I read somewhere that in VTES, most rares are not super good game
winners, but cards you wouldn't want many of in a deck, specialized
cards, as in contrast to the power level of rares in Magic: the
Guthering.
Is that true?
And as far as I know, there is no way to tell a card's rarity by
simply reading it...rarity seems to be less important in this game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'd say it's mostly true. Some rares are exception to this "rule", but
overall the cards that you use most when building decks are common
cards.
There are lots of great rares which could fit into more or less any
deck though, but they're seldom the backbone.
If you have them, you'll use them. If you don't have them you'll
manage just fine.
Undre <sis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I read somewhere that in VTES, most rares are not super good game
>winners, but cards you wouldn't want many of in a deck, specialized
>cards, as in contrast to the power level of rares in Magic: the
>Guthering.
>
>Is that true?
It's not 100% true, but it's a good guide-line.
You *can* make some very powerful decks using mostly rare/uncommon
cards, but some of the most powerful decks in the game use only common
cards. And obviously, you may not be able to make a specific deck you
want without certain rare cards.
Also, 'mistakes' in rarity are made, but they're often 'corrected' some
time later, by reprinting the card in a more easily obtained fashion - a
fixed copy in a pre-constructed starter, a more common printing in a
base set, or similar.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In article
<cd1c8663-d2b7-400b...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Undre <sis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read somewhere that in VTES, most rares are not super good game
> winners, but cards you wouldn't want many of in a deck, specialized
> cards, as in contrast to the power level of rares in Magic: the
> Guthering.
More or less. The cards that tend to win games are the commons. The
rares are weird, specialized cards, or cards that you don't want a lot
of. They are often powerful, sure, but if they are powerful, they tend
to be limited in use, or unique (so you don't want many of them). Not to
say that there aren't occasionally really good decks built around a huge
pile of crazy rares, as there are. But for the most part, the commons
are the cards that make the game go.
> And as far as I know, there is no way to tell a card's rarity by
> simply reading it...rarity seems to be less important in this game.
Correct. I'm not quite sure what "rarity seems to be less important in
this game" means, however. There are still rares/uncommons/commons, and
occasionally R1/R2 kind of distinctions. But in terms of game play, are
there *any* games where the rarity has an impact on actual game play
(i.e. maybe a limit based on rarity? Or something?). I mean, if you are
swapping cards, it usually helps to know a card's rarity level, and a
lack of rarity indicator can be a hassle there. But other than that, is
there a need to be able to tell a card's rarity by simply reading it?
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Undre wrote:
> I read somewhere that in VTES, most rares are not super good game
> winners, but cards you wouldn't want many of in a deck, specialized
> cards, as in contrast to the power level of rares in Magic: the
> Guthering. Is that true?
Yes. Being a "no card limit" game, instead of, say, a 4-card limit game
like Magic, there are different thought processes going on regarding
power and rarity.
> And as far as I know, there is no way to tell a card's rarity by
> simply reading it...rarity seems to be less important in this game.
Rarity is still important, but over the years there has been a small but
vocal group of players who do not wish V:TES to become even more
popular and player-friendly, as they are stuck in the past and lament
even the smallest change to the game they love while the CCG world
turns around them.
Hence no rarity indicators.
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
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
In article
<139baa60-fa5b-4467...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Undre <sis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aha, I see. And as I will not play in tournaments, only casually, I
> will do fine, I guess.
Oh, sure--one of the most effective strategies in the game (stealth and
bleed) is made almost completely of commons (stealth cards and bleed
cards) and a few uncommons (is Telepathic Misdirection uncommon these
days?). Rares make for interesting color or bonus fun, or the occasional
power hit, but for the most part, as noted, not super necessary in a
general sense.
That being said, again, there are some exceptions--some cards are rare
that should not have been rare in the first place (and some cards that
used to be rare have been made more common in later sets). And some rare
cards are stupidly good, even if they are unique (Ivory Bow, Dreams of
the Sphinx). And to be fair, rare cards *do* tend to have powerful
effects (with appropriate costs), but when they are powerful, they tend
to have a significant cost or limits.
What you won't find in VTES, however, are instances of "this Rare card
is just better than that Common card, just 'cause it is Rare", as VTES
is a game where appropriate cost and effect are hugely important, and
rarity has no impact on that.
That, and VTES has a really good track record of making good/powerful
cards easy to get by making them fixed in starter decks--for example,
one of the really powerful "chase" kinda rares for many years was the
War Ghoul, a very powerful ally (that was made long, long ago when the
designers of VTES were not the people that have been running the game
for the last 10+) that people wanted a lot of to build decks out of. And
were very powerful rares. So for a long time, War Ghouls were incredibly
difficult to get and sold for a lot (relatively speaking--a really
expensive VTES card is, like, 20 bucks) on e-bay. Eventually, this was
solved when a new appropriate started deck was printed, and War Ghoul
was a fixed card in the starter. So anyone could get all the War Ghouls
they wanted for 10 bucks a pop out of starter decks (and then another
deck full of good cards too). That happens a lot in this game. So
collectors/card speculators often become cranky ("All these war ghouls I
spend 20 bucks on are now worthless!"), but players are usually happy
with this sort of thing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> Undre <sis...@gmail.com> wrote:>> I read somewhere that in VTES, most rares are not super good game
>> winners, but cards you wouldn't want many of in a deck, specialized
>> cards, as in contrast to the power level of rares in Magic: the
>> Guthering.
>>
>> Is that true?>
> It's not 100% true, but it's a good guide-line.
>
> You *can* make some very powerful decks using mostly rare/uncommon
> cards, but some of the most powerful decks in the game use only common
> cards. And obviously, you may not be able to make a specific deck you
> want without certain rare cards.
>
> Also, 'mistakes' in rarity are made, but they're often 'corrected' some
> time later, by reprinting the card in a more easily obtained fashion - a
> fixed copy in a pre-constructed starter, a more common printing in a
> base set, or similar.
>
*Cough villein Cough*
best -
chris
(As an example of a card that needs to have its "rarity" fixed.)
Peter D Bakija wrote:
But in terms of game play, are
> there *any* games where the rarity has an impact on actual game play
> (i.e. maybe a limit based on rarity? Or something?).
In YuGiOh there are common cards and rare cards with the same in-game
"cost", but the rares are just plain better.
best -
chris
In article <adBUl.140349$5N7....@newsfe09.iad>,
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Rarity is still important, but over the years there has been a small but
> vocal group of players who do not wish V:TES to become even more
> popular and player-friendly, as they are stuck in the past and lament
> even the smallest change to the game they love while the CCG world
> turns around them.
>
> Hence no rarity indicators.
Heh--while I have no real investment one way or the other, in terms of
rarity indicators, I don't know that it hurts the game at all that they
aren't there (but certainly also wouldn't hurt if they were and were non
obtrusive--heck a little C, U, R, V or whatever next to the artist by
line or something would be very easy to implement). That being said,
knowing what cards are rare or not isn't difficult (do I have 10 of
them? Common! Do I have 1? Rare! :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 31 May 2009 15:52:58 -0400, Peter D Bakija wrote:
>(is Telepathic Misdirection uncommon these days?)
Nope, always common + starter.
http://www.secretlibrary.info/index.php
Set(s): Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:C/PM4, BH:PM3/PTo4, Third:C/PM2, KoT:C/PT4
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>Oh, sure--one of the most effective strategies in the game (stealth and
>bleed) is made almost completely of commons (stealth cards and bleed
>cards) and a few uncommons (is Telepathic Misdirection uncommon these
>days?).
No, it's common (or fixed) in every set it's been in.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>Rarity is still important, but over the years there has been a small but
>vocal group of players who do not wish V:TES to become even more
>popular and player-friendly, as they are stuck in the past and lament
>even the smallest change to the game they love while the CCG world
>turns around them.
"Small but vocal" has pretty much never resulted in something happening
(or not happening) during LSJ's tenure. I can't see why this would be
an exception.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <gvund2$qfo$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> In YuGiOh there are common cards and rare cards with the same in-game
> "cost", but the rares are just plain better.
Oh, heh, I guess I didn't word that right. I meant "are there games
where *knowing* if something is rare or not relevant to actual game
play". I know there are all sorts of games where Rares are just better
than Commons or whatever, but in the context of the game, is it
important to actually *know* that the card is rare as opposed to
something else? Like, in YuGiOh, is there a deck building rule that
states "you can only have 10 rare cards in your deck" or something?
Actually, now that I think of it, the mid 90's Doctor Who CCG (which was
possibly the *worst* CCG I have ever seen--see D.J.? I don't just hate
Dune! Dune was better than this one!), IIRC, had a limit to cards in
your deck by rarity. Hmm...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <gvuna3$qfo$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> *Cough villein Cough*
>
> best -
>
> chris
>
> (As an example of a card that needs to have its "rarity" fixed.)
Heh. I'd be surprised if whatever the next starter set is doesn't come
with 2x Villein in each starter.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>
> *Cough villein Cough*
>
> best -
>
> chris
>
> (As an example of a card that needs to have its "rarity" fixed.)
It's not so much the uncommon rarity that's a problem, it's that it's
new. I'm desperate for a bunch more Deep Song and Ashur Tablets, too,
even though they're common.
[ quoted text not captured ]
When looking as a big base set, you should treat commons as
uncommons... there are more on the sheet and you get 2 less common
slots. So Deep Song and Ashur Tablet are currently uncommon cards
(you can expect fewer of each than you'd see of a vampire in midsized
set)... and Villein is a rare (uncommons in KoT being as rare as rares
in midsized sets).
Brent Ross
[ quoted text not captured ]> > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/>
> It's not like every other card game since 1998 has done it in some way.
Please, please please tell me you are being sarcastic. Really please.
Cos VtES is one of the few still extant ones that has not.....
On May 31, 3:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> In article <gvund2$qf...@news.eternal-september.org>,>
> librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> > In YuGiOh there are common cards and rare cards with the same in-game
> > "cost", but the rares are just plain better.
>
> Oh, heh, I guess I didn't word that right. I meant "are there games
> where *knowing* if something is rare or not relevant to actual game
> play". I know there are all sorts of games where Rares are just better
> than Commons or whatever, but in the context of the game, is it
> important to actually *know* that the card is rare as opposed to
> something else? Like, in YuGiOh, is there a deck building rule that
> states "you can only have 10 rare cards in your deck" or something?
>
VTES is a pretty good example. you have to put the "vampire" rarity
cards in their own seperate deck for each game you play :)
On Jun 1, 6:12 am, headlessr...@gmail.com wrote:
> VTES is a pretty good example. you have to put the "vampire" rarity
> cards in their own seperate deck for each game you play :)
I realize you are just being cheeky, but I don't know that this holds--
vampires come in different rarities across sets, and in game play, it
is irrelevant. Some are essentially U, some are their own rarity, some
are R, some vampires were U1 vs U2 or whatever. Yeah, vampires go in
their own deck, but the specific rarity of each vampire card is
irrelevant.
-Peter
On May 31, 3:11 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> But in terms of game play, are
> there *any* games where the rarity has an impact on actual game play
> (i.e. maybe a limit based on rarity? Or something?).
The Ultimate Combat! CCG had deck-construction rules based on rarity;
I don't remember what they were, but there were fixed upper limits of
how many cards at a given rarity you could put into a deck.
Of course, the Ultimate Combat! CCG also featured the card "Body
Odor."
So there's your arcane CCG trivia answer for today!
- D.J.
> > *Cough villein Cough*>
> It's not so much the uncommon rarity that's a problem, it's that it's
> new. I'm desperate for a bunch more Deep Song and Ashur Tablets, too,
> even though they're common.
I disagree. It'd be fine if it weren't for the sheer volume of other
cards in KoT competing for those same spaces. Sadly, for new players
(and therefore, a base set) it's perfect, they get a nice spread of
different cards. For those of us fishing specifically for KoT cards
(Deep Song, Old Friends, Eyes of Argus etc) it's a total PITA.
I'd beg LSJ to do a BSC type affair with just these cards, but it'd
set an awful precedent on every large set.
On Jun 1, 4:59 pm, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> it's a total PITA.
PITA?
I demand enlightenment. Or at the very least a poke with a somewhat
blunted stick!
Sleep, ah, joyous sleep. One day I too shall have it....
Blooded Sand wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:59 pm, Shockwave <d_knowles...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> it's a total PITA.>
> PITA?
Pain in the arrears.
http://www.dtxtrapp.com/glossary.htm
> Of course, the Ultimate Combat! CCG also featured the card "Body
> Odor."
lol
Well, I know players who have that function integrated so it doesn't depend
on cards, really. ;-)