Massive Size of LoB

Now don't get me wrng here--so far I am quite pleased with the LoB set: lots of cool new cards and abilities, I love all the new vampires, the new clans are all cool, a lot of excellent art. All very solid. After opening about a box yesterday, however, I have been faced with the ugly reality--this set is simply way too big, in terms of number of cards. Really, this isn't a huge quibble or anything, but I suspect that LoB would have been better served by being split into two different sets: -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo I have opened about a box of boosters so far, and due to the huge number of common cards, I have about as many of many commons as I have of rares (i.e. one). There are no commons that I got more than two of. I've done pretty well by Vampires, and my Rare selection is reasonable (a few doubles, a small handfull of Bloodlines reprints), but the common assortment is kind of abysmal. Granted, I full well know that this is a CCG and a lot of times you have to C to get the CG, which is fine. So I'll trade a bunch and buy common singles. But I think, really, that this particular set would have been served better by being two different sets--yeah, it's true, I could just buy 2 boxes of this set instead of, had it been two different sets, buying a box of each, but there is sooo much in this set to digest, and it is difficult to digest it all in a reasonable way with only the 2 or 3 of any given common that you usually want 6-8 of that you are getting out of a single box. Again, not a huge issue. I'm hardly outraged or anything. But I think in the future, sets this immense aren't really that hot of an idea. -Peter

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > cards. Really, this isn't a huge quibble or anything, but I suspect > that LoB would have been better served by being split into two > different sets: > > -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom > -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo I think a lot of people are wondering the same thing, but look at this way. The fact that the material for Legacies wasn't split into two sets to be milked for all they're worth suggests that the design team has plenty of ideas for many sets to come. That's something at least. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > I think a lot of people are wondering the same thing, but look at this > way. The fact that the material for Legacies wasn't split into two sets > to be milked for all they're worth suggests that the design team has > plenty of ideas for many sets to come. That is certainly is something. And really, if this set was split into two distinct sets, the Bloodlines II set would be about half reprints, which is less exciting than the current set which is, what, about 1/4th reprints and a lot of crazy new cards mixed in. But if the whole thing had been split into two, they could have each been fleshed out a bit more, had a few more "regular" clan members mixed in, and had most of the commons as C2s (maybe the reprints could have been C1s and the new cards C2s or something), making it much easier to get enough cards out of a single box to have a base to work with -Peter

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Sure, but is that a good idea from a marketing angle? Bloodlines seems to have been one of the most successful sets to date. I don't have any actual sales figures, but I frequently hear things like "I only got one box of Black Hand, but I've opened around nine boxes of Bloodlines." I think I probably have more Bloodlines than anything else except Jyhad and maybe Sabbat War. That could be one reason for this set to be so large. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Sure, but is that a good idea from a marketing angle? Bloodlines seems to > have been one of the most successful sets to date. I don't have any > actual sales figures, but I frequently hear things like "I only got one > box of Black Hand, but I've opened around nine boxes of Bloodlines." I > think I probably have more Bloodlines than anything else except Jyhad and > maybe Sabbat War. > > That could be one reason for this set to be so large. If Bloodlines was as popular as it was, it seems likely that a Bloodlines only Bloodlines II expansion (i.e. had they split LoB into KoEK and BLII) would have done well. LoB is clearly as big as it is 'cause they needed to fit in the KoEK stuff, Bloodlines stuff, lots of new cards, and lots of reprints. Thus, big set. If it had been split, you could have had the same stuff spread over two expansions, and each individual expansion would have been worth buying, and each expansion would have been more accessible out of a single box. -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1132237152.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > After opening about a box yesterday, however, I have been faced with > the ugly reality--this set is simply way too big, in terms of number of > cards. Really, this isn't a huge quibble or anything, but I suspect > that LoB would have been better served by being split into two > different sets: > > -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom > -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo Would anyone buy the latter? A lot of the Bloodlines stuffs is reprints and I think that is really your issue. Because one out of four cards are reprints, you're really buying only 27 packs out of a 36 pack box containing new stuff, counting new Bloodlines cards. I'm wondering now if there should even be Bloodlines reprints in LoB. If White Wolf is reguarly reprinting Bloodlines, then maybe new players can be told they should get their Bloodlines stuff by just buying Bloodlines boxes. Of course, the reprints may be better geared to just the Bloodlines featured in LoB, but I'm wondering if that's a good enough reason to divert 25% of cards in packs to it. Of course, one thing I like: the reprints presumedly will be new layout cards. It will be nice to have the option to play some of the reprints in the new layout so there will be less mixing of the two card layout types. I don't think that's really a strong reason by itself to cause this issue. > Again, not a huge issue. I'm hardly outraged or anything. But I think > in the future, sets this immense aren't really that hot of an idea. Well, perhaps they should not try to take on upgrading and/or printing new vampires for so many Bloodlines at a time. That would obviate the need reprint such a high number of old cards. Not to mention arguably giving short shrift to a Bloodline like Blood Brothers, who apparently got two common non-unique vampire cards for people to build group 4 Blood Brothers decks. Fred

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Now don't get me wrng here--so far I am quite pleased with the LoB set: > lots of cool new cards and abilities, I love all the new vampires, the > new clans are all cool, a lot of excellent art. All very solid. > > After opening about a box yesterday, however, I have been faced with > the ugly reality--this set is simply way too big, in terms of number of > cards. Really, this isn't a huge quibble or anything, but I suspect > that LoB would have been better served by being split into two > different sets: > > -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom > -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo > > I have opened about a box of boosters so far, and due to the huge > number of common cards, I have about as many of many commons as I have > of rares (i.e. one). There are no commons that I got more than two of. > I've done pretty well by Vampires, and my Rare selection is reasonable > (a few doubles, a small handfull of Bloodlines reprints), but the > common assortment is kind of abysmal. > No commons that you've gotten more than two of? I am doubting that. I've opened 10 packs at the pre-release (we added 3 packs to our decks and then got 7 as prizes), and have probably opened another 10 packs from my box so far (decided to save some pack opening for after work today) and without actually counting, I can think of several commons that I know I have gotten more than 2 of. Maybe its the distribution across different boxes that helped me repeat commons, but I think you used a little hyperbole in your no more than 2 of any common. > Granted, I full well know that this is a CCG and a lot of times you > have to C to get the CG, which is fine. So I'll trade a bunch and buy > common singles. But I think, really, that this particular set would > have been served better by being two different sets--yeah, it's true, I > could just buy 2 boxes of this set instead of, had it been two > different sets, buying a box of each, but there is sooo much in this > set to digest, and it is difficult to digest it all in a reasonable way > with only the 2 or 3 of any given common that you usually want 6-8 of > that you are getting out of a single box. > I don't want to typecast you, but you do prefer the clans with potence, right? Well then, you should have a handful of Obeah, Valeran, Thanatosis, and Abombwe commons that you can trade for the commons you want to get 6-8 of. Alternatively you could buy 2 more boxes of boosters (if you have the disposable income). > Again, not a huge issue. I'm hardly outraged or anything. But I think > in the future, sets this immense aren't really that hot of an idea. > 200 card sets aren't that immense. That other game has much larger sets IIRC. Then again, this is a game without card limits, so maybe smaller sets do suit it better. > -Peter Later, ~Rehlow

Fred Scott wrote: > <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:1132237152.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > After opening about a box yesterday, however, I have been faced with > > the ugly reality--this set is simply way too big, in terms of number of > > cards. Really, this isn't a huge quibble or anything, but I suspect > > that LoB would have been better served by being split into two > > different sets: > > > > -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom > > -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo > > Would anyone buy the latter? A lot of the Bloodlines stuffs is reprints > and I think that is really your issue. Because one out of four cards > are reprints, you're really buying only 27 packs out of a 36 pack box > containing new stuff, counting new Bloodlines cards. > Depends what would have made it into KoEK and BII. If all the Bloodlines vamps were in BII, and both sets came out at once (which would be a terrible idea), I'd buy BII first. Since the new clans use mostly existing disciplines, I don't know if WW would have been able to get the crypt to library card ratio right if they split up the sets. KoEK library cards would be Abombwe and then the clan specific cards, which seems like it would be on the low side. Add in Bloodline requiring discipline cards, and you have the right mix. > I'm wondering now if there should even be Bloodlines reprints in LoB. > If White Wolf is reguarly reprinting Bloodlines, then maybe new players > can be told they should get their Bloodlines stuff by just buying > Bloodlines boxes. Of course, the reprints may be better geared to just > the Bloodlines featured in LoB, but I'm wondering if that's a good > enough reason to divert 25% of cards in packs to it. > > Of course, one thing I like: the reprints presumedly will be new > layout cards. It will be nice to have the option to play some of the > reprints in the new layout so there will be less mixing of the two > card layout types. I don't think that's really a strong reason by > itself to cause this issue. > Reprints help draft format. While not as popular as constructed, I think you might completely kill the chance of being able to draft with LoB if you left out the reprints. I know the new Blood Brothers are a bad example because drafting them has its own problems, but since I looked at their new Sang cards, I know them best. Most of the Sang cards in this set are to augment the existing cards. If they made no reprints and you did draft them (ignoring the crypt issues of drafting them) I think you would be stuck drafting a lot of cards that didn't get you anywhere in the game by themselves (what are you going to stealth through with Shell Game if Walk of Caine, Unwholesome Bond and Coagulated Entity were not reprinted?). I think the other Bloodlines discipline cards follow along this vein, but I am not sure. I guess you could draft X packs LoB and Y packs Bloodlines, but then anyone that drafts any of the Liabon clans is going to get little from the Bloodline packs. > > Again, not a huge issue. I'm hardly outraged or anything. But I think > > in the future, sets this immense aren't really that hot of an idea. > > Well, perhaps they should not try to take on upgrading and/or printing > new vampires for so many Bloodlines at a time. That would obviate the > need reprint such a high number of old cards. Not to mention arguably > giving short shrift to a Bloodline like Blood Brothers, who apparently > got two common non-unique vampire cards for people to build group 4 Blood > Brothers decks. > I think group 4 Blood Brothers are going to be just fine. They already did the 3 cap and 4x 5 caps in one circle and the 5x 6 caps in another circle. I don't think another circle of 5 different vamps is really needed. The options don't seem that appealing, a circle of 7 caps, while they could have lots of superior disciplines or some interesting overlapping out of clan disciplines would suffer from being too old to get out the many Blood Brothers that are normally required to build off of each other. A circle that ranged in capacity would probably be pretty good in playability, but that doesn't feel like it fits the Blood Brother theme to me. Making them C2s would make it easier to get the 12 needed to put together a crypt, but since they don't seem to be all that popular, I don't think trading for them will be that difficult for anyone that wants to build a G4 Blood Brothers deck. > Fred Later, ~Rehlow

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > If Bloodlines was as popular as it was, it seems likely that a > Bloodlines only Bloodlines II expansion (i.e. had they split LoB into > KoEK and BLII) would have done well. One of the reasons Bloodlines continues to sell well is that it, too, was a big set that required lots of C to get all the CC's. I opened two boxes of KotEK, and I'm generally happy with the results...but I think the Chicago crowd will be pestering the princes to make KotEK the prize support for a long time to come.

Fred Scott wrote: > Would anyone buy the latter? A lot of the Bloodlines stuffs is reprints > and I think that is really your issue. Because one out of four cards > are reprints, you're really buying only 27 packs out of a 36 pack box > containing new stuff, counting new Bloodlines cards. Assuming that Bloodlines was as popular as it seems to have been, I suspect that an all Bloodlines II set would have sold just fine. If you took all the Bloodlines cards from LoB, fleshed them out a bit, added a few extra cards, and then, like, distributed them with, say, reprints as C1 and new cards as C2, with all the new vampires and, say, 1 new vampire for every non Bloodline clan or something, it would probably sell fine. And it seems likely of KotEK was its own expansion, with all the KotEK stuff that is in the set already and then maybe a few other vampires mixed in, it would sell as well. As it stands, buying almost a whole box of boosters got me: -A lot of cool new vampires. -Some cool rare cards. -1 or 2 each of lots and lots of different common cards, each of which I likely would want 6-8 of, meaning I have to trade a lot away and buy a lot of singles. Where if the set was half as big as it was, I'd have the same thing, except a lot more of each individual common card, which is kind of what you need for VTES. -Peter

Rehlow wrote: > No commons that you've gotten more than two of? I am doubting that. I have opened 24 boosters (3/4 of a box). There are a lot of commons that I only got 1 of. There are a bunch that I got 2 of. The only commons that I have more than two of are the ones that came in the starters. I accept that it is possible that I might actually have 3 of a given common somewhere, but I don't think so. But I certainly have only one of many of them. >Maybe its the distribution > across different boxes that helped me repeat commons, but I think you > used a little hyperbole in your no more than 2 of any common. Not really. Again, only 24 packs, so not a whole box. But lots and lots of 1 of a common, a bunch of 2 of a common, and maybe 1 or 2 sets of 3 of a common, but I can't think of any. > I don't want to typecast you, but you do prefer the clans with potence, > right? Well then, you should have a handful of Obeah, Valeran, > Thanatosis, and Abombwe commons that you can trade for the commons you > want to get 6-8 of. Alternatively you could buy 2 more boxes of > boosters (if you have the disposable income). Oh, I know. I'm the ground floor of "you can easily trade for what you need and get singles". But, like, with the last set (KMW), I played in a pre-release and opened half a box, and ended up with, like, 4 or 5 of all the commons before I started trading/buying singles. 'Cause the set was smaller. > 200 card sets aren't that immense. That other game has much larger sets > IIRC. Then again, this is a game without card limits, so maybe smaller > sets do suit it better. I'm hardly on the warpath here or anything. I like the set and realize that it isn't actually all that hard to get the stuff that I need en-masse. But as it is, I think we would have been probably better served if this set had been split in two and released as two sets 8 or 9 months apart, rather than one huge set now. -Peter

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Sure, but is that a good idea from a marketing angle? Bloodlines seems to > have been one of the most successful sets to date. I don't have any > actual sales figures, but I frequently hear things like "I only got one > box of Black Hand, but I've opened around nine boxes of Bloodlines." I > think I probably have more Bloodlines than anything else except Jyhad and > maybe Sabbat War. > > That could be one reason for this set to be so large. So far, my store has sold 24 boxes of Legacies of Blood. I have 11 more on the way, of which 4 are already spoken for. I do feel Peter's pain, though. I think the amount of reprint commons is a bit high, especially since - as Fred pointed out - Bloodlines is still in print. - Ben Peal

Fred Scott wrote: > <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:1132237152.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom > > -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo > > Would anyone buy the latter? A lot of the Bloodlines stuffs is reprints > and I think that is really your issue. Because one out of four cards > are reprints, you're really buying only 27 packs out of a 36 pack box > containing new stuff, counting new Bloodlines cards. Maybe if LSJ didn't reprint anything. You know... like... KotEK could have been mostly what it is now, with a few other stuff thrown in (maybe !salubri, cause they do hang in africa, you know?). Starters would be the four main clans (or maybe add in a !Salubri and Ahrimines deck...). Bloodlines II would be ALL NEW bloodlines. Reprints would only happen in starters, which would be stuff like Samedi, Kiasyd, Harbringers of Skulls and Gargoyles. Everything else printed is NEW. That's how it'd sell. As is, no. Bloodlines II with ass piles of reprints would (does) suck. > Well, perhaps they should not try to take on upgrading and/or printing > new vampires for so many Bloodlines at a time. That would obviate the > need reprint such a high number of old cards. Not to mention arguably > giving short shrift to a Bloodline like Blood Brothers, who apparently > got two common non-unique vampire cards for people to build group 4 Blood > Brothers decks. And Almero! Don't forget him. Maybe we'll have another G5 bloodbrother or a few as a gapper.

"Rehlow" <news...@rehlow.com> wrote in message news:1132246191.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Reprints help draft format. While not as popular as constructed, I > think you might completely kill the chance of being able to draft with > LoB if you left out the reprints. In a general sense, I suppose that's true. But the reprints in this sense - at least the ones that are diverting 25% of the printing in the boosters packs which is causing the problem - are all Bloodlines reprints. They could, for instance, have reprinted appropriate things in the Laibon starters without doing the 25% booster pack reprinting. The booster pack Bloodlines reprints are surely not helping draft at all. > I know the new Blood Brothers are a > bad example because drafting them has its own problems, but since I > looked at their new Sang cards, I know them best. Most of the Sang > cards in this set are to augment the existing cards. Sure. The existing Bloodlines cards. They're pretty useless for the Laibon vampires you'll find in the Laibon starters. They only thing they're good for (in most all cases, not counting the odd useful outferieor) are the new Bloodlines vampires in the booster packs. But all expansions have some jitter better vampires and library cards or between some library cards and other library cards printed in the set. >> Well, perhaps they should not try to take on upgrading and/or printing >> new vampires for so many Bloodlines at a time. That would obviate the >> need reprint such a high number of old cards. Not to mention arguably >> giving short shrift to a Bloodline like Blood Brothers, who apparently >> got two common non-unique vampire cards for people to build group 4 Blood >> Brothers decks. >> > > I think group 4 Blood Brothers are going to be just fine. Oh, perhaps. I'm sure there was some effort to make sure they were useful in the playtest. But it wasn't a lot of design effort to make they very fun. We're not likely to have a lot of variety in G4 library decks. It would have been better to hold off creating G4 Blood Brothers until next expansion when there was room for real vampires on a the vampire cardsheet. > A circle that ranged in capacity would probably be > pretty good in playability, but that doesn't feel like it fits the > Blood Brother theme to me. I understand the Blood Brother theme is sameness. But to just issue a couple non-unique cards strikes me as a bit dull, as well. Maybe I'll feel differently when I get the chance to use them. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > I understand the Blood Brother theme is sameness. But to just issue a > couple non-unique cards strikes me as a bit dull, as well. Maybe I'll > feel differently when I get the chance to use them. See, I really like the G4 Mexico City BB design--they strike me as very entertaining. The G2 Blood Brothers have the distinction of having twice as many vampires already as most of the other Bloodlines, as they wanted two distinct circles. And the two previous circles have a lot of options available allready. The Mexico circle has only two vampires, sure, but they are based on an intriguing and little explored mechanic (i.e. non unique), and there is tons of stuff you can do with them. Sure, your crypt is never going to look that different, but the decks you build around them are likely countless. -Peter

Fred Scott wrote: > Would anyone buy the latter? A lot of the Bloodlines stuffs is reprints > and I think that is really your issue. Because one out of four cards > are reprints, you're really buying only 27 packs out of a 36 pack box > containing new stuff, counting new Bloodlines cards. Check your math. Only 27/36 packs on average contain new RARES. Commons: 120 new commons, of which 49 are reprints. On average you'll get 3 old cards and 4 new commons. (actually just under 3, but I'll round it.) Vampires/Uncommons: 3 in the pack, all of which are new. Rares: 27/36 are new. So you're not "really buying only 27 packs out of a 36 pack box containing new stuff, counting new Bloodlines cards" as you claim, but REALLY buying 36 packs in a 36 pack box containing multiple new cards, and most of the time you're getting most of the cards in the pack as new including the rare. Oh, but I forgot, only the rares in the pack ever matter to people who buy cards. > Fred -John Flournoy

> Oh, but I forgot, only the rares in the pack ever matter to people who > buy cards. Get 'im John! Get 'im! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > > Oh, but I forgot, only the rares in the pack ever matter to people who > > buy cards. > > Get 'im John! Get 'im! That comment wasn't aimed at Fred specifically, just at rare-drooling people in general. I'm an equal-opportunity jerk! > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp -John Flournoy

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > After opening about a box yesterday, however, I have been faced with > the ugly reality--this set is simply way too big, in terms of number of > cards. Really, this isn't a huge quibble or anything, but I suspect > that LoB would have been better served by being split into two > different sets: > > -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom > -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo I agree. I, too, would have been much happier with an entire set devoted to KotEK and then an entire set devoted to bloodlines than this strange merging of the two. But this is what we're stuck with. Alas. > I have opened about a box of boosters so far, and due to the huge > number of common cards, I have about as many of many commons as I have > of rares (i.e. one). There are no commons that I got more than two of. > I've done pretty well by Vampires, and my Rare selection is reasonable > (a few doubles, a small handfull of Bloodlines reprints), but the > common assortment is kind of abysmal. I was *amazingly happy* with my selection of Vampires -- I got at least one of each from opening a single box. Whoever does their card sorting has really got to work on the randomization, though, as I got the same sequence of vampires more than once in exactly the same order. I'm with you on the commons. The numbers from my box were over 1/3 reprints (which I might as well burn for heat) and the other almost-2/3 were new cards. There are a significant number of commons I only have two of. There's a very, very small number I got four or more of. I tried trading at our local game night, but it seems everyone wants the same common cards I want, so...good luck to me on that front. If the distribution of reprint commons would have been significantly lower (say a maximum of one a pack), I'd have been far, far happier. Some members of the playgroup down here report different distributuions of pointlessly reprinted common crap, though, so your milage in this regard may vary. I'm intersted in trying to understand the logic of so many common Bloodlines reprints. If Bloodlines sold really, really well, then we already have a glut of commons from that set in circulation, right? (I know I do.) One might ask the question why we would want *more*. Is there some theoretical influx of new players that will enter the game after we've all been killed by bird flu and our collections destroyed so that these newbies would never have been able to aquire these cards? Speaking only for myself, the sheer quantity reprints in this set has caused me to only purchase a single box of cards. Normally I'd buy 2-4. This is unfortunate, not for me, but rather for WW. > common singles. But I think, really, that this particular set would > have been served better by being two different sets I agree completely, but this is the set we have. We must make do. I hope the set does well, but that they do not repeat this strategy. Save reprints for starters, please. cmb

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1132260116.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > So you're not "really buying only 27 packs out of a 36 pack box > containing new stuff, counting new Bloodlines cards" as you claim, but > REALLY buying 36 packs in a 36 pack box containing multiple new cards, > and most of the time you're getting most of the cards in the pack as > new including the rare. > > Oh, but I forgot, only the rares in the pack ever matter to people who > buy cards. You can shit can the sarcasm, please. I was just ignorant of the true ratio of new to reprint commons (I could have sworn somewhere LSJ or someone had said it would be the same 3:1 as the rares) and I didn't stop to think about vampires. And I'm trying to imagine what your point is. You've actually pointed out that even fewer new commons are new stuff than rares - but more vampires are. Are you saying the complaint is even worse than I'm making it to be or not as bad? Because the tone seems kind of edgy if the thrust of your post was just that my facts are inaccurate. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > ratio of new to reprint commons (I could have sworn somewhere LSJ or > someone had said it would be the same 3:1 as the rares) and I didn't > stop to think about vampires. The in-pack ratio, all things considered, is just under 25% reprints. 3:1 is a suitable quotable figure. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <1132266585.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, cmb...@purdue.edu writes: >I agree. I, too, would have been much happier with an entire set >devoted to KotEK and then an entire set devoted to bloodlines than this >strange merging of the two. But this is what we're stuck with. Alas. It does mean that WW didn't have to bet the farm on KotEK taking off. Some people will think "Cool, African vampires!" and buy the set. Others will think "Cool, more Bloodlines!" and buy the set. WW know that the Bloodlines motivation will very probably sell a whole chunk, since Bloodlines I sells a ton. They can then do other KotEK stuff in a later expansion, if they feel like it having dipped their toe in the water (so they can learn from mistakes) but not having printed a whole set of it (so they can't make too many of them, and hopefully nothing too screwy). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, cmb...@purdue.edu wrote: >> -Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom >> -Bloodlines II: Electric Boogaloo > > I agree. I, too, would have been much happier with an entire set > devoted to KotEK and then an entire set devoted to bloodlines than this > strange merging of the two. But this is what we're stuck with. Alas. > You can't do a KoteK Set without including the Harbingers of Skulls and Salubri Antitribu. And then you probably have to include the Salubri. And at that point, you might be better off putting in new members of all the Bloodlines. > Speaking only for myself, the sheer quantity reprints in this set has > caused me to only purchase a single box of cards. Normally I'd buy > 2-4. This is unfortunate, not for me, but rather for WW. > You want lots more of the new commons, but you're only willing to buy one box? -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > You can't do a KoteK Set without including the Harbingers of Skulls and > Salubri Antitribu. And then you probably have to include the Salubri. And > at that point, you might be better off putting in new members of all the > Bloodlines. Why? I'm assuming that this has some roleplaying connection, but even then, it seems like it would work just fine to have KotEK without Harbingers and !Salubri, and then have the KotEK themed Harbingers and !Salubri in the Bloodlines expansion. There is nothing game mechanics wise that requires these clans to be grouped in with the KotEK vampires. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, easily spilled liquids to naked people." -Brittni Meil

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BFA3C060.23719%pd...@lightlink.com... > Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > >> You can't do a KoteK Set without including the Harbingers of Skulls and >> Salubri Antitribu. And then you probably have to include the Salubri. And >> at that point, you might be better off putting in new members of all the >> Bloodlines. > > Why? I'm assuming that this has some roleplaying connection, but even then, > it seems like it would work just fine to have KotEK without Harbingers and > !Salubri, and then have the KotEK themed Harbingers and !Salubri in the > Bloodlines expansion. There is nothing game mechanics wise that requires > these clans to be grouped in with the KotEK vampires. And I would also question the last statement: why would you be better off putting in new members of all the Bloodlines just because you put in HotS, anti-Salubri, and Salubri? Just to be anal retentive about it? Putting in just Baali Bloodlines stuff without any other Bloodlines seemd to work just fine in Kindred Most Wanted. Fred

In message <BFA3C060.23719%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > >> You can't do a KoteK Set without including the Harbingers of Skulls and >> Salubri Antitribu. And then you probably have to include the Salubri. And >> at that point, you might be better off putting in new members of all the >> Bloodlines. > >Why? I'm assuming that this has some roleplaying connection, but even then, >it seems like it would work just fine to have KotEK without Harbingers and >!Salubri, and then have the KotEK themed Harbingers and !Salubri in the >Bloodlines expansion. The Harbingers and !Salubri both have their own fairly significant Legacies. The Mla Watu are the Harbingers, and the Nkulu Zao are the !Salubri. It's not so much that you absolutely have to print them, it's more just... say you were doing The Camarilla Edition and didn't print the Nosferatu. It's not that you couldn't do that, it's just that it would feel a bit weird. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <BFA3C060.23719%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija > <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: > >Why? I'm assuming that this has some roleplaying connection, but even then, > >it seems like it would work just fine to have KotEK without Harbingers and > >!Salubri, and then have the KotEK themed Harbingers and !Salubri in the > >Bloodlines expansion. > > The Harbingers and !Salubri both have their own fairly significant > Legacies. The Mla Watu are the Harbingers, and the Nkulu Zao are the > !Salubri. The Nkulu Zao have Auspex Fortitude Obeah, so I assume they would be regular Salubri in stead of antitribu. And they appear in the Minor Legacies section (together with the Ventrue :P ) so they're not that significant. > It's not so much that you absolutely have to print them, it's more > just... say you were doing The Camarilla Edition and didn't print the > Nosferatu. It's not that you couldn't do that, it's just that it would > feel a bit weird. I was thinking the other day how most of the major legacies were really underrepresented. I would really have liked to see some more Laibon Assamites and Tzimisce. I thought if they just moved the Sabbat-aligned bloodlines to the next Sabbat-based expansion (guess which is my favourite sect), they'd have enough room to expand on the other, non-bloodline legacies. Still, I'm quite happy with the set as it is. And maybe I'll get some more Shango and Naglopers in the next set, who knows. :) Rogar

James Coupe wrote: > The Harbingers and !Salubri both have their own fairly significant > Legacies. The Mla Watu are the Harbingers, and the Nkulu Zao are the > !Salubri. Huh. I guess I don't know what you mean by "fairly significant legacies". But then, I have never actually played the RPG, and know nothing at all about the KotEK other than what I have gleaned by opening booster packs. > It's not so much that you absolutely have to print them, it's more > just... say you were doing The Camarilla Edition and didn't print the > Nosferatu. It's not that you couldn't do that, it's just that it would > feel a bit weird. And yet they printed CE without the Gangrel. But then they did, what, leave the Camarilla? -Peter

Rehlow wrote: >Maybe its the distribution > across different boxes that helped me repeat commons, but I think you > used a little hyperbole in your no more than 2 of any common. Just for the sake of vague data analysis, Sackett opened up a whole box of boosters last night in one sitting, and looking over his sorted stack of cards, he got: -Only one of a significant number of commons. -Two of a lot of commons. -Three of a not large number of commons. -Maybe 4 of a couple commons. Which seems reasonable, what with, what, 100 different commons (including re-prints), and 256 commons in the box--about 2.5 of each common in a box. Which makes sense for a large set. But personally, I'd rather have a smaller set and get 5 of each common in a box. But that is me. -Peter

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:12:46 -0700, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I'm wondering now if there should even be Bloodlines reprints in LoB. Come to think of it, with hindsight, the only thing I would've preferred to see done differently is to have (roughly) C3s (new cards) and C1s (reprints) like in the case of the rares. Before opening anything from Legacies, I felt that I would be bugged by the reprinted rares, especially those that weren't rares to begin with, but much to my surprise I realized that I'm far more bugged by the reprinted _commons_. Why? This set has so many cool commons (and so few rares you would really want bigger quantities of). For that, aside of reprinting, I'm much happy about the rarities of the new cards - so far this seems to be one of the best sets in this respect. I really want at least half a dozen of most commons, and I really don't want more than a few of most rares. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:12:46 -0700, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> > wrote: > > Before opening anything from Legacies, I felt that I would be bugged by > the reprinted rares, especially those that weren't rares to begin with, > but much to my surprise I realized that I'm far more bugged by the > reprinted _commons_. > Yep, that's what I said would be the case a few weeks ago. Reprinted rares, I can deal with. Especially since I got a Coagulated Entity and a Darkling Trickery out of the pre-release draft. Reprinted commons, though I can deal with them, are kind of annoying. C1 reprint commons and C3 new commons would have been much preferred (assuming that's not how they did them - if that *is* how they did them, then perhaps something more drastic would have been in order?). It would have been nice if, instead of reprinting *everything* from BL, they would have cut it down to something like 3 commons and 1 rare from each discipline, or something similar. Just reprint the stuff we need. I doubt you'd have heard much complaining about dropping Infection, Clio's Kiss, Brother's Blood, Strength of the Bear, and others (Absorb the Mind, arguably, although for some reason people seem to think it's essential for Dominate - however, it's balls for Myt, and none of the 4 new clans have dominate anyway, so it needn't really be in *this* set).

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > > Speaking only for myself, the sheer quantity reprints in this set has > > caused me to only purchase a single box of cards. Normally I'd buy > > 2-4. This is unfortunate, not for me, but rather for WW. > > > > You want lots more of the new commons, but you're only willing to buy one > box? Well, no. You see, I'd buy my usual 2-4 boxes if I wasn't getting shafted by so many reprints. I bought plenty of the Bloodlines commons in boxes of that set. I have no need for any more of them. Not counting rares, I got 96 bloodlines reprints from one booster box of LoB. 96 per box seems more than excessive to me. So I want more new commons, but I'm unwilling to get so many old ones in the process. In fact, if I could have returned the box to the store after opening it, I would have done so and simply traded for the new cards I want from the set rather than get all this junk. New players may really need these cards though, should Bloodlines ever actually go out of print. So I'm happy they'll be available for those players in this set. I'm just very disappointed they're there for me to get rather than new and intersting things. cmb

I'm with you on this one. I"ve opened a half box, and I have no more than a single duplicate common. One third of my library cards are reprints, and thats including the rares! (7/18). That's ridiculous. My buddy Dave and I just looked at each other and wondered how the heck we are going to get into this set at all at that rate. We're not interested in buying that many reprints, and the set is way too freaking big with them in. G

I don't think I've ever heard of a reprint set of a non-basic set so soon after the original. And the concept is simply strange: an entire set dedicated to concepts that are *designed* to be support. I would think you'd want to put in the support cards with more mainstream cards in a set. Laibon merited a more dedicated expansion. Bloodlines didn't need a reprint -- we can still get that. I can buy a box of boosters and receive nothing but Bloodlines cards. Laibon cards, however, are harder to reach. Ironically enough. Hey, maybe they'll do a reprint set of Laibon next.

"Defender of Ra" <rules...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132889491.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >I don't think I've ever heard of a reprint set of a non-basic set so > soon after the original. I'm not sure what this means. What is your definition of a "reprint set"? Magic does this constantly: reprint things from an expansion within a year or so. I mean, heck, I think The Sabbat was released in late '96 and Sabbat War came out approximately four years later. If anything qualifies as a "reprint set of a non-basic set" it would be Sabbat War, right? Bloodlines was released...what...almost exactly four years ago? > And the concept is simply strange: an entire > set dedicated to concepts that are *designed* to be support. I can't parse this sentence at all. > I would > think you'd want to put in the support cards with more mainstream cards > in a set. And this is sentence, although the structure is somewhat better constructed, is still several miles away from expressing clearly what you're not happy about. Support cards? Mainstream cards? What sorts of cards are you defining as what and why ought the designers put one class in with the other and in what proportion? Sorry, this whole post seems like it was written by a groggy person who's just been shaken awake in the middle of the night. > Laibon merited a more dedicated expansion. Bloodlines didn't need a > reprint -- we can still get that. I can buy a box of boosters and > receive nothing but Bloodlines cards. OK. A brief moment of lucidity...but... > Laibon cards, however, are harder to reach. Ironically enough. Ironically, I can reach mine just fine - depending on where I'm sitting. Fred experiencing zen-like confusion

Fred Scott wrote: > Ironically, I can reach mine just fine - depending on where I'm sitting. I agree with Fred, what is wrong with me? If you like the rarity and spread of a deck is always dependent if you buy few or many displays. So the discussion is pointless, because a set cannot be good for both type of buyers. LOB is good for people who buy many displays. Ok., you get some reprints you dont need. But usually with smaller sets, you have all commons you need after the first display. The second and third display you buy only for the rares. You culd throw away the commons at that time. LOB is different. You need the second (and maybe the third) display for the non-reprinted commons. The rares are usable too. I like that.

Fred Scott wrote: > "Defender of Ra" <rules...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1132889491.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I'm not sure what this means. What is your definition of a "reprint > set"? Magic does this constantly: reprint things from an expansion > within a year or so. Haven't played Magic in a bit, but by the time I stopped, they had never reprinted an entire set (excluding the basic set). Not even Antiquities pulled so much from the original. > I mean, heck, I think The Sabbat was released in late '96 and Sabbat > War came out approximately four years later. If anything qualifies > as a "reprint set of a non-basic set" it would be Sabbat War, right? > Bloodlines was released...what...almost exactly four years ago? Never had a problem getting Bloodlines. Sabbat was nearly unseen by all newbies where I was playing by the time SW was out. And because SW was based around a sect, rather than support concepts, and included a slew of new cards that backed up an already existing sect, I thought of SW as more like a base set reprint than anything else. If I wanted camarilla stuff, there was VTES. If I wanted Sabbat stuff, there was SW (since, again, there was no Sabbat stuff around and it was expensive online). > > And the concept is simply strange: an entire > > set dedicated to concepts that are *designed* to be support. > > I can't parse this sentence at all. WW reps have referred to the Bloodlines vampires as support vampires -- hence the scarce penalty, etc. They are designed to be splashed into decks. Support cards? Mainstream cards? What sorts of cards > are you defining as what and why ought the designers put one class in > with the other and in what proportion? > > Sorry, this whole post seems like it was written by a groggy person > who's just been shaken awake in the middle of the night. Quite awake, thank you. No apologies necessary. > > Laibon cards, however, are harder to reach. Ironically enough. > > Ironically, I can reach mine just fine - depending on where I'm sitting. > experiencing zen-like confusion And you're writing with deliberate opaqueness. I was referring to the difficulty to pull Laibon stuff out of this set with regularity because of its size. Buying a box and getting 2 of a common is not good for a player looking to concentrate in an area. And a player shouldn't have to buy three boxes in order to make two decks for an entire sect. Your physical position is a non-issue.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > If you like the rarity and spread of a deck is always dependent if you > buy few or many displays. Now _this_ sentence makes no sense; it has some grammatical error. What does "dependent" refer to? > So the discussion is pointless, because a set > cannot be good for both type of buyers. What types of buyers? > LOB is good for people who buy many displays. Good how? Those people now have more cards than if they didn't buy many displays? That's good? >Ok., you get some > reprints you dont need. Reprints that I didn't want and that were easily accessible. I had problems getting Sabbat. Never had a problem finding Bloodlines. >But usually with smaller sets, you have all > commons you need after the first display. The second and third display > you buy only for the rares. You culd throw away the commons at that > time. Depends on how the rarity is set up. I've played other games where the uncommons where numerous, so your future purchases rounded that rarity slot out (and gave you duplicates of the rares). And in a game with no CL, I do not find myself throwing away commons. I've bought boxes for games with low CLs and still wasn't unhappy with many duplicate commons because a) the difference between a common and an uncommon was mild, so there weren't many examples of a multitude of a given common and b) I make multiple decks and thus use duplicate commons like crazy. > > LOB is different. You need the second (and maybe the third) display for > the non-reprinted commons. And for everything else. > The rares are usable too. I like that. I think you just changed the subject; I don't understand your final point. I can respond to the immediate meaning of your last sentence: I don't find the rares particularly useable (or unuseable), as compared to any other rarity. I intended to play a sect. The cards for the sect are obviously split amongst the rarities. Because of the size of the set, and because much of it is dedicated to concepts that are irrelevant to that sect, most of the money spent on the booster box would be spent on cards that I literally don't want in the first place. The fact that the cards not geared towards Laibon are also geared towards minor factions that I do not wish to deal with aggravates the situation. The starters are fine, at least. That is a good thing about LoB: the starters are a great help to a new player as they provide a lot of basic, mainstream cards that can be used for a variety of purposes, even if you didn't play Laibon.

Defender of Ra wrote: > x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > > > If you like the rarity and spread of a deck is always dependent if you > > buy few or many displays. > > Now _this_ sentence makes no sense; it has some grammatical error. What > does "dependent" refer to? Sorry. It depends on your buying habit if you like the rarity spread of a deck. If you buy few boosters you want to have the same commons many times in one display. If you buy many displays you have no problems with only a few of the same commons in one display. Better? > > LOB is good for people who buy many displays. > > Good how? Those people now have more cards than if they didn't buy many > displays? That's good? Usually you want a common around ten times. Most decks that need more of the same common can play with this number. (10 Carrion Crows is enough for standard ANI combat, 10 Bonding is enough for a standard DOM bleed etc.) So if you only buy one display you want 10 of the same commons in one display, if you buy three displays you are happy if you only get 4 of the same common with each display. > I can respond to the immediate meaning of your last sentence: I don't > find the rares particularly useable (or unuseable), as compared to any > other rarity. I intended to play a sect. The cards for the sect are > obviously split amongst the rarities. Because of the size of the set, > and because much of it is dedicated to concepts that are irrelevant to > that sect, most of the money spent on the booster box would be spent on > cards that I literally don't want in the first place. The fact that the > cards not geared towards Laibon are also geared towards minor factions > that I do not wish to deal with aggravates the situation. But your assumption is wrong. You wanted a Laibon Set, but LoB is a Laibon/Bloodlines Set. To moan about that, is like moaning about KMW beeing also a independent clan set. > The starters are fine, at least. That is a good thing about LoB: ... I agree. Frank

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1132914917.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Ironically, I can reach mine just fine - depending on where I'm sitting. > > I agree with Fred, what is wrong with me? All I said was, I did not understand most of the previous post. I didn't say I disagreed with it. I can't know how much I agreed with it until I had some idea of what reasoning the poster was using. Fred

"Defender of Ra" <rules...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1132916056....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Laibon cards, however, are harder to reach. Ironically enough. >> >> Ironically, I can reach mine just fine - depending on where I'm sitting. >> experiencing zen-like confusion > > And you're writing with deliberate opaqueness. I wasn't. It really didn't make any sense to me. You probably should limit the use of allegorical devices to those that are a bit more apparent in meaning. Some people may catch your drift but why lose the others? > I was referring to the > difficulty to pull Laibon stuff out of this set with regularity because > of its size. Buying a box and getting 2 of a common is not good for a > player looking to concentrate in an area. And a player shouldn't have > to buy three boxes in order to make two decks for an entire sect. OK, fair enough. Fred

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Fred Scott wrote: > "Defender of Ra" <rules...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1132889491.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> I don't think I've ever heard of a reprint set of a non-basic set so >> soon after the original. > > I'm not sure what this means. What is your definition of a "reprint > set"? Magic does this constantly: reprint things from an expansion > within a year or so. > > I mean, heck, I think The Sabbat was released in late '96 and Sabbat > War came out approximately four years later. If anything qualifies > as a "reprint set of a non-basic set" it would be Sabbat War, right? > Bloodlines was released...what...almost exactly four years ago? > Sabbat was billed as a Base Set ("Stand-Alone" Expansion). A better example would be when Final Nights reprinted most of Dark Sovereigns *and* Ancient Hearts 3/4 sets later. Bloodlines was released 7 sets ago. Since then, there's been new layout, NRA, five new Clans, two new Cardtypes, Anarchs, and the Grouping Rule. When examining the pace of the game (rather than the arbitrary pace of time), doesn't Bloodlines look just a little out of date? [ quoted text not captured ]

Google ate my post, apparently. Irritating. If this is doubled, please excuse it (and the inevitable contradictions between the two). x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Defender of Ra wrote: > > x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > > > > > If you like the rarity and spread of a deck is always dependent if you > > > buy few or many displays. > > Now _this_ sentence makes no sense; it has some grammatical error. What > > does "dependent" refer to? > > Sorry. It depends on your buying habit if you like the rarity spread of > a deck. If you buy few boosters you want to have the same commons many > times in one display. If you buy many displays you have no problems > with only a few of the same commons in one display. Better? That sentence still makes no sense, I'm afraid, but the sentences afterwards are fine. :-). You supported my point: those who buy multiple displays are less displeased with the low multiples of a given common, but people who want commons should not have to buy more than one display. > Usually you want a common around ten times. Most decks that need more > of the same common can play with this number. (10 Carrion Crows is > enough for standard ANI combat, 10 Bonding is enough for a standard DOM > bleed etc.) So if you only buy one display you want 10 of the same > commons in one display, if you buy three displays you are happy if you > only get 4 of the same common with each display. Why should I hand WW $320 so I can get 10 copies of a *common*. This, again, is my point. Some other Jyhad sets had low multiples of each common as well, imho. This one is extreme; it is thus not worth buying for me. (The boosters, that is.) > But your assumption is wrong. You wanted a Laibon Set, but LoB is a > Laibon/Bloodlines Set. Your conclusion is wrong. I never made an assumption about LoB. I decided I was interested the Laibon, I investigated the distribution in LoB and I found it wanting. I wanted *access* to Laibon cards, obviously, but that does not require, nor did I assume, a "Laibon" set. >To moan about that, is like moaning about KMW > beeing also a independent clan set. I find your example ironic: I found KMW to be a very good set. Like LoB, the starters were excellent, but the booster box was good, too. If LoB had been like KMW, I'd buy LoB boosters. -- DoR

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Defender of Ra wrote: > Why should I hand WW $320 so I can get 10 copies of a *common*. This, > again, is my point. > Don't. Give TheLasombra $1. Or better yet, give White Wolf $3 and trade the Uncommons you don't want for 'em. Then you get to keep the Rare for "free". PS - Your post, or some variant thereof, has already appeared in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

Defender of Ra wrote: > > Why should I hand WW $320 so I can get 10 copies of a *common*. This, > again, is my point. > > -- DoR > the T in TCG stands for trading. Try it, it works! stefan

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Defender of Ra wrote: > > > Why should I hand WW $320 so I can get 10 copies of a *common*. This, > > again, is my point. > > > > Don't. Give TheLasombra $1. Or better yet, give White Wolf $3 and trade > the Uncommons you don't want for 'em. Then you get to keep the Rare for > "free". The first point -- that I can buy singles -- goes without saying. Of course, because of the size of the set, these are the most expensive singles I would have ever bought, en masse. So my displeasure with LoB is not diminished. And trading for 40+ cards is time consuming and boring -- assuming success. And that's a pretty stupid assumption, considering that I would be trading away BL cards, cards already in print, generally speaking. I've had to look for commons and a multitude of cards before for other reasons for other games. If I spend more time trading and buying than playing, the game isn't worth it. I could be investing in the stock market for all the fun that is. Your recommendations do not in any way alieviate my perspective on the set. Maybe the next one will be better.