: > C2: 1.68 copies per box (you get 12 less of the reprinted commons in a > single box) > c1: 0.84 copies per booster (you get 12 more uncommons which includes > new cards per box of boosters) > and the R2s are actually slightly more rare than C2s. > > If we made the reprinted commons cards C3 and the "uncommons" C2 you > would get 1.5 of each reprinted common in a box and 1.0 of each common. I'm not sure what you're getting at. All of a sudden, you're changing the subject from "Should there be an uncommon rarity level?" to a question of the commonality of reprinted vs. new cards. The one has nothing to do with the other. Perhaps you're unaware that under the system used in Third Edition, the new cards are spread out over all rarity levels in almost equal numbers, not counting the vampires: 12 rare (1 R2 rare, I believe), 12 uncommon, and 12 common. Furthermore, that goal really has nothing to do with the use of an uncommon rarity level - you could pursue it or ignore it equally well with or without an uncommon level, though some of the specific means of doing so would change. And yet furthermore, the goal of increasing the overall commonality of new cards is not a universally shared one. Your first post suggested that this is an obvious goal ("...make so much sense.") but it really is not. Third Edition is supposed to be a base set. This is a goal that is to a fair degree diametrically opposed to the notion of filling it with new expansion cards. In fact, for player purposes, the best choice would be to have no new cards in Third Edition at all - leaving to the individual players whether they needed reprinted cards or not. If they don't, they can just ignore the set altogether. The problem comes when you print a few new cards amongst a card population of that's predominantly reprints, since both newer and older players need the new cards but only the newer players need the reprints in great number. Unfortunately, White Wolf wants to see Third Edition to older players as well so they're "salting" it with enough new cards - including the vampires - to put us over a barrel without really interfering with the goal of including enough well-tested staple cards to make it usable as a base set. > Are more "uncommons" per box and less "commons" that important? No. > While > they are to me, and anybody trying to make Tupdog decks or Mexico City > circle blood brothers probably thinks so cause this jerking around the > rarities is what made them difficult to get in sufficient numbers. I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Common vampires in an all-new-card expansion is yet a totally different subject once again.. > Call a common a common, an uncommon an uncommon. We are. > Uncommons need to be more plentiful than rares They are - they just aren't more plentiful than R2s. When you bring instance numbers into the discussion, you confuse the definition of "rare", "uncommon", and "common" - which are terms that don't accurately describe precise rarity levels and never have - even more than it already is. And, as far as I can see, the above statement has no merit. Uncommons don't really need to be more plentiful than rare (twos). They just need to be an intuitive identifier of the relative number of slots in a pack. > and commons must be more plentiful than both. > Either cut down the number of uncommons in a set or deal with it in > some other manner please. I still have no idea what it is that bothers you about them. I see no problem whatsoever with the rarity scheme in this sense. I would rather see whole editions of cards be either all reprints or all new cards. From a player perspective, _that_ makes sense. But I suspect it has little chance to happen as long as White Wolf perceives they can make more money overall by salting a base set with a few new cards. Fred

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157481468.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > You haven't looked at the setlist, have you? I mean, your math is spot > on, but a quick scan gives me at least 10 new commons. > > -- > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew Sadly you are correct. After opening 22 boosters I had seen no new commons and made the unfortunate leap that there were none. Which, after you sift through all the crap I tend to litter my posts with when I've gotten excited about something, gets back to my motivating point - its going to be tough to get sufficient numbers of the new cards. And before someone else pipes up that I should buy on ebay or from Jeff, I do purchase from both, and that is the only reason I still collect this game. I find it trying to say the least that I cannot get sufficient cards that I want from boosters without boxes on boxes of product. -John P. Winnipeg

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:CfkLg.7791$Mz3.1826@fed1read07... > "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1157480626.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... >> Fred Scott wrote: >>> Eh? What about cards that are less useful in large >>> numbers than common cards but more useful in larger >>> numbers than rare cards? I would rather have more cards than I can use than not enough cards to use effectively. I can give away extra cards. I cannot use or give away what I do not have. >>> I don't understand the question. The usefulness >>> of having an uncommon ratio is obvious. Not obvious to me to me if it means having an uncommon slot means I will have difficulty getting the quantity of each card I feel I need. A narrow point of view perhaps. >>>Actually, >>> every card in the game probably varies a bit in >>> what their "ideal" numbers should be and such >>> theorectical ideals probably vary with time (that is, >>> as newer editions shift the metagame utility of >>> existing cards). But delving into such complexities >>> probably wouldn't earn White Wolf any money so we >>> get common, uncommon, and rare. What's a game >>> theory nerd to do? Complain bitterly on the internet. :) > Sure. All rarity levels can be likewise be compared to other > rarity levels by multiplying the relative instance indicator. > You find this profound? I never claimed it was profound. This is a newsgroup afterall. If everything on this group has to be profound it will get real quiet in here real quick. > Of course there are uncommons. The cards in the uncommon slots are > uncommons. The point that their commonality is exactly equal to an > R2 is interesting on some rarity-geek level but it really doesn't > alter the fact. It does illuminate the point that you should never > try to understand rarity from just the textual, subjective description > of the rarity level (that is, "rare", "uncommon", or "common") alone. > Accurate information includes all the factors: number of slots in > the pack, instances printed on the card sheet, total number of cards > on the card, and price of the pack. I just take all this as > understood by anyone who wants to discuss. I find that a very big assumption on your part that your average card player works out the math. I normally play with the numbers a bit for each set but as you can see I have too much time on my hands. I'll stand corrected if there is evidence to the contrary. >> I would rather see a proliferation of the new cards than have a hard >> time finding them. > > I'm not sure what this statement means. "Proliferation" is a poor > choice of words, I think, to convey your meaning. Do you mean that > you want to see lots of different new cards designed and printed? Or > that you want to see the new cards that _have_ been designed and > printed get into the hands of more people? Or possibly something > else? Then let me rephrase, "I would rather see an abundance of the new cards in a set than a difficult time finding them among the reprints" ie more quantity of each new card per box than the current distribution. > I'm not sure what you're getting at. All of a sudden, you're changing the > subject from "Should there be an uncommon rarity level?" to a question of > the commonality of reprinted vs. new cards. The one has nothing to do > with > the other. Perhaps you're unaware that under the system used in Third > Edition, the new cards are spread out over all rarity levels in almost > equal numbers, not counting the vampires: 12 rare (1 R2 rare, I believe), > 12 uncommon, and 12 common. Furthermore, that goal really has nothing > to do with the use of an uncommon rarity level - you could pursue it or > ignore it equally well with or without an uncommon level, though some > of the specific means of doing so would change. While my premise in the original post was the elimination of uncommons my envisioned goal of this was getting more of the new cards. That is how the two relate. I missed the equal spread of new cards among the three rarities. It has been pointed out. While it does alter the arguement, it does not change the fact that the frequency of an uncommon's appearance is decreasing. Is the goal to get new players the cards they need in the quantity they need or to give them just one of each card (at best) per box so they can say, "geeze, wish I had more of these". > And yet furthermore, the goal of increasing the overall commonality of > new cards is not a universally shared one. Your first post suggested > that this is an obvious goal ("...make so much sense.") but it really > is not. Third Edition is supposed to be a base set. This is a goal > that is to a fair degree diametrically opposed to the notion of filling > it with new expansion cards. I did not ask for it to be filled with new cards, I just want to be able to a subjectively reasonale number of each of the new cards and still be able to pay the rent. A new player doesn't care about if the card is new or reprinted. They just want the card based soley on its own merits. Now I assume you are talking about a player who has played for a while but does not have cards from camarilla edition [last base set] and earlier (not exactly a new player). Due to the size of the set and having four different rarity sheets this player will have difficulty getting the reprints in sufficient quantity to build a reliable deck, just as the new player will have difficulty getting quanties of the new cards. This large a set caters to players buying large quantities. That is usually not a new player. I guess it really relates to the size of the set. Because the set is 290 cards plus vampires the amount required to buy to get a desired quantity is higher than smaller sets. > In fact, for player purposes, the best > choice would be to have no new cards in Third Edition at all - leaving > to the individual players whether they needed reprinted cards or not. > If they don't, they can just ignore the set altogether. The problem > comes when you print a few new cards amongst a card population of > that's predominantly reprints, since both newer and older players need > the new cards but only the newer players need the reprints in great > number. Unfortunately, White Wolf wants to sell Third Edition to older > players as well so they're "salting" it with enough new cards - > including the vampires - to put us over a barrel without really > interfering with the goal of including enough well-tested staple > cards to make it usable as a base set. Reprints don't bother me. I can always use more base cards as I can build/give decks to new players. But I do not even get enough of each reprint to build a deck for a new player with say 6 carrion crows unless I buy about three boxes. What new player is buying three boxes of cards? Wish there were more of them around here. Cause then I could get the new cards I need off of them. :) >> While >> they are to me, and anybody trying to make Tupdog decks or Mexico City >> circle blood brothers probably thinks so cause this jerking around the >> rarities is what made them difficult to get in sufficient numbers. > > I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Common > vampires in an all-new-card expansion is yet a totally different > subject once again.. I apologize that you do not see the connection between the most recent issue with getting sufficient quantities of a card that screamed "play with lots of these cards in your deck" and the situation now where getting sufficient quantities of a specific card is difficult. >> Uncommons need to be more plentiful than rares > > They are - they just aren't more plentiful than R2s. When you > bring instance numbers into the discussion, you confuse the > definition of "rare", "uncommon", and "common" - which are terms that > don't accurately describe precise rarity levels and never have - even > more than it already is. And, as far as I can see, the above > statement has no merit. Uncommons don't really need to be more > plentiful than rare (twos). They just need to be an intuitive > identifier of the relative number of slots in a pack. The we are just going to disagree here. I believe the average player expects more uncommons than rares, whatever the numbers on the checklist that they have never seen means. >> and commons must be more plentiful than both. >> Either cut down the number of uncommons in a set or deal with it in >> some other manner please. > > I still have no idea what it is that bothers you about them. I see > no problem whatsoever with the rarity scheme in this sense. I would > rather > see whole editions of cards be either all reprints or all new cards. > From a player perspective, _that_ makes sense. But I suspect it has > little chance to happen as long as White Wolf perceives they can make > more money overall by salting a base set with a few new cards. I would see a set of just reprints as a potential financial disaster for white wolf as forcasting sales would be tricky. As making money equals making more money than in a financial disaster I suspect we agree it is unlikely to happen. As White Wolf will produce fewer cards if they experience financial disaster I'm okay with the "salting" as you term it. What I would like to see though (and I think I have been fairly consistent on this point) is more of the new cards. IE more of the salt. Not more numbers of different cards, just greater quantities of each new card per box. (meaning smaller sets or shifting rarities in some fasion) -John P. Winnipeg

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in message news:cEpLg.7555$hM6....@newsfe23.lga... > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:CfkLg.7791$Mz3.1826@fed1read07... >> "John P." <verg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1157480626.7...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... >>> Fred Scott wrote: >>>> Eh? What about cards that are less useful in large >>>> numbers than common cards but more useful in larger >>>> numbers than rare cards? > > I would rather have more cards than I can use than > not enough cards to use effectively. I can give away > extra cards. I cannot use or give away what I do not have. You're still losing me. Uncommon vs. rare vs. common cards are an orthogonal issue to this one. All you're saying is, "Please add more cards that I can use effectively and less of the ones I can't." Rarity levels only matter in relationship to the usefulness of the card in whatever numbers it's useful in. Wake with Evening's Freshness isn't common enough as a common; Carver's Meat Packing and Storage may be too common as a rare - but is still useful in the right deck and metagame. It all just depends. >>>> I don't understand the question. The usefulness >>>> of having an uncommon ratio is obvious. > > Not obvious to me to me if it means having an uncommon > slot means I will have difficulty getting the quantity > of each card I feel I need. A narrow point of view perhaps. Nope. You're just looking at the wrong complaint to express what I think (as best I can tell from what you write) is your issue. I'm completely confused why you've focused in on a particular rarity level as the problem. But since each card is needed at some different level and as they vary all over the map, clearly, if you want a quantity of each card you feel you need, it is necessary that at least _some_ of the cards come in at the uncommon rarity level. It is the correct level for some of them. >> Sure. All rarity levels can be likewise be compared to other >> rarity levels by multiplying the relative instance indicator. >> You find this profound? > > I never claimed it was profound. This is a newsgroup afterall. > If everything on this group has to be profound it will get real quiet > in here real quick. "Profound" means interesting and meaningful to some end conclusion that isn't already obvious to everybody. U1s = R2s in an expansion that comes in packs with two slots of uncommons to one slot of rares is an obvious thing and, as far as I can see, a rather meaningless point. If you're not getting as many of some particular card as you would want in an expansion, the answer is to increase its overall rarity, whatever that is. Whether it's C1, U1, R2 or R1, none of that matters. It's just a question of making it bigger than whatever level it's at. >> Of course there are uncommons. The cards in the uncommon slots are >> uncommons. The point that their commonality is exactly equal to an >> R2 is interesting on some rarity-geek level but it really doesn't >> alter the fact. It does illuminate the point that you should never >> try to understand rarity from just the textual, subjective description >> of the rarity level (that is, "rare", "uncommon", or "common") alone. >> Accurate information includes all the factors: number of slots in >> the pack, instances printed on the card sheet, total number of cards >> on the card, and price of the pack. I just take all this as >> understood by anyone who wants to discuss. > > I find that a very big assumption on your part that your average card player works out the math. Well, people don't actually have to work out the math, I suppose. If you're going to make an argument about it, it helps to know whether your individual experience with a card's rarity was typical or atypical. Anyway, the point is, I don't see what problem is caused by the fact that the commonality of U1s exactly equals that of an R2s. > Then let me rephrase, "I would rather see an abundance of the new cards in a > set than a difficult time finding them among the reprints" ie more quantity of each new card per box than the current > distribution. OK, got it. >> Furthermore, that goal really has nothing >> to do with the use of an uncommon rarity level - you could pursue it or >> ignore it equally well with or without an uncommon level, though some >> of the specific means of doing so would change. > > While my premise in the original post was the elimination of uncommons > my envisioned goal of this was getting more of the new cards. That is how the two relate. But that isn't a relationship. As I said, the one has nothing to do with the other. Increasing a card's frequency, whether new or old, has to do with increasing whatever it is. A C1 would have to be increased to a C2 or something higher. A U1's frequency could be increased by making it a C1, it's true. But you could also do it by making it U2. The new R1 cards could be increased by making them U1s. Eliminating "uncommon", as an entire rarity level, wouldn't seem to have anything to do with any of this. That just removes an option from the table. How does that help? > I missed the equal spread of new cards among the three rarities. It has been > pointed out. While it does alter the argument, it does not change the > fact that the frequency of an uncommon's appearance is decreasing. "The frequency of an uncommon's appearance is decreasing." I don't understand that sentence. Decreasing in comparison to what? > Is the goal to get new players the cards they need in the quantity they > need or to give them just one of each card (at best) per box so they can > say, "geeze, wish I had more of these". Well, of course, not being an employee, I can't give you the real answer to that. I would speculate that if they feel if they put too many new library cards in the mix, Third Edition would make a poor base set. A base set is supposed to be comprised of staple cards of well-known quality so beginning players can buy it to form the basis of their collections. If you were a new player, you'd be poorly served by several boxes of, say, Gehenna boosters to start your collection. You need cards like Govern the Unaligned and Lost in Crowds and Freak Drive. You don't want to start with lots of copies of Chain of Command. I suspect it would be very risky to create a ton of new library cards from scratch and throw them together and call them a base set. Too many of them would miss the mark. >> And yet furthermore, the goal of increasing the overall commonality of >> new cards is not a universally shared one. Your first post suggested >> that this is an obvious goal ("...make so much sense.") but it really >> is not. Third Edition is supposed to be a base set. This is a goal >> that is to a fair degree diametrically opposed to the notion of filling >> it with new expansion cards. > > I did not ask for it to be filled with new cards, I just want to be able to a subjectively reasonale number of each of the new > cards and still be able > to pay the rent. Understood. So would I and, I think, a number of other players who already have established card collections. Unfortunately, to fulfill its purpose, this set needs to contain an overwhelming number of reprint library cards. And to have an overwhelming number of reprint library cards, logically it has to have few new cards. > A new player doesn't care about if the card is new or reprinted. Yes and no. He may not exactly care if the cards he's buying has been printed in a previous set. But he cares about the quality of the card. And the most flexible and useful cards in the game, the ones easiest to build basic, effective decks from are necessarily reprints. New cards in expansions full of new cards tend to concentrate on specialized themes, much more useful to players who already own a solid base collection of cards. > They just want the card based soley on its own merits. Now I assume > you are talking about a player who has played for a while but does not > have cards from camarilla edition [last base set] and earlier (not > exactly a new player). I'm not sure what hair you're splitting. I'm dividing my populations of players between players who have enough staple cards and those who don't. The former want new cards; the latter need an expansion with a high degree of standard, salt-of-earth, reliable staple cards. > Due to the size of the set and having four different rarity sheets > this player will have difficulty getting the reprints in sufficient > quantity to build a reliable deck, just as the new player will have > difficulty getting quanties of the new cards. This large a set caters > to players buying large quantities. That is usually not a new player. It sort of has to be. That is, new players who want to build reliable decks have to invest at a certain level or they're just not going to be able to get enough stock. Agreed, the size of the set works against people who don't want to spend a lot of money. But since even the basic Jyhad game contains a wide latitude of strategies, different clans and disciplines, etc., the base set has to be large. All base sets in this game have been this large. There's no way to get around it. There are ways for people who don't want to spend so much money to still make good decks, though. Precon decks will allow the players to build up a fairly large number of good clan or discipline-specific staple cards without spending much money. Trading cards is the other poor man's friend - buy packs and put the cards that are not in his area of interest up for trade in exchange for those that are. > I guess it really relates to the size of the set. Because the set is 290 cards plus vampires the amount required to buy to get a > desired quantity > is higher than smaller sets. Agreed. The alternative would be to make even more specialized base sets. We already have Camarilla Edition for Camarilla clans and Third Edition for the Sabbat. I suppose you could divide the two base sets into four and halve the number of clans covered by each, thus mitigating the problem. For a number of reasons, I don't think White Wolf would find that route very palatable, though. In any case, this is a far cry from saying, "Uncommon rarity level is bad." > Reprints don't bother me. I can always use more base cards > as I can build/give decks to new players. But I do not > even get enough of each reprint to build a deck for a new > player with say 6 carrion crows unless I buy about three boxes. Then this is a complaint that is entirely about set size. If they printed 50 rares, 50 uncommons, and 50 commons, your problem would be lessened. This is a different argument. >>> While >>> they are to me, and anybody trying to make Tupdog decks or Mexico City >>> circle blood brothers probably thinks so cause this jerking around the >>> rarities is what made them difficult to get in sufficient numbers. >> >> I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Common >> vampires in an all-new-card expansion is yet a totally different >> subject once again.. > > I apologize that you do not see the connection between the most > recent issue with getting sufficient quantities of a card that screamed > "play with lots of these cards in your deck" and the situation > now where getting sufficient quantities of a specific card is difficult. I'm beginning to. If set size is your issue, this relates to common vampires not being common enough. The complaints you've articulated do not. You want set sizes to be smaller so you can get more of a given card in a box of a particular set. That makes sense - and was a complaint that many had about Legacies of Blood, by the way. >>> Uncommons need to be more plentiful than rares >> >> They are - they just aren't more plentiful than R2s. .. > The we are just going to disagree here. I believe the average > player expects more uncommons than rares, whatever the > numbers on the checklist that they have never seen means. I don't think they do, no. I believe, I hope, that most people understand that how U1s and R2s relate to each other is ultimately unimportant. I still am not quite sure what your issue with it is. I think you've somehow conflated it with the causes of some of the other things you've complained about. Getting enough of a given card in a box of cards so that you can get a playable collection from an affordable number of boxes purchased has nothing to do with U1 vs. R2 commonality. It has to do with set size and setting appropriate overall rarity levels for each particular card. Fred

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:HNrLg.7802$Mz3.250@fed1read07... > "John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in message > "Profound" means interesting and meaningful to some end > conclusion that isn't already obvious to everybody. Profound: 1. difficult for one of ordinary knowledge or intelligence to understand <a profound observation about good and evil that few listeners fully grasped> 2. extreme in degree, power, or effect <a profound silence fell over the audience after the last note had sounded> -- see INTENSE 3. having no exceptions or restrictions <a profound dislike of raw vegetables> -- see ABSOLUTE Nitpicking, I know, but still. > "The frequency of an uncommon's appearance is decreasing." I don't > understand > that sentence. Decreasing in comparison to what? If an uncommon in an earlier set that had vampires and say 4 uncommon cards on the vampire sheet (equating vampires to uncommon) like Legacies of blood did and three slots per booster for all 104 "uncommons". The frequency of appearance for any given uncommon or vampire was 1.03 per box of boosters. Now in this set uncommons (without vamps) is 0.72 with vamps 0.9. The frequency at which any uncommon appears per box decreased since the last large set. >> Is the goal to get new players the cards they need in the quantity they >> need or to give them just one of each card (at best) per box so they can >> say, "geeze, wish I had more of these". > > Well, of course, not being an employee, I can't give you the real answer > to that. I would speculate that if they feel if they put too many new > library cards in the mix, Third Edition would make a poor base set. My line above was regardless of new or reprint (as both have the same frequency). A new player looking for aid from bats will likely only get two from a box. That is hardly enough for a staple card. For uncommons it is one per box. Hope a new player does not need more than 1 freak drive. Same applies to cool new cards. >> A new player doesn't care about if the card is new or reprinted. > > Yes and no. He may not exactly care if the cards he's buying has > been printed in a previous set. But he cares about the quality of > the card. And the most flexible and useful cards in the game, the ones > easiest to build basic, effective decks from are necessarily reprints. > New cards in expansions full of new cards tend to concentrate on > specialized themes, much more useful to players who already own a > solid base collection of cards. I disagree here. You are claiming that nothing in a new set could become a staple card? Hypothetical example: A blood doll trifle. Admitedly there is likely only a few cards in this set that may approach BD's usefulness. I still maintain that a brand-new player does not care if a card is new or reprinted. As long as it is good. A new card has the potential to be good. My responses are getting shorter so I must be agreeing with you more or I'm being more clear. -John P. Winnipeg

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in message news:GcsLg.85642$Tz5....@newsfe14.lga... > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:HNrLg.7802$Mz3.250@fed1read07... >> "John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote in message > >> "Profound" means interesting and meaningful to some end >> conclusion that isn't already obvious to everybody. > > Profound: > 1. difficult for one of ordinary knowledge or intelligence to > understand <a profound observation about good and evil > that few listeners fully grasped> ... > Nitpicking, I know, but still. Not sure what you're disputing. The first definition basically matches mine. >> "The frequency of an uncommon's appearance is decreasing." I don't >> understand that sentence. Decreasing in comparison to what? > > If an uncommon in an earlier set that had vampires and say 4 > uncommon cards on the vampire sheet (equating vampires > to uncommon) like Legacies of blood did and three slots > per booster for all 104 "uncommons". Um, I don't see the point of equating Legacies of Blood vampires to uncommons. LoB has vampires, 3E has vampires. LoB had uncommon cards (well, two to be exact), 3E has uncommon cards. Of course, the nature of the cards listed as "uncommon" differs entirely from LoB to 3E. In the former case, two cards were listed as uncommons and they were spread in an artificially low freqency amongst some of the common cards. In the latter case, there were actual card slots and 100 U1 cards. Also note that although three slots out of eleven were allocated to vampires in Legacies of Blood and in Third Edition, they were divide amongst 50 vampires in LoB vs. 100 in Third Edition. So vampires were essentially "V2s" in Legacies of Blood, if you want to compare apples to apples. Different sets, completely different rarity situation. I'm completely confused what's even the point of comparing the two. And I'm even more confused what is the point of comparing the two while conflating "vampires" in the one with "uncommon library cards" in the other. Again, I think your issue is set size, not the existance of an uncommon rarity level. By the way, just for yuks, I'll throw in my observation about the common rarity level in Legacies of Blood. Seven card slots were advertised as containing "common" cards. But, in fact, I believe the first two contained one set of common cards, the other five contained a different set. And the members of the first group seemed to be on a cardsheet that numbered 45 cards vs. an 80-card cardsheet for the other - meaning that the "common" rarity levels were slightly different. Cards in the first group appeared twice in every 45 packs (or once in every 22 and 1/2 packs) vs. one time in every 16 packs for the second group. I believe the first group was reprints and the second group was new common cards. >>> Is the goal to get new players the cards they need in the quantity they >>> need or to give them just one of each card (at best) per box so they can >>> say, "geeze, wish I had more of these". >> >> Well, of course, not being an employee, I can't give you the real answer >> to that. I would speculate that if they feel if they put too many new >> library cards in the mix, Third Edition would make a poor base set. > > My line above was regardless of new or reprint (as both have the same frequency). > A new player looking for aid from bats will likely only get two from a box. > That is hardly enough for a staple card. For uncommons it is one per > box. Hope a new player does not need more than 1 freak drive. Sure. That's a function of set size. But presumedly, a new player needs more Aid From Bats than Freak Drives. If not, then the issue is that Freak Drive, specifically, should be more common no matter how large the set. In the case of Freak Drive, that's arguable - but only because Freak Drive is so useful that it's even suspiciously underprinted at the uncommon level. Most uncommon cards do not prompt the same suspicion. > Same applies to cool new cards. > >>> A new player doesn't care about if the card is new or reprinted. >> >> Yes and no. He may not exactly care if the cards he's buying has >> been printed in a previous set. But he cares about the quality of >> the card. And the most flexible and useful cards in the game, the ones >> easiest to build basic, effective decks from are necessarily reprints. >> New cards in expansions full of new cards tend to concentrate on >> specialized themes, much more useful to players who already own a >> solid base collection of cards. > > I disagree here. You are claiming that nothing in a new set could > become a staple card? I didn't say that. A few could very well be new staple card. On the Que Vive certainly appears to be one. But it's hard to design large numbers of new staple cards for a number of reasons. Therefore, a base set is composed of overwhelming numbers of reprints. > I still maintain that a brand-new player does not care if a card > is new or reprinted. As long as it is good. A new card has the > potential to be good. I disagree. The sentence, "A new card has the potential to be good" is so ambiguous as to serve any purpose in that a line of logic. It is not "profound". :-P New players specifically need flexible, useful cards. And - though new cards do indeed have the "potential to be good" - quite honestly the average new card tends not to be that good. That may shock you but if you think about it, it's absolutely true. If you think of the card most people tend to use most, they're many of them original Jyhad cards that were first printed in 1994. Maybe not a majority any more; there's so many other cards that have been created since thing. But, in relatition to the raw numbers, I'm sure original Jyhad cards (or reprints thereof) are used in tournament winning decks in ratios vastly out of proportion to their ratio in the overall card population. There's a reason for this: the character of the original game uses them as its backbone in them. And, although the game has evolved over time due to the new cards printed ever so often, there would be a player revolt if it were to be utterly changed in a single expansion. In order to avoid that, I believe the designers are rather cautious about designing new cards; many of them just aren't very good. A relative handful are reasonable. And a few are truly stellar and become favorites. Those favorites crack the "staple card" club and some of them have been reprinted in Third Edition. If the designers where to create a new base set out of newly designed cards, they couldn't possibly be as conservative as they are about the average card utility when designing the usual all-new sets. If they were, they would fail and the new set would never be looked on as a useful base set. If they weren't, they'd make mistakes from time to time (designing so many powerful cards in a single set) and likely design an over-the-top card that would soon have to get banned or given errata. Banning or issuing errata to overpowered cards is a bad thing. So a successful base set really needs to be reprints. Or, at the very least, it would require a lot more playtesting time than White Wolf seems willing to spend. So reprints it is. Fred

John P. wrote: > ... that is the only > reason I still collect this game. I find it trying to say the least > that I cannot get sufficient cards that I want from boosters > without boxes on boxes of product. Why "still"? There was never a time, when you could get the cards simple by buying boxes. Have you ever calculated how many boxes of Jyhad you needed to buy to get a whole set? Frank

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1157529120.4...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] So untrue. Dark Soveriengs as an example. Then there were sets that you were so close after a box or two chances were I could get the missing cards with one or two trades. Black Hand, Gehenna, Kindred Most Wanted. also spring to mind. Even if I'm missing cards after I have spent what I wanted I used to at least having at least three of most uncommons. Rares I can live with missing as they required luck to get out of a box, but eventually all sets were comlpleted. Besides, Jyhad was back in the days when I had more money to spend. :) In fact I seemed to always get the rares I needed out of the starter decks for Jyhad so I pretty much finished that set buying only starter decks. -John P. Winnipeg

John P. wrote: > Then there were sets that you were so close after a box > or two chances were I could get the missing cards with one > or two trades. > Black Hand, Gehenna, Kindred Most Wanted. also spring > to mind. > 50 Rares in the set. 36 Rares in the booster box. How exactly do you plan on getting the 15 Rares you're missing? You won't be able to trade your one duplicate Rare to get them all. [ quoted text not captured ]

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Why "still"? There was never a time, when you could get the cards > simple by buying boxes. Have you ever calculated how many boxes of > Jyhad you needed to buy to get a whole set? No, but when we were snapping them up at $5 a box, I'm pretty sure we crossed that threshold.

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157554210....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > 50 Rares in the set. > 36 Rares in the booster box. > > How exactly do you plan on getting the 15 Rares you're missing? You > won't be able to trade your one duplicate Rare to get them all. > > -- > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew You snipped the relevant: >Then there were sets that you were so close after a box >or two chances Box or two, indicating more than one box. And the reason I said box or two is that Nights of Reckoning was easily accomplished within one box. -John P. Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] A whole set is one thing, but enough to play what you want has been equal to 2 boxes (and sometimes the pre-release boosts) for me : in Bloodlines, KWM, Gehenna, Anarchs, even CE (had many of the base cards and the vampire repartition was good enough) ; it was nearly enough for LoB, although 2,5 boxes would have been preferable. Now, with 3rd Ed, taking into account the bad repartition and the number of cards, 3 or 4 boxes would needed. Of course, with 2 boxes I never had "all I'd ever need" but it was enough for an initial headstart, and with trades, tournament wins and single sales it was all right for me. If I really need more to get what I need from an expansion I'll go the same way as I do for Heroclix : buy less new and more from ebay, Jeff or whoever. -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary.

John P. wrote: > Adequate card stock (survives the bend test) > > The premature wear on the edges sucks. I got my 3rd Ed cards today, and didn't find any particularly noticable "wear" on the edges or anything. Or any particualrly miscut cards. Maybe it was a limited scope issue? > The draft effects are coolness Certainly reasonable. And now that have actually held the cards in my hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why people are het up about the draftferior text being ugly or whatever--the extra little grey spot on the card is pretty small and pretty unremarkable for my money. -Peter

In message <1157664165.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >I got my 3rd Ed cards today, and didn't find any particularly noticable >"wear" on the edges or anything. Or any particualrly miscut cards. >Maybe it was a limited scope issue? We also didn't hear too many screams from the stock released at GenCon (though possibly people were too caught up in spoiling texts and cool stuff to care so much). So it's possible that one batch was done badly, or that the cutting edge was replaced at one point, or wore down over time, or whatever. Reminds me of the penpots we got at work last year. About 20% of them fell apart. Coincidentally, 1 of the 5 members of staff who'd been working on them was new. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 22:56:44 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >We also didn't hear too many screams from the stock released at GenCon >(though possibly people were too caught up in spoiling texts and cool >stuff to care so much). So it's possible that one batch was done badly, >or that the cutting edge was replaced at one point, or wore down over >time, or whatever. The cards in the starter boxes are significantly worse that those in the boosters.

In message <lm61g2lsn66fl2hr4...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ] Good to know. Does that also apply to the new player kits? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 23:48:13 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>The cards in the starter boxes are significantly worse that those in >>the boosters. >Good to know. >Does that also apply to the new player kits? I only opened one of those, and was worse than the boosters, but I do not remember it being as bad as the starters.

pd...@lightlink.com escreveu: > Certainly reasonable. And now that have actually held the cards in my > hand, I can't for the life of me figure out why people are het up about > the draftferior text being ugly or whatever--the extra little grey spot > on the card is pretty small and pretty unremarkable for my money. > -Peter I've seen the same complaint in the local mailing lists down here (which makes the complaint seem even stupid, since the set didn't even made the country yet and all we've seen of the draft text was a single card preview). My usual response is: how different it is from the outferior on cards that require a bloodline-specific discipline? Or, going further, how much difficult it is to ignore draft text than it is to ignore, say, the [dom] text on Spirit Marionette when you're using it at [OBE]? Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > My usual response is: how different it is from the > outferior on cards that require a bloodline-specific discipline? Or, > going further, how much difficult it is to ignore draft text than it is > to ignore, say, the [dom] text on Spirit Marionette when you're using > it at [OBE]? In a design sense, not much. The draftferior text is small, grey, doesn't take up much space, and very easy to ignore. I'm not seeing why folks are bugged. But that is me. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Just to add to the description, it's also underneath all the other card text, and is inside a light grey shaded area. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > >> My usual response is: how different it is from the > >> outferior on cards that require a bloodline-specific discipline? Or, > >> going further, how much difficult it is to ignore draft text than it is > >> to ignore, say, the [dom] text on Spirit Marionette when you're using > >> it at [OBE]? > > > > In a design sense, not much. The draftferior text is small, grey, > > doesn't take up much space, and very easy to ignore. I'm not seeing why > > folks are bugged. But that is me. > > Just to add to the description, it's also underneath all the other card > text, and is inside a light grey shaded area. So, for what you guys are saying, it is even *easier* to ignore draft text than it is to ignore outferior text, something we've been doing since Bloodlines was released. :P (barring specific cases where the bloodline discipline uses "as [disc] above" referencing to the outferior, of course). Fabio "Sooner222" Macedo

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1157910569.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Probably just that it's a new thing and people tend to be unusually negative about new things for which they perceive they have little use. Give it time. Fred

"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157984583.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > So, for what you guys are saying, it is even *easier* to ignore draft > text than it is to ignore outferior text, something we've been doing > since Bloodlines was released. :P Eh? Does anyone down there use Nose of the Hound? How about Clotho's Gift. Those two cards, at least, I've seen more in decks that use them for their outferior and don't even pack any vampires possessing their main Bloodline Discipline than I've seen them played in decks that do. The reason is that their outferiors are useful enough that the huge difference in the popularity of the outferier discipline in comparison to that of the Bloodline discipline (that is for instance, many vampires have auspex, only a few possess Spiritus) comes into play. There may be other examples. These two are the ones that come quickest to my mind. > (barring specific cases where the bloodline discipline uses "as [disc] > above" referencing to the outferior, of course). Actually, I can't think of any reason what that would make a difference. It's true Nose of the Hound is worded that way - but so is Tangle Atropos' Hand and the potence version of TAH doesn't particularly impress me. On the other hand, the obfuscate version of Clotho's Gift (by contrast) does. Fred

In message <3KiNg.7944$Mz3.7100@fed1read07>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157984583.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... >> So, for what you guys are saying, it is even *easier* to ignore draft >> text than it is to ignore outferior text, something we've been doing >> since Bloodlines was released. :P > >Eh? Does anyone down there use Nose of the Hound? How about Clotho's >Gift. Those two cards, at least, I've seen more in decks that use them >for their outferior and don't even pack any vampires possessing their >main Bloodline Discipline than I've seen them played in decks that do. >The reason is that their outferiors are useful enough that the huge >difference in the popularity of the outferier discipline in comparison >to that of the Bloodline discipline (that is for instance, many vampires >have auspex, only a few possess Spiritus) comes into play. > >There may be other examples. These two are the ones that come quickest >to my mind. I think the point being made is.... in many decks, you're using them for one OR the other, and you probably don't care about the other option. Like you say, Nose of the Hound in a Toreador deck doesn't care about the Spiritus options. So it just has to ignore those if it isn't playing Ahrimane. [ quoted text not captured ]