Annoyance of changing rarities

Hi everybody in the "design team", I just wanted to let you know that the continued changing of rarities pisses a lot of people off over here. For example: Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you buy LoB a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you because they don´t really contain a rare. What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy the collectors angle of the game? -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Same as it has been when rarities have changed in the past. Rarities are adjusted to match the (estimated) general utility / multiplicity requirements / etc. of the card, as well as to match the logistics of printing cards.

> Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R > Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R > > If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you buy LoB > a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you because they don´t > really contain a rare. > What, like 2 of them? If you bought 3 boxes? > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy the > collectors angle of the game? > It "enhances" the collection angle of the game. It's really no different from printing foils.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: >> Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R >> Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R >> >> If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you buy >> LoB a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you because they >> don´t really contain a rare. >> > > What, like 2 of them? If you bought 3 boxes? Actually since the reprint rares are only 25% as frequent as new rares (which are really R3s I guess), one only has a slightly better than a 50% chance of getting a given reprint rare in 3 boxes. Matt Morgan

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > > Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R > > Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R > > > > If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you buy LoB > > a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you because they don´t > > really contain a rare. > > > > What, like 2 of them? If you bought 3 boxes? > Well, IIRC, the Bloodlines rares that are reprints occur in only 25% of the boxes, and since there's an equal number (50) of BL rares and LOB rares, it means that BL rares are R1's and new rares are R3's, with essentially 200 cards on the rare sheet. So a box is what, 36 packs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but by my math, you're likely to get both Concert Tour and Clio's Kiss in your boosters only if you buy at least 5 boxes. If you're spending that much money of 5 boxes of boosters, you can probably stand to get 2 useless rares.

Just buy the uncommon versions of the Bloodlines set... it's easier and leave the rare ones to the collectors. .- Luis Duarte

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm sure you'll have perfectly sensible arguments to that effect, but here's the constatations I've made : - I've never seen Clio's Kiss played, although I don't doubt some people did try it out when it came out. Now, it can certainly be useful, and I think having Nec with Krassimir was one of the reasons why it wasn't played. - Concert Tour is seldom played, a few might be sprinkled in Daughters decks (too small cap as of now) and I haven't seen that many Qadir Rocks decks ; in these, a large number of Concert Tour are required - the changes in rarity that I've witnessed until now were : Rare going to common or unco (Behind You! , Immortal Grapple, Freak Drive...) ; although it was frustrating for collectors who had recently payed large amounts of money to get these cards, it was quite good for the players who needed these cards. I would have loved to see, for instance, Ashes to Ahses or Basilysk's Touch reprinted as a Unco, because they are really too cornercase (not to say uninteresting) to justify Common, and it's gonna be a real pain getting some more in Rare slots. AND the innovative / insane ;) players who want to try a stupid combo with them are going to need more cards than they'll easily get. - changing a card from Co / Unco to Rare can be justified IMHO if small numbers of this card are required AND appreciated when gotten. Another factor may be : interesting for some clans and not some others, which is the case of most Bloodlines cards anyway. It would have made sense to me if Spirit Marionette had been a Rare, for example : great card for the Salubri. I'm glad it's available to all, but really the main trouble with Bloodlines is Shit Rares : Darkling Trickery (a Rare Flash with a useless Obt version), Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes, *GRANDEST TRICK*, Hag's Wrinkles (for a Clan with access to Lost in Crowds and Freak Drive, usable under other conditions), Changeling Ward etc. Looks like the Samedi and Kyasid got the worst of it. - new players wanting Concert Tour or (Caine forgive) Clio's Kiss will have a hard time getting them ; while players who bought some Bloodlines will be disgusted with every boost containing one of them ; trading for another Rare will be impossible. With all this taken into account, I think the best solution would have been an Unco (1 or 2) slot rather than a Rare. Let's hope this set doesn't have too many such "surprises"... Orpheus, Necromancer

[ quoted text not captured ] I do agree that the rarity change is slightly annoying, but in the end I don't think it's that big of a deal. Personally, last time I checked I had 12 Clio's Kiss, 7 Concert Tour, 16 Bond with the Mountain, 3 Ashes to Ashes, and 5 Dust to Dust. To be honest, I don't think it would really matter if I received a Concert Tour instead of another Bond with the Mountain. When I was looking at the rarity list, I did briefly consider that people might be slightly "happier" if Clotho's Gift were a Rare instead. I know several players in my playgroups who have had difficulty accumulating several copies of the card and it really is a staple for Temporis decks. So on the one hand, people might be happier if their rare were a more useful card such as Clotho's Gift. But then again, making it Rare would restrict the supply much more than if it were Uncommon. The fact that White Wolf is changing rarities may be a little maddening to collectors (and I do partially fall into that category). But at least they're willing to think about what cards players will need the most of and in many cases choosing to have those cards as *not* rare. Camarilla Edition has already set a precedence for changing rarities (both Sixth Tradition and Storm Sewers changed from Uncommon to Rare). Many people have already greatly benefited from rarity changes in the other direction (anyone remember trying to get Immortal Grapples or Freak Drives when they were rare?). So rarity changes can work both ways. What's the big deal? Every expansion is going to have its crap rares. I groan when I get more Anarch Railroads, Cry Wolfs, the Hold cards, or Seattle Committees for Anarchs. Or Crusades, Talons of the Dead, and Winshester Mansion in Black Hand. I don't think I've ever jumped in joy at receiving a Blood of the Cobra, Dismemberment of Osiris, Edge Vitiation, Eruption of Vitae, Fata Amria, Camarilla Threat, Clan hosers, Cardinal Sin: Failure of Mission, Code of Milan Suspended, or Cull the Herd. Crap rares are inevitable and I don't think it makes that big of a difference whether the crap rare you get is a Clio's Kiss or Concert Tour vs. a Far Mastery, Distant Friend, or Gift of Experience.

[ quoted text not captured ] So it all depends on the number of changed reprints. Anyway I consider it a bad habit to change rarity. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] I do agree that the rarity change is slightly annoying, but in the end [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorry but I agree completely with Johannes. I think that rare cards have to be "good cards" and not "filler" for logistic problems. I prefer to see a new praxis/crusade/barony than a Clio's Kiss RARE card: I will see a new art (OR change a rarity from COMMON to RARE by changing also the art... at least there will be a reason for having a single copy of this card). Moreover: the game is already difficult for newby with the wording change of many cards and they don't need to add difficulties also with rarity changes (as I've stated also for other changes before). Some can be understandable, those are weird... To be clear: My opinion is to keep rarity for reprint cards in future expansions. regards & deranges RavATwoFaces

> I do agree that the rarity change is slightly annoying, but in the end > I don't think it's that big of a deal. > > I groan when I get > more Anarch Railroads, or Seattle Committees > for Anarchs. Or Winshester Mansion in > Black Hand. One man's trash is another's treasure. I would gladly trade with you for any of the above. Anarchs are very popular in this area. -- Brian member of the seattle committee

Oh...I forgot. If you're interested in tradint, my current email is no longer FirstConformist, but IslandOfYiaros. Still at AOL.com. -- Brian

> Sorry but I agree completely with Johannes. > > I think that rare cards have to be "good cards" and not "filler" for > logistic problems. > Rare cards have to be rarely used cards, otherwise the rarity scheme is a detriment to the entire playerbase. > Moreover: the game is already difficult for newby with the wording > change of many cards and they don't need to add difficulties also with > rarity changes (as I've stated also for other changes before). > Some can be understandable, those are weird... > Rarity changes don't make the game harder for newbies. So far, they've only made the game easier for them.

In message <dijcmj$pb6$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >So it all depends on the number of changed reprints. Anyway I consider >it a bad habit to change rarity. Why? Would you prefer that players don't have access to highly useful cards like Freak Drive, because changing rarity is a bad habit? The idea that rarity will not change has been blown out of the water a long time ago, and has done a lot of good for the game. You may care to argue specific cards should (or shouldn't) have changed rarity, but arguing the general point that changing rarity is bad is rather pointless. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew escreveu: > > Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R > > Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R > > > > If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you buy LoB > > a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you because they don´t > > really contain a rare. > > > What, like 2 of them? If you bought 3 boxes? Probably less, in fact, due to the 1-to-4 ratio of reprinted Rares in the set. I'd estimate 1 each 4 or 5 boxes (around 9 reprints per box, right? 1/4 of the Rares). > > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy the > > collectors angle of the game? > > It "enhances" the collection angle of the game. It's really no different > from printing foils. The collector complaint I can understand. Getting all of the reprinted rares will be a matter of trading and buying singles for almost all of them. Not that this is a great sacrifice though. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo not a collector

James Coupe escreveu: > In message <dijcmj$pb6$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: > >So it all depends on the number of changed reprints. Anyway I consider > >it a bad habit to change rarity. > > Why? > Would you prefer that players don't have access to highly useful cards > like Freak Drive, because changing rarity is a bad habit? > The idea that rarity will not change has been blown out of the water a > long time ago, and has done a lot of good for the game. You may care to > argue specific cards should (or shouldn't) have changed rarity, but > arguing the general point that changing rarity is bad is rather > pointless. > -- > James Coupe I agree. But people will complain based purely on their collections, which is natural, so we'll have to live with it. Personally I'd prefer Clio's Kiss as a Rare so I didn't have lots of copies of it sitting on my cardbox occupying space. Obviously, nobody cares to trade for it, so maybe one day they'll end up in the trash bin or something like that. Concert Tour... I have mixed feelings about it, but I must admit that's because I've used 9 in a Qadir deck in the past and I wish I has 1 or 3 more ;) Let's see to what it amounts to in the end. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

In message <1129164322.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes: <points of view on rarities changing> >I agree. But people will complain based purely on their collections, >which is natural, so we'll have to live with it. Personally I'd prefer >Clio's Kiss as a Rare so I didn't have lots of copies of it sitting on >my cardbox occupying space. It depends on the type of collector. If the collector just wants one of everything (or enough of everything), they can get them from other sets of course, when they go from common to less common. The same "problem" exists when cards are reprinted anyway. "Hey, I just spent ages trading and buying those <really hard to find card from Sabbat - say, Shadow Step> and now you've reprinted it! That sucks!" Simply reprinting cards can annoy the collector. If they want one from every single printing, that's a separate issue. The lifeblood of any TCG is it still existing and being in print. Games - such as, say, Magic or Star Trek: Next Gen - which have gone through phases of having never-reprinted, ultra rare chase cards (that players can still play in at least some tournaments) have had the significant problem of needed, wanted cards being unavailable. (This is - of course - also compounded by a rarity scheme based on desirability/name recognition, rather than power/utility, with cards being "balanced" by rarity.) And - of course - designers will make mistakes, such as not realising how useful and needed cards like Immortal Grapple or Freak Drive will be. So we can correct those in later sets, to prevent players saying "What, it hasn't been reprinted since V:TES and it's a rare? Man, that blows." (Or whatever - that will vary by the card.) So, in any situation, I'm almost always going to lean towards the players' concern - because, in the long-term, that's better. Now, of course, you can mix and match that with collectors' concerns. Perhaps, for example, you could have a reprint of a certain vampire that was functionally identical but had different art, or was on a foil, or whatever. The player doesn't care that he can't get the pretty card (though it would be nice - shiny!), but you can still use that sort of thing to drive collector sales. The same sort of thing has been done in e.g. role-playing games, where you can buy the special leather-bound version of Muppet: The Puppeteering which has actually been kept in a box in the room next door to where Steve Wieck works when his office is busy. In moderation, that sort of thing is just fine as it in no way actually hurts the game whilst providing an "Oooh, shiny" for collectors. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > The same "problem" exists when cards are reprinted anyway. "Hey, I just > spent ages trading and buying those <really hard to find card from > Sabbat - say, Shadow Step> and now you've reprinted it! That sucks!" > Simply reprinting cards can annoy the collector. I don´t agree. The prize / trading value for reprinted cards w/o changed rarity has in the most cases not decreased so much that anyone could be largely worried. But reprinting FoM as a common though .. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] Reprinting nearly impossible-to-get cards like the Sabbat only !Tremere cards can change thte rarity, and sometimes you can get a whole tenth-anniversary set for the price of 1 or 2 such cards on e-bay !! That is very good for the players, just-a-little-bad for collectors, but the players who bought these cards for a high price will usually be more-than-a-little pissed off (although I totally approve when WW does this, the player's reaction is understandable). Orpheus, Necromonger

[ quoted text not captured ] Reprinting nearly impossible-to-get cards like the Sabbat only !Tremere [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I understand your frustration. However, once it was decided that Concert Tour and Clio's Kiss ought to be reprinted in LoB, I'm glad that the next decision was to print fewer of them than before (make them rare). It seems that as uncommons, people got too many of those cards. Now that they will show up as reprint rares, the frequency at which they are found in packs will more closely equate to the frequency at which they will get played. I know that sort of logic is not in use as we tear into packs, caring only about the rare in the back. But once the wrappers are in the trash, and I'm sorting the new cards, I'll be pleased that I'll only be adding 1 or 2 Concert Tour to the 14 unplayed copies that I already own. This topic reminds me of my friend who used to sell a lot of V:TES singles on E-Bay. He would always bitch about packs with Smoke Grenade. He would never get any bids on Smoke Grenade auctions. He called it a wasted rare, and for him that was a wasted pack. I told him that I was pleased that Smoke Grenade was rare, because that way I don't have a ton of them in my collection. Like it or not, rare slots are a place for strong cards, and cards that one wouldn't need, or likely want, too many of. C.T. and C.K. seem to have moved into that second category. Better late than never. Jay

Jay Kristoff wrote: > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > > > Hi everybody in the "design team", > > > > I just wanted to let you know that the continued changing of rarities > > pisses a lot of people off over here. For example: > > > > Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R > > Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R > > > > If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you > > buy LoB a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you > > because they don´t really contain a rare. > > > > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy > > the collectors angle of the game? > > > > -- > > johannes walch > > I understand your frustration. However, once it was decided that > Concert Tour and Clio's Kiss ought to be reprinted in LoB, I'm > glad that the next decision was to print fewer of them than before > (make them rare). It seems that as uncommons, people got too > many of those cards. As already mentionned, they were commons. Moving them to uncos would have been a fine decision IMHO. BTW, does anyone know if the Bloodline reissue commons will be "as common" as the rest of the cards ? This could also prove frustrating for the old players, if they get more of the commons / uncos they already have and must buy more than usual to get the new cards... I think this is one of the consequences of grouping : printing new vampires not mixeable with the old ones implies that the new players will want immediate playability, while a set totally mixeable with Bloodlines could have the essential reprint commons starter-only, for example, and for the rest we could buy more Bloodlines. It is also a consequence of mixing a totally new clan - Laibon - with a reprint of existing cards. While this has been and will be the case for every Sabbat or Camarilla extension, it hasn't been the case for KMW (players still have to buy FN if they want to play Giovanni, for instance) and getting more main-clan cards (say, Dominate or Celerity for example) isn't exactly the same as getting tons of cards playable by only one "minor" clan like Gargoyles or DoC. Maybe some better thought-out global consistency would be appropriate here ? (don't be mistaken, the new cards and strategy look interesting to me, it's this whole reprint thing I'm less hot about) Orpheus, Necromonger

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1129164322.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes: > <points of view on rarities changing> > >I agree. But people will complain based purely on their collections, > >which is natural, so we'll have to live with it. Personally I'd prefer > >Clio's Kiss as a Rare so I didn't have lots of copies of it sitting on > >my cardbox occupying space. > > It depends on the type of collector. If the collector just wants one of > everything (or enough of everything), they can get them from other sets > of course, when they go from common to less common. > The same "problem" exists when cards are reprinted anyway. "Hey, I just > spent ages trading and buying those <really hard to find card from > Sabbat - say, Shadow Step> and now you've reprinted it! That sucks!" > Simply reprinting cards can annoy the collector. > If they want one from every single printing, that's a separate issue. > James Coupe Again, agreed in all points. Just felt I'd have to say that I usually refer to someone as a "collector" when one is bound to have at least one copy of each card ever printed no matter the printing - so I'm talking about the ones who will pursuit the new Concert Tour from Legacies to "complete their collection". So when I say I simpathize with collectors' concerns, it's this type of collector I'm talking about because they will be the most to suffer. But that's just shared empathy - I'd prefer what we have now than what we had before (some ultra-useful cards as Rares) anytime. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

>> The same "problem" exists when cards are reprinted anyway. "Hey, I just >> spent ages trading and buying those <really hard to find card from >> Sabbat - say, Shadow Step> and now you've reprinted it! That sucks!" >> Simply reprinting cards can annoy the collector. Depends on the Collector. As I said elsewhere, I cheer when a hard-to-find card gets reprinted, it makes the earlier version easier to find. But I suppose if I got stupid and paid too much money for a piece of cardboard, I'd misplace the blame on White Wolf too. > > Again, agreed in all points. Just felt I'd have to say that I usually > refer to someone as a "collector" when one is bound to have at least > one copy of each card ever printed no matter the printing - so I'm > talking about the ones who will pursuit the new Concert Tour from > Legacies to "complete their collection". > I'm pretty sure there's only about 7 such people.

[ quoted text not captured ] Instead of reprinting useful bloodlines discipline cards, LSJ could have made all new bloodlines discipline cards of similar utility. He choose the reprint route. He IS an ebay hater. I'm just surprised he hasn't taken it upon himself to add a few extra lines of explanatory text on to each card. He LOVES writing novels... But yeah... Bringing ALL the bloodlines back in one set (barring baali in KMW) wasn't probably the best way to reprint bloodlines rares. One bloodline or so at a time so that you can print starters for them, and include it with the essential OOP bloodlines cards, whilst simultaneously making a smaller card count... Though... LSJs way might sell more cards... :) ~SV

Johannes Walch wrote: > I just wanted to let you know that the continued changing of rarities > pisses a lot of people off over here. Which no doubt is causing the design team to weep bitter tears of remorse. However, let me just jump in and say if Shroud of Absence is reprinted as a common, I will personally buy LSJ a shiny new car. Maybe not a very big car, but very very shiny.

[ quoted text not captured ] http://matchbox.com/us/product.asp?id=12057 Watch out, Scott! hehee!:) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

The only problem I have is have you seen how many cards are being reprinted in the rare slots. I think I just counted 15 on the list. We are not even close to being done with what's in the set yet either. So saying you won't see the reprinted rares as often doesn't mean a whole lot if that many are being reprinted. I don't mind a few being reprinted but I think at the rate the list is going there are to many.

Johannes Walch wrote: > buy LoB a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you > because they don´t really contain a rare. It seems that by "they don't really contain a rare", you mean "they don't contain a card I can sweep tables with, if I ever acquire 8 of them." So, all those pissed off people over there need to get over whatever complex they have. > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy > the collectors angle of the game? As long as cards are printed at all, and reprinted with new sets, there will be a "collector's angle". Why does it matter to a "collector" what card is reprinted in which slot? If anything, collectors should have an easier time of acquiring these cards, from reduced competition with people whose only focus is playing. Perhaps WW should print a "Collector's edition" of the set, for markets rich in "collectors"; those printings would swapping rarities between the reprints and some otherwise common card.

"invisible239" <celer...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1129296332.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] FYI, WW announced a ways back (1.5 to 2 months ago?) that there would be 50 reprinted rares, 99 reprints total, and that the new to reprinted rare card ratio would be 3:1; "Legacies of Blood Legacies of Blood is the ninth Vampire: The Eternal Struggle set released by White Wolf, the second to focus on the Bloodlines, and the first to introduce the Laibon. ****The booster packs contain 11 cards each randomly selected from a set of 201 new cards and 99 reprints (from the Bloodlines expansion). That set includes 50 new rares and 50 reprint rares, but the rares are distributed so that the new rares occur three times as often (on average, you'll get one reprint rare from every four packs you open). **** In addition, the set features 4 non-random preconstructed decks, Akunanse, Guruhi, Ishtarri, and Osebo, which contain even more cards and are designed to get beginning players started right away. Each preconstructed deck contains 6 new vampires and a few new library card that aren't found in the boosters. Each new vampire is included twice in its respective starter. Play Vampire: The Eternal Struggle using Legacies of Blood with your friends, or locate players in your area at www.white-wolf.com/vtes/member. " DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:dij6q6$kk0$1...@news01.versatel.de... > Hi everybody in the "design team", > > I just wanted to let you know that the continued changing of rarities > pisses a lot of people off over here. For example: > > Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R > Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R > > If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you buy > LoB a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you because > they don´t really contain a rare. > > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy the > collectors angle of the game? > Doing some math to figure out exactly how often you'll end up with a reprinted formerly-common Bloodlines card. LSJ stated on the WW Forum that 11 cards made the migration from common in Bloodlines to reprinted rare in LoB. 11/50 reprinted rares = 22% 25% of the rares you'll get will be reprinted rares, so 0.22 * 0.25 = 0.055 == 5.5% of your packs will have a reprinted common in the rare slot. Of course, depending upon your perpective on the matter, its not like the fact that it happens less often makes you not feel like you've been screwed out of the game... (wait, where have I heard _that_ argument before..? ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Mike Perlman" <mike.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1129297016....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... Johannes Walch wrote: > buy LoB a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you > because they don´t really contain a rare. > It seems that by "they don't really contain a rare", you mean "they > don't contain a card I can sweep tables with, if I ever acquire 8 of > them." No Mike, I think what he means is "just because you put it in the rare slot, doesn't make it a rare... especially since I already have 15 of them". Its a matter of expansion rarity vs. relative abundance/availability... This klind of works like the ultra-rare FN vampire problem in reverse (R2's from Final Nights are 7 times more abundant than R1's), at least they've put undesirable reprinted-commons-in-rare-slots into a position where they will show up _very_ infrequently (5.5% of all boosters). But the point is, who is it that wants them there _at all_? If someone wanted a Clio's Kiss or Concert Tour, they can get ten for a buck with a trivial effort. The "be happy, there aren't that many" argument won't make you feel less screwed when you open that pack with the chase-rare Coroner's Contact. > So, all those pissed off people over there need to get over > whatever complex they have. >> What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy >> the collectors angle of the game? > As long as cards are printed at all, and reprinted with new sets, there > will be a "collector's angle". > Why does it matter to a "collector" what card is reprinted in which > slot? If anything, collectors should have an easier time of acquiring > these cards, from reduced competition with people whose only focus is > playing. Yeah, this factor is in competition with the 75/25 mix of new to reprinted cards. It will take a lot of buying of product (or extensive trading) to make a set of reprinted rares. Think on it; if a booster box of 36 contains 25% reprints, thats 9 boosters with reprint rares per box average... To get fifty reprint rares, you'd need to buy 5.56 boxes. I guess its good that 11 of those fifty are reprinted commons... If you drop those out of the equation (and shoot for 39 reprint rares), you'd _only_ need to buy 4.33 boxes to get them. Either way, the collector's purchase requirement for LoB basically doubles, due to the fact that there's a good number of cards printed in a much lower abundance. > Perhaps WW should print a "Collector's edition" of the set, for markets > rich in "collectors"; those printings would swapping rarities between > the reprints and some otherwise common card. Or, they could choose to just not reprint on this scale in a new product, or re-print a full set (Bloodlines) when the demand is there. DaveZ Atom Weaver

FYI, WW announced a ways back (1.5 to 2 months ago?) that there would be 50 reprinted rares, 99 reprints total, and that the new to reprinted rare card ratio would be 3:1; I don't care if or when they announced it. I think that is to many for a new set. Thank you for the information but it doesn't change my thoughts on the issue.

"invisible239" <celer...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1129301536....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I had no interest in changing your thoughts on the matter. Your comments (to paraphrase; "we're at 15, when will it stop?" or some such) just implied that this was a piece of info you didn't have. DZ AW

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:1129128164.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Johannes Walch wrote: >> What is the reason behind the changing rarities? > > Same as it has been when rarities have changed in the past. > > Rarities are adjusted to match the (estimated) general utility / > multiplicity requirements / etc. of the card, as well as to match the > logistics of printing cards. > If this is WW's reprint reasoning stated in full, then this seriously needs revision, since its scope of consideration is inadequate when considering changing rarity from common to rare on a reprint. Even in VTES, the perceived value of the purchased product lies in significant part with the rare card. While doing so may satisfy yoru cited criteria above, reprinting commons in a rare slot satisfies no customer of VTES that I can think of. Those with abundant collections get more of a card they already have plenty of, those who are new to the game spend more on that one booster than they would if they sought ten copies of the same card from secondary sources (right now, the Lasombra's inventory has 187 Clio's Kiss, 17 Concert Tours and 100 Coroner's Contact for sale). Migrating common cards to rare slots in a reprint drags down the perceived value of the expansion, especially when those commons aren't of any particularly notable play value, and even when the reprinted-common-in-a-rare-slot issue shows up only infrequently (again, I'll invoke the old RTI argument; just because it happens only occasionally, doesn't mean it is tolerable for the game). My little fable for the day; A goat herder goes by a fruit merchant's cart every day for three weeks, and buys a nice shiny apple to eat. On the last day of the third week, the goat herder pays for his apple, but the fruit merchant swaps his apple for a goat turd. The goat herder is outraged, but the merchant points out that he's gotten twenty great apples so far, and so he doesn't see what all the fuss is... Should the goat herder be any less peeved because the fruit merchant only tries to sell him a goat turd once for every 20 apples? ...and what use does a goat herder have for yet another goat turd, anyways? :-) DZ AW

David Zopf wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:1129128164.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> What is the reason behind the changing rarities? > > > > Same as it has been when rarities have changed in the past. > > > > Rarities are adjusted to match the (estimated) general utility / > > multiplicity requirements / etc. of the card, as well as to match the > > logistics of printing cards. > > > If this is WW's reprint reasoning stated in full, then this seriously > needs revision, since its scope of consideration is inadequate when > considering changing rarity from common to rare on a reprint. > It seems like perfectly good reasoning. If one does not need a lot of a card, then it should be rare - that way, one doesn't get a lot of that card. I'm more upset (although only very slightly upset, to be sure), about the reprinting of commons from BL. If I buy a box of LoB (who am I kidding, I probably will), I want more new cards that I can use. Other than Stone Travel, I can't think of any BL commons that I want more of. The reprint rares (especially the ones that used to be common) are going to be so infrequent that few will even notice them. ("OMG, I got a Clio's Kiss instead of some other card that I probably don't need... but I also got 3 awesome commons and a vampire I needed") Do me a favor, when you buy LoB boosters, make a stack of reprint commons and a stack of reprint rares (other than ones you're happy to get), and tell me whether you have more than 7 times as many commons in the stack than rares - my bet is that you will, meaning that more packs worth of commons were a waste than rares were a waste. Oh, I did like the fable, though. I like stories... ;)

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1129309004....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > David Zopf wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:1129128164.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Johannes Walch wrote: >> >> What is the reason behind the changing rarities? >> > >> > Same as it has been when rarities have changed in the past. >> > >> > Rarities are adjusted to match the (estimated) general utility / >> > multiplicity requirements / etc. of the card, as well as to match the >> > logistics of printing cards. >> > >> If this is WW's reprint reasoning stated in full, then this seriously >> needs revision, since its scope of consideration is inadequate when >> considering changing rarity from common to rare on a reprint. >> > It seems like perfectly good reasoning. If one does not need a lot of > a card, then it should be rare This doesn't ask the right question, though; if there's _already_ an abundance of the card available to everyone, why reprint it at all? Each of the 11 commons which suit the bill as rares for which "matching the (estimated) general utility /multiplicity requirements / etc. of the card, as well as to match the logistics of printing cards", is also _by that very definition_ the same cards which players with abundant collections will have a gross excess of, sellers will have a large amount of, and buyers will be able to easily find by a different method than buying LoB... > - that way, one doesn't get a lot of > that card. You shouldn't be getting any more of them _at all_. The market is already saturated with them. > I'm more upset (although only very slightly upset, to be > sure), about the reprinting of commons from BL. If I buy a box of LoB > (who am I kidding, I probably will), I want more new cards that I can > use. Other than Stone Travel, I can't think of any BL commons that I > want more of. The reprint rares (especially the ones that used to be > common) are going to be so infrequent that few will even notice them. > ("OMG, I got a Clio's Kiss instead of some other card that I probably > don't need... but I also got 3 awesome commons and a vampire I > needed") Do me a favor, when you buy LoB boosters, make a stack of > reprint commons and a stack of reprint rares (other than ones you're > happy to get), and tell me whether you have more than 7 times as many > commons in the stack than rares - my bet is that you will, meaning that > more packs worth of commons were a waste than rares were a waste. > This is yet another potential problem with the reprint reasoning (but one which I deliberately didn't address). I can at least conceive of the possiblity that commons which are sought after in quantity by new players _may be_ less available than commons which no one wants/needs in significant amounts. So, there might (_might!_) be some group of buyers for whom this is beneficial... I'd be curious to run the math on relative abundance of reprinted commons vs. new ones, but the info on the LoB doesn't give quite enough info to do that yet. I assume there are 49 reprinted-as-commons... we would also need to know; 1) how many of those are rares-reprinted-as-commons, and 2) what the relative abundance of new vs. reprinted commons is. If we assume the answers are zero rare-to-commons and 25% of all commons are reprints, respectively, then the 7:1 common to rare ratio you mentioned would of course would hold true (thats their ratio in the booster pack, after all) and this is how it would pan out in total nubmers of cards: 7 commons per pack, 36 packs per box * 0.25 reprints => 63 reprint commons, 189 new commons. One booster will give you a little more than one of each reprint common. > > Oh, I did like the fable, though. I like stories... ;) > Hey, thanks :-) DaveZ Fable Weaver "Don't sell me a turd, and call it an apple"

Well Dave thank you for the information. Sorry if I came across wrong myself. Sean

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:Y%R3f.826$oi4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > > One booster will give you a little more than one of each reprint common. Ug. Sorry. That should read; "One booster box..." DZ AW

"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote in message news:1129132578.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > LSJ wrote: >> Johannes Walch wrote: >> > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? >> >> Same as it has been when rarities have changed in the past. >> >> Rarities are adjusted to match the (estimated) general utility / >> multiplicity requirements / etc. of the card, as well as to match the >> logistics of printing cards. > > I'm sure you'll have perfectly sensible arguments to that effect, but > here's the constatations I've made : > > - I've never seen Clio's Kiss played, although I don't doubt some > people did try it out when it came out. Now, it can certainly be > useful, and I think having Nec with Krassimir was one of the reasons > why it wasn't played. > > - Concert Tour is seldom played, a few might be sprinkled in Daughters > decks (too small cap as of now) and I haven't seen that many Qadir > Rocks decks ; in these, a large number of Concert Tour are required ... > - changing a card from Co / Unco to Rare can be justified IMHO if small > numbers of this card are required AND appreciated when gotten. Another > factor may be : interesting for some clans and not some others, which > is the case of most Bloodlines cards anyway. It would have made sense > to me if Spirit Marionette had been a Rare, for example : great card > for the Salubri. I'm glad it's available to all, but really the main > trouble with Bloodlines is Shit Rares : Darkling Trickery (a Rare Flash > with a useless Obt version), Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes, *GRANDEST > TRICK*, Hag's Wrinkles (for a Clan with access to Lost in Crowds and > Freak Drive, usable under other conditions), Changeling Ward etc. > Looks like the Samedi and Kyasid got the worst of it. This post is a huge mass of contradictions. Should a card whose utility doesn't put it in demand in very high numbers be a common then?!? That's even sillier than making it rare. I'm not sure I agree with your evaluation of, for instance, Concert Tour and certainly not Darkling Trickery (which was a high demand card on EBAY the year Bloodlines came out), but if you accept them, then they're being rare is perfect. You just written the prototype resume for an expansion reprint rare card. What's supposed to be the problem?!? The whole notion of "shit rares" suggests you're holding on to the concept of "good rares" - where the rare card is the heart and soul of all good decks and play revolves around them. It would actually be best for the players of the game (as opposed to the manufacturer and collectors who favor enforced rarity) if _all_ rares were shit rares. That's what you want. Ask for it by name! > - new players wanting Concert Tour or (Caine forgive) Clio's Kiss will > have a hard time getting them ; Huh?!? You just said they didn't 'em very much. Which is it? > while players who bought some > Bloodlines will be disgusted with every boost containing one of them ; > trading for another Rare will be impossible. If all these new players are around wanting Concert Tours (because they now have DoC to use for them), then the older players should have fertile ground for trade. Don't get me wrong, I'll probably curse when I get one in a pack too. But I still like that better than needing another high-usage card and not being able to get enough of them easily BECUASE THEY'RE &$#*@! RARES!!! Fred

<RavATw...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote in message news:1129134839....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Moreover: the game is already difficult for newby with the wording > change of many cards and they don't need to add difficulties also with > rarity changes (as I've stated also for other changes before). > Some can be understandable, those are weird... What's "difficult" for a newbie about changing rarities? > To be clear: > My opinion is to keep rarity for reprint cards in future expansions. That causes distinct problems when a prior rarity has clearly becoming incorrect. They printed a million "Gird Minions" in Jyhad and the number of them was clearly wrong. Should they have printed a million more in Camarilla Expansion? Some of the changes may be controversial, not what you would have agreed with, but the overall idea is a definitely a good one. Fred

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:W3R3f.284$aV5...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > Even in VTES, the perceived value of the purchased product lies in > significant part with the rare card. I would dispute that. I guess there will always be people who think so and who think that's the way it ought to be but they're wrong. It's far more frustrating when a good card that begs to be used in many decks and many times IN a deck is underprinted as a rare. > While doing so may satisfy yoru cited > criteria above, reprinting commons in a rare slot satisfies no customer of > VTES that I can think of. It satisfies me. (Not sure if you meant what you literally said.) It frees a common slot for a card that should more rightly be a common card. It keeps me from getting stuck with a lot of extra cards I don't need. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:W3R3f.284$aV5...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > > Even in VTES, the perceived value of the purchased product lies in > > significant part with the rare card. > > I would dispute that. I would say that though it is often true, this is not a practical way to see the "value" of the purchased product. I often spend my money with maximum usability (does that word exist?) in mind - so I'd gladly prefer a booster with 5 commons and 2 vampires I want than another booster with a Rare I'm seeking for and a bunch of cards that will go directly for my trade list. Not that everyone should see the issue the same way I see it, but I believe it's just not practical to buy boosters placing most of the value on the Rares unless you're a full-blown collector. And these collectors, once they enter the CCG world, should prepare for things like that (a given Rare becoming hard to get etc.) best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:Y%R3f.826$oi4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... is WW's reprint reasoning stated in full, then this seriously >>> needs revision, since its scope of consideration is inadequate when >>> considering changing rarity from common to rare on a reprint. >>> >> It seems like perfectly good reasoning. If one does not need a lot of >> a card, then it should be rare > > This doesn't ask the right question, though; if there's _already_ an > abundance of the card available to everyone, why reprint it at all? Because there isn't. Because it's easier for newer players to collect new copies of a card than to find where the old ones are and trade or buy them. And if they don't need a million copies of some old card, why should _they_ get stuck with a million of 'em just because older players once did? If the reprint card changed from common to rare just sucks and shouldn't have been reprinted at all, then there you go. That might be a reasonable thing to complain about. But it's totally silly to say, "It sucks too much to be rare - make it a common instead." That's like those companies that put a gurantee on their food item: "You'll like our Nabisco Wheat Thins! If not, call us and we'll send you a free case!" "Dear Nabisco, I thought your Wheat Thins totally sucked. Please send me more." Make sense to you? Doesn't make sense to me. >> - that way, one doesn't get a lot of that card. > > You shouldn't be getting any more of them _at all_. The market is already > saturated with them. I don't agree. Things that were overprinted commons once aren't necessarily very easy to get hold of. Any given player doesn't necessarily know of someone with the card to trade with and old commons, particularly, don't come up very often in secondary sales venues. Old rares are hard enough but a lot of resellers don't perceive they'll get enough money out of their commons to make offering them worthwhile. (The resellers may be wrong about a given common but they almost never know enough about the game to realize it.) In truth, an old common may well be harder for most newer players to acquire than a given old rare (which can be plenty hard). > This is yet another potential problem with the reprint reasoning (but one > which I deliberately didn't address). I can at least conceive of the > possiblity that commons which are sought after in quantity by new players > _may be_ less available than commons which no one wants/needs in significant > amounts. So, there might (_might!_) be some group of buyers for whom this > is beneficial... You'll have to elaborate on this. I have no idea what this means. Fred

"Screaming Vermillian" <alexand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1129211003.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Instead of reprinting useful bloodlines discipline cards, LSJ could > have made all new bloodlines discipline cards of similar utility. He > choose the reprint route. He IS an ebay hater. What do you mean an "ebay hater"?!? That depends on your point of view. If (for instance), I thought I might need more Hungry Coyotes and LSJ cause Hungry Coyote to be reprinted (HINTHINTHINT!!! ;-) ), all of a sudden, Hungry Coyotes on EBAY become much cheaper. And that would make me *love* EBAY all the more... Fred (...and The Parthenon could stand to be common in some future expansion!...just a thought.)

Frederick Scott wrote: > But it's totally silly to say, "It sucks too > much to be rare - make it a common instead." That's like those companies > that put a gurantee on their food item: "You'll like our Nabisco Wheat > Thins! If not, call us and we'll send you a free case!" > > "Dear Nabisco, > > I thought your Wheat Thins totally sucked. Please send me more." Dear Fred, This analogy just blows. Please give us more analogies. :)

"invisible239" <celer...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1129301536....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Could you share with us what the problem is that you see? Fred

Johannes Walch wrote: > Hi everybody in the "design team", > > I just wanted to let you know that the continued changing of rarities > pisses a lot of people off over here. For example: > > Concert Tour - BL : C1 / LoB : R > Clio's Kiss - BL : C2 / LoB : R > > If you bought lots of BL you certainly have enough of them, so if you > buy LoB a lot of you boosters will be practically worthless to you > because they don´t really contain a rare. > > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? Is it wise to destroy > the collectors angle of the game? Here's a secret..... New Players should have access to the core that a discipline does (i.e. all the base cards being included in the set), so they reprinted all the relavent cards but made the more corner case one's rare. Old Players who have lots of a card of marginal utility should not again be loaded up with that card (i.e. by keeping it common). So changing the rarity covers both bases it gives new players access to the cards nessasary all in one set, but it doesn't bog down older players with excess cards of marginal utility. Personally, I am okay with it (even if it means I agree with Fredrick Scott) :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp Master of Parentheses

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:14:34 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: >and certainly not >Darkling Trickery (which was a high demand card on EBAY the >year Bloodlines came out), Now, I'm not sure how anyone else feels, but i personally always thought the rarities on the below two cards (Absord the Mind and Darkling Trickery) were the wrong way around, especially considering Earth Swords is common, which combos really well with Darkling Trickery in some sort of ranged deck. How often are you going to want to steal one blood, when you could have maneuvered to long and done 3 damage instead? and the skill card thing is totally corner case. I don't think i have seen Absorb the Mind in any deck for it's myt versions, only as a replaceable dodge for DOM weenies. Absorb the Mind [BL:C2] Cardtype: Combat Discipline: Mytherceria/Dominate [dom] Strike: dodge. [myt] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood. [MYT] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood and steal 1 Master: Discipline card from the opposing vampire and put it on this striking vampire. Darkling Trickery [BL:R1] Cardtype: Combat Discipline: Mytherceria/Obtenebration [obt] Press, only usable to end combat. [myt] Maneuver or press. [MYT] Only usable when the opposing minion attempts to strike with a weapon that does ranged damage. The damage from that weapon is reduced to zero. The opposing minion takes 1 additional damage during strike resolution. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:21:44 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: >That causes distinct problems when a prior rarity has clearly becoming >incorrect. They printed a million "Gird Minions" in Jyhad and the >number of them was clearly wrong. Should they have printed a million >more in Camarilla Expansion? with that new art? yes. I still don't own one, and am going to end up getting a Nos starter when a friend buys a cam starter box just so i can have it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kle0l159o3kosq5ml...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:21:44 -0700, "Frederick Scott" > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >>That causes distinct problems when a prior rarity has clearly becoming >>incorrect. They printed a million "Gird Minions" in Jyhad and the >>number of them was clearly wrong. Should they have printed a million >>more in Camarilla Expansion? > > with that new art? yes. > > I still don't own one, and am going to end up getting a Nos starter > when a friend buys a cam starter box just so i can have it. And what will you when that one gets sticky? ;-) Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1129324437.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Then the proper analogy would be Nabisco sending a truck 'round constantly to throw them at you non-stop, no matter what you want. 'cause you *know* I'm not going away, heh! Fred (there's one...)

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:28:58 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] d00d! I use sleeves, so it's not a problem. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5JO3f.265$aV5...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> writes: > 25% of the rares you'll get will be reprinted rares, so 0.22 * 0.25 = >0.055 == 5.5% of your packs will have a reprinted common in the rare slot. > > Of course, depending upon your perpective on the matter, its not like the >fact that it happens less often makes you not feel like you've been screwed >out of the game... (wait, where have I heard _that_ argument before..? ;-) Of course, you could just be getting a shitty rare instead, of which there are many in the game. Just because something is a new rare doesn't mean it'll be any good. Or even a reprinted one. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > > What is the reason behind the changing rarities? > > Same as it has been when rarities have changed in the past. > > Rarities are adjusted to match the (estimated) general utility / > multiplicity requirements / etc. of the card, as well as to match the > logistics of printing cards. Problem is, that when you have a common card that can still be purchased for 10c, and you use it to fill a rare slot, that rare can no longer be traded or used. I will gladly trade away all my Bloodlines Commons that are reprinted as rares in LoB to "collectors". Will trade for Blood Dolls, on a 1 for 1 basis. And I will give those cards to newbies around the traps, so Sabbat versions of Blood Dolls appreciated. Any takers? Rares should be something that is more highly tradable (like War Ghouls) or that is useful is small quantities (like Praxis: ... ) not something that is readily available as a common is a currently printed set. My 2c (8c more until I can purchase a "rare"), Cheers.

In message <1129778249.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Darth Una <bibi.k...@gmail.com> writes: >Problem is, that when you have a common card that can still be >purchased for 10c, and you use it to fill a rare slot, that rare can no >longer be traded or used. Used? Sure it can. You put it in a deck, and away you go. Not everyone has huge piles of Bloodlines knocking around, but by putting it in a reprint rare slot, it means you don't get another 30 of them, maybe one or two. Would you prefer them on the common sheet so you collect another 20 of them instead of whatever LoB cards they replace? >Rares should be something that is more highly tradable (like War >Ghouls) or that is useful is small quantities (like Praxis: ... ) not >something that is readily available as a common is a currently printed >set. Putting "highly tradable" cards into rare slots is the reverse of White Wolf's stated position, given that such a card would very likely be needed in large quantities for decks. That's not to say that rares can't be used in large quantities in decks, but it shouldn't be a "OH MY GOD I HAVE TO HAVE TEN OF THESE RIGHT NOW" card. You seem to be assuming that White Wolf want to stimulate the secondary market (of singles sellers, E-bay etc.) by making desirable cards rare. This sort of thing can kill games (c.f. the term "Decipher"-ed in relation to making desirable cards rare), and also means that people are more inclined to buy those singles when I'm quite sure that White Wolf would rather everyone bought more boosters from them. Some cards that could be rare, uncommon or common will, undoubtedly, turn up in the "wrong" slot because it's such a subjective thing. War Ghoul isn't a necessary card for play, for example, though you can make good decks with it if you do have large numbers. But when you have approximately 50 cards in the common sheet and 50 in the rare sheet and maybe the possibility of one or two vampire/uncommon library cards, something has to give and so a lot of "obvious" rares will turn up on the rare sheet (e.g. the Praxis Seizure cards), a lot of "obvious" commons will turn up on the common sheet, and there will be a chunk of cards left-over that need to fit on one sheet or the other. All the calls at that point will be pretty subjective. If Clan X isn't viewed by the designers as needing to excel at Strategy A or Tactic B, a card reprint will be wrong from the point of view of someone who loves making them do those things. Simple example: Malkavian combat decks. Even though it might be a great trick, a Malkavian combat card may end up rare (or uncommon - see Coma), even if you or I think it would be a great card that you could base a deck around. [ quoted text not captured ]

Darth Una wrote: > Problem is, that when you have a common card that can still be > purchased for 10c, and you use it to fill a rare slot, that rare can no > longer be traded or used. Well, they certainly can be used. And traded, well, they can be traded, just not as for much as they used to. > Rares should be something that is more highly tradable (like War > Ghouls) or that is useful is small quantities (like Praxis: ... ) not > something that is readily available as a common is a currently printed > set. See, new players need these cards too, and they don't necessarily need a lot of them. Like, yeah, ok, I'm not going to be super psyched to pull a Concert Tour as a rare any time soon either, as I own 20 of them already. But because of the policy of changing rarity as needed, I have a lot more Freak Drives, Immortal Grapples, and Behind Yous than I used to. Which strikes me as a reasonable trade off in the long run. 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

> See, new players need these cards too, and they don't necessarily need a lot > of them. Like, yeah, ok, I'm not going to be super psyched to pull a Concert > Tour as a rare any time soon either, as I own 20 of them already. But > because of the policy of changing rarity as needed, I have a lot more Freak > Drives, Immortal Grapples, and Behind Yous than I used to. Which strikes me > as a reasonable trade off in the long run. Moving rare slotted cards to common/uncommon slots is a good idea in the case of much sought after/needed cards like Freak Drives, Immortal Grapples and Behind Yous (and Engling Furies and Darkling Trickeries). Moving in print, very easy to acquire commons to rare slots seems rather silly; if they needed to fill more rare slots why not reprint more rares that aren't being reprinted like Draught of the Soul and Beast Meld? No tradeability problems and if you feel like trying your luck getting some Bloodlines rares you can buy LoB and get lots of new cards to go with them. I don't want another 20 Clio's Kisses either but I much prefer that and more rares than to get only 1 or 2 more and that many less 'real' rares.

"Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in message news:1129849787.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Moving in print, very easy to acquire commons to rare slots seems > rather silly; OK, please remind me: what does Concert Tour have in common with an "in print, very easy to acquire" common? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Concert Tour, Action, 1 blood, Daughters of Cacophony, C1 , [Bloodlines:C1]

"Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in message news:1129852448.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in >> message news:1129849787.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Moving in print, very easy to acquire commons to rare slots seems >> > rather silly; >> >> OK, please remind me: what does Concert Tour have in common with an >> "in print, very easy to acquire" common? > > Concert Tour, Action, 1 blood, Daughters of Cacophony, C1 , > [Bloodlines:C1] Of course. Still not getting the connection... OK, not to purposely dense and snarky - Bloodlines was printed in 2001. That stretches the notion of "in-print", IMHO. Sorry. And where can one "easily" acquire one? Remember, assumptions of friends next door or other people in playgroups having a ton to trade or give away will not be accepted. On-line trading will not be accepted under the definiton of "easy to acquire". Go! Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Still not getting the connection... > > OK, not to purposely dense and snarky - Bloodlines was printed in > 2001. That stretches the notion of "in-print", IMHO. Sorry. > > And where can one "easily" acquire one? Remember, assumptions of > friends next door or other people in playgroups having a ton to > trade or give away will not be accepted. On-line trading will not > be accepted under the definiton of "easy to acquire". Go! > > Fred White Wolf Online Store Bloodlines Booster Pack Stock #: 02576 $2.75 ISBN: 1-56504-468-1

Frederick Scott wrote: > > OK, not to purposely dense and snarky - Bloodlines was printed in > 2001. That stretches the notion of "in-print", IMHO. Sorry. > > And where can one "easily" acquire one? Remember, assumptions of > friends next door or other people in playgroups having a ton to > trade or give away will not be accepted. On-line trading will not > be accepted under the definiton of "easy to acquire". Go! > > Fred Ebay Item Title Price Store vtes jyhad bloodlines CONCERT TOUR $0.20 Gothic Alley Jyhad Vtes Bloodlines Concert Tour $0.25 Gifts Cards and Collectibles

In message <ulW5f.20221$fE5.16287@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >OK, not to purposely dense and snarky - Bloodlines was printed in >2001. That stretches the notion of "in-print", IMHO. Sorry. Erm. Why are you picking when it was *first* printed? Try http://tinyurl.com/7ljms - which is actually the URL: <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_f rm/thread/5377a7ce94559f54/f0b5335a39138981?lnk=st&q=white+wolf+bloodlin es+reprints&rnum=1&hl=en#f0b5335a39138981> This details reprints shipping at the start of 2004. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:9NhMFvdr...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <ulW5f.20221$fE5.16287@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>OK, not to purposely dense and snarky - Bloodlines was printed in >>2001. That stretches the notion of "in-print", IMHO. Sorry. > > Erm. Why are you picking when it was *first* printed? Because I had no idea they'd been reprinted. I didn't realize any booster packs had been reprinted. Fred

"Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in message news:1129855090....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] *SNORT* What is it every time *I'M* looking for a common, it's never available. Ah well, should have looked before I opened my mouth. I concede the point. Fred

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > OK, not to purposely dense and snarky - Bloodlines was printed in > 2001. That stretches the notion of "in-print", IMHO. Sorry. > Every set printed by White Wolf has remained "in-print". Some have been temporarily out-of-stock, but they have always been widely available and eventually reprinted. It fits in with their business strategy of "making mad phat stacks of cash" and not "reprinting the same damned card over and over again", except for Blood Doll, which I really do need 70 copies of. -Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

In message <2005102100...@sidehack.gweep.net>, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> writes: >Every set printed by White Wolf has remained "in-print". Some have been >temporarily out-of-stock, but they have always been widely available >and eventually reprinted. For some definitions of "widely available". While I find it truly, truly annoying that some stores are beholden to being shafted by their personal, favourite distributor and won't put effort into finding stock which is easily available with a couple of phone calls, it is not always the case that such things are widely available. Certain distributors, certain warehouses and - therefore - certain shops/online stores will often have some of a given set, but by no means all, and the geography of distribution can easily stall things. [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Scythe wrote: > Moving rare slotted cards to common/uncommon slots is a good idea in > the case of much sought after/needed cards like Freak Drives, Immortal > Grapples and Behind Yous (and Engling Furies and Darkling Trickeries). Well, there are those who would disagree that moving Rare cards into an uncommon slot is a good idea, as it "devalues" the previously rare cards. Much like putting what was previously a common in the rare slot "devalues" the new rare. > Moving in print, very easy to acquire commons to rare slots seems > rather silly; Only if you assume that everyone has the common already. And that you are somehow assigning an arbitrary value to the rare slot. In terms of what people need--yeah, ok, I like having 10 Concert Tours in my Daughters deck, so I have 10 Concert Tours. Someone getting into the game on LoB doesn't have those 10 and probably doesn't need those 10. And there is also the issue that there is only so much space on the common sheet. So the designers wanted X reprint cards in the set, but couldn't realistically fit them on the common sheet. So some of them had to go somewhere else, and as the uncommon sheet is pretty much all the vampires, the rare sheet it is. >if they needed to fill more rare slots why not reprint > more rares that aren't being reprinted like Draught of the Soul and > Beast Meld? 'Cause the other cards were deemed more important for play purposes? > I don't want another 20 Clio's Kisses either but > I much prefer that and more rares than to get only 1 or 2 more and that > many less 'real' rares. See, there is the arbitrary value being placed on what is or is not a "real" rare. Which doesn't really have any weight in terms of game design and distribution. Again, yeah, ok, I'm not going to be super psyched when I pull a rare Concert Tour from a LoB booster. But I was also not real psyched when I pulled half the rares from the KMW boosters. But someone who just got in the game and has no Bloodlines cards won't be any less psyched to get a rare Concert Tour than any other new "real" rare. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Moving rare slotted cards to common/uncommon slots is a good idea in > > the case of much sought after/needed cards like Freak Drives, Immortal > > Grapples and Behind Yous (and Engling Furies and Darkling Trickeries). > > Well, there are those who would disagree that moving Rare cards into an > uncommon slot is a good idea, as it "devalues" the previously rare For playability concerns, and for new players, this is a good idea. This is not a rare intensive game like M:TG (at least WW seems to express this). You also seemed pretty happy about it (because it makes sense). > cards. Much like putting what was previously a common in the rare slot > "devalues" the new rare. "Much like" but not exactly. New and old players already have access to such cards. > > Moving in print, very easy to acquire commons to rare slots seems > > rather silly; > > Only if you assume that everyone has the common already. They do, or they have access to it. > And that you > are somehow assigning an arbitrary value to the rare slot. In terms of > what people need--yeah, ok, I like having 10 Concert Tours in my > Daughters deck, so I have 10 Concert Tours. Someone getting into the > game on LoB doesn't have those 10 and probably doesn't need those 10. Why wouldn't they need those 10? You like them in your Daughters deck, why do you suppose they wouldn't? Ultimately moot anyway since they can still get them easily. > And there is also the issue that there is only so much space on the > common sheet. So the designers wanted X reprint cards in the set, but > couldn't realistically fit them on the common sheet. So some of them > had to go somewhere else, and as the uncommon sheet is pretty much all > the vampires, the rare sheet it is. Why print them at all? If they believed that they weren't necessary in such quantity then just don't reprint them. > >if they needed to fill more rare slots why not reprint > > more rares that aren't being reprinted like Draught of the Soul and > > Beast Meld? > > 'Cause the other cards were deemed more important for play purposes? Yeah Clio's Kiss is more important than Draught of the Soul. as a prefix to your next statement you (and I) have just put an arbitrary value on a card. Who is right, probably the one designing the deck. > > I don't want another 20 Clio's Kisses either but > > I much prefer that and more rares than to get only 1 or 2 more and that > > many less 'real' rares. > > See, there is the arbitrary value being placed on what is or is not a > "real" rare. Which doesn't really have any weight in terms of game > design and distribution. Sure there is. A 'real' rare is a card that is harder to acquire than a common one. > Again, yeah, ok, I'm not going to be super psyched when I pull a rare > Concert Tour from a LoB booster. But I was also not real psyched when I > pulled half the rares from the KMW boosters. Your lack of excitement in getting a rare card that you didn't care for doesn't make it less rare. We have people in our group who traded for some less exciting rares from KMW because they wanted to try decks around them. They didn't try to trade a bunch of commons for them, they traded rares. But someone who just got > in the game and has no Bloodlines cards won't be any less psyched to > get a rare Concert Tour than any other new "real" rare. Until they find out they could get said rares for a quarter or less and players who have Bloodlines won't trade a rare for a 'rare'. Robert Scythe