FN Rarity scheme?

Right, so now that I have looked at the Final Nights checklist, I'm trying to figure out the raritiy scheme. There are, like, 8 super rares (the R1s--the 11 cap vamps, 4 others). The other rares are all R2. Most of the vampires and the uncommons are U2s, but the Camarilla vamps are all U1. Then there are commons. Right. In a booster pack, you get a rare (in all likelyhood R2), 3 vampires, some number of other uncommons, and some number of commons. If the pack contains 11 cards (does it?) with a rare, 3 uncommon vampires, and 2 or 3 other uncommons, it looks like there are just as many uncommons as there are commons in circulation. What exactly makes them uncommon? Are there actually 4 card sheets (Common, Uncommon, Vampires, Rares), and for some reason, someone decided to call the vampires uncommon? I'm confused. Anyone have any insight? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "She's a hero you see. She's not like us." -Giles

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Right, so now that I have looked at the Final Nights checklist, I'm trying to > figure out the raritiy scheme. > > There are, like, 8 super rares (the R1s--the 11 cap vamps, 4 others). The other > rares are all R2. Most of the vampires and the uncommons are U2s, but the > Camarilla vamps are all U1. Then there are commons. Right. > > In a booster pack, you get a rare (in all likelyhood R2), 3 vampires, some > number of other uncommons, and some number of commons. If the pack contains 11 > cards (does it?) with a rare, 3 uncommon vampires, and 2 or 3 other uncommons, > it looks like there are just as many uncommons as there are commons in > circulation. The packs have 1 rare, 3 uncommons, and 7 commons. The 3 uncommons are all vampires (there are no "uncommon" library cards in FN). So there are exactly 3 uncommons in circulation for every 7 commons. > What exactly makes them uncommon? Are there actually 4 card sheets > (Common, Uncommon, Vampires, Rares), and for some reason, someone decided to > call the vampires uncommon? No. -- 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/

In article <20010618160537...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote: >Right, so now that I have looked at the Final Nights checklist, I'm trying to >figure out the raritiy scheme. > >There are, like, 8 super rares (the R1s--the 11 cap vamps, 4 others). There are 54 cards of each rarity. 8 of those are 1s, the other 46 are 2s. The R1s: Ezmerelda Ur-Shulgi, the Shepherd Sutekh, the Dark God Augustus Giovanni Mythic Form Week of Nightmares Lupine Assault Abomination The U1s: Victoria Ash, Pathetic Slut Calebros, the Martyr Theo Bell Anatole, Prophet of Gehenna Jan Pieterzoon Ramona the Brave Aisling Sturbridge Goratrix The C1s: Guard Duty Garrote Meat Hook Rafastio Ghoul Relentless Pursuit Save Face Starshell Grenade Launcher Zillah's Valley >The other >rares are all R2. Most of the vampires and the uncommons are U2s, but the >Camarilla vamps are all U1. Then there are commons. Right. The Cammies plus Goratrix, yeah. Note that they've gone from the old 11x11 sheets (121 cards on a sheet) to 10x10 sheets (46 cards twice each plus 8 singles = 100). >In a booster pack, you get a rare (in all likelyhood R2) Your odds of pulling an R1 are 1:7ish. Don't trade that Mythic Form for fewer than 6 Paths of Bone now. >I'm confused. Anyone have any insight? As LSJ said, there are no uncommon library cards. All the uncos are Vampires. Math Geekage follows. I'm sure the people who actually studied this will correct me. For each slot in a booster, there's a 8/54 chance (4/27, or 14.82%) that it's one of the 8 'special' cases. So you'd 'expect' to get 1 R1 for every 6 R2s, that is, one every 7 packs. After opening 2 boxes (72 boosters) this morning, I got 5 R1s, or about half of the 10ish predicted. Unless my math is off, I just suck at pulling stuff from boosters. For uncommons, you can 'expect' to pull one U1 every 3 boosters. For commons, you can 'expect' to pull two C1s every 3 boosters. Any given booster contains: 1 Rare: 0.14815 chance of being R1, 5.11 per box of boosters 3 Uncommon: 0.38185 chance of at least one U1, 13.75 per box This adds up to a little bit over 2 U1s every 5 packs, or 2 U1s for every 13 U2s. A Goratrix is worth 6 Ghivran Dalaals if you're going by pure scarcity. 7 Common: 0.67450 chance of at least one C1, 24.28 per box You can expect to pull two C1s every 3 boosters, which is 2 C1s for every 19 C2s. A Guard Duty could, in theory, trade for 9 or 10 Canopic Jars. Booster Box Theoretical Distribution (With Rounding): 5 R1 31 R2 14 U1 94 U2 24 C1 252 C2 I could see two U2s trading for 3 C1s, and 2 R2s trading for 3 U1s. This gives us a ladder of: 9 C2:1 C1 3 C1:2 U2 6 U2:1 U1 3 U1:2 R2 6 R2:1 R1 Which means that, in theory, I can trade 729 Canopic Jars for an Abomination. But the only people crazy enough to take me up on it would be legbiter, mike ooi, or maybe xian. And where the hell would I get 729 Canopic Jars from anyway? Legbiter is likely to insist on their all being the same card, no mixed-bag commons for him. Bah. gomi -- Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:9glrum$1so0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > In article <20010618160537...@ng-cp1.aol.com>, > Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote: > >Right, so now that I have looked at the Final Nights checklist, I'm trying to > >figure out the raritiy scheme. Peter, how many times have I warned you? Us thugs aren't supposed to *think* about things. :) > Ezmerelda > Ur-Shulgi, the Shepherd > Sutekh, the Dark God > Augustus Giovanni Makes sense, I guess. > Mythic Form This seems kind of odd...I thought it was considerate in Dark Sovereigns that most of the discipline cards were of approximately the same rarity. > Week of Nightmares > Lupine Assault > Abomination These seem fairly well-chosen. > The U1s: > > Victoria Ash, Pathetic Slut Come on...she was the *only* one you could come up with a nickname for? I like her special, at least, even if she does just expand on the same old Toreador aus/cel/pre/dom bit. > Calebros, the Martyr > Theo Bell > Anatole, Prophet of Gehenna > Jan Pieterzoon > Ramona the Brave Whoops...typing before I read all the way through. I think Ramona the Curiously Sighted might have been more appropriate, though. Did you ever finish the clan novels, Gomi? I *actually* purchased all of them, and I even read all of them. Not as bad as you reported, but I agree that Setite was the best of the original four. > >I'm confused. Anyone have any insight? > > As LSJ said, there are no uncommon library cards. All the uncos are > Vampires. Also, Peter...in every set since Jyhad/V:tES, I believe that there hasn't really been a "vampire" rarity...that was an artifact of that print run, IIRC. > 9 C2:1 C1 > 3 C1:2 U2 > 6 U2:1 U1 > 3 U1:2 R2 > 6 R2:1 R1 I'm glad I don't think about this stuff when I'm trading. > Which means that, in theory, I can trade 729 Canopic Jars for an Abomination. > > But the only people crazy enough to take me up on it would be legbiter, > mike ooi, or maybe xian. And where the hell would I get 729 Canopic > Jars from anyway? Legbiter is likely to insist on their all being the > same card, no mixed-bag commons for him. Bah. Oh, I'd take that. Well, not Canopic Jars. They suck. But I'm pretty thrilled with most of the other cards. I'd take 729 Shambling Hordes for an Abomination. However, I am *just* about to open my cards, so there's no telling if I have one yet. Later, Xian

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >I could see two U2s trading for 3 C1s, and 2 R2s trading for 3 U1s. This >gives us a ladder of: > >9 C2:1 C1 >3 C1:2 U2 >6 U2:1 U1 >3 U1:2 R2 >6 R2:1 R1 Say what?! Your calculation has gone over your head here, I think... An R2 is half as common as an R1. Wouldn't it make sense to be forced to trade *two* R2's for one R1 (everything else equal)? ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

In message <3b2e8e8a...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>9 C2:1 C1 >>3 C1:2 U2 >>6 U2:1 U1 >>3 U1:2 R2 >>6 R2:1 R1 > >Say what?! Your calculation has gone over your head here, I think... >An R2 is half as common as an R1. Wouldn't it make sense to be forced >to trade *two* R2's for one R1 (everything else equal)? No. Think of it like this. An R1 appears once on a sheet. An R2 appears twice. If we had 50 R2s and 50 R1s, a sheet would have: 100 R2s 50 R1s Hence, an R1 would be worth roughly two R2s, because you'd be twice as likely to get any given R2 as any given R1. However, consider a situation with 50 R2 and 1 R1: 100 R2s 1 R1 Hence, an R1 would be much more valuable in this scenario. If you only have 1 rare per booster, you're only likely to get it in 1 in every 101 boosters - roughly a 1% chance. If you alter the numbers to the current situation, you get trades like those suggested. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b2e8e8a...@news.algonet.se... > go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > > >I could see two U2s trading for 3 C1s, and 2 R2s trading for 3 U1s. This > >gives us a ladder of: > > > >9 C2:1 C1 > >3 C1:2 U2 > >6 U2:1 U1 > >3 U1:2 R2 > >6 R2:1 R1 > > Say what?! Your calculation has gone over your head here, I think... > An R2 is half as common as an R1. Wouldn't it make sense to be forced > to trade *two* R2's for one R1 (everything else equal)? I must confess I didn't bother to look at Gomi's calculations in detail, but I think he made the mistake* of considering the chance of getting *any* R1 card versus *any* R2 card. Since there are a lot more R2 cards, this will obviously make R1 seem a lot more valueable. The real ratio should be 1:2 (just think how many copies of each R2 card you should get for each R1 card, or the odds of getting one specific R1 card versus one specific R2 card). *of course, he could have done it on purpose, to get some great trading deals... ;-) Flux

In article <3b2e8e8a...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote: >go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > >>I could see two U2s trading for 3 C1s, and 2 R2s trading for 3 U1s. This >>gives us a ladder of: >> >>9 C2:1 C1 >>3 C1:2 U2 >>6 U2:1 U1 >>3 U1:2 R2 >>6 R2:1 R1 > >Say what?! Your calculation has gone over your head here, I think... >An R2 is half as common as an R1. Wouldn't it make sense to be forced >to trade *two* R2's for one R1 (everything else equal)? But it isn't, you see. If there were 25 R2s and 25 R1s, yes, that would be the case. But there are 46 R2s and only 8 R1s, all competing for the single R slot in the booster. That means, in a given booster, you're six times more likely to pull a R2 than a R1: 1 Rare Slot: 46/54 chance of R2, 8/54 chance of R1 Expected value of a rare pull: 0.148(periodic), or 14.814% of a R1, 85.185% of a R2. How did I get 0.148? I got it by calculating the odds of drawing an R2: 46/54, which is equal to 23/27. 23/27 is 0.851(periodic), so the odds of R1 must be 1-(P[R2]), or 14.814(periodic). (Tangent: For Uncommons/Commons, things get trickier as there's more than one slot; I only have the math to get the odds of at least one U1/C1 per so many packs, so those numbers are a little wafflier since I didn't do math for pulling _exactly one_ U1/C1. I might be able to get my Abomination for slightly fewer than 729 Canopic Jars). You should expect to pull one R1 every 6.75 packs exactly, or (normalized) 4 every 27 packs. (tangent2: I pulled 5 R1s out of 72 packs, short 5 and 2/3rds R1s. arrgh. OTOH, I bought 10 packs over the weekend, which gave up 3 R1s. And I pulled one R1 out of the 2 boosters I got at the Pre-Release. So that makes 9 R1s in 84 packs, with expected yield 12.44 R1s. I don't know where the missing 3.444 R1s got to, but it's the vagaries of the Holy Card Sorter. I blame Xian, who is, in all likelihood, pulling 3 and 4 Lupine Assaults and Abominations out of each booster and cackling madly.) That means that for 4 R1s, you have pulled 23 R2s. At 6x4=24, a ratio of 6 R2s for an R1 is about right if you're operating on scarcity value alone. Personally, I wouldn't give up 6 Shroud Masteries for one Mythic Form, but that's how the numbers shake out on a strictly scarcity analysis, which is important for set collectors, I suppose. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3b2e92e2$1...@212.18.160.197>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: >I must confess I didn't bother to look at Gomi's calculations in detail, but >I think he made the mistake* of considering the chance of getting *any* R1 >card versus *any* R2 card. Since there are a lot more R2 cards, this will >obviously make R1 seem a lot more valueable. Well, not a mistake, but a deliberate thing, since I was examining scarcity value only. If you disregard play value, 6 random R2s should trade for 1 random R1. Once you consider play value, things change. >The real ratio should be 1:2 (just think how many copies of each R2 card you >should get for each R1 card, or the odds of getting one specific R1 card >versus one specific R2 card). Hm. Well, the rare slot has a 14.8% chance of being an R1, and that R1 has a 1 in 8 chance of being, say, Lupine Assault. One-eighth of 14.8% is 1.8%. The rare slot has an 85.2% chance of being an R2, and that R2 has a 2 in 92 (1 in 46) chance of being, say, Sniper Rifle. One-forty-sixth of 85.2% is...1.8%. Not coincidentally, 1.8% is the reciprocal of 54 -- a 1 in 54 chance. So any one _specific_ rare is as rare as any other _specific_ rare, but _random_ rares can be rarer than other _random_ rares. Now I'm confused. James Coupe, I'm pretty sure, knows his probability stat. I bet he can elucidate. But your odds of drawing one of [Abomination-Week of Nightmares] versus drawing one of [Amam the Devourer-Wendell Delburton] are indeed 1:6, which is of interest to set collectors. >*of course, he could have done it on purpose, to get some great trading >deals... ;-) Humph. The very idea. <grin> [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:9gm5bp$21vi$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > Not coincidentally, 1.8% is the reciprocal of 54 -- a 1 in 54 chance. > > So any one _specific_ rare is as rare as any other _specific_ rare, > but _random_ rares can be rarer than other _random_ rares. Now > I'm confused. Me too. > James Coupe, I'm pretty sure, knows his probability stat. I bet he > can elucidate. James Hamblin is a better bet. > >*of course, he could have done it on purpose, to get some great trading > >deals... ;-) > > Humph. The very idea. <grin> Gomi is tricky, but not that tricky. :) His tricky-ness lies in his ability to come up with uses for single vampires. Heh. While I'm thinking about it, I have to note that although I am really really pleased with new cards and all that, there is one downside to having designers that know what they're doing. Sure, we don't get anything scary like Return to Innocence, but we also don't get weird cards that no one[1] knows what to do with, such as oh...Betrayer and Goodnight Sweet Prince and the like. Bummer. Xian [1] Well, with the exception of Legbiter and (sometimes) myself.

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:9gm49d$21ag$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > (tangent2: I pulled 5 R1s out of 72 packs, short 5 and 2/3rds R1s. > arrgh. OTOH, I bought 10 packs over the weekend, which gave up 3 > R1s. And I pulled one R1 out of the 2 boosters I got at the Pre-Release. Not *too* bad. > So that makes 9 R1s in 84 packs, with expected yield 12.44 R1s. I don't > know where the missing 3.444 R1s got to, but it's the vagaries of the > Holy Card Sorter. I blame Xian, who is, in all likelihood, pulling 3 and The newsgroup hasn't been blaming me for everything nearly as much recently. I can only assume that you all forgot.[1] > 4 Lupine Assaults and Abominations out of each booster and cackling madly.) Unfortunately, I failed to find any Lupine Assaults or Week of Nightmares, and I think I'm short on R1s (proportionately) as well. Haven't double-checked, but I think 5 in 3 booster boxes. (Where did you get that info on the size of the sheets and such, Gomi?) However, I took it as a good omen that an Abomination was in the second pack I opened, and I did end up with 3 Perfect Clarity, bringing my total to 4. I'm still in the market, folks. Also, I may need an extra Jake Washington or whatever, the master ally, as part of a prior trade. Email me. Got 2 Ezmerelda, 1 Augustus, and neither Sutekh nor You're Sugary (thanks Norm!). Xian [1] See the following post: From: James Coupe (jr...@cam.ac.uk) Subject: Re: Reality Mirror (was Re: Malkavian Antitribu Newsletter for November. Vol. 2 No. 1.) Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Date: 2000/11/10 On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Floater wrote: > It is probably Xian's fault anyway. It's in the new rules book. Download a copy from the White Wolf site. "10.9.2.4.5.6 Everything that cannot be attributed to a single person for blaim shall be attributed to Xian." [James' sig deleted]

In message <BsxX6.1006$Lt1.6...@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> writes >> James Coupe, I'm pretty sure, knows his probability stat. I bet he >> can elucidate. > >James Hamblin is a better bet. Heh. My basic stats isn't bad. Take me much beyond normal distributions (bell curves), poisson, binomial and the various approximations between, hypothesis testing and that sort of level of stats and I'm fairly screwed. No Markov chains for me, matey. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:9gm5bp$21vi$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > In article <3b2e92e2$1...@212.18.160.197>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: > > >I must confess I didn't bother to look at Gomi's calculations in detail, but > >I think he made the mistake* of considering the chance of getting *any* R1 > >card versus *any* R2 card. Since there are a lot more R2 cards, this will > >obviously make R1 seem a lot more valueable. > > Well, not a mistake, but a deliberate thing, since I was examining > scarcity value only. If you disregard play value, 6 random R2s should > trade for 1 random R1. > > Once you consider play value, things change. Of course. And then there's the 'last card to finish collection' effect... :-) > >The real ratio should be 1:2 (just think how many copies of each R2 card you > >should get for each R1 card, or the odds of getting one specific R1 card > >versus one specific R2 card). > > Hm. Well, the rare slot has a 14.8% chance of being an R1, and that R1 > has a 1 in 8 chance of being, say, Lupine Assault. One-eighth of > 14.8% is 1.8%. > > The rare slot has an 85.2% chance of being an R2, and that R2 has a > 2 in 92 (1 in 46) chance of being, say, Sniper Rifle. One-forty-sixth > of 85.2% is...1.8%. > > Not coincidentally, 1.8% is the reciprocal of 54 -- a 1 in 54 chance. > > So any one _specific_ rare is as rare as any other _specific_ rare, > but _random_ rares can be rarer than other _random_ rares. Now > I'm confused. Me too. But what about this: you get 2 Sniper Rifle in each 100 boosters, and 1 Lupine Assault in those same 100 boosters. So the Sniper Rifle is twice as common as a Lupine Assault. Right? Oh, I think I just saw a flaw in your math: you calculated the odds for an R2 as 46/54, when it whould be 92/100. BTW, if this is right you were actually lucky: you got 9 R1s in 84 packs, so you're already over the average (8 in 100). > James Coupe, I'm pretty sure, knows his probability stat. I bet he > can elucidate. > > But your odds of drawing one of [Abomination-Week of Nightmares] versus > drawing one of [Amam the Devourer-Wendell Delburton] are indeed 1:6, which > is of interest to set collectors. But isn't that like saying that the chance of getting a Mythic Form is (say) 1.8%, while the chance of getting any other Rare is 98.2%? Then you should just give me all your Rares for my Mythic Form! :-) Flux

In article <3b2e...@212.18.160.197>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: >"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message >news:9gm5bp$21vi$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... >Me too. >But what about this: you get 2 Sniper Rifle in each 100 boosters, and 1 >Lupine Assault in those same 100 boosters. So the Sniper Rifle is twice as >common as a Lupine Assault. Right? But, see, the odds of getting 1 Sniper in a booster isn't 1 in 50, and the odds of getting 1 Lupine Assault isn't 1 in 100, despite there being 2 Snipers and 1 Lupine per 100-card sheet. If each booster were hand-assembled to have a different rare (doubling up on R2s), then the boosters get mixed up, sure, that would apply. But because they're filled from a random hopper containing rares in the proportion of 8R1 to 92 R2s, things don't quite work that way. >Oh, I think I just saw a flaw in your math: you calculated the odds for an >R2 as 46/54, when it whould be 92/100. I think that's right, yes. Our Mythical Hopper of Rare Goodness contains 8 R1s and 92 R2s, and each booster gets one of these at random, so the 100 boosters that come up each have a 92/100 chance (23/25) of being R2. I think where I went wrong was with the original assumption of the odds, which were based on total number of rares instead of rares on the sheet. Hrmph. I'll have to re-run my calculations. >BTW, if this is right you were actually lucky: you got 9 R1s in 84 packs, so >you're already over the average (8 in 100). It's no fun if I don't get to complain. Poo. ;-> >But isn't that like saying that the chance of getting a Mythic Form is (say) >1.8%, while the chance of getting any other Rare is 98.2%? Then you should >just give me all your Rares for my Mythic Form! :-) Yeah, it gets all screwy when you mix general with specific. It's like saying, the odds of a random golf drive landing on one particular tuft of grass on the fairway are vanishingly small, so it couldn't have happened by accident -- you actually possess L33T golf skillz. Which isn't usually the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: >>Peter, how many times have I warned you? Us thugs aren't supposed to *think* about things. :)>> Yeah, that thinking always gets me in trouble... I think mostly I was confused 'cause I missed out that there weren't any uncommon Library cards--now that I realize that all the uncommon sheet had nothing but vampires on it, it all makes sense. >>This seems kind of odd...I thought it was considerate in Dark Sovereigns that most of the discipline cards were of approximately the same rarity.>> It was also considerate that up until recently, all of the vampires were of approximately the same rarity, and now we have 4 of them that are super rare R1s. >>Whoops...typing before I read all the way through. I think Ramona the Curiously Sighted might have been more appropriate, though. Did you ever finish the clan novels, Gomi? I *actually* purchased all of them, and I even read all of them. Not as bad as you reported, but I agree that Setite was the best of the original four.>> Are you talking the smack about Ramona? I love Ramona. She is my faaaavvvvooorittttte. I loooooove her. And here starts my unending defense of Ramona. >>Also, Peter...in every set since Jyhad/V:tES, I believe that there hasn't really been a "vampire" rarity...that was an artifact of that print run, IIRC.>> Really? What were the vamps in the pre WW expansions (DS , AH, and Sabbat)? I guess this is what you get for not really paying attention to rarity listings. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010618232016...@ng-mc1.aol.com... > Yeah, that thinking always gets me in trouble... I know, I know. > It was also considerate that up until recently, all of the vampires were of > approximately the same rarity, and now we have 4 of them that are super rare > R1s. True. Oh well. Look at it this way. New cards! :) > >>Whoops...typing before I read all the way through. I think Ramona the > Curiously Sighted might have been more appropriate, though. Did you ever > > Are you talking the smack about Ramona? I love Ramona. She is my > faaaavvvvooorittttte. I loooooove her. And here starts my unending defense of > Ramona. Nah, she just had this weird ability to see "ghost sight" stuff. > >>Also, Peter...in every set since Jyhad/V:tES, I believe that there hasn't > really > been a "vampire" rarity...that was an artifact of that print run, IIRC.>> > > Really? What were the vamps in the pre WW expansions (DS , AH, and > Sabbat)? I guess this is what you get for not really paying attention to rarity > listings. Yeah, well I wouldn't care either, but I know all of the people around here are going to be all spastic about the rarities. :) I like your way of trading much better, and I'm a convert. Xian

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > Are you talking the smack about Ramona? I love Ramona. She is my > faaaavvvvooorittttte. I loooooove her. And here starts my unending defense of > Ramona. I'm with you. I spent the last 20 packs shouting "Where's my Gangrel" while opening them, only to fail and have to trade for one with a more fortunate friend. She went directly into my Gangrel deck (the latest incarnation of the first Jyhad deck I ever made, now on verson 20.12 or so). She's an all-star, since the deck uses very little animalism, and Ramona can bum some blood off her friends to keep going. The only way she'd be better is if she had superior in one of those disciplines, but then she never would have made it out the door at 4. Mmmm, 4. - Jason Bell

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote <snip math shit I probably failed in high school> Thanks Gomi. By your logic, I can trade my *extra* Abomination for some good stuff. I ended up with two. Anybody need Abomination? Please contact me privately at: ghost(at)mnsi(dot)net Cheers, WES

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Think of it like this. > >An R1 appears once on a sheet. An R2 appears twice. Obviously. >If we had 50 R2s and 50 R1s, a sheet would have: > >100 R2s > 50 R1s > >Hence, an R1 would be worth roughly two R2s, because you'd be twice as >likely to get any given R2 as any given R1. > >However, consider a situation with 50 R2 and 1 R1: > >100 R2s > 1 R1 > >Hence, an R1 would be much more valuable in this scenario. If you only >have 1 rare per booster, you're only likely to get it in 1 in every 101 >boosters - roughly a 1% chance. Sure. >If you alter the numbers to the current situation, you get trades like >those suggested. This is where you err. *Yes*, that one R1 card won't pop up very often. *However*, in these 101 cards, there will be 1 of the R1 2 of R2 #1 2 of R2 #2 2 of R2 #3 . . . 2 of R2 #50 So the R1 card will be half as common as any particular R2 card. When you've opened a sufficent number of boxes, you will have a certain number of the R1, and twice as many of each R2-card. So, with the R1 twice as rare as the (individual) R2's, a trade of 1:2 (all else equal) seems good. Anyone who wanted a hundred R2's for his R1 would get laughed in the face. Note that your calculation still holds true, for what it's worth. The R2 cards in the world, taken together, outnumber the R1 card a hundred to one. But this has nothing to do with trading value. [ quoted text not captured ]

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >But it isn't, you see. If there were 25 R2s and 25 R1s, yes, that would >be the case. Yes it would. And also for *any* other distribution of R1's and R2's. >That means that for 4 R1s, you have pulled 23 R2s. At 6x4=24, a ratio >of 6 R2s for an R1 is about right if you're operating on scarcity >value alone. Personally, I wouldn't give up 6 Shroud Masteries for >one Mythic Form, but that's how the numbers shake out on a strictly >scarcity analysis, which is important for set collectors, I suppose. I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here, byt anyway: There are 46 R2's and 8 R1's. This means that there are 92 R2's and 8 R1's on every plate (neatly adding up to 100). Thus, 8 % of all rare cards are R1's. There's more than twleve times as many R2's in the world as R1's. *However*, this has nothing whatsoever to do with trading values. The reason there are so few R1's compared to R2's is that there are much fewer cards with a designated rarity of R1 (namely 8) as compared to R2's (namely 46). For *every*single*R1, there are two of *every*single*R2 . With each R1 of a particular card half as common as any particular R2, a trade of 1 to 2 (all else equal) seems appropriate. The absurdness of your calculation can easily be shown. Example: In Banal Heights, the next expansion, there are 98 R1's and a single R2 card. Now, there's 98 % chance of getting a R1 card, and 2 % chance of getting an R2, or 49:1. But anyone who thinks trading 49 R1's for an R2 is (I think we can agree) a moron. The R2 is *still* twice as common as any R1. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010618232016...@ng-mc1.aol.com... > Xian wrote: > >>This seems kind of odd...I thought it was considerate in Dark Sovereigns that > most of the discipline cards were of approximately the same rarity.>> > > It was also considerate that up until recently, all of the vampires were of > approximately the same rarity, and now we have 4 of them that are super rare > R1s. Welll, in Sabbat War there were already Common and Uncommon vampires, plus the fixed ones from the starters, but all Uncommon vampires were very sensibly chosen to be reprints, so it didn't bother most veteran players. All the WotC vampires had a Vampire rarity. Flux

Xian wrote: >>True. Oh well. Look at it this way. New cards! :)>> And they are pretty cool, at that. But now I'm *never* getting an Abomination... >>Nah, she just had this weird ability to see "ghost sight" stuff.>> Yeah, ok then, that isn't a discipline. She is a 4 with 2 skills and a good special. Very up to code. And hot. >>Yeah, well I wouldn't care either, but I know all of the people around here are going to be all spastic about the rarities. :) I like your way of trading much better, and I'm a convert.>> Right on! I am always a bit confused when I run into folks who I want to trade stuff with who are, like, "let me check the price guide...". Kooky. If I got stuff I'm not gonna be using, you can have it, and I'm sure you have something somewhere I want somehow. It is all about card socialism, I tell you. If I want to keep something, I don't offer to trade it. If I'm happy to trade something, I'll trade it easy. Why isn't everyone like this, I wonder? [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) ===== >Xian wrote: >>>True. Oh well. Look at it this way. New cards! :)>> > >And they are pretty cool, at that. But now I'm *never* getting an >Abomination... Peter, want one?? I have an extra copy screaming your name :) Tim Eijpe [snip]

>So the R1 card will be half as common as any particular R2 card. When >you've opened a sufficent number of boxes, you will have a certain >number of the R1, and twice as many of each R2-card. > >So, with the R1 twice as rare as the (individual) R2's, a trade of 1:2 >(all else equal) seems good. Anyone who wanted a hundred R2's for his >R1 would get laughed in the face. > >Note that your calculation still holds true, for what it's worth. The >R2 cards in the world, taken together, outnumber the R1 card a hundred >to one. But this has nothing to do with trading value. I play games which have had R1s for around a year. R1s are far more valuable for these games. What happened is that the most scarce items drove trading (and eBay sales). High end customers bought up extra product (which is why companies do this) to make sure they got the rarest cards. Trading normal rares in these games became trivial as the community consisted mostly of those looking for the same cards. There are some differences - other games have card limits, some of the R1s were necessary to compete on a competitive level, etc. Still, the value of a R1 v. a R2, while unlikely to be 11.5 to 1, should be higher than 2 to 1.

Your chance of drawing a specific R1 is 1/100 (there is one Ezmeralda on each R print sheet) Your chance of drawing a specific R2 is 2/100 (there are 2 sniper rifles on each R print sheet) Your chance of having a R1 as in the R-slot is 8/100 Your chance of having a R2 as in the R-slot is 92/100 so for trading the following applies: 1 R1 = 2 R2 1 R1 = 3 U1 1 R1 = 6 U2 1 R1 = 7 C1 1 R1 = 14 C2 2 R2 = 3 U1 or 1 R2=1.5 U1 (whos gonna trade me a perfect clarity for 1 and a half ramonas) 1 R2 = 3 U2 2 R2 = 7 C1 or 1 R2=3.5 C1 1 R2 = 7 C2 1 U1 = 2 U2 3 U1 = 7 C1 or 1 U1 = 2.333 C1 3 U1 = 14 C2 or 1 U1 = 4.666 C2 6 U2 = 7 C1 3 U2 = 7 C2 1 C1 = 2 C2 but thats pure statistic playability counts Stefan

cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote in message news:<20010619121650...@ng-mc1.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe it doesn't matter...but Jyhad included Rares and rare2's. And you don't see people trading 5 "Behind You!"(R2) for 1 "Betrayer"(R1)

[snip] > > Maybe it doesn't matter...but Jyhad included Rares and rare2's. And > you don't see people trading 5 "Behind You!"(R2) for 1 "Betrayer"(R1) No you wouldn't see that but at the same time you won't see someone giving away a Freak Drive for a Blood Puppy. What you might get is a Murder of Crows and a Behind You for a Freak Drive.

[snip] > > Right on! I am always a bit confused when I run into folks who I want to trade > stuff with who are, like, "let me check the price guide...". Kooky. If I got > stuff I'm not gonna be using, you can have it, and I'm sure you have something > somewhere I want somehow. It is all about card socialism, I tell you. If I want > to keep something, I don't offer to trade it. If I'm happy to trade something, > I'll trade it easy. Why isn't everyone like this, I wonder? > Because capitalism is the way to go, or so you guys in the US keep telling the rest of the world? In fact you fight wars just so that the market can win out rather than allow people to share things. don't get me wrong when it comes to cards i think a free market is the only way to go.

In message <3b2ff768$1...@news.iprimus.com.au>, theventrue <chr...@comcen.com.au> writes >Because capitalism is the way to go, or so you guys in the US keep telling >the rest of the world? In fact you fight wars just so that the market can >win out rather than allow people to share things. don't get me wrong when it >comes to cards i think a free market is the only way to go. The nice one is that the American[0] market isn't free, even though they keep telling the rest of the world it's great, and that's what they want. Frex, their airline owning regulations vs their wishes regarding landing slots at lots of airports round the globe. [0] I'm not, clearly, having a go at Americans in general. Just the ones in power. [ quoted text not captured ]

< beginning is snipped > >There are some differences - other games have card limits, some of the R1s >were >necessary to compete on a competitive level, etc. Still, the value of a R1 >v. >a R2, while unlikely to be 11.5 to 1, should be higher than 2 to 1. But then again, a lot of these "other games" are sorely lacking in the "play balance" department. I've played quite a few CCG's in my time and most of them generally go the route where Rare always means "definitely better." A lot of these companies intentionally make all the rares (or lots of them) broken and overpowered. In general, rare in Jyhad just means "different," not necessarily "better." Halcyan 2

Asumming the print run for FN would be 100 rare sheets 100 ezmeraldas would have been printited compared to 200 sniper rifles so R1 is twice as rare as R2. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaron wrote: > Maybe it doesn't matter...but Jyhad included Rares and rare2's. And > you don't see people trading 5 "Behind You!"(R2) for 1 "Betrayer"(R1) You're not making a critical distinction. There's a huge difference between having lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of R2s and a few R1s. If there's lots of R1s, people buy product as if they have to cover lots of R1 rare cards they'll need and set their expectation of price vs. payoff accordingly. That is, they're basically buying a singe R1 in every pack (and get annoyed if it's a bad/mediocre R2 but go on) and gauge whether the pack price is worth what they get from that expectation. And they can easily trade the R1s they don't want for R1s they do. Basically, if you don't get any particular R1 in your pack, it doesn't matter because you'll usually get another R1. When you have a few R1s amongst many R2s, that really screws a lot of things up. People kind of have to buy packs with the expectation of getting R2s. It's very hard to predict when those occasional R1s will come up or how many you'll get, even if you buy lots and lots of packs. They can be extremely hard to trade for depending on who you know to trade with and whether those people draw what you want in their packs. Everything gets real awkward since players have a very difficult time figuring out what the true trade or sales volume of an R1 actually is Dealers either sell out of them immediately or put outrageous prices on them. Or both. This is a bad thing. I hope White Wolf avoids this in the future. It's not worth it. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Aaron wrote: > > Maybe it doesn't matter...but Jyhad included Rares and rare2's. And > > you don't see people trading 5 "Behind You!"(R2) for 1 "Betrayer"(R1) > > You're not making a critical distinction. There's a huge difference > between having lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of R2s and a few R1s. > [...] > This is a bad thing. I hope White Wolf avoids this in the future. It's > not worth it. Players would complain if there were too many rares. How would you recommend redistributing the 162 FN booster pack cards, for instance? I hadn't expected complaints that there weren't enough rares, but I guess I should have predicted it. No matter how things are done, there'll be someone out there that will complain about it. -- 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/

[ quoted text not captured ] Even with the best of intents, it's hard to guarantee that R1s are not going to be highly useful/heavily sought after cards for their game value alone. (Never mind the shear rarity which creates demand out peoples' desires to have full sets, which robs the game of one each of the rarest cards for every set. In other words, every set collected and set aside removes a much higher percentage of the rarest cards than the less higher rarity levels.) Unless the designers are deliberately intending a card should be wallpaper, occasionally they'll print something that turns up to have far more usage than an R1 can sustain. For instance, something like a Freak Drive that turns out to be useful in large numbers in certain decks. Every instance of that happening at a "super-rare" rarity level is truly damaging to the game. I don't know about the eight super-rares in Final Nights, but if White Wolf plays with this concept much, they're going to get burned (and so will we) sooner or later. Period. Fred

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Aaron wrote: > > > Maybe it doesn't matter...but Jyhad included Rares and rare2's. And > > > you don't see people trading 5 "Behind You!"(R2) for 1 "Betrayer"(R1) > > > > You're not making a critical distinction. There's a huge difference > > between having lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of R2s and a few R1s. > > [...] > > This is a bad thing. I hope White Wolf avoids this in the future. It's > > not worth it. > > Players would complain if there were too many rares. It depends on what you mean by "too many rares". If you replace a 100 card rare sheet which has 8 R1s and 46 X 2 = 92 R2s (I'm assuming that's how it's been done) with 100 R1s and still include the 10 other cards and charge $2.75 per pack for it, then perhaps. But it wouldn't be much worse since no card is any more rare than R1. And at least if you didn't draw an Abomination (for instance) you'd draw any one of 99 other R1s that were as rare as an Abomination and hence likely to be tradable for an Abomination (exact card utility not withstanding). This way, you'll likely get an R2 instead, which is automatically somewhat less valuable. In any event, any kind of scheme that makes the existing R1s more common per pack (that is, allows you to have a better chance of drawing in a given pack) would be a distinct improvement. > How would you recommend redistributing the 162 FN booster pack cards, for instance? The obvious answer would be to print a card sheet with 54 cards on it and make them all R1s. If you could do anything you liked. If the problem is that you're stuck (due to the process of the manufacturer you're using) with 100-card card sheets then it would have been a vast improvement to print 50 R2s and move the other 4 into uncommon card sheets. Printing U1s in an expansion that has rarer R2s is not a problem at all since U1s aren't the most rare card. > > I hadn't expected complaints that there weren't enough rares, but I > guess I should have predicted it. No matter how things are done, > there'll be someone out there that will complain about it. Well, that's an eternal truth. :-) My complaints are based on my experience with collectible card games. Some people love the concept of super-rares. Over time, though, I've found that ultra rare cards, unless utter wallpaper or so specialized that most people don't care about them, tend to make the player population somewhat edgy. If a card seems like it can be abused at all, the calls to ban it will be much more emotional. Poorer players feel left out when someone pulls out a deck that has a half-dozen of the super-rares. Stuff like that. Don't get me wrong. These R1s are not likely to be any worse then some of the Sabbat rares were unless they prove highly useful in large numbers. Still, I don't think the rarity of The Sabbat rares - especially after the supply of Sabbat dried up - was a good thing, either. Fred

In article <3B30EFA8...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >My complaints are based on my experience with collectible card games. >Some people >love the concept of super-rares. Over time, though, I've found that ultra >rare >cards, unless utter wallpaper or so specialized that most people don't care >about them, tend to make the player population somewhat edgy. If a card >seems like >it can be abused at all, the calls to ban it will be much more emotional. >Poorer >players feel left out when someone pulls out a deck that has a half-dozen of >the >super-rares. Stuff like that. Well, of the 8 R1s: 4 are vampires. Apparently, these suck SO much that you can detect a booster pack containing ur-Shulgi by placing a small trail of flour on a table top and moving the booster pack near it. If the flour is sucked to the booster's surface, you know it contains an R1 vampire which is exerting Sucking Power. This isn't an assessment I agree with, but it seems...fervently held. In any case, they aren't super-abusable to the point where a 12-Sutekh deck is going to be a serious threat to the environment. 2-3 of each is likely the average Independent player's goal. 2 are playable only once per game (Week of Nightmares and Lupine Assault). I don't see these being packed 12 to a deck either. 2 might conceivably become issues: Mythic Form and Abomination. Mythic Form is cute, and not a coaster by any means, but expensive (3 blood) and again not something I'd chuck 12 of into a deck. Of the 8, I predict Abomination is going to have the highest trade value, because it's the only one that makes sense to have 8+ of in a deck. And at 5 pool a pop (4 for Werewolf Pack +1 for Abomination), it's a pricey trick. None of which changes your point about super-rares being potential trouble, of course -- just wanted to point out that we've likely dodged the bullet this time around. [ quoted text not captured ]

:snip: I purchased 5 display boxes of FN boosters and 3 of starters. Of the 5 boosters I found only 1 each of the library URs and 2 each of the 11 cap, except for the Ur dude. Only 1 of him. What this means to me is that if I want more of these cards my wallet has to come out again, after I had thought that a purchase of this quantity would be sufficent. I now have to haunt ebay and the few single-card sellers in the hopes I can find more of these, and pray that I don't have to dish out Protected Resources prices for them. You can't even figure that buying another booster display can help, since it is more likely than otherwise that all you can find would be the R2s. It's all a gamble. As far as the U vampires go -- I have 5 booster displays. At that volume they seem pretty common to me. Lord Darksword

> :snip: > > I purchased 5 display boxes of FN boosters and 3 of starters. > > Of the 5 boosters I found only 1 each of the library URs and 2 each of > the 11 cap, except for the Ur dude. Only 1 of him. > > What this means to me is that if I want more of these cards my wallet DO you want more of these cards? Which? I know that I'd be willing to trade away R1's for 2 of certain R2s. If you're just being theoretical ("If I want more,") then it's a theoretical problem, not a real one. > has to come out again, after I had thought that a purchase of this > quantity would be sufficent. I now have to haunt ebay and the few > single-card sellers in the hopes I can find more of these, and pray > that I don't have to dish out Protected Resources prices for them. > You can't even figure that buying another booster display can help, > since it is more likely than otherwise that all you can find would be > the R2s. It's all a gamble. Trade? 2-for-1 of R2s and R1s seems (so far) to be the mathematically accurate way of trading. Play value, of course, changes this. If you "want it all," and don't want to trade or pay money, well...too bad. Also, having a BOATLOAD of commons, you can likely get someone who bought far fewer cards, but has one copy of an R1 you want to trade for, trading away what is purely *excess* cards for you. > As far as the U vampires go -- I have 5 booster displays. At that > volume they seem pretty common to me. I got 2 booster displays and got 2 of each, which is just about enough; more than 2 in a deck gives me crypt screw, usually. =) To quote Rob Treasure (from the Ventrue Newsletter, II.8): "The real idea is to make something you are comfortable playing and to work in rare / better cards when you get or TRADE, TRADE, TRADE for them. Did I mention trading ??" -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

In article <B7568B89.4B36%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > DO you want more of these cards? Which? I know that I'd be willing to >trade away R1's for 2 of certain R2s. It's Shroud Mastery, isn't it. You bastard, you're screwing me out of the Shroud Masteries I DESPERATELY NEED TO LIVE. But you don't care about my pain. Bastard. I have these extra R1s I was going to trade for Shroud Masteries, but you're going to WRECK MY CUNNING PLAN by getting them all first! Aigh! gomi late for his medication again, evidently [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > > :snip: > > > > I purchased 5 display boxes of FN boosters and 3 of starters. > > > > Of the 5 boosters I found only 1 each of the library URs and 2 each of > > the 11 cap, except for the Ur dude. Only 1 of him. > > > > What this means to me is that if I want more of these cards my wallet > > DO you want more of these cards? Which? I know that I'd be willing to > trade away R1's for 2 of certain R2s. ... > Trade? 2-for-1 of R2s and R1s seems (so far) to be the mathematically > accurate way of trading. I'm not sure why you say that. It's not very clear what R1 is worth vs. and R2 even if the play value is identical. The fact that they printed two R2s for every R1 is somewhat coincidental to trade value. One plus one doesn't really equal two in this sense. For example, if they print 10,000 "Alpha" cards ("Alpha" being the theoretical name of a specific card) and 20,000 "Beta" cards because Alphas are R1s and Betas are R2 and they printed enough packs to use the cards from 10,000 rare card sheets, it's anyone's guess how many of these cards will be available for play. If there are 5,000 collectors out there each wanting to sock away one each of every card - including one Alpha and one Beta - and if they succeed at doing so, 5,000 Alphas and 15,000 Betas remain available for card players to play with. This translates into a three-to-one ration instead of a two-to-one. Of course, 5,000 sets of cards in relation to 10,000 of a given R1 is a huge number and I wouldn't expect anything like that. I'm just showing how the unpredictable the effect of peoples' aggregate buying behaviors is on the trade value of a card. And play value. It's one thing to state that two cards have the same play value but what does that mean? If they're two cards like Tasha Morgan and J.R. Simmons, Esq., people will usually use a small number of them and don't care all that much if they have two Tashas and no J.R. Simmons instead of one of each. Or can just skip the J.R. Simmons if they don't have one and use something else. But if they're two cards that do nothing by themselves and are kick-ass together as a combo, it matters a lot more that you actually have one of each and aren't missing either card. The point is that it's real tricky to what an R1 is worth in comparison to an R2, just as it's tricky to compare the trade value of uncommons to rares. It may be more or less than the 2-1 ratio of the number of cards that got printed. My experience is that it's likely to be more than 2-1 just as you can seldom trade three average uncommons for an average rare in most CCG expansions that are printed up in 3-1 uncommon/rare ratios. > Also, having a BOATLOAD of commons, you can likely get someone who > bought far fewer cards, but has one copy of an R1 you want to trade for, > trading away what is purely *excess* cards for you. Well, I've never been able to do that but then I've never been much of trader. But usually, the commons people are willing to take in exchange for rarer cards are *exactly* the few issues of common cards you can actually use in large number; Wakes, Forced Awakenings, Majesties and like that. Which is not surprising. Fred

Every instance of that > happening at a "super-rare" rarity level is truly damaging to the game. I don't know > about the eight super-rares in Final Nights, but if White Wolf plays with this concept > much, they're going to get burned (and so will we) sooner or later. Period. There is no super rare? Where are people comming up with this crap. It has been explained several times, by the people in this thread who have common sense. There are 'rarer' cards, but nothing super rare. What is the chance, in 100 packs, of getting a specific R2?(say, a tutu) WOW, it's 100:2. Kinda rare, for a rare. But getting a abomination is: 100:1. 1/100 or 1/50. Rare is rare. Noone wants hordes of 11 caps, abominations, or the only once per game playable lupine assult. Again, these are the *SAME SAME SAME!* rarities from Jyahd! So quit worring about it. Hassle LSJ about something important...like tournament rules, not how many mythic forms you will have to trade for.(the humanity!)

Aaron wrote: > > There is no super rare? Where are people comming up with this crap. > It has been explained several times, by the people in this thread who > have common sense. There are 'rarer' cards, but nothing super rare. > What is the chance, in 100 packs, of getting a specific R2?(say, a > tutu) WOW, it's 100:2. Kinda rare, for a rare. But getting a > abomination is: 100:1. 1/100 or 1/50. Rare is rare. Noone wants > hordes of 11 caps, abominations, or the only once per game playable > lupine assult. Again, these are the *SAME SAME SAME!* rarities from > Jyahd! So quit worring about it. I explained the difference between lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of R2s and a few R1s in a response to one of your other posts. If you want to ignore what I said there, fine. But don't impatiently demand people accept that these two situations are the same. They're not. Fred

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >Of the 8, I predict Abomination is going to have the highest trade value, >because it's the only one that makes sense to have 8+ of in a deck. And >at 5 pool a pop (4 for Werewolf Pack +1 for Abomination), it's a pricey >trick. I wouldn't recommend this, as Abomination is unique. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9gquqt$r8l$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei <go...@best.com> writes >Of the 8, I predict Abomination is going to have the highest trade value, >because it's the only one that makes sense to have 8+ of in a deck. And >at 5 pool a pop (4 for Werewolf Pack +1 for Abomination), it's a pricey >trick. And the Abomination is Unique, remember. (Hence, it's not too bad being in the rare 1 slot. You can't get that many out.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3b31250e....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote: >go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >>Of the 8, I predict Abomination is going to have the highest trade value, >>because it's the only one that makes sense to have 8+ of in a deck. And >>at 5 pool a pop (4 for Werewolf Pack +1 for Abomination), it's a pricey >>trick. >I wouldn't recommend this, as Abomination is unique. True, I'd missed that. So only Mythic Form makes sense to have in any quantity in a deck, and it's not a real winning strategy at 3 blood a pop. So none of the 8 R1s are really desirable in quantity after all. Which is good. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Players would complain if there were too many rares. How would you >recommend redistributing the 162 FN booster pack cards, for instance? Cut 12 cards. Add 38 cards and have it be 100/50/50 C/U/R. > >I hadn't expected complaints that there weren't enough rares, but I >guess I should have predicted it. No matter how things are done, >there'll be someone out there that will complain about it. Probably never going to be end to complaints as consumers have different interests from producers.

LSJ, I'm not complaining! As a person who mainly collects V:TES, and plays only infrequently, I probably shouldn't voice my opinions on this forum. After all, there seem to be some pretty dedicated players around! But... I want to say that this has been the BEST V:TES set so far, as far as collecting a complete set goes! The placement of all of the reprinted cards in the starter decks means that I don't have to find them in the booster packs as I'm hunting for the new cards. This was a nuisance in Sabbat War, especially since there were so few new cards. The collation of rares in the booster packs was pretty good... after 3 booster boxes, I needed only 4 rares for a complete set. There was some "clumping" of duplicate rares in the boxes, so there is room for improvement! But overall, not bad. The set size, the number of rares in the set, the rarity of the vampires, and everything else related to the press sheets in perfectly fine in my opinion (ok... here come the flames!) After all, you really don't need to have more than 2-3 copies of a vampire. The fact that many of the library cards are common means that I now have plenty of cool cards to use in a deck (now... if only I can get that many rares for my decks!), unlike it has been for me in the past (there are still Sabbat War uncommons that I am slowly trying to acquire). So, thank you and everyone else at WW! I hope the next set is produced in a similar manner! Jeff Hontz [ quoted text not captured ]

The Hontz's wrote: > I'm not complaining! As a person who mainly collects V:TES, and plays only > infrequently, I probably shouldn't voice my opinions on this forum. You have every right. There's nothing about the subject matter in this group which inherently restricts posters to those who play frequently. Never apologize for stating a sincere, respectful, on-topic opinion on Usenet. It's also interesting to hear from people who are more collectors than players on a subject like this. We don't actually know the makeup of who's buying all these card so you might represent an important group which, up until now, has had little voice in this discussion. Anyway, I only have one point to make about your comments that wouldn't be repetitious: > After all, you really don't need to have more than 2-3 copies of a vampire. Actually, that's not a very safe statement to make, even of an 11-cap. People create decks all the time whose focus it is to bring some key vampire and use some ability or combination of disciplines or both. Sometimes these decks are quite effective and of tournament quality. Such a deck could have 6 or more copies of that one vampire. It sounds as if no one is seeing anything in the Final Nights 11-caps that would qualify like that but you can't tell until people have had their hands on the cards for a while and done their most diabolical thinking. Anyway, even if this crop doesn't turn out to be a problem, the next one might be if they continue to go this way. That's why I'm somewhat concerned about it. Fred

> I explained the difference between lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of > R2s and a few R1s in a response to one of your other posts. If you want > to ignore what I said there, fine. But don't impatiently demand people accept > that these two situations are the same. They're not. > > Fred All you said was that people are going to buy more cards to try to get R1's, because they are so awesome. So far as I know, in my 4 boxes, which is enough that I don't wany any more I got 10 R1's. 11 actually, but I traded my extra Sutek for some extra C1s that I though would come in way more handy then his godly-ness the outer circle member. Luckily, I only ended up with 1 Abomination. Unfortunatly I didn't get a mythic form. Too bad in sabbat war, which I got 6 boxes of, I never once managed to get a Using the Advantage. Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe that folks are going to run out and buy all the final nights they have, because some collector somewhere is hoarding a unusually large number of R1's. In fact, it's because of collectors, that these things even out. If I have 3 extra Ezmerelda, and someone has that last abomination that I need then I would trade for it. Bam, my collection is complete, play value is not involved because I am looking for a set. So no, collectors are going to screw up the rarity schem, by taking the only R1 on a sheet, and one R2..leaving a R2 floating around to clog your rare pool. Like someone else said, if you really want an Augustus, you might have to trade one of the, far more playable, R2's for it.(mmm shroud mastery & perfect clarity)

Aaron wrote: > > > I explained the difference between lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of > > R2s and a few R1s in a response to one of your other posts. If you want > > to ignore what I said there, fine. But don't impatiently demand people accept > > that these two situations are the same. They're not. > > All you said was that people are going to buy more cards to try to get > R1's, because they are so awesome. I'm not sure what you read. Suffice it to say that's not a very good paraphrase of my point. I guess it's not worth having an argument with someone who doesn't want to hear. Fred

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote in message news:<9grcas$12h8$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>... > In article <3b31250e....@news.algonet.se>, > Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote: > >go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > > >>Of the 8, I predict Abomination is going to have the highest trade value, > >>because it's the only one that makes sense to have 8+ of in a deck. And > >>at 5 pool a pop (4 for Werewolf Pack +1 for Abomination), it's a pricey > >>trick. > > >I wouldn't recommend this, as Abomination is unique. > > True, I'd missed that. So only Mythic Form makes sense to have in > any quantity in a deck, and it's not a real winning strategy at 3 blood > a pop. So none of the 8 R1s are really desirable in quantity after all. Well, to preempt the July NL ever so slightly it's my belief that of all the non-independent clans the !Gangrel have got the best deal out of FN. Path of the Feral Heart makes Mythic Form a bit playable, i'd suggest; plus we got Abomination, two vamps and Mountain Thing Horrible Fortitude Combat Payback card. > > Which is good. VERY good. > > gomi Hey, Yanqui! i got shroud masteries. You wan'? You wan'?

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B31996E...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] What did I miss, you said that you think people will have to buy more cards, and explained why you think that. I said they won't, and told you why I think that. Not really arguing. Then I would be hoping to change your mind. Sometimes 2 people can be right, like on subjective issues.(ezmerelda is better then sutek etc) <origional message> >You're not making a critical distinction. There's a huge difference >between having lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of R2s and a few R1s. >If there's lots of R1s, people buy product as if they have to cover lots >of R1 rare cards they'll need and set their expectation of price vs. folks will buy lots of cards...right? because, when there are more R1 then R2 people just expect to get R1's all the time. >payoff accordingly. That is, they're basically buying a singe R1 in >every pack (and get annoyed if it's a bad/mediocre R2 but go on) and >gauge whether the pack price is worth what they get from that expectation. >And they can easily trade the R1s they don't want for R1s they do. >Basically, if you don't get any particular R1 in your pack, it doesn't >matter because you'll usually get another R1. It doesn't matter that there are rarer cards, because people will trade with you. Just to make sure I am with you lets use an example. 100cards per sheet. Final nights is something like 46 R2 cards(2 copies of each) and 8 R1 cards(one of each) Jyhad was something like: 4 R2(2 copies of each) 92 R1s(1 copy of each) Even though this, in effect, makes it more unlikely that you will get a R2, almost like they are rarer then the R1s as a whole, but not when pitted against any individual card. >When you have a few R1s amongst many R2s, that really screws a lot of >things up. People kind of have to buy packs with the expectation of Here you expect to get R2s. And you are suprised to ever get R1s. Solution buy more cards till you get all the R1s you need. >getting R2s. It's very hard to predict when those occasional R1s will >come up or how many you'll get, even if you buy lots and lots of packs. >They can be extremely hard to trade for depending on who you know to >trade with and whether those people draw what you want in their packs. The same will happen regardless. Strange things happen with pack distribution. Depending on who you have to trade with will not make a difference if you got more/less then your fair share of rares. Someone with lots of trade buddies can easily get all the cards he needs, just some the guy with noone to trade with. >Everything gets real awkward since players have a very difficult time >figuring out what the true trade or sales volume of an R1 actually is >Dealers either sell out of them immediately or put outrageous prices on >them. Or both. >This is a bad thing. I hope White Wolf avoids this in the future. It's >not worth it. It has the potential to be dangerous. If cards are really super rare, and are over powered then it will ruin everything. But it's abomination, lupine assault, mythic form, week of nightmares, and the 4 outter circle members. Nothing too powerful there, or useful en mass. If white wolf designs them right we will be fine. AND they will save me some room in my closet for a bunch of cards I don't need.(again, what am I going to do with the, 58 only playable once per game ancient influences I have?) Actually I would prefer, personally, if nothing was rare. I would rather have everyone have access to all the cards and play the game for skill, then have to buy tons of cards and outclass my friends that aren't as fortunate as myself.(or as crazy depending on your outlook)

The Hontz's <ho...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3B31420C...@erols.com>... > After all, you really don't need to have more > than 2-3 copies of a vampire. That's right! So everyone please mail me your extra copies of Aabbt Kindred.

Lord Darksword wrote in message <831037c7.01062...@posting.google.com>... >:snip: > >I purchased 5 display boxes of FN boosters and 3 of starters. > >Of the 5 boosters I found only 1 each of the library URs and 2 each of >the 11 cap, except for the Ur dude. Only 1 of him. > >What this means to me is that if I want more of these cards my wallet >has to come out again, after I had thought that a purchase of this >quantity would be sufficent. I now have to haunt ebay and the few >single-card sellers in the hopes I can find more of these, and pray >that I don't have to dish out Protected Resources prices for them. >You can't even figure that buying another booster display can help, >since it is more likely than otherwise that all you can find would be >the R2s. It's all a gamble. This is the problem. With the previous expansions (except Sabbat) 4 or 5 boxes was pretty sure to give you just about everything. However after 4 boxes of Final Nights I amazed to have at least 3 of the apparently stupid R1 cards I didn't get. That's annoying. Especially when you have 5 or more of a stupid R2 you will probably not use. I put out almost 300 bucks and got just over half the R1's. Great. What's worse is that someone had the idea of making some of them vamps. This was a terrible idea. I can do without certain skill cards, or probably even master cards, and still try out a deck idea. However vampires make the game and your deck. Now I have some great deck ideas I can't even try because I'm missing a stinking vampire with skills and abilities I need to help make the idea work. That's just spiffy... What's even worse is now I have to find 3 of this "ultra rare" vampire. Thanks a lot. >As far as the U vampires go -- I have 5 booster displays. At that >volume they seem pretty common to me. Another problem. If you based your purchase on trying to get enough uncommons (say 7 or 8) to put in a deck you got rocked. With all the uncommons being vampires you now have 7 or 8 of the uncommon vampires. Not very useful. Steve Bucy "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

In article <68f2e9f8.0106...@posting.google.com>, legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote: >go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote in message news:<9grcas$12h8$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>... >Hey, Yanqui! i got shroud masteries. You wan'? You wan'? Why, you cheeky little sodomite. Yes, please. How many do I get for an ur-Shuggy? Oh wait, since the 11caps suck so hard I'll prolly have to give up multiple ur-Shuggies for each 'real' rare. Bah. Email me with details, you effete bastard. We'll throw all caution to the winds and entrust our frail hopes to the vagaries of international post. You want an assload of Shadowrun cards? [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaron wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B31996E...@netcom.com>... > > Aaron wrote: > > > > > > > I explained the difference between lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of > > > > R2s and a few R1s in a response to one of your other posts. If you want > > > > to ignore what I said there, fine. But don't impatiently demand people accept > > > > that these two situations are the same. They're not. > > > > > > All you said was that people are going to buy more cards to try to get > > > R1's, because they are so awesome. > > > > I'm not sure what you read. Suffice it to say that's not a very good > > paraphrase of my point. I guess it's not worth having an argument with someone > > who doesn't want to hear. > > > What did I miss, you said that you think people will have to buy more > cards, and explained why you think that. I did not say people would buy more, "because they are so awesome". I don't know where you came up with that. > I said they won't, and told > you why I think that. Not really arguing. Then I would be hoping to > change your mind. Sometimes 2 people can be right, like on subjective > issues.(ezmerelda is better then sutek etc) Agreed. We also probably see different things happening with this because our own buying/collecting/trading habits and experiences differ. I'm not saying your perception about it is wrong. I have no grounds for that. I'm just relating my own experiences and how they lead me to conclude that having a few R1 amongst a bunch of R2s causes problems. > <origional message> > >You're not making a critical distinction. There's a huge difference > >between having lots of R1s and a few R2s vs. lots of R2s and a few > >R1s.If there's lots of R1s, people buy product as if they have to cover > >lots of R1 rare cards they'll need and set their expectation of price vs. > > folks will buy lots of cards...right? because, when there are more R1 > then R2 people just expect to get R1's all the time. They not only expect to. They actually do get R1's all the time and that makes a difference in how the trading and selling works. In Jyhad's case, it worked smoothly. In a situation like this where there's only a few cards that are significantly more rare than any others, things get awkward. More further down... > > >payoff accordingly. That is, they're basically buying a singe R1 in > >every pack (and get annoyed if it's a bad/mediocre R2 but go on) and > >gauge whether the pack price is worth what they get from that > >expectation. And they can easily trade the R1s they don't want for R1s > >they do. Basically, if you don't get any particular R1 in your pack, it > >doesn't matter because you'll usually get another R1. > > It doesn't matter that there are rarer cards, because people will > trade with you. Trade? Trade with who? What you're missing here is that *everybody* has various R2s to trade and very few have extra R1's. Everyone's in the same boat. I hear this explanation all the time: "just go out and find one of those guys who has the R1 you want and give him your extra R2s" - as if it were as easy to do as it is to say. It doesn't work. Those guys don't exist. Or there's so few of them that the trade value of the R1s becomes obscene. This works much smoother when there's many R1s and few R2s. Ever so often you open a pack and get somewhat burned by drawing an R2 but WotC actually did a good job and mitigated that minor problem as well: many of the R2s in Jyhad turn out to be very good, useful, need-multiple-of-them cards. Like Immortal Grapple, The Embrace, Freak Drive and so on. Actually cards that probably should have been uncommons instead of rares. But most of the time, you drew R1s and you traded one-for-one the ones you had too many of with other guys who had too many R1s you wanted. Trading works much better when there's have-guys are out in fairly equal numbers with the want-guys. > Just to make sure I am with you lets use an example. > 100cards per sheet. > Final nights is something like 46 R2 cards(2 copies of each) and 8 R1 > cards(one of each) > Jyhad was something like: 4 R2(2 copies of each) 92 R1s(1 copy of > each) > Even though this, in effect, makes it more unlikely that you will get > a R2, almost like they are rarer then the R1s as a whole, but not when > pitted against any individual card. I don't know what this means so I can't respond to it. > >When you have a few R1s amongst many R2s, that really screws a lot of > >things up. People kind of have to buy packs with the expectation of > > Here you expect to get R2s. And you are suprised to ever get R1s. > Solution buy more cards till you get all the R1s you need. *That's* exactly the trouble! Why buy any more cards? Lord Darksword related *exactly* what happens in this situation. You go out and buy boxes of cards until you've got plenty of everything you'll ever need (for all practical purposes) *except* the rarest cards. At this point, you're stuck. For your purposes, you're paying the price of a box to get 2.88 cards. (8% of the packs have R1s X 36 packs = 2.88 R1s/box) The rest is garbage. In the Jyhad situation if you're down some R1s you need, you buy another box, either get one or two of the cards you need or not, but in any case you get a bunch of R1s that should approximately as tradable as the R1s you want so you shouldn't have to buy a lot more cards. In the Final Nights situation, you buy more cards and most of the other packs have R2s that you can take into the trading zone...and meet a bunch of other guys with *their* R2s who are looking for the same R1s *they* don't have either. > >getting R2s. It's very hard to predict when those occasional R1s > >will come up or how many you'll get, even if you buy lots and lots of > >packs. They can be extremely hard to trade for depending on who you know to > >trade with and whether those people draw what you want in their packs. > > The same will happen regardless. Logically, for the reasons stated about, the same thing will not happen. And my experience has tended to confirm this is how it works in reality. Fred

> In article <B7568B89.4B36%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, > Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >> DO you want more of these cards? Which? I know that I'd be willing to >> trade away R1's for 2 of certain R2s. > > It's Shroud Mastery, isn't it. You bastard, you're screwing me out of > the Shroud Masteries I DESPERATELY NEED TO LIVE. But you don't care about > my pain. Bastard. I have these extra R1s I was going to trade for > Shroud Masteries, but you're going to WRECK MY CUNNING PLAN by getting > them all first! Aigh! Ok, you caught me. I don't need ALL of them, just half of them. You can have the other half. Surely, though, Leggy, you can't let this upstart Trash Lord get your first two Shroud Masteries? Surely your favorite Giovanni player gets them first, right? Right? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip stuff I mainly agree with> >That's just spiffy... What's even worse is now I have to find 3 of this "ultra > rare" vampire. Thanks a lot. ahhh, how long it's been since someone said "that's just spiffy" in my presence and yeah, whoever decided to made a vampire really really rare should be given a stern talking to. And if I don't get an Ezmerelda eventually, a major nasty letter too. > Steve Bucy ironically we (3 of us) got all the r1's but Ez out of three boxes of boosters. ah well... they got their indy 11's, and I am left with nothing but 2 weeks of nightmares. Cameron

-- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. Cameron wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] Really. That seems very odd. I got all of them but Ez in four boxes. Another local player had opened 3 or 4 and only got 1. There seems to be a odd Ez shortage... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9h06l...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Steve Bucy <tb...@lainet.com> wrote: >Really. That seems very odd. I got all of them but Ez in four boxes. Another >local player had opened 3 or 4 and only got 1. There seems to be a odd Ez >shortage... She was the rare in the very first pack of FN I ever opened, at the San Francisco pre-release. She's my faaavorite (as Peter B says). Of course, 83 boosters later, I still only have the 1 copy. To the left, I only have 1 of the other 11caps too, now that my extra Shuggly has found a happy home in (shudder) Davis, CA. [ quoted text not captured ]