[LSJ] Booster Distribution

Hi, I noticed in the checklist (from alliance games) that there were no rarity indicators on vampires, and since there's the standard 11 card booster, as well as the usual rarities (C-100/U-100/R2-72/R-14, i think), I was wondering what will be be the rarity distribution in the boosters? Oh and something else, the list indicated that Rotschreck will now be uncommon, so if it is possible could you state its errata. I can not believe that there isn't any. Thanks

Uriel wrote: > > Hi, > > I noticed in the checklist (from alliance games) that there were no > rarity indicators on vampires, and since there's the standard 11 card > booster, as well as the usual rarities (C-100/U-100/R2-72/R-14, i > think), I was wondering what will be be the rarity distribution in the > boosters? 385 cards in the booster assortment, as advertised. 100 Common 100 Uncommon 100 Vampire 85 Rare (70 R1, 15 R2) The boosters contain 11 cards, 1 of which is from the rare sheet. The composition of the other 10 cards is 5C/3U/2V to the best of my knowledge, but I might be wrong on that. > Oh and something else, the list indicated that Rotschreck will now be > uncommon, so if it is possible could you state its errata. I can not > believe that there isn't any. Card text migrations will be posted during the course of the preview. Rotschreck was uncommon when originally printed, IIRC. Printed text doesn't qualify as errata, BTW. Errata is non-printed changes to a printed card/rule. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D271362...@white-wolf.com>... > Uriel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I noticed in the checklist (from alliance games) that there were no > > rarity indicators on vampires, and since there's the standard 11 card > > booster, as well as the usual rarities (C-100/U-100/R2-72/R-14, i > > think), I was wondering what will be be the rarity distribution in the > > boosters? > > 385 cards in the booster assortment, as advertised. > > 100 Common > 100 Uncommon > 100 Vampire > 85 Rare (70 R1, 15 R2) > > The boosters contain 11 cards, 1 of which is from the rare sheet. > > The composition of the other 10 cards is 5C/3U/2V to the best of > my knowledge, but I might be wrong on that. > Hmmm,... why are the vampires more hard to find, then the uncommons? This is indeed strange, vampire, especialy for newbies (the target audience) is the primary card resource of the game and with this tactic will be restricted. They'll have to buy at least two displays to have one of each. This isn't usualy the case with new players (at least at my experience). Aris Prince of Thessaloniki

> > Hmmm,... why are the vampires more hard to find, then the uncommons? > This is indeed strange, vampire, especialy for newbies (the target > audience) is the primary card resource of the game and with this > tactic will be restricted. They'll have to buy at least two displays > to have one of each. This isn't usualy the case with new players (at > least at my experience). > > Aris > Prince of Thessaloniki That's why they have starters.

In article <e8b60e8d.02070...@posting.google.com>, Uriel <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D271362...@white-wolf.com>... >> The boosters contain 11 cards, 1 of which is from the rare sheet. >> >> The composition of the other 10 cards is 5C/3U/2V to the best of >> my knowledge, but I might be wrong on that. >Hmmm,... why are the vampires more hard to find, then the uncommons? >This is indeed strange, vampire, especialy for newbies (the target >audience) is the primary card resource of the game and with this >tactic will be restricted. They'll have to buy at least two displays >to have one of each. This isn't usualy the case with new players (at >least at my experience). If memory serves, this is the same rarity distro used for Jyhad. It seemed to work then. Theory: A given uncommon may well be desired in higher multiples than a given vampire. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > Uriel <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D271362...@white-wolf.com>... > > >> The boosters contain 11 cards, 1 of which is from the rare sheet. > >> > >> The composition of the other 10 cards is 5C/3U/2V to the best of > >> my knowledge, but I might be wrong on that. > > >Hmmm,... why are the vampires more hard to find, then the uncommons? > >This is indeed strange, vampire, especialy for newbies (the target > >audience) is the primary card resource of the game and with this > >tactic will be restricted. They'll have to buy at least two displays > >to have one of each. This isn't usualy the case with new players (at > >least at my experience). > > If memory serves, this is the same rarity distro used for Jyhad. > It seemed to work then. > > Theory: A given uncommon may well be desired in higher multiples than a > given vampire. Exactly. Some have even suggested that the vampires should be "rare". Also notice that 6 boosters gets you 12 vampires and 54 library cards, so the proportion of vampires to library cards in booster packs is *higher* than the proportion found in decks. Also remember: you don't need one of each vampire to build a deck (just like you don't need one of each uncommon, nor even one of each common). [ quoted text not captured ]

galama...@hotmail.com (Uriel) wrote in message: > > The boosters contain 11 cards, 1 of which is from the rare sheet. > > > > The composition of the other 10 cards is 5C/3U/2V to the best of > > my knowledge, but I might be wrong on that. > > > > Hmmm,... why are the vampires more hard to find, then the uncommons? (I'll pretend to be cynical for a moment...) Maybe because, for the oldtimers who have loads of Majesty, Concealed Weapons and other cards from Jyhad/VtES set (hum, like me), the main interest into this sets are the *Vampires* themselves... 100 new vamp, only 15 new library cards, and 250 copies of multiples copies we already have. The odds are against us (yes, I know: "never tell a Ravnos the odds"). With this distribution, if we want to get all the *new* cards, we'd have to buy lots of boosters... I'm starting to seriously consider waiting until I see auctions on eBay on "Full CE vampires set!" before buying anything from that set... Wonder at how much it will start though. :-/ > This is indeed strange, vampire, especialy for newbies (the target > audience) is the primary card resource of the game and with this > tactic will be restricted. They'll have to buy at least two displays > to have one of each. This isn't usualy the case with new players (at > least at my experience). The starters seem to have plenty of those old vampires (DS, AH and FN, as well as a few of the new ones)... So they shouldn't have problem getting enough to play. Just my 2 cynical cents. F.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D28A79A...@white-wolf.com>... > Gomi no Sensei wrote: > > Uriel <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3D271362...@white-wolf.com>... > > > >> The boosters contain 11 cards, 1 of which is from the rare sheet. > > >> > > >> The composition of the other 10 cards is 5C/3U/2V to the best of > > >> my knowledge, but I might be wrong on that. > > > >Hmmm,... why are the vampires more hard to find, then the uncommons? > > >This is indeed strange, vampire, especialy for newbies (the target > > >audience) is the primary card resource of the game and with this > > >tactic will be restricted. They'll have to buy at least two displays > > >to have one of each. This isn't usualy the case with new players (at > > >least at my experience). > > > > If memory serves, this is the same rarity distro used for Jyhad. > > It seemed to work then. > > > > Theory: A given uncommon may well be desired in higher multiples than a > > given vampire. > > Exactly. Some have even suggested that the vampires should be "rare". > > Also notice that 6 boosters gets you 12 vampires and 54 library cards, > so the proportion of vampires to library cards in booster packs is > *higher* than the proportion found in decks. > > Also remember: you don't need one of each vampire to build a deck (just > like you don't need one of each uncommon, nor even one of each common). You have a point there, if someone compares it to rare vampires (as in FN), this seems a lot better. I just hesitate to list it as a good choice, because most players around here play VTES with small collection (though competative decks). Now they'll just limit themself to our drafts (which isn't a bad thing, afterall). I also want to state my disatisfaction about the choices made in BL and CE, they, de facto, split the players to old and new. I can see some necessity behind them, but then again they weren't the best choices made (an expansion for old-timers and a base set for newbies).

Uriel wrote: > I also want to state my disatisfaction about the choices made in BL > and CE, they, de facto, split the players to old and new. I can see BL ws a complex expansion and is, therefore, more suited to experienced players, yes. CE is a base set and is, by definition, accessible to new players (although it doesn't exclude experienced players), so I don't share your opinion that the two sets "de facto" split the player base in twain. > some necessity behind them, but then again they weren't the best > choices made (an expansion for old-timers and a base set for newbies). Can't please all the people all the time, sure. Nothing new there. Identifying the poor choices *and* identifying what you believe would have been a better choice (and why) would be an example of something constructive, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Uriel" <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e8b60e8d.02070...@posting.google.com... > Oh and something else, the list indicated that Rotschreck will now be > uncommon, so if it is possible could you state its errata. I can not > believe that there isn't any. Why would there have to be? It's currently played as it was written in its Jyhad printing. It does have a ruling that could be incorporated in its text (that combat ends before it sends the vampire to torpor, and restarting combat will avoid the "go to torpor" effect), and it could probably stand to be reworded for clarity ;-) but it doesn't seem to me to need any errata/most recent printing change. Josh unsure

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<agf8jt$l20fo$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Because it is very hard to deal with it, well let me correct myself it is impossible to counter it effectively.

in article e8b60e8d.02070...@posting.google.com, Uriel at galama...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/9/02 5:45 PM: [ quoted text not captured ] Hmm...well... This card represents an effect that is incredibly hard to deal with effectively in the role playing game from which V:TES comes, but I suppose that is beside the point. After the most recent rulings this card is no longer unable to be dealt with. A simple psych!, or telepathic tracking would get you around it. My point is that there are in fact several ways in which to deal with it. I do wish people would at least wait for the set to come out before they begin petty nitpicking and criticism. Why it is necessary to harass LSJ before the release is beyond me. The cards are printed, try waiting to see them before all the rants. Scott

"Uriel" <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e8b60e8d.02070...@posting.google.com... [countering Rotschreck] > Because it is very hard to deal with it, well let me correct myself it > is impossible to counter it effectively. Methods to deal with Rotschreck: a) Use Psyche to restart combat. Thanks to the May rulings. b) Use Telepathic Tracking to start another round. Ditto. c) Don't get blocked. d) Realize that your predator or prey can only play *one* per turn, and they're losing MPAs that they could be using for pool gain or something exciting like that, suck it up, and simply rescue the vampire that went down. e) As a last resort, you could stop taking actions. Xian

"Uriel" <galama...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e8b60e8d.02070...@posting.google.com... [errata for Rotschreck?] > Because it is very hard to deal with it, well let me correct myself it > is impossible to counter it effectively. I dunno, I've never seen a really "dominating" Rotschreck deck. Yes, it can be very difficult to avoid getting a vampire sent to torpor once per turn. But that shouldn't be enough to keep you from ousting them. If you're playing combat, you can beat up all their vampires with impunity after they've used their one Rotschreck. If you're playing vote, you can call votes and not worry about getting Rotschrecked after the first one. If you're playing bleed, likewise. If they're playing so much intercept/blocking that you won't be able to get *any* actions through (as their predator) and so will be unable to rescue your Rotschrecked vampires *or* do any damage to them, then they're playing a deck that automatically loses, as far as I can tell. You can't win games by ousting your predator. You just give the game away to someone else (your grandpredator for example). If that's what they're doing, they should stop playing to lose. :-) Josh dislikes playing to lose

>You can't win games by ousting >your predator. You just give the game away to someone else >(your grandpredator for example). If that's what they're doing, >they should stop playing to lose. :-) Well, at times you can win games by ousting your predator (i.e. when divvying and splitting up the points among the table). In addition, when you have a particularly difficult predator (either his deck completely hoses yours or he simply won't negotiate even if it's in his best interest), you very well may be best off to wall up and/or go backwards. Anyway, ousting or even simply bleeding your predator for a *whole lot* can be lots of fun. Right Christian? (ha ha!) =P Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020711002829...@mb-cc.aol.com... > Anyway, ousting or even simply bleeding your predator for a *whole lot* can be > lots of fun. Right Christian? (ha ha!) =P I can't believe you bled *me* for more than my predator did. You bled me for what, like 11 or 12? :P Xian

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020711002829...@mb-cc.aol.com... > >You can't win games by ousting > >your predator. You just give the game away to someone else > >(your grandpredator for example). If that's what they're doing, > >they should stop playing to lose. :-) > > > Well, at times you can win games by ousting your predator (i.e. > when divvying and splitting up the points among the table). Argh. Don't talk to be about table splitting. :-P In my opinion - and in tournaments I run - it's almost never legal to make a deal specifically to help someone else win a game. > In addition, when you have a > particularly difficult predator (either his deck completely hoses > yours or he simply won't negotiate even if it's in his best interest), > you very well may be best off to wall up and/or go backwards. Sure. Maybe. But you're not getting any closer to actually winning by ousting your predator. You can at least stay in the game and later maybe be able to oust your prey, but you get no VPs for ousting your predator. Josh uncollaborative

>Argh. Don't talk to be about table splitting. :-P > >In my opinion - and in tournaments I run - it's almost never >legal to make a deal specifically to help someone else win a >game. Actually, when I referred to splitting and divvying up points I was thinking more along the lines of a classic 2-1-1-1-0 type of split (as opposed to deal-making). Splitting up the VP's among many players. I've found it common when everyone brings power bleed decks. Say a 5-player game A-->B-->C-->D-->E and you're A. Now C is close to ousting D and D is close to ousting E. If you do nothing, C takes out D and finishes up the much weakened E, gaining 2 VP's and lots of pool. But say you can oust E, giving D a single VP and 6 pool. The 6 pool will provide a bit more of a speedbump (but not enough to prevent his inevitable ousting) and by splitting up the VP's among the players, you have a better chance at a Table Win. Of course it really helps if you can bleed other players (Raphael, Julia, Night Moves, Cat Burglary, Kindred Spirits, etc.) or you can do vote damage to them. If you know that your deck can take out your prey in a long protracted game but you're worried about the other players, it can sometimes be to your benefit to have each player taken out in turn. (Though it gets messy when someone dies out of turn. I suppose that's what Life Boon's for). Halcyan 2 guessing this is an extreme example of the micro-managing of table balance that we talked about before...

>> Anyway, ousting or even simply bleeding your predator for a *whole lot* can >be >> lots of fun. Right Christian? (ha ha!) =P > >I can't believe you bled *me* for more than my predator did. You bled me for >what, like 11 or 12? Actually, it was just 11. #1. Raphael bleeds you for 2 (using his natural bonus). You're all tapped out. #2. Raphael with dom bleeds for 4 with a Govern. At +1 stealth from Ex Nihilo. #3. Raphael with DOM bleeds for 5 with a Conditioning. You're all tapped out. --> 11 (one more than I bled Robyn, my prey!). Of course the only reason I had to go backwards was *because* your predator was putting 0 pressure on you. Remember? That first bleed for 2 was me drawing the line in the sand. And you my dear friend crossed it one too many times! Anyway, it makes for a rather amusing story (for both of us). And I even named that deck after you and this experience... Halcyan 2 who secretly admits the truth: sometimes he gets right and left confused!

Halcyan 2 wrote: > I wrote: >> I can't believe you bled *me* for more than my predator did. You >> bled me for what, like 11 or 12? > > Actually, it was just 11. [snip] > Of course the only reason I had to go backwards was *because* your > predator was putting 0 pressure on you. > Remember? That first bleed for 2 was me drawing the line in the sand. > And you my dear friend crossed it one too many times! So it *was* you at Origins! :) > Anyway, it makes for a rather amusing story (for both of us). And I > even named that deck after you and this experience... Hah! That's pretty good. What's the name now? Xian

>So it *was* you at Origins! :) > > Huh? Origins? Stop confusing me Christian! >> Anyway, it makes for a rather amusing story (for both of us). And I >> even named that deck after you and this experience... > >Hah! That's pretty good. What's the name now? Well, originally it just had a generic name like "Giovanni Clan Deck" or something. But in honor of that game, I have christened it, "No, I Bleed *You* For 5 Pool..." Of course that's not what the deck's designed to do (it only has a single copy of Raphael), but I thought it was a cute name. And it might throw people off (playing mind games with my predator). Halcyan 2