how many cards total in KoT ?

the WW site gives the following info about KoT : . 160 new cards in booster packs . 36 11-card packs in each display Over 24 starter-exclusive cards but there is no preview. Could we at least know how many cards total (number of rares/uncommon/vampires/common) there will be in the expansion ? It's kind of important for pre-order purposes. I've heard about 100 rares...any official confirmation, please ? Stone

Stone wrote: > the WW site gives the following info about KoT : > .. 160 new cards in booster packs > .. 36 11-card packs in each display > Over 24 starter-exclusive cards > > but there is no preview. Could we at least know how many cards total (number > of rares/uncommon/vampires/common) there will be in the expansion ? It's > kind of important for pre-order purposes. I've heard about 100 rares...any > official confirmation, please ? 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster assortment.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:WCVQk.7640$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com... > > 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster assortment. man, that was fast. Thanks. Stone

[ quoted text not captured ] According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time, while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast... best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

librarian wrote: > Stone wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de >> news:WCVQk.7640$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster >>> assortment. >> >> man, that was fast. Thanks. >> Stone >> >> > > According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time, > while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered > your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast... > > best - > > chris Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed. However, what he says means that we're going to get a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. just my 2 cents Emiliano, NC Italy www.italybynight.org

>>>> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster >>>> assortment. >>> >>> man, that was fast. Thanks. >>> Stone >>> >>> >> >> According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time, >> while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered >> your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast... >> >> best - >> >> chris > > Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed. > However, what he says means that we're going to get > a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. > > just my 2 cents > > Emiliano, NC Italy > www.italybynight.org Add mine and we're up to 4 cents. If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have to get a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary market shops will make a fortune on singles. -- Orpheus -- "Cynicism isn't maturity. Callousness isn't strength. Pretending you don't care so you don't have to try isn't "winning" What you do with your life matters." Luther Manning.

On Nov 7, 2:09 pm, "Orpheus" wrote: > If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have to get > a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary market shops will make a > fortune on singles. Woo hoo! :> Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best online source for information about V:TES. Now also featuring individual card sales and sales of booster and starter box displays.

Orpheus wrote: >>>>> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster >>>>> assortment. >>>> >>>> man, that was fast. Thanks. >>>> Stone >>>> >>>> >>> >>> According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time, >>> while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered >>> your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast... >>> >>> best - >>> >>> chris >> >> Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed. >> However, what he says means that we're going to get >> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. >> >> just my 2 cents >> >> Emiliano, NC Italy >> www.italybynight.org > > Add mine and we're up to 4 cents. > > If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have > to get a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary market shops > will make a fortune on singles. > -- > Orpheus Honestly, i don't know how much secondary market will be in the future about this set. Even if the perspective (about buying kot booster) is the chanche to get good reprinted rares such as mind rape, unmasking and the likes, the counter-incentive of getting a tons of reprinted commons/uncommons is way too much for the vast majority of stable players, that are peoples with lots of base cards already in their collections (more than anything else, after third edition), and that will be not eager to buy lots of boosters by this. No boosters sold = no rares around, no so much secondary market then.

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Tetragrammaton wrote: > Honestly, i don't know how much secondary market will be in > the future about this set. > Even if the perspective (about buying kot booster) is the chanche to get > good reprinted rares such as mind rape, unmasking and the likes, the > counter-incentive of getting a tons of reprinted commons/uncommons is way > too much for the vast majority of stable players, that are peoples with lots > of base cards > already in their collections (more than anything else, after third edition), > and that will be not eager to buy lots of boosters by this. > No boosters sold = no rares around, no so much secondary market then. And then Communists will take over! I've opened a lot of KoT packs. Many of the reprints are cards players want. The new cards are not especially few or far between. Each pack has three vampires which are new. There's a lot to like about this set, unless one is determined not to. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] I will tell when i'll open the boosters - for now, raw numbers are not so encouraging. Best

[ quoted text not captured ] They seem a lot better than in the 3rd Edition. 3rd Edition had 81 rares, 98 uncommons, 98 vampires and 100 commons in boosters. Of those 12 rares, 12 uncommons, all vampires and 12 commons were new cards. In KoT, at least according to the WW's site, there are 160 new cards in boosters. With 100 rares, 100 vampires and 100 commons that would mean 30 new rares and 30 new commons. So there are almost twice as many new library cards in a set that has almost 100 cards less, meaning we should get a lot less reprints than in the 3rd Edition boosters.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:49149284$0$30958$426a...@news.free.fr... >> Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed. >> However, what he says means that we're going to get >> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. ... > If we want to get enough of the new cards in the set we're gonna have to get a ton or two of boosts with reprints... Secondary > market shops will make a fortune on singles. Frivolous 'WOOHOO's by unnamed single sellers aside, I don't think they benefit from excess artificial rarity in the card supply any more than anyone else does. In fact, I think it's probably a bad thing for them. As always, the rules of supply and demand prevent excess profits; the high price of artificially rare singles stems from their additional costs incurred by having to buy more packs to find the singles. It's not like they're finding gold in their asses somehow just because they have to jack the price of a card up to lower the demand and raise the supply to equal levels. Why is it people can't seem to grasp this? I have to imagine chase rares supported by dreck in an expansion (OK, I know reprints aren't dreck but for a singles seller they have the same effect as dreck) are actually bad things because high prices in cards are also unstable ones. It's probably much easier to sell singles from expansions like Lords of the Night, since they can sell most of the cards (at least most of the rares) for decent, stable prices that should reliably add up to more than they spent on the boxes. If you think about the service a singles seller provides in exchange for his profit, it seems likely to me that the business would be a lot more efficient (and thus profitable in comparison with the effort expended) for that kind of an expansion than for one in which relatively few of the cards culled from the booster packs are worth bothering with. Just my hack theory. I'd love to hear guys like Jeff and Chris tell whether I'm off base or not and why or why not. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, forgot the uncommons. So 400 cards with 160 new cards, meaning probably 20% of each library card rarity being new cards, which is still slightly better than in the 3rd edition.

On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > However, what he says means that we're going to get > a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd? This will be the same. How is that a problem? -Peter

On Nov 7, 12:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > Stone wrote: > >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de > >>news:WCVQk.7640$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com... > >>> 100 each of commons, uncommons, vampires, and rares in the booster > >>> assortment. > > >> man, that was fast. Thanks. > >> Stone > > > According to my news reader, LSJ actually replied at 3:27am my time, > > while you sent your message at 3:32am my time. Meaning he answered > > your message before it was sent... That's what I call fast... > > > best - > > > chris > > Quickness in answering is appreciable, indeed. > However, what he says means that we're going to get > a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. > > just my 2 cents Depends on your perspective - there's at least three or four players in my playgroup that very much want the reprinted cards, as their collections are not that extensive (yet). -John Flournoy

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:55:38 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: >If you think about the service a singles seller >provides in exchange for his profit, it seems likely to me that the business >would be a lot more efficient (and thus profitable in comparison with the >effort expended) for that kind of an expansion than for one in which >relatively few of the cards culled from the booster packs are worth >bothering with. >Just my hack theory. I'd love to hear guys like Jeff and Chris tell >whether I'm off base or not and why or why not. Bloodlines was the #1 set for individual card sellers. Hands down, no question. It was large enough that buying boxes was counter productive and there was enough material that was siginificantly different that players would be looking for different things. The Baali players were looking for completely different things than the Blood Brothers players than the True Brujah players, etc. etc. Base sets sell poorly, if the reprints are not chosen carefully. Look at the inventory I have of 3rd Edition, for example: http://www.thelasombra.com/inventory.htm ("3rd" tab at the bottom left) 44 Far Mastery 0 Derange I have 20 or more of 30 different rares. (All of which are listed at $2 or less.) I am only sold out of 22 different rares. Clearly, that set could have been much better for individual card sellers. Lords of the Night is actually too focused for individual card sellers to do well, because too high of a percentage of the box is valuable to the box buyer. The 60 cards sets are the absolute worst though. If you can get multiple complete sets from 2 boxes, you don't visit the individual card seller at all. Out of the 84 reprinted rares in Keepers of Tradition, I only have about a dozen true disappointments, that didn't sell in the original set and certainly won't sell now in the new one. Out of 81 reprinted uncommons in Keepers of Tradition, there are certainly a few that I feel could have remained starter only or could have safely been skipped completely, but the rest are very good choices. Out of the 83 reprinted commons in Keepers of Tradition, there are more than a dozen that I'll never be able to give away, but that is certainly to be expected from reprinted commons. The distribution of the set is very flat (which is amazingly good). In the first two boxes opened, not a single rare was repeated. Out of the first ten boxes opened, I got 3-4 of every rare, 10-11 of every vampire, 7-8 of every uncommon, and 18 of every common. I don't think that anyone that buys a box or two will have a real reason to be upset with their purchase. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Depends on your perspective - there's at least three or four players > in my playgroup that very much want the reprinted cards, as their > collections are not that extensive (yet). Yep absolutely, same with my playgroup, and probably lots of playgroups. We're not all people who've been playing since card backs said Jyhad and a vampire could bleed multiple times in a turn. Also I know people who've been playing for a long time and have very large collections but were still very happy to tear open packs of 3rd ed and find Telepathic Tracking staring back at them. There are other options too. If you end up with stacks of excess reprint commons you don't need, pile them into something vaguely resembling a deck and offer them for free to friends who are curious about the game or people who have just started out. They will probably appreciate it greatly. I don't think reprints are such a bad thing. At the very very least, it can give you an opportunity to finally make that silly deck you've been thinking about that has 40 x (insert card here) in it.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: >> However, what he says means that we're going to get >> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. > > Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd? I buy all the sets since 1995 - almost as many of us do - so yes, i got both camarilla and third also >This will be the same. How is > that a problem? Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. This happened with camarilla, but OK, was the new layout outright (from the old cam base sets jyhad/vtes) , so still acceptable. This happened again a *lot* with third edition, and that has been really poor. At least considering the overall money value we invest for the game.

In message <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want, and calculate the cost to buy them as singles. If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy. If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a problem. Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a problem. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. > > So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want, > and calculate the cost to buy them as singles. > > If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough > rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House > Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy. > > If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a > problem. > > Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a > problem. It's a problem because you invest an given amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you already got. If you're happy with that, thus spending X to get back an overall 55-60% cards you already have in large quantities, fine enough. But do not attribute this as a "problem i want".

In message <OUdRk.19877$8%.2478@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want, >> and calculate the cost to buy them as singles. >> >> If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough >> rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House >> Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy. >> >> If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a >> problem. >> >> Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a >> problem. > >It's a problem because you invest an given >amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you already got. Which part of "BUY SINGLES" is eluding you? You then won't spend a single penny on a card you already have. Here it is again: BUY SINGLES. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <OUdRk.19877$8%.2478@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton > <no...@usa.com> writes: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you >>> want, and calculate the cost to buy them as singles. >>> >>> If cost of singles < cost of buying enough boxes to hit enough >>> rares/vampires etc., buy singles, and make TheLasombra and House >>> Atreides and Ebay and everyone else very happy. >>> >>> If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a >>> problem. >>> >>> Honestly, there's only a problem because you want there to be a >>> problem. >> >> It's a problem because you invest an given >> amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you >> already got. > > Which part of "BUY SINGLES" is eluding you? You then won't spend a > single penny on a card you already have. > > Here it is again: BUY SINGLES. If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the player base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the release of a new base set, just fine. But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given actual vtes status. In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach in boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me. Granted, i'll wait to open some KoT boosters before telling this for sure, as previously said.

In message <KMeRk.19933$8%.15060@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the player >base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the release of a new >base set, just fine. They don't. As can be seen by looking round in many places, many existing players are interested in buying some of the set, and have expressed interest in starters, new cards, reprints etc. Not all old players have huge collections. Not all old players have bought every set. Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out, "You know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but the idea comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can buy that card(s) in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art. Some oldbies will be returning to the game, and may not have some of those cards. Many players enjoy draft, and White Wolf have clearly been making some efforts to make draft more fun, and having useful basic effects in a set makes it useful for drafting - there are only so many ways you can vary Computer Hacking, so why not just reprint one of the existing ones? The oldbie who has enough of every single card that's ever been printed, such that reprints will be of no benefit to them whatsoever, is in a distinct minority. And, as has been pointed out several times, if there aren't base sets, the game is essentially inaccessible to newbies. Yes, you'll wet yourself and say there are no newbies for you. Whatever. When a stray newbie does come along and finds they can't get the cards everyone else has, are they going to want to take up the game? In that way, having base sets *does* help the oldbie, by trying to keep the game alive. >But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given actual >vtes status. That's why it's not the strategy. That's why the set has 160 brand new cards in it, full of new card goodness. Well over a third of the set is shiny and new, like a virgin, touched for the very first time. But for people who are so upset that they might possibly get a card they don't need, those people can buy singles. However, people upset about getting cards they don't need would do well to think hard about why they're playing a CCG, where the basic distribution model does that from the word go. >In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving >old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach in >boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me. Erm, no. There has been no change in behaviour. No change. At all. No need to get upset if you simply look at what White Wolf have always done. No change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have had very few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs being the obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different way). Base sets have reprints in the boosters. Example: Sabbat War, lots of reprints. Final Nights, none in the boosters. Bloodlines, none in the boosters. Camarilla Edition, Tetragammaton cries himself to sleep because White Wolf put reprints in the boosters again. See a pattern? It's been happening *FOREVER*. White Wolf have not suddenly done something to upset you. This has happened before. Many times. Over many years. In plain sight for anyone who was looking. Wizards did it too. In fact, V:TES had so few new cards in it that they were much harder to get, relative to the *160* new cards White Wolf are providing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 7, 7:04 pm, Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: > > > However, what he says means that we're going to get > > a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. > > Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd? This will be the same. How is > that a problem? Although I agree a 100% with you (meaning, there is no problem at all), I have to point out that 3rd Edition sucked. Not because it had reprints, but because of the messed up distribution of cards in boosters. I bought more a lot of 3rd Edition boosters because that's what I do, but I seldom felt it was really worth it. 3rd Edition is the exception, though. Abraço, Luiz Mello

James Coupe wrote: > In message <KMeRk.19933$8%.15060@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >> If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the >> player base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the >> release of a new base set, just fine. > > They don't. As can be seen by looking round in many places, many > existing players are interested in buying some of the set, and have > expressed interest in starters, new cards, reprints etc. Not all old > players have huge collections. Not all old players have bought every > set. Really ? Unless you can provide some stats supporting all of that, i think your opinion is good as mine here. I bet that a notable number of players *did* actually got lots of cards from *all* of the older sets - and i'm basing this on my experience as well as what i see in the lots of playgroups i come in contact with. > Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out, > "You know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but the > idea comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can buy that > card(s) in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art. Some > oldbies will be returning to the game, and may not have some of those > cards. Some players don't like a tons of reprints too. > Many players enjoy draft, and White Wolf have clearly been > making some efforts to make draft more fun, and having useful basic > effects in a set makes it useful for drafting - there are only so > many ways you can vary Computer Hacking, so why not just reprint one > of the existing ones ? > The oldbie who has enough of every single card that's ever been > printed, such that reprints will be of no benefit to them whatsoever, > is in a distinct minority. Please provide some stats on this , again. Otherwise our opinions are equal here. You think, basically ,that there are not so many players around with lots of all the cards from the previous sets (maybe) - on the other side my opinion is quite the contrary here. Above all, speaking of vtes players that buy on a regular basis from WW, and are pretty interested in the first place at buying the new set. Those players are the ones that makes the company to get the real money - not the casual player, nor players that are interested just in buying 20 cards or few boosters to build a single given deck > And, as has been pointed out several times, if there aren't base sets, > the game is essentially inaccessible to newbies. I'm not questioning the necessity of base sets. I'm questioning the necessity of getting as much as of 60% of reprints in a base set boosters, right now. With some efforts, you can get really a *lot* of the needed reprints in precons deck and in a player's kit, as much as it has been in third edition (at least for four clans) and in LoTN precons. Following the same efforts, you can get, actually, a base set with some reprints in boosters, but with a minor % (say 20%). Old players woudl be more satisfacted that point. Again, i'll wait the release to tell this. > Yes, you'll wet > yourself and say there are no newbies for you. I'm not wet - i'm just concerned, actually. > Whatever. When a > stray newbie does come along and finds they can't get the cards > everyone else has, are they going to want to take up the game? In > that way, having base sets *does* help the oldbie, by trying to keep > the game alive. Read above: i do appreciate a lot anything good as third ed. player's kit for newbies, for example. On the most part, i think those, along with precons, suffice to any newbie. >> But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given >> actual vtes status. > > That's why it's not the strategy. That's why the set has 160 brand > new cards in it, full of new card goodness. I was just answering to your "buy singles for the new set" argument, actually. > Well over a third of the > set is shiny and new, like a virgin, touched for the very first time. > But for people who are so upset that they might possibly get a card > they don't need, those people can buy singles. I think that "a card they don't need " doens't describe the reality in which you're going to get as much as of 60% of reprints. "Lots of cards they don't need" would describe better. I could see your minimization as right if a base set would contains from 10 to 30 % of reprints in boosters (as it has been, say in anarchs or LoB) , not 60%. > However, people upset > about getting cards they don't need would do well to think hard about > why they're playing a CCG, where the basic distribution model does > that from the word go. > >> In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving >> old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach >> in boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me. > > Erm, no. > > There has been no change in behaviour. No change. At all. No need > to get upset if you simply look at what White Wolf have always done. After third we got 3 sets in a row with no reprints at all in boosters (including the masterpiece base indie set that is LoTN). OK, that has been done before. But just before third, we got the legacy of blood base set with just a (roughly) 30% reprints in boosters. That's enough, i think, to reasonably see an approach in which the reprints things in boosters was kept at bay, thus making old players satisfacted in buying boosters and new ones allowed to get staple cards mostly from fixed cons. In this respecr, in fact i got also upset with third edition reprint ratios in boosters. > No change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have > had very few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs > being the obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different > way). Base sets have reprints in the boosters. I'm upset with the ratio - not by the fact that base set get reprints, that's understandable.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. > > So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want, > and calculate the cost to buy them as singles. Sounds good, but here we have very good price on pre-releases. So deciding a week later if you want a box is gonna cost you a *lot* more ! Which is why getting more information on the repartition of the set and the cards before they get out is important. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 8, 8:29 am, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > No change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have > > had very few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs > > being the obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different > > way). Base sets have reprints in the boosters. > > I'm upset with the ratio - not by the fact that base set > get reprints, that's understandable. > I don't agree with the "no reprints, no base sets" thing, but I do agree with this. The ratio in 3rd edition sucked and CE sucked. I was hoping KoT would be much more weighted towards new cards. Ignoring vampires, I think that 30-40% new library cards isn't too much to ask for. Or if it was the same *number* of new library cards that were weighted more towards commons and uncommons and if they're rare, make them R2 (even if it means pushing some rares off the reprint list - I can live without another Praxis Seizure, thank you... unless it's a new city...). I'm still buying KoT and have high hopes for the set, but I suspect I'm gonna end up with a huge pile of crap for the giveaway box. I hope I'm wrong. There definitely are *some* reprints I want. If 50% of the library cards in the set could be made to be either new or "sought after" by some reasonable definition of "sought after", I'd be happy. I don't think I'll be *that* happy when I get my new cards, but I'm willing to reserve final judgement until after buying a box. In any case, KoT is definitely getting some of my money after 3rd edition got almost none (man, I hate that set), so there's that...

In article <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: > Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. It's a base set. It needs to have reprints. 'Cause not everyone who is playing this game has all the cards they need. Yeah, ok, maybe *you* have all the commons you could ever need, but it seems likely that most people, regardless of how long they have been playing, could use more of the various uncommons and rares that are going to be reprinted in the set (I have a billion cards, but I can still use more Torn Signposts and Immortal Grapples and Freak Drives and 2nd Traditions and whatever. As can the people I play with who will doubtlessly be willing to trade me some of the more narrow use brand new cards in exchange for good staple cards that I get more of as reprints). If getting reprints is a problem for you, there is an incredibly easy solution. Don't buy boosters. I'm sure the company can take the hit from a couple people who have their panties all in a twist 'cause there are reprints in a new base set not buying boosters. Get sets of vampires on e-bay. Buy new single cards as singles (which will, likely, save you money in the long run anyway). Get a couple starter decks for each clan to get the starter only stuff. And then call it even. I find it kind of baffling that you seem to be completely unwilling to accept the idea that base level, entry sets to games like this need to have reprints in boosters. Sabbat had tons of reprints. Sabbat War had tons of reprints. Final Nights had tons of reprints. Camarilla had tons of reprints. 3rd had tons of reprints. KoT has tons of reprints. That is how this thing works. Having tons of reprints? Good for people who need basic cards 'cause they are relatively new to the game. Good for people who aren't relatively new to the game but want more staple cards. Good for playing draft and limited tournaments. 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

Clément wrote: > On Nov 7, 7:04 pm, Peter D Bakija wrote: >> On Nov 7, 1:49 pm, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: >> >>> However, what he says means that we're going to get >>> a tons of reprints in boosters again, which is not so good, imho. >> >> Did you buy Camarilla? Did you buy 3rd? This will be the same. How is >> that a problem? > > Although I agree a 100% with you (meaning, there is no problem at > all), I have to point out that 3rd Edition sucked. Not because it had > reprints, but because of the messed up distribution of cards in > boosters. Imho, the two things are related however. The more the set is large AND it contains a notable % of reprints (as it has been with Cam, Third and now how it seems with the upcoming kot), the more it will result difficult to get a decent cards distribution in boosters. That's a matter of sheer math distribution i think.

In article <OUdRk.19877$8%.2478@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: > It's a problem because you invest an given > amount money to get a given amount of cards, most of which you already got. So then don't invest that money. It is a really easy solution. Buy new vampires and new cards as singles. Don't buy boosters for the new set. The company isn't going to collapse because you don't buy a box of boosters. Everyone around here is perfectly happy with the distribution of the set, and so we are buying boosters. Even though we have tons of cards. As we can use more. And anything we get way too many of, we can hand away in piles to the new guys who *do* need them in exchange for a couple good uncommons or rares, which helps the overall playgroup get more cards in circulation. This is clearly a problem for you. With an incredibly simple solution. > If you're happy with that, thus spending X to get back an overall > 55-60% cards you already have in large quantities, fine enough. > But do not attribute this as a "problem i want". Fine. Great. Don't buy the boosters. Buy singles. Problem solved. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <KMeRk.19933$8%.15060@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: > If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the player > base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the release of a new > base set, just fine. It isn't making anyone do anything. You are the only person involved in this discussion making the point that you are making. It seems likely that the vast majority of old players with all the cards in the world are perfectly happy with the idea of buying KoT booosters. Much like they were perfectly happy* with the idea of buying 3rd boosters and Camarilla boosters. 'Cause that is how this sort of thing works. I have all the VTES cards in the world (well, not actually, but plenty). I'm totally happy to buy boosters, 'cause: A) I'll be getting all new vampires and new cards along with the reprints. B) I'll be getting more of cards that I already have but can still use more of. C) I'll be getting more staple commons that other people in my play group *do* need, even though I don't necessarily, and I can give/trade to them to help out their collections. D) We can open boosters and play Duffin Draft, which is always a totally fun way to spend 15 minutes. You are likely not completely alone in your feelings. But you are also likely a minority. And all you have to do to save yourself the agita of having to get all those reprints you so desperately don't want is to just not buy boosters and buy singles instead. The company will survive the hit. > But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given actual > vtes status. Having a solid, entry level base set that is good for everyone but Tetragrammaton, good for limited/draft play, and gives players who haven't been in the game for 10+ years access to a lot of cards that they need is a bad business strategy? > In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving > old cards in boosters For fuck sake. Keepers of Tradition. It is a base set. An entry point into the game. A jumping in point for newer players. A way for older players to get more of the cards that they need anyway. LoTN and TR were *not* base sets. They were not a jumping in point for newer players. They were not a way for older players to get more of the cards they need anyway. Can you see the difference, in a design sense? *(people were totally happy, in theory, to buy 3rd. Until they discovered that the cards were upside down and the stock was sub optimal. But that had nothing to do with the design of the set. Just the production. Which was unfortunate. But a different issue). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 8, 3:29 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > In message <KMeRk.19933$8%.15...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > > Tetragrammaton <n...@usa.com> writes: > >> If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the > >> player base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the > >> release of a new base set, just fine. > > > They don't. As can be seen by looking round in many places, many > > existing players are interested in buying some of the set, and have > > expressed interest in starters, new cards, reprints etc. Not all old > > players have huge collections. Not all old players have bought every > > set. > > Really ? > Unless you can provide some stats supporting all of that, i think your > opinion > is good as mine here. > I bet that a notable number of players *did* actually got lots of cards > from *all* of the older sets - and i'm basing this on my experience as well > as what i see in the lots of playgroups i come in contact with. Dude, I have in excess of 20 000 cards at least, and I play with people who have all been playing for a minimum of 2-4 years. I have been playing since Jyhad, but still I do not have enough of certain cards. Freak Drives, Mind Rape and BP being high on my lost, but others populating it quite strongly. > > > Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out, > > "You know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but the > > idea comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can buy that > > card(s) in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art. Some > > oldbies will be returning to the game, and may not have some of those > > cards. > > Some players don't like a tons of reprints too. I love reprints. Quite a lot of other people do too. Stop whining about a BASE SET containing reprints, and do something constructive. Take all those reprints you do not want, build some decks with them, and leave them in a box where you play for new players. If someone wants to try the game, give (not lend, give) them a deck. If they like, let them build out of the excess junk box. > > > Many players enjoy draft, and White Wolf have clearly been > > making some efforts to make draft more fun, and having useful basic > > effects in a set makes it useful for drafting - there are only so > > many ways you can vary Computer Hacking, so why not just reprint one > > of the existing ones ? > > The oldbie who has enough of every single card that's ever been > > printed, such that reprints will be of no benefit to them whatsoever, > > is in a distinct minority. > > Please provide some stats on this , again. > Otherwise our opinions are equal here. > You think, basically ,that there are not so many players around > with lots of all the cards from the previous sets (maybe) - on the > other side my opinion is quite the contrary here. > Above all, speaking of vtes players that buy on a regular basis from WW, > and are pretty interested in the first place at buying the new set. > Those players are the ones that makes the company to get the real money - > not the casual player, nor players that are interested just in buying 20 > cards or > few boosters to build a single given deck > > > And, as has been pointed out several times, if there aren't base sets, > > the game is essentially inaccessible to newbies. > > I'm not questioning the necessity of base sets. > I'm questioning the necessity of getting as much as of 60% > of reprints in a base set boosters, right now. Dude, you make no sense... "I'm not questioning the necessity of a base set." Base sets by their very nature contain a large number of reprints. You want to tell the new guy who has just started that he is not getting Majesty, deflection, 2nd trads, governs, condition, IG TS, Taste etc (man i hate Dom;) because you don't feel liek some reprints? > With some efforts, you can get really a *lot* of the needed reprints > in precons deck and in a player's kit, as much as it has been in third > edition (at least for four clans) and in LoTN precons. > Following the same efforts, you can get, actually, a base set with > some reprints in boosters, but with a minor % (say 20%). > Old players woudl be more satisfacted that point. No, YOU would be more satisfied at that point. Please do not lump me in the same boat as you. Seeing as I have been playing this game since the first Jyhad boxes went on sale, I think I qualify as an old player. Yet I am not going to say "All old plyers" this or that or whatever, because I cannot speak for them. > Again, i'll wait the release to tell this. > > > Yes, you'll wet > > yourself and say there are no newbies for you. > > I'm not wet - i'm just concerned, actually. Frankly, you sound like you wet yourself. This is an idiom, the meaning of which is that you have urinated on yourself (literally) as well as that you will make a lot of noise and raise a big hullabaloo about something (idiomatically) > > > Whatever. When a > > stray newbie does come along and finds they can't get the cards > > everyone else has, are they going to want to take up the game? In > > that way, having base sets *does* help the oldbie, by trying to keep > > the game alive. > > Read above: i do appreciate a lot anything good as third ed. player's kit > for newbies, for example. > On the most part, i think those, along with precons, suffice to any newbie. Again with the dichotomies. You appreciate things done to bring in new players, but you don't want reprints in a base set. make up your mind, the spinning on the spot is making me dizzy. > >> But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given > >> actual vtes status. > > > That's why it's not the strategy. That's why the set has 160 brand > > new cards in it, full of new card goodness. > > I was just answering to your "buy singles for the new set" argument, > actually. > > > Well over a third of the > > set is shiny and new, like a virgin, touched for the very first time. > > But for people who are so upset that they might possibly get a card > > they don't need, those people can buy singles. > > I think that "a card they don't need " doens't describe the reality in which > you're going to get as much as of 60% of reprints. > "Lots of cards they don't need" would describe better. > I could see your minimization as right if a base set would contains from 10 > to > 30 % of reprints in boosters (as it has been, say in anarchs or LoB) , not > 60%. Yah know what, i'll make you a deal. We buy a box of KoT boosters. You get to keep all the new cards, and i will take all the IG,mind rape, deflect,govern, 2nd trads, et al. Sounds good? The reprints (which will be in a base set, no matter how much anybody whines about it) are AWESOME!!!!!! I can finally hope to own more than 1 bloody mindrape. Do you know of anyone who will trade it? Anyone???? Cos i dont. And i always wanted more. I love some of the new cards, but man i get really excited about some of the reprints. > > > However, people upset > > about getting cards they don't need would do well to think hard about > > why they're playing a CCG, where the basic distribution model does > > that from the word go. > > >> In fact, with LoTN and TR it seemed they care a lot in not giving > >> old cards in boosters - it's the comeback of third edition approach > >> in boosters (with lots of reprints) that upsets me. > > > Erm, no. > > > There has been no change in behaviour. No change. At all. No need > > to get upset if you simply look at what White Wolf have always done. > > After third we got 3 sets in a row with no reprints at all in boosters > (including the masterpiece base indie set that is LoTN). > OK, that has been done before. > But just before third, we got the legacy of blood base set with just a > (roughly) 30% reprints in boosters. That's enough, i think, to reasonably > see an approach in which the reprints things in boosters was kept at bay, > thus making old players satisfacted in buying boosters and new ones allowed > to get staple cards mostly from fixed cons. > In this respecr, in fact i got also upset with third edition reprint ratios > in boosters. > But what base sets where there? and 3rd ed was a cock up, lets agree on this. So a GOOD base set is needed. And all reports so far seem to indicate that this is what this one is going to be. > > No change at all from that behaviour. Smaller expansion sets have > > had very few reprints in the boosters - often none at all (Anarchs > > being the obvious exception, and Legacies of Blood in a different > > way). Base sets have reprints in the boosters. > > I'm upset with the ratio - not by the fact that base set > get reprints, that's understandable. But the fact that you want the ratios lower, means you want to cut the number of reprints, which are there primarily for the benefit of N.E.W. P.L.A.Y.E.R.S. Get it? The new cards are to keep the oldbies happy, the reprints are to allow us to play draft/attract newbies. So which reprints would you cut? Make me a list that makes from the point of view of a new player, and maybe i will grant that your argument has a modicum of reason behind it

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: >> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. > > It's a base set. It needs to have reprints. 'Cause not everyone who is > playing this game has all the cards they need. Yeah, ok, maybe *you* > have all the commons you could ever need, but it seems likely that > most people, regardless of how long they have been playing, could use > more of the various uncommons and rares that are going to be > reprinted in the set (I have a billion cards, but I can still use > more Torn Signposts and Immortal Grapples and Freak Drives and 2nd > Traditions and whatever. As can the people I play with who will > doubtlessly be willing to trade me some of the more narrow use brand > new cards in exchange for good staple cards that I get more of as > reprints). > > If getting reprints is a problem for you, there is an incredibly easy > solution. Don't buy boosters. I'm sure the company can take the hit > from a couple people who have their panties all in a twist 'cause > there are reprints in a new base set not buying boosters. Get sets of > vampires on e-bay. Buy new single cards as singles (which will, > likely, save you money in the long run anyway). Get a couple starter > decks for each clan to get the starter only stuff. And then call it > even. On my side, sorry but i find that your rant is completely out of context, given the fact that a company SHOULD actually care both with the player base, that is the stable base that keeps the game alive for the most part, AND with some business/marketing strategies to care also for new potential players So, sorry if i don't take the horse "buy singles, don't buy new boosters" already beaten, as a serious argument , regarding stable players. I'm pretty sure the goal of the company about selling (both to old in the first place and to would be new ones) isn't in the "solution" you enlist here. > I find it kind of baffling that you seem to be completely unwilling to > accept the idea that base level, entry sets to games like this need to > have reprints in boosters. You're totally wrong, so please read carefully what i said here early about new players. >Sabbat had tons of reprints. Sabbat War had > tons of reprints. Sabbat was WoTC times, so i won't take at all into account on this. SW was the first set released AFTER so many year the game wasn't produced, so i won't take it as valid paragon term, too. > Final Nights had tons of reprints. Not (at all) in boosters - please read carefully what my point is before ranting out of context. >Camarilla had > tons of reprints. Yes, in fact i'm not the only one to say that at its time it already sucked a bit, but it was new layout outright and 6 precons starters. So it was ok overall, and a pretty numbers of years ago after all. > 3rd had tons of reprints. In boosters, yes, with an awful distribution - that pretty sucked a lot indeed. >KoT has tons of reprints. Not (at all) in boosters - again, please read carefully what my point is.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Qt2ADEYV...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton > <no...@usa.com> writes: >>Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. > > So wait until the set is released, see what cards there are you want, > and calculate the cost to buy them as singles. .... > If cost of buying enough boxes < cost of singles, there isn't a problem. That's actually not true. Singles may be a better way to approach making acquisitions from a set in which you only want some of the cards. But it can't solve the basic problem the previous poster is citing: that White Wolf is systematically overprinting reprints in relation to new cards in its base sets. Or put another way, WW is systematically UNDERprinting new cards in its base sets. If you can get the singles you need cheaper than what you would have spent on the boxes and that meets your needs better, great. But even then, the singles wind up being a lot more expensive than the same ones would have been in an all-new set. I believe that's one of the reasons Heart of Nizchetus is _so_ insanely expensive as it is. I don't think it would have been a $20+ card in, for instance, Lords of the Night. Fred

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> In article <ugdRk.19857$8%.18669@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, >> "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: >>> Getting a tons of reprints is a problem, at least for me. >> KoT has tons of reprints. > > Not (at all) in boosters - again, please read carefully what my > point is. Mis-readed LoTN for KoT, sorry. I mean lotn dind't got reptint in boosters , of course

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints have anything to do with it. I mean, if a set is very large, then it is likely that specific single cards are harder to find (whether it's a new card or a reprint). However, if card distribution in boosters is sufficiently flat, then we'll get roughly even numbers of every single card of the same rarity - which is pretty much what I'm looking for when I buy boxes of boosters. In this sense, 3rd Edition was very screwed up (and I don't really recall any other set I have such complaints about). Abraço, Luiz Mello

In article <ErjRk.20223$8%.5127@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: > On my side, sorry but i find that your rant is completely out > of context, given the fact that a company SHOULD actually > care both with the player base, that is the stable base that keeps > the game alive for the most part, AND with some business/marketing > strategies to care also for new potential players It does. That is why it is making a new base set. Which *most* old player are likely totally happy with. Yes. There will be reprints in the boosters that I don't need. I'll suck it up and give/trade them to someone who *does* need them (of which there are plenty in my playgroup). > So, sorry if i don't take the horse "buy singles, don't buy new boosters" > already beaten, as a serious argument , regarding stable players. How is it not a serious argument? You are probably a minority in this discussion. And the solution *for you* is easy--don't buy boosters, just buy singles. > I'm pretty sure the goal of the company about selling (both to old in the > first place and to would be new ones) isn't in the "solution" you enlist > here. It is a fantastic solution *for you*. Who is probably in the minority. Most folks, old and new, will likely not have the problem you are having with buying boosters. Could I be wrong? Sure. I could be. But I'm probably not. You are an outlier. An understandable outlier. But an outlier. A minority. A fringe. The set makes *you* upset. Ok. There is an easy solution for *you*. I don't think that you projecting you being upset to the whole player base is accurate. > Not (at all) in boosters - please read carefully what my point is > before ranting out of context. My error on Final Nights (I misremembered it). But there is no "ranting out of context" about that statement at all. > >KoT has tons of reprints. > > Not (at all) in boosters - again, please read carefully what my point is. Keepers of Tradition (KoT) has tons of reprints. In the boosters. This is what this is all about, is it not? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, you're content with that - just fine. No problem here - in fact i'm adressing at what my experience is. >> >>> Not all old players thought, when a particular set came out, >>> "You know, I could get 20 of that card and make this deck..." but >>> the idea comes to them with the reprint of the card, so they can >>> buy that card(s) in a reprinted set. Some players like updated art. >>> Some oldbies will be returning to the game, and may not have some >>> of those cards. >> >> Some players don't like a tons of reprints too. > > I love reprints. Quite a lot of other people do too. Stop whining I'm not whining - sorry for you. I'm pointing an already saw distribution problem in boosters actually, and a solution as well. Have the most of reprints in fixed dedicated cons (i already referred to third's players kits and precons, for example) , as it has been already on some sets (say, LoB), thus keeping the ratio of reprints in boosters at acceptable level. You can have this also for base sets, and honestly i can't see how that would be a problem. > > about a BASE SET containing reprints, and do something constructive. > Take all those reprints you do not want, build some decks with them, > and leave them in a box where you play for new players. Already did many times, yes. >> I'm not questioning the necessity of base sets. >> I'm questioning the necessity of getting as much as of 60% >> of reprints in a base set boosters, right now. > > Dude, you make no sense... "I'm not questioning the necessity of a > base set." Base sets by their very nature contain a large number of > reprints. On a general assertion, yes. I'm specifically referring to ratio reprints in boosters. Hope this is clear enough >You want to tell the new guy who has just started that he is > not getting Majesty, deflection, 2nd trads, governs, condition, IG TS, > Taste etc (man i hate Dom;) because you don't feel liek some reprints? > >> With some efforts, you can get really a *lot* of the needed reprints >> in precons deck and in a player's kit, as much as it has been in >> third edition (at least for four clans) and in LoTN precons. >> Following the same efforts, you can get, actually, a base set with >> some reprints in boosters, but with a minor % (say 20%). >> Old players woudl be more satisfacted that point. > > No, YOU would be more satisfied at that point. Please do not lump me > in the same boat as you. Are you telling seriously you won't be happier with an higher ratio of new cards in boosters, while buying specifically reprinted base/staple cards moslty in fixed precons, all of this for base sets also ? Just fine, but please don't rant if someone else would like to have his money spent the other way. >Seeing as I have been playing this game since > the first Jyhad boxes went on sale, I think I qualify as an old > player. Yet I am not going to say "All old plyers" this or that or > whatever, because I cannot speak for them. I qualify the same i think, and as representative of Italy player's base as well. Thus, if a problem is seen with this high ratio of reprints this is the place to discuss and collect opinions. Possibly avoiding rants or useless bad blood <snip>

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <KMeRk.19933$8%.15060@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: > >> If WW/Cpp plans to make old players (i think we're the most of the >> player base, in fact) to go mostly on secondary market with the >> release of a new base set, just fine. > > It isn't making anyone do anything. You are the only person involved > in this discussion making the point that you are making. Read carefully (again) the t3D - i'm not the only one here, and in Italy many players are pointing this potential problem as well, concerned in getting a new third edition-like distribution. >It seems > likely that the vast majority of old players with all the cards in > the world are perfectly happy with the idea of buying KoT booosters. "Vast majority" is subjective at this point, i think. The truth is that at least a percentage of players can be dissatisfied. > Much like they were perfectly happy* with the idea of buying 3rd > boosters and Camarilla boosters. 'Cause that is how this sort of > thing works. I have all the VTES cards in the world (well, not > actually, but plenty). I'm totally happy to buy boosters, 'cause: > > A) I'll be getting all new vampires and new cards along with the > reprints. > > B) I'll be getting more of cards that I already have but can still use > more of. > > C) I'll be getting more staple commons that other people in my play > group *do* need, even though I don't necessarily, and I can give/trade > to them to help out their collections. > > D) We can open boosters and play Duffin Draft, which is always a > totally fun way to spend 15 minutes. > > You are likely not completely alone in your feelings. But you are also > likely a minority. That's your perception, yes. Mine is on the opposite - maybe truth is in the middle. Whatever the case, there's at least a notable percentage can be dissatisfacted if we'll see a new 3RD boosters distribution nightmare. >And all you have to do to save yourself the agita > of having to get all those reprints you so desperately don't want is > to just not buy boosters and buy singles instead. The company will > survive the hit. >> But honestly, i don't think that's a good business strategy, given >> actual vtes status. > > Having a solid, entry level base set that is good for everyone but > Tetragrammaton, Sorry again, for some unknown reason you seem confortable in picturing me on the personal level as the only unsatisfacted - that's not true , nor it's the case. Believe me. > For fuck sake. Keepers of Tradition. It is a base set. An entry point > into the game. A jumping in point for newer players. A way for older > players to get more of the cards that they need anyway. LoTN and TR > were *not* base sets. They were not a jumping in point for newer > players. I got at least 2 new players starting playing with LoTN precons. Last game con i attended to last week we (me and other italian princes) introduced several newbies with LoTN starters also. How can you say that LoTN is not jumping start point for new players is a mistery. It has wonderful, full playable precons, with all the needed cards. I can follow your assertion on this just with TR or, in general, with any non-precons-produced sets last years (tr, nor, soc). >They were not a way for older players to get more of the > cards they need anyway. Can you see the difference, in a design sense? Not with LoTN, sorry - it included cards for untapping (philipp and eluding) and base blood gaining (vessel) - that's base design enough to me.

Peter D Bakija wrote: >> So, sorry if i don't take the horse "buy singles, don't buy new >> boosters" already beaten, as a serious argument , regarding stable >> players. > > How is it not a serious argument? You are probably a minority in this > discussion. And the solution *for you* is easy--don't buy boosters, > just buy singles. > >> I'm pretty sure the goal of the company about selling (both to old >> in the first place and to would be new ones) isn't in the "solution" >> you enlist here. > > It is a fantastic solution *for you*. Who is probably in the minority. > Most folks, old and new, will likely not have the problem you are > having with buying boosters. Could I be wrong? Sure. I could be. But > I'm probably not. You are an outlier. An understandable outlier. But > an outlier. A minority. A fringe. Please provide any sort of evidence of this. Feel free to make distinctions between countries. I know plenty of people who would agree that the ratio of reprints in boosters could be much better than it is in KoT. I'm sure you know plenty of people in your playgroup who think otherwise. This doesn't make some of us the minority and you the apostle of the majority. Also note that the people who answer in threads on this particular forum are in no way an indication of what the majority of the players / buyers think or would want. OMMV and obviously do. Doesn't mean your wine is better than his or mine. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-9B9D70.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > If getting reprints is a problem for you, there is an incredibly easy > solution. Don't buy boosters. I'm sure the company can take the hit from > a couple people who have their panties all in a twist 'cause there are > reprints in a new base set not buying boosters. Get sets of vampires on > e-bay. Buy new single cards as singles (which will, likely, save you > money in the long run anyway). Get a couple starter decks for each clan > to get the starter only stuff. And then call it even. It's not just a problem for the individual collector who wants new cards and doesn't want to spend money on reprints he doesn't need and can't use. Ultimately, it's a "bad thing"(tm) when White Wolf or any game company creates game components that aren't needed by players. The whole artificial rarity thing, when you step back and look at it from a larger perspective (factoring in things like singles sellers and the secondary market) is just a way of jacking up the price of the artificially rare thing. And yes, some 'value' is injected through the randomization of boosters, which challenges players to trade to solve the problem of finding which cards they particularly want. The trading is some of the fun - but it doesn't fix issues with cards that just play too rare for their demand. To the extent that artificial rarity makes it possible for the game to exist, great. But, like any other way of fixing a price level for a product, it can be over done. If White Wolf were to just increase the price of their cards to $20+ a booster, they'd make more money, too. But the cost of the cards would make it unattractive to gamers and ultimately be an unproductive strategy. Since new cards in a base set represents a relatively small amount of the card population, the game can certainly sustain this kind of "price increase". (Read: I'm not really trying to compare new cards in reprint sets with increasing the booster cost several fold.) Having small numbers of cards less available through overrarity only frustrates guys like me a bit and the game survives it just fine. I see it as relatively minor problem, on balance. But it's not a good thing. Fred

In message <gtjRk.308$NY1...@newsfe01.iad>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >That's actually not true. Singles may be a better way to approach making >acquisitions from a set in which you only want some of the cards. But >it can't solve the basic problem the previous poster is citing: that >White Wolf is systematically overprinting reprints in relation to new cards >in its base sets. Or put another way, WW is systematically UNDERprinting >new cards in its base sets. Not especially. There are new cards in every booster - all the vampires are new, from what we've been told. And some of the vampires are good. Really good. Not over-powered (although one or two look really quite powerful indeed), but also interesting. If I have one criticism of Camarilla Edition, it's that it was a bit... bland. Not that the vampires are bad, just that it's not terribly attention-grabbing. KoT appears to address that with: - new Inner Circle members - some really interesting and unusual special abilities - some interesting discipline combinations and so on. I'm sure there are plenty of these that will go down well. While you're buying this, you also get the new library cards, many of which also look interesting. And you can pick up, from what we've seen so far, Heart of Nizchetus, Mind Rape, Jake Washington, and quite a few other popular, useful cards. And if you buy a handful of boosters every so often and play draft? You have a fun time, like you would playing draft with any set, but you get KoT cards instead of 3E cards, or whatever else. That drafting? Not really possible without good reprints. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Clément" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:c7f85465-2523-49a2...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints > have anything to do with it. Absolutely, they do! Think about it: most of the set is reprints, limiting their value to older players. Only newbies _really_ need the reprints. Or at least, newbies need them much more than older players. But, mixed in with the reprints, are new cards that everybody needs, new players and old players alike. The difference in who wants the one vs. the other is what causes the extra artificial rarity of the new cards. To understand the problem, throw out rarity levels and just assume I wanted to print such a set with all commons. If I were to mix one Govern the Unaligned in with 49 new cards, it wouldn't cause much problem. If I were to mix 49 Govern the Unaligneds in with one new card...problem. The ability of players to sustain the demand for Govern the Unaligned, useful card though it is, has a limit. Beyond that limit, the market just doesn't need more copies of it, so won't buy more boxes, so won't get many copies of the new card into circulation. That's the problem. Fred

Delurking to get my oar in the water... > Read above: i do appreciate a lot anything good as third ed. player's kit > for newbies, for example. > On the most part, i think those, along with precons, suffice to any newbie. I'll grant you, my experience is just one data point, but that's about one data point more than this conversation has had so far. I started playing when Third Edition came out. I've introduced five other people to the game since then. I didn't have anyone who already knew the game to help out or give me commons. And, in my own personal opinion, your assertion that precons are good enough to get newbies started is completely wrong. New players start out buying precons, and that's fine to get them started. But the reason that people play CCGs rather than Hungry Hungry Hippoes is so that they can build their own decks. That element of creativity and discovery is the entire point. The gap between the newbie with a !Brujah starter and the veteran player with a suitcase of cards, who can build whatever deck he likes, is the guy with two or three precons that he wants to customize and play around with, looking for some packs or maybe a box that he can buy and start using. That's how people get from point A to point B. VTES is a game that lives and dies on its commons. That player needs to be able to go and pick up a box of shrinkwrapped White Wolf product that contains stuff he can use in the deck he picked out. And for "stuff he can use", read, "reprinted commons that you might have lots of, but that he really needs". I'm assuming here that you're not arguing against the existence of starter sets, just the prevalence of reprints in other big sets. If you go with that model, then the only sets with lots of reprints would be Sabbat, CE, and Third. You can't get the first two and the latter is not a great place for newbies to go, for a number of reasons. If only base sets have reprints, then this is what happens. Four players pick up one of each of the Third Edition starters, and then later on they get some Third boosters to flesh out their decks. Each of them is lucky to get one card in ten that they can actually use in that deck, because Third supports way too many clans and disciplines, and that's assuming they don't get hosed because of distribution and end up with nothing useful. And there are still lots of fundamental common cards that everybody needs that they don't have, because they didn't happen to get reprinted that time out. They ask themselves why White Wolf is making it so hard for them to play the game, and go back to playing Magic. Part of that problem is just that Third sucked from a production point of view, but that sort of thing happens, and if you only release sets with reprints every couple of years, then the impact of that sort of unavoidable mistake becomes catastrophic. On the other hand, if LotN and KoT and whatever's next contains a mix of new stuff and some of the basics that everybody needs, then they can pick up some of each new thing and find a place for it. Their collection grows incrementally and so does their ability to try new things. Even more importantly, they're always picking up new stuff, so their enthusiasm for the game is maintained. Kill that model and newbies only ever get started if they know somebody who can give them lots of commons out of charity. People don't get started on their own anymore and people who do get started are a lot less likely to develop into serious, hard-core collectors and players. Which means fewer people to give newbies piles of commons out of charity. And then you really do have a newbie crisis. White Wolf's model is good. Wherever possible, include stuff to keep newbies going. Restrict stuff that is newbie-inaccessible to small sets with no reprints, like TR or NoR, so they're more easily avoided. The current system is far from ideal from the POV of new players. But suggesting that they cut back on the number of reprints is such a huge step in the wrong direction that it boggles my mind.

On Nov 8, 2:43 pm, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > "Clément" wrote > > Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints > > have anything to do with it. > > Absolutely, they do! Think about it: most of the set is reprints, limiting > their value to older players. Only newbies _really_ need the reprints. > Or at least, newbies need them much more than older players. But, mixed > in with the reprints, are new cards that everybody needs, new players and > old players alike. The difference in who wants the one vs. the other is > what causes the extra artificial rarity of the new cards. I get this, but I wasn't talking about artificial rarity, just play rarity and how flat is the card distribution in boosters. In 3rd Edition it terribly sucked, but it doesn't mean it will suck too in KoT. Of course, if someone is not interested on any reprints at all, then KoT boosters will probably suck to them, as they'll get a lot of reprints and the new cards will be rarer to them in a relative way. But this was not my point. What bothered me in 3rd Edition was the huge imbalance in the number of copies I got of some cards compared to others. Regardless of them being reprints or new cards (also, to a lesser extent, I was unhappy with some reprint choices, but this is another subject). Abraço, Luiz Mello

On Nov 8, 3:11 pm, Clément wrote: (...) > I get this, but I wasn't talking about artificial rarity, just play > rarity and how flat is the card distribution in boosters. Not "play rarity", I meant to type "plain rarity". Sorry. > Abraço, > > Luiz Mello

"Clément" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:09409144-5b98-4bad...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com... On Nov 8, 2:43 pm, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > "Clément" wrote > > Perhaps it's an issue with larger sets, but I don't think the reprints > > have anything to do with it. > > Absolutely, they do! Think about it: most of the set is reprints, limiting > their value to older players. Only newbies _really_ need the reprints. > Or at least, newbies need them much more than older players. But, mixed > in with the reprints, are new cards that everybody needs, new players and > old players alike. The difference in who wants the one vs. the other is > what causes the extra artificial rarity of the new cards. > > I get this, but I wasn't talking about artificial rarity, just play > rarity and how flat is the card distribution in boosters. I'm sorry, I don't understand this. You need to define how you're using the terms, here. When I refer to "artificial rarity", I mean that certain cards are demanded for play purposes in greater numbers than they appear in boosters and precons. So their prices turns into a barrier to using them in decks to a significantly greater degree than average cards. I have no idea of what you might mean by "play rarity", as a concept separate from "artificial rarity". > Of course, if someone is not interested on any reprints at all, then > KoT boosters will probably suck to them, as they'll get a lot of > reprints and the new cards will be rarer to them in a relative way. Right. That's exactly the original poster's point. And since there are a *lot* of players for whom that's true to some extent or another, the massed effect makes a difference. How much a difference it makes is debatable. Whether there's a better way is also debatable, as an "all-reprint" set might not be worth the effort for White Wolf to manufacture and sell. But even so, the issue is there. > But this was not my point. What bothered me in 3rd Edition was the > huge imbalance in the number of copies I got of some cards compared to > others. Regardless of them being reprints or new cards (also, to a > lesser extent, I was unhappy with some reprint choices, but this is > another subject). That was true, too. But it's kind of off the topic of this thread. Except insofar as how much it sucked to get, like, 14 copies of J.S. Simmons an older player doesn't need even a little bit at ALL while not getting a single of copy of Heart of Nizchetus that he couldn't possibly have collected prior to Third Edition because it hadn't been printed. Fred

"Clément" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:41f41ca4-0a78-4b53...@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Plain rarity, if I understand what you mean, isn't actually very important in the game at all. You can have a rare card that's total dreck and players don't want to get one in their boosters at all because their bathroom already contains enough toilet tissue. On the other hand, you can have a common card that's not common enough for how many copies players would use if they could get their hands on that many. (Tupdog, in Legacy of Blood, was a poster child for that situation.) The significant thing isn't how rare a card is but how rare it is in comparison to how much it would get used in decks, if it could be obtained - taking into account such things as players' tolerance for switching underprinted cards back and forth between decks. That's what I mean by "artificial rarity". And, as far as I can see, that's the only kind of rarity that really matters. Fred

YouLookLikeANail wrote: > Delurking to get my oar in the water... > <snip premises> > And, in my own personal > opinion, your assertion that precons are good enough to get newbies > started is completely wrong. Ok > New players start out buying precons, and that's fine to get them > started. Ok, then please note that your sentence just above contraddicts with your first one quoted just below the snipped part. Either precons are good to get newbies started, or they aren't. Decide :-) > But the reason that people play CCGs rather than Hungry > Hungry Hippoes is so that they can build their own decks. That > element of creativity and discovery is the entire point. The gap > between the newbie with a !Brujah starter and the veteran player with > a suitcase of cards, who can build whatever deck he likes, is the guy > with two or three precons that he wants to customize and play around > with, looking for some packs or maybe a box that he can buy and start > using. That's how people get from point A to point B. You can get to point B just the same with an overall reprinting as we got in LoB (about 30% of reprints in boosters) , for example, or LoTN (no reprints in boosters at all, just in the precons). As said elsewhere, i'm discussing the ratio in boosters reprints, not the fact alone that a base set gets reprints. Having from 10 % to 30% of reprints in boosters, and getting the remaining needed ones (reprints) on precons is fine and pretty doable, and, honestly, can't read a single argument so far that makes that worse than getting a 60% or so of reprints in boosters instead. > VTES is a game that lives and dies on its commons. That player needs > to be able to go and pick up a box of shrinkwrapped White Wolf > product that contains stuff he can use in the deck he picked out. And for > "stuff he can use", read, "reprinted commons that you might > have lots of, but that he really needs". Yes, all of that can be packed in fixed (or even less-fixed) cons - no need to inflate the boosters with a tons of reprints. > > I'm assuming here that you're not arguing against the existence of > starter sets, just the prevalence of reprints in other big sets. Reprints in boosters,however, not reprints in general - that's my point. > If > you go with that model, then the only sets with lots of reprints > would be Sabbat, CE, and Third. You can't get the first two and the > latter is not a great place for newbies to go, for a number of > reasons. > If only base sets have reprints, then this is what happens. Four > players pick up one of each of the Third Edition starters, and then > later on they get some Third boosters to flesh out their decks. Each > of them is lucky to get one card in ten that they can actually use in > that deck, because Third supports way too many clans and disciplines, > and that's assuming they don't get hosed because of distribution and > end up with nothing useful. And there are still lots of fundamental > common cards that everybody needs that they don't have, because they > didn't happen to get reprinted that time out. > > They ask themselves why White Wolf is making it so hard for them to > play the game, and go back to playing Magic. > Yes - this is, actually, the same model probably we'll get again with KoT. > Part of that problem is just that Third sucked from a production point > of view, but that sort of thing happens, and if you only release sets > with reprints every couple of years, then the impact of that sort of > unavoidable mistake becomes catastrophic. This is, more or less, what's actually could happen again with kot. > On the other hand, if LotN and KoT and whatever's next contains a mix > of new stuff and some of the basics that everybody needs, then they > can pick up some of each new thing and find a place for it. Their > collection grows incrementally and so does their ability to try new > things. Even more importantly, they're always picking up new stuff, > so their enthusiasm for the game is maintained. Yes, but in fact LoTN has nothing to do with KoT, so far. Imho, lotn is the best set WW released so far, both for the old and new players alike. Kudos to lsj and the company for it. > Kill that model and newbies only ever get started if they know > somebody who can give them lots of commons out of charity. You can get a lot of fixed common in starters. Staple/base are only an handful of cards, nothing more and above all nothing difficult to put in a set of starters, from time to time. This is exactly what's happened on the fixed side of third's production, with very good starters and a wonderful's player's kit. This because you can have there at least 25-35 clan specific strategy reprints , and 25-35 generic base staple, plus the base crypt. Pretty the same happened with the LoTN precons. All wonderful stuff for beginners to start and learn playing a lot with it. > People > don't get started on their own anymore and people who do get started > are a lot less likely to develop into serious, hard-core collectors > and players. Which means fewer people to give newbies piles of > commons out of charity. And then you really do have a newbie crisis. > > White Wolf's model is good. Wherever possible, include stuff to keep > newbies going. Restrict stuff that is newbie-inaccessible to small > sets with no reprints, like TR or NoR, so they're more easily avoided. > > The current system is far from ideal from the POV of new players. But > suggesting that they cut back on the number of reprints is such a huge > step in the wrong direction that it boggles my mind. I'm not asking to cut reprints - i'm saying to put the majority of those in fixed cons, leaving a smaller percentage ratio of reprints in boosters. In this respect, in fact, i somewhat regret the choiche of not producing 6 starters for the KoT cammies, that would have ensured the chanche of reprinting the most cards in the precons. But i can understand the trouble with the would be cost for that. best

>> New players start out buying precons, and that's fine to get them >> started. > > Ok, then please note that your sentence just above contraddicts with your > first one quoted just below the snipped part. > Either precons are good to get newbies started, or they aren't. > Decide :-) It's fine to get them started, meaning, get their first taste of the game. It's not enough to be their entire entry point to the game. You need to have a mechanism to transition them from "I have a starter" to "I have enough cards to build whatever deck I want", and that mechanism needs to be incremental. Making lots of staples available in boosters is, from my perspective, the best way to do that, given the current product layout. >> VTES is a game that lives and dies on its commons. That player needs >> to be able to go and pick up a box of shrinkwrapped White Wolf >> product that contains stuff he can use in the deck he picked out. And for >> "stuff he can use", read, "reprinted commons that you might >> have lots of, but that he really needs". > > Yes, all of that can be packed in fixed (or even less-fixed) cons - no need > to inflate the boosters with a tons of reprints. The suggestion of less-fixed cons is interesting, but "what they should do if they were willing to tinker with the packaging and set schemes" is a different question from "what they should do given the packaging and set scheme they have now". >> I'm assuming here that you're not arguing against the existence of >> starter sets, just the prevalence of reprints in other big sets. > > Reprints in boosters,however, not reprints in general - that's my point. Okay. >> If only base sets have reprints, then this is what happens. Four >> players pick up one of each of the Third Edition starters, and then >> later on they get some Third boosters to flesh out their decks. Each >> of them is lucky to get one card in ten that they can actually use in >> that deck, because Third supports way too many clans and disciplines, >> and that's assuming they don't get hosed because of distribution and >> end up with nothing useful. And there are still lots of fundamental >> common cards that everybody needs that they don't have, because they >> didn't happen to get reprinted that time out. >> >> They ask themselves why White Wolf is making it so hard for them to >> play the game, and go back to playing Magic. > Yes - this is, actually, the same model probably we'll get again with KoT. Why do you think that will happen? >> Part of that problem is just that Third sucked from a production point >> of view, but that sort of thing happens, and if you only release sets >> with reprints every couple of years, then the impact of that sort of >> unavoidable mistake becomes catastrophic. > > This is, more or less, what's actually could happen again with kot. Well, there are two big problems with Third as a core set. The production problems are the first; that might happen with KoT, no way to avoid it, but the sets since 3e have been solid. So I wouldn't expect that again. But KoT will definitely avoid the other big problem with Third - lack of focus. Third includes, what, ten clans? That's an issue. If I decide I want to start by focusing on 2 clans, I only have 1 card in 5 that I can actually use. In KOT, that jumps to 1 in 3, for vampires, which is a much nicer ratio for me. Since vampires have multiple disciplines, the ratio of usable discipline cards increases even faster as the total number of disciplines in the set decreases. You wouldn't think that kind of ratio change would be that big a deal, but I can tell you from going through boxes with new players, you'll need a lot of boxes of Third to get enough of the basic commons to build a workable deck. You could do it a lot faster with LotN, which only has 4 clans. I suspect 6 is about the max you would want, for this purpose. So I would be much less hesitant to recommend KoT for a newbie as compared to Third, given what we know about it so far. >> On the other hand, if LotN and KoT and whatever's next contains a mix >> of new stuff and some of the basics that everybody needs, then they >> can pick up some of each new thing and find a place for it. Their >> collection grows incrementally and so does their ability to try new >> things. Even more importantly, they're always picking up new stuff, >> so their enthusiasm for the game is maintained. > > Yes, but in fact LoTN has nothing to do with KoT, so far. > Imho, lotn is the best set WW released so far, both for the old and > new players alike. Kudos to lsj and the company for it. Indeed. But I think the reason it's better for newbies has more to do with the fact that it concentrates on only 4 clans, than the number of reprints per se. Awesome set though. >> Kill that model and newbies only ever get started if they know >> somebody who can give them lots of commons out of charity. > > You can get a lot of fixed common in starters. > Staple/base are only an handful of cards, nothing more and above > all nothing difficult to put in a set of starters, from time to time. > This is exactly what's happened on the fixed side of third's production, > with very good starters and a wonderful's player's kit. > This because you can have there at least 25-35 clan specific strategy > reprints , and 25-35 generic base staple, plus the base crypt. > Pretty the same happened with the LoTN precons. > All wonderful stuff for beginners to start and learn playing a lot with it. I've seen players who go out and buy a box of boosters and are dismayed to learn that they still can't build a workable deck from that, because there are too many core cards that aren't available. Hunting for starters to get fundamental cards that everybody needs is a bit of a hack. A preconstructed starter is pretty clearly intended to be taken out of the box and used; nothing on the box suggests that you need to buy these to harvest them for cards to be able to build a workable deck in general. That's what boosters are for, everywhere else in the CCG world, and like it or not, your new players are mostly coming from that world. Maybe the solution is to produce some other new product to get these cards into the hands of new players. Regardless, players will want to buy boosters; doing so maintains their enthusiasm for the game; boosters need to be appealing to them and provide them with things they need and can use. >> People >> don't get started on their own anymore and people who do get started >> are a lot less likely to develop into serious, hard-core collectors >> and players. Which means fewer people to give newbies piles of >> commons out of charity. And then you really do have a newbie crisis. >> >> White Wolf's model is good. Wherever possible, include stuff to keep >> newbies going. Restrict stuff that is newbie-inaccessible to small >> sets with no reprints, like TR or NoR, so they're more easily avoided. >> >> The current system is far from ideal from the POV of new players. But >> suggesting that they cut back on the number of reprints is such a huge >> step in the wrong direction that it boggles my mind. > > I'm not asking to cut reprints - i'm saying to put the majority of those > in fixed cons, leaving a smaller percentage ratio of reprints in boosters. > In this respect, in fact, i somewhat regret the choiche of not producing 6 > starters for the KoT cammies, that would have ensured the chanche of > reprinting the most cards in the precons. > But i can understand the trouble with the would be cost for that. Agreed. 6 would have been awesome, but you take what you can get. Right now, though, the number and variety of preconstructed starters just isn't enough to be the main mechanism to get reprints into the hands of newbies (and post-newbies who are starting to expand their collections). Plus, people who are just starting out want to buy boosters. That's one of the big parts of CCGs that hooks people. That's a big party of why they're successful as a game type. I don't think it's wise to make them less appealing to newer players. And let's remember here, old-timers already have a significant investment in the game. A manufacturer can and should spend less time trying to woo you as compared to new people. You're already wooed. Given the release method White Wolf is pursuing, putting lots of reprints into boosters is just smart, from the perspective of acquiring and retaining newer players. Having done this myself fairly recently, getting started and building up your collection with their current model is not straightforward. The more I can get common reprints in boosters without having to do a lot of hunting around, the happier I am. Now, that's not to say the system can't be improved. Ideally, I would like to see a fixed and perpetually available core set with a limited (no more than 6) number of clans which is entirely core reprints -- everything from Deflections through to Blood Dolls and Wakes. Make that the standard entry point for players. Put the vampires from it in a Blood Shadowed Court style box so veterans can get them without needing the boosters, if they're so inclined. Make larger sets focusing on Sabbat, Indies, Laibon etc. expansions to that core set, with fewer reprints; enough to appeal to new players, but not so many as to put off older players. Aim the small no-reprint sets like TR and NoR pretty much exclusively for veteran players. In a perfect world, that's what I'd want. But if we can't get that, then there needs to be a product, ideally in booster packs, that gives new players the pieces they need. The preconstructed setup we have now isn't enough to do that job.

In article <U5kRk.219$9Z6...@newsfe01.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Ultimately, it's a "bad thing"(tm) when White Wolf or any game > company creates game components that aren't needed by players. But they aren't creating game components that aren't needed by players. People need commons. Even older players need commons (I *still* don't have enough Deflections and Telepathic Misdirections, and that is counting the large pile of Jyhad versions that I'd like to be able to replace with VTES backed versions. The same can be said for lots of cards like that). I might not need 10 more Unflinching Persistence (or whatever), but a good chunk of the commons are going to be useful to most people. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4915cce8$0$14938$426a...@news.free.fr>, "Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Please provide any sort of evidence of this. You'll note where I said "probably" and "I might be wrong", right? > I know plenty of people who would agree that the ratio of reprints in > boosters could be much better than it is in KoT. I'm sure you know plenty of > people in your playgroup who think otherwise. This doesn't make some of us > the minority and you the apostle of the majority. As noted, I could be wrong. But my suspicion is that most folks aren't real concerned with the with ratio of reprints in the boosters. Sure. I'd be happy if there were more new cards than not. But it's ok. As it is a base set, and it is important that base sets act as a solid entry point for new players and as a viable support point for novice players. I'm willing to suck up a disadvantageous extra 20% of reprints if it makes the game more accessible to the general population. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 8, 3:45 pm, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > "Clément" wrote: > > But this was not my point. What bothered me in 3rd Edition was the > > huge imbalance in the number of copies I got of some cards compared to > > others. Regardless of them being reprints or new cards (also, to a > > lesser extent, I was unhappy with some reprint choices, but this is > > another subject). > > That was true, too. But it's kind of off the topic of this thread. > Except insofar as how much it sucked to get, like, 14 copies of J.S. > Simmons an older player doesn't need even a little bit at ALL while > not getting a single of copy of Heart of Nizchetus that he couldn't > possibly have collected prior to Third Edition because it hadn't been > printed. This is exactly what I was talking about, except that I wasn't really making a distinction between reprints and new cards, and whether or not some player needs or wants any given card. I buy boosters in boxes, more often than not, and what I expect when I open a box is to get balanced (i.e. similar) amounts of cards within their respective [plain] rarity. Because I already know I'll be getting at least some cards I don't want (which I can't complain about, since I know there are other players who want them, and the set was not designed just for me). (By the way, I agree with you on the importance of artificial rarity versus plain or actual rarity. Which is why I snipped the message parts about it, which were at least partially motivated by my mistyping of "plain rarity"). Back to the point, all I'm saying is that a reprint that you don't want any [more] copies of is not essentially different from a new card that you don't want any copies of (because you hate the clan, the Discipline, or the card just sucks etc.). In the end, you still get a card you don't have any use for. If a given set carries a huge % of cards you are not interested on (because most of them are reprints, or, say, the set is Nights of Reckoning), then you might be better of not buying boosters at all, or splitting a box with a newbie, or with friend that enjoys playing with different stuff than you. On the other hand, a set with poor booster card distribution like 3rd Edition is potentially bad to everyone, since you risk getting a billion Tithings and no Heart of Nizchetus. Which is bad because: a. One of them kind of sucks while the other is über good; b. Such an imbalance in distribution creates an undesired artificial rarity. In my reply to Tetragrammaton, I was just pointing out that I don't think that either set size or the existence of reprints were the problem in 3rd Edition. The messed up card distribution was. Other than that, I agree that the ratio of reprints in boosters, in theory, should be friendly both to newbies and old players alike. But is there such a thing as an ideal ratio? And if there is, how close is KoT to this goal? Abraço, Luiz Mello

In article <C1kRk.20252$8%.6293@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: > "Vast majority" is subjective at this point, i think. I've said in multiple places that it is a subjective point. > The truth is that at least a percentage of players can be dissatisfied. Sure. Some percentage might be dissatisfied. And there is no way to find this percentage. So any attempt to quantify it will be pure guesswork. But if I were to engage in such guesswork, I'd suspect it was not that big of a percentage. Which is a guess. A subjective one. > That's your perception, yes. > Mine is on the opposite - maybe truth is in the middle. > Whatever the case, there's at least a notable percentage > can be dissatisfacted if we'll see a new 3RD boosters distribution > nightmare. I'm unclear on what made 3rd a "distribution nightmare". I mean, 3rd had problems on a production front, sure. But what exactly made it a "distribution nightmare"? > Sorry again, for some unknown reason you seem confortable in picturing > me on the personal level as the only unsatisfacted - that's not true , nor > it's the case. I don't think you are the only person who is dissatisfied. I'm sure there are others. But I can't for the life of me imagine that it is the majority of players, let alone a large majority of the players. This is pure guesswork. > How can you say that LoTN is not jumping start point for new players is a > mistery. It has wonderful, full playable precons, with all the needed cards. > I can follow your assertion on this just with TR or, in general, with any > non-precons-produced sets last years (tr, nor, soc). The boosters contain not much in the way of important basic building block cards. About 3 cards per standard discipline, and most of them are pretty narrowly useful. No pool gain masters in the boosters. Relying on new players to have to buy large piles of starters to get the necessary basic building blocks to be able to build the decks they want isn't a great plan. 'Cause starter decks tend to be very narrow, and push you in a very specific direction. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-700C97.1...@nntp.aioe.org>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >I'm unclear on what made 3rd a "distribution nightmare". I mean, 3rd had >problems on a production front, sure. But what exactly made it a >"distribution nightmare"? Specifically, the bad assortment of cards into boosters, such that some cards turned up together all the damn time. Bad for draft (you can work out what other people are taking), and can cause problems with unhelpful clumpiness. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:pdb6-700C97.1...@nntp.aioe.org... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not guessing this for italy, as example. I speak with the local princes and players, collect their thoughts, and i can tell that the agreement on dissatisfaction with excessive ratio reprints in boosters it's pretty total, so far. Sure, in other countries and other playgroups this can vary. >> How can you say that LoTN is not jumping start point for new players is a >> mistery. It has wonderful, full playable precons, with all the needed >> cards. >> I can follow your assertion on this just with TR or, in general, with any >> non-precons-produced sets last years (tr, nor, soc). > > The boosters contain not much in the way of important basic building > block cards. > About 3 cards per standard discipline, and most of them are > pretty narrowly useful. No pool gain masters in the boosters. Relying on > new players to have to buy large piles of starters With 2 starters only you get 4 vessel plus a pretty number of other base and non base cards (say, getting 8 shambling overall by 2 of the giovanni starters - *pretty* good); i think that's enough for any average deck base, don't see the necessity of buying a "tons" of precons there. 2 or 4 will pretty suffice (with minimal expense) On the other side, with similar distribution as third edition, the same player would be forced in buying *a lots* of boosters instead to get at least x4 of the needed cards, for his given first deck. As someone else here pointed, that will likely result in the new player just giving up, or i'd say on relying on the secondary market. Thus, a couple old players would try to buy on the secondary market mostly to get the rares / new cards, giving up with boosters - a couple of newer ones to get common/staple in quantities, giving up with boosters - who buy the boosters with such ratio distributions on the primary then ? A lesser amount of potential buyers, granted. > to get the necessary > basic building blocks to be able to build the decks they want isn't a > great plan. 'Cause starter decks tend to be very narrow, and push you in > a very specific direction. > Yes, and newbies actually need a specific direction, in my experience. This is a complicated game, it takes some time to be familiar with all the mechanics, and newbies needs to be focused on a specific deck or two of their own, to learn better and faster.

"Clément" <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in message news:c4b7a70a-4fa2-4c06...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > Back to the point, all I'm saying is that a reprint that you don't > want any [more] copies of is not essentially different from a new card > that you don't want any copies of (because you hate the clan, the > Discipline, or the card just sucks etc.). In the end, you still get a > card you don't have any use for. That's all true but it ignores a huge point: reprints, as a class, are much more likely to be "cards you not interested in" than new cards, if you're an older player. Newer players don't care either way - new cards and older cards are just as likely to be interesting. So, almost by definition, the base sets with 80% library reprints are going to have this problem to a much greater degree than all-new-card sets. (OK, you can assert a nit here: reprints will usually be selected for being "good cards". Conditioning is a lot more likely to be reprinted than Tortured Confession. Which is good, of course. But even taking that into account, players with well-established collections are much more likely to have more use for a new card than a reprint.) > If a given set carries a huge % of cards you are not interested on > (because most of them are reprints, or, say, the set is Nights of > Reckoning), then you might be better of not buying boosters at all, or > splitting a box with a newbie, or with friend that enjoys playing with > different stuff than you. I suppose the comparison isn't completely inappropriate but I think the effect is much more egregious with respect to base sets. Nights of Reckoning is a complete anamoly and was mitigated quite a bit by being a mini-expansion which was easy to collect at the time. Most players, new or old, will want most new cards. Or, to the extent they don't want them, the new cards will still have potential appeal to the entire set of existing players, new and old. On the other hand, the usefulness of reprints to older players will always automatically be lessened, no matter the reprint because there's already a number of them in existence. We're not talking individual players' preferences here; we're talking about an entire market which was already had its demands for these cards partially sated. > On the other hand, a set with poor booster card distribution like 3rd > Edition is potentially bad to everyone, since you risk getting a > billion Tithings and no Heart of Nizchetus. Which is bad because: Mind you, to my knowledge the issue is not that many more Tithings were printed the Heart of Nizchetus. Just that the randomization was so lousy that it was possible to open many boxes - because they were from the same part of the production run and the distributor you bought from had all boxes from that part of the run - and not get a HoN. Meanwhile, some other guy somewhere who was buying all boxes from a _different_ part of the production run was getting a billion Hearts of Nizchetus and no Tithings. It was a bad thing but I wonder if you're thinking it was worse than it was. Anyway, I just see it as a completely different problem that really has no bearing on this subject. White Wolf should address it...and this is a different thing. I don't see what it has to do with this, other than that both problems existed in 3rd Edition. > In my reply to Tetragrammaton, I was just pointing out that I don't > think that either set size or the existence of reprints were the > problem in 3rd Edition. The messed up card distribution was. Who said there was only one problem in 3rd Edition? Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-5C4A87.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <U5kRk.219$9Z6...@newsfe01.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Ultimately, it's a "bad thing"(tm) when White Wolf or any game >> company creates game components that aren't needed by players. > > But they aren't creating game components that aren't needed by players. > People need commons. *sigh* ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game component that isn't needed by players". I understand that some number of reprints are needed for new players. And, yes, specific reprints will be desired by older players. But given the makeup of the base sets, there is absolutely an overprinting of reprints as a class. Or rather, there is a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets. Fred

In message <ChoRk.2080$sl....@newsfe23.iad>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game >component that isn't needed by players". I understand that some number >of reprints are needed for new players. And, yes, specific reprints will >be desired by older players. But given the makeup of the base sets, there >is absolutely an overprinting of reprints as a class. Or rather, there is >a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets. You haven't made a case for there being "an overprinting of reprints as a class". Sure, for oldbies who don't want those cards, they're "overprinted". But to declare them "overprinted" you need to make that case for the game as a whole, and you haven't. It may also be worth noting that 400 seems to be a sweet spot for cards. It's 4 sheets - one for each rarity. (You can, obviously, have fewer cards by varying rarities a little, so you have a few R2 or whatever.) If you stick with the idea of 4 sheets, however, then you can't separate out the two issues - every new card you print will bump a reprint off the sheet. When a large chunk of the point of a base set is to reprint those cards, whittling away at them so that there are even fewer of them is self-defeating. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 8, 7:17 pm, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > Most players, new > or old, will want most new cards. Or, to the extent they don't want them, > the new cards will still have potential appeal to the entire set of existing > players, new and old. On the other hand, the usefulness of reprints to > older players will always automatically be lessened, no matter the reprint > because there's already a number of them in existence. We're not talking > individual players' preferences here; we're talking about an entire market > which was already had its demands for these cards partially sated. Sure, but I'm afraid we can't be sure about the degree in which the demand for many old cards are sated. Take the messages in this thread for instance: some posters believe lots of people (including old players) want reprints to address holes in their collections or to have more copies of cards they use in many decks; other people believe that most old players will be disappointed by the high ratio of reprints in KoT. Most likely, no one can know for sure. That's why I throwed the matter of player's personal preferences into the discussion. I bought LoTN boosters knowing I would get roughly 50% of Assamite/Quietus/FoS/Serpentis cards that I didn't want, but it was still worth it because it was the best/faster/cheaper way to get the Ravnos/Chimerstry/Giovanni/Necromancy stuff I was seeking. I will buy at least two boxes of KoT boosters, because there are lots of stuff in there that I want (many reprints included, despite of me having a large collection) and because I read here the boxes have a flat, balanced assortment of cards. It looks like booster boxes are the way to go for me this time, despite the "useless" [for me] Thaumaturgy and overprinted common cards I'm likely to get. On the other hand, if I only wanted 10% or 20% of the cards in the set, I would probably go for singles, or would split a box with friends, taking only the cards I needed. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but that's kind of how it works with card games, and VTES is better in this sense than any other CCG I have been touch with (not many, to be honest). Anyway, I'm not sure we are disagreeing a lot here. I agree that too high a ratio of reprints in boosters (even for a base set) is probably not a good thing. On the other hand, I believe the reprints are necessary (among other things, to mitigate the artificial rarity of many cards) and that having them in starters is not enough. > Mind you, to my knowledge the issue is not that many more Tithings were > printed the Heart of Nizchetus. Just that the randomization was so lousy > that it was possible to open many boxes - because they were from the same > part of the production run and the distributor you bought from had all > boxes from that part of the run - and not get a HoN. Meanwhile, some > other guy somewhere who was buying all boxes from a _different_ part of > the production run was getting a billion Hearts of Nizchetus and no > Tithings. It was a bad thing but I wonder if you're thinking it was > worse than it was. No, no, I know it was "just" a randomization problem. But it was a problem that pretty much turned 3rd Edition into the only VTES set that I wondered if it was worth purchasing (even after I bought a fair amount of boosters). (...) > Who said there was only one problem in 3rd Edition? Not me! ;) To keep it on topic, for example, one might question why some poor cards were reprinted at all in 3rd Edition. Abraço, Luiz Mello

In article <ChoRk.2080$sl....@newsfe23.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game > component that isn't needed by players". If people need them, they aren't over printed in relation to the need. > Or rather, there is > a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets. There are, assuming an appropriate distribution, just as many Aid from Bats as there are Villeins (assuming it is a common; I don't know, just using it as an example) in the set. There isn't an under printing. One could argue that it would make some sense to print 2 new cards for every reprint (i.e. all the new cards should be C2 and all the reprints should be C1) or something. But that kind of shoots the idea of "base set" in the foot (as the highly useful Govern the Unaligned is half as common as the less useful obfuscate S:CE card). I found CE to work out fine. I found 3rd (excepting the upside down backs and sub-optimal card stock) to work out fine. I suspect that KoT will work the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <CWe0Nat1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Specifically, the bad assortment of cards into boosters, such that some > cards turned up together all the damn time. Bad for draft (you can work > out what other people are taking), and can cause problems with unhelpful > clumpiness. Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I have not specific memory of bad sorting; yeah, the backs were upside down. And I still hate the card stock and cuts. But I don't remember the distribution being all that bad. Not to say that it wasn't. But it didn't leave an impression. Conversely, I played a TR/KMW draft at Origins this past summer where we got a whole table of TR boosters that were, like, 10 vampires and a rare... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-B6224F.1...@nntp.aioe.org>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <CWe0Nat1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Specifically, the bad assortment of cards into boosters, such that some >> cards turned up together all the damn time. Bad for draft (you can work >> out what other people are taking), and can cause problems with unhelpful >> clumpiness. > >Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I have not specific memory of bad >sorting; yeah, the backs were upside down. And I still hate the card >stock and cuts. But I don't remember the distribution being all that >bad. Not to say that it wasn't. But it didn't leave an impression. Start here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/d5b2ae0cd8b6fdab Reports of: - vampires coming in predictable groups of 3 - uncommons coming in predictable groups of 2 and so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Maybe I'm just misremembering, but I have not specific memory of bad > sorting; yeah, the backs were upside down. And I still hate the card > stock and cuts. But I don't remember the distribution being all that > bad. Not to say that it wasn't. But it didn't leave an impression. One of the players in my group bought a box of third and about half of the commons and uncommons from the set didn't show up at all. He was missing way more commons than any normal distribution would suggest. Since he bought the box to help build up his base of commons for general deckbuilding (one of the things you want a base set for), it was definitely a source of frustration for him.

In article <7FIKp$5s+mF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Start here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread > /d5b2ae0cd8b6fdab > > Reports of: > - vampires coming in predictable groups of 3 > - uncommons coming in predictable groups of 2 > > and so on. Ah, yeah, Ok. Fair enough. Let's hope we avoid that again then :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:9RrLcP0h...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <ChoRk.2080$sl....@newsfe23.iad>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game >>component that isn't needed by players". I understand that some number >>of reprints are needed for new players. And, yes, specific reprints will >>be desired by older players. But given the makeup of the base sets, there >>is absolutely an overprinting of reprints as a class. Or rather, there is >>a definite underprinting of the new cards in the reprint sets. > > You haven't made a case for there being "an overprinting of reprints as > a class". Sure, for oldbies who don't want those cards, they're > "overprinted". But to declare them "overprinted" you need to make that > case for the game as a whole, and you haven't. I've been trying to, but the argument keeps going down other avenues so I haven't really had a chance to address why combining reprints with new cards in the same randomized print run automatically means you're overprinting the reprints. I've touched on it though. It's basically just that if you print new cards and reprints together in the same print run, the number of each type of card are bound together. As people buy the one, they automatically get a fixed amount of the other (as a population; not as an individual) and vica versa. But, assuming new cards are more or less as desirable on average as the reprints, and both sets of cards have been categorized more or less correctly as commons, uncommons, and rares, then it's impossible not to underprint the new cards and overprint the reprints. The reason is that SOME of your player base already own the reprints and the demand for them is already partially sated. Given both of the assumptions above, the demand for both should be approximately equal, yet part of the demand for the repritns (and frequently a large part of it) is already partially sated. How can reprints NOT be overprinted in this scenario? The main weakness in the argument is that reprints, unlike new cards, may be specifically selected for their desirability (counter to my first assumption above). Actually, they obviously are. However, I'm skepical that this is ever going to compensate for the copies of the reprint cards already in existance. White Wolf may also address the problem by jiggering with the commonilty of the new cards, to attempt to print new cards at a higher level in the set than they normally would. (This would be counter to my second assumption above.) In fact, they may be doing that and it's impossible prove one way or the other since the precise commonality of a card can't objectively be fixed. So far, though, I haven't seen any evidence of anything like that but it's not something I can positively know. > It may also be worth noting that 400 seems to be a sweet spot for cards. > It's 4 sheets - one for each rarity. (You can, obviously, have fewer > cards by varying rarities a little, so you have a few R2 or whatever.) > If you stick with the idea of 4 sheets, however, then you can't separate > out the two issues - every new card you print will bump a reprint off > the sheet. When a large chunk of the point of a base set is to reprint > those cards, whittling away at them so that there are even fewer of them > is self-defeating. Sure. I understand. This is all about getting a balance of new cards and reprints so that WW can print a reprint set without taking a bath on it. I don't dispute that new players need reprints nor that this is probably the best way to get reprints into their hands. To be sure, unlike the other guy, I'm not trashing the whole idea of base sets. I'm just saying, it still causes an automatic problem by systematically underprinting the new cards in such a set. It may not be a fixable problem, though. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-F1E643.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <ChoRk.2080$sl....@newsfe23.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> ANYTHING that's overprinted in relation to the need for it is a "game >> component that isn't needed by players". > > If people need them, they aren't over printed in relation to the need. Nonsense. Collectible card games being what they are, you can massively overprint a card and there will be some people somewhere who have unfilled desires for the card. Just because they come in random boosters. I can't order a WwEF from White Wolf or a distributor. I have to order a booster that may have one in it. And &#@*! it! That was 3 millionth booster I ordered and no WwEF. Damn the luck! Now you can argue about singles being available. But, as soon as you bring them into the mix, no card is "needed". Singles dealers can provide you with anything that was ever printed if the price is right. Bottom line: your assertion holds no water. You can't tell anything about whether a card is overprinted by showing some people somewhere "need" them. > One > could argue that it would make some sense to print 2 new cards for every > reprint (i.e. all the new cards should be C2 and all the reprints should > be C1) or something. You could. And I personally think that would be a good way to do it. > But that kind of shoots the idea of "base set" in > the foot (as the highly useful Govern the Unaligned is half as common as > the less useful obfuscate S:CE card). I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. If anything "shoots the idea of 'base set' in the foot", it's having new cards in it at all. But since the new cards have to be there, I don't see the problem with addressing the elevated desire for the new cards by elevating their commonality. > I found CE to work out fine. It didn't cause any obvious problems stemming for this, no. That's because few of the new cards in CE were very good, for whatever reason. Baltimore Purge was the main one I can think of and I seem to recall one or two other moderately reasonable cards last I looked. But it's hard to tell whether it was just luck that there were no chase rares or there was some intent there. > I found 3rd (excepting the upside down > backs and sub-optimal card stock) to work out fine. Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years, not counting The Unmasking (which became a lot more desirable when a whole set dedicated to allies was printed without reprinting it). It didn't "work out fine". A lot of other 3rd Edition new cards appeared to me to be a lot more highly priced and hard to get than they should have been, given what they were. It's certainly true that in a game with thousands of different cards, you can pretty much live without almost all of them. So if your answer to players who want cards they can't find is to do without or to just deal with the added rarity, then I'm sure you would find that it "works out fine". After all, obnoxiously rare cards exist apart from the new cards in base. It's just unfortunate to create such cards systematically. At least, let's not tell people who notice the problem that they're crazy. Fred

On Nov 10, 11:32 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Nonsense. Your issue seems to be with "under-desire", not "overprinting" then. Which strikes me as kind of a different issue. But maybe I'm just confused. > You could. And I personally think that would be a good way to do it. Maybe. But then the kind of fringey/narrow use new cards (as new cards tend to be more specialized than older bread and butter cards, by design; you only need so many variations of "+1 bleed", so the new version is going to be "+2 bleed, but with added conditionality of some type" making it more narrowly useful) are going to outweigh the bread a butter, building block cards. Which in a vast picture (total cards in circulation) might work out better for some instances, but for that particular set as an individual unit, it works out worse for most purposes (getting basic building blocks to people who need them, being useful for draft/limited play). > Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years, I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous, not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd Rare? > It didn't "workout fine". It did for my purposes. But we have already determined that you and I have wildly different world views of what is or is not "fine" (i.e. I'm totally fine with not having all the cards all the time; you want all the cards, all the time, and not now, but 5 minutes ago...) in this instance. > A lot of other 3rd Edition new cards appeared to me to be a lot more highly > priced and hard to get than they should have been, given what they were. Maybe? Heart is absurdly pricey for a single for VTES, I agree. But there are plenty of reasons that could contribute to that that have nothing to do with distribution/circulation. -Peter

On Nov 10, 11:53 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 10, 11:32 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years, > > I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous, > not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of > them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he > didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual > evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd > Rare? > Yeah it's harder to get than any other 3rd rare, because most of the other 3rd rares are available in other sets. Even assuming it were the same utility as, say, Shadow Court Satyr, it's artificial rarity would be higher because, of the people that want the Heart, no one already had one before 3rd. I totally agree that in a mostly-reprint set, the new cards' rarities should be ratcheted down to account for the higher artificial rarity. It's a simple matter of new players may want Conditioning, but most old players don't. New players *and* old players both want, say, Grooming the Protege, or various other 3rd ed commons. The new cards are more in demand, regardless of utility, than reprints of the same rarity.

On Nov 10, 1:03 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > Yeah it's harder to get than any other 3rd rare, because most of the > other 3rd rares are available in other sets. But there are just as many Hearts in circulation as there are, say, 3rd Golcondas. Yeah, other Golcondas exist, but that doesn't make Heart any more "extra" rare than anything else in the set. Heart goes for $20.00, sure. But NRA Pact (also a non reprint 3rd Rare) and Iconnu Tuttelage (also also a non reprint 3rd Rare) sell for, like, $5.00, just like any other generic rare. So while there certainly are fewer total Hearts in circulation than, say, Golcondas, Heart isn't so expensive 'cause it is super extra rare. It's 'cause people want it a lot. > Even assuming it were > the same utility as, say, Shadow Court Satyr, it's artificial rarity > would be higher because, of the people that want the Heart, no one > already had one before 3rd. That is the same for all non reprint Rares; if the "artifical rarity" is the reason for the Heart going for $20.00, why aren't NRA Pact and Iconnu Tuttelage also going for $20.00? Or Ancestor Spirit (an "artificially rare" Rare in another large set with a lot of reprints)? Heart goes for a lot of money 'cause it is stupidly ubiquitous and effective. And also a rare from a big set. If Heart was a rare in a set that wasn't the same size and not mostly reprints, it would *still* be going for $20.00, likely. -Peter

On Nov 10, 6:53 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 10, 11:32 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years, > > I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous, > not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of > them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he > didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual > evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd > Rare? One guy bought 3 boxes of boosters, did not get one heart. Someone else bought one box, got about 4. No problems there that you can see? At this point, the guy who has bought 3 boxes is willing to trade way more than the true value of that card to get it. RL example, btw. [ quoted text not captured ]

Blooded Sand wrote: > On Nov 10, 6:53 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Nov 10, 11:32 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> > Huh? Heart of Nizchetus was the first in-print $20+ card in years, >> >> I assumed that was 'cause it was stupidly effective and ubiquitous, >> not 'cause it was particularly hard to get--my group has plenty of >> them (Greg opened, like, 3 in boosters at different times. And he >> didn't actually buy all that many boosters). Do we have any actual >> evidence to point out that it was harder to get than any other 3rd >> Rare? > > One guy bought 3 boxes of boosters, did not get one heart. Someone > else bought one box, got about 4. No problems there that you can see? > At this point, the guy who has bought 3 boxes is willing to trade way > more than the true value of that card to get it. RL example, btw. > Um, by definition, he won't be willing to trade way more than the true value, as value is a subjective thing. He'll be willing to trade _exactly_ what he values it at (or less). Because that's how you define 'value'. If by 'true value' you actually mean 'what other people would be willing to trade for it if they haven't got as screwy distribution in their boxes than this guy' then sure. But that's kind of how the T in TCG comes about. Although these days most people seem to be calling it a CCG, I still like the T, and am glad not every box has a perfectly flat distribution. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) Likes the T _and_ A.

On Nov 10, 4:20 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > One guy bought 3 boxes of boosters, did not get one heart. Someone > else bought one box, got about 4. No problems there that you can see? That seems like an average distribution of 1 Heart per box. Isn't that, like, better than average? There are 100 Rares in the set (well, maybe 95 and a few R2s that show up twice on the sheet and so show up twice as often). With 36 boosters per box, you are getting about 1/3 of a particular rare per box. So the guy who bought 3 boxes was *likely* to get any one of a particular rare, but not guaranteed. And if you get 4 of a given rare in 4 boxes (see: your example), you are beating the odds significantly. > At this point, the guy who has bought 3 boxes is willing to trade way > more than the true value of that card to get it. RL example, btw. So he should trade some stuff to the guy who has 4. It shouldn't be that hard to trade for... -Peter

On Nov 10, 3:43 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > That seems like an average distribution of 1 Heart per box. Isn't > that, like, better than average? There are 100 Rares in the set (well, > maybe 95 and a few R2s that show up twice on the sheet and so show up > twice as often). With 36 boosters per box, you are getting about 1/3 > of a particular rare per box. So the guy who bought 3 boxes was > *likely* to get any one of a particular rare, but not guaranteed. And > if you get 4 of a given rare in 4 boxes (see: your example), you are > beating the odds significantly. > And that doesn't seem like a problem to you? Brand new cards in a set that's mostly reprints, and you have to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of getting one? If it's an all new set, I might buy 2 boxes. But who needs 3 boxes full of reprints just to get a few new cards? It makes one want to not buy the set at all (which I basically didn't for 3rd ed). And it's not really easy to get the new cards as singles soon after the set comes out - they're either sold out or ridiculously expensive. I really think this would be alleviated by making the newer cards less rare. I don't think that's happening with KoT, considering there are 100 rares (so no R2's, presumably), and at least a third (and I think it's half?) of the new cards are rare. On the plus side, KoT has more new cards than 3rd, so at least that part makes me happy.

On Nov 10, 4:59 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > But who needs 3 boxes full of reprints just to get a few new cards? > It makes one want to not buy the set at all (which I basically didn't > for 3rd ed). Me (assuming the reprints aren't wallpaper). -witness1

On Nov 10, 4:59 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I really think this would be alleviated by making the newer cards less > rare. Yeah, the uneven, and in some cases nearly inexplicable, choices about what, in 3rd, was R1 vs R2, etc, were really, really bothersome. Can anyone think of *any* good explanation for why Telepathic Vote Counting was an R2, for instance? And general-utility new rares tended to be R1's, while Cracking the Wall - possibly a zero-utility new rare, but at the very best interpretation a limited-utility, !Malk- only one - was an R2. *shrug* This is the same rarity-setting-by- dartboard feeling I get from having seen Seraph's Second (lots per deck) as a rare while Tattoo Signal (a few per deck) was a common, and having Twilight Camp show up as Rare when it's probably even better when you can play a fair number of it to be sure it *does* show up early. - D.J.

In article <2a575fb1-4a35-42cb...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > And that doesn't seem like a problem to you? Brand new cards in a set > that's mostly reprints, and you have to buy 3 boxes to have a decent > chance of getting one? Well, frankly, no. It doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me. This is a game of trading/collectible cards. At a certain point, you need to just accept that sometimes it is hard to get some of the cards. As games go, this one is pretty good about that (full disclosure: I don't own a Heart. I never got one in a booster. I never felt the need to buy one for $28.00. I probably could have swapped for one from someone locally who had too many for some good cards if I really felt the need). Yeah, you need to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of getting one Heart. You also needed to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of getting an NRA Pact, Inconnu Tuttelage, or Black Forrest Base, all of which are totally reasonably priced as singles on the internet. Still. So you have a way to avoid buying 3 boxes if you don't want to. Heart is an outlier. Basing all arguments about card distribution on "It's insane that Heart costs $20!!!!" isn't really realistic; the problem with Heart is not that it was particularly hard to get relative to everything else (although, admitedly, it was kind of silly to have made a few of the new Rares in 3rd into R2s, but not all of them, and not all of the R2s were new cards). It was that it was insanely effective and insanely ubiquitous, so people wanted lots and lots of them (one for every deck!). There are just as many NRA Pacts and Black Forest Bases in circulation, and they are, again, reasonably priced as singles. > If it's an all new set, I might buy 2 boxes. > But who needs 3 boxes full of reprints just to get a few new cards? Very few people. Luckily, most of the few new cards aren't hard to get as singles. Heart is a wild exception, not the rule. > I really think this would be alleviated by making the newer cards less > rare. I don't think that's happening with KoT, considering there are > 100 rares (so no R2's, presumably), and at least a third (and I think > it's half?) of the new cards are rare. On the plus side, KoT has more > new cards than 3rd, so at least that part makes me happy. I could certainly see making the new rares R2s and the reprint rares R1s. That seems totally reasonable. I don't think making new commons as Cs is really necessary, as there are so many more commons in circulation compared to rares. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article > <2a575fb1-4a35-42cb...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> And that doesn't seem like a problem to you? Brand new cards in a >> set that's mostly reprints, and you have to buy 3 boxes to have a >> decent chance of getting one? > > Well, frankly, no. It doesn't seem like that much of a problem to me. > This is a game of trading/collectible cards. At a certain point, you > need to just accept that sometimes it is hard to get some of the > cards. At a certain point, That's fine -. this is a game, also, kept live by a consolidated group of players all over the world, more or less. > As games go, this one is pretty good about that (full > disclosure: I don't own a Heart. I never got one in a booster. I > never felt the need to buy one for $28.00. I probably could have > swapped for one from someone locally who had too many for some good > cards if I really felt the need). > > Yeah, you need to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of getting one > Heart. You also needed to buy 3 boxes to have a decent chance of > getting an NRA Pact, Inconnu Tuttelage, or Black Forrest Base, all of > which are totally reasonably priced as singles on the internet. Personally, i got 2 inconnu tutelage from one single box. It never happened to me to see 2 hearts of nizchetus (or even 2 yawp court, or 2 black forest base) popping out from the same box., however. At maximum, one of those - more often, zero.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:59:54 -0800 (PST), Chris Berger wrote: > I don't think that's happening with KoT, considering there are >100 rares (so no R2's, presumably), and at least a third (and I think >it's half?) of the new cards are rare. New rares - 16 New uncommons - 19 New commons - 17 New vampires - 124 (100 in booster, 24 in starters)

In article <eJ2Sk.22464$8%.14746@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote: > At a certain point, > That's fine -. this is a game, also, kept live by a consolidated > group of players all over the world, more or less. Sure. I don't deny that at a certain point, collectability issues could become a serious stumbling point. But as CCGs go, this one has gone a long way to avoiding that point. At least for my money. > Personally, i got 2 inconnu tutelage from one single box. > It never happened to me to see 2 hearts of nizchetus (or even 2 yawp > court, or 2 black forest base) popping out from the same box., however. > At maximum, one of those - more often, zero. Sure. But that is just perception/whatever' Inconnu Tuttelage and NRA Pact, say, were both R1s. Just like Heart was an R1. So unless someone went through the cut cards before they were packed and pulled out Hearts (highly, highly unlikely), there are just as many Hearts as NRA Pacts (or whatever) in circulation. And while *you* never saw 2x Hearts in a single box, chances are, someone did (if not 4...). 'Cause if you got 2 Inconnu Tuttelage out of a single box, there was the exact same chance of getting 2 Hearts out of a box. Heart wasn't any more rare than any other of the R1s in the set. It just happened to be a really, really desired R1. If it wasn't as completely capable of going in every deck ever and always being good (i.e. it had *some* kind of limitations or specific focus), it would be $5.00-$10.00, just like all the other 3rd Rares. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] So, did White Wolf lie in it's KoT adds or is that a guess? A new expansion for Vampire: The Eternal Struggle® • 160 new cards in booster packs • 11 cards per booster pack 16+19+17+100 = 152 < 160

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:09:36 -0800 (PST), JH wrote: >> New rares - 16 >> New uncommons - 19 >> New commons - 17 >> New vampires - 124 (100 in booster, 24 in starters) >So, did White Wolf lie in it's KoT adds or is that a guess? I opened 10 booster display boxes. I have 3-4 complete sets. The numbers above are correct. I understand that there were a few printing errors. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:d3a2fef6-b5a0-4fc5...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Nov 10, 1:03 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > Yeah it's harder to get than any other 3rd rare, because most of the > other 3rd rares are available in other sets. > > But there are just as many Hearts in circulation as there are, say, > 3rd Golcondas. Yeah, other Golcondas exist, but that doesn't make > Heart any more "extra" rare than anything else in the set. Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas for the reason you just cited. > Heart goes > for $20.00, sure. But NRA Pact (also a non reprint 3rd Rare) and > Iconnu Tuttelage (also also a non reprint 3rd Rare) sell for, like, > $5.00, just like any other generic rare. Um, "generic rares" don't generally go for $5.00. Not in-print rares (at least, not in-print rares after the initial price instability fades). It's always possible that HoN is priced as it is entirely or almost entirely due to its utility but I'm pretty skeptical because the price is so unusual. There's so many factors involved in pricing a single that it's impossible to look at prices and truly sort out which factor is causing what effect in the singles market. But AFAICS, it's impossible to discount the "extra rareness" stemming from being a new card printed in a reprint set because it basically must be causing an effect, unless one of the two asssumptions I cited in my reply to James proved wrong. > > Even assuming it were > > the same utility as, say, Shadow Court Satyr, it's artificial rarity > > would be higher because, of the people that want the Heart, no one > > already had one before 3rd. > > That is the same for all non reprint Rares; if the "artifical rarity" > is the reason for the Heart going for $20.00, why aren't NRA Pact and > Iconnu Tuttelage also going for $20.00? Classic false dichotomy. The prices of singles have no single cause which preclude other causes. Heart of Nizchetus is more useful than NRA Pack and Inconnu Tuttelage. This doesn't mean utility alone sets HoN's price. In fact, the new-cards-in-a-reprint-set effect will simply factor into such cards' prices on top of the price they'd go for were they printed in an all-new-card set. > Or Ancestor Spirit (an > "artificially rare" Rare in another large set with a lot of reprints)? Actually, LoB wasn't nearly as bad because the reprint cards were a much smaller ratio of the overall print run. In fact, I really didn't see LoB as having any significant problem with this effect at all. This is the difference I cited in a previous post with respect to printing 1 reprint Conditioning with 49 new cards vs. printing 49 reprint Conditionings with 1 new cards. LoB is comparable to the former; CE, 3E, and KoT are more like the latter. It's a big difference. > If Heart was a rare in a > set that wasn't the same size and not mostly reprints, it would > *still* be going for $20.00, likely. I very much doubt that. But it's unprovable one way or another. Fred

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:2f604646-ca46-49a7...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Doesn't matter. His point still holds true: the average new card is in significantly higher demand overall than the average reprint - even the average reprint selected for being a strong card. Were this NOT true, White Wolf could issue all-reprint sets without having to spike the mix with new cards at all. The very fact that they felt they had to do this demonstrates the validity of the effect to which Chris makes reference. Fred

In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7....@newsfe01.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas > for the reason you just cited. Heart is no rarer than *3rd* Golcondas. Or NRA Pacts. > Um, "generic rares" don't generally go for $5.00. Not in-print > rares (at least, not in-print rares after the initial price > instability fades). $5.00 is in no way out of the realm of reason for a Rare from a current set. > It's always possible that HoN is priced as it is entirely or > almost entirely due to its utility but I'm pretty skeptical > because the price is so unusual. The unusual price is almost specifically *because* of its utility; again, see NRA Pact and Inconnu Tuttelage; sure, I'll give you a price bump due to the rarity factor, but not a $15.00 price bump. If Heart were $20.00+ because of the rarity, so would NRA Pact (which is a pretty good card in and of itself). But it goes for about 5 bucks ($6.00 on Lasombra; ~$5.00 on e-bay). Unless there are significantly fewer Hearts in circulation than NRA Pacts. But there is no reason at all to believe this is the case. Heart is a crazy outlier. > But AFAICS, it's > impossible to discount the "extra rareness" stemming from being > a new card printed in a reprint set because it basically must > be causing an effect, unless one of the two asssumptions I cited > in my reply to James proved wrong. Sure. Some effect. But not a $28.00 effect. Otherwise, NRA Pact would cost about the same. > Classic false dichotomy. The prices of singles have no single cause > which preclude other causes. Heart of Nizchetus is more useful than NRA > Pack and Inconnu Tuttelage. This doesn't mean utility alone sets HoN's > price. In fact, the new-cards-in-a-reprint-set effect will simply factor > into such cards' prices on top of the price they'd go for were they > printed in an all-new-card set. Sure. Again, I'll spot you a couple bucks for the rarity issue (i.e. 1 of 16 new rares in a set of 100 rares). But $20.00? That is pure utility. > I very much doubt that. But it's unprovable one way or another. Fair enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 11, 7:52 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7.1...@newsfe01.iad>, [ quoted text not captured ] > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff Pardon for the intrusion, but the way 3rd ed was made out it was awfully easy to get reprinted cards more than the new ones, which was probably the ratio of old to new. Unfortunately, that meant some players who opened two boxes got two hearts of nizchetus(somebody i know personally), and someone who opened 12+ boxes to get three. So there are times even after buying several boxes you get no heart of nizchetus or inconnu tutelage. I personally got the latter on my 10th box. So there were some problems there. Mirror walks were like 1 or at most 2 per box. Yes part of the hearts cost is utility indeed,but in the end rarity is always an issue as well. Not that im condemning reprinting in base sets or anything, just that in the future white wolf should tone down there are reprints to a number hopfully like 75-25 ratio (old-new). Although this is just my opinion really, not to be taken as some doctrine.

In article <b2cca0f7-f99b-4d4a...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, corellion...@yahoo.com.ph wrote: > Pardon for the intrusion, but the way 3rd ed was made out it was > awfully easy to get reprinted cards more than the new ones, which was > probably the ratio of old to new. There were the exact same number of each individual new card printed in 3rd as reprints (excepting the R2s, etc). It was just as easy to pull a 3rd NRA Pact as it was to pull a 3rd Golconda. If you mean "it was easier to buy reprints as singles than it was to buy singles of the new cards", well, sure, ok. Buying a 3rd Ed Telepathic Counting as a single is going to be much easier than buying a 3rd Ed NRA Pact, as lots of people have lots of Telepathic Countings compared to NRA Pacts. But the new 3rd Ed rares (except for Heart) weren't (and aren't) measurably more expensive than new wanted rares from other sets (a quick look at singles on the Lasombra indicates that most of the 3rd Ed only rares sell for about the same price as any of the other good rares from LotN and TR, about 5-6 bucks. Not that this is the be all and end all of data, but it's a quick check). > Unfortunately, that meant some > players who opened two boxes got two hearts of nizchetus(somebody i > know personally), and someone who opened 12+ boxes to get three. So > there are times even after buying several boxes you get no heart of > nizchetus or inconnu tutelage. Ok? That is how CCGs work. There are no fixed distributions. Just likelyhoods. > I personally got the latter on my 10th > box. So there were some problems there. Mirror walks were like 1 or > at most 2 per box. There were no fewer Mirror Walks in 3rd Ed than Aid from Bats. > Yes part of the hearts cost is utility indeed,but > in the end rarity is always an issue as well. Of course it is. But Heart had the exact same rarity as a bunch of other 3rd only R1s. And those *weren't* selling for $30.00. Even the good ones. They were (and are) selling for as much as any other desirable rare. Heart is a crazy, crazy outlier. And not 'cause it was extra rare (in the "total number in circulation" sense; it was more scarce for purchase, likely, as people didn't want to sell them, as everyone wanted multiples of them, as they went in every deck all the time). Yes. It is insane that the Heart was selling for $30.00. But that is the *extreme* end of anything. Made of a number of factors. Only one of which was the rarity out of the packs, which was the exact same rarity out of the packs as a number of other, similarly new rare cards. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Nov., 03:52, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <b2cca0f7-f99b-4d4a-b735-ed932599a...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, > > corellionlareth...@yahoo.com.ph wrote: > > Pardon for the intrusion, but the way 3rd ed was made out it was > > awfully easy to get reprinted cards more than the new ones, which was > > probably the ratio of old to new. > > There were the exact same number of each individual new card printed in > 3rd as reprints (excepting the R2s, etc). It was just as easy to pull a > 3rd NRA Pact as it was to pull a 3rd Golconda. > > If you mean "it was easier to buy reprints as singles than it was to buy > singles of the new cards", well, sure, ok. Buying a 3rd Ed Telepathic > Counting as a single is going to be much easier than buying a 3rd Ed NRA > Pact, as lots of people have lots of Telepathic Countings compared to > NRA Pacts. But the new 3rd Ed rares (except for Heart) weren't (and > aren't) measurably more expensive than new wanted rares from other sets > (a quick look at singles on the Lasombra indicates that most of the 3rd > Ed only rares sell for about the same price as any of the other good > rares from LotN and TR, about 5-6 bucks. Not that this is the be all and > end all of data, but it's a quick check). > > > Unfortunately, that meant some > > players who opened two boxes got two hearts of nizchetus(somebody i > > know personally), and someone who opened 12+ boxes to get three. So > > there are times even after buying several boxes you get no heart of > > nizchetus or inconnu tutelage. > > Ok? That is how CCGs work. There are no fixed distributions. Just > likelyhoods. You seem to continually forget that 3rd hat extreme problems with distribution. Read James' post again. It was hard to pull some rares out of boosters, even when buying lots of boxes (like I did). I particulary remember HoN and NRA PAC as being hard to get. This may have to do with bad sorting of the cards by the manufacturer. Some randomness is to be expected, but not that wildy varying thing in 3rd. You seem to have not bought a lot of that set, otherwise you would have noticed. > > > I personally got the latter on my 10th > > box. So there were some problems there. Mirror walks were like 1 or > > at most 2 per box. > > There were no fewer Mirror Walks in 3rd Ed than Aid from Bats. In the whole print run, yes. But given the uneven distribution (again, see James' post about that) it was sometimes difficult to get specific C/U/R cards - in my case, the new ones. Other people had the same perception. > > > Yes part of the hearts cost is utility indeed,but > > in the end rarity is always an issue as well. > > Of course it is. But Heart had the exact same rarity as a bunch of other > 3rd only R1s. And those *weren't* selling for $30.00. Even the good > ones. They were (and are) selling for as much as any other desirable > rare. Heart is a crazy, crazy outlier. And not 'cause it was extra rare > (in the "total number in circulation" sense; it was more scarce for > purchase, likely, as people didn't want to sell them, as everyone wanted > multiples of them, as they went in every deck all the time). > > Yes. It is insane that the Heart was selling for $30.00. But that is the > *extreme* end of anything. Made of a number of factors. Only one of > which was the rarity out of the packs, which was the exact same rarity > out of the packs as a number of other, similarly new rare cards. I believe, that in the first batches of 3rd Ed. boxes, the distribution was probably especially screwed. People found very littel HoN in the boosters they opened, less than had to be expected when counting on a normal distribution. That led to the believe that this high-utility card was extra-rare. Therefore the high price. Maybe now it gets slightly better, as more and more boxes were opened, but the impression sticks in the minds and people are accepting that the card is overpriced. It is also possible, that a high percentage of HoN ended up in isolated playgroups that don't trade with the community at large. Who knows. The point is: HoN is harder to get than would be expected due to the 3rd Ed. distribution bugs.

On Nov 10, 6:52 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7.1...@newsfe01.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas > > for the reason you just cited. > > Heart is no rarer than *3rd* Golcondas. Or NRA Pacts. But very, very few people - only the diehard collectors who must have one of every printing - give a damn whether their Golconda is from 3rd or not. So arguing vs. Golconda is a straw man, as it doesn't have any effect. Your points otherwise, about NRA PAC etc, are much more reasonable, but you keep repeating this one as if it means something, when it doesn't. - D.J.

In article <59904456-67ee-4796...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, preac...@gmx.at wrote: > You seem to continually forget that 3rd hat extreme problems with > distribution. Read James' post again. No, I'm not forgetting that. That doesn't really impact the design of the set, and how many cards were printed. Sure. There is a possibility that for some reason unknown to the rest of us, due to "distribution problems" (someone in the packing plant somewhere accidentally spilled a pot of coffee on a big pile of Hearts destroying half of them, and then the rest of them accidentally got packed into boxes that got sent only to South America...), there were far, far fewer Hearts in circulation than there should have been. That would certainly explain the high single cost. But that isn't the problem that people seem most concerned about here, which is having a small number of new cards in a set that is mostly reprints, which creates "artificial rarity". Extreme distribution problems aren't "artificial rarity". That is just "rarity". > It was hard to pull some rares out of boosters, even when buying lots > of boxes (like I did). If the claim here is that it was specifically harder to pull Heart out of boxes than any other rare, making it far rarer than all the other rares, that is certainly an argument. But not the one that is "it is bad to have a small number of new cards mixed in with a lot of reprints" That is the argument of "It sucks when there are unintended distribution problems" Which it does. And is a problem. But not one that the people designing the set and deciding to have a small number of new cards mixed in with a lot of reprints have any control over. It sucked that 3rd had upside down backs and crappy cutting/stock too. But that *also* isn't the fault of the people designing the set. > I particulary remember HoN and NRA PAC as being > hard to get. This may have to do with bad sorting of the cards by the > manufacturer. Maybe. Maybe it was just bad luck. But if it is the result of bad sorting by the manufacturer (or that pot of coffee), it isn't a flaw in the design of distribution, which seems to be the main villain in this discussion. > In the whole print run, yes. But given the uneven distribution (again, > see James' post about that) it was sometimes difficult to get specific > C/U/R cards - in my case, the new ones. > Other people had the same perception. Sure. But those cards are *somewhere* (unless after the coffee pot incident, Smoking Man gathered up half the Mirror Walks and put them in that big room under the Pentagon with Scully's chip). They might not have been sent to your neighborhood due to a quirk in distribution. But someone has them. They are in circulation. Somewhere. Again, that isn't a problem with Mirror Walk being printed in the same numbers as the Aid from Bats reprint. It is a problem with some sort of unfortunate, unavoidable (other than, ya know, using a different manufacturing/packing plant) random error. What it *isn't* is the result of the way the set was designed to have a small number of new cards mixed in with a large number of reprints. > I believe, that in the first batches of 3rd Ed. boxes, the > distribution was probably especially screwed. Maybe it was. Maybe there *was* a spilled pot of coffee and Smoking Man *did* steal and hide half of the Mirror Walks. Which is unfortunate and a pain in the ass. But not the result of how the set was designed. No one is saying "I love distribution problems!" I'm arguing that the basic design of 3rd Ed card ratios was reasonable. And that Heart sells for so much in the secondary market, not because it was extra, extra rare (which, unless there was that coffee pot incident, it isn't actually), but primarily because of unrelated factors (i.e. it is stupidly good and so ubiquitous that people want lots of them and don't want to sell the ones they have. Which does increase the "artificial rarity" of the card. But that isn't the set's fault either). Distribution problems are just that--problems. But assuming that KoT avoids the same distribution problems (and this whole discussion is one of, basically "KoT is going to suck! It has the same new/old ratio as 3rd! And 3rd sucked!"), then KoT should work out fine. > It is also possible, that a high percentage of HoN ended up in > isolated playgroups that don't trade with the community at large. Who > knows. Sure. But again, not a problem with the design of the set. Freak Drives are incredibly plentiful, as individual cards go (printed in the super overprinted Jyhad set, in VTES, in CE and 3rd as an uncommon, fixed in multiple starter decks). Yet they *still* sell for about about $5.00 each. Which is unreasonably high for an uncommon. And it has nothing at all to do with an artificial rarity or distribution problems. It is just 'cause Freak Drive is stupidly good and people want lots of them and keep the ones they have. Heart is an outlier. The extreme end of the supply and demand curve. > The point is: HoN is harder to get than would be expected due to the > 3rd Ed. distribution bugs. Maybe. It also might just be that people don't want to sell them. 'Cause it is stupidly good and stupidly ubiquitous (i.e. you can put one in every single deck you build and get good use out of it). Heart shouldn't be any harder to get than NRA Pact. Unless there were significant distribution errors. But those aren't the fault of the way the set was designed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <119dfcc0-7a17-4901...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > But very, very few people - only the diehard collectors who must have > one of every printing - give a damn whether their Golconda is from 3rd > or not. So arguing vs. Golconda is a straw man, as it doesn't have > any effect. I'm simply saying that there are the exact same number of Card X as there are of Card Y, as they are both R1s in the set. Yes. Correct. No one is fighting to get specifically a 3rd Golconda (in fact, people are likely specifically *avoiding* 3rd Golcondas due to the back being upside down and the cut/stock being bad). But there seem to be two arguments here going on at the same time, that aren't the same argument: -Argument 1: It is bad that there is a small number of new card mixed in with a large number of reprints. -Argument 2: Heart is soooooo expensive as a single 'cause there were far fewer of them in circulation! I don't think Argument 2 is actually true, unless there were preposterous manufacturing errors (which there may have been). But this has nothing at all to do with Argument 1. The comment about the 3rd Golcondas was little more than an illustration of the number of Hearts that got printed. And someone misunderstood it. So I clarified. > Your points otherwise, about NRA PAC etc, are much more > reasonable, but you keep repeating this one as if it means something, > when it doesn't. No, no. Didn't keep repeating it. Said it once. Clarified it once or twice 'cause someone didn't understand what I was saying. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 11, 9:31 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <119dfcc0-7a17-4901-8630-16310d6c3...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > -Argument 1: It is bad that there is a small number of new card mixed in > with a large number of reprints. > > -Argument 2: Heart is soooooo expensive as a single 'cause there were > far fewer of them in circulation! > > I don't think Argument 2 is actually true, unless there were > preposterous manufacturing errors (which there may have been). There are far fewer "in circulation" in the sense that most folks that have 'em, want to keep 'em. Unlike an NRA PAC, which only fits into certain decks. Or Cracking the Wall, which doesn't fit into any. Or Golconda, which existed so many other times that there are a whole lot of them out there and they've passed saturation to the point of tradeability, plus they only go in certain decks. But if Heart had been a lot easier to get - or if it were reprinted, fixed, in something - the price would drop, a lot, because it would be easier to obtain and there would be a bigger circulating secondary market/trade pool of them floating around compared to the number of folks who want a Heart. Which is to say, to a large extent Argument 2 isn't complete hooey. It's getting poorly stated, but there *are* fewer Hearts moving around than almost any other card out there - fewer to start with than anything not in 3E other than maybe Camarilla Vitae Slave, harder to get any way other than the secondary market than anything else other than 3E R1's (poor distribution), and more in demand (which is your point) so they don't *get* sold/traded as much, and when they do they're commodities. > But this > has nothing at all to do with Argument 1. The comment about the 3rd > Golcondas was little more than an illustration of the number of Hearts > that got printed. And someone misunderstood it. So I clarified. OK - it felt, looking on, like the replies to Argument 1 and to Argument 2 were getting mixed up. Especially since your Golconda point, if it was meant to relate to A1, doesn't actually have much of anything to do with it... > > Your points otherwise, about NRA PAC etc, are much more > > reasonable, but you keep repeating this one as if it means something, > > when it doesn't. > > No, no. Didn't keep repeating it. Said it once. Clarified it once or > twice 'cause someone didn't understand what I was saying. Fair enough. - D.J.

In article <4b211d59-fb44-4c2e...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > There are far fewer "in circulation" in the sense that most folks that > have 'em, want to keep 'em. Well, sure. Just like Freak Drive. There aren't any fewer (to any significant number) Freak Drives in the world than there are Immortal Grapples, and yet Freak Drive still goes for about $5.00 a pop, where you can get a hold of Immortal Grapples for a buck or two. But this isn't a problem with the system by which Heart was planned to be distributed (i.e. as one of a small number of new cards in a set of mostly reprints). > Unlike an NRA PAC, which only fits into > certain decks. Or Cracking the Wall, which doesn't fit into any. Or > Golconda, which existed so many other times that there are a whole lot > of them out there and they've passed saturation to the point of > tradeability, plus they only go in certain decks. Again, sure. Heart is stupidly useful and stupidly ubiquitous. Which is why it is so expensive on the secondary market. But people keep pointing to it as proof that the 3rd Ed model of card distribution (i.e. a small number of new cards in a set of mostly reprints) was crap. I don't think it actually is so much as it is just a really extreme example of what normally happens in normal sets. Kind of a perfect storm of desire and utility and scarcity. Which doesn't, in my mind, condemn the design of the 3rd Ed set. It kind of condemns the Heart in and of itself (for being so stupidly useful and ubiquitous). > But if Heart had been a lot easier to get - or if it were reprinted, > fixed, in something - the price would drop, a lot, because it would be > easier to obtain and there would be a bigger circulating secondary > market/trade pool of them floating around compared to the number of > folks who want a Heart. Sure. It is already cheaper on e-bay, presumably 'cause it is being reprinted in KoT (?). But again, this doesn't strike me as a condemnation of the way the 3rd set was designed. > Which is to say, to a large extent Argument 2 isn't complete hooey. > It's getting poorly stated, but there *are* fewer Hearts moving around > than almost any other card out there - fewer to start with than > anything not in 3E other than maybe Camarilla Vitae Slave, harder to > get any way other than the secondary market than anything else other > than 3E R1's (poor distribution), and more in demand (which is your > point) so they don't *get* sold/traded as much, and when they do > they're commodities. Sure. But again, there are just as many Hearts in the hands of players as there are NRA Pacts, and NRA Pacts (which is a good but not stupidly useful, stupidly ubiquitous rare) sell for the same amount as good rares from other, non reprint filled sets. Heart is wacky. Heart is an outlier. Heart isn't proof that the design of the 3rd set (and by extention the design of the KoT set) was flawed. > OK - it felt, looking on, like the replies to Argument 1 and to > Argument 2 were getting mixed up. Oh, absolutely. > Especially since your Golconda > point, if it was meant to relate to A1, doesn't actually have much of > anything to do with it... Correct. The Heart = Golconda statement was just pointing out that there aren't fewer Hearts in existence than any other 3rd R1. But irrelevant otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I understand that there were a few printing errors. Oh? What errors? 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/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009 http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:35:21 -0800, "Kevin M." wrote: >> I understand that there were a few printing errors. >Oh? What errors? Society Hunting Ground was replaced by Society of Leopold on the Uncommon Sheet. Another card on the Uncommon Sheet was replaced by Ghoul Retainer.

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > There's so many factors involved in pricing a single that it's > impossible to look at prices and truly sort out which factor is > causing what effect in the singles market. This is just a silly statement. If it wasn't possible to figure out why a particular card was priced the way it was then no one would buy it because no one would understand, i.e. accept, the price...ergo no one would buy it. Heart is absolutely priced the way it is due to its utility + its rarity. What else could it possibly be that's causing HoN to have a pre-KoT eBay price of ~$25.00? Which other cards do you want me to tell you why they are priced the way they are? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Meej" <dj...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:4b211d59-fb44-4c2e...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Nov 11, 9:31 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <119dfcc0-7a17-4901-8630-16310d6c3...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > > > -Argument 1: It is bad that there is a small number of new card mixed in > > with a large number of reprints. > > > > -Argument 2: Heart is soooooo expensive as a single 'cause there were > > far fewer of them in circulation! > > > > I don't think Argument 2 is actually true, unless there were > > preposterous manufacturing errors (which there may have been). > > There are far fewer "in circulation" in the sense that most folks that > have 'em, want to keep 'em. ... > Which is to say, to a large extent Argument 2 isn't complete hooey. Huh?!? Of COURSE argument 2 isn't complete hooey. How could it possibly be wrong?!? Of COURSE a card's price relates to its rarity - that's always true. Does anyone question this? There seems to be some disconnect here about how a card's price gets set. It always depends on two factors: its supply and its demand. The fact that Heart is a great card contributes to its demand. The fact that Heart is a 1-in-100 rare card found only in boosters affects its supply. And, yes, the fact that it's a 1-in-100 NEW rare card in a set that sells less rapidly due to being full of reprints affects its supply factor as well - thus argument 1 is valid as well. As to which effect contributes "more" to its ultimate price, that's sort of a false question, as both factors are intricately bound to the price. It's clear Heart would be cheaper were it a 1-in-100 rare in a new set. How much cheaper is speculative. I'd guess it would be under $15 and maybe under $10 but that's a huge wild-ass guess. Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gfe2eh$nok$1...@aioe.org... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> There's so many factors involved in pricing a single that it's >> impossible to look at prices and truly sort out which factor is >> causing what effect in the singles market. > > This is just a silly statement. > > If it wasn't possible to figure out why a particular card was priced the > way it was then no one would buy it because no one would understand, i.e. > accept, the price...ergo no one would buy it. Huh? Now THIS is a silly statement. I can't fathom what you're talking about. Why do people have to understand what factors into a card's price in order to buy it? People buy shit every day without that information. All a person needs to know is whether the price seems worth it to them for what they're getting. A lot of times people want to know more - but it's not necessary. > Heart is absolutely priced the way it is due to its utility + its rarity. Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But "utility" and "rarity" are more generalized concepts than what I was talking about when I wrote that above. "Utility" can sub-factor into things like, "How many people want to use Heart in one or two decks vs. 10 or 20 decks - and, are they willing to move the card around from deck to deck?" "How willing are people to consider doing without depending on what price level?" "Rarity" isn't straight-forward, either. As I've alluded to elsewhere, the thing aggravating Heart rarity is that it's a new card that's a rare in a set that's mostly reprints. So it's obtainable as an in-print rare but we don't know how fast boxes of boosters of 3rd Edition are selling (in comparison to Lords of the Night, for instance). When a card becomes out-of-print, its sources dry up - but how fast? There's lots of factors that comprise utility and rarity. No one can keep track of them all. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-EB7B3E.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7....@newsfe01.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas >> for the reason you just cited. > > Heart is no rarer than *3rd* Golcondas. No. But it's rarer than all Golcondas put together, and this makes a difference to Heart's rarity. You don't seem to want to see that but it does. The reason is that because Golcondas and MOST OF THE REST OF 3RD EDITION are reprints, 3rd Edition is less desirable to buy. And thus people buy them less. And thus fewer Hearts are likewise bought. It absolutely makes a difference. ... >> But AFAICS, it's >> impossible to discount the "extra rareness" stemming from being >> a new card printed in a reprint set because it basically must >> be causing an effect, unless one of the two assumptions I cited >> in my reply to James proved wrong. > > Sure. Some effect. But not a $28.00 effect. Otherwise, NRA Pact would > cost about the same. Nope, sorry, doesn't follow. Even new-rares-in-reprint-sets vary in price depending on their utility, just like every cards from every other rarity level or situation. ... > I'll spot you a couple bucks for the rarity issue (i.e. 1 > of 16 new rares in a set of 100 rares). But $20.00? I don't know how much is attributable to the one and how much to the other. But the effect is good for more than a couple of bucks. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-A736F3.0...@nntp.aioe.org... > Sure. There is a possibility that for some reason unknown to the rest of > us, due to "distribution problems" (someone in the packing plant > somewhere accidentally spilled a pot of coffee on a big pile of Hearts > destroying half of them, and then the rest of them accidentally got > packed into boxes that got sent only to South America...), there were > far, far fewer Hearts in circulation than there should have been. Huh?!? I never heard anything about there being fewer Hearts in circulation because of any distribution problems. "Packed into boxes sent only to South America" is a possibility but I assumed the intended number of Hearts in the print run all turned up somewhere. That is, no particular rare got shorted in any print runs. Just that the different rares may have gotten divied out to different parts of the print runs so it was quite easy to open lots of boxes and get wildly unequal numbers of different rares. Are you making a joke here, Peter? Or where are you getting this? As far as I know, the only _ultimate_ reason Heart is rarer than normal is just that it's a new card in a reprint set. Fred

The Lasombra wrote: > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:55:38 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: > >> If you think about the service a singles seller >> provides in exchange for his profit, it seems likely to me that the business >> would be a lot more efficient (and thus profitable in comparison with the >> effort expended) for that kind of an expansion than for one in which >> relatively few of the cards culled from the booster packs are worth >> bothering with. > >> Just my hack theory. I'd love to hear guys like Jeff and Chris tell >> whether I'm off base or not and why or why not. > > Bloodlines was the #1 set for individual card sellers. > Basically what Jeff said. 3rd was good for vampire sales mostly, and the occasional Heart. Everything else was pretty slow. KoT looks like it will be better, with better reprints, as Jeff very scientifically breaks it down. Bloodlines, now sadly out of print was very good. And I can echo JEff's comments about 60-card sets - they are terrible for me too. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

On Nov 12, 11:51 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Huh?!? I never heard anything about there being fewer Hearts in circulation > because of any distribution problems. Holy crap Fred, are you kidding me? No, There are no, as far as I am aware, actual distribution problems making Heart any rarer than anything else. You'll notice that I also made reference to Smoking Man stealling Mirror Walks too. Are you going to think that was also something I actually thought happened? Again, there are two issuse that people bring up: A) Sets that have a small number of new cards and a large number of reprints result in cards that are "artificially rare" (that is your main point, as I understand it). B) The "distribution problems" of 3rd made some cards rarer than other cards. I don't think this is actually the case, and my discussion of coffee pots and boxes being shipped to South America are examples of how there *could* possibly be fewer of card X than there should be. But I don't think these things actually happened. > Are you making a joke here, Peter? Yes Fred. Yes I am. In the sense that "absurd example" = "joke" I guess. > Or where are you getting this? As far > as I know, the only _ultimate_ reason Heart is rarer than normal is just > that it's a new card in a reprint set. And yet it isn't rarer than any of the other new cards in the reprint set. That *don't* sell for absurd amounts. Indicating that the rarity of the card isn't the sole reason it sells for so much. -Peter

On Nov 12, 11:49 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Sure. Some effect. But not a $28.00 effect. Otherwise, NRA Pact would > > cost about the same. > > Nope, sorry, doesn't follow. Even new-rares-in-reprint-sets vary in > price depending on their utility, just like every cards from every other > rarity level or situation. Yes, they do. But the difference in price is sooooo extreme that claiming that Heart somehow represents what happens when you print new cards in sets that are mostly reprints doesn't really hold water. Heart is what happens when you print a card that is stupidly effective and stupidly ubiquitous as a new card in a set that is mostly reprints. As such, it isn't actually likely to come up that often. So looking at Heart as an example of *anything* other than an extreme outlier, is counterproductive. If you want to look at cards that are new in sets of lots of reprints, and make arguments based on them, look at all of them. All the other new R1s in the set sell for as much as you'd expect them to (i.e. as much as any other desired rare in another set). Heart is a wild, wild exception. -Peter

On Nov 12, 11:30 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Huh?!? Of COURSE argument 2 isn't complete hooey. It is if the argument was "Heart is so expensive 'cause there were manufacturing errors (such as the preposterous "boxes only getting shipped to South America", which was a preposterous example) making it extra, extra hard to pull a Heart out of a box". Which is what the argument was that I stated that DJ was responding to. > How could it possibly > be wrong?!? Of COURSE a card's price relates to its rarity - that's always > true. Does anyone question this? No. No one questions this. We all understand basic Supply and Demand. Heart is expensive 'cause the demand far outweighs the supply. But as the supply of Hearts is identical to the supply of NRA Pact (about 5 bucks) and Martinelli's Ring (about 1 buck), there must be a very unusual demand to make the price so high. -Peter

On Nov 12, 11:49 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote in messagenews:pdb6-EB7B3E.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > > > In article <or3Sk.9137$ih7.1...@newsfe01.iad>, > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> Huh? I don't understand this statement. Heart is rarer than Golcondas > >> for the reason you just cited. > > > Heart is no rarer than *3rd* Golcondas. > > No. But it's rarer than all Golcondas put together, and this makes a > difference to Heart's rarity. You don't seem to want to see that but > it does. The reason is that because Golcondas and MOST OF THE REST OF > 3RD EDITION are reprints, 3rd Edition is less desirable to buy. And thus > people buy them less. And thus fewer Hearts are likewise bought. It > absolutely makes a difference. > Actually, Golconda was printed in the 3E Tremere Antitribu starter. So Heart is actually quite a bit rarer than 3rd golcondas. http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/TAS_3rd.htm -Merlin

On 11 Nov., 00:20, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:09:36 -0800 (PST), JH wrote: > >> New rares - 16 > >> New uncommons - 19 > >> New commons - 17 > >> New vampires - 124 (100 in booster, 24 in starters) > >So, did White Wolf lie in it's KoT adds or is that a guess? > Maybe the ads were just guesses by WW? Regards, Hardy Range

On Nov 12, 12:42 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > B) The "distribution problems" of 3rd made some cards rarer than other > cards. I don't think this is actually the case, and my discussion of > coffee pots and boxes being shipped to South America are examples of > how there *could* possibly be fewer of card X than there should be. > But I don't think these things actually happened. They didn't. There is, however, another interpretation for the statement that 3E's distribution problems made Hearts rarer. (NOT "rarer than other 3E R1's" - rarer than they would have been without the distro problems.) It goes like this: Most card sales come from buying boxes. When the distribution in a box is atrocious and there are a whole lot of reprints, making it very likely that a given box may contain far too high a "rocks in the gumball machine" ratio, and *not* actually get you the cards you need, folks are less inclined to buy it like that. (If I know, due to decent distribution, that out of 3 boxes I'm pretty likely to have 1-2 of each rare, and almost guaranteed to get the new ones, I'm much more likely to buy three boxes than I am if I think that there's a really good chance that instead of any copies of Heart, NRA, Black Forest Cake, or even War Ghoul or Power Structure or other good reprints, I'll get 8 copies of Cracking the Wall and 8 copies of Telepathic Vote Counting.) When folks are less inclined to buy by the box, less cards overall get sold, and the singles people want get snapped up much faster on the secondary market, driving the price up. 3E's incredibly poor distribution did a lot to make Hearts, which are less likely to get traded or sold than other singles to begin with, much rarer than they would have been without the problems, and because they're a high demand card that's not likely to leave a personal collection easily but are tough to get through random packs, they're rarer on the secondary market than other R1's from the same set, too. [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think it's the sole reason, no - but it is less common on the secondary market, I'd expect, as outlined above. Rarer in an absolute sense? No. Harder to find someone who'll trade you one? Definitely. - D.J.

In article <bb9ae0a2-4cbc-4ae2...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > They didn't. There is, however, another interpretation for the > statement that 3E's distribution problems made Hearts rarer. (NOT > "rarer than other 3E R1's" - rarer than they would have been without > the distro problems.) It goes like this: Your interpretation here makes perfect sense for lots of things. And yet still, all the *not* Heart R1s from 3rd don't sell for ridiculous amounts. When there are just as few of them (for just the reason you spelled out) as Hearts. My issue here is this--the main crux of this argument, as I understand it, is that making a set that is mostly reprints with a small number of new cards is bad for older players, as they don't want to buy all the reprints just to get the small number of new cards. When folks (like me) counter this argument with "then don't buy all the reprints, just buy the singles you need", everyone points to Heart as an example of why this doesn't work, and consequently, why a set that is mostly reprints with a few new cards is horrible. But as I keep pointing out, Heart is the only card that does this. All the other R1s from 3rd go for about the same as any other single rare from any other set (good ones are 5-6 bucks; bad ones are a dollar). Yet people keep going back to Heart as the example of why 3rd Ed was horrible for older players. Why is Heart the only card that does this? It could be purely rarity. Maybe some *were* lost in a coffee accident and/or sent to South Americs (Fred: This is an absurd example) and there are fewer of them than everything else. Unlikely. It could be a combination of rarity and absurd ubiquity; as opposed to, say, NRA Pact (of which there are just as many in circulation as Heart), which is a good card, but one that people only want 1 or 2 of (if any) max (as it only goes in one deck at a time, say), Heart is a card that people want 10 of, to put 2 in every deck they have all the time. So there is the rarity of the card (relative to, dare I say, Golconda) which explains some of the cost. And the high demand (as everyone wants 10). So you get a really expensive card. But as it is a serious exception to the rule, it is silly to keep bringing it out as an example of why the distribution model of 3rd was bad. It strikes me as a really good example of why Heart should haver been Uncommon. Or why Heart should have been given some sort of balancing limitation (make it cost a blood to use or make it clan specific or something). But all of these things are reasons why Heart was a bad idea, not why having a small number of new cards in a set that is mostly reprints is a bad idea. -Peter 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

On Nov 12, 2:48 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > And the high demand (as everyone wants > 10). So you get a really expensive card. But as it is a serious > exception to the rule, it is silly to keep bringing it out as an example > of why the distribution model of 3rd was bad. It strikes me as a really > good example of why Heart should haver been Uncommon. Or why Heart > should have been given some sort of balancing limitation (make it cost a > blood to use or make it clan specific or something). But all of these > things are reasons why Heart was a bad idea, not why having a small > number of new cards in a set that is mostly reprints is a bad idea. > Well, I wasn't one who argued that Heart of Nitchteschestershire is the reason that 3rd sucked, so most of that doesn't apply to me. I'd be more apt to point out how impossibly hard it was to get Weighted Walking Sticks right after CE (I forget if they were C1 or Uncommon - either way, they went for at least a buck a piece, *if* you could even find them on ebay, which, for a long time after release, you could not). But put that aside, and let me ask - as an old-timey player, do you *not* want more new cards? I don't mind new cards mixed into a reprint set, I just don't like the ratio. 3rd was absolutely terrible - CE was not much better, if at all. KoT looks a little better to me, partly because some of the reprints are from more recent sets that I may still need some of, especially the reprints from 3rd. 15% of library cards isn't *horrible* for a ratio of new cards, but I wish it were more. I think it would translate to more sales, too. I would definitely buy 2-3 boxes if there were more new cards, and I will probably only buy 1 box as it currently stands (still deciding... if the 1st box has a decent percentage of cards that I *want*, I might go whole hog and get another). I know that I, as one person, am not much of a data point, but I think what people have been pointing out is how much they dislike the way that 3rd Edition was put together for older players, and I think there's a good chance *that* translates to sales numbers as well...

In article <9bc35317-e44a-4cf1...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > Well, I wasn't one who argued that Heart of Nitchteschestershire is > the reason that 3rd sucked, so most of that doesn't apply to me. I'd > be more apt to point out how impossibly hard it was to get Weighted > Walking Sticks right after CE (I forget if they were C1 or Uncommon - > either way, they went for at least a buck a piece, *if* you could even > find them on ebay, which, for a long time after release, you could > not). I think they were uncommon. And a buck a piece for a good uncommon? That isn't at all unreasonable (WWS is still going for 1-2 bucks a pop). But ok. And eventually, they became more common (reprinted multiple times in multiple places). So now everyone has all the WWS they could ever need. > But put that aside, and let me ask - as an old-timey player, do you > *not* want more new cards? Sure I do. But I understand why the set is designed the way it is. Sure, they could have upped the percentage of new cards 10-15% and still have had the same sort of distribution, and that would have been fine. Or made all the new cards C2/U2/R2. Or something. But the set as it is seems mostly reasonable anyway. I tend to not buy tons of cards anyway (I usually by, like, half a box of boosters and one of each starter of any given set, and then get singles as I need them). And I'm buying half a box of boosters and one of each starter of KoT. Just like I did all the other sets. And I'll likely buy a bunch of singles as I figure out what I want more of. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9bc35317-e44a-4cf1...@q30g2000prq.googlegroup s.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >But put that aside, and let me ask - as an old-timey player, do you >*not* want more new cards? Actually, over time, a variety of old-timey players have asked for precisely that - releases that let White Wolf keep the game in the eye of retailers (because they've told us that's necessary), but that also don't require learning 150 new cards every three months (because that sucks). Also, if this set had (say) 150 new library cards (so 90-100 more than it has), there's scope for a lot of extra playtesting. History seems to indicate that vampires are MUCH harder to design utterly broken than library cards. Arika is one of the few that's ever had massive shrieks about game-breaking issues. (Ian Forestal had lots of complaints about the way he works, but fewer 'he's actually causing power issues' complaints.) Would another, say, 75-100 library cards require a couple of months more playtesting, pushing it out into the New Year? At that point, White Wolf might reckon that everyone has no money from Xmas spending. Also, X many new library cards = X pieces of new art to find (or cannibalize from other projects, where appropriate). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Nov 12, 3:28 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <9bc35317-e44a-4cf1-b94d-4f8ae6be7...@q30g2000prq.googlegroup > s.com>, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > > >But put that aside, and let me ask - as an old-timey player, do you > >*not* want more new cards? > > Actually, over time, a variety of old-timey players have asked for > precisely that - releases that let White Wolf keep the game in the eye > of retailers (because they've told us that's necessary), but that also > don't require learning 150 new cards every three months (because that > sucks). > I don't think that people care that much about learning new cards. That's what's *fun* about CCG's. I think you're just redressing the argument for having more *small* sets released, that is that people don't want to have to *buy* a lot every 3 months to keep up - I haven't heard people complaining about having to learn new cards. Mostly reprint sets with a few new chase cards in them squelch some of the fun of new cards and offer no real buying relief. Even if you just buy singles, it's difficult to find the new singles for a while afterward, and usually at inflated prices then. So, say there aren't 150 new library cards... What about 90? Or the 60 we thought we were going to get, instead of the 52 that Jeff reports? (I'm not sure there was an official announcement of 60, and I'm not saying "OMG we were LIED to!!!" or anything. If there was an official announcement of 60 and we only get 52, I'll assume it's an honest mistake if anything.) I just want more value (in the form of new cards), and in return would spend more. Heck, I'd be extremely happy if we only got 60 (or close to 60), yet they were all common enough to be able to try and get them by buying packs. Say 16 R2's, 19 U2's, and 17 C2's, in a set with only 84 Rares, 81 Uncommons, and 83 Commons (instead of 16, 19, and 17, all single-printed per sheet in a set with 100 of each rarity level). It may sound paradoxical to say that I would buy more if the cards I wanted were easier to come by, but frankly, if I'm fairly likely to get 1 of each of the rares I really want in a box, I'm more likely to buy 2 boxes than I would if it would take 3 boxes to probably get all the new rares. If it takes 3 boxes to get a rare, and most of the box is stuff I don't want, I'll just give up and not bother trying. I don't know that I'm alone in that. A big set like LotN is an exception because *all* the cards are new. I still need more Sense the Savage Way and Spell of Life (and probably some other common card too), so I continue to buy more LotN every once in a while. Almost every rare I pull is one that I don't have or only have 1 of, most of the uncommons I have no more than 2 of. That doesn't happen with 3rd Edition, so that's why I don't buy 3rd Ed, despite still needing several cards from that set.

Blooded Sand wrote: > > Dude, I have in excess of 20 000 cards at least, and I play with > people who have all been playing for a minimum of 2-4 years. I have > been playing since Jyhad, but still I do not have enough of certain > cards. Freak Drives, Mind Rape and BP being high on my lost, but > others populating it quite strongly. Couldn't read the rest of post, too long; but is BP actually Blood Puppy? More likely Baltimore's Purge, but it would be funny if in South Africa Blood Puppy was the dominant meta game play... Personally, I wish Blood Puppy was a better card, since it has an awesome name. The name quality reminds me of MTG's Rabid Wombat - it's so fun to say when played. However, unlike RW, Blood Puppy is teh suXXZor. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:69a91ed7-e881-40d8...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com... On Nov 12, 11:49 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Sure. Some effect. But not a $28.00 effect. Otherwise, NRA Pact would > > > cost about the same. > > > > Nope, sorry, doesn't follow. Even new-rares-in-reprint-sets vary in > > price depending on their utility, just like every cards from every other > > rarity level or situation. > > Yes, they do. But the difference in price is sooooo extreme that > claiming that Heart somehow represents what happens when you print new > cards in sets that are mostly reprints doesn't really hold water. Sure it does. Two cards that are equally rare can vary immensely in price just because one is so much more useful than the other. If one of the cards is basically unusable, then it will have no game value at all and the only way it isn't a "shipping-cost-only" cards is if it's so rare as to have discernable collector value (which doesn't happen much in this game). The only cards that might qualify would be old, old out-of-print cards which are far rarer than anything printed in CE or 3E. Of course, I understand this makes it impossible to prove that Heart's price stems from additional rarity, as opposed to mere utility. But I've conceded this from the start. I'm just saying, I believe the last time we had $20+ whose price held over time (not just for the couple months after printing) which were in print was Tomb of Ramses III, pre-errata. Another interesting example was Protected Resources - a new card in a reprint set. The only legitimate counter-example I can think of is The Unmasking. Preternatural Strength may also qualify; it was going for $20+ the last I looked - which was still fairly soon after LotN was printed. I'm not sure. But overall, $20+ in-print cards in this game are very rare. > If you want to look at cards that are new in sets of lots of reprints, > and make arguments based on them, look at all of them. All the other > new R1s in the set sell for as much as you'd expect them to (i.e. as > much as any other desired rare in another set). I disagree. I believe they tend to go for more than I'd expect. The problem is, there's no one who can say for sure. But I can say for sure that Heart of Nizchetus is rarer than it would be in a 100-rare-cardsheet all new set (quality of cards being relatively equal). Fred

"Merlin" <hallofha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1ec64fd8-cd1c-4d8c...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah, yes - Peter chose a bad example but I knew what he meant. Use, for instance, Gang Territory instead. Fred

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:vQDSk.35$4g5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Hmmm. Sound like first and foremost, you guys want sets to be large enough to make collecting sufficient quantities of all the rares to be out of the range of most players. There's a semi-interesting corollary to take from this. (Well, it's sort of interesting to me...) In theory, you'd think players would adjust the amount they spent on boxes of the different expansions based on how large the expansion was. So that, for instance, they'd buy 2 1/2 times the number of boxes of Lords of the Night than Twilight Rebellion. From what you're saying, it sounds like they don't do this; they spend relatively a lot more on the mini-expansion, get all the cards from it and don't bother with singles hardly at all. Well, I suppose that's not terribly surprising as they've had an equal amount of time to save up and get finances in order for another buy and to get just as excited about a mini-expansion as a regular one. Still, it's an interesting glimpse into human nature. One thing I've noticed as a buyer: if you want to singles from a mini- expansion, it's best to get them early. Singles sellers will sell singles for a little while after release but are terribly erratic after that. Apparently because it's just not profitable for you guys to bother. Fred

librarian wrote: > Blooded Sand wrote: > >> >> Dude, I have in excess of 20 000 cards at least, and I play with >> people who have all been playing for a minimum of 2-4 years. I have >> been playing since Jyhad, but still I do not have enough of certain >> cards. Freak Drives, Mind Rape and BP being high on my lost, but >> others populating it quite strongly. > > Couldn't read the rest of post, too long; but is BP actually Blood Puppy? > > More likely Baltimore's Purge, but it would be funny if in South Africa > Blood Puppy was the dominant meta game play... > > Personally, I wish Blood Puppy was a better card, since it has an > awesome name. The name quality reminds me of MTG's Rabid Wombat - it's > so fun to say when played. However, unlike RW, Blood Puppy is teh suXXZor. You know it got a MRP upgrade in Cam Ed, right? (or possibly as errata before then). It's actually as good as a lot of powerbases, if not moreso. i like it. in a defensive deck. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

I keep seeing it, so I'm guessing it's not just an autocorrect or a typo: On Nov 12, 3:48 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > It could be a combination of rarity and absurd ubiquity; as opposed to, > say, *NRA Pact* (of which there are just as many in circulation as Heart)... That's "NRA PAC" -- National Rifle Association Political Action Committee. Jason

On Nov 12, 10:36 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Sure it does. Two cards that are equally rare can vary immensely in price > just because one is so much more useful than the other. Oh, sure. That is completely reasonable. But again, my issue here is with pointing to Heart as an example of how the 3rd Ed distribution model was flawed. When clearly, It is a psychotic outlier. > Of course, I understand this makes it impossible to prove that Heart's > price stems from additional rarity, as opposed to mere utility. It is certainly a combination of the two. But I attribute the majority of the price to the utility combined with the rarity, rather than just the rarity. But that is me assuming. > The only legitimate counter-example I can think of is > The Unmasking. Preternatural Strength may also qualify; it was going > for $20+ the last I looked - which was still fairly soon after LotN was > printed. I'm not sure. But overall, $20+ in-print cards in this game > are very rare. They are. Which is why pointing to them as an example of something being a bad plan strikes me, as ya know, a bad plan. Preternatural Strength goes for a comperable amount; The Unmaskening goes for a comperable amount. Freak Drive goes for a comperable amount relative to the rarity (i.e. Freak Drive is wildly expensive for an Uncommon, generally speaking). > I disagree. I believe they tend to go for more than I'd expect. The > problem is, there's no one who can say for sure. I've been looking around at prices due to this discussion; the good 3rd Ed R1s tend to sell for about the same amount as the good non 3rd Ed rares (5-6 bucks); the bad 3rd Ed R1s tend to sell for about the same amount as the bad non 3rd Ed rares (about a buck). On e-bay, Lasombra, and Super Fun Cards. The good rares from TR and LotN sell for just as much as the good (non Heart, new) rares from 3rd Ed. > But I can say for sure that Heart of Nizchetus is rarer than it would > be in a 100-rare-cardsheet all new set (quality of cards being relatively > equal). Oh, sure it is. And if Heart was a common instead of an R1, it would sell for a buck. But it going for $30.00 is a crazy point of data, not one to base arguments about set distribution off of. -Peter

On Nov 13, 8:32 am, Jadasc <jad...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's "NRA PAC" -- National Rifle Association Political Action > Committee. Yes. Correct. How is this relevant to the discussion? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] As he said -- he was attempting to be helpful by correcting the misconception.

[ quoted text not captured ] An aside. That's why I changed the subject line. -- Jason

On Nov 13, 9:52 am, Jadasc <jad...@gmail.com> wrote: > An aside. That's why I changed the subject line. Fair enough. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:165308e9-3b88-43f1...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com... On Nov 12, 10:36 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Of course, I understand this makes it impossible to prove that Heart's > > price stems from additional rarity, as opposed to mere utility. > > It is certainly a combination of the two. But I attribute the majority > of the price to the utility combined with the rarity, rather than just > the rarity. But that is me assuming. > > > The only legitimate counter-example I can think of is > > The Unmasking. Preternatural Strength may also qualify; it was going > > for $20+ the last I looked - which was still fairly soon after LotN was > > printed. I'm not sure. But overall, $20+ in-print cards in this game > > are very rare. > > They are. Which is why pointing to them as an example of something > being a bad plan strikes me, as ya know, a bad plan. Fair enough - and I wasn't really doing that. Just saying that it seemed suspicious to my "feel" for the prices. But it's not clear that my opinion of its price isn't biased by my partial knowledged of the rarity issue. > I've been looking around at prices due to this discussion; the good > 3rd Ed R1s tend to sell for about the same amount as the good non 3rd > Ed rares (5-6 bucks); the bad 3rd Ed R1s tend to sell for about the > same amount as the bad non 3rd Ed rares (about a buck). On e-bay, > Lasombra, and Super Fun Cards. The good rares from TR and LotN sell > for just as much as the good (non Heart, new) rares from 3rd Ed. ...but, by the same token, your comparisons may likewise be biased. In saying this, I'd assert your reckoning may very well have failed to compare like cards to like and so came away with an incorrect conclusion. Bottom line, it's hopeless to prove anything this way. > > But I can say for sure that Heart of Nizchetus is rarer than it would > > be in a 100-rare-cardsheet all new set (quality of cards being relatively > > equal). > > Oh, sure it is. And if Heart was a common instead of an R1, it would > sell for a buck. But it going for $30.00 is a crazy point of data, not > one to base arguments about set distribution off of. I wasn't basing my argument on the $30 price; just pointing to it as correlation. The central point was what you just conceded: HoN is rarer than it would be in a 100-rare-cardsheet in an all new set. So our only point of contention is, "How much rarer?" I know it caused me a problem when I was trying to acquire some of the extra new card singles soon after 3E's release. Whether it continues to be a problem over time, I don't know. Eventually, even the slower selling base sets with all the reprints sell and that may mitigate the issue. Of course, White Wolf also eventually reprints the useful new cards and that mitigates the issue over time as well. The complaint is really about what happens within the first couple of years after the base set comes out. Fred

Salem wrote: > librarian wrote: >> Blooded Sand wrote: >> >>> >>> Dude, I have in excess of 20 000 cards at least, and I play with >>> people who have all been playing for a minimum of 2-4 years. I have >>> been playing since Jyhad, but still I do not have enough of certain >>> cards. Freak Drives, Mind Rape and BP being high on my lost, but >>> others populating it quite strongly. >> >> Couldn't read the rest of post, too long; but is BP actually Blood Puppy? >> >> More likely Baltimore's Purge, but it would be funny if in South >> Africa Blood Puppy was the dominant meta game play... >> >> Personally, I wish Blood Puppy was a better card, since it has an >> awesome name. The name quality reminds me of MTG's Rabid Wombat - >> it's so fun to say when played. However, unlike RW, Blood Puppy is >> teh suXXZor. > > You know it got a MRP upgrade in Cam Ed, right? (or possibly as errata > before then). > > It's actually as good as a lot of powerbases, if not moreso. i like it. > in a defensive deck. > Sorry Chris, "good as a lot of powerbases" means its still a pretty crap card, unless it's PB:LA; PB:Montreal; or PB:Tshwane. But I am willing to stand corrected, it is not terrible, merely so-so. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 13, 12:01 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I wasn't basing my argument on the $30 price; just pointing to it as > correlation. The central point was what you just conceded: HoN is > rarer than it would be in a 100-rare-cardsheet in an all new set. So our > only point of contention is, "How much rarer?" I know it caused me a problem > when I was trying to acquire some of the extra new card singles soon after > 3E's release. So what you're saying is, Heart should be reprinted? (poof) -witness1

On Nov 13, 2:32 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Salem wrote: > > > You know it got a MRP upgrade in Cam Ed, right? (or possibly as errata > > before then). > > > It's actually as good as a lot of powerbases, if not moreso. i like it. > > in a defensive deck. > > Sorry Chris, "good as a lot of powerbases" means its still a pretty crap > card, unless it's PB:LA; PB:Montreal; or PB:Tshwane. But I am willing > to stand corrected, it is not terrible, merely so-so. > It's not fantastic, but I'd agree with Salem - I kinda like Blood Puppy in a defensive deck. The only reason I tend to use Powerbases (specifically Washington and Chicago - the ones that are like Blood Puppy) slightly more is that they go better with Therbold Realty and Insurance Scam. Church of the Order of St. Blaise works well with either, assuming you have Mata Hari or Sabbat vamps. All-in-all, I like Blood Puppy, but it's obviously fragile, so needs to go in a deck with lots of intercept and some plans for making use of all that pool later on. Before the MRP, it was more or less terrible.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think one of it's key features is that the D action doesn't gain the acting methuselah anything, it merely deprives you. (D to burn, not D to steal all). This gives it an edge over PB:C or PB:W as it stops those terribly annoying cross-table moments where someone decides they just _need_ that pool...and keeps it down to just those cross-table moments where the other meth just feels like trying to screw you some more. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Like it's Coroner's Contact, not Coroner's Contract, which I saw repeated by several people... Learning is fun! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <k3ZSk.3387$bC6...@newsfe22.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Fair enough - and I wasn't really doing that. Just saying that it seemed > suspicious to my "feel" for the prices. But it's not clear that my > opinion of its price isn't biased by my partial knowledged of the rarity > issue. Rarity is certainly an issue in the price of Heart. But as noted, Heart isn't any rarer (in terms of total cards in circulation) than NRA Pact (Yes. Pact. Which is incorrect. But I'm saying it anyway. Like The Unmaskening. Which also isn't correct.) Because Heart is what it is, there are fewer available for sale/trade than NRA Pacts, as people want lots of them, so they hold on to the ones they have, as opposed to NRA Pact, which people want 1 or 2 of (for example). So you have a low supply. And a high demand, 'cause the card is stupidly powerful and stupidly ubiquitous. If it was, say, !Tremere specific equipment, I suspect it would sell for no more than any of the other good 3rd new Rares (as it would still be stupidly good, but not stupidly ubiquitous). But there is no way to prove this one way or the other. But in any case, again, Heart is a crazy outlier. If there was a graph titled "Prices of 3rd Ed Rares", there would be a nice cluster of dots following a line, and then the dot for Heart would be way over in the margin somewhere. And all the statisticians would look at that and say "Huh. Let's just ignore that one when analyzing the distribution of the set. It's just crazy and doesn't fit..." > ...but, by the same token, your comparisons may likewise be biased. > In saying this, I'd assert your reckoning may very well have failed > to compare like cards to like and so came away with an incorrect > conclusion. Bottom line, it's hopeless to prove anything this way. Biased, maybe, but if by "comparing like cards to like cards", you mean "comparing the costs of good rares in Set A to good rares in Set B", I'm probably doing that. Just looking quickly at Jeff's prices (which are not the be all and end all of anything, but they are a reasonable starting point, and tend to reflect prices across the spectrum): -Inconnu Tutelage (good 3rd Ed new R1): $6.00 -NRA Pact (good 3rd Ed new R1): $6.00 -Martinelli's Ring (kind of crappy 3rd Ed new R1): $1.00 -Twilight Camp (good TR rare): $5.00 -Piper (good TR rare): $6.00 -Cave of Apples (good LotN rare): $6.00 -Narrow Minds (good LotN rare): $7.00 Yeah, these prices could be totally out of left field, but they aren't that far off from what Chris has on his site. And e-bay for that same stuff. Which doesn't prove anything at all. But for my money, supports the notion that other than Heart, new rares from 3rd aren't really than much more expensive as singles than singles from other sets. > I wasn't basing my argument on the $30 price; just pointing to it as > correlation. Sure. But as Heart is a crazy, crazy outlier, pointing to it as a correlation isn't really doing much other than indicating that something is deeply unusual about Heart compared to all the other 3rd Ed rares. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 13, 3:39 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <k3ZSk.3387$bC6....@newsfe22.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Fair enough - and I wasn't really doing that. Just saying that it seemed > > suspicious to my "feel" for the prices. But it's not clear that my > > opinion of its price isn't biased by my partial knowledged of the rarity > > issue. > > Rarity is certainly an issue in the price of Heart. But as noted, Heart > isn't any rarer (in terms of total cards in circulation) than NRA Pact I'm pretty sure I've read the same 2 posts by Peter and Fred like 10 times in this thread. ;)

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-8B07EC.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <k3ZSk.3387$bC6...@newsfe22.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Fair enough - and I wasn't really doing that. Just saying that it seemed >> suspicious to my "feel" for the prices. But it's not clear that my >> opinion of its price isn't biased by my partial knowledged of the rarity >> issue. > > Rarity is certainly an issue in the price of Heart. But as noted, Heart > isn't any rarer (...) than NRA Pact(...) Because Heart is what it is, > there are fewer available for sale/trade than NRA Pacts, as people want > lots of them, so they hold on to the ones they have, as opposed to NRA > Pact, which people want 1 or 2 of (for example). Not that it makes a difference, but that's really a demand factor, not a supply factor. But sure, if I want lots of a card, I'll be less inclined to trade the copies of it I have...unless, of course, you offer me stuff I want even more. > So you have a low > supply. And a high demand, 'cause the card is stupidly powerful and > stupidly ubiquitous. If it was, say, !Tremere specific equipment, I > suspect it would sell for no more than any of the other good 3rd new > Rares (as it would still be stupidly good, but not stupidly ubiquitous). > But there is no way to prove this one way or the other. But in any case, > again, Heart is a crazy outlier. If there was a graph titled "Prices of > 3rd Ed Rares", there would be a nice cluster of dots following a line, > and then the dot for Heart would be way over in the margin somewhere. > And all the statisticians would look at that and say "Huh. Let's just > ignore that one when analyzing the distribution of the set. It's just > crazy and doesn't fit..." I don't think that's exactly what they'd say, no. I think statistically, the point is more about having way too little data to draw any conclusions. Whether the points are extreme or moderate doesn't actually make a difference. (No, you don't actually throw data out just because it's extreme.) >> ...but, by the same token, your comparisons may likewise be biased. >> In saying this, I'd assert your reckoning may very well have failed >> to compare like cards to like and so came away with an incorrect >> conclusion. Bottom line, it's hopeless to prove anything this way. > > Biased, maybe, but if by "comparing like cards to like cards", you mean > "comparing the costs of good rares in Set A to good rares in Set B", I'm > probably doing that. Sorry, I don't agree. Name "like cards" and I'll give you some reason or other the 3rd Edition new card was in some way not as good than the alternative to which you compared it. Not that I'd necessarily believe that, but every individual card is different than every other individual card and they all have their advantages and disadvantages so I can always demonstrate that you might have been biased. > -Inconnu Tutelage (good 3rd Ed new R1): $6.00 > -NRA Pact (good 3rd Ed new R1): $6.00 > -Martinelli's Ring (kind of crappy 3rd Ed new R1): $1.00 > -Twilight Camp (good TR rare): $5.00 > -Piper (good TR rare): $6.00 > -Cave of Apples (good LotN rare): $6.00 > -Narrow Minds (good LotN rare): $7.00 Sorry. You lose. Inconnu Tutelage grants its power to go fetch a card to the whole table so is seldom used. NRA PAC I do like, but it also grants its power to the whole table, and I've found it too difficult to get enough good out of to really make it worth building a deck around. (Believe me, I've tried!) Martinelli's Ring is shear trash! On the other hand, Twilight Camp is the best card in that whole set! It's useable by all anarch decks and in multiples. Piper is a very strong card that's both splashable and potentially useful in multiples for any deck built around retainers. Cave of Apples is useful in any deck that leans on corruptions counters - which already existed before it was printed; it's just gravy for those decks. And Narrow Minds is splashable in any deck that bleeds on offense and doesn't do much bouncing on defense, which is a whole lot of decks. I said I wouldn't necessarily believe the above reasoning but in this case I do. You really went out and picked a few of the crappier 3E new rare cards, except maybe NRA PAC - and I've found few people who like NRA PAC as much as I do. On the other side of the ledger, you've found some of the best rares they've printed since 3E to compare them to. I will say simply, "Unfair!!!" (ESPECIALLY throwing Twilight Camp in with Martinelli's Ring. I mean, seriously?!? Sheesh!) Fred

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:99c9a506-c251-4afe...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > I'm pretty sure I've read the same 2 posts by Peter and Fred like 10 > times in this thread. ;) Nah, we're getting somewhere...slowly. I at least got him to admit there _is_ a real rarity factor involved in the new-cards-in-a-reprint- set thing. (Thank goodness! Here I was thinking the difficulty I had obtaining some of these cards was just my imagination!) Dude, that was no small feat! Fred

In article <sM1Tk.8$VV...@newsfe22.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Not that it makes a difference, but that's really a demand factor, not a > supply factor. But sure, if I want lots of a card, I'll be less inclined > to trade the copies of it I have...unless, of course, you offer me stuff > I want even more. The point is that people want many and keep the ones they have. Which means fewer to be sold and traded. Which means lower supply. > Sorry, I don't agree. Name "like cards" and I'll give you some reason or > other the 3rd Edition new card was in some way not as good than the > alternative to which you compared it. It isn't a matter of "alternatives". It is a matter of "good card people want some of" vs "good card that people want some of". Which is all I'm comparing. > Sorry. You lose. Inconnu Tutelage grants its power to go fetch a card > to the whole table so is seldom used. NRA PAC I do like, but it also > grants its power to the whole table, and I've found it too difficult to > get enough good out of to really make it worth building a deck around. > (Believe me, I've tried!) Martinelli's Ring is shear trash! Which is why I called Martinelli's Ring "bad and a buck". Inconnu Tuttelage is a card that people want one or two of, just like most other kind of narrow rares. NRA Pact is a card that people want one or two of, just like most other kind of narrow rares. > On the other hand, Twilight Camp is the best card in that whole set! > It's useable by all anarch decks and in multiples. Piper is a very > strong card that's both splashable and potentially useful in multiples > for any deck built around retainers. Cave of Apples is useful in any > deck that leans on corruptions counters - which already existed before > it was printed; it's just gravy for those decks. And Narrow Minds is > splashable in any deck that bleeds on offense and doesn't do much > bouncing on defense, which is a whole lot of decks. You can pick and choose the relative merits of all the cards in question, or you can pick other cards. The fact remains that the 3rd Ed rares, other than Heart aren't significantly more expensive than cards from sets that weren't mostly reprints. > I said I wouldn't necessarily believe the above reasoning but in this > case I do. You really went out and picked a few of the crappier 3E new > rare cards, I picked out 3. NRA Pact (reasonably good. $6.00). Martinelli's Ring (reasonably crappy. $1.00. As much as any other crappy R1). Inconnu Tuttelage (arguably something that people certainly want 1 or 2 of). > except maybe NRA PAC - and I've found few people who like > NRA PAC as much as I do. On the other side of the ledger, you've > found some of the best rares they've printed since 3E to compare them > to. I will say simply, "Unfair!!!" (ESPECIALLY throwing Twilight > Camp in with Martinelli's Ring. I mean, seriously?!? Sheesh!) You saw how I specifically called Martinelli's Ring "bad" and how I used it as an example of a bad card that was just as rare as Heart, yet sold for a buck, 'cause it sucks, right? Indicating that the increased rarity holds no sway over bad cards, right? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <BS1Tk.10$VV...@newsfe22.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Nah, we're getting somewhere...slowly. I at least got him to admit > there _is_ a real rarity factor involved in the new-cards-in-a-reprint- > set thing. I never said that this wasn't a factor. I just don't think it makes the difference you seem to think it does (as otherwise, Martinelli's Ring, a card which is incredibly crappy, would fetch a higher price than it does based solely on its rarity, even if people only wanted the 1 for a set). And I don't think it makes the distribution model of 3rd (and consequently KoT) a bad thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 13, 4:39 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > -Inconnu Tutelage (good 3rd Ed new R1): $6.00 > -NRA Pact (good 3rd Ed new R1): $6.00 > -Martinelli's Ring (kind of crappy 3rd Ed new R1): $1.00 > -Twilight Camp (good TR rare): $5.00 > -Piper (good TR rare): $6.00 > -Cave of Apples (good LotN rare): $6.00 > -Narrow Minds (good LotN rare): $7.00 So... "Good Card people want 1 or 2 of" (IT, NRA) from a huge, poor collation, low-new-cards set = "Very Good Card that's best in large multiples" (TC, Piper) from a small, easy to get set. Still think distribution level isn't an issue in it? Supply and demand theory would disagree. Mid demand, small supply seems to come out similar to large demand, large supply. That would imply that at least part of Heart's price is due to large demand, small supply that doesn't affect other cards. And that the issues with 3rd exacerbated that. "Crazy outlier" or just way on the end of the logical line, with little in between? - D.J.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmmm, I know we are really threadbusting here, but I never really thought of it that way. Ok, so it's now a passable card in a certain deck. I may have to build a deck around it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d23b2521-8290-4f11...@a17g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > So... "Good Card people want 1 or 2 of" (IT, NRA) from a huge, poor > collation, low-new-cards set = "Very Good Card that's best in large > multiples" (TC, Piper) from a small, easy to get set. Or "good card people want 1 or 2 of (IT, NRA) from a huge, poor collation, low new card set" = "good card people want 1 or 2 of (Narrow Minds $7.00; Cave of Apples $6.00; Chameleon $5.00)" The cards I picked were just random cards in the same price range as the ones I was looking at from 3rd. There are others in the same price range. That aren't cards that people want in multiples. And are just cards that people want a couple of. And still cost $5-6 bucks. Just like similar cards from 3rd Ed. > Still think distribution level isn't an issue in it? Supply and > demand theory would disagree. I never said it was no issue at all (I'm pretty sure, among other things, I said specifically "If Heart was a common, it would be a buck" indicating that at least on some level, I fully accept that rarity is an issue). I said it was less of an issue than people seem to want to attribute it to. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-65BE31.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <sM1Tk.8$VV...@newsfe22.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Sorry, I don't agree. Name "like cards" and I'll give you some reason or >> other the 3rd Edition new card was in some way not as good than the >> alternative to which you compared it. > > It isn't a matter of "alternatives". It is a matter of "good card people > want some of" vs "good card that people want some of". Which is all I'm > comparing. Eh? I'm not sure what you're disputing here. I didn't mean anything in particular using the word "alternative" except to refer to the two alternative things you were comparing. "Other" would be synonomous. >> Sorry. You lose. Inconnu Tutelage grants its power to go fetch a card >> to the whole table so is seldom used. NRA PAC I do like, but it also >> grants its power to the whole table, and I've found it too difficult to >> get enough good out of to really make it worth building a deck around. >> (Believe me, I've tried!) Martinelli's Ring is shear trash! > > Which is why I called Martinelli's Ring "bad and a buck". Inconnu > Tuttelage is a card that people want one or two of, just like most other > kind of narrow rares. NRA Pact is a card that people want one or two of, > just like most other kind of narrow rares. > >> On the other hand, Twilight Camp is the best card in that whole set! >> It's useable by all anarch decks and in multiples. Piper is a very >> strong card that's both splashable and potentially useful in multiples >> for any deck built around retainers. Cave of Apples is useful in any >> deck that leans on corruptions counters - which already existed before >> it was printed; it's just gravy for those decks. And Narrow Minds is >> splashable in any deck that bleeds on offense and doesn't do much >> bouncing on defense, which is a whole lot of decks. > > You can pick and choose the relative merits of all the cards in > question, or you can pick other cards. The fact remains that the 3rd Ed > rares, other than Heart aren't significantly more expensive than cards > from sets that weren't mostly reprints. The point is, you chose a bad set of new 3E cards and a good set of all-new-set rares. So it would actually prove my point if the two sets of cards were to sell at approximately equal prices. Like, "See, even junk 3E new card rares sell for as much money as the premium rares in other sets!" >> I said I wouldn't necessarily believe the above reasoning but in this >> case I do. You really went out and picked a few of the crappier 3E new >> rare cards, except maybe NRA PAC - and I've found few people who like >> NRA PAC as much as I do. On the other side of the ledger, you've >> found some of the best rares they've printed since 3E to compare them >> to. I will say simply, "Unfair!!!" (ESPECIALLY throwing Twilight >> Camp in with Martinelli's Ring. I mean, seriously?!? Sheesh!) > > You saw how I specifically called Martinelli's Ring "bad" and how I used > it as an example of a bad card that was just as rare as Heart, yet sold > for a buck, 'cause it sucks, right? Martinelli's Ring is total crap. It could be the only one in the universe and it would sell for a buck or so. > Indicating that the increased rarity > holds no sway over bad cards, right? Nope - it's an extreme example that you can't draw any conclusions from. Just like Heart of Nizchetus. Fred

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Jadasc <jad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That's "NRA PAC" -- National Rifle Association Political Action >> Committee. > > Yes. Correct. How is this relevant to the discussion? Perhaps he is referring to your use of "NRA Pact" nine times in this thread, Peter. ;) 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/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009 http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I'm just saying, I believe the last time we had $20+ whose > price held over time (not just for the couple months after > printing) which were in print was Tomb of Ramses III, > pre-errata. Another interesting example was Protected > Resources - a new card in a reprint set. The only legitimate > counter-example I can think of is The Unmasking. Preternatural > Strength may also qualify; it was going for $20+ the last I looked - > which was still fairly soon after LotN was printed. I'm not sure. I'm sure it isn't the only legitimate counter-example. Just off the top of my head: War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, the FN R1 vamps, ... Even Powerbase: Montreal, Charisma, Jake Washington, Sense Dep, and Shroud of Absence have consistently sold for $14-18. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Fair enough - and I wasn't really doing that. Just saying that it > seemed suspicious to my "feel" for the prices. But it's not clear > that my opinion of its price isn't biased by my partial knowledged > of the rarity issue. Fred, I wouldn't not give you a dollar if you didn't not stop talking in double-negatives. ;) =) 8-) :D [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gfj0sr$p2n$1...@aioe.org... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I'm just saying, I believe the last time we had $20+ whose >> price held over time (not just for the couple months after >> printing) which were in print was Tomb of Ramses III, >> pre-errata. Another interesting example was Protected >> Resources - a new card in a reprint set. The only legitimate >> counter-example I can think of is The Unmasking. Preternatural >> Strength may also qualify; it was going for $20+ the last I looked - >> which was still fairly soon after LotN was printed. I'm not sure. > > I'm sure it isn't the only legitimate counter-example. > > Just off the top of my head: > War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, the FN R1 vamps, ... > > Even Powerbase: Montreal, Charisma, Jake Washington, Sense Dep, and Shroud > of Absence have consistently sold for $14-18. IN-PRINT rares, Kevin. Please reread what you quoted. Tomb of Ramses III was going for $20+ back when Ancient Hearts just came out. Protected Resources was going for $20+ back when the VtES reprint set just came out. Not true of any of these examples. (Although Shroud of Absence may have been in the $10-15 range, IIRC. That was closest one, by far.) And (without bothering to look) I very much doubt Powerbase: Montreal or War Ghoul is going for $20+ right now. For one thing, War Ghoul is not just a 3E rare, there's a copy in the Tzimisce precon. Fred

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>> I'm just saying, I believe the last time we had $20+ whose >>> price held over time (not just for the couple months after >>> printing) which were in print was Tomb of Ramses III, >>> pre-errata. Another interesting example was Protected >>> Resources - a new card in a reprint set. The only legitimate >>> counter-example I can think of is The Unmasking. Preternatural >>> Strength may also qualify; it was going for $20+ the last I looked - >>> which was still fairly soon after LotN was printed. I'm not sure. >> >> I'm sure it isn't the only legitimate counter-example. >> >> Just off the top of my head: >> War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, the FN R1 vamps, ... >> >> Even Powerbase: Montreal, Charisma, Jake Washington, Sense Dep, and >> Shroud of Absence have consistently sold for $14-18. > > IN-PRINT rares, Kevin. Please reread what you quoted. Ok, here we go. War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, and the FN R1 vamps WERE at $20+ when their respective sets WERE STILL IN-PRINT. (Yes, I saw the CVS sell and trade for $20 when Sabbat was still around.) And if you are going to now say that you meant cards that are still in-print NOW -- which is clearly not what you wrote in the quoted paragraph -- then I accept your correction of what you clearly wrote, above. Note that you said "...whose price held over time (not just for the couple months after printing) which were in print was..." which implies what *I* said, not what you are now trying to claim you said. But whatever, my data holds either way. I'd like to say that I know you want to have outs for everything you enter into the record and that you try to create holes in anything factual you put into the record, but I don't think you are at that point yet. ;) =) 8-) :D [ quoted text not captured ]

On 14 Nov., 00:14, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <BS1Tk.10$VV...@newsfe22.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Nah, we're getting somewhere...slowly. I at least got him to admit > > there _is_ a real rarity factor involved in the new-cards-in-a-reprint- > > set thing. > > I never said that this wasn't a factor. I just don't think it makes the > difference you seem to think it does (as otherwise, Martinelli's Ring, a > card which is incredibly crappy, would fetch a higher price than it does > based solely on its rarity, even if people only wanted the 1 for a set). > And I don't think it makes the distribution model of 3rd (and > consequently KoT) a bad thing. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff Look, again: 3rd had definite distribution problems due to a screw up at the manufacturer. See James's posts in this thread about that. You always seem to brush this fact away as if non consequential, which it isn't in fact. One of the reasons people bought less of that set initially. KoT has a little more new cards than 3rd had (52:36 if I remember correctly). This means that in a direct comparison of the two "base sets", KoT *will* be a lot better, not even taking the reversed-back issue of 3rd into account. ;)

On Nov 14, 4:12 am, preache...@gmx.at wrote: > Look, again: 3rd had definite distribution problems due to a screw up > at the manufacturer. So you are claiming that half the Hearts *did* get destroyed by a spilled pot of coffee, the other half got sent only to South America, and Smoking Man *did* steal half the Mirror Walks? Unless the distribution problems actually reduced the number of available cards, then the distribution problems aren't really relevant. > You always seem to brush this fact away as if non consequential, which > it isn't in fact. One of the reasons people bought less of that set > initially. Do we have actual information indicating that people bought less of the set? I mean, we might. And that would be interesting to see. But I'm yet to see such information. -Peter

On Nov 13, 11:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Perhaps he is referring to your use of "NRA Pact" nine times in this > thread, Peter. ;) Well, sure, but still, how is that relevant to the discussion? I could have been doing it by accident (in which case, what difference does it make--it isn't like someone isn't going to know what I'm talking about; there isn't *another* card that *is* called "NRA Pact" that is going to confuse the issue). I could have been doing it on purpose (I refer to The Unmaskening as The Unmaskening in every post I mention it, and yet no one ever seems to notice; that and given specifics of the NRA, using "Pact" is actually kind of funny :-) I mean, sure, if you wanna go and correct every incorrect reference to a card title, go nuts. But it seems like a lot of work for little gain, given how this newsgroup tends to operate. -Peter

On Nov 13, 10:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Eh? I'm not sure what you're disputing here. I thought you meant "alternatives" as "something that does something similar". Which apparently you didn't. Never mind. > The point is, you chose a bad set of new 3E cards and a good set of > all-new-set rares. NRA Pact and Inconnu Tuttelage aren't bad cards. Martinelli's Ring is an awful card. But as a result is being given away virtually for free. Which is kind of interesting. > So it would actually prove my point if the two > sets of cards were to sell at approximately equal prices. Like, "See, > even junk 3E new card rares sell for as much money as the premium > rares in other sets!" What is a premium rare in 3rd, if not NRA Pact? Other than Heart, what new rare from that set is, in your opinion, "premium"? Black Forrest Base (which tends to be relatively expensive, like all the "premium" rares in LotN, another big set)? Uh, anything else? > Nope - it's an extreme example that you can't draw any conclusions > from. Just like Heart of Nizchetus. Fair enough. But the new *other* rares in 3rd aren't selling for much more than rares in other sets. The crappy R2s sell for pocket change. The pretty good R1s sell for, like, 5 bucks. Just like all the other big sets. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Not everything needs to be a crusade. At least, not to the rest of the newsgroup. Unmaskening is kind of funny and clearly not a case of misreading. See also Heart of Cheating. Correcting the slip of NRA Pact (which doesn't seem to be a conscious choice of error, nor a simple typo or accident, as the OP noted) is a simply case of civility, Golden Rule, or plain being nice for no reason.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:a59769ba-c415-4c74...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe be WW putting 2 boxes of third ed in the Twilight Rebellion pre-release kits, for example ? That TR kit would have fit perfectly with LoTN boxes along, but people had to buy 2 third ed boxes to get the PR kits instead. To me. that has an indication to me that third got less sales, in comparison of other sets.

On Nov 14, 11:46 am, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > Maybe be WW putting 2 boxes of third ed in the Twilight Rebellion > pre-release kits, for example ? > That TR kit would have fit perfectly with LoTN boxes along, > but people had to buy 2 third ed boxes to get the PR kits instead. > To me. that has an indication to me that third got less sales, in comparison > of other sets. Fair enough. That is certainly possible. It is also possible that they used 3rd as it was a better set for drafting/limited play (being a base set, rather than an expansion revolving around 4 clans that don't show up in TR). But maybe it was just a way to unload 3rd. -Peter

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gfjc1k$utj$1...@aioe.org... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> IN-PRINT rares, Kevin. Please reread what you quoted. > > Ok, here we go. > > War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, and the FN R1 vamps WERE at > $20+ when their respective sets WERE STILL IN-PRINT. (Yes, I saw the CVS > sell and trade for $20 when Sabbat was still around.) I'm sorry, Kevin, that just isn't true. I've bought all three of these cards for under $15 a pop (and Mind Rapes for under $10 at times). > And if you are going to now say that you meant cards that are still > in-print NOW Nope. You're just wrong about your information. > I'd like to say that I know you want to have outs for everything you enter > into the record and that you try to create holes in anything factual you > put into the record, but I don't think you are at that point yet. ;) =) > 8-) :D Huh? Could your translate that into English? Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:0e21a479-b36c-4a03...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com... On Nov 13, 10:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > The point is, you chose a bad set of new 3E cards and a good set of > > all-new-set rares. > > NRA Pact and Inconnu Tuttelage aren't bad cards. Disputable, especially WRT Inconnu Tuttelage. In any case, they're not as good as the non-3rd-Edition rares you chose. > > So it would actually prove my point if the two > > sets of cards were to sell at approximately equal prices. Like, "See, > > even junk 3E new card rares sell for as much money as the premium > > rares in other sets!" > > What is a premium rare in 3rd, if not NRA Pact? Other than Heart, what new rare from that set is, in your opinion, "premium"? I don't know. Who said there were any? This question seems to be beside the point, which is to chose new 3E rares and non-3E rares of approximately equal utility - which you clearly didn't. > Black Forrest > Base (which tends to be relatively expensive, like all the "premium" > rares in LotN, another big set)? Uh, anything else? Black Forrest Base is one of those cards that looks good on paper but I haven't seen used to good effect, yet. So it's hard to tell. > > Nope - it's an extreme example that you can't draw any conclusions > > from. Just like Heart of Nizchetus. > > Fair enough. But the new *other* rares in 3rd aren't selling for much > more than rares in other sets. It depends on which rares from other sets you run them up against. You chose a damn good set, it turns out. Since you chose for prices, that doesn't look coincidental to me. That is, you went out and looked for rares of comparable prices and found cards that were a lot better than the 3E new card rares you were looking at. What does that say? Fred

In message <ieFTk.5012$ev2....@newsfe12.iad>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message >news:gfjc1k$utj$1...@aioe.org... >> War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, and the FN R1 vamps WERE at >> $20+ when their respective sets WERE STILL IN-PRINT. (Yes, I saw the CVS >> sell and trade for $20 when Sabbat was still around.) > >I'm sorry, Kevin, that just isn't true. I've bought all three of these cards >for under $15 a pop (and Mind Rapes for under $10 at times). Some auctions go for more or less than others due to, amongst other things: - seller reputation - seller location - cost of postage and packaging - the payment methods accepted by the seller - the wording of the title of the auction - the duration of the auction - the presence or absence of Buy It Now - the newness of the set - the day of the week the auction finishes (there are sometimes observable rhythms to pricing on Ebay) to selling) - the naivety of the seller - the tenacity of the buyer. And so on. Being able to find some copies of some cards for a certain price does not mean that the average price was close to the price you paid. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

I wrote in message news:ieFTk.5012$ev2....@newsfe12.iad... > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:gfjc1k$utj$1...@aioe.org... >> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>> IN-PRINT rares, Kevin. Please reread what you quoted. >> >> Ok, here we go. >> >> War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, and the FN R1 vamps WERE at >> $20+ when their respective sets WERE STILL IN-PRINT. (Yes, I saw the CVS >> sell and trade for $20 when Sabbat was still around.) > > I'm sorry, Kevin, that just isn't true. I've bought all three of these cards > for under $15 a pop (and Mind Rapes for under $10 at times). Actually, I keep old mail from old EBAY auctions I've won. Here's a few actual results: Jan 4, 2002: Mind Rape X 2, $10.52 (#1683480103) Feb 3, 2002: Mind Rape $4.51 (#1696672025) Nov 16, 2001: Camarilla Vitae Slave, $4.75 (#1661734717) Nov 23, 2001: Camarilla Vitae Slave, $4.75 (#1664944952) Jun 4, 2002: War Ghoul $8.50 (#1736302446) Aug 31, 2002: War Ghoul $5.55 (#1761325581) This should crush any contention that Camarilla Vitae Slave was ever sold for $20 or more while in-print, as clearly one didn't have to pay such a price years later. It may be more now, but that's because the card is 6 years further out of print. But for many years, CVS went as one of the more unnoticed Sabbat rares as it really isn't terrifically useful. I don't think it's a bad card; it's just not all that crucial to use except in some very corner case decks. It's become an example of a top shelf rare now only because it's one of the last few The Sabbat cards to never get reprinted. Now, it would be fair to say that these prices don't tell you much about Mind Rape and War Ghoul since Sabbat War reprinted these two cards around that time, and this could explain somehow why these two cards where $20 cards just after The Sabbat was printed but maybe not just after Sabbat War printed. Why that would be for War Ghoul would be a mystery to me since it was a rare booster card in both printings. I can't think of any reason it would have been more difficult to get the first time. If anything, I think it would have been easier for the same reason the whole thread has gone on so long: Sabbat War had a lot of reprints in it so there was less incentive to buy SW boosters than The Sabbat boosters for older players who already owned quantities of The Sabbat. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find my old mail files from pre-2000 to see if I bought any War Ghoul singles in the pre-SW days. As far as Mind Rape goes, I'd forgotten one thing: the Sabbat printing of Mind Rape had much different card text. I believe LSJ errated it in the 7-7-98 set of rules to be far less effective than its original printing. That being the case, I'm fine admitting it might have been a $20+ card - for the same reason ToR III was: it was distinctly overpowered. The fact that it went for much less after errata/reprinting in Sabbat War tells you everything you need to know about that situation. Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:mAQdoR+F...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] Sure, it's always possible to find unusual bargains on rare occasions. When I buy EBAY cards, however, I have no particular strategies I use to get bargains except to bid as late in the auction as possible. That tends to keep me out of bidding "wars" to which a few other buyers are prone but it doesn't really find me unusual bargains very often. When it comes down to it, I have no ability to document long term card prices for the newsgroup. I can merely present my memory for what I've paid over time and people can believe me or not. So to clarify this - for what it's worth - I will say I was not talking about bargain prices I happened to luck into. Fred

On Nov 15, 2:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: That is, you went out and looked > for rares of comparable prices and found cards that were a lot better > than the 3E new card rares you were looking at. What does that say? That your view of what is or is not "better" is debatable? NRA Pact is a pretty good card. Not super wide use, but when it is used, it is good (which is why it is a card people want, but not tons of). Chameleon? Also a $5.00-6.00 card single, for example, kind of blows. Your claims that "Card X" is clearly worse than "Card Y" is far less concrete than "they both sell for about $5.00". -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Nov 15, 2:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > That is, you went out and looked >> for rares of comparable prices and found cards that were a lot better >> than the 3E new card rares you were looking at. What does that say? > > That your view of what is or is not "better" is debatable? NRA Pact ^^^^^^^^ you did that on purpose, didn't you? :) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

On Nov 11, 6:39 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:35:21 -0800, "Kevin M." wrote: > >> I understand that there were a few printing errors. > >Oh? What errors? > > Society Hunting Ground was replaced by Society of Leopold on the > Uncommon Sheet. > > Another card on the Uncommon Sheet was replaced by Ghoul Retainer. I was just lucky enough to open a booster with two copies of Society of Leopold, one 'uncommon' and one 'rare'. I think I'd have rather had two Ghoul Retainers...

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Ok, here we go. >> >> War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, and the FN R1 vamps >> WERE at $20+ when their respective sets WERE STILL IN-PRINT. (Yes, >> I saw the CVS sell and trade for $20 when Sabbat was still around.) > > I'm sorry, Kevin, that just isn't true. I've bought all three of > these cards for under $15 a pop (and Mind Rapes for under $10 at > times). > >> And if you are going to now say that you meant cards that are still >> in-print NOW > > Nope. You're just wrong about your information. Nope, Fred, *you're* just wrong. According to the definitions laid out, by you, what I said was true, the cards I said it about are valid, and you're trying to get out of it. Again. Thanks for playing. Bye. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 15, 2:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > It depends on which rares from other sets you run them up against. More I think about it, more I realize that if this were a real life discussion, I'd be waving my hands in the air and going "Wait! Wait! Wait!" and making the truck backing up noise. Here is the thing. What cards are being compared to what other cards is irrelevant. Whether the cards are good or trash is also irrelevant (I got led on a pointless tangent. Damn my being easily distracted..." My original point was, and I had one, was that buying singles (which is the solution to "I don't want to buy lots of reprints just to get a few new cards) from a set like 3rd Ed (a set with a few new cards among a bunch of reprints) isn't any harder than buying singles from a set that is all new. The new Rares from 3rd? Some were a buck. Some were 5 bucks. A couple were expensive. The Rares from, say, LotN? Some were a buck. Some were 5 bucks. A couple were expensive. That is all I was indicating. Before getting caught up in irrelevant tangents about what cards were good or not. Buying single rares (instead of boosters and getting lots of reprints that you don't want) from 3rd was not significantly more difficult than buying single rares from a set like LotN. That is all I'm looking at here. -Peter

In message <wcGTk.550$jV1...@newsfe13.iad>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >When it comes down to it, I have no ability to document long term card >prices for the newsgroup. Correct. KevinM, on the other hand, spent a lot of time on this in years gone by. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:36232bbc-f624-4404...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Nov 15, 2:26 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > It depends on which rares from other sets you run them up against. > > More I think about it, more I realize that if this were a real life > discussion, I'd be waving my hands in the air and going "Wait! Wait! > Wait!" and making the truck backing up noise. ... > The new Rares from 3rd? Some were a buck. ...well, one was a buck. Although Cracking the Wall probably falls into the same, "I-don't-care-how-rare-it-is-it-sucks!" class as Martinelli's Ring. > Some > were 5 bucks. A couple were expensive. The Rares from, say, LotN? Some > were a buck. Some were 5 bucks. A couple were expensive. That is all I > was indicating. Before getting caught up in irrelevant tangents about > what cards were good or not. > > Buying single rares (instead of boosters and getting lots of reprints > that you don't want) from 3rd was not significantly more difficult > than buying single rares from a set like LotN. That is all I'm looking > at here. Actually, it was significantly more difficult at first. Prices spiked a lot higher, singles dealers often didn't offer the new rares in the same quantities, in some cases, I think because they would make local sales or something (I'm not sure why - it was weird but it certainly happened). You may be right, though, that after 6 months or a year or something the price spikes from the early demand come back down and the cards may be more expensive but are still available. That is, they're not "insanely" more expensive or anything. If that's your point, then I'd say it's a fair one. Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:KvSmDxPw...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <wcGTk.550$jV1...@newsfe13.iad>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>When it comes down to it, I have no ability to document long term card >>prices for the newsgroup. > > Correct. > > KevinM, on the other hand, spent a lot of time on this in years gone by. Actually, I'd guess I've spent more time on it than Kevin has based on the fact that I actually don't see him making that many sales. Fred

On Nov 17, 12:05 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote in messagenews:36232bbc-f624-4404...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > Buying single rares (instead of boosters and getting lots of reprints > > that you don't want) from 3rd was not significantly more difficult > > than buying single rares from a set like LotN. That is all I'm looking > > at here. > > Actually, it was significantly more difficult at first. Prices spiked > a lot higher, singles dealers often didn't offer the new rares in the > same quantities, in some cases, I think because they would make local > sales or something (I'm not sure why - it was weird but it certainly > happened). This tracks more with distribution issues than anything related to relative over- or under-printing. A seller who opens N boxes expecting to get a roughly even distribution but who ends up with a skewed one will have relative shortages of some cards (and oversupply of others), leading to short term problems, but... > You may be right, though, that after 6 months or a year or something > the price spikes from the early demand come back down and the cards > may be more expensive but are still available. That is, they're not > "insanely" more expensive or anything. If that's your point, then I'd > say it's a fair one. ...over the long haul, the distribution issues sort themselves out. Open *enough* boxes, and you'll find the missing pieces eventually. -witness1

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gfo03p$cpn$1...@aioe.org... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Ok, here we go. >>> >>> War Ghoul, Mind Rape, Camarilla Vitae Slave, and the FN R1 vamps >>> WERE at $20+ when their respective sets WERE STILL IN-PRINT. (Yes, >>> I saw the CVS sell and trade for $20 when Sabbat was still around.) >> >> I'm sorry, Kevin, that just isn't true. I've bought all three of >> these cards for under $15 a pop (and Mind Rapes for under $10 at >> times). >> >>> And if you are going to now say that you meant cards that are still >>> in-print NOW >> >> Nope. You're just wrong about your information. > > Nope, Fred, *you're* just wrong. > > According to the definitions laid out, by you, what I said was true, the > cards I said it about are valid, and you're trying to get out of it. > Again. Thanks for playing. Bye. Let me get this straight: you're trying to claim that Camarilla Vitae Slave and War Ghoul were $20+ cards back when The Sabbat was in-print. (Mind Rape was dealt with in my reply to James - it might have been $20 back when it had different, more powerful card text). Despite the demonstration that I paid around $5 for the card several years AFTER it was printed. And that I'm "just-wrong-thanks-for-playing-bye". With no actual supporting data. Can't you just admit you don't know remember what War Ghoul and CVS cost back in 1997? (And, in fact, you're 'remembering' prices from the last few years, at least in the case of CVS?) Sheesh! :-P Fred

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Frederick Scott writes: >>>When it comes down to it, I have no ability to document >>> long term card prices for the newsgroup. >> >> Correct. >> >> KevinM, on the other hand, spent a lot of time on this >> in years gone by. > > Actually, I'd guess I've spent more time on it than Kevin has based > on the fact that I actually don't see him making that many sales. The fact that you base your comparison on how many sales I've made is very telling about your definitions. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gfsaaa$44s$1...@aioe.org... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott writes: >>>>When it comes down to it, I have no ability to document >>>> long term card prices for the newsgroup. >>> >>> Correct. >>> >>> KevinM, on the other hand, spent a lot of time on this >>> in years gone by. >> >> Actually, I'd guess I've spent more time on it than Kevin has based >> on the fact that I actually don't see him making that many sales. > > The fact that you base your comparison on how many sales I've made is very > telling about your definitions. OK. That could possibly be a valid point. Would you care to state just what factors your claims to superior authority are based? Fred

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>> "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>>> Frederick Scott writes: >>>>>When it comes down to it, I have no ability to document >>>>> long term card prices for the newsgroup. >>>> >>>> Correct. >>>> >>>> KevinM, on the other hand, spent a lot of time on this >>>> in years gone by. >>> >>> Actually, I'd guess I've spent more time on it than Kevin has based >>> on the fact that I actually don't see him making that many sales. >> >> The fact that you base your comparison on how many sales I've made >> is very telling about your definitions. > > OK. That could possibly be a valid point. Would you care to state > just what factors your claims to superior authority are based? I don't believe it is worth any more of our valuable time. So, no. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gfsb0o$gub$1...@aioe.org... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>>> "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>>>> Frederick Scott writes: >>>>>>When it comes down to it, I have no ability to document >>>>>> long term card prices for the newsgroup. >>>>> >>>>> Correct. >>>>> >>>>> KevinM, on the other hand, spent a lot of time on this >>>>> in years gone by. >>>> >>>> Actually, I'd guess I've spent more time on it than Kevin has based >>>> on the fact that I actually don't see him making that many sales. >>> >>> The fact that you base your comparison on how many sales I've made >>> is very telling about your definitions. >> >> OK. That could possibly be a valid point. Would you care to state >> just what factors your claims to superior authority are based? > > I don't believe it is worth any more of our valuable time. So, no. Thanks for playing. Bye. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] As note, it's funny to see debates about single pricing on the secondary market, the would be motivations behind such massive reprints in boosters, and then seeing a staple camarilla card such as Parity shift not reprinted at all. Granted, as it was already nicely priced on the ebay, given this bad mistake of not reprinting it in KoT, i bet its price will raise in near future. Unless they want to ban it outright, in which case the mistake would be even worse (maybe they want to ban govern and deflection too ? :p )

In article <HvhUk.484$m74...@newsfe24.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > You may be right, though, that after 6 months or a year or something > the price spikes from the early demand come back down and the cards > may be more expensive but are still available. That is, they're not > "insanely" more expensive or anything. If that's your point, then I'd > say it's a fair one. Deal! I'll take it and we can move on :-) 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