Power Curve of New Cards

There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. Even though several of our players in St. Louis are buying Cam, very few of them have been using any of it. Most of our new players have been concentrating on buying Sabbat War and Final Nights, which are hard to find at local shops, and ignoring Cam. When asked, they say the cards they want aren't in the Cam set. Why might this be? I was thinking that perhaps it is because none of the new cards in the Cam set are actually compelling enough to make people need to buy them. While it is good for the game to come out with a new set that can be completely ignored and not have it impact your competitiveness, I think that it's not so good for sales. If the 15 new cards, or some of the vampires, had been significantly better than the old stuff, I think it would have sold better because you would have to buy Camarilla cards or lose your edge to those that did. Do you find the Cam set gives you a significant advantage over players that don't have it, or does it make no difference? JSpektr

>There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much >better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new >library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's >seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. I'm sort of surprised at how little I've seen of the new vampires, but that may have something to do with the current fragmented state of our local scene - other groups may be integrating faster. >Even though several of our players in St. Louis are buying Cam, very >few of them have been using any of it. Most of our new players have >been concentrating on buying Sabbat War and Final Nights, which are >hard to find at local shops, and ignoring Cam. When asked, they say >the cards they want aren't in the Cam set. > >Why might this be? I was thinking that perhaps it is because none of >the new cards in the Cam set are actually compelling enough to make >people need to buy them. While it is good for the game to come out >with a new set that can be completely ignored and not have it impact >your competitiveness, I think that it's not so good for sales. If the >15 new cards, or some of the vampires, had been significantly better >than the old stuff, I think it would have sold better because you >would have to buy Camarilla cards or lose your edge to those that did. Most important for those who never acquired any Jyhad/V:TES. That doesn't apply to anyone I play with, even the newbies who are using a returning player's collection. >Do you find the Cam set gives you a significant advantage over players >that don't have it, or does it make no difference? I keep putting High Ground in decks even with its limitations. And, I'm motivated to use the Sabbat vampires, well, some of them. Have a Goulet deck, deck that started with the idea of playing Jade, two decks with The Rose, slot Tobias into appropriate decks, etc. As for my personal use for the Cammies, I find the Cammie clans relatively boring, so there's been much less enthusiasm. Then, the library cards aren't, on a whole earthshattering. I can see Purge and Tension causing ripples. The former I've avoided as other people have been working on it which causes me to lose interest. The latter I haven't gotten around to because of something ped_xing mentioned - a combat deck that is too likely to lose combats gets hurt by it as well. More options will always give an edge. As I write this, I keep debating what to say. The more I think about it, the more I seem to convince myself of the benefits of CE, from Tor/Ven with Obfuscate to Sabbat vampires that go right into decks to the possibility of Tension helping combat decks oust.

jspektr wrote: > Even though several of our players in St. Louis are buying Cam, very > few of them have been using any of it. Most of our new players have > been concentrating on buying Sabbat War and Final Nights, which are > hard to find at local shops, and ignoring Cam. When asked, they say > the cards they want aren't in the Cam set. > > Why might this be? I was thinking that perhaps it is because none of > the new cards in the Cam set are actually compelling enough to make > people need to buy them. (part removed here, placed below to respond further down) ... > Do you find the Cam set gives you a significant advantage over players > that don't have it, or does it make no difference? I find this a completely silly question to frame in this way. Clearly, due to the makeup of Camarilla edition, it's a complete apples and oranges comparison to juxtapose sales of expansions like Sabbat War and Final Nights with CE and ask if the meaning of differing numbers could relate to the play value of the cards. That ignores all the issues of grouping vampires and the vast majority of reprints in CE library cards. I'm not sure how you could miss these points and the obvious implications they're going to have on sales. To be sure, I do find several interesting issues in the makeup of Camarilla edition. For instance, was it reasonable, let alone a good thing, to reprint most of the library cards while inventing an entirely new set of vampires? (My opinion: no. That was bad.) Is it a good thing to sprinkle a *few* new library cards in amongst a bunch of reprinted library cards? (Again, my opinion is no. This was done in Sabbat War, as well, and both times it created a very awkward situation with respect to highly demanded new cards in amongst reprints that are only somewhat valuable to a subset of the population. However, I'm not unsympathetic with why White Wolf might be tempted to do that. I wish they'd at least refrain from making any new cards rare in this kind of a situation, though.) Should some of the new cards have been put in precons? (My opinion is yes, as long as no new card is issued *only* in precons, which creates another awkward situation.) However, none of these issues can properly be analyzed by comparing CE sales to other expansions. And the existence of such issues highlights why a comparison of sales between CE and other expansions is itself orthogonal to questions of comparing the play values of the cards from each issue. I haven't had any chances to use the new cards so far, Jyhad play in Phoenix is so dismal nowadays. I wouldn't venture an assessment of vampires at all. My superficial look at the library cards reveals a mixed bag: apparently useless Abandoning the Flesh to Tensions in the Ranks which is a surefire addition to certain kinds of popular existing decks. Baltimore Purge and High Ground come to mind as cards that have specific enough uses that you'll certainly see them in decks but not likely all that often. At this stage, I imagine most of the new cards are just being mildly experimented with and no one's found any real burning advantages in them yet. There's probably no killer or true staple cards amongst them. But given how they've been printed, I don't think I'd want there to be. That, by itself, is going to necessarily limit a huge rush on people bothering to buy CE boosters who don't need them for the reprints. > While it is good for the game to come out > with a new set that can be completely ignored and not have it impact > your competitiveness, I think that it's not so good for sales. If the > 15 new cards, or some of the vampires, had been significantly better > than the old stuff, I think it would have sold better because you > would have to buy Camarilla cards or lose your edge to those that did. It's hard for you or I to really have a worthwhile perspective on what any given level of sales of CE did for or to the game, directly due to player response or indirectly due to White Wolf's financial incentive to issue future expansions. We don't even know whether the current level of sales are viewed as bad or good by White Wolf or whether they were foreseen or not, whatever they are. I always assumed CE was not going to be hot seller from the start nor thought anyone should expect it to be. The concept always seemed to be a long-range proposition: have a "base set" in print of which White Wolf controlled the contents. A base set, which is still available by mail order if not often found on retailer's shelves, already existed. In fact, two exist: Jyhad and the second VtES edition. Given that point, I'm not sure CE was ever likely to fly off shelves, at least at first. I've always assumed, therefore, that White Wolf had strategic reasons for bringing it out that they had carefully considered. If so, any debate about it here would take place in a huge vacuum of information. Fred

very simple i think I bought piles and piles of Jyhad cards with the old back Then u bough piles and piles of the reprinted base set two times is quite enough. no way am i going to buy the same cards three times. new vampires or not. now if WW sold packs with just the new vampires i am sure people would buy Frede jspektr wrote in message <196f2577.02102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote in message news:<196f2577.02102...@posting.google.com>... > There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much > better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new > library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's > seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. A good question, and one I would have to answer "No" to at the moment. My theory is this is largely a familiarity issue. When thinking of new decks, I have been sticking to what I know at the moment, and I can only guess this is also the case for other folk in my locale. To be honest, I have a modicum of Camerilla, but can't reliably remember names or abilities the new folk at all. A few have seeped into my subconcious, but by far the minority. <snip> > Do you find the Cam set gives you a significant advantage over players > that don't have it, or does it make no difference? Well, as far as the "big fellas" go, yes, there is a percieved advantage. The abilities feel stronger and the skills meld better for key strategies. This is, however, frequently offset by the lack of "cheap" or efficient titles OTHER than Primogen. However, the small to mid-caps feel weaker. Compare the likes of Anvil and the 7 - 8 cap Ventrue Princes to the new equivalent. Yes, nowhere near as broken, but also significantly less powerful. There seems to be a hang up in giving the new vamps OOC disciplines, which (on the whole) weakens the mix. Yes, they are great for interesting new decks, but cause issues for basic, clan focused decks. The key exception to all of the above is the Tremere. Their selection accross the board is stronger than most other clans - especially in the 4 cap and below range, where they have a great selection of Thau-heavy vampires in groups 2 and 3 - and there are some stand-out great vampires (even an 8 cap Justicar!!!). That and the fact that they have dominate, now have enhanced combat skills, and have more ways of getting around Strike: Combat ends than any other clan (in-clan, they can stop the most common forms of S:CE by using one of 4 cards, plus one has a special: this is much better than most clans options in this field) means that they are totally a force to be reckoned with. We have seen a significant rise in their use, almost since the day of release of the Cam set. DH

On 22 Oct 2002, Curevei wrote: > I'm sort of surprised at how little I've seen of the new vampires, but that may > have something to do with the current fragmented state of our local scene - > other groups may be integrating faster. We've seen some, but not much. One player has a pretty sweet Group 3 Brujah-with-fortemitude deck. I've bolted on some new Malks to an already-existing !Malk deck and seen some nice returns from the tighter crypt. I haven't done as much with them as I'd like because most of my interest lies in the "fatties", you need about three of them to build a deck around, and I just haven't bought that much CE (yet). David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

dave...@hotmail.com (hamdamcwa) wrote in message news:<9e10847c.02102...@posting.google.com>... > jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote in message news:<196f2577.02102...@posting.google.com>... > Well, as far as the "big fellas" go, yes, there is a percieved > advantage. The abilities feel stronger and the skills meld better for > key strategies. This is, however, frequently offset by the lack of > "cheap" or efficient titles OTHER than Primogen. > > However, the small to mid-caps feel weaker. Compare the likes of Anvil > and the 7 - 8 cap Ventrue Princes to the new equivalent. Yes, nowhere > near as broken, but also significantly less powerful. There seems to > be a hang up in giving the new vamps OOC disciplines, which (on the > whole) weakens the mix. Yes, they are great for interesting new decks, > but cause issues for basic, clan focused decks. I feel that WW did just that so that Group 1 crypts wouldn´t be totally useless. Some clans, like the Toreador and Ventrue, still play better with their Group 1 crypts, IMO. I´d say what you described was done on purpose. > The key exception to all of the above is the Tremere. Their selection > accross the board is stronger than most other clans - especially in > the 4 cap and below range, where they have a great selection of > Thau-heavy vampires in groups 2 and 3 - and there are some stand-out > great vampires (even an 8 cap Justicar!!!). That and the fact that > they have dominate, now have enhanced combat skills, and have more > ways of getting around Strike: Combat ends than any other clan > (in-clan, they can stop the most common forms of S:CE by using one of > 4 cards, plus one has a special: this is much better than most clans > options in this field) means that they are totally a force to be > reckoned with. We have seen a significant rise in their use, almost > since the day of release of the Cam set. Ok, I´m drawing a blank on those four cards, besides Thoughts Betrayed and, maybe, Perfect Clarity. Must be my stupid day. :) What are the others ? Magnus

jspektr wrote: > There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much > better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new > library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's > seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. The new Vampires aren't necessarily better in the 2-7 point range, but for vampires who are 8+, they are noticably better (in terms of how much "stuff" they got). The 2-7 point vampires are using, mostly, the same pricing structure, except in terms of +1 bleed and +1 strength, both of which are cheaper now than they were when Jyhad came out. Certain clans are better off now than they used to be, however--the mid range Nosferatu (5-7) are *much* better than they used to be, as the original 5-7 point Nosferatu were, mostly, ass. The Malkavians are essentially a whole new clan, but combined with the !Malks, they have some really good, cheap vampires (it is very easy to assemble a reasonably sized crypt that consists of nothing but vampires with DEM). > Why might this be? I was thinking that perhaps it is because none of > the new cards in the Cam set are actually compelling enough to make > people need to buy them. I dunno. The Cam set strikes me as very solid. Sure, we didn't buy a ton of it, but between the pre-release, a local booster draft tournament, and simply picking up packs, each of about 6 solid local players bought at least a box of boosters each. Which seems like a reasonable amount of sales. > 15 new cards, or some of the vampires, had been significantly better > than the old stuff, I think it would have sold better because you > would have to buy Camarilla cards or lose your edge to those that did. That would have been very bad--purposefully obsoleting previous stuff is bad game design and bad marketing. Sure, it might make a few extra bucks, but it deeply alienates your player base (well, unless you player base is stupid. Please see the Heroclix BBS at www.hcrealms.com for a great example of a deeply stupid player base...) The Camarilla set seems to be selling fine--everyone around here bought as much of the Cam set as any other, if not more. The new vampires are cool, there are very good reprints (Freak, 2nd, Apportation), and the starters work very well for sealed. Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "I need a doctor, kinda, sorta. What's wrong with me? He said there's a skid mark on my aorta and there's no remedy." -The Donnas

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DB4D276...@removethis.com>... > jspektr wrote: > > Why might this be? I was thinking that perhaps it is because none of > > the new cards in the Cam set are actually compelling enough to make > > people need to buy them. > (part removed here, placed below to respond further down) > ... > > Do you find the Cam set gives you a significant advantage over players > > that don't have it, or does it make no difference? > > I find this a completely silly question to frame in this way. Clearly, > due to the makeup of Camarilla edition, it's a complete apples and > oranges comparison to juxtapose sales of expansions like Sabbat War and > Final Nights with CE and ask if the meaning of differing numbers could That's not at all what I was asking. I'm not interested in the sales figures specifically, but rather why, given the choice of buying Cam or something else, people around here are buying something else. If there were cards in Cam that made old decks better, or gave them significant new options, I'd think new *and* old players would be buying it. I am not buying Cam for reasons unrelated to the new cards, so I am asking other people why they are, or are not, buying it. > I haven't had any chances to use the new cards so far, Jyhad play in > Phoenix is so dismal nowadays. I wouldn't venture an assessment of > vampires at all. My superficial look at the library cards reveals a > mixed bag: apparently useless Abandoning the Flesh to Tensions in the > Ranks which is a surefire addition to certain kinds of popular existing > decks. Baltimore Purge and High Ground come to mind as cards that have > specific enough uses that you'll certainly see them in decks but not > likely all that often. At this stage, I imagine most of the new cards > are just being mildly experimented with and no one's found any real > burning advantages in them yet. There's probably no killer or true > staple cards amongst them. But given how they've been printed, I don't > think I'd want there to be. That, by itself, is going to necessarily > limit a huge rush on people bothering to buy CE boosters who don't need > them for the reprints. Okay, good. That's what I was asking about. The only Camarilla card I've seen played in our group so far is Tension in the Ranks. A few new vampires have appeared, but not frequently at all. Based on the mix of staple and more exotic cards, do you think it is better for a new player to buy Sabbat War or Cam? Both combine workhorse cards with "power rares" (and not-so-power rares). > > > While it is good for the game to come out > > with a new set that can be completely ignored and not have it impact > > your competitiveness, I think that it's not so good for sales. If the > > 15 new cards, or some of the vampires, had been significantly better > > than the old stuff, I think it would have sold better because you > > would have to buy Camarilla cards or lose your edge to those that did. > > It's hard for you or I to really have a worthwhile perspective on what > any given level of sales of CE did for or to the game, directly due > to player response or indirectly due to White Wolf's financial incentive > to issue future expansions. We don't even know whether the current > level of sales are viewed as bad or good by White Wolf or whether they > were foreseen or not, whatever they are. How does the supposition that putting more compelling cards into Cam would have increased sales have anything to do on how White Wolf views the current sales? The sales might be fantastic, that doesn't preclude the idea that they would have been better if better cards had been printed. > > I always assumed CE was not going to be hot seller from the start nor > thought anyone should expect it to be. The concept always seemed to be > a long-range proposition: have a "base set" in print of which White > Wolf controlled the contents. A base set, which is still available by > mail order if not often found on retailer's shelves, already existed. > In fact, two exist: Jyhad and the second VtES edition. Given that > point, I'm not sure CE was ever likely to fly off shelves, at least at > first. I've always assumed, therefore, that White Wolf had strategic > reasons for bringing it out that they had carefully considered. If so, > any debate about it here would take place in a huge vacuum of > information. Good points, and one of the reasons I think it was foolish to structure the Camarilla set the way it was. It may not be true everywhere, but here, every player that wants to can get Jyhad cards off the internet, usually for 1/3 to 1/4 the price of a similar quantity of Cam. The grouping rule then further hurts sales of Cam, because every time someone buys one of those old boxes of Jyhad, they have a reason not to buy a set with vampires incompatable with the ones they've just bought. JSpektr

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9DB3DA0.9332%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > jspektr wrote: > > > There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much > > better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new > > library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's > > seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. > > The new Vampires aren't necessarily better in the 2-7 point range, but for > vampires who are 8+, they are noticably better (in terms of how much "stuff" > they got). The 2-7 point vampires are using, mostly, the same pricing > structure, except in terms of +1 bleed and +1 strength, both of which are > cheaper now than they were when Jyhad came out. As Magnus mentioned in another reply, the mid cap Toreador and Ventrue Princes seem much better, and more focused on clan disciplines in the original set. It may also be that around here, we've seen a shift toward smaller vampires, which may make the Group 1 and 2 crypts more desirable. The exception is political decks, and as pointed out, the Jyhad/VTES set seems better for mid to large vampires with votes. As for the large vampires with more "stuff," what kind of impression do people get with them? Are the extra points paying for useful things, or for weird specials and out of clan disciplines that are often not useful. Stuff like Francois Villon having chimestry, which is usually only useful in trick decks. I doubt many people would complain if he lost the chi and became a 9 cap (I'm using a Group 2 vampire as an example, because I'm not really familiar with the group 3 vampires). If he lost chi and pot, and became an 8-cap Prince with AUS CEL obf PRE and either one of his specials, he'd be fantastic. > > Why might this be? I was thinking that perhaps it is because none of > > the new cards in the Cam set are actually compelling enough to make > > people need to buy them. > > I dunno. The Cam set strikes me as very solid. Sure, we didn't buy a ton of > it, but between the pre-release, a local booster draft tournament, and > simply picking up packs, each of about 6 solid local players bought at least > a box of boosters each. Which seems like a reasonable amount of sales. Fair enough. I'm not sure that even between all 17 of us we've bought a box of boosters total. It could just be a regional difference. > > > 15 new cards, or some of the vampires, had been significantly better > > than the old stuff, I think it would have sold better because you > > would have to buy Camarilla cards or lose your edge to those that did. > > That would have been very bad--purposefully obsoleting previous stuff is bad > game design and bad marketing. Sure, it might make a few extra bucks, but it Not obsoleting, just making new things that add enough of a new twist to the game that players will really want to have it. I suspect Anarchs will do this, with the talk of it containing some new kind of victory condition (from the developers chat, I think). Besides, I recall a lot of people complaining that the Grouping rules were planned obsolecence themselves. I was one of them, but I got around it by simply not buying any Cam cards. But as a result, I don't have a real solid feel for the pros and cons of the new set, hence this thread. JSpektr

Magnus wrote: > the fact that > > they have dominate, now have enhanced combat skills, and have more > > ways of getting around Strike: Combat ends than any other clan > > (in-clan, they can stop the most common forms of S:CE by using one of > > 4 cards, plus one has a special: this is much better than most clans > > options in this field) means that they are totally a force to be > > reckoned with. > > Ok, I´m drawing a blank on those four cards, besides Thoughts Betrayed > and, maybe, Perfect Clarity. Must be my stupid day. :) What are the > others ? > Telepathic Tracking and Fast Reaction come to mind. chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development) prince of torrance, california Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>

jspektr wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:<3DB4D276...@removethis.com>... > > jspektr wrote: > > > > Why might this be? I was thinking that perhaps it is because none of > > > the new cards in the Cam set are actually compelling enough to make > > > people need to buy them. > > (part removed here, placed below to respond further down) > > ... > > > Do you find the Cam set gives you a significant advantage over players > > > that don't have it, or does it make no difference? > > > > I find this a completely silly question to frame in this way. Clearly, > > due to the makeup of Camarilla edition, it's a complete apples and > > oranges comparison to juxtapose sales of expansions like Sabbat War and > > Final Nights with CE and ask if the meaning of differing numbers could > > That's not at all what I was asking. I'm not interested in the sales > figures specifically, but rather why, given the choice of buying Cam > or something else, people around here are buying something else. If you don't think that's what sales are, I'm curious how you think the one differs from the other. AFAIK, if you're comparing why people are buying one thing in preference to another, then congratulations! You're comparing sales. > If there were cards in Cam that made old decks better, or gave them > significant new options, I'd think new *and* old players would be > buying it. I wouldn't. At least the incentive for older players still wouldn't be there because 95% of the library cards they get will *not* "make old decks better nor give any significant new options" whatever the new cards do because 95% of the library cards are not new cards. Frankly, it frustrates me that this point isn't obvious to you. I'm an old player. I buy a pack of CE, and 95% chance each library card I get, I already got. I could absolutely love all the 15 new ones and it still wouldn't 95% matter. Does that make my point more clear? (Actually, it's somewhat less than 95%, I think because two of the new rares are actually "rare 2s" and perhaps that's true for the new cards at the other rarity levels. I don't know what the exact percentage is so I'll say 95% and we'll all understand it's really a bit lower than that. Maybe 92-93%.) > Based on the mix of staple and more exotic cards, do you think it is > better for a new player to buy Sabbat War or Cam? Both combine > workhorse cards with "power rares" (and not-so-power rares). That's hard for me to say because in both cases, I already had the cards that got reprinted so I didn't think too hard about the value I was getting in the reprints. I pass on the question in favor of whoever can speak from the experience of lacking all of those cards, including the reprints. > How does the supposition that putting more compelling cards into Cam > would have increased sales have anything to do on how White Wolf views > the current sales? The sales might be fantastic, that doesn't preclude > the idea that they would have been better if better cards had been > printed. Again, I'll respond by pointing out that the new library cards are only 5% of the library cards. I suppose I should also accept that vampire cards are also a part of it, but only a limited part as well. Sure, to some extent better cards would increase sales. But a higher percentage of new library cards would also do that and probably have a much greater effect. My opinion, but I'm pretty sure of myself about it. And frankly, I agree with Peter Bakija's point that simply making the new cards more powerful in order to sell more new cards is problematic to game balance. New cards should be of comparable power to existing cards to whatever extent the designers can manage to do that - understanding the whole process of design and playtest is inexact, controversial, and subjective. And due to the strange rarity problem caused by salting a print run that's basically full of reprints with only a few new cards, I actually think it would have been a *very* poor time to design any kind of "power" card of any sort. The *LAST* thing I'd want to see is one new power rare card worth $30+ on EBAY printed up at a rate of one pack per every three boxes of mostly reprints that most players don't even need! Super-rare power cards are a terrible thing! As for how White Wolf views current, I only brought it up because I'm sure the real thing that's holding sales back, not the quality of the new cards or the vampires but the preponderance of reprints, was something they had control over and presumably made a deliberate strategic decision about. In short, it was the executives, not the card designers, who did the whatever deed got done. Fred

> Ok, I´m drawing a blank on those four cards, besides Thoughts Betrayed > and, maybe, Perfect Clarity. Must be my stupid day. :) What are the > others ? Fast Reactions Telepathic Tracking DH

jspektr wrote: > > There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much > better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new > library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's > seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. > There's two things that could cause such a shift: new library cards and new crypt cards. There's only 15 new library cards, not enough to cause any really big change at all... even though some of the cards, Harass in particular, should see a good bit of play. [Personally, I think the CEs biggest influence on libraries might be that anyone wanting to use Freak Drive will now be able to do so.] As for the new crypt cards, I bet a lot of people have been thinking about how to put them to good use. For the high capacity vampires [8/9-10], that's often a bit tricky. Esau may be Bleed Monster Extraordinaire, but he's mostly an untitled 10-cap with a 5 discipline spread nobody else shares. Maxwell is the Ultimate Fighting Champion, but are you seriously going to play cel pot for pro with just one vampire? [And anything else he can do, someone else can do cheaper.] The low-cap vampires [2-4], well, at the very least, many of the out-of-clan discipline combos and useless 2-discipline choices [seriously, would anyone not have preferred a dem-something Malkavian 3-cap to the 3-caps in the set?] will take getting used to. Some of them, imo, just plain suck. Many mid-caps [5-7/8] actually seem pretty good, often having a useful fourth discipline or special. All in all, I don't think the selection of vampires is really better than in Jyhad - the high caps are not really more useful than before, the mid-caps got slightly better, maybe, but the lack of "standard" low caps to support group 2+3 decks more than makes up for that. Thomas

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:<3DB63D70...@vtesinla.org>... > Magnus wrote: > Telepathic Tracking and Fast Reaction come to mind. Ah, thanks. Yes, yes, those two. :) Magnus

jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote: > There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much > better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new > library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's > seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. I've noticed quite a few CE cards making it into decks around here (Sydney). Some people play with reprints of the old library cards (either for clarity, or because they didn't have enough of the old ones) and a few group 3 decks have made an appearance. I haven't been able to afford a box of boosters, but Catherine Du Bois (5 cap Ventrue; DOM for obf pre) has joined Ranjan Rishi, Camarilla Scholar in my Follower of Set deck. james o'rance

Frederick Scott wrote: > of CE, and 95% chance each library card I get, I already got. I could > absolutely love all the 15 new ones and it still wouldn't 95% matter. Does > that make my point more clear? (Actually, it's somewhat less than 95%, I > think because two of the new rares are actually "rare 2s" and perhaps that's > true for the new cards at the other rarity levels. I don't know what the > exact percentage is so I'll say 95% and we'll all understand it's really a > bit lower than that. Maybe 92-93%.) The commons are all C1s (100 different commons on the 100-card sheet). The uncommons are all U1s. (And the vampires are all V1s, for that matter). So you get (5/9)*0.95 + (3/9)*0.95 + (1/9)*0.93 = 94.778% reprints in your library cards from CE boosters. (and, of course, 0% reprints in your crypt cards). -- 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/

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3DB64383...@removethis.com>... > jspektr wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > > news:<3DB4D276...@removethis.com>... > > > jspektr wrote: > > > That's not at all what I was asking. I'm not interested in the sales > > figures specifically, but rather why, given the choice of buying Cam > > or something else, people around here are buying something else. > > If you don't think that's what sales are, I'm curious how you think the one > differs from the other. AFAIK, if you're comparing why people are buying one > thing in preference to another, then congratulations! You're comparing > sales. Failure to communicate. I'm not asking specifically about how the numbers compare, just the mental process in the buyer. What are the value judgements that are made that lead to the decision to buy one or the other? Obviously, sales are the result of that mental process. But I'm more interested in what drives the decision itself. > > > If there were cards in Cam that made old decks better, or gave them > > significant new options, I'd think new *and* old players would be > > buying it. > > I wouldn't. At least the incentive for older players still wouldn't be > there because 95% of the library cards they get will *not* "make old decks > better nor give any significant new options" whatever the new cards do > because 95% of the library cards are not new cards. Frankly, it frustrates > me that this point isn't obvious to you. I'm an old player. I buy a pack It frustrates *me* that it isn't obvious to you that the point is, in fact, obvious to me. You may not be willing to buy boosters to get useful rares and uncommons if the bulk of the cards are ones you already own. I accept and understand that. I still maintain that more players, with the exception of you, Frederick Scott, would have made the decision to buy the set if it had contained more useful, interesting or significantly advantageous cards. That includes the possibility of there being more than 15 of such cards. As a side note, if the set design had *not* changed, I probably would have bought quite a few of the new cards, just for the correct text on stuff like 2nd Tradition. If there had also been no grouping rule, I would have bought many boxes of it. But that gets into the debate over why WW changed the design, and those are grounds that have been gone over many times before. JSpektr

jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote in message news:<196f2577.02102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] > JSpektr Greetings all! Well , in my city too many players (even newbies) build FN o SW too. The reasons?? For experiences players the NEW CE has too much "old cards & vamps" , so they think that has a LOTS of the same cards isn愒 very intelligent , the prefers someone boosterpack cause want the new vamps for collection. Too they think like me that the CE is most oriented to NEW players & expansions like FN o BL are most interesting for old players. I knew too that in others cities around of the mine, a great number pf players buy & build decks with CE , cause they say that new expansions give more strategies to play around the BiIG vamps like Melene , Vitel ect.. For me CE is , now , with time to wacth as it is great, but i agree with the opinion that the reprint of Old vamps was a mistake. The stardeck idea is very useful too , more if u think that WW want to the more new players , those that dont has a great collection of cards as us, but it was better build a stardeck with a branch of new cards & old cards , & of course only the new vamps . that愀 my opnion. Best regards: a spanish drunk guy ;-) (only smoked :-P)

jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote in message news:<196f2577.02102...@posting.google.com>... > There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much > better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new > library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's > seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. > IMO, its a little to early to judge this. Not everyone has acces to all the cards they need for a specific CamED deck. > > Do you find the Cam set gives you a significant advantage over players > that don't have it, or does it make no difference? Advantage: no. more choices: definetely. e.g. last sunday i ended second in a tourney in Amsterdam with a deck (decklist below) that was practically unplayable before. The CamEd vamps are needed for this deck, otherwise the average cap is a bit too high. Jeroen Decklist: Crypt: 1 Arnold Simpson: pot 1 Raziya Samater: ani pot 2 Darva Felispa: ani pot 2 Tommy: ani pot 1 Shane Grimald: ani pot 2 Amelia: ani POT 2 Nigel: ANI POT 1 Beast: ani POT Library: Master: 1 Archon investigation 1 Barrens 3 Blood doll 1 Dreams of the sphinx 2 Fame 3 Haven Uncovered 2 potence 1 Tension in the Ranks Action: 10 Bum's Rush 8 Computer hacking 1 Rampage 1 Tier of Souls Combat: 1 Decapitate 3 disarm 7 Drawing out the Beast 1 Fists of death 11 IG 2 Pulled Fangs 7 Song of Serenity 6 Taste of vitae 9 Torn Signpost 9 Undead strength Comments: Fairly straightforward ani pot rush deck. DOtb against maneuvres, Song both against Gangrel scratch and to offset the DOtB additional strength. Both DotB and IG protect against equipment. Arnold is probably not necessary, I still have doubts about including Beast (no ANI) but I never saw either of them. The Tier of Souls prolly has to go, and the Barrens should be a second Dreams of the Sphinx. Still a work in progress, so if anyone has any ideas to improve it, don't hesitate to post them.

Jeroen wrote: > jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote in message > news:<196f2577.02102...@posting.google.com>... > > e.g. last sunday i ended second in a tourney in Amsterdam with a deck > (decklist below) that was practically unplayable before. The CamEd > vamps are needed for this deck, otherwise the average cap is a bit too > high. > > Jeroen > > Decklist: > Crypt: > 1 Arnold Simpson: pot > 1 Raziya Samater: ani pot > 2 Darva Felispa: ani pot > 2 Tommy: ani pot > 1 Shane Grimald: ani pot > 2 Amelia: ani POT > 2 Nigel: ANI POT > 1 Beast: ani POT I would drop one of the doubled three caps and Arnold for 2 Ox. I would worry about your take down potential if you didn't get potence masters soon. > > Library: > Master: > 1 Archon investigation > 1 Barrens > 3 Blood doll > 1 Dreams of the sphinx > 2 Fame > 3 Haven Uncovered > 2 potence > 1 Tension in the Ranks Good, 'cept for the Barrens/Dreams switch. Dreams is far superior. The AI is definetly a meta-game choice, I probably wouldn't play it, switch it to a Fame. But if you see lots of bleeds for 3+ flying around then it is a good choice. > > Action: > 10 Bum's Rush > 8 Computer hacking > 1 Rampage > 1 Tier of Souls Yeah, drop the Tier of Souls. > > Combat: > 1 Decapitate > 3 disarm > 7 Drawing out the Beast > 1 Fists of death > 11 IG > 2 Pulled Fangs > 7 Song of Serenity > 6 Taste of vitae > 9 Torn Signpost > 9 Undead strength I would drop the Decapitate, one IG, one DoTB, one Song, and put in four Carrion Crows. That is the difference between 3 damage and 4 for your ani/pot guys. Besides that it looks good. However, I don't know if it will be better than the obf/pot Peter Bakija version. Maybe if you see lots of Sniper Rifles, or tons of manuvers, but otherwise you get more combats in by sticking to Torn/Undead/Taste with a few behind yous than Torn/Song/DotB/Undead/Taste. Colin Riggs loves the sucker illustration on behind you [ quoted text not captured ]

>Failure to communicate. I'm not asking specifically about how the >numbers compare, just the mental process in the buyer. What are the >value judgements that are made that lead to the decision to buy one or >the other? As I didn't answer this directly in my previous post and you seem to be quite concerned with what motivates a veteran player to buy CE - Q: Are you more likely to buy FN/Bl or CE, why? A: Bloodlines first, CE second, FN third. In part, this has to do with how much I already have of each. It's hard to go back and say which I'd buy if I didn't have any and could buy any of them at the same time as they didn't come out at the same time. But, I'm still interested in more Bloodlines though I should have roughly equal amounts of it and FN and more of them than CE. Could very well be an argument for the ridiculous rarity scheme and the excessive number of "clans" put into Bloodlines, but the variety and uniqueness of Bloodlines cards is appealing. Could be an argument for printing power rares, but the power level of Bloodlines library cards (individually) is much higher than FN. As for CE, you can't escape the fact that people have lots of copies of most of the library cards. The primary selling point for the veteran player is new vampires. Unless you want tons of each vampire, the diminishing returns is much greater for buying CE due both to the number of reprints and because a bunch of the rares just aren't important to have tons of copies of. I rank it before FN, though, because I don't really need anything from FN anymore except more Ezmereldas. CE, at least, offers some staple cards I could use ungodly amounts of like Telepathic Misdirection, corrected texts of certain cards, and a few library and vampire cards I might have a use for. >Obviously, sales are the result of that mental process. But I'm more >interested in what drives the decision itself. > > >> >> > If there were cards in Cam that made old decks better, or gave them >> > significant new options, I'd think new *and* old players would be >> > buying it. >> >> I wouldn't. At least the incentive for older players still wouldn't be >> there because 95% of the library cards they get will *not* "make old decks >> better nor give any significant new options" whatever the new cards do >> because 95% of the library cards are not new cards. Frankly, it frustrates >> me that this point isn't obvious to you. I'm an old player. I buy a pack > >It frustrates *me* that it isn't obvious to you that the point is, in >fact, obvious to me. > >You may not be willing to buy boosters to get useful rares and >uncommons if the bulk of the cards are ones you already own. I accept >and understand that. I still maintain that more players, with the >exception of you, Frederick Scott, would have made the decision to buy >the set if it had contained more useful, interesting or significantly >advantageous cards. That includes the possibility of there being more >than 15 of such cards. More veteran players, sure. But, CE is not any old expansion. It's a new base set. There are a few losers that could have been omitted to make room for a few more cards, but there's a definite limit if you want to retain the design philosophy of it being a new Camarilla base set. I maintain that no one likes new base sets (at least for CCGs that don't rotate cards out of the environment). New players are still behind the collection curve while veterans only want new cards. The more new cards you put in, the more you screw the newbie who doesn't have sufficient access to the unreprinted cards. The less, the more the veteran player scoffs at spending money on cards already owned. What was done with CE was a reasonable (probably near optimal) compromise. Reprint most of the library stuff so that everyone has Majestys, Telepathic Misdirections, et al which work with vampires from any set and do completely new vampires that don't work with the originals to give a reason for the veterans to buy the set while eliminating all of the issues with deciding which vampires to reprint as well as the problem of newbies getting shafted by not having accumulated the originals. If you think CE should have been done differently, okay, but how would you solve the problem of newbies and veterans having different interests? This question is essential to why CE has a number of the features that it does, which, in turn, affects why people may or may not want to buy it.

jspektr wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:<3DB64383...@removethis.com>... > > jspektr wrote: > > > If there were cards in Cam that made old decks better, or gave them > > > significant new options, I'd think new *and* old players would be > > > buying it. > > > > I wouldn't. At least the incentive for older players still wouldn't be > > there because 95% of the library cards they get will *not* "make old decks > > better nor give any significant new options" whatever the new cards do > > because 95% of the library cards are not new cards. Frankly, it frustrates > > me that this point isn't obvious to you. > > It frustrates *me* that it isn't obvious to you that the point is, in > fact, obvious to me. > > You may not be willing to buy boosters to get useful rares and > uncommons if the bulk of the cards are ones you already own. I accept > and understand that. I still maintain that more players, with the > exception of you, Frederick Scott, would have made the decision to buy > the set if it had contained more useful, interesting or significantly > advantageous cards. "More players"? Who?!? Did I mention that *95%* of the library cards are *useless* to people that already own sufficient numbers of those cards?!? I'm sorry, I don't understand why it makes that much difference how good *5%* of the cards are. OK, more than 5%, depending on the importance of vampires, but clearly *this* is the main issue to non-new players, not the quality of the handful of new library cards. > That includes the possibility of there being more than 15 of such cards. That's an entirely different question, as I've pointed out. That isn't a card design question. That's a business strategy question. If that's what you wanted ask, then start out with it so we're not mincing words. > As a side note, if the set design had *not* changed, I probably would > have bought quite a few of the new cards, just for the correct text on > stuff like 2nd Tradition. This comment isn't very clear. Are you referring to the card layout? If so, I guess I sympathize somewhat. It was bad to change the layout for no good reason. But that's not something I'm going to get that fanatical about myself. > If there had also been no grouping rule, I would have bought many boxes > of it. Same response. What can I say? It's always frustrating when they go making changes that hurt in some way and do not (IMHO) really help. But these particular changes won't "kill the game" so I'm too hooked to bail on it. I always felt the card back changes from Jyhad to VtES were far worse than anything White Wolf's every done with which I didn't agree. Once I came back after that, it would take something pretty obnoxious to drive me away again. Fred

> > Decklist: > > Crypt: > > 1 Arnold Simpson: pot > > 1 Raziya Samater: ani pot > > 2 Darva Felispa: ani pot > > 2 Tommy: ani pot > > 1 Shane Grimald: ani pot > > 2 Amelia: ani POT > > 2 Nigel: ANI POT > > 1 Beast: ani POT > > I would drop one of the doubled three caps and Arnold for 2 Ox. I would > worry about your take down potential if you didn't get potence masters soon. > That was never a problem, the deck cycles like mad once it gets going. > > > > Library: > > Master: > > 1 Archon investigation > > 1 Barrens > > 3 Blood doll > > 1 Dreams of the sphinx > > 2 Fame > > 3 Haven Uncovered > > 2 potence > > 1 Tension in the Ranks > > Good, 'cept for the Barrens/Dreams switch. Dreams is far superior. The AI is > definetly a meta-game choice, I probably wouldn't play it, switch it to a > Fame. But if you see lots of bleeds for 3+ flying around then it is a good > choice. yeah, burned a governing Queen Ann with it. > > > > > Action: > > 10 Bum's Rush > > 8 Computer hacking > > 1 Rampage > > 1 Tier of Souls > > Yeah, drop the Tier of Souls. > > > > > Combat: > > 1 Decapitate > > 3 disarm > > 7 Drawing out the Beast > > 1 Fists of death > > 11 IG > > 2 Pulled Fangs > > 7 Song of Serenity > > 6 Taste of vitae > > 9 Torn Signpost > > 9 Undead strength > > I would drop the Decapitate, one IG, one DoTB, one Song, and put in four > Carrion Crows. That is the difference between 3 damage and 4 for your > ani/pot guys. Besides that it looks good. Good point. And it's never wasted when I press with superior IG. > > However, I don't know if it will be better than the obf/pot Peter Bakija > version. Maybe if you see lots of Sniper Rifles, or tons of manuvers, but > otherwise you get more combats in by sticking to Torn/Undead/Taste with a > few behind yous than Torn/Song/DotB/Undead/Taste. Agreed. BUT I was getting a bit afraid of running into a cel gun deck. And I faced a long range assamite deck that was completely trumped by DotB - IG. thx.

Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: >"More players"? Who?!? Did I mention that *95%* of the library cards are >*useless* to people that already own sufficient numbers of those cards?!? Actually, 100% of all cards (from all sets, from all TCGs) are *useless* to people that already own "sufficient numbers" of those cards, by definition. :-) -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson

Curevei wrote: > I maintain that no one likes new base sets (at least for CCGs that don't rotate > cards out of the environment). New players are still behind the collection > curve while veterans only want new cards. The more new cards you put in, the > more you screw the newbie who doesn't have sufficient access to the unreprinted > cards. The less, the more the veteran player scoffs at spending money on cards > already owned. I think this view of things compares "new base sets" with a situation where older base sets are still available, like we've got now...and assuming you don't view the manner in which the older base sets are available to be a drawback. Personally, I don't. But then, I'm all wired and find it easy to order up boxes from Potomac or someone online when I want them. WW may feel that a new base set has a better chance of being on actual store shelves (in a few stores, anyway) and thus actually have a chance of bring new players into the game. And to get back to my original point, having a new base set ultimately has to be compared to having to no base set at all - which is really bad. You have to assume that someday, all those boxes of Jyhad and VtES we've seen being sold cheap will go away. Of course, whether CE was really needed this year might something to question if that's what the issue is. > What was done with CE was a reasonable (probably near optimal) compromise. > Reprint most of the library stuff so that everyone has Majestys, Telepathic > Misdirections, et al which work with vampires from any set and do completely > new vampires that don't work with the originals to give a reason for the > veterans to buy the set while eliminating all of the issues with deciding which > vampires to reprint as well as the problem of newbies getting shafted by not > having accumulated the originals. Why is not just putting *all* reprints not the optimal thing? Why do we need any new cards at all in what is otherwise basically a reprint set? New players don't really them if all they're doing is getting caught up on owning staple cards. My problem with the relatively small number of new cards in a set full of reprints is that it creates high demand cards that both older and newer players can use in a vast population of cards that only newer players can use. That has the practical effect of making such cards seem more rare than their true rarity level in the set in which they got printed. Rare new cards in a set of reprints in particular "feel" like super-rares because everyone wants them but only newer player have the full incentive to buy packs in this set. In truth, I suspect the new cards in the set (and the new cards in Sabbat Wars, the other example of this) probably served the function of creating interest in the set. Older players may not need to buy any (or many) packs out of such a set but at least they're keenly aware of it because of the new cards. The awareness likely sells packs of cards one way or another, if only by giving the feel of a more dynamic game. (I note these new cards in CE will be the only changes to the game between last Christmas and whenever Anarchs finally come out.) I don't like it, personally, but I guess I understand it. My ideal compromise for this would be to avoid the new cards being rare. In fact, lowering the intended rarity level for all the new cards (rare to uncommon, uncommon to common, commmon maybe to common 2) would be helpful in these cases. Fred

"L. Scott Johnson" wrote: > > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > >"More players"? Who?!? Did I mention that *95%* of the library cards are > >*useless* to people that already own sufficient numbers of those cards?!? > > Actually, 100% of all cards (from all sets, from all TCGs) are > *useless* to people that already own "sufficient numbers" of those > cards, by definition. :-) Of course. But if one owned "sufficient numbers" of the new cards, then they would obviously have bought plenty of them, which I don't think is the situation Josh wished to discuss here. (mumbled...growlll...really think folks knew what i meant...shnrk...mumble...) Fred

>Why is not just putting *all* reprints not the optimal thing? Why do we need >any new cards at all in what is otherwise basically a reprint set? I could be facetious and say - then it's not a *new* base set but an old one. But, basically, it comes down to putting out sets that have some hope of making money. You have to give some reason for people to buy every set. Whether you liked or even heard of Wheel of Time or not, the reason it died wasn't because it didn't sell but because distributors didn't approve of a new base set that was mostly reprints which delayed the production* of any product past the dreaded "unsupported point". * Months after I figured the stupid thing was done, the company scrapped their plans and we started working on a set that was going to be 50% or so new. Thing was, the game didn't need a base set reprint at the time though the original set was largely unavailable. Could have done an expansion (everyone wanted) with new precons which would have sufficed to tide things over. This was possible due to the original base set being full of crap.

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:KnCt9.175563$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... > > > Combat: > > > 1 Decapitate > > > 3 disarm > > > 7 Drawing out the Beast > > > 1 Fists of death > > > 11 IG > > > 2 Pulled Fangs > > > 7 Song of Serenity > > > 6 Taste of vitae > > > 9 Torn Signpost > > > 9 Undead strength [Colin wrote] > > I would drop the Decapitate, one IG, one DoTB, one Song, and put in four > > Carrion Crows. That is the difference between 3 damage and 4 for your > > ani/pot guys. Besides that it looks good. > > Good point. And it's never wasted when I press with superior IG. I'd be tempted to drop all the Songs in order to increase the number of Taste of Vitae and put in some Carrion Crows. This is based on the "numerical advantage" theory of VTES cards: the more blood a card gains for you or costs your opponent, the better it is. Corollary: cards that only get you a 1-blood advantage for playing them are relatively weak. (Song typically saves you 1 blood - no more than that at inferior and only more at superior if there is a second round. Taste should usually get you at least 3, sometimes more. Carrion Crows gets you at least 1 at inferior, 2 at superior; more if there are more rounds.) This may not be such a good idea if 1-agg-damage pokes are actually very common in your environment. But they're not all that common in most of the environments I see, so I don't like Song all that much. Josh sing a song of sixpence a pocket full of crows

Curevei wrote: > > >Why is not just putting *all* reprints not the optimal thing? Why do we need > >any new cards at all in what is otherwise basically a reprint set? > > I could be facetious and say - then it's not a *new* base set but an old one. It's a new base set for the same reason each new version of Magic the Gathering is a new base set: there's a new combination of older cards being reprinted together. They swap out some cards and swap in other cards that had only seen printing in an expansion up until now (whether or not that expansion had been printed before or after the last base set makes no nevermind) or even stuff that had been in a base set but wasn't in the last one. Not new cards. But a new *set* of cards. Anyway, this is all semantics. Not that important. > But, basically, it comes down to putting out sets that have some hope of making > money. You have to give some reason for people to buy every set. But you have to distinguish between groups of players. Older players who've got original versions of all the reprints don't have much reason to buy a new base set anyway. So why throw a few new cards in just to irritate them and make them wade through a bunch of stuff they don't need just to get a effectively small return on their investment? And newer players don't have the reprints so don't care if the cards in the base set are reprints or not. One card they don't have in a set is just as good as another. I know it's ultimately not that cut and dried. I'm just explaining why I don't think the concept of a few new cards in a set dominated by reprints can accurately be termed, "optimal". Actually, "problematic" is more my word for it. > Whether you liked or even heard of Wheel of Time or not, the reason it died > wasn't because it didn't sell but because distributors didn't approve of a new > base set that was mostly reprints which delayed the production* of any product > past the dreaded "unsupported point". > > * Months after I figured the stupid thing was done, the company scrapped their > plans and we started working on a set that was going to be 50% or so new. > Thing was, the game didn't need a base set reprint at the time though the > original set was largely unavailable. Could have done an expansion (everyone > wanted) with new precons which would have sufficed to tide things over. This > was possible due to the original base set being full of crap. Sure. I think there's a few other issues here besides the optimal makeup of a new base set, though: the original base set being bad and unavailable, distributor interests diverging from manufacturer interests, unfortunate delays in making crucial decisions. But I guess you're saying the same thing I said at the end of my last post: whatever the optimal makeup of a base set is for player purposes, other kinds of practical, real-world issues will often intrude on it. Fred

>But I guess you're saying the same thing I said at the end >of my last post: whatever the optimal makeup of a base set is for player >purposes, other kinds of practical, real-world issues will often intrude on >it. I never said it was optimal for *player* purposes. I just said it was essential to address both types of players' desires, essential because the company is trying to maximize sales. It's optimal, IMO, from a business standpoint as it gives the set a chance to make money while not screwing up the environment or screwing either one of the types of players that much. Different conditions I could see something else being optimal. If Jyhad/V:TES was scarce and highly in demand, reprints would be more desirable to veterans, etc.

> As for the large vampires with more "stuff," what kind of impression > do people get with them? Are the extra points paying for useful > things, or for weird specials and out of clan disciplines that are > often not useful. Stuff like Francois Villon having chimestry, which > is usually only useful in trick decks. I doubt many people would > complain if he lost the chi and became a 9 cap (I'm using a Group 2 > vampire as an example, because I'm not really familiar with the group > 3 vampires). If he lost chi and pot, and became an 8-cap Prince with > AUS CEL obf PRE and either one of his specials, he'd be fantastic. > Holy fuck, no! Francois is the daddy, exactly how he is. Of the other 10-cap prince, only he has 6 disciplines. Only he has two groovy special abilities. (Queen anne's second + bleed is a lot more conditional). One of my Francois decks uses him for votes, and as a bloat machine - Minion Tap for 8, steal 2, Heidelberg 6 on, and then he is ready for another huge Minion Tap next turn. (The Heidelberg blood often comes from Hesha, or someone Hesha has tempted). That's cool, and would be less good were he an 8-cap, since I couldn't tap for as much any more, and because he would not be able to steal from so many targets. ANother Francois deck uses all his disciplines save auspex. THe core is summoning Gregory Winter, and then draining blood from nearby vampires (feeding blood dolls on Francois), and trying to blow up vamps with Society of Leopold. There are 13 Second Traditions, to give Volker and Francois plenty of opportunities for biffo. The Potence is obvious - mix celerity with torn signpost and disarm. The Chimestry is cool when you end up blocking someone scary - Francois just creates an illusion to tear up a signpost and do the fighting for him. And it's practically free, since he will be stealing the blood back next turn. That's cool, and taking away these two disciplines would obviously screw this deck utterly. Both of these are good decks. The first one wins a lot, the second I am tweaking, to try to win more, but it's already a barrel o fun. To me, your suggestions for Francois are like saying Lazvernius would be cool as a seven cap without the useless +2 strength, and out of clan disciplines :-)

In message <614f2a39.02102...@posting.google.com>, Hollowboy <icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com> writes: >Of the other 10-cap prince, only he has 6 disciplines. Only he has two >groovy special abilities. (Queen anne's second + bleed is a lot more >conditional). Rachel Brandywine isn't doing too badly on the groovy special abilities front. (+1 bleed and the recycle special) 10 cap, Prince of Cleveland. Randomly, there are no vampires in group [1] who are 10 cap and a prince. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D uk.* Committee Elections in progress EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D See uk.net.news.announce for more details

Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9DB3DA0.9332%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > The Camarilla set seems to be selling > fine--everyone around here bought as much of the Cam set as any other, if > not more. The new vampires are cool, there are very good reprints (Freak, > 2nd, Apportation), and the starters work very well for sealed. Talking about the starters, what is the final verdict for the Nossie starter ? From the view of good cards, it was pretty much totally useless, but how does it fare in a booster draft ? Magnus

Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:<3DB66571...@aon.at>... > As for the new crypt cards, I bet a lot of people have been thinking > about how to put them to good use. > For the high capacity vampires [8/9-10], that's often a bit tricky. Esau > may be Bleed Monster Extraordinaire, but he's mostly an untitled 10-cap > with a 5 discipline spread nobody else shares. Maxwell is the Ultimate > Fighting Champion, but are you seriously going to play cel pot for pro > with just one vampire? [And anything else he can do, someone else can do > cheaper.] > The low-cap vampires [2-4], well, at the very least, many of the > out-of-clan discipline combos and useless 2-discipline choices > [seriously, would anyone not have preferred a dem-something Malkavian > 3-cap to the 3-caps in the set?] will take getting used to. Some of > them, imo, just plain suck. > Many mid-caps [5-7/8] actually seem pretty good, often having a useful > fourth discipline or special. > > All in all, I don't think the selection of vampires is really better > than in Jyhad - the high caps are not really more useful than before, > the mid-caps got slightly better, maybe, but the lack of "standard" low > caps to support group 2+3 decks more than makes up for that. There are a few big vampires which are just really, *really* powerful. Jaroslav Pascek ( ever equipped that guy with a Bang Nakh ?), Helena, Menele, Marcus Vitel, Lucas Halton, Oliver Thrace... those are some scary vampires. Magnus

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<8vuMVZG$F9t9...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <614f2a39.02102...@posting.google.com>, Hollowboy > <icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com> writes: > >Of the other 10-cap prince, only he has 6 disciplines. Only he has two > >groovy special abilities. (Queen anne's second + bleed is a lot more > >conditional). > > Rachel Brandywine isn't doing too badly on the groovy special abilities > front. (+1 bleed and the recycle special) 10 cap, Prince of Cleveland. > > Randomly, there are no vampires in group [1] who are 10 cap and a > prince. Ack! You are correct. Rachel's discard ability is sodding brilliant! And, while she has fewer disciplines than Francois, she has one more at superior. Anyway, that doesn't detract from the point that I never actually got around to making (!) The wasted 'stuff' that jspektr was bemoaning is 1 or 2 wasted pool for some people, but pore gold for others. The frivolous 'stuff' he specified is a key part of two of my favourite decks - and they are fun *and* competitive decks. If all the stuff was trimmed, that would be bad for building fun decks, IMO.

On 24 Oct 2002 07:39:17 -0700, magn...@gmx.de (Magnus) wrote: >Talking about the starters, what is the final verdict for the Nossie >starter ? From the view of good cards, it was pretty much totally >useless, but how does it fare in a booster draft ? Personally, I think it does pretty well in a booster draft. IIRC, all the sealed games I saw at GenCon in August, the Nosferatu won, or at least did really really really well. I think the deck itself is quite solid. Xian

icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) wrote in message news:<614f2a39.02102...@posting.google.com>... > The wasted 'stuff' that jspektr was bemoaning is 1 or 2 wasted pool > for some people, but pore gold for others. The frivolous 'stuff' he > specified is a key part of two of my favourite decks - and they are > fun *and* competitive decks. If all the stuff was trimmed, that would > be bad for building fun decks, IMO. Not bemoaning at all. Just wondering what people think. And now I know, at least for you, so it's all good. JSpektr

jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote in message news:<196f2577.02102...@posting.google.com>... > Peter D Bakija <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:<B9DB3DA0.9332%PD...@bigplanet.com>... > > jspektr wrote: > > > > > There was a lot of talk about the new Cam vampires having a much > > > better costing structure than older vampires, and of the 15 new > > > library cards in the set. That being said, I'm wondering if anyone's > > > seen a significant shift to using the new cards compared to old cards. > > > > The new Vampires aren't necessarily better in the 2-7 point range, but for > > vampires who are 8+, they are noticably better (in terms of how much "stuff" > > they got). The 2-7 point vampires are using, mostly, the same pricing > > structure, except in terms of +1 bleed and +1 strength, both of which are > > cheaper now than they were when Jyhad came out. We have a few people tinkering with Camarilla only crypts and they seem to be doing fair enough. > As Magnus mentioned in another reply, the mid cap Toreador and Ventrue > Princes seem much better, and more focused on clan disciplines in the > original set. I'm not so sure if this is true. Ira Rivers is pretty dang good at blocking stuff. I'd give him the nod over Tatiana. Fleurdumal lacks CEL, but she's got a decent, if odd, discipline spread and nice special. Anson, with dom, probably edges her out. The new Ventrue Princes are more expensive but it was really hard to compare with the old ones which were very strong and compact. They were just slightly overpowered because they are so young. > It may also be that around here, we've seen a shift toward smaller > vampires, which may make the Group 1 and 2 crypts more desirable. The > exception is political decks, and as pointed out, the Jyhad/VTES set > seems better for mid to large vampires with votes. I think the shift to smaller vampires is due in part to lots of people toying with cheap minions with guns, and so the initial metagame reaction is to go smaller so you don't get your ass handed to you on the 4th turn. > As for the large vampires with more "stuff," what kind of impression > do people get with them? Are the extra points paying for useful > things, or for weird specials and out of clan disciplines that are > often not useful. I think it will just take some time for people to get used to the new vampires (and actually acquire some) to make things truly interesting. I hope the Storyline environment will help people get more familiar with them since they must confine their crypt selections. > Besides, I recall a lot of people complaining that the Grouping rules > were planned obsolecence themselves. I was one of them, but I got > around it by simply not buying any Cam cards. But as a result, I don't > have a real solid feel for the pros and cons of the new set, hence > this thread. I've seen people play decks based on all the new Cam clans except the Tremere. I know I'll make one as soon as I can retire my !Tremere deck after the Storyline events. ;) It's just a matter of time. IMO, it's easier for people to acquire a handful of library cards via trading than acquire 3-4 of the "trick" vampires and build a deck around them. There's going to be some lag time, but I think the changes will soon be everywhere. I also have a strange feeling that there may be distributional problems for the second wave of shipments due to the labor problems between the ILWU and PCA, at least on the West Coast. Time will tell. Jeff

> > The wasted 'stuff' that jspektr was bemoaning is 1 or 2 wasted pool > > for some people, but pore gold for others. The frivolous 'stuff' he > > specified is a key part of two of my favourite decks - and they are > > fun *and* competitive decks. If all the stuff was trimmed, that would > > be bad for building fun decks, IMO. > > Not bemoaning at all. Just wondering what people think. And now I > know, at least for you, so it's all good. > > JSpektr Oh, sorry. Bemoaning was probably the wrong word... from what you wrote: "If he lost chi and pot, and became an 8-cap Prince with AUS CEL obf PRE and either one of his specials, he'd be fantastic." ...I assumed you thought that he was currently ass, but would be good IF the changes were made. There *are* vamps like Patrizia whose specials and out of clans seem like a waste... but not many. Like animalism on Enzo Giovanni may seem like a waste, but I remember once getting a murder of Crows on Cardano, and torporing vampires with Theft + Crow damage. So maybe someone out there is in love with Ani / Dom / Thau, and thinks that Enzo's animalism is a gift from god. Hey, I just realised that Goratrix can do it too. And lots better. Hmm...

icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) wrote in message news:<614f2a39.02103...@posting.google.com>... > > > The wasted 'stuff' that jspektr was bemoaning is 1 or 2 wasted pool > > > for some people, but pore gold for others. The frivolous 'stuff' he > > > specified is a key part of two of my favourite decks - and they are > > > fun *and* competitive decks. If all the stuff was trimmed, that would > > > be bad for building fun decks, IMO. > > > > Not bemoaning at all. Just wondering what people think. And now I > > know, at least for you, so it's all good. > > > > JSpektr > > Oh, sorry. Bemoaning was probably the wrong word... from what you > wrote: > > "If he lost chi and pot, and became an 8-cap Prince with > AUS CEL obf PRE and either one of his specials, he'd be fantastic." > > ...I assumed you thought that he was currently ass, but would be good > IF the changes were made. Not at all. I was trying to point out that without his extra weird disciplines and a lower cost, he would be considered better, at least by some players. That, then, is the question: is it better for a vampire to be lower cost, with more focused in-clan disciplines, or higher cost, with a smattering of basic, out of clan disciplines? Personally, if a vampire is going to have a large capacity and out of clan disciplines, I'd prefer them to be superior. Adding a basic out of clan discipline to a vampire above 7 capacity often seems like a waste to me. But that could just be the way I play, your mileage may vary. > > There *are* vamps like Patrizia whose specials and out of clans seem > like a waste... but not many. > > Like animalism on Enzo Giovanni may seem like a waste, but I remember > once getting a murder of Crows on Cardano, and torporing vampires with > Theft + Crow damage. So maybe someone out there is in love with Ani / > Dom / Thau, and thinks that Enzo's animalism is a gift from god. > > Hey, I just realised that Goratrix can do it too. And lots better. > Hmm... Yeah, I tried to build an Ani/Dom/Thaum deck one time. Never really worked, as all the vampires with the combo are big, and the combo isn't strong enough to warrant the cost. If there were 3 or 4 midcap vamps with Ani/Dom/Thau or even more large caps with all three at superior, I could see it working. JSpektr

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > I would drop the Decapitate, one IG, one DoTB, one Song, and put in four > > > Carrion Crows. That is the difference between 3 damage and 4 for your > > > ani/pot guys. Besides that it looks good. > > > > Good point. And it's never wasted when I press with superior IG. > > I'd be tempted to drop all the Songs in order to increase the number > of Taste of Vitae and put in some Carrion Crows. In this particular deck, I agree, but... > This is based on the "numerical advantage" theory of VTES cards: > the more blood a card gains for you or costs your opponent, the > better it is. Corollary: cards that only get you a 1-blood > advantage for playing them are relatively weak. (Song typically > saves you 1 blood - no more than that at inferior and only more > at superior if there is a second round. Taste should usually > get you at least 3, sometimes more. Carrion Crows gets you at > least 1 at inferior, 2 at superior; more if there are more > rounds.) Right...For this deck, it's a one-round deck. Song of Serenity isn't going to gain you much. However, you put a Trap in the equation, and the outcome is much different. Trap + Carrion Crows = good Trap + Song of Serenity = good Trap + Carrion Crows + Song of Serenity = good Trap + Taste of Vitae = bad Trap + Taste of Vitae + Carrion Crows = good Since this deck doesn't use Traps, stick with the Tastes. > This may not be such a good idea if 1-agg-damage pokes are > actually very common in your environment. But they're not all > that common in most of the environments I see, so I don't like > Song all that much. It isn't just the 1-agg-damage pokes. It's also the multiple strike decks that are affected heavily by Song of Serenity, as well as the Skin of Steel + Disarm dorks. If your opponent throws down a Trap, Song of Serenity can gum up the works very nicely. 1-agg-damage pokes aren't common in the environments you see? Not many Tzimisce players? Waitaminnit...Isn't DC the home of Proteolicious? :) - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

> Personally, if a vampire is going to have a large capacity and out of > clan disciplines, I'd prefer them to be superior. Adding a basic out > of clan discipline to a vampire above 7 capacity often seems like a > waste to me. But that could just be the way I play, your mileage may > vary. Yes and no... Like what do Leandro and Spider Killer want celerity for? That *is* a waste. Better if they didn't have them, but had AUS and DOM respectively. On the other hand, there are decks based on potent Gangrel/Assimites, obf on Ventrue, dom on some Ravnos & Followers of Set. Disciplines vital to several decks, despite being out of clan inferiors. > Yeah, I tried to build an Ani/Dom/Thaum deck one time. Never really > worked, as all the vampires with the combo are big, and the combo > isn't strong enough to warrant the cost. If there were 3 or 4 midcap > vamps with Ani/Dom/Thau or even more large caps with all three at > superior, I could see it working. > > JSpektr How about a deck based on Javier, Sashca Vykos, and the cheap Justicar? All have ani THAU AUS. Crows + Theft. Yay! Plenty of defence via disciplines and titles, and offense/defence with Parity Shift + Telepathic Vote Counting.