Bloodlines Rarity

we can already guess that come vamps will be R2 rarity ... At least it's better than the R1 from FN. But there's still a lot of them... I guess it's a trick to make us spend mo'money ! Is it because they are powerful or because they are kinda "specialized" fatties ? Reyda i cant wait till i put this Paris Opera House in play =)

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:9u3epq$fgg$1...@neon.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] i haven't counted the R1 and R2 yet. but my guess is that the reason behind this is to make good use of the 100 cards on a sheet. same should apply to U1/U2 and C1/C2. in final nights the same applied. there were 8 R1 and 46 R2. 1*8 + 2*46 = 100 which is one full sheet. pallando

pallando <pall...@gmx.at> wrote: : "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag [ quoted text not captured ] 40 R1 30 R2 26 U1 37 U2 26 C1 37 C2 A bit too much R's for my taste. //T

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9u3epq$fgg$1...@neon.noos.net>... > we can already guess that come vamps will be R2 rarity ... I'd guess that the preview vamps won't be rare. If there are any rare vamps, they'll probably be keeping them as a surprise, like they did with Sutekh, Augustus and the others. That's what I'm hoping, anyway. If the Baron is R2, I'll have to do a lot of trading.

>I'd guess that the preview vamps won't be rare. If there are any rare >vamps, they'll probably be keeping them as a surprise, like they did >with Sutekh, Augustus and the others. Egottha is U2. Saxum is U1. Beatrice is U2. The Baron is U1. Giotto is U2. Adonai is U1. (Note that Huit-whateverhisnameis from the Inquest preview, the 11-cap Baali is indeed R2). >That's what I'm hoping, anyway. If the Baron is R2, I'll have to do a >lot of trading. Nope. Just U1. BTW, I do have to say that I'm glad Rewind Time is R2. Rare enough so that we don't see *too* many of them floating around, but not rare enough that it becomes one of those impossible-to-get power cards... Halcyan 2 Halcyan 2

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.01112...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm guessing that many ( if not all ) of the scarse vampires will be R1. Is it just me or does anyone else find the whole Cx Ux Rx thing damned annoying, esp when trading cards from different sets that have different rarity schemes.

In article <20011128191812...@mb-ms.aol.com>, "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote: [snip] > Halcyan 2 > > Halcyan 2 Rewind Time, heh ? :p Francois

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:20011128191812...@mb-ms.aol.com... > BTW, I do have to say that I'm glad Rewind Time is R2. Rare enough so that we > don't see *too* many of them floating around, but not rare enough that it > becomes one of those impossible-to-get power cards... > Imho, making the power-cards (or at least, really useful/good cards) rares, "to prevent having too much of them around" was one of thing i hated most in Magic. And, in the pratical field, it does not make that card "less" around, it just makes it more and more searched and valuable, pumping up its trade cost (and creating somewhat a players' "looking hysteria" for that cards). I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to prevent their potential abuse usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. Just my thought. Emiliano, Prince of Rome

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20011128191812...@mb-ms.aol.com... > BTW, I do have to say that I'm glad Rewind Time is R2. Rare enough so that we > don't see *too* many of them floating around, but not rare enough that it > becomes one of those impossible-to-get power cards... Never underestimate the power of money. the power of a strong trader vs a newbie. I'm sure some people from my playgroup will piss us off with decks constituted of 20 rewind time and 15 5th tradition in a week or so... > Halcyan 2 > > Halcyan 2 rewind time heh ? rewind time heh ? reyda =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:NkoN7.200565$sq5.9...@news.infostrada.it... > Imho, making the power-cards (or at least, really useful/good cards) rares, > "to prevent having too much of them around" was one of thing i hated most in > Magic. With the True Brujah being "scarce" and the lack of discipline cards wouldn't we be better off with Rewind time being rare, which it is, as we would only need a few in a deck? I think this approach to rarities was discussed in a previous thread. > And, in the pratical field, it does not make that card "less" around, it > just makes > it more and more searched and valuable, pumping up its trade cost > (and creating somewhat a players' "looking hysteria" for that cards). A card is only worth what someone will give for it. Just because you could sell something on ebay for $5.00 doesn't mean that you would have to pay that much for it. See the Carrion Coffin debate sometime ago. > I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to prevent > their potential abuse > usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. > > Just my thought. mine too ;) John

Tetragrammaton wrote: > I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to prevent > their potential abuse > usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. We do not "rare" good cards to prevent abuse. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C061D66...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to prevent > > their potential abuse > > usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. > > We do not "rare" good cards to prevent abuse. Can we get any insight into why you decided to "rare" soooo many card in this set? There are more "rare" cards then "common" cards. Shouldn't there be more common cards, by definition? If cards come by 100 card sheets, whats the deal with craming them all onto the rare sheet(which I'm sure we will only get 1 of in a pack) instead of sticking more of them on the common sheet, which we will get 6-7 of? That just means more repeated commons, and people have to buy more packs to get anywhere near all the rares? Why such a big swing towards the rare sheet? In case you forgot thats: 70 Rares, 40 of those Rare 1 63 Uncommons, 26 Uncommon 1 63 Commons, 26 Common 1 Compared to final nights with 54 common/54 uncommons/54 rares. Looks to me like there was PLENTY of room on the uncommon/common sheet to hold the overflow of rare cards? -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3C061D66...@white-wolf.com... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to prevent > > their potential abuse > > usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. > > We do not "rare" good cards to prevent abuse. > I was not meaning that "you" (at WW) were doing that. I was just answering to halcyan2's comment about "how lucky" is to have RT to be a rare 2, "so that we are not going to see too much of them around"..:) I don't believe in that assumption, that's all. Emiliano, prince of Rome

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3C061D66...@white-wolf.com... > > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > > I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to > prevent > > > their potential abuse > > > usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. > > > > We do not "rare" good cards to prevent abuse. > > Can we get any insight into why you decided to "rare" soooo many card in > this set? There are more "rare" cards then "common" cards. Shouldn't there 1) To weight cards' frequencies according to their utilities. (and a distant second): 2) To prevent the problem of having too few R1s (see complaints lodged against FN). > be more common cards, by definition? No. You misunderstand (or misuse) the definitions here. [ quoted text not captured ]

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<u0b4kea...@news.supernews.com>... > Is it just me or does anyone else find the whole Cx Ux Rx thing damned > annoying, esp when trading cards from different sets that have different > rarity schemes. Well, aside from having a weird trading philosophy (quasi-socialist...thanks, Peter!) based more on how much I want the card and whether or not I need the cards the other person is interested in, I know that some people just trade based on perceived monetary value (eBay, Errol's/Jeff's price lists). That kind of gets around the whole rarity thing. Beyond that, if I were trading on straight up rarity, I would tend to value an R2 from FN (and probably Bloodlines) as equivalent to an R from a previous set. R1s are probably worth multiple Rs. But that's just my theory. Xian

[ quoted text not captured ] I've read this entire thread as it stands. One question I have always wondered is, why have rarities in the first place? If a card is good, people will want it, regardless of rarity. Unlike magic, VTES has the most balanced cards with regards to play, and with so many possible strategies based on your choice (or not if you like) of crypt, some rares are just wallpaper. When I was younger and used to collect sticker sets (Football, Films, Comic characters, etc) these were claimed to be the same rarity, but yet it was always the same. People still traded, Foils were considered to be worth trading 2-3 non foil stickers for, because they were less in the set, and more sort after for other things, in the same way that some cards would be more useful to certain players. It seems to me, that making Rare cards could almost me considered detrimental, as it stops people trying new strategies. I have been told on numerous occasions "you should try this in the deck, or more of that" and my only response is "I don't have that card!". It would sometimes be nice to know that my chance of getting that card in the next booster would be 11/(set size), rather than 1/(set size) with 10 cards that I have multiples of. Just my 10 pence worth. I won't stop playing the game, but with this many Rare 1s, I shan't be attempting to complete the set this time, as money is tight, and I have big plans next year with my fiancee. Andy Setite Ruler of Cambridge VEKN Prince -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:45:01 GMT, "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to prevent >their potential abuse >usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt this is why Rewind Time is rare. Please don't jump to conclusions. From looking at Rewind Time, you just aren't going to want to play that many of them in the first place; it's more expensive than a DI or Sudden, and you MUST leave your vamp untapped to use it as a Sudden. This makes it a GREAT rare, IMO; if I only get 2-3 of them, I'll be perfectly content. -- Derek ...Vampire Squirrel has come to bite your nuts!

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C064153...@white-wolf.com... > The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3C061D66...@white-wolf.com... > > > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > > > I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to > > prevent > > > > their potential abuse > > > > usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. > > > > > > We do not "rare" good cards to prevent abuse. > > > > Can we get any insight into why you decided to "rare" soooo many card in > > this set? There are more "rare" cards then "common" cards. Shouldn't there > > 1) To weight cards' frequencies according to their utilities. > (and a distant second): This I can understand, cards that require a discipline that only a scarse vampire can play should be rare. > 2) To prevent the problem of having too few R1s (see complaints lodged against FN). Too few R1s? can I have the addresses of the people who complained so I can kill them? > > be more common cards, by definition? > > No. You misunderstand (or misuse) the definitions here. I was pretty annoyed by Shroud Mastery being R1. I was annoyed that there was R1 and R2, I'd like my rares to be just rare. I would have liked to build a Shroud Mastery + Wraiths deck but there was no way I was going to try to get enough SMs whey they're R1.

"Xian" <xb...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:dbc1153.01112...@posting.google.com... > "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<u0b4kea...@news.supernews.com>... > > Is it just me or does anyone else find the whole Cx Ux Rx thing damned > > annoying, esp when trading cards from different sets that have different > > rarity schemes. > > Well, aside from having a weird trading philosophy > (quasi-socialist...thanks, Peter!) based more on how much I want the > card and whether or not I need the cards the other person is > interested in, I know that some people just trade based on perceived > monetary value (eBay, Errol's/Jeff's price lists). That kind of gets > around the whole rarity thing. There are some cards that I value more highly than others too but, esp when trading w/ close friends, we tend to go mainly on rarity. > Beyond that, if I were trading on straight up rarity, I would tend to > value an R2 from FN (and probably Bloodlines) as equivalent to an R > from a previous set. R1s are probably worth multiple Rs. But that's > just my theory. I tend to lean that way too but why confuse the issue in the first place by having R1 and R2?

> I was pretty annoyed by Shroud Mastery being R1. I was annoyed that there > was R1 and R2, I'd like my rares to be just rare. I would have liked to > build a Shroud Mastery + Wraiths deck but there was no way I was going to > try to get enough SMs whey they're R1. R1 = once per sheet. R2 = twice per sheet. There were 8 R1's, the 4 11-caps, Lupine Assault, Week of Nightmare, Abomination, Mythic Form. All the rest, notably Shroud Mastery, were R2. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

In message <u0csaif...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> writes: >> Beyond that, if I were trading on straight up rarity, I would tend to >> value an R2 from FN (and probably Bloodlines) as equivalent to an R >> from a previous set. R1s are probably worth multiple Rs. But that's >> just my theory. > >I tend to lean that way too but why confuse the issue in the first place by >having R1 and R2? It works better on sheets. If you put everything at R1, you have 100 cards (not necessarily what's wanted). If you put everything at R2, you have 50 cards (not necessarily what's wanted). If you go to *another* sheet, that's your production costs just gone up. If you want, say, 80 cards, doing 60 R1 and 20 R2 works in a way that other systems don't. -- James Coupe When correctly viewed PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Everything is lewd EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 I could tell you things about Peter Pan 13D7E668C3695D623D5D And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man

"Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3C065DDE...@sanger.ac.uk... > Reyda wrote: > > > > we can already guess that come vamps will be R2 rarity ... At least it's > > better than the R1 from FN. But there's still a lot of them... I guess it's > > a trick to make us spend mo'money ! > > Is it because they are powerful or because they are kinda "specialized" > > fatties ? > > > > Reyda > > > > i cant wait till i put this Paris Opera House in play =) > > I've read this entire thread as it stands. One question I have always > wondered is, why have rarities in the first place? I've got two answers for you : 1- Game creators consider that some card should be in great numbers in your decks. Like : Skin of Steel, Majesty or Flack Jacket. But other cards that are certainly "difficult to use" or "represent things that won't happen often in the world of darkness" should be fewer in your decks : Day operation (a vampire going out under the sun is not so common), Betrayer (Methuselah mind control is supposed to be strong), Burst of Sunlight (difficult to handle own aggro), Temptation of Greater Power (you have to control one of the 7 Justicars). But imho this explanation is crap ! the problem is : why Freak drive and Flesh of Marble are Rares ? Imagine what the game would have been if they were commons ! (and what if I.G. was common in the first set ?) 2- Companies are selling card games to make money. Creating Rares (like Freak drive) drive people to buy more cards to get the power rares. Pick one. > When I was younger and used to collect sticker sets (Football, Films, > Comic characters, etc) these were claimed to be the same rarity, but > yet it was always the same. The problem is different : It was just collection : there was no deck constructio nor sanctionned tournament so you didin't need to have the same sticker twice, i guess. reyda

>I've read this entire thread as it stands. One question I have always >wondered is, why have rarities in the first place? Because enough people chase after more rare cards that having rarities increases sales. CCGs that have tried to deviate from the Magic model for rarity have failed to be anywhere near as successful. "He's a ... he's a reverse vampire. They ... they crave the Sun."

[ quoted text not captured ] Or by having Uncommons and Rares? If the numbers are what's bothering you, treat the C2's as "Ubiquitous", the C1's as "Commons", the U2's as "Familiar", the U1's as "Uncommon", the R2's as "Rare" and the R1's as "Rumored". :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>40 R1 >30 R2 >26 U1 >37 U2 >26 C1 >37 C2 > >A bit too much R's for my taste. 1) I don't like top heavy sets as a rule because for most games commons are worthless, and that's just annoying. If a distribution were more like 100c/50u/50r, the commons might actually be important. Doesn't apply as well with NCL, though. 2) I don't like rare vampires. Vampires weren't rare to begin with. They are the most important building blocks to decks. I just don't see how making any vampire a rare is helpful no matter how obscure it may be (and, why should it be obscure?). 3) The X1/X2 system annoys me as well. Besides the problem of trying to value the misc. rarities against each other, I have my doubts about the ability of someone else to determine how useful a card is to me to such a degree. Already have 3 rarities; that's plenty. 4) While chasing rares for one set isn't that awful, one thing that occurred to me after I had been doing it for a while for ~150 card sets was that it's really obnoxious when you look at the big picture. Great, I spend a bunch to get a decent amount of this small expansion. Wait, it's only one expansion in what is hopefully a long line of expansions. What eventually started to happen was that I bought less rather than more as it was just too hard to keep up the chase knowing that every expansion would require, in my mind, an overinvestment just to get the cards that I should have. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:g9oc0u4831pn54n7l...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 10:45:01 GMT, "Tetragrammaton" > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >I don't like at all this kind of approach ("rareing" good cards to prevent > >their potential abuse > >usage) and i very hope to see it no more in our beloved game. > > I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt this is why Rewind Time is rare. Please > don't jump to conclusions. > As i answered to LSJ somewhere on this thread, i was not meaning that this was the case with RT. Just that i don't like the Halcyan2 statement about "how lucky, RT is a rare 2 so that we're going to see not too much of them around..". I don't agree with him, that's all. Emiliano, prince of Rome

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> ha scritto nel messaggio news:9u5tfb$fiu$1...@neon.noos.net... > > "Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:3C065DDE...@sanger.ac.uk... > > Reyda wrote: <snip> > 2- Companies are selling card games to make money. Creating Rares (like > Freak drive) drive people to buy more cards to get the power rares. > Yes, but having more than one third of rares in a set is slighlty too much, for me. And this is just what's happening with the upcoming bloodlines. Emiliano, prince of Rome <snip>

In message <20011129140126...@mb-mc.aol.com>, Curevei <cur...@aol.com> writes: >1) I don't like top heavy sets as a rule because for most games commons are >worthless, and that's just annoying. This not being true for V:TES, it's a fairly moot point. > If a distribution were more like >100c/50u/50r, the commons might actually be important. You make cards important by giving them utility, not by forcing them on people. For instance, Govern the Unaligned. >2) I don't like rare vampires. Vampires weren't rare to begin with. Certain cards featured at Vampire rarity, however. Consider this a re- working of that. >They are >the most important building blocks to decks. I just don't see how making any >vampire a rare is helpful no matter how obscure it may be (and, why should it >be obscure?). This is intended to be far from the case with Bloodlines. They are not intended to be the focus of decks, merely supplements in most instances. >3) The X1/X2 system annoys me as well. Besides the problem of trying to value >the misc. rarities against each other, I have my doubts about the ability of >someone else to determine how useful a card is to me to such a degree. Would you rather they had cut <X> cards from the set to make it a smaller set, then? This would have made it even more difficult to handle Bloodlines. [ quoted text not captured ]

Teemu T Vilen wrote: > 40 R1 > 30 R2 > 26 U1 > 37 U2 > 26 C1 > 37 C2 > > A bit too much R's for my taste. Why? They really should add some ultra-rares to the mix so it'll be more like, say, the Babylon 5 CCG, honest! At least I wouldn't be spending money on any CCG anymore if VTES heads off any furhter in that direction, which is probably exactly what WW wants to achieve by continually shifting the sorting toward more (and more impossible to collect) rares. Thomas

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9u53mq$k4h$1...@quark.noos.net>... > "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20011128191812...@mb-ms.aol.com... > > > BTW, I do have to say that I'm glad Rewind Time is R2. Rare enough so that > we > > don't see *too* many of them floating around, but not rare enough that it > > becomes one of those impossible-to-get power cards... > > Never underestimate the power of money. the power of a strong trader vs a > newbie. I'm sure some people from my playgroup will piss us off with decks > constituted of 20 rewind time and 15 5th tradition in a week or so... What, in the same deck? What are they gonna do, have their True Brujah get Writs of Acceptance, then Seize some Praxis using their Presence (but no obfuscate), and *then* start using 5th Tradition? Seems a little convoluted. ;-) Or did you mean, use some "normal" Presence-having Princes and they could use the [pre] version of Rewind Time? But that wouldn't be nearly as annoying... Josh

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9u5tfb$fiu$1...@neon.noos.net... > "Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message > > I've read this entire thread as it stands. One question I have always > > wondered is, why have rarities in the first place? > > I've got two answers for you : > > 1- Game creators consider that some card should be in great numbers in your > decks. Like : Skin of Steel, Majesty or Flack Jacket. But other cards that > are certainly "difficult to use" or "represent things that won't happen > often in the world of darkness" should be fewer in your decks. I've seen it proposed for other games that cards be sold in "complete sets" of 1 of each. The company line at the time was that this would be a boon to collectors, saving them $$, but would seriously hurt players. Players would need to buy 10 sets to get 10 Majesty. They'd then also have 10 of all of the limited use cards. Whereas the current format allows players to get all of the cards they *must have* for playing (i.e. dups of commons). [clip] > 2- Companies are selling card games to make money. Creating Rares (like > Freak drive) drive people to buy more cards to get the power rares. I've heard it said that the collectable aspect saves us players money. Collecters are liable to buy more cards looking for that 1 rare they need to complete a set. Without collectors, the prices would need to go up to get the same revenue for the company. -Robert

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B82BDEB1.9507%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] My bad, maybe I just was unlucky or something. Coulda sworn they were R1. Mind you I do seem to attract Perfect Clarity, every time I trade one away I get another one. Still, it'd be damn hard ( although damn entertaining ) to make a Mythic Form deck.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C067E51...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I do like rarity being linked to utility but for me, there's a limit to how rare a card should be and R1 is too rare for my taste. It's almost like those silly foil cards certain other games have. What if I want to build a deck that uses lots of a R1? As discussed before, it isn't necessearily an ultra-powerful card, it may just be more corner case. I might have a creative idea for a deck but I can't make it because of the ( what I consider ) unreasonable investment required to get enough R1 cards to even be able to trade for how many of card X I need. This is exaggerated by the fact that Jyhad is a NCL game.

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:59b20daa.01112...@posting.google.com... > "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message > > Never underestimate the power of money. the power of a strong trader vs a > > newbie. I'm sure some people from my playgroup will piss us off with decks > > constituted of 20 rewind time and 15 5th tradition in a week or so... > > What, in the same deck? What are they gonna do, have their > True Brujah get Writs of Acceptance, then Seize some Praxis > using their Presence (but no obfuscate), and *then* start > using 5th Tradition? Seems a little convoluted. ;-) hahem... Remember you can mix clans and blodlines in your crypt, right ? True Brujah would mix with some camarilla princes. Say Rake, Emerson Bridges or François Villon, who will play 5th tradition hospitality after many denials have been complete and the true brujah left with little blood. reyda

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:5O1aYnOs...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <20011129140126...@mb-mc.aol.com>, Curevei > <cur...@aol.com> writes: > >1) I don't like top heavy sets as a rule because for most games commons are > >worthless, and that's just annoying. > > This not being true for V:TES, it's a fairly moot point. I'd also have to say that some of the most commonly seen cards are, well, common. This is one thing that has been done well with rarity and the game's design. In a lot of cases, the cards that see the most use are common which is what every game needs. This is helped along by the NCL. > > If a distribution were more like > >100c/50u/50r, the commons might actually be important. > > You make cards important by giving them utility, not by forcing them on > people. For instance, Govern the Unaligned. > > >2) I don't like rare vampires. Vampires weren't rare to begin with. > > Certain cards featured at Vampire rarity, however. Consider this a re- > working of that. > > >They are > >the most important building blocks to decks. I just don't see how making any > >vampire a rare is helpful no matter how obscure it may be (and, why should it > >be obscure?). > > This is intended to be far from the case with Bloodlines. They are not > intended to be the focus of decks, merely supplements in most instances. I would have prefered vampire rarity to stay as it was and only contained vampires for the reasons pointed out by Curevei. Sure, many BLs are meant to be supplemental to decks but how can you supplement a deck w/ a BL if you can't even get the vampire(s) you want to supplement your deck with? It will be interesting to see the rarity of the vampires in some BLs. > >3) The X1/X2 system annoys me as well. Besides the problem of trying to value > >the misc. rarities against each other, I have my doubts about the ability of > >someone else to determine how useful a card is to me to such a degree. > > Would you rather they had cut <X> cards from the set to make it a > smaller set, then? This would have made it even more difficult to > handle Bloodlines. No, I'd rather they just had C, U, V and R ( or C, U and R ). Why would they need to drop cards from the set if they did that? That was the rarity set for Jyhad, V:TES, Sabbat and Sabbat War, I don't see why it was necesseary to deviate from that.

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5OvN7.203975$sq5.9...@news.infostrada.it... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes , especially when you need a lot of those split discipline cards because they can feet in much more decks than usual... reyda

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:24:33 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >My bad, maybe I just was unlucky or something. Coulda sworn they were R1. >Mind you I do seem to attract Perfect Clarity, every time I trade one away I >get another one. There was a certain degree of clumping, yes. :) I picked up 3 Ezmerelda out of my boxes. :) > >Still, it'd be damn hard ( although damn entertaining ) to make a Mythic >Form deck. Dunno about that. I have 4 currently, which make a pretty solid sideline in the current deck. I figure I only need 4 more... and I haven't really tried looking that much. It shouldn't be too hard :) [ quoted text not captured ]

GreySeer wrote: > I do like rarity being linked to utility but for me, there's a limit to how > rare a card should be and R1 is too rare for my taste. It's almost like That's the standard rare - most of the rares in Jyhad were R1s. It only becomes "too rare" (for trading purposes) when there aren't enough R1s (as, apparently, was the case in FN, with only 8 R1s). That problem is rectified in BL. [ quoted text not captured ]

GreySeer wrote: > No, I'd rather they just had C, U, V and R ( or C, U and R ). Why would they > need to drop cards from the set if they did that? That was the rarity set > for Jyhad, V:TES, Sabbat and Sabbat War, I don't see why it was necesseary > to deviate from that. SW had only three sheets. One deviates from that when one doesn't have enough cards to fill out four sheets. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:NkoN7.200565$sq5.9...@news.infostrada.it... > > > Imho, making the power-cards (or at least, really useful/good cards) > rares, > > "to prevent having too much of them around" was one of thing i hated most > in > > Magic. > > With the True Brujah being "scarce" and the lack of discipline cards > wouldn't we be better off with Rewind time being rare, which it is, as we > would only need a few in a deck? I think this approach to rarities was > discussed in a previous thread. Maybe; however it is still to be discussed the reason why in the upcoming bloodline set we got more than the one third of rares in the total cards. 70, against 63 common and 63 uncommons. Imho, too much rares (40 r1 and 30 r2!). > A card is only worth what someone will give for it. Just because you could > sell something on ebay for $5.00 doesn't mean that you would have to pay > that much for it. See the Carrion Coffin debate sometime ago. > This is just untrue. Cards are deemed worth by tradings mechanincs, which are very different from country to country, but well set anyway in the minds of the interested traders.... For example, even if you will never buy (or trade) a Direct Intervention for more than the equivalent of 0.50 US dollars, the result will be that you'll never get it one, unless you "bow down" to the current "trading worth" for that card Ciao Emiliano, Prince of Rome <snip>

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:9n5e0u8ml5g79rlna...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Eh, how many Fn boxes have you got ? ..;) Emiliano, Price of Rome

In message <3C076091...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> I do like rarity being linked to utility but for me, there's a limit to how >> rare a card should be and R1 is too rare for my taste. It's almost like > >That's the standard rare - most of the rares in Jyhad were R1s. >It only becomes "too rare" (for trading purposes) when there aren't enough >R1s (as, apparently, was the case in FN, with only 8 R1s). That problem is >rectified in BL. Indeed. On that point, you could have a set which was 100 R1s, if people would prefer. Or you could have a set with 98 R1s and an R2. It's only when you start marginalising differences to the fringes that such things become an obvious 'problem'. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <VHJN7.208065$sq5.10...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes: >> A card is only worth what someone will give for it. Just because you >could >> sell something on ebay for $5.00 doesn't mean that you would have to pay >> that much for it. See the Carrion Coffin debate sometime ago. >> > >This is just untrue. Not always. >Cards are deemed worth by tradings mechanincs, which are very different >from country to country, but well set anyway in the minds of the interested >traders.... If you want to trade internationally, it's usually perfectly do-able. (When I actually get round to sorting out my collection again, I'd be happy to trade internationally, especially around the EU where it is hardly expensive.) And if you trade with players, rather than with serial traders/collectors/profit-mongers/whatever, you'll often find a more reasonable set of trades can be worked out according to what you both *want*, rather than how much money you could make. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:VHJN7.208065$sq5.10...@news.infostrada.it... > Maybe; however it is still to be discussed the reason why > in the upcoming bloodline set we got more than the > one third of rares in the total cards. > 70, against 63 common and 63 uncommons. > Imho, too much rares (40 r1 and 30 r2!). > > A card is only worth what someone will give for it. Just because you > could > > sell something on ebay for $5.00 doesn't mean that you would have to pay > > that much for it. See the Carrion Coffin debate sometime ago. > This is just untrue. How so? I just gave you an example (carrion coffin) where it was blatanly true. I agree, though, that it is not the case for all cards. > Cards are deemed worth by tradings mechanincs, which are very different > from country to country, but well set anyway in the minds of the interested > traders.... > For example, even if you will never buy (or trade) > a Direct Intervention for more than the equivalent of 0.50 US dollars, > the result will be that you'll never get it one, unless you "bow down" > to the current "trading worth" for that card What I meant is that you don't have to "bow down". Trading for cards like DI isn't that hard with a little perseverance and patience. With internet trading the world is your oyster. I may not give the same for a particular card than you would. I think you have to take each card individually. Wait and see what cards come out of Bloodlines and you may find out some of the most desireable cards are uncommon and of course a card doesn't have to be rare to be hard to get. John

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C076091...@white-wolf.com... > GreySeer wrote: > > I do like rarity being linked to utility but for me, there's a limit to how > > rare a card should be and R1 is too rare for my taste. It's almost like > > That's the standard rare - most of the rares in Jyhad were R1s. > It only becomes "too rare" (for trading purposes) when there aren't enough > R1s (as, apparently, was the case in FN, with only 8 R1s). That problem is > rectified in BL. When explained like that, having lots of R1s doesn't sound so bad. Still, I'm not terribly pleased at the moment with the sheer quantity of rares. Hopefully there won't be many rares that I'll want to put 6-8 of in a deck ( and that's assuming I only want to put it in one deck ).

In message <u0f4f65...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> writes: >When explained like that, having lots of R1s doesn't sound so bad. Still, >I'm not terribly pleased at the moment with the sheer quantity of rares. That's usually the case. Unless you're (Xian|Noal|Legbiter) in which case you delight in taking hundreds of rares and putting them all in one deck (the Betrayer deck, for instance). Hundreds and hundreds! Even with a 90 card limit. >Hopefully there won't be many rares that I'll want to put 6-8 of in a deck >( and that's assuming I only want to put it in one deck ). Pulling out key cards between decks isn't usually that problematic for your own use. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I only bought 3 boxes. Yeah, I got a bit of clumping (no Imposing Phantasm, for example, and only one Perfect Clarity), but I'd rather have a bit of clumping, frankly. Makes trading easier. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip] > >>Hopefully there won't be many rares that I'll want to put 6-8 of in a deck >>( and that's assuming I only want to put it in one deck ). > >Pulling out key cards between decks isn't usually that problematic for >your own use. It is when you have 25+ tuned decks and just to lazy to do just that. I'd hate it if I had to give up a bloodline for another simply because I want the rares. I just hope a couple of boxes will be enough to make several bloodline decks at a time without havong to switch around the cards. And I feel 70 rares is a bit steep oh well we'll see. Maybe we are all fussing about something that isn't going to happen. Tim

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b77f0uccsabb1f503...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] If you clump on the 'right' cards that is. Clumping on Blood of the Cobra for example would be no fun while Shroud Mastery very much would be from a trading perspecitve. I am both a collector and player, but with FN I was low on cash and thought I'd give up trying to complete any more sets for VtES. I bought "only" two boxes in total and actually were but a Mythic Form, Ntl Guard Support and Ezmerelda away from a complete set after that (did a few tradings though). So I figured completing the set would be manageable and so I did. After that I bought another box of FN...but wasn't eneded to complete my set. I suspect however that with BL I'll not have such luck, especially not with 70 R1's. Each R1 is less ultra-rare but still, it's 70 of them which means 70 boosters just for them, and another 30 for the R2's. And that's just the dream-case-scenario and will then be at least 3 boxes =/ Roger

So I figured completing the set would be manageable and so > I did. After that I bought another box of FN...but wasn't eneded to complete > my set. I suspect however that with BL I'll not have such luck, especially > not with 70 R1's. Each R1 is less ultra-rare but still, it's 70 of them > which means 70 boosters just for them, and another 30 for the R2's. And > that's just the dream-case-scenario and will then be at least 3 boxes =/ > > Roger I wonder if the per pack distribution will be the same. Will it be only one rare per booster or will it be two? I don't know. I haven't seen it. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:74bO7.26643$S93.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No reports from the previews that there's been 2 rares ina booster. I can't see that happen with only 11 cards in a pack. If that was the case we'd had heard about it by now I'm sure. Well my playgroup will play a pre-release tomorrow and they're gonna have a checklist with them so I'll hear about it tomorrow if this is the case... Roger

cur...@aol.com (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20011129140126...@mb-mc.aol.com>... > >40 R1> > 4) While chasing rares for one set isn't that awful, one thing that occurred > to me after I had been doing it for a while for ~150 card sets was that it's > really obnoxious when you look at the big picture. I agree with you in the sense that White Wolf is saturating the market first we get nothing for many years and then bang to much too fast. I would be much happier with one constant set (cammie/sabbat/indy all the staples) and one large 250+ card set per year which in my mind would give the tourny and other environments time to digest a set before another is thrust upon it. This isn't magic and digesting a vampire set takes more time because the concepts are deeper and not so obvious. don't get me wrong I am very happy to get new cards but c'mon a year ago we were dicussing sabbat war which I belive has yet to make its full presance known. Heck the only final night cards that I have put into decks thus far have been the ones that fit into previously built decks (sorry I have a life and digging into my cards for new strategys while being one of my favorite pastimes has to take a back seat to the little things like my job and my family)I am just now toying with the new concepts of FN and SW. I belive the vampire players throughout the world are mainly adults with lives and comitments yes we have more money to spend than your average magic player and "CAN" buy more cards but we need more time to digest what we have bought. Hell at this rate I won't even have all the wrappers off of my bloodlines cards by St.Pattys day and won't know what I need to make a "new" deck till july. by that time the cards will be harder to find (concidering the recent trends I have observed I can't even find the once plentiful Final Nights. Looks like my two boxes are gonna have to carry the load) Sooooooooooooooo Anyways back to the rarity thing if you had more time you'd be able to collect quite a few more rares and have enough commons to make "New" strategys work well. At this point you have to stop collecting your missing FN and SW rares to get the Bloodline commons and uncommons. I am all for new cards but..... Please.....please ...please slow down most certinly an unpopular opinion but fuck it it's mine Eric "the key to enlightenment lies solely in ones ability to increase the distance between ones head and ones ass"

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > GreySeer wrote: > > I do like rarity being linked to utility but for me, there's a limit to how > > rare a card should be and R1 is too rare for my taste. It's almost like > > That's the standard rare - most of the rares in Jyhad were R1s. > It only becomes "too rare" (for trading purposes) when there aren't enough > R1s (as, apparently, was the case in FN, with only 8 R1s). That problem is > rectified in BL. Baffle. I think that's a terrible lesson to learn from Final Nights. If the R1's were too scarce in Final Nights relative to the other cards in the set, the answer can't be to make more cards with that rarity relative to the other cards. That can only be a recipe for more scarce cards (which I suppose is an advantage from a marketing standpoint), and less customer satisfaction with the set and availability of cards for play. It's just absurd to think "Ok, the R1's from the last set caused very high prices on the secondary market for cards of that rarity, so the answer must be to make more cards of that rarity." But I suppose if the goal is to sell each consumer more boosters than the last set to achieve the same number of a given rare, it is an excellent idea. - Jason Bell

[ quoted text not captured ] However a R1 in BL's is more common that a R1 from FN's. Remember that the R1's are printed once per sheet R2's twice, there are 100 hundred cards on a sheet, thus the commonality of a R1 in BL's increases as more are printed per sheet. Imagine if only the R1's were printed. All would be equally common rares and everyone could stop bitching. Raille

X_Zealot wrote: > I wonder if the per pack distribution will be the same. Will it be only one > rare per booster or will it be two? I don't know. I haven't seen it. It's been announced already: 1R/3U/7C per BL booster. [ quoted text not captured ]

> However a R1 in BL's is more common that a R1 from FN's. > > Remember that the R1's are printed once per sheet R2's twice, there are > 100 hundred cards on a sheet, thus the commonality of a R1 in BL's > increases as more are printed per sheet. Imagine if only the R1's were > printed. All would be equally common rares and everyone could stop > bitching. This is all correct and it seems like some people don't realise this. in SW for example, all rares (that dind't appear in starters) were R1s and nobody complained over that. BL R1s are more common than FN ones, simply because there has to be a rare in every booster, and the chance that there is going to be an R1 now is much bigger then in the FN simply because there's more R1s in the set. Roger

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:<9udqfh$7stll$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] This is sorta true, I think. The chance of drawing any particular R1 in Bloodlines is 1 in 100 (there are 100 cards on the rare sheet - 40 R1, 30 R2 - and each R1 is on the sheet once). The chance of drawing any particular R1 in Final Nights is 1 in 100 (there are 100 cards on the rare sheet - 8 R1, 46 R2 - and each R1 is on the sheet once). By "R1s are more common in Bloodlines", I think what you mean is that, since there are more of them, it's more likely that you'll get *some* R1, not caring what specific card it is, in Bloodlines. Specifically, your chance of getting "some R1" in Bloodlines is 40 out of 100, where in Final Nights it was 8 out of 100. But if you buy 100 boosters of each expansion, you'll still average out to getting 1 of each R1 and 2 of each R2. You'll just have more different R1s (and more different rares overall) in Bloodlines, since with Final Nights you'd get two each of forty-six different cards, and then one each of eight, as compared to in Bloodlines getting two each of only thirty different cards, and then one each of forty. Josh in case the significance of R1/R2 choices hasn't been hashed out enough already

> This is sorta true, I think. > > The chance of drawing any particular R1 in Bloodlines is > 1 in 100 (there are 100 cards on the rare sheet - 40 R1, > 30 R2 - and each R1 is on the sheet once). > > The chance of drawing any particular R1 in Final Nights is > 1 in 100 (there are 100 cards on the rare sheet - 8 R1, > 46 R2 - and each R1 is on the sheet once). > > By "R1s are more common in Bloodlines", I think what you mean > is that, since there are more of them, it's more likely that > you'll get *some* R1, not caring what specific card it is, in > Bloodlines. Specifically, your chance of getting "some R1" in > Bloodlines is 40 out of 100, where in Final Nights it was 8 out > of 100. > > But if you buy 100 boosters of each expansion, you'll still > average out to getting 1 of each R1 and 2 of each R2. You'll > just have more different R1s (and more different rares overall) > in Bloodlines, since with Final Nights you'd get two each of > forty-six different cards, and then one each of eight, as > compared to in Bloodlines getting two each of only thirty > different cards, and then one each of forty. Yes this si what I mean. So by trading an R1 from BL for an R1 in FN you're doing a bad deal (from a chance-to-get POV), simply because you'll easier get *any* R1 in BL than *any* R1 in FN. That also mean they're not as ultra-rare or hard to get, since you will have some R1's to trade for the R1's you're missing, while in FN there's wasn't that many R1's to choose from and chances were you didn't have any at all if you only bought, say half a box. Roger

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:<9ujss3$91vua$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de>... > Yes this si what I mean. So by trading an R1 from BL for an R1 in FN you're > doing a bad deal (from a chance-to-get POV), simply because you'll easier > get *any* R1 in BL than *any* R1 in FN. I don't believe this is the proper way to measure relative rarity. What you're saying is that since you only have a 8% chance per booster to get one of [Esmerelda, Augustus, Sutekh, Ur-Shulgi, Abomination, Lupine Assault, Week of Nightmares, Mythic Form],and a 40% chance per booster to get one of [list of Bloodlines R1s], that trading one for the other is a bad trade. However, you only have an 8% chance per booster to get one of [Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Huitzilopotchli, The Grandest Trick], so trading one of those for a Final Nights R1 should be fair, right? Between Final Nights and Bloodlines, you have the same chance of pulling any *given* R1 from a booster. This would argue that their trading value should be equal. Now, if the number of *copies* of each R1 in the print runs for each set differ (Final Nights was 10,000 sheets, while Bloodlines was 100,000), then you could make the case that Final Nights R1s were rarer than Bloodlines R1s > That also mean they're not as > ultra-rare or hard to get, since you will have some R1's to trade for the > R1's you're missing, while in FN there's wasn't that many R1's to choose > from and chances were you didn't have any at all if you only bought, say > half a box. > The converse of that is that in FN, you didn't need as many R1s to complete your set. Also, you assume that people would be unwilling to trade away R1s for 2 R2s (or some combination of non-R1 cards). Not having done any online trading, I don't know if that assumption holds globally or not. Marc G.

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:9ujss3$91vua$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de... > Yes this si what I mean. So by trading an R1 from BL for an R1 in FN you're > doing a bad deal (from a chance-to-get POV), simply because you'll easier > get *any* R1 in BL than *any* R1 in FN. That also mean they're not as > ultra-rare or hard to get, since you will have some R1's to trade for the > R1's you're missing, while in FN there's wasn't that many R1's to choose > from and chances were you didn't have any at all if you only bought, say > half a box. Your first point I disagree with somewhat - Marc G posted an analysis that's pretty much what I'm thinking. Every *individual* R1 in Bloodlines is just as rare as each specific R1 in Final Nights. Your chance of getting a Mark V (BL R1 equipment) from one BL booster is the same as your chance of getting an Ezmerelda (FN R1 vampire) from one FN booster. Therefore, for trading purposes, they're equivalent, if you want to base your trading on relative rarity of the cards involved. Your second point is accurate: in X boosters from each set, you will get fewer R1s of Final Nights than of Bloodlines. But this is OK in average, since you need fewer FN R1s than you do Bloodlines (since there are fewer different cards, you only need, say, 32 FN R1s if you want 4 copies of each, where 4 copies of each BL R1 would be 160 R1s). The only problem is that if you buy a relatively small number of boosters, you may unluckily not get as many FN R1s as you would on average over a large number. And, of course, the problem of the "highly desirable rare", which applies in any set to cards that are rare but which lots of people want lots of copies of; such cards become expensive and hard to get (see Freak Drive, Temptation of Greater Power, Disarm). And as Marc G wrote, not having R1s isn't even that much of a problem if people are willing to trade their R1s for two R2s. I know I've made trades like that, in both directions. Josh can make logical arguments some of the time

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > news:9ujss3$91vua$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de... > > > Yes this si what I mean. So by trading an R1 from BL for an R1 in FN > > you're doing a bad deal (from a chance-to-get POV), simply because you'll easier > > get *any* R1 in BL than *any* R1 in FN. That also mean they're not as > > ultra-rare or hard to get, since you will have some R1's to trade for the > > R1's you're missing, while in FN there's wasn't that many R1's to choose > > from and chances were you didn't have any at all if you only bought, say > > half a box. > > Your first point I disagree with somewhat - Marc G posted an > analysis that's pretty much what I'm thinking. > > Every *individual* R1 in Bloodlines is just as rare as each > specific R1 in Final Nights. Your chance of getting a Mark V > (BL R1 equipment) from one BL booster is the same as your > chance of getting an Ezmerelda (FN R1 vampire) from one FN > booster. Therefore, for trading purposes, they're equivalent, > if you want to base your trading on relative rarity of the > cards involved. It's an interesting question, almost a philosophical one to me. My guess is that due to the fact that there are 40 R1s in Bloodlines and only 8 in Final Nights, that's going to have a practical effect of causing more people to buy more Bloodlines. If so, then the R1s in Bloodlines will effectively be more common than the R1s in Final Nights. Of course, so many other things influence the number of cards effectively in circulation for trade purposes (print run size, when one or both expansions sell out and are the packs somewhere where they get will opened and/or when they get opened, whether many people try to collect copies of every card in the set and put them away, probably others I can't think of right now) that it seems useless to speculate on. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3C0E62D0...@removethis.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > Every *individual* R1 in Bloodlines is just as rare as each > > specific R1 in Final Nights. Your chance of getting a Mark V > > (BL R1 equipment) from one BL booster is the same as your > > chance of getting an Ezmerelda (FN R1 vampire) from one FN > > booster. Therefore, for trading purposes, they're equivalent, > > if you want to base your trading on relative rarity of the > > cards involved. > > It's an interesting question, almost a philosophical one to me. > My guess is that due to the fact that there are 40 R1s in Bloodlines and > only 8 in Final Nights, that's going to have a practical effect of causing > more people to buy more Bloodlines. If so, then the R1s in Bloodlines will > effectively be more common than the R1s in Final Nights. Of course, so > many other things influence the number of cards effectively in circulation > for trade purposes (print run size, when one or both expansions sell out > and are the packs somewhere where they get will opened and/or when they get > opened, whether many people try to collect copies of every card in the set > and put them away, probably others I can't think of right now) that it > seems useless to speculate on. Well, if you go that far into it it does start to verge on the unknowable. :-) For a simpler "how many packs of expansion X would it take, on average, to get this card" view of rarity, BL R1 = FN R1 is pretty much accurate I think. :-) Of course, this is because both expansions have rare sheets of the same size; it may not hold for SW and certainly doesn't for AH, S, VTES, or Jyhad. Though in all those cases it's probably not *too* far off the mark. Josh and expected play utility of the card probably becomes much more important than size of the sheet when it's not an R1 vs R2 question