Hi,
I think this has been discussed before, but since there are so many
mathematical geniuses out there ;) I would like to know:
A R2 card appears twice on a sheet a R1 card only once. This means that
a R1 card is twice as rare as a R2 card and is worth 2 R2 cards in
trading.
But what about the other rarities? How many C2 (U1, U2, C1, …) cards do
I have to pay for one R1 (R2, U1, U2, C1 …) ?
Thanks for help,
-Markus
Mathematically unskilled Prince of Peine, Germany
"Markus Schlein" <Markus....@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3C341BA5...@gmx.de...
> Hi,
>
> I think this has been discussed before, but since there are so many
> mathematical geniuses out there ;) I would like to know:
>
> A R2 card appears twice on a sheet a R1 card only once. This means that
> a R1 card is twice as rare as a R2 card and is worth 2 R2 cards in
> trading.> But what about the other rarities? How many C2 (U1, U2, C1, .) cards do
> I have to pay for one R1 (R2, U1, U2, C1 .) ?
>
I hate to say it, but card rarities do not dictate trade value. Card values
are subjective and are worth relative to what the trading partners are
willing to offer for them. Although if the cards are relatively untested
then I guess rares are equal and uncommons are equal and commons are equal.
If you build a economic Supply and Demand graph, then obviously given a
large enough pool of cards then the supply of R2's will alter their value,
but I figure (given my years ago college courses in Stat and Econ) that the
pool to draw from would have to be rather large; possibly the only places
that this would come into play would be on the internet trading sites where
the pool is global.
Locally, card values are entirely subjective and are entirely based upon the
total amount availible.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
"Markus Schlein" <Markus....@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3C341BA5...@gmx.de...
> Hi,
>
> I think this has been discussed before, but since there are so many
> mathematical geniuses out there ;) I would like to know:
>
> A R2 card appears twice on a sheet a R1 card only once. This means that
> a R1 card is twice as rare as a R2 card and is worth 2 R2 cards in
> trading.> But what about the other rarities? How many C2 (U1, U2, C1, .) cards do
> I have to pay for one R1 (R2, U1, U2, C1 .) ?
As Norman wrote, this isn't necessarily going to tell you
how people will value specific cards. But for what it's
worth:
In a Bloodlines booster pack, there are 7 commons, 3 uncommons,
and 1 rare. Each sheet has 100 cards on it. The "1"s are on
the appropriate sheet once; the "2"s are on the appropriate sheet
twice.
So:
2 C2 = 1 C1
2 1/3 C2 = 1 U2
4 2/3 C2 = 1 U1
7 C2 = 1 R2
14 C2 = 1 R1
1 1/6 C1 = 1 U2
2 1/3 C1 = 1 U1
3 1/2 C1 = 1 R2
7 C1 = 1 R1
2 U2 = 1 U1
3 U2 = 1 R2
6 U2 = 1 R1
1 1/2 U1 = 1 R2
3 U1 = 1 R1
2 R2 = 1 R1
To go "down" the rarity hierarchy instead of up, read from
the right side of the = sign instead of the left. Doing
another chart that way seemed like it'd take too much space. :-)
Josh
hoping he didn't let any 1 vs 2 typos slip through there
Markus Schlein wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think this has been discussed before, but since there are so many
> mathematical geniuses out there ;) I would like to know:
>
> A R2 card appears twice on a sheet a R1 card only once.
Correct.
> This means that a R1 card is twice as rare as a R2 card
Correct.
> and is worth 2 R2 cards in trading.
Incorrect. Aside from the complexity due to the fact that different
cards always differ in their ultimate game utility (and anything else
that may make them differ in value such as how much you like the card
art), there's just no *direct* relationship between card rarity and
value. That is, there is a relationship between the two, it's just not
at all clear how much more valuable one rarity level should be in
comparison to another. If you think a card being X times rarer than
another card makes it X times more valuable, I'd love to trade you a
bunch of commons for rares at a 7-to-1 trade ratio. Unfortunately, few
people would take such a trade.
It varies from person to person, depending on what they're trying to
create with their collection (do they want one of everything to put in
a notebook binder and show off? do they want to specialize in one type
or relatively few types of decks? or do they want to play a lot of
different types of decks?), how much trade stock they collect from
buying packs (the more packs you buy the relatively more important
rarer cards become because you're going to own plenty of not-as-rare
cards), and probably a number of other factors I can't think of at the
minute.
> But what about the other rarities? How many C2 (U1, U2, C1, …) cards do
> I have to pay for one R1 (R2, U1, U2, C1 …) ?
As per above, varies all over the map.
Fred
Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:<3C37A8DA...@removethis.com>...
> Markus Schlein wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think this has been discussed before, but since there are so many
> > mathematical geniuses out there ;) I would like to know:
> >
> > A R2 card appears twice on a sheet a R1 card only once.
>
> Correct.
>
> > This means that a R1 card is twice as rare as a R2 card
>
> Correct.
Mmm. Just a reminder; there were _significanly_ fewer R1s than there
were R2's in Final Nights. When opening boosters, it worked out that
only one in seven, IIRC, contained an R1 card. I'd consider them to
be seven times more difficult to obtain, for the FN set, specifically.
This accounts for the obscene cost that the R1 vamps went for on Ebay
early on...
Trade as you see fit, though
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
"atomweaver" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4c6f3f3e.02010...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
What, this again? ;-)
Any individual Final Nights R1 was exactly twice as rare (appeared
half as many times on the sheet and, therefore, in booster packs)
as any individual FN R2. That is, there were twice as many Amam
the Devourers printed as there were Ezmereldas.
The R1s became expensive (IMO) because (a) lots of people wanted
lots of copies of them and (b) they're twice as rare as the "normal"
rares from that set.
It's true that, due to there only being eight R1s in FN, the vast
majority of packs (92 out of 100) didn't have an R1 in them. But
the rarity of "all R1s" is not the same as the rarity of "each R1".
(And it shouldn't directly impact the price of the card, either.
In theory.)
Josh
getting rarer all the time
>It's true that, due to there only being eight R1s in FN, the vast
>majority of packs (92 out of 100) didn't have an R1 in them. But
>the rarity of "all R1s" is not the same as the rarity of "each R1".
>(And it shouldn't directly impact the price of the card, either.
>In theory.)
There's a basis for why a R1 from a smaller group of R1s is worth more than a
R1 from a larger group. It's the same reason "bad money" squeezes out "good
money". And, the same reason why a R1 is worth more than two R2s, everything
else being equal.
The chase is always for the most rare/valuable. There are more chasers and
fewer offerers of FN R1s because there are fewer cards to chase after. And,
some will hoard the most valuable. Essentially, the supply of R1s from FN is
less while the demand is higher.
[ quoted text not captured ]
As a group, yes.
As [person whom you're quoting but whose citation you omitted] said.
The supply of an individual R1 from FN is not less than that of an individual
R1 from Bloodlines (unless you care to start referencing print runs rather
than card lists).
--
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/
>The supply of an individual R1 from FN is not less than that of an individual
>R1 from Bloodlines (unless you care to start referencing print runs rather
>than card lists).
The point is that the supply is less in secondary markets, which are the ones
that concern us.
In message <20020108155612...@mb-cn.aol.com>, Curevei
[ quoted text not captured ]
The supply of any given R1 in general is equal, except for differences
in print run size.
--
James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe?
PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do?
13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <20020108155612...@mb-cn.aol.com>, Curevei
> <cur...@aol.com> writes:
> >>The supply of an individual R1 from FN is not less than that of an individual
> >>R1 from Bloodlines (unless you care to start referencing print runs rather
> >>than card lists).
> >
> >The point is that the supply is less in secondary markets, which are the ones
> >that concern us.
>
> The supply of any given R1 in general is equal, except for differences
> in print run size.
Sure - but that doesn't dispute what he said. The supply of an R1 card is one
thing. The supply of an R1 card in the secondary markets is something else.
The problem is that (until the print runs sell out and the packs are opened
and the rare cards are in the hands of people who want them), it's impossible
to put the various cards on the market in unequal ways. If you open 100 packs
of Final Nights, you will get 92 R2 cards and 8 R1s. If you open 100 packs
of Bloodlines, you get 60 R2 cards and 40 R1s. The supply of R1s in the secondary
market cannot escape the economics of selling all of the R2s which go along with
opening the packs to get the R1s. Since R2s will not fetch the same price as R1s
will, suppliers will not open as many packs and there will not be as many R1s
available for purchase.
Note that this does not take card quality (i.e. playability in the game) into account.
As a generalized statement, the average card quality of a given expansion should
cancel itself out in the general market - as many packs of an expansion will be
opened as that expansion's average quality will support. However, specific card
quality within an expansion may have the same effect: that is, a very good card in
an expansion that's considered very bad in general may be that much harder to buy
because sellers won't open as many packs of that expansion. Excellent cards in a
generally good expansion won't be so hard to obtain.
Fred
In message <3C3DDE35...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
>Sure - but that doesn't dispute what he said. The supply of an R1 card is one
>thing. The supply of an R1 card in the secondary markets is something else.
>
>The problem is that (until the print runs sell out and the packs are opened
>and the rare cards are in the hands of people who want them), it's impossible
>to put the various cards on the market in unequal ways. If you open 100 packs
>of Final Nights, you will get 92 R2 cards and 8 R1s. If you open 100 packs
>of Bloodlines, you get 60 R2 cards and 40 R1s. The supply of R1s in the secondary
>market cannot escape the economics of selling all of the R2s which go along with
>opening the packs to get the R1s.
Sure.
Assuming equal print runs and availability in people's pockets, there
will be more R1s available on the secondary market. (Assuming roughly
equal utility too.)
However, of Ezmerelda, there will be 1000 copies on the secondary market
(figures out of hats). Because she's R1, there will also be exactly the
same number of Huitzilopochtli available, who is also R1.
As a result, based solely on rarity, there is no practical difference
between R1s between the two sets. People who work on the principle "But
I have more R1s from the other set" are missing the point that they
won't have significantly more of any specific R1 to trade.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <3C3DDE35...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes:
> >Sure - but that doesn't dispute what he said. The supply of an R1 card is one
> >thing. The supply of an R1 card in the secondary markets is something else.
> >
> >The problem is that (until the print runs sell out and the packs are opened
> >and the rare cards are in the hands of people who want them), it's impossible
> >to put the various cards on the market in unequal ways. If you open 100 packs
> >of Final Nights, you will get 92 R2 cards and 8 R1s. If you open 100 packs
> >of Bloodlines, you get 60 R2 cards and 40 R1s. The supply of R1s in the secondary
> >market cannot escape the economics of selling all of the R2s which go along with
> >opening the packs to get the R1s.
>
> Sure.
>
> Assuming equal print runs and availability in people's pockets, there
> will be more R1s available on the secondary market. (Assuming roughly
> equal utility too.)
>
> However, of Ezmerelda, there will be 1000 copies on the secondary market
> (figures out of hats). Because she's R1, there will also be exactly the
> same number of Huitzilopochtli available, who is also R1.
(Actually Huitzilopochtli is an R2. But use Sight Beyond Sight instead.)
> As a result, based solely on rarity, there is no practical difference
> between R1s between the two sets.
I don't understand what you're getting at. My text above explains the
practical difference. Essentially, more Bloodlines packs will be opened
by singles dealers (or card auctioneering houses) because they can get a
higher price per the average R1 than the average R2. Since more packs
are opened for sale, each card - both the R1s and the R2s - in that
expansion will be more available on the secondary markets than each card -
both R1s and R2s - in an expansion which has a portion of R2s.
> People who work on the principle "But
> I have more R1s from the other set" are missing the point that they
> won't have significantly more of any specific R1 to trade.
I'm not sure what you mean by people "working on a principle". But if
you're referring to an expectation that Final Nights R1s are worth more
than Bloodlines R1s, I think that expectation has some degree of merit.
(Other factors not withstanding, of course.)
Fred