The time is 7:47 AM here in sunny Arizona...
...and the current high bid on the next Heart of
Nizchetus coming up for auction is $36.21.
With 4 days and 10 hours left to go on the auction.
Enjoy!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=001&item=110035379122&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> The time is 7:47 AM here in sunny Arizona...
Don't talk about sun, is pouring with rain here in London...
> ...and the current high bid on the next Heart of
> Nizchetus coming up for auction is $36.21.
What odds are you offering on it topping $50? ;-)
Frederick Scott wrote:
> ...and the current high bid on the next Heart of
> Nizchetus coming up for auction is $36.21.
Sweet mother of punk rock.
My whole understanding of the world is upside down. Black is white.
White is black. Dogs and cats are living together in peace and harmony.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ghostbusters? showing your age a bit are we :)
Last Heart I saw went for about 48USD so I wouldn't expect much less.
It's a rocking card and all but thats almost the cost of a US booster
box. I'd go the punt on the box and trade the rest. (or better yet,
have another draft league!!)
Frederick Scott wrote:
> The time is 7:47 AM here in sunny Arizona...
>
> ...and the current high bid on the next Heart of
> Nizchetus coming up for auction is $36.21.
>
> With 4 days and 10 hours left to go on the auction.
>
> Enjoy!
I've always thought that I'm too mad to pay the ridiculous anount of
money for the good cards, but this makes me think than I'm not a real
maniac after all :)
Will the card cost more than a box of 3rd boosters? :)
Yours,
Ector
Frederick Scott schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
this really shows some lack of thought in the set-design and reprint
policy. it is, what's even worse, a bad thing for new players....which
is contrary to the desired effect (ah well imbued have been too, so I
have some doubt in the strategic thought white wolf gives these things).
so new cards from 3rd edition have da different rarity. rare =
ultra-rare uncommon = rare and common = uncommon....ah well guess I'm
lucky in getting 4 hearts in 3 boxes...
xcver wrote:
> this really shows some lack of thought in the set-design and reprint
> policy.
What? White Wolf didn't deliberately screw up the booster pack
distribution. What are you talking about here?
> it is, what's even worse, a bad thing for new players....which
> is contrary to the desired effect (ah well imbued have been too, so I
> have some doubt in the strategic thought white wolf gives these things).
As I mentioned above, White Wolf didn't make a strategic error. A
mistake was made, presumably by the printers.
And I don't remember White Wolf ever claiming that Nights of Reckoning
was supposed to be a set for new players.
John Eno
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:1158941537.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Will the card cost more than a box of 3rd boosters? :)
Perhaps. It's not a comparison that says much, though.
There's a 1-in-100 chance of getting a HoN in a booster.
There are only 36 boosters in a box.
Fred
"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158946081....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> xcver wrote:>> this really shows some lack of thought in the set-design and reprint
>> policy.>
> What? White Wolf didn't deliberately screw up the booster pack
> distribution.
In a way, they did.
> What are you talking about here?
The make-up of library cards in 3E booster pack: 94% (approximately)
reprints that only new players want for the most part. 6% new cards
that everybody, newer and older players, wants. Vampires that everyone
wants mitigates the issue, but the end result is that a "rare" new
card is more rare than it would be in an expansion containing only
new cards.
>> it is, what's even worse, a bad thing for new players....which
>> is contrary to the desired effect (ah well imbued have been too, so I
>> have some doubt in the strategic thought white wolf gives these things).>
> As I mentioned above, White Wolf didn't make a strategic error.
Depends on your point of view. At the moment, this is looking a lot
like a super-rare chase card. Some people like these. I think they're
really counter-productive to a CCG in the long run.
(I don't really want to touch the Imbued debate, which I think is
an entirely different subject, myself.)
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Depends on your point of view. At the moment, this is looking a lot
> like a super-rare chase card. Some people like these. I think they're
> really counter-productive to a CCG in the long run.
I thought "super-rare chase card" referred to a card that was less
common than a "regular" rare.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Fred feels that since it isn't a reprint, it's much rarer than the rest
of the cards in the set. Never mind that War Ghoul had been printed in
2 sets and was quite rare. Golconda had been in 3 sets, including the
$5/box Jyhad set, and it was considered pretty damned rare.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Kushiel wrote:
> xcver wrote:
> > this really shows some lack of thought in the set-design and reprint
> > policy.
>
> What? White Wolf didn't deliberately screw up the booster pack
> distribution. What are you talking about here?
Not that I'm supporting most of the argument that xcver is making, but
there's one area where, arguably, WW could have done something about
the situation.
There are 10 R2's in the set:
Cracking the Wall
Dreams of the Sphinx
Far Mastery
Gurchon Hall
New Management
Perfect Clarity
Sibyl's Tongue
Telepathic Vote Counting
Tension In The Ranks
Vendetta
Of those, there's exactly two cards which are neither reprints nor
clan-specific cards, and one of those (Gurchon Hall) is arguably about
as limited in use as a clan-specific card. With Black Forest Base,
Blade of Enoch, Codex of the Damned, Inconnu Tutelage, Martinelli's
Ring, NRA PAC, Tithings, Yawp Court, and Young Bloods as R1's, there's
extra demand created for the new cards and excesses of R2 reprints.
Personally? I'd have much preferred that, of the 12 new rare cards in
the set, 10 of them be R2's (ideally not Cracking The Wall), and none
of the reprints be R2's.
I'd call that a missed opportunity. Just my 2 cents, though.
- D.J.
Frederick Scott wrote:
> The make-up of library cards in 3E booster pack: 94% (approximately)
> reprints that only new players want for the most part. 6% new cards
> that everybody, newer and older players, wants. Vampires that everyone
> wants mitigates the issue, but the end result is that a "rare" new
> card is more rare than it would be in an expansion containing only
> new cards.
That's true, but it's also silly to me, as it doesn't take the size of
the set into account.
Yes, rare cards in large sets are more "rare" than rare cards in small
sets. Aside from only printing small sets, there's no way to get around
this, though, is there?
> > As I mentioned above, White Wolf didn't make a strategic error.
>
> Depends on your point of view. At the moment, this is looking a lot
> like a super-rare chase card. Some people like these. I think they're
> really counter-productive to a CCG in the long run.
It's a super-rare chase card because the distribution is all fucked up
and we haven't gone through the first print run, though, not because
the card is actually particularly rare (ie, there were as many Hearts
printed as other cards of its rarity). I don't think you can call
something that people have reported getting four or five of, out of a
couple of boxes, as a super-rare chase card.
> (I don't really want to touch the Imbued debate, which I think is
> an entirely different subject, myself.)
Agreed. Plus, those arguments just weary me by now.
John Eno
Meej wrote:
> Personally? I'd have much preferred that, of the 12 new rare cards in
> the set, 10 of them be R2's (ideally not Cracking The Wall), and none
> of the reprints be R2's.
That is actually quite a genius solution to the issue of a set that is
90% reprints and 10% new. Hey! White Wolf! Next time you make a set
like this, make the *new* cards the R2s! That is a very nice
compromise, I'd figure.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm gonna guess that R1 is more rare than R2. In that case, sure, I
agree with this. It does seem like a separate issue from what xcver was
making, though.
John Eno
Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm gonna guess that R1 is more rare than R2.
R2 means it appears twice on the Rare sheet, so is (in a perfectly
randomized world) twice as common as an R1.
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158952085.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> LSJ wrote:>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> > Depends on your point of view. At the moment, this is looking a lot
>> > like a super-rare chase card. Some people like these. I think they're
>> > really counter-productive to a CCG in the long run.
>>
>> I thought "super-rare chase card" referred to a card that was less
>> common than a "regular" rare.
And as I related in the post (LSJ) quoted, in a way it is. If the makeup
of a set discourages people from buying as many boosters as they normally
would (given the same rarity level), then the effect is to make it less
common - same as if you'd just printed less copies of it.
> Fred feels that since it isn't a reprint, it's much rarer than the rest
> of the cards in the set. Never mind that War Ghoul had been printed in
> 2 sets and was quite rare. Golconda had been in 3 sets, including the
> $5/box Jyhad set, and it was considered pretty damned rare.
That's an odd way of defining "rarity". I suppose it's fair in the sense
that I'm playing around with the (strict) definition of rarity myself.
Still, the way you wrote this appears to conflate the demand for a card
with its rarity, which is yet another thing entirely.
Anyway, did you have a point here? Or were you just taking issue with the
semantics?
Fred
Kushiel wrote:
> I'm gonna guess that R1 is more rare than R2. In that case, sure, I
> agree with this. It does seem like a separate issue from what xcver was
> making, though.
R2 means that the card shows up twice on the rare sheet, where the R1s
only show up once. For instance, assuming a sheet of cards has 100
cards on it, if there are 90 different rares, they are going to have 90
different cards on the sheet and the 10 of the rares are going to show
up twice (meaning 80 cards are R1 and 10 cards are R2). Then, as the
rare slot in a pack contains 1 card from the rare sheet pile, you have
twice the chance of ending up with any given R2 as you do an R1--with
perfect distribution which, in the grand scheeme, is always the case
(as there are a total of N rare sheets printed, and all of those cards
are in boosters somewhere, unless some of them got burned or ruined or
something), there are going to be, say, twice as many Telepathic Vote
Countings from 3rd in circulation as there are Hearts. And you'll get
twice as many. 'Cause in any given batch of 100 boosters, there should
be 1 Heart and 2 Telepathic Vote Countings.
So in any case, yeah, all the R2s very clearly should have been the new
cards, rather than the not new cards, as it wouldn't have made much of
a difference for the new players (as if they don't have any of the
rares, they are all new), but would have been great for the older
players (like, I don't need any more Telepathic Vote Countings, yet I
got far more Telepathic Vote Countings and Far Masteries which I also
don't need any more of than I did Iconnu Tutelage and Hearts...)
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Which, as someone else figured out, in this set's case (since there are
100 Uncommons in the set and 2 in every pack), makes an R2 basically an
Uncommon in terms of frequency, but in your rare slot. If it were
guaranteed to be a new card, at least that'd take the oddity out of
that a little.
But yeah, John - I agree, that has relatively little to do with xcver's
original point. It was just a measure I could think of that *was*
within WW's power and didn't get done. Hindsight is 20/20, though, I
guess. (I do wonder what the reasoning was that led to the R2's that
got picked, though. Telepathic Vote Counting? Sibyl's Tongue?)
- D.J.
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1158956820.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think the more general way to state this is, make the new cards
distinctly more common than you would in a normal set. For instance,
rares should be R2s - or even uncommons. Uncommons can be U2s or
commons. Commons can be C2s or C3s, whatever.
But I'm surprised we'd have to tell them. If you think about it,
that's precisely what they did in Legacies of Blood. And although
the 3-to-1 ratio may have been a bit severe for some of the in-demand
reprint rares, that might have been due to a number of complicating
issues: ratio of reprints to new cards, the large number of cards
printed in the overall set, reprints being unusually attractive
as "new layout" cards. In any event, it was clear that White
Wolf understood the basic principle. They just didn't apply it
Third Edition.
Fred
"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1158952085.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[ quoted text not captured ]
We conlfate ideas of rarity with what I'd like to call "relative
abundance". This is an issue similar to the "super-unobtainable rare
vampires from FN". IIRC from older calculations R1s from FN are 17
times less abundant than R2s.
Lets see what the math works out to be for new rares vs. reprint rares
in 3rd Ed;
A quick Monger search (Gawd bless Ethan Burrow!!!) tells us there are
12 new rares in the 3rd ed set. The WW 3rd Ed checklist page says there
are 90 rares sold in the boosters for this set.
(90-12)90*100 = 86.7% of the boosters you buy will contain reprint
rares. Said differently, out of every 30 boosters you buy, about 4 of
them will have a new rare. Said differently yet again, new rares are
6.5 times less abundant than reprint rares. Mediocre, but not _so_ bad,
especially as compared to FN R1's. The repartition issue will likely
skew reality away from this "ideal" estimate nastily (cf. Lasombra
getting one particluar rare only once in 15 boxes...) and contribute to
observed ebayistry.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1158956724.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:>> The make-up of library cards in 3E booster pack: 94% (approximately)
>> reprints that only new players want for the most part. 6% new cards
>> that everybody, newer and older players, wants. Vampires that everyone
>> wants mitigates the issue, but the end result is that a "rare" new
>> card is more rare than it would be in an expansion containing only
>> new cards.>
> That's true, but it's also silly to me, as it doesn't take the size of
> the set into account.
>
> Yes, rare cards in large sets are more "rare" than rare cards in small
> sets. Aside from only printing small sets, there's no way to get around
> this, though, is there?
No, I don't think you're getting the point. Set size is a different
matter. The numbers that are important are 94% reprints, 6% new
cards. No matter how big the set, it's harder to get new cards when
they're printed in a small proportion amongst a population of reprints
because older players have considerably less incentive to buy many
boosters.
>> Depends on your point of view. At the moment, this is looking a lot
>> like a super-rare chase card. Some people like these. I think they're
>> really counter-productive to a CCG in the long run.>
> It's a super-rare chase card because the distribution is all fucked up
> and we haven't gone through the first print run, though, not because
> the card is actually particularly rare (ie, there were as many Hearts
> printed as other cards of its rarity).
No, it's a super-rare chase card becuase it's actually particularly
rare. I'm not even taking the distribution into account - although
that point even aggravates the problem still further.
Fred
"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9846AC6D0F...@207.115.17.102...
> A quick Monger search (Gawd bless Ethan Burrow!!!) tells us there are
> 12 new rares in the 3rd ed set. The WW 3rd Ed checklist page says there
> are 90 rares sold in the boosters for this set.
>
> (90-12)90*100 = 86.7% of the boosters you buy will contain reprint
> rares.
First of all, I need to say, "Oops". Why was I thinking it was only
six rares? You're right, it's 12. Furthermore, Cracking the Wall,
Gurchon Hall, and New Management are R2s, so 15% of the booster packs
will contain a new rare and 85% will contain a reprint. I believe
uncommons and commons are both 88/12, and vampires are (of course)
0/100.
I stand corrected on this point.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> > That's true, but it's also silly to me, as it doesn't take the size of
> > the set into account.
> >
> > Yes, rare cards in large sets are more "rare" than rare cards in small
> > sets. Aside from only printing small sets, there's no way to get around
> > this, though, is there?
>
> No, I don't think you're getting the point. Set size is a different
> matter. The numbers that are important are 94% reprints, 6% new
> cards. No matter how big the set, it's harder to get new cards when
> they're printed in a small proportion amongst a population of reprints
> because older players have considerably less incentive to buy many
> boosters.
Hmm. Theoretically, that seems sound. In practice, all the players I
know (all older players) have bought as much or more of this set as
they have any of the others. And it's not done with its first printing
yet, and I suspect people will buy yet more of the second printing
(assuming all the repartition and quality tomfoolery has been dealt
with). So all I've got is this anecdotal evidence, but it totally
doesn't gel with what you're writing here.
And, as I wrote, there doesn't seem to be any way to get around what
seems to be your issue with the rarity, aside from only ever printing
sets with no reprints in the boosters. Yes/no?
> > It's a super-rare chase card because the distribution is all fucked up
> > and we haven't gone through the first print run, though, not because
> > the card is actually particularly rare (ie, there were as many Hearts
> > printed as other cards of its rarity).
>
> No, it's a super-rare chase card becuase it's actually particularly
> rare. I'm not even taking the distribution into account - although
> that point even aggravates the problem still further.
It's no more rare than any other R2 in this set. Are you claiming that
all the R2s in this set are super-rare chase cards?
John Eno
Kushiel wrote:
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > > That's true, but it's also silly to me, as it doesn't take the size of
> > > the set into account.
> > >
> > > Yes, rare cards in large sets are more "rare" than rare cards in small
> > > sets. Aside from only printing small sets, there's no way to get around
> > > this, though, is there?
> >
> > No, I don't think you're getting the point. Set size is a different
> > matter. The numbers that are important are 94% reprints, 6% new
> > cards. No matter how big the set, it's harder to get new cards when
> > they're printed in a small proportion amongst a population of reprints
> > because older players have considerably less incentive to buy many
> > boosters.
>
> Hmm. Theoretically, that seems sound. In practice, all the players I
> know (all older players) have bought as much or more of this set as
> they have any of the others. And it's not done with its first printing
> yet, and I suspect people will buy yet more of the second printing
> (assuming all the repartition and quality tomfoolery has been dealt
> with). So all I've got is this anecdotal evidence, but it totally
> doesn't gel with what you're writing here.
I should amend this to note that it's not entirely true - Mr. Bakija
did mention to me that he hasn't bought much and doesn't plan to. My
experience has been with the local folks.
John Eno
"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158960326....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:>> No, I don't think you're getting the point. Set size is a different
>> matter. The numbers that are important are 94% reprints, 6% new
>> cards. No matter how big the set, it's harder to get new cards when
>> they're printed in a small proportion amongst a population of reprints
>> because older players have considerably less incentive to buy many
>> boosters.>
> Hmm. Theoretically, that seems sound. In practice, all the players I
> know (all older players) have bought as much or more of this set as
> they have any of the others.
As what others? Which other sets are you trying to compare 3rd Edition
to on a one-to-one basis, such that you could compare absolute number of
boosters purchased? Remember, 3E uses 100-card cardsheets for all rarity
levels (tempered slightly by the existance of a small number of R2s).
KMW used 50-card card cardsheets at all rarity levels (and had no
separate "uncommon" level). Legacies used two 50-card card sheets for
their 3-to-1 ratio of new cards to reprints - having the effect of being
a 66 2/3rd card cardsheet for new rares and a 200 card cardsheet for
reprint rares. (50 card cardsheet for vampires and the commons were, er,
rather complex.) Black Hand had some anomolies but was basically based on
50-card cardsheets. Gehenna was straight 50-card cardsheets. Anarchs
had some slight anomolies but was basically based on 50-card cardsheets.
You basically have to go back to Camarilla Edition to find another
set to find the same rarity levels - and Camarilla Edition has the
same problem this one does. And was printed for the same stated
purpose, leading one to conclude that Third Edition was likely based on
the Camarilla Edition model. The trouble is - when looked at that way -
that a number of Third Editions new library cards are much more useful
than Camarilla Edition's were. I think Baltimore Purge was about the
most useful new library card in that set.
> So all I've got is this anecdotal evidence, but it totally
> doesn't gel with what you're writing here.
Given the fact that there are more cards on the cardsheets, your
comparison doesn't tell you anything. I guess this is where set
size does matter.
And I rather believe in the practical application of my theory.
Certainly it's true in my case; I would have bought significantly more
boosters had the set contained all new cards at these rarity levels,
and happily so. As it is, I mostly sized my purchase based on the
number of new vampires I wanted to pick up and I've been kind of
throwing up my hands at the new library cards (or gritting my teeth
and overspending on EBAY for singles, where I've been able to stand
it). And the prices of new 3E singles on EBAY I've had to pay also
tends to confirm it. Not just HoN but all of them; HoN is just the
lightning rod discussion card, here. Mirror Walk is cool, for
instance. But it shouldn't be so cool that it's selling for over
$10 a card. Not for a common.
> And, as I wrote, there doesn't seem to be any way to get around what
> seems to be your issue with the rarity, aside from only ever printing
> sets with no reprints in the boosters. Yes/no?
Well, Peter's new/old idea is probably the way to go. Print new cards
at a relatively lower rarity level than they'd go for in an all-new
card set. This is, in effect, what they did with the 3-to-1 new to
reprint rare card ratio in Legacies. Perhaps the classic model for
it would be the 10th Anniversary Edition rares, where new cards were
essentially printed at twice the rarity level as the reprints, if you
bought one of each tin.
>> > It's a super-rare chase card because the distribution is all fucked up
>> > and we haven't gone through the first print run, though, not because
>> > the card is actually particularly rare (ie, there were as many Hearts
>> > printed as other cards of its rarity).
>>
>> No, it's a super-rare chase card becuase it's actually particularly
>> rare. I'm not even taking the distribution into account - although
>> that point even aggravates the problem still further.>
> It's no more rare than any other R2 in this set.
Heart of Nizchetus is actually an R1, not an R2.
> Are you claiming that all the R2s in this set are super-rare chase cards?
I'm saying small numbers of new R1 cards in a set otherwise filled with
reprints are "super-rares" in effect. "Chase" is a word used to convey
my subjective judgement that that HoN, particularly, is in high demand
because it's such a great card.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> As what others? Which other sets are you trying to compare 3rd Edition
> to on a one-to-one basis, such that you could compare absolute number of
> boosters purchased? Remember, 3E uses 100-card cardsheets for all rarity
> levels (tempered slightly by the existance of a small number of R2s).
> KMW used 50-card card cardsheets at all rarity levels (and had no
> separate "uncommon" level). Legacies used two 50-card card sheets for
> their 3-to-1 ratio of new cards to reprints - having the effect of being
> a 66 2/3rd card cardsheet for new rares and a 200 card cardsheet for
> reprint rares. (50 card cardsheet for vampires and the commons were, er,
> rather complex.) Black Hand had some anomolies but was basically based on
> 50-card cardsheets. Gehenna was straight 50-card cardsheets. Anarchs
> had some slight anomolies but was basically based on 50-card cardsheets.
Your math fu is too strong for me! I submit. :)
> You basically have to go back to Camarilla Edition to find another
> set to find the same rarity levels - and Camarilla Edition has the
> same problem this one does. And was printed for the same stated
> purpose, leading one to conclude that Third Edition was likely based on
> the Camarilla Edition model. The trouble is - when looked at that way -
> that a number of Third Editions new library cards are much more useful
> than Camarilla Edition's were. I think Baltimore Purge was about the
> most useful new library card in that set.
You're not really going to tell me that you think Weighted Walking
Stick isn't good, are you? I mean, it's way better than Baltimore
Purge...but I digress.
Okay. I agree with what you're saying here.
> Given the fact that there are more cards on the cardsheets, your
> comparison doesn't tell you anything. I guess this is where set
> size does matter.
Okiedoke.
> And I rather believe in the practical application of my theory.
> Certainly it's true in my case; I would have bought significantly more
> boosters had the set contained all new cards at these rarity levels,
> and happily so. As it is, I mostly sized my purchase based on the
> number of new vampires I wanted to pick up and I've been kind of
> throwing up my hands at the new library cards (or gritting my teeth
> and overspending on EBAY for singles, where I've been able to stand
> it). And the prices of new 3E singles on EBAY I've had to pay also
> tends to confirm it. Not just HoN but all of them; HoN is just the
> lightning rod discussion card, here. Mirror Walk is cool, for
> instance. But it shouldn't be so cool that it's selling for over
> $10 a card. Not for a common.
So should we have base sets that are nothing but reprints, and small
sets with no reprints? Because I still don't see any other way to solve
this. DJ's idea is a good step toward alleviating it, but it doesn't
eliminate it.
> Well, Peter's new/old idea is probably the way to go.
It was DJ's idea, in case posterity is reading this. :)
> Print new cards
> at a relatively lower rarity level than they'd go for in an all-new
> card set. This is, in effect, what they did with the 3-to-1 new to
> reprint rare card ratio in Legacies. Perhaps the classic model for
> it would be the 10th Anniversary Edition rares, where new cards were
> essentially printed at twice the rarity level as the reprints, if you
> bought one of each tin.
People also complained about the reprints in LoB, though. (Someone did
so just yesterday over at Ethan Burrow's Presence forums, actually,
though it was in the context of 3rd Edition.) So, really, the only
lesson from that seems to be that people will complain about getting
reprints, unless they like the reprints they got from the packs they
opened. It's a lot like complaining about any cards you got that you
didn't really want; ie, not actually a solvable problem. Unless you
trade with other people. Which is, like, crazy moon talk, I know.
> > It's no more rare than any other R2 in this set.
>
> Heart of Nizchetus is actually an R1, not an R2.
Okay.
> > Are you claiming that all the R2s in this set are super-rare chase cards?
>
> I'm saying small numbers of new R1 cards in a set otherwise filled with
> reprints are "super-rares" in effect. "Chase" is a word used to convey
> my subjective judgement that that HoN, particularly, is in high demand
> because it's such a great card.
So how is this different from the new rares and uncommons from the
Camarilla set, as you pointed out at the beginning of your post? How
would you fix this?
John Eno
In message <uaYQg.95$UJ2.83@fed1read07>, Frederick Scott
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>No, I don't think you're getting the point. Set size is a different
>matter. The numbers that are important are 94% reprints, 6% new
>cards.
Except the set is 390 cards, and 136 of them are new cards. Making the
relative figures about 66% and 33%.
Given that there hasn't been an uproar of "But all these vampires are
utterly useless", it seems likely that at least some of them will be
wanted by people. And at least some of them will be wanted in
relatively large numbers (3-5 for a star deck), presumably. And
reasonable crypts for anyone who fancies playing 3-4 crypts for whatever
reason - they don't own much Sabbat War, say, or want to flesh out a
Legacies of Blood (3-4) deck, or whatever.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158965301.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm saying small numbers of new R1 cards in a set otherwise filled with
>> reprints are "super-rares" in effect. "Chase" is a word used to convey
>> my subjective judgement that that HoN, particularly, is in high demand
>> because it's such a great card.>
> So how is this different from the new rares and uncommons from the
> Camarilla set, as you pointed out at the beginning of your post?
It isn't different. Except in that the Camarilla Edition new cards
weren't that useful on the whole. OK, Weighted Walking Stick - but
that was a common. It would have worked just fine as an uncommon
in an all-new-card set. Baltimore Purge would have worked just fine
as a rare. Tension in the Ranks was somewhat useful - but it was
printed as an R2. High Ground was a common. The others were so
strange I can't recall ever seeing them (though I'm probably forgetting
one or more).
The Third Edition cards seem to be - as a group - distinctly more
useful, IMHO. Otherwise, there's no difference between the two
sets.
> How would you fix this?
Ideally, I would put no new cards in a reprint set. White Wolf
doesn't seem to like their prospects of making sales under that
constraint, however. So I expect it's a non-starter of an idea.
Therefore, on to one that has a snowball's chance, which is...
Increase the commonality of new cards - DJ's idea (I guess). People
complained about reprints in LoB but LoB wasn't the same situation
in a number of ways. It wasn't printed to fulfill the same goal,
it was a combination of two different goals (reprint Bloodlines with
a few new Bloodlines cards plus print a set based on a new minor
sect). That caused other problems such as forcing people to buy
a set containing two themes even if they only wanted one of them.
(That is, I want Bloodlines reprints and I'm forced to accept
Laibon clan cards as well or vica versa.) Or the common cards such
as Tupdogs that weren't common enough. I think the complaints
voiced about reprints in Legacies were really just a catch-all
for all sorts of minor dissatisfactions that came up in LoB.
Bottom line, for 3E purposes, just making all the new cards less
rare would go a long way in fixing the problem without much of
a drawback.
And not printing undercosted cards wouldn't hurt.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> Ideally, I would put no new cards in a reprint set. White Wolf
> doesn't seem to like their prospects of making sales under that
> constraint, however. So I expect it's a non-starter of an idea.
> Therefore, on to one that has a snowball's chance, which is...
I think White Wolf is smart enough to know that returning players are
the source of the majority of their V:TES sales. And older players
aren't likely to buy much of a reprint-only set.
> And not printing undercosted cards wouldn't hurt.
Hoo boy. You're talking about the Heart of Nietzsche here? Isn't it a
little early to start stating whether it's overcosted? 'Cause I can't
see it, if it is.
John Eno
Kushiel wrote:
>
> Hmm. Theoretically, that seems sound. In practice, all the players I
> know (all older players) have bought as much or more of this set as
> they have any of the others. And it's not done with its first printing
> yet, and I suspect people will buy yet more of the second printing
> (assuming all the repartition and quality tomfoolery has been dealt
> with). So all I've got is this anecdotal evidence, but it totally
> doesn't gel with what you're writing here.> John Eno
I know we've never met, but through the wonder of the internet I would
say about you, "Yeah, I know that guy." I would think you would say
the same of me. That being said, I have yet to purchase ANY 3E cards.
After going over the list on the WW site, I noticed that the majority
of the cards - the vast majority - I already have in sufficient
quantity. It turns out right around Sabbat and Sabbat War was my VtES
playing heyday. I always buy a box of boosters and starters when a new
set comes out, but with this one, I figured I didn't want to spend $120
for a pile of stuff I already have and a few new vampires. I'll buy a
set of vampires on-line eventually, pick up 3E boosters when I play at
the shop (I always support the store when I go to play), and try to
rare snipe from JT if I can. My ultimate hope is that I can find a
newer player or two who would be willing to go in on the boxes with me
for the commons and reprints, but I think that's wishful thinking.
Everybody wants the rares.
Kushiel escreveu:
> > Hmm. Theoretically, that seems sound. In practice, all the players I
> > know (all older players) have bought as much or more of this set as
> > they have any of the others. And it's not done with its first printing
> > yet, and I suspect people will buy yet more of the second printing
> > (assuming all the repartition and quality tomfoolery has been dealt
> > with). So all I've got is this anecdotal evidence, but it totally
> > doesn't gel with what you're writing here.
>
> I should amend this to note that it's not entirely true - Mr. Bakija
> did mention to me that he hasn't bought much and doesn't plan to. My
> experience has been with the local folks.
> John Eno
Adding a bit of local observation too (for what it's worth, which is
little) and comments from a few "movers and shakes" (i.e., players who
feed the local playgroup by importing boxes and supplying the extras
for trading) in other brazilian cities...
Customs problems notwithstanding (no prerelease yet), most people who
can import chose not to do so. I've seen a few new cards today from a
couple (relatively new) players who ordered three boxes. They came with
the whole shebang: worn edges, off cutting, wacky distribution (one box
came with three identical boosters save for the Rare, each with the
Helicopter/Direct Intervention pair), you know the chore. That made
everyone else stick harder to what they're already decided... They
won't buy boxes until second printing is out, even that guy who always
buy extra to sell singles (Daniel "Dragos" Martinez, for those who knew
him while he lived in the US).
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
PS: I'm happy if I can get a few On the Qui Vive and Helicopters via
trading. Thank the Messengers the former comes in multiples in the
starters.
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:11WQg.91$UJ2.10@fed1read07...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I've bought 4 boxes of boosters and acquired another half box or so through
miscellaneous purchases. I now am the proud owner of zero (0) HoNs. (And 6
3E Reality Mirrors... hurray.)
Anyway, if I absolutely positively had to have a HoN for my collection
and/or my playing enjoyment, I'd bid >$50 for it.
- Pat
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> Customs problems notwithstanding (no prerelease yet), most people who
> can import chose not to do so. I've seen a few new cards today from a
> couple (relatively new) players who ordered three boxes. They came with
> the whole shebang: worn edges, off cutting, wacky distribution (one box
> came with three identical boosters save for the Rare, each with the
> Helicopter/Direct Intervention pair), you know the chore. That made
> everyone else stick harder to what they're already decided... They
> won't buy boxes until second printing is out, even that guy who always
> buy extra to sell singles (Daniel "Dragos" Martinez, for those who knew
> him while he lived in the US).
I can totally understand that. It doesn't really have all that much to
do with what Fred and I were discussing, though, as you didn't list "we
aren't going to be buying this set because it's mainly reprints"
anywhere. So, presumably, the reason you guys aren't buying this set is
because of the distribution and printing errors, not the contents of
the set, right?
John Eno
Wookie813 wrote:
> I know we've never met, but through the wonder of the internet I would
> say about you, "Yeah, I know that guy." I would think you would say
> the same of me.
Heh. Yeah, I'm sad that you didn't make it to Origins with Merlin and
Bighead. Maybe next year? :)
> That being said, I have yet to purchase ANY 3E cards.
> After going over the list on the WW site, I noticed that the majority
> of the cards - the vast majority - I already have in sufficient
> quantity. It turns out right around Sabbat and Sabbat War was my VtES
> playing heyday. I always buy a box of boosters and starters when a new
> set comes out, but with this one, I figured I didn't want to spend $120
> for a pile of stuff I already have and a few new vampires.
Right on. The bulk of my V:TES purchases were also Sabbat War, but I
was super-excited to get a bunch of new vampires, so I picked up this
set.
> I'll buy a
> set of vampires on-line eventually, pick up 3E boosters when I play at
> the shop (I always support the store when I go to play), and try to
> rare snipe from JT if I can.
Probably smarter than what I did.
> My ultimate hope is that I can find a
> newer player or two who would be willing to go in on the boxes with me
> for the commons and reprints, but I think that's wishful thinking.
> Everybody wants the rares.
I think you're probably right on this point.
John Eno
Kushiel escreveu:
> I can totally understand that. It doesn't really have all that much to
> do with what Fred and I were discussing, though, as you didn't list "we
> aren't going to be buying this set because it's mainly reprints"
> anywhere. So, presumably, the reason you guys aren't buying this set is
> because of the distribution and printing errors, not the contents of
> the set, right?
> John Eno
Oops. Yeah, it is the main reason why.
But of course the contents of the set have some weight in this too. I'd
say the only reason why it's not as big a factor when compared to the
priting errors is that very few people actually have that many copies
of some reprints, except for most commons, since very few people were
actually able to buy multiple boxes when Sabbat War came out. So in
here, the fact that the set is geared mostly for new players doesn't
matter *that* much - as long as the distribution is good, that old
player can live with +X more copies of that uncommon he already has if
he gets +X copies of, say, Weighted Walking Stick or Freak Drive or
whatever along.
I'd risk saying that people wouldn't bother about the printing errors
here if the distribution was acceptable. Too few players are actually
collectors and most are only interested in playing value. But going
through all the effort to import boxes to end up with no [Rare X] or no
[Uncommon Y] is too much. Up to this weekend, some of us had read the
reports in this newsgroup and got worried, but seeing the actual result
of 3 opened boxes cristalized that general stance in most players'
minds. In the end, the wacky distribution can make an older player feel
like he got very few things of interest, just like if he had bought too
many of Sabbat War before. Actually, it's even worse, since he was
expecting to find use for some reprints and didn't got even that.
Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, just imparting some
of the general feel in here.
Fabio "Sooner222" Macedo
"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159132987.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> But of course the contents of the set have some weight in this too. I'd
> say the only reason why it's not as big a factor when compared to the
> priting errors is that very few people actually have that many copies
> of some reprints, except for most commons, since very few people were
> actually able to buy multiple boxes when Sabbat War came out.
Personally I think it is a pretty big factor. I mean, yea, I can always
use some more Hungry Coyotes and Direct Interventions myself - but if
push comes to shove, I don't _need_ them the way I totally "need" (have
some compassion here, I'm an addict and I don't deny it :-) ) the
new cards. So I'm assuming other people feel likewise; albeit the ones
who have fewer in-demand reprints may not feel as strongly about it.
Also, don't forget, the reprints come from a lot of places, not just
The Sabbat and Sabbat War. I really think anyone who has a substantial
extant collection of any sort, not just Sabbat cards, is going to be
ambivalent in their buying patterns.
Fred
>
> I'm gonna guess that R1 is more rare than R2. In that case, sure, I
> agree with this. It does seem like a separate issue from what xcver was
> making, though.
>
> John Eno
>
It's more or less my point too. The distribution in itself causes some
sort of artificial rarity. Of course if you're totally new to this and
only had 3rd Edition it wouldn't been any rarer than for example black
forest base (has anyone got one to spare?) but in a larger context of
sets and adding that a lot of decks might want to use this card (even as
a 1 of) the demand is high. Take Week of Nightmares which was in Final
Nights and thus also very "rare". This only goes in decks of one clan as
a one or two-of. Considering it's worth one can understand why Heart is
valued this high atm. Putting the new cards in the R2 slot would've been
a good opportunity to lessen the impact somewhat but they didn't (only 2
rather crappy ones) so market has to live with the demand in comparison
to it's supply until there comes a precon to fix it (as we know certain
card insertions into precon's was meant to deflate card prices
somewhat...back before it was in a starter DotS was hard to get too and
don't get me started on Tomb of Rameses III before it was errata'd).
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:UGSQg.87$UJ2.14@fed1read07...
> The time is 7:47 AM here in sunny Arizona...
>
> ...and the current high bid on the next Heart of
> Nizchetus coming up for auction is $36.21.
>
> With 4 days and 10 hours left to go on the auction.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=001&item=110035379122&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1
Final price: $47.05.
Fred