3rd Ed repartition ?
Orpheus
Out of one box :
- I has many times the same vamps, and several the same exact 3 vamps in
different boosts
- I got 3 times more Gurcheon Hall than Wash (showing the "real rarity" of
uncos here...) !!
- as for doubles, still out of one box : 3x Gurcheon, and twice Tension in
the Ranks, Derange, Left for Dead, Ivory Bow, Legacy of Caine (lucky me !).
That leaves exactly two-thirds of non-duplicated Rares in the box.
Is all this relatively "normal" ? What did you guys get ?
--
Orpheus
Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!
Orpheus
>
> Out of one box :
>
> - I has many times the same vamps, and several the same exact 3 vamps in
> different boosts
>
> - I got 3 times more Gurcheon Hall than Wash (showing the "real rarity" of
> uncos here...) !!
>
> - as for doubles, still out of one box : 3x Gurcheon, and twice Tension in
> the Ranks, Derange, Left for Dead, Ivory Bow, Legacy of Caine (lucky me
!).
Oh, I forgot 2 Kindred Manipulations...
And to mention that I got some of the new Common cards once, or... not at
all !
Dr Jester
friend of mine weren't able to find any Freak Drive!!! And at the
moment, I still miss a lot of Uncommons, not to tell that there're
vampires or *new* cards that I get just in 1 or 2 copies... like
Sha-Ennu or Hexaped!
Strange... very strange randomization...
Dr Jester
EC2006 organizator
Orpheus ha scritto:
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> Well, just to let you know, in almost 6 booster boxes and half I and a
> friend of mine weren't able to find any Freak Drive!!!
That's why I dislike sets with more than 200 cards and stay the hell
away from them whenever possible.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
pallando
followed by Wash. At least in my boxes it was always like that.
The general distribution is not very satisfying. Maybe this is because of
the big size of the set. I pool cards with some friends, after opening
almost nine boxes we have between 3 (!) and 16 copies of the vampires. From
most vampires there were between 8 and 11 copies as expected. NOR was a lot
better, after opening 4 boxes we had an almost perfectly even distribution
of cards, rares, uncommons and commons.
--
regards
pallando
---------------------
pallando(at)gmx(dot)at
Dr Jester
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo ha scritto:
I understand your poit of view (not that wrong if you read our
misadventures on the boxes opening!)... but if you're a collector, it's
quite difficult to hold the ground with such "Temptation of Greater
Power"! -_-
Dr Jester
EC2006 organizator
Powermonger
packs
Helicopter always comes with direct intervention
Wooden Stake always come with political strangenhold
Orpheus
> packs
>
> Helicopter always comes with direct intervention
Does it ? I have 2 Helicopters and only one DI...
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Orpheus wrote:
> > I confirm that the uncommons come paired all the same in all booster
> > packs
> >
> > Helicopter always comes with direct intervention
>
> Does it ? I have 2 Helicopters and only one DI...
Helicopter also appears in the !Tremere starter.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
In my experience, LoB had an almost perfect distribution. A shame they
had to switch manufacturers after getting everything down.
xcver
In the box iI opened just now there were also pairs of uncommons in
multiples (unfortunately no freak drives, direct interventions or washs...).
2 Scrounging + Spying Mission
2 Pules of the Canaille + IR Goggles
3 Oubliette + Bomb
2 Vagabond + Spirit Summoning Chamber
2 Black Spiral Buddy + Weighted Walking Stick
plus I can confirm stake + stranglehold (unfortunately not helicopter +
DI :()
I've got 29 different rare-cards which is almost ok I guess (with vote
counting triple *ugh* why isnt his an uncommon???)
Maybe I'll check the vamps and commons later on
Merlin
I have to concur with this statement: LoB had pretty awesome
distribution, aside from the commons-reprinted as rares. Getting
Basilisk Touch as a rare leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe i won't
eat the next one.
Merlin
Matthew T. Morgan
> I have to concur with this statement: LoB had pretty awesome
> distribution, aside from the commons-reprinted as rares. Getting
> Basilisk Touch as a rare leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe i won't
> eat the next one.
Good plan, but bad example. Basilisk's Touch was R2 in Bloodlines.
I wasn't that big on reprinting commons in rare slots, myself, but at
least all the commons in a pack were new and useful. I got like 2 Concert
Tours out of LoB. Had it been reprinted as a common, I would've gotten
like 20.
Matt Morgan
Merlin
Huh. R2? I figured it must have been a common reprint because of the
amount of them that i have. Many i'm just not lucky, then. :p
Aside from that poor example, i love the distribution in LoB. The
reprint commons don't seem as numerous as the new commons.
Merlin
Fred Scott
>> Good plan, but bad example. Basilisk's Touch was R2 in Bloodlines.
>>
> amount of them that i have. Many i'm just not lucky, then. :p
You need to quit drinking when you attend those card-trading
sessions. B-a-a-a-aaaad medicine...
Fred
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
> > Dr Jester wrote:
> > > Well, just to let you know, in almost 6 booster boxes and half I and a
> > > friend of mine weren't able to find any Freak Drive!!!
> >
> > That's why I dislike sets with more than 200 cards and stay the hell
> > away from them whenever possible.
> >
> > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
>
> In my experience, LoB had an almost perfect distribution.
Yeah, but you still need to buy 3+ boxes to get, say, enough Armor of
Caine's Fury to build a deck based on it. Note that Armor is a common.
Things go worse if you want to do the same with an uncommon such as,
say, Bima.
Of course, that assumes you won't be able/willing to engage in trading
or buying singles. I'm not saying the company should only do
sets/expansions that allow everyone to get enough of anything by buying
1-2 boxes, no questions asked. It's just that I'm not personally into
getting more than this amount for any set, and that I feel that people
should be prepared to deal with that when getting bigger sets. No
matter how good the distribution is, there's still a reasonable chance
you won't get vampire X or uncommon Y in the quantities you'd expect
to, or a high amount of this or that common. Unless you buy, like, 10
boxes.
> A shame they
> had to switch manufacturers after getting everything down.
> - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
The funny thing is that the nWoD books printed in China released this
year (it seems they switched the printer from January releases onward)
are usually better done overall (specially the binding, which is nigh
"indestructible") than the ones printed in Canada before. If they were
using the same printer, I'm not surprised they gave it a go considering
the very good results so far.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Merlin
Wow. That totally explains the vast amounts of Eyes of the Dead and
Phobia in my collection, too. You might be on to something there.
Merlin
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> I'm not saying the company should only do
> sets/expansions that allow everyone to get enough of anything by buying
> 1-2 boxes, no questions asked. It's just that I'm not personally into
> getting more than this amount for any set, and that I feel that people
> should be prepared to deal with that when getting bigger sets.
It takes 2 boxes to get enough rares to have 1 of every card in a 150
card set. 4 boxes to get enough rares to have 2 of every card in 2 150
card sets. It takes 3 boxes to get enough rares to have 1 of every card
in a 300 card (or in this case 400 card) set. White Wolf is actually
saving you money by printing larger sets if all you're worried about is
completion.
Similarly, while it takes 3 boxes to get enough Armour of Caine's Fury
to build a deck around it, those same 3 boxes give you enough of every
other common to build decks around the other 99 Commons. Take 2 cards
from LoB that completely don't go together: Armour of Caine's Fury and
Uncontrolled Impulse. It would take 4 boxes total to get enough of each
if they were in different 150-card sets. It takes 3 boxes total to get
enough of each to build decks around them if they're in the same
300-card set.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
That's a very interesting angle, but it assumes the buyer will want to
amass enough copies to build a deck around any card released in the
game. I don't. If Armor of Caine's Fury and Uncontrolled Impulse were
releases each in a different 150-card set, I'd probably choose one set
and forget about the other, at least for a good while - like for months
or even a year (a situation where the total money saved doesn't add up
that much anyway).
And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
complete set no matter how good the distribution is. To achieve that
end they'd need more cards per booster, if I'm not mistaken. Of course,
correct me if it's not mathematically accurate - I'm just reproducing
empiric evidence and half-assed assumptions.
Again, this is just me and my standards on how much money I'm willing
to throw in, not a blanket complaint.
Fabio "Sooner222" Macedo
James Coupe
'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes:
>And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
>complete set no matter how good the distribution is.
With the current set (390 cards in the boosters), 3 boxes would do it if
the distribution was perfect.
Assuming 100 rares (there are 90 in the current set, 80 R1 + 10 R2),
three boxes would give you 3*36 = 108 rares. You'd get twice as many
uncommons (216), three times as many vampires (324), and five times as
many commons (540).
Total cards: 1188, which is 3*11*36.
Since each of these numbers is greater than 100, a perfect distribution
would give you a complete set.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Salem
> I believe that the uncommons always come in the same pairs, e.g. Abbot is
> followed by Wash. At least in my boxes it was always like that.
That would explain why, after a box, I have 0 Wash and 0 Abbot. :/
Back to Canadia!
(Although some friends were joking that if you went on a holiday to
Malaysia or somewhere you'd be able to find a whole bunch of counterfeit
vtes 3rd ed. cards now....and you'd be able to tell they were fakes
because...the backs would be the right way up...)
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
ironf...@yahoo.com.au
>From one box of boosters I have only helicopter and I'm sure no D.I
ironf...@yahoo.com.au
I would be happy if by purchasing one box of boosters I'd have enough
of the new common & uncommon Library cards to make one deck from
without having to buy mulitple starter decks, it turns out I got me a
box with a minimal amount of new Library cards in them. Please don't
make me use the colour photocopier :P
Having said that is is a great set for new players or players who have
a lack of new cards. But this set does not offer as much as it should
for experience players who have shite loads of the reprinted cards.
Morgan Vening
wrote:
>In message <1157577582.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Fabio
>'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes:
>>And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
>>complete set no matter how good the distribution is.
>
>With the current set (390 cards in the boosters), 3 boxes would do it if
>the distribution was perfect.
>
>Assuming 100 rares (there are 90 in the current set, 80 R1 + 10 R2),
>three boxes would give you 3*36 = 108 rares. You'd get twice as many
>uncommons (216), three times as many vampires (324), and five times as
>many commons (540).
>
>Total cards: 1188, which is 3*11*36.
>
>Since each of these numbers is greater than 100, a perfect distribution
>would give you a complete set.
Out of 3 boxes (108 boosters), I got 60 different rare cards.
Out of that same set, I got only 1 Antonio d'Erlette, Hukros, Loonar,
Margarite, Malgorzata, Orlando Oriundus, Patrick, and Sha-Ennu. There
are also 24 Vampires I need one more of to make my minimum 3
collection size (Those 24 are non-Starter vampires)
I have catalogued them as I opened them, and the sorting method has
proven abysmal. I'll be putting the list up tomorrow, so people
interested can see why I feel I'll probably not buy by the box again
unless assurances are made to provide sufficient randomization (And
before people get on their "If it's truly random, you can't expect
even spread", I'm aware of that. But when you open booster after
booster, where the same cards just keep coming up, randomization HAS
to be suspect).
Morgan Vening
Don Juan
> In message <1157577582.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Fabio
> 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes:
> >And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
> >complete set no matter how good the distribution is.
>
> With the current set (390 cards in the boosters), 3 boxes would do it if
> the distribution was perfect.
>
> Assuming 100 rares (there are 90 in the current set, 80 R1 + 10 R2),
> three boxes would give you 3*36 = 108 rares. You'd get twice as many
> uncommons (216), three times as many vampires (324), and five times as
> many commons (540).
>
> Total cards: 1188, which is 3*11*36.
>
> Since each of these numbers is greater than 100, a perfect distribution
> would give you a complete set.
>
What is a perfect distribution? One that gives you a distinct rare in
each booster pack you open until you reach the number of different
rares printed (in your hypothetical case: 100)? Such a random
distribution cannot exist.
Maybe you mean a "uniform" distribution. In that case, with 100
distinct rares of equal rarity, the probability of getting a complete
set upon opening 100 packs is about 10^(-42), which we may effectively
call zero. 8 more packs is not likely to improve the situation.
ironf...@yahoo.com.au
Morgan Vening wrote:
>I feel I'll probably not buy by the box again
Dude I totally agree with you. So much so that I also WILL NOT purchase
another box of 3rd edition. Traditionally when a new expansion is
released I usually buy 2-3 boxes if I feel it is worth purchasing. I
think maybe an possible option for us is purchasing single cards off
Ebey. Not a very good option I admit...I'd usually try and trade within
my card group, but everyone here is in the same boat, trying to
purchase more common and uncommon cards without buying a new box with
such a shocking card ratios.
xcver
it's not only the distribution in itself, but the fact that certain
uncommons always come with one another (at least in my 3 boxes it was
that way) makes you think how random the distribution inside rarities
(like vamp, uncommon and common) really is...
hp
Dr Jester wrote:
> Well, just to let you know, in almost 6 booster boxes and half I and a
> friend of mine weren't able to find any Freak Drive!!! And at the
> moment, I still miss a lot of Uncommons, not to tell that there're
> vampires or *new* cards that I get just in 1 or 2 copies... like
> Sha-Ennu or Hexaped!
>
> Strange... very strange randomization...
>
> Dr Jester
> EC2006 organizator
>
I bought and opened 2 boxes. No Freak Drives for me either. On the
other hand, I got like 5 or 6 Vendettas (I did'nt buy the !Brujah
starter)! Oh joy...
Heikki P.
Fred Scott
news:sg3vf2591b8su9cmv...@4ax.com...
> I have catalogued them as I opened them, and the sorting method has
> proven abysmal. I'll be putting the list up tomorrow, so people
> interested can see why I feel I'll probably not buy by the box again
> unless assurances are made to provide sufficient randomization (And
> before people get on their "If it's truly random, you can't expect
> even spread", I'm aware of that. But when you open booster after
> booster, where the same cards just keep coming up, randomization HAS
> to be suspect).
I think the upshot is that it's not randomization. Never was and
never will be and it's not what you want, anyway. What you want
is the most "spread out" distribution possible in a box, within
reason. That's fine. But please call it what it is. Er, if you
can think up a good term for it, I mean. Just don't use the 'R'
word.
Fred
Dr Jester
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew ha scritto:
Well for experience I'd a bit of distribution problem also with LoB,
almost on the *new* uncommons like Shell Game and Reanimated Corpse...
very fews. Not to tell with the 2 Uncommons Eye of the Unforgiven and
Bima. But, of course, not such with the 3rd Edition...
For example this at the moment are the Uncommons I still miss for my
collection after 3 boxes and half:
1 Archon Investigation U
1 Cardinal Sin: Insubordination U
1 The Damned U
1 Darkness Within U
1 Freak Drive U
1 Information Highway U
1 Obedience U
1 The Path of Metamorphosis U
1 Powerbase: Mexico City U
1 Wast Wealth U
1 Waste Managment Operation U
1 White Phosphorous Grenade U
1 Wooden Stake U
Matching the list with the one of a friend of mine, there're strange
matchings... like Freak Drive or Archon Investigation...
Dr Jester
EC2006 organizator
James Coupe
<mor...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>But when you open booster after
>booster, where the same cards just keep coming up, randomization HAS
>to be suspect).
Quite probably.
However, the point at hand was not the current set's distribution, but
how few boxes you could buy assuming a perfect distribution.
James Coupe
ironf...@yahoo.com.au writes:
>I would be happy if by purchasing one box of boosters I'd have enough
>of the new common & uncommon Library cards to make one deck from
>without having to buy mulitple starter decks, it turns out I got me a
>box with a minimal amount of new Library cards in them. Please don't
>make me use the colour photocopier :P
That does sort of depend on how many cards you'd want.
With 180 commons in a box (5 commons per booster, 36 commons per box),
and 100 commons in the set, on average you get 1.8 of a given common. 2
uncommons, and you get 0.72 of a given uncommon per box.
There just aren't that many cards in a single booster box, really, to
allow you to get reasonable multiples (say, 4) of most cards.
James Coupe
Juan <cauc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> In message <1157577582.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Fabio
>> 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes:
>> >And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
>> >complete set no matter how good the distribution is.
>>
>> With the current set (390 cards in the boosters), 3 boxes would do it if
>> the distribution was perfect.
>>
>> Assuming 100 rares (there are 90 in the current set, 80 R1 + 10 R2),
>> three boxes would give you 3*36 = 108 rares. You'd get twice as many
>> uncommons (216), three times as many vampires (324), and five times as
>> many commons (540).
>>
>> Total cards: 1188, which is 3*11*36.
>>
>> Since each of these numbers is greater than 100, a perfect distribution
>> would give you a complete set.
>>
>
>What is a perfect distribution?
Given the above discussion, do you really have to ask that question?
In perfect conditions, such that you got exactly the cards you wanted in
each of the boosters (subject to rarity conditions, of course), how few
boxes would you need to buy?
That was the only point being addressed, not whether it's feasible in
real life or not. (As others have pointed out, however, some expansions
have seem much closer to 'perfect' than others, with far fewer instances
of four of the same rare in a given box, or similar.)
Dr Jester
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew ha scritto:
> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote:
Well for experience I'd a bit of distribution problem also with LoB,
Dr Jester
hp ha scritto:
not to tell about Sibyl's Tongue... I got 5-6 of them at the Black Hand
times and then again the almost the same number here in 3rd Edition...
I'm so lucky about it!!!
Dr Jester
EC2006 organizator
Morgan Vening
Actually, it is. I'd have no problem with true randomization. That'd
mean that missing 1 card from my boxes wouldn't automatically mean the
exclusion of another. Not getting a single Path of Night, or Immortal
Grapple, in 3 boxes, I could accept. But due to the sorting issue,
exclusion of 1 card means exclusion of 2. And getting 7 of one card
(War Party) also means automatically getting 7 of another (Depravity).
I would rather 'true randomization' over the current model.
Morgan Vening
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> For example this at the moment are the Uncommons I still miss for my
> collection after 3 boxes and half:
And out of my one box, I got all of those except:
> 1 Freak Drive U
> 1 The Path of Metamorphosis U
> 1 White Phosphorous Grenade U
Perhaps people will have to, you know, trade.
>
> Matching the list with the one of a friend of mine, there're strange
> matchings... like Freak Drive or Archon Investigation...
While I don't have any Freaks, I did encounter them in some Duffin
Drafting, so there's at least one in Boston.
Dr Jester
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew ha scritto:
> Dr Jester wrote:
> > For example this at the moment are the Uncommons I still miss for my
> > collection after 3 boxes and half:
>
> And out of my one box, I got all of those except:
>
> > 1 Freak Drive U
> > 1 The Path of Metamorphosis U
> > 1 White Phosphorous Grenade U
>
> Perhaps people will have to, you know, trade.
Mmmm... ok, perhaps I should not let it be known aroud... now everybody
will try to trade me a War Ghoul for a White Phosphorous Grenade!!!
>
> >
> > Matching the list with the one of a friend of mine, there're strange
> > matchings... like Freak Drive or Archon Investigation...
>
> While I don't have any Freaks, I did encounter them in some Duffin
> Drafting, so there's at least one in Boston.
>
> --
> - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Yeah... for sure I've seen one of them in our local Pre-Release... so
it's not a fake!!! The problem is that I just need it for my collecting
mania! lol
So there's at least one in Turin too...
Dr Jester
Christian Perron
EC2006 organizator
Orpheus
> > collection after 3 boxes and half:
>
> And out of my one box, I got all of those except:
>
> > 1 Freak Drive U
> > 1 The Path of Metamorphosis U
I got both, so maybe they were together (don't recall). Anyone wanteing a
Path ot Met just gotta mp me. ;-)
> > 1 White Phosphorous Grenade U
>
> Perhaps people will have to, you know, trade.
Sure, but there's gotta be trade bait for that, and it's gonna be hard for
old players.
> > Matching the list with the one of a friend of mine, there're strange
> > matchings... like Freak Drive or Archon Investigation...
>
> While I don't have any Freaks, I did encounter them in some Duffin
> Drafting, so there's at least one in Boston.
Lol. At least one in Paris too then.
--
Orpheus
---------------
"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the
dunces are in a confederacy against him."
Jonathan Swift
Orpheus
> > other hand, I got like 5 or 6 Vendettas (I did'nt buy the !Brujah
> > starter)! Oh joy...
> >
> > Heikki P.
>
> not to tell about Sibyl's Tongue... I got 5-6 of them at the Black Hand
> times and then again the almost the same number here in 3rd Edition...
> I'm so lucky about it!!!
Good card, Sybil's tongue. If you have 2 Sargon Fragments you know what to
do now. ;-) You can even try different decks if you have more Sargons...
Me, I had traded all my Derange, and then I got 3 in this edition. Guess
I'll keep that as an incentive to build a deck, or include a few...
--
Orpheus
-----------------------
My story doesn't happen in the sound of the notes
but in the silence between them.
That is where the magic happens.
Echo
Dr Jester
Orpheus ha scritto:
>
> > > Matching the list with the one of a friend of mine, there're strange
> > > matchings... like Freak Drive or Archon Investigation...
> >
> > While I don't have any Freaks, I did encounter them in some Duffin
> > Drafting, so there's at least one in Boston.
>
> Lol. At least one in Paris too then.
> --
> Orpheus
> ---------------
> "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the
> dunces are in a confederacy against him."
>
> Jonathan Swift
Well, at this point, we can think on make an international map on Freak
Drive distribution around the world!!! lol
1 in Boston
1 in Turin
1 in Paris
so where else?
Jozxyqk
> Orpheus ha scritto:
> >
> > > > Matching the list with the one of a friend of mine, there're strange
> > > > matchings... like Freak Drive or Archon Investigation...
> > >
> > > While I don't have any Freaks, I did encounter them in some Duffin
> > > Drafting, so there's at least one in Boston.
> >
> > Lol. At least one in Paris too then.
> > --
> > Orpheus
> > ---------------
> > "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the
> > dunces are in a confederacy against him."
> >
> > Jonathan Swift
> Well, at this point, we can think on make an international map on Freak
> Drive distribution around the world!!! lol
> 1 in Boston
There are at least 2 Freak Drives in Boston.
I took one for my !Brujah in the prerelease... :)
Matthew T. Morgan
> Well, at this point, we can think on make an international map on Freak
> Drive distribution around the world!!! lol
> 1 in Boston
> 1 in Turin
> 1 in Paris
>
> so where else?
2 in my personal take so far (Washington, DC). It does seem like Freaks
are showing up less frequently than they should. By comparison, I have 4
Heart of Nizchetus, which is a rare. No, I'm not complaining. I will
trade my Freaks for more pickled hearts if anyone is game.
Matt Morgan
Fred Scott
> Actually, it is. I'd have no problem with true randomization. That'd
> mean that missing 1 card from my boxes wouldn't automatically mean the
> exclusion of another.
It would mean a lot more than that. It would you go through a number of
boxes and never find one or two of the rares. Believe me, the system
of UNrandomly spreading each cardsheet of rares (and uncommons and
commons) that they've had in previous expansions is MUCH better for
players and collectors than true randomness.
I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that true randomness
wasn't better than a bad system of distribution (sigh!). I'm just
saying that it would be considerably worse than the nice "velveeta"
spread of rares we normally have.
Fred
rrco...@gmail.com
i bought.
I drafted another in the prerelease.
As for doubles in the distribution i got:
3 Hungry Coyote
3 Gang tactics
2 Left for Dead
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
2 Swords of Judgement
2 Perfect Clarity
2 Derange
2 Vendetta
And only 3 Tzimisce vampires in the whole box!
(I'm a Tzi player)
Ankur Gupta
> wasn't better than a bad system of distribution (sigh!). I'm just
> saying that it would be considerably worse than the nice "velveeta"
> spread of rares we normally have.
OMG. You used "velveeta" as a way to explain a serious concept. When will
the cheesequake end?!!?!?!!? :)
Ankur
Don Juan
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1157602589.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Don
> Juan <cauc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >James Coupe wrote:
> >> In message <1157577582.9...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Fabio
> >> 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
> >> >complete set no matter how good the distribution is.
> >>
> >> With the current set (390 cards in the boosters), 3 boxes would do it if
> >> the distribution was perfect.
> >>
> >> Assuming 100 rares (there are 90 in the current set, 80 R1 + 10 R2),
> >> three boxes would give you 3*36 = 108 rares. You'd get twice as many
> >> uncommons (216), three times as many vampires (324), and five times as
> >> many commons (540).
> >>
> >> Total cards: 1188, which is 3*11*36.
> >>
> >> Since each of these numbers is greater than 100, a perfect distribution
> >> would give you a complete set.
> >>
> >
> >What is a perfect distribution?
>
> Given the above discussion, do you really have to ask that question?
Yes. I need help understanding when someone uses nonstandard
terminology.
> In perfect conditions, such that you got exactly the cards you wanted in
> each of the boosters (subject to rarity conditions, of course), how few
> boxes would you need to buy?
Oh, so your whole post was devoted to trumpeting the fact that 3*36 >
100. Impressive. You should rush to get that published in the Journal
of the European Mathematical Society. Surely, no one else here was
capable of figuring that out.
LSJ
> Oh, so your whole post was devoted to trumpeting the fact that 3*36 >
> 100. Impressive. You should rush to get that published in the Journal
> of the European Mathematical Society. Surely, no one else here was
> capable of figuring that out.
Um.
He was addressing exactly that query (what's the bare minimum number of
boxes needed to complete a set in a best-case scenario). Someone else
raised the query. I don't think that James was suggesting that
obtaining the answer required special insight or mathemathical skills.
That the answer was based on easy logic doesn't change the fact that
the question was raised.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e254e041f660f3c7
cosmicac...@gmail.com
Um.
Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
statement. To which James replied that in some hypothetical fantasy
universe in which "perfect" distributions exist, one would only need 3
boxes. Totally irrelevant, given that we don't live in that universe.
Hence, his 4th grade arithmetic didn't contribute anything to the
thread.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > Don Juan wrote:
> > > Oh, so your whole post was devoted to trumpeting the fact that 3*36 >
> > > 100. Impressive. You should rush to get that published in the Journal
> > > of the European Mathematical Society. Surely, no one else here was
> > > capable of figuring that out.
> >
> > Um.
> >
> > He was addressing exactly that query (what's the bare minimum number of
> > boxes needed to complete a set in a best-case scenario). Someone else
> > raised the query. I don't think that James was suggesting that
> > obtaining the answer required special insight or mathemathical skills.
> > That the answer was based on easy logic doesn't change the fact that
> > the question was raised.
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e254e041f660f3c7
>
> Um.
>
> Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
> distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
> statement.
1. Fabio said, as quoted in the post linked above, "And IIRC, 400-card
sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a complete set no matter how
good the distribution is."
That is, "no matter how good" (implicitly: under best-case scenario).
2. Saying "any" would not change matters, since the best-case (i.e.,
"perfect") distribution is a distribution. Compare: "And IIRC, it would
require more than 6 rolls of a die to have every number from 1 to 6
come up at least once, no matter how fair the die."
> With the current set (390 cards in the boosters), 3 boxes would do it if
> the distribution was perfect. To which James replied that in some hypothetical fantasy
> universe in which "perfect" distributions exist, one would only need 3
> boxes. Totally irrelevant, given that we don't live in that universe.
> Hence, his 4th grade arithmetic didn't contribute anything to the
> thread.
Except to answer the issue Fabio raised.
Or, at least, an issue that could be read as being raised by Fabio's
verbiage.
James Coupe
Juan <cauc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Oh, so your whole post was devoted to trumpeting the fact that 3*36 >
>100. Impressive. You should rush to get that published in the Journal
>of the European Mathematical Society. Surely, no one else here was
>capable of figuring that out.
Did you even bother to read the post to which I was replying?
> >> >And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
> >> >complete set no matter how good the distribution is.
So no, not everyone was paying enough attention to how many boosters
there are in 3 boxes, and how many rares there are in a 400 card set.
James Coupe
cosmicac...@gmail.com writes:
>Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
>distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
>statement.
Actually, Fabio said "no matter how good the distribution is".
If the distribution is really, really, really good, it's possible.
Whether the real world can get such a really, really, really good
distribution isn't the same thing!
Don Juan
> cosmicac...@gmail.com wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Don Juan wrote:
> > > > Oh, so your whole post was devoted to trumpeting the fact that 3*36 >
> > > > 100. Impressive. You should rush to get that published in the Journal
> > > > of the European Mathematical Society. Surely, no one else here was
> > > > capable of figuring that out.
> > >
> > > Um.
> > >
> > > He was addressing exactly that query (what's the bare minimum number of
> > > boxes needed to complete a set in a best-case scenario). Someone else
> > > raised the query. I don't think that James was suggesting that
> > > obtaining the answer required special insight or mathemathical skills.
> > > That the answer was based on easy logic doesn't change the fact that
> > > the question was raised.
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e254e041f660f3c7
> >
> > Um.
> >
> > Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
> > distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
> > statement.
>
> 1. Fabio said, as quoted in the post linked above, "And IIRC, 400-card
> sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a complete set no matter how
> good the distribution is."
"... how good the distribution is" sounds like a subjective comparison
of real probability distributions; e.g. the desirability of the uniform
vs. the geometric distributions.
> That is, "no matter how good" (implicitly: under best-case scenario).
"under best-case scenario" sounds like comparing different empirical
sequences of cards --- a completely different topic.
> 2. Saying "any" would not change matters, since the best-case (i.e.,
> "perfect") distribution is a distribution.
And once again, I ask: what is meant by a perfect distribution? Please
be precise.
> Compare: "And IIRC, it would
> require more than 6 rolls of a die to have every number from 1 to 6
> come up at least once, no matter how fair the die."
Right. Now we're back to probability distributions. And in this
example, with a completely fair die (with outcomes uniformly
distributed, by definition) the probability of rolling 6 different
numbers on six trials is roughly 1% --- not real good, but certainly
possible.
> > With the current set (390 cards in the boosters), 3 boxes would do it if
> > the distribution was perfect. To which James replied that in some hypothetical fantasy
> > universe in which "perfect" distributions exist, one would only need 3
> > boxes. Totally irrelevant, given that we don't live in that universe.
> > Hence, his 4th grade arithmetic didn't contribute anything to the
> > thread.
>
> Except to answer the issue Fabio raised.
Maybe you and James truly believe that Fabio cannot divide 100 by 36
and round to the next highest integer. How insulting.
Don Juan
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1157655612....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> cosmicac...@gmail.com writes:
> >Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
> >distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
> >statement.
>
> Actually, Fabio said "no matter how good the distribution is".
>
> If the distribution is really, really, really good, it's possible.
According to: Answers.com
Possible -- 1) Capable of happening, existing, or being true without
contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
Sounds like you're discussing the real world to me. In which case, you
need more than 3 boxes to get a complete set.
> Whether the real world can get such a really, really, really good
> distribution isn't the same thing!
In which case, what is your point again?
James Coupe
Juan <cauc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> In message <1157655612....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> cosmicac...@gmail.com writes:
>> >Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
>> >distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
>> >statement.
>>
>> Actually, Fabio said "no matter how good the distribution is".
>>
>> If the distribution is really, really, really good, it's possible.
>
>According to: Answers.com
>
>Possible -- 1) Capable of happening, existing, or being true without
>contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
And it would be pretty possible in the real world, just mostly unlikely.
The Lasombra
<orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>Me, I had traded all my Derange, and then I got 3 in this edition. Guess
>I'll keep that as an incentive to build a deck, or include a few...
I opened 20 display boxes.
I opened 1 Derange.
Clumping is a fairly serious concern with the set.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Your best online source for information about V:TES.
Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
of booster and starter box displays.
Don Juan
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1157663428....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Don
> Juan <cauc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >James Coupe wrote:
> >> In message <1157655612....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> cosmicac...@gmail.com writes:
> >> >Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
> >> >distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
> >> >statement.
> >>
> >> Actually, Fabio said "no matter how good the distribution is".
> >>
> >> If the distribution is really, really, really good, it's possible.
> >
> >According to: Answers.com
> >
> >Possible -- 1) Capable of happening, existing, or being true without
> >contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
>
> And it would be pretty possible in the real world, just mostly unlikely.
What part of "Probability of about 10^(-42) implies impossible" do you
not understand?
wumpus
> Maybe you and James truly believe that Fabio cannot divide 100 by 36
> and round to the next highest integer. How insulting.
I've read this whole thread, and it's pretty clear to me that James was
trying to be helpful, not insulting, and that you are trying to be
insulting and not helpful. Those of us who read this newsgroup
regularly have come to expect such behavior from James and,
particularly, LSJ (who is the netrep for White Wolf, in case you didn't
know); we've unfortunately come to expect such (rude) behavior from new
posters. I personally find it particularly offensive when people go
out of their way to give people who are trying to be helpful a hard
time.
Anyway, here's what Fabio originally wrote:
> And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
> complete set no matter how good the distribution is. To achieve that
> end they'd need more cards per booster, if I'm not mistaken. Of course,
> correct me if it's not mathematically accurate - I'm just reproducing
> empiric evidence and half-assed assumptions.
So here's my question for you: How many boxes are required to get a
complete set of cards, assuming 400 cards in the set?
Hint: What does 'require' mean? If this were a math problem, I'd read
the question as 'What is the minimum number of boxes necessary...';
you're free to read it as 'What is the minimum number of boxes
likely...' if you want (and then evaluate the probabilities for
whatever distribution or distributions you select as the 'most good'),
but you should recognize that that's not how everyone would interpret
it. James' answer, while presumably obvious to you, was not
necessarily obvious to everyone, and he wasn't nasty or insulting in
pointing it out.
Alex
wumpus
Don Juan wrote:
> James Coupe wrote:
> > In message <1157663428....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Don
> > Juan <cauc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > >James Coupe wrote:
> > >> In message <1157655612....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> cosmicac...@gmail.com writes:
> > >> >Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
> > >> >distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
> > >> >statement.
> > >>
> > >> Actually, Fabio said "no matter how good the distribution is".
> > >>
> > >> If the distribution is really, really, really good, it's possible.
> > >
> > >According to: Answers.com
> > >
> > >Possible -- 1) Capable of happening, existing, or being true without
> > >contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
> >
> > And it would be pretty possible in the real world, just mostly unlikely.
>
> What part of "Probability of about 10^(-42) implies impossible" do you
> not understand?
Actually, assuming that there are 100 distinct rares, that they are
uniformly distributed, and that the pool of rares is so large that we
are effectively drawing with replacement, there are 100^100 possible
ordered sets of 100 rares. Thus, the probability of _any_ particular
ordering is 1e-200. As this value is smaller than 10^(-42), and thus
'impossible', we can see that it is, in fact, impossible to actually
open 100 packs.
Heh,
Alex
John Flournoy
Don Juan wrote:
> > > Fabio said that under ANY distribution (implicitly: real
> > > distributions), more than three boxes would be required --- a true
> > > statement.
> >
> > 1. Fabio said, as quoted in the post linked above, "And IIRC, 400-card
> > sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a complete set no matter how
> > good the distribution is."
>
> "... how good the distribution is" sounds like a subjective comparison
> of real probability distributions; e.g. the desirability of the uniform
> vs. the geometric distributions.
>
> > That is, "no matter how good" (implicitly: under best-case scenario).
>
> "under best-case scenario" sounds like comparing different empirical
> sequences of cards --- a completely different topic.
>
> > 2. Saying "any" would not change matters, since the best-case (i.e.,
> > "perfect") distribution is a distribution.
>
> And once again, I ask: what is meant by a perfect distribution? Please
> be precise.
Sure. A 'perfect distribution' in this case refers to 'cards being
distributed in such a fashion that each time you recieve more cards,
you do not recieve any cards you have already recieved until and unless
you must, and then no third card unless you've got two of each, etc
etc.'
i.e. always perfectly maintaining the most even distribution of
cards-in-hand out of those available.
Fabio stated "And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to
get a
complete set no matter how good the distribution is."
Fabio was mistaken, since a perfectly even distribution of cards
requires less than 3 boxes ( as does a distribution that is only
_near_-optimal, for that matter.)
You compounded it by saying "What is a perfect distribution? One that
gives you a distinct rare in each booster pack you open until you reach
the number of different rares printed (in your hypothetical case: 100)?
Such a random distribution cannot exist."
Except of course that it CAN exist; it's just extremely unlikely to
exist. If need be, I'm sure you are capable of doing the math and
discovering that the chance of a perfect distribution occuring is not,
in fact, zero, making your statement of an absolute situation
incorrect.
I cheated and found a handy list of factorials; the chance is something
like .93 x10^50, which is pretty hellaciously unlikely.
If you really meant 'perfect distribution is nearly impossible, so in
the real world you'll need more than 3 boxes to have a reasonable
chance to get all the rares', that raises the question of 'how likely
does it have to be before you're satisfied?' - if the number of boxes
chosen meant it was 90% likely to have all the rares, people would
consider that reasonable; some people might consider 50% a reasonable
chance, or 25, or 10, or even 1%, depending on their arbitrary
standard.
(However, the math to figure out how many boxes will _reasonably_ give
you all the rares is a bit harder than I want to kludge out right now.)
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
*applause*
> Heh,
> Alex
James Coupe
Juan <cauc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> And it would be pretty possible in the real world, just mostly unlikely.
>
>What part of "Probability of about 10^(-42) implies impossible" do you
>not understand?
That you're making rather too many assumptions about how the cards have
been distributed. As others have pointed out, some sets have had many
fewer duplicates when collecting them (and consequently many fewer
holes) because things haven't been randomly distributed.
Example: buying a single box of Nights of Reckoning has given many
people a full set.
John Flournoy
Don Juan wrote:
> > >According to: Answers.com
> > >
> > >Possible -- 1) Capable of happening, existing, or being true without
> > >contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
> >
> > And it would be pretty possible in the real world, just mostly unlikely.
>
> What part of "Probability of about 10^(-42) implies impossible" do you
> not understand?
The part where you insist on confusing 'implied impossible' with
'actually impossible'.
Real-world example: The chance of being struck by lightning is
estimated at about 1 in 600,000 by a variety of sources.
The chance of being struck by lightning 7 times is thus about 1 in
46,000*(10^42), or 46 thousand times as unlikely as your standard of
implied impossibility.
Meet the man who illustrates the difference between 'implied
impossibility' and 'actual impossibility':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Sullivan
-John Flournoy
Don Juan
wumpus wrote:
> Howdy Don Juan,
>
> > Maybe you and James truly believe that Fabio cannot divide 100 by 36
> > and round to the next highest integer. How insulting.
>
> I've read this whole thread, and it's pretty clear to me that James was
> trying to be helpful, not insulting, and that you are trying to be
> insulting and not helpful.
Really? My first response was non-insulting, and helpful (or so I
thought). Furthermore, I asked a reasonable question, to which I
received the flippant response: "Given the above discussion, do you
really have to ask that question?" Obviously, or I wouldn't have asked
it. But feel free to spin it any way you want.
On the other hand, I would find it insulting if someone thought I
couldn't infer that 100 packs would be sufficient to obtain a complete
set of rares, given that each pack contains a different rare, and that
only 100 distinct rares exist. If that's not obvious, I don't know what
is. But more to the point, what does this have to do with real people
opening real boxes of cards and attempting to get a complete set? That
seemed to be the topic under discussion.
> Those of us who read this newsgroup
> regularly have come to expect such behavior from James and,
> particularly, LSJ (who is the netrep for White Wolf, in case you didn't
> know); we've unfortunately come to expect such (rude) behavior from new
> posters. I personally find it particularly offensive when people go
> out of their way to give people who are trying to be helpful a hard
> time.
And I find it irritating when people use non-standard language (thus
confusing the issue) and act insulted when asked for clarification. You
see, one goal of discussion is to extract some kind of meaning from
what the other party is saying. If we don't agree on the definitions of
words, it is impossible to assign meaning to what is said. The message
becomes incomprehensible.
> Anyway, here's what Fabio originally wrote:
>
> > And IIRC, 400-card sets require more than just 3 boxes to get a
> > complete set no matter how good the distribution is. To achieve that
> > end they'd need more cards per booster, if I'm not mistaken. Of course,
> > correct me if it's not mathematically accurate - I'm just reproducing
> > empiric evidence and half-assed assumptions.
>
> So here's my question for you: How many boxes are required to get a
> complete set of cards, assuming 400 cards in the set?
That's the wrong question. It has no theoretical answer. Empirical
answers may vary. Now, a better question is "How many boxes are
required to be 75% certain that you have a complete set of cards,
assuming 400 cards that are (by rarity) uniformly distributed, and that
succesive draws are independent?" for those with a theoretical bent, or
"In your experience, how many boxes should I buy in order to be
reasonably sure that I'll obtain a complete set?" for those who like a
more empirical approach. Three boxes is probably not the answer to
either of these questions. And THAT is the point that I was trying to
make, and what I believe was the content of Fabio's post, which James
refuted without support. I called him on it, and now I'm a rude
asshole. Oh well.
Pat
news:2006090708...@fnord.io.com...
What will you give me for my 3 Reality Mirrors? :)
(I had 4, but I managed to unload one on somebody else at a pre-release.)
- Pat
Dasein
I got no Freak Drives in my box neither...
but I did get a couple of this awesome card called Abandoning the
Flesh! tap for +1 bleed, feel the power... trade you for a Heart of N?
No?
Someone?
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
Bueller?
Bueller?
(deafened by the sound of rolling tumbleweed)
(runs off and cries)
XZealot
> On the other hand, I would find it insulting if someone thought I
> couldn't infer that 100 packs would be sufficient to obtain a complete
> set of rares, given that each pack contains a different rare, and that
> only 100 distinct rares exist. If that's not obvious, I don't know what
> is. But more to the point, what does this have to do with real people
> opening real boxes of cards and attempting to get a complete set? That
> seemed to be the topic under discussion.
You are insulting everyone's intellegence by stating that there is an
expectation of being able to complete a set of 100 rares by buying 100
random packs each containing a rare. In a system of perfect
randomization that would never happen. Yet here you are.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
wumpus
> > I've read this whole thread, and it's pretty clear to me that James was
> > trying to be helpful, not insulting, and that you are trying to be
> > insulting and not helpful.
>
> Really? My first response was non-insulting, and helpful (or so I
> thought). Furthermore, I asked a reasonable question, to which I
> received the flippant response: "Given the above discussion, do you
> really have to ask that question?" Obviously, or I wouldn't have asked
> it. But feel free to spin it any way you want.
People ask questions for rhetorical effect all the time, so the
'obviously' above is hardly obvious. Perhaps it is true that you
managed to read James' use of the words 'perfect distribution' as a
technical description (i.e. a probability distribution named 'perfect'
which you had never heard of, though you are familiar with probability
distributions in general and the 'uniform' distribution in particular),
and were, in fact, asking with real curiosity about this heretofore
unknown to you distribution. It sure doesn't look like it, though,
especially as you have gone on to assert that the perfect arrangement
of cards James described is an insultingly obvious way to distribute
100 rares into 100 packs.
And even if it is true, I wonder why you didn't jump in after Gregory
expounded a similar theory of set completion several posts earlier:
> It takes 2 boxes to get enough rares to have 1 of every card in a 150
> card set. 4 boxes to get enough rares to have 2 of every card in 2 150
> card sets...
Or was it just that he didn't confuse you by using the word
distribution? I found Greg's post to be somewhat baffling, personally,
as he didn't note anything about the conditions under which his
assertions held; it looks to me like he lost Fabio as well, as that is
precisely the post Fabio was responding to.
Once James pointed out the 'perfect distribution' (distribution in the
sense of arrangement, not probability; James has since helpfully
clarified/reminded us that not all 'distributions' of cards are random,
which is highly relevant to the discussion) of cards needed and
reminded us of the pack per box and card per pack numbers involved, I
was on the same page. In that context, your 'question' about 'perfect'
distributions and subsequent lecture on the uniform distribution looked
like grandstanding that presumed that these poor, stupid gamers would
be lost without your wisdom. Lecturing me on the application of
probability distributions (as you did in the part of the previous post
that I snipped) only reinforces this impression...
So, yeah, that's how I spin it. And from the look of things, I'm not
the only one, either. Here's another hint: Bad-mouthing James is one
thing. (Haven't we all fallen afoul of him at some time or another?)
But bad-mouthing the net rep when he tries to help out? That's just
stupid.
Alex
xcver
opened my last one:
thanks for giving me 5 uncommon pairs which I got 3 times (1 even 4
times) and some other twice. In total I got 40 different Uncommons out
of 72 (wow I made over 50%)...
thanks for making vampires stick to one another too. I got 4 boosters
which included Titus Camille and Louis de Maisonneuve but whats even
worse I got exactly the same 3 vampires several times. 3 times I got
Raphael Catarari, Stavros and Monique Kim as well as Drusilla, Aksinya
and Lord Vauxhall. Twice I got the following. Twice I got the following
Ysador, Nostoket, Greensleeves and Dr. Sutpen, Terrifisto and Leo
Washington. Also there are some vampire pairs which always seem to stick
together lie the above mentioned Titus and Louis. This seems to be true
for Ysador and Greensleeves, Sutpen and Terrifisto, Frere Marc and Luke
Fellows.
Unfortunately the other Boxes were just about the some which is really
sucky. So unless there is a change in card quality, backs of the cards
and the distribution I won't be buying any more of it...
Dr Jester
The Lasombra wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:36:33 +0200, "Orpheus"
> <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>
> >Me, I had traded all my Derange, and then I got 3 in this edition. Guess
> >I'll keep that as an incentive to build a deck, or include a few...
>
> I opened 20 display boxes.
> I opened 1 Derange.
>
> Clumping is a fairly serious concern with the set.
Well I founded 3 Derange in 3 boxes and a friend of mine opened 3
Nephandus out of just one box! Not to tell that in the first 2 boxes
opening I wasn't able to found any Direct Intervention and the same
friend founde almost 7 in just 2 boxes!!!
But for sure, I'm very happy that WW didn't reprint the TWISTING THE
KNIFE! There's still Bauble around, but this's not a perfet world... ;)
Dr Jester
Christian Perron
EC2006 Organizator
James Coupe
Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes:
>But for sure, I'm very happy that WW didn't reprint the TWISTING THE
>KNIFE! There's still Bauble around, but this's not a perfet world... ;)
Bauble has a number of fun applications and trick decks available to it.
It's not the super-est competitive-est best-est good-est card in the
world, obviously, since it's not exactly sweeping tournaments with its
brilliance. But it's not a bad card for reprinting, since it allows
some players to have fun (which I don't think can really be said for
Twisting the Knife).
Orpheus
> but I did get a couple of this awesome card called Abandoning the
> Flesh! tap for +1 bleed, feel the power... trade you for a Heart of N?
Well, I saw that card played for the first time in the pre-release... by my
Malk pred, and it helped him a great deal towards killing me.
Weird things happen in drafts...
But you can still keep your damn card lol.
--
Orpheus
---------------
"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the
dunces are in a confederacy against him."
Jonathan Swift
Matthew T. Morgan
> What will you give me for my 3 Reality Mirrors? :)
I'm good for anti-Cherryholmes tech, thanks. Maybe you can peddle them at
the NAC.
Matt Morgan
Matthew T. Morgan
> I got no Freak Drives in my box neither...
> but I did get a couple of this awesome card called Abandoning the
> Flesh! tap for +1 bleed, feel the power... trade you for a Heart of N?
Well, of course not. Nobody is going to trade you for that, plus I got
one of my own.
But take heart! The card is better than it was before. It's now usable
from torpor!
Matt Morgan
(will diablerize you even knowing you have one)
Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Dasein wrote:
>
> > I got no Freak Drives in my box neither...
> > but I did get a couple of this awesome card called Abandoning the
> > Flesh! tap for +1 bleed, feel the power... trade you for a Heart of N?
>
> Well, of course not. Nobody is going to trade you for that, plus I got
> one of my own.
>
> But take heart! The card is better than it was before. It's now usable
> from torpor!
>
Handy. Did they wizen up and make it a reflex?
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Don Juan
In the face of such evidence, the wise man might be tempted to revise
his assessment of the probability of being hit by lightning. I don't
know how one comes by this figure of 1 in 600,000 --- but it's probably
safe to say that it isn't derived from some theoretical formula that
incorporates variance for how often one is outdoors, what part of the
world the person lives in, what their electrical resistance is, etc. I
would guess that it's something along the lines of P = # people
annually hit by lightning / # people. Keep in mind that he was a forest
ranger.
>
> -John Flournoy
Don Juan
I never said any such thing. Read it again.
Don Juan
wumpus wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> > > I've read this whole thread, and it's pretty clear to me that James was
> > > trying to be helpful, not insulting, and that you are trying to be
> > > insulting and not helpful.
> >
> > Really? My first response was non-insulting, and helpful (or so I
> > thought). Furthermore, I asked a reasonable question, to which I
> > received the flippant response: "Given the above discussion, do you
> > really have to ask that question?" Obviously, or I wouldn't have asked
> > it. But feel free to spin it any way you want.
>
> People ask questions for rhetorical effect all the time, so the
> 'obviously' above is hardly obvious. Perhaps it is true that you
> managed to read James' use of the words 'perfect distribution' as a
> technical description (i.e. a probability distribution named 'perfect'
> which you had never heard of, though you are familiar with probability
> distributions in general and the 'uniform' distribution in particular),
> and were, in fact, asking with real curiosity about this heretofore
> unknown to you distribution. It sure doesn't look like it, though,
> especially as you have gone on to assert that the perfect arrangement
> of cards James described is an insultingly obvious way to distribute
> 100 rares into 100 packs.
Chronology: I made my assertion after James had clarified his meaning.
> And even if it is true, I wonder why you didn't jump in after Gregory
> expounded a similar theory of set completion several posts earlier:
>
> > It takes 2 boxes to get enough rares to have 1 of every card in a 150
> > card set. 4 boxes to get enough rares to have 2 of every card in 2 150
> > card sets...
>
> Or was it just that he didn't confuse you by using the word
> distribution? I found Greg's post to be somewhat baffling, personally,
> as he didn't note anything about the conditions under which his
> assertions held; it looks to me like he lost Fabio as well, as that is
> precisely the post Fabio was responding to.
>
> Once James pointed out the 'perfect distribution' (distribution in the
> sense of arrangement, not probability; James has since helpfully
> clarified/reminded us that not all 'distributions' of cards are random,
> which is highly relevant to the discussion) of cards needed and
> reminded us of the pack per box and card per pack numbers involved, I
> was on the same page. In that context, your 'question' about 'perfect'
> distributions
Once again, this context wasn't around when I asked the question.
> and subsequent lecture on the uniform distribution looked
> like grandstanding that presumed that these poor, stupid gamers would
> be lost without your wisdom.
I sincerely apologize if I came off that way --- tact has never been my
strong suit. But in no way did I mean to imply that my fellow group
readers were stupid, or that everyone here was incapable of grasping
probability. But, you must admit that questions about the number of
boxes expected to produce a complete set fully lies in the domain of
probability theory, and that for answers to have any meaning at all,
they must be qualified with a list of assumptions and reply to
carefully worded questions. I'm sorry if my attention to detail has
been construed as grandstanding.
I might be way off base here, but I interpreted Fabio's post to concern
real world expectations, and not idealized events. Furthermore, I
tossed out some number in an attempt to ever so slightly illuminate the
issue. That is, I tried to give a helpful response; and not let it
stand that three might be a good target for a number of boxes to
produce a complete set.
On the other hand, James later says, "If the distribution is really,
really, really good, it's possible. Whether the real world can get such
a really, really, really good
distribution isn't the same thing!"
The second sentence seems to indicate some doubt in his mind that the
three box solution is possible. In light of my interpretation of
Fabio's post, and my projecting that interpretation onto the readers (a
false assumption, I now realize) and given that most people here are
probably aware of the number of rares in a 400 card set, I had to
wonder about how helpful James was actually trying to be by giving his
response. My mistake.
> Lecturing me on the application of
> probability distributions (as you did in the part of the previous post
> that I snipped) only reinforces this impression...
I didn't lecture you. You wrote, "So here's my question for you: How
many boxes are required to get a complete set of cards, assuming 400
cards in the set?" To which I formulated the best answer I could,
without being snotty or condescending.
> So, yeah, that's how I spin it. And from the look of things, I'm not
> the only one, either. Here's another hint: Bad-mouthing James is one
> thing. (Haven't we all fallen afoul of him at some time or another?)
> But bad-mouthing the net rep when he tries to help out? That's just
> stupid.
Well, maybe. However, his replies seemed geared more towards defending
James and picking at my choice of wording: "any distribution" as
opposed to "no matter how good the distribution", which are equivalent,
rather than towards shedding light on the question. Ergo, they were not
of much help (to me anyway). Furthermore, in defending James' response
(essentially an assessment of Fabio's knowledge of the number of rares
and/or of basic arithmetic), he is tacitly making the same statement,
IMO. I really can't speak for someone else (even though I did), but I
would find that insulting. If saying so is "bad-mouthing" then I'm
guilty as charged.
Anyway, in the immortal words of Elbert Hubbard, "Never explain ---
your friends don't need it, and your enemies won't believe you anyhow."
So, that's one more mistake I've made. I'll drink my big cup of STFU
now and leave it to you.
Jozxyqk
I just finished opening 2 boxes of boosters. I didn't really
keep per-booster data, but I haven't combined them with the
handful of boosters I've already opened yet.
Out of 2 boxes, I'm still missing 10 vampires (and only one copy
of many of the ones I *did* get). That's actually not so bad.
Out of 2 boxes, I got only 1 Helicopter and 1 DI (in the same
pack, as expected)
Out of 2 boxes, I got NO Wash, and NO Hexaped. I'm probably
missing some other uncommons. I definitely have only 1 or 2
copies of some COMMONS (although most of those are reprint commons
anyway, so it doesn't hurt me so badly).
(I also have not yet gotten a Wash out of the other about-half-
a-box I opened)
So far, eyeballing it, the highest number of a single card
I got out of the 2 boxes was 9 Restorations.
I may take more complete data before I put the cards away and/or
start building decks, but I just thought I'd mention this.
Josh
Anyone got any Washes for trade? :)
Rehlow
Orpheus wrote:
> How was yours ?
>
> Out of one box :
>
>From my one box of boosters I got as duplicated rares:
Black Forest Base (happy about getting duplicates of new rares)
Magic of the Smith (can always use more, still happy)
Body Flare, Tier of Souls, Blood of the Sabbat (I don't have many of
these in my collection, so I'm ok with this, but probably won't play
them)
Far Mastery (grrrrrrr, I guess its important to be in a base set after
NoR and I guess a better place than in a starter again, but I didn't
want to get 2)
As for uncommons coming with other uncommons ... I'll be happy anytime
I open an Uncontrollable Rage because directly afterwards is a Freak
Drive (got 2 of each). I also like the pairing of Direct Intervention
and Helicopter, because I could use more of both and got them twice
each also. :) (And one of the DI's is badly cut on the card front,
almost now black border on the left, but the back is fine, so its kinda
like a cool misprint but not really).
The vampire distribution is somewhat disappointing. I got more Pander
(7) than Malk Antis (6) and Brujah Antis (5) and tons of Gangrel Antis
(19) and Ventrue Antis (17) with decent numbers of the rest.
Later.
~Rehlow
Salem
> Orpheus wrote:
>> How was yours ?
>>
>> Out of one box :
>>
>
>>From my one box of boosters I got as duplicated rares:
> Far Mastery (grrrrrrr, I guess its important to be in a base set after
> NoR and I guess a better place than in a starter again, but I didn't
> want to get 2)
Lucky you. I only bought one box of 3rd ed. In it I got 4 Far Masteries.
(and, as per some others, no Hexapeds or Washes, and I'm a huge !Trem
fan... :( )
--
salem
http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
xcver
well in 3 1/2 booster boxes I didnt get a single Black Forest Base :(
What does it do?
But don't get me even started...I'm missing a lot of rares and even 16
uncommons in 3 1/2 boxes which is ridiculous.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
Just so my name doesn't get around because of a admiteddly stupid
assertion (note the "half-assed assumptions" part), let me clarify one
thing.
Don Juan escreveu:
> Maybe you and James truly believe that Fabio cannot divide 100 by 36
> and round to the next highest integer. How insulting.
Of course I can, but note that I was also being lazy when mentioned the
issue (and made it somewhat clear by the "mathematically innacurate"
part). So there are grounds for the response I got. I didn't feel
insulted about it, though I appreciate both the mathematics help and
seeing that some got past the mere numbers and captured the overall
meaning of what I was trying to say even if it was poorly worded.
> > Or, at least, an issue that could be read as being raised by Fabio's
> > verbiage.
Yeah, as said, it was poorly worded if you take it literally. So the
comment about 100/36 was awarded.
But, read "no matter how good the distribution is" as "no matter if the
distribution is as good as it was in [expansion X] or as bad as 3rd
Edition", or even as "no matter how good the distribution is (in a
realistic scenario)" and you're close to what I meant.
The idea is that there are a lot of other things involved in a larger
set, including how the boxes are laid in the warehouse and how they are
sent to the stores and so on (which also a factor with smaller sets,
but in these the worst that can happen is to be short of a few Rares,
while in larger sets things like not getting this or that uncommon or
vampire can happen too).
In practice and in the real world, I've never seen someone buy 3x boxes
of Camarilla Edition and get a full set. Of course it could happen but
the odds of it really happening are very low. Again, not that I think
this is a "problem" to be "solved" - it just makes me save my money for
smaller sets as a personal stance, which is also easier to make since I
like to play the indie clans anyway.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Clément
> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew ha scritto:
>
> > In my experience, LoB had an almost perfect distribution. A shame they
> > had to switch manufacturers after getting everything down.
>
> Well for experience I'd a bit of distribution problem also with LoB,
> almost on the *new* uncommons like Shell Game and Reanimated
> Corpse... very fews. Not to tell with the 2 Uncommons Eye of the
> Unforgiven and Bima. But, of course, not such with the 3rd Edition...
I think the question here is not a matter of intensity, but of
different issues.
LoB had an "almost perfect" distribution in the sense it was as good as
it was probably intended to be. My first box of LoB didn't provide me
with all the Hermanas Hambrientas or Reanimated Corpses I need to play,
but I got those in balanced ammounts.
The same goes for the balance between new commons vs. reprint commons
and the rare distribution. In my first box, I found 36 different rares,
27 new and 9 reprint (a perfect 3x1 proportion).
I understand LoB's repartition can be less than satisfying depending on
the player's specific needs or interests, but I think it is a fact that
the distribution is ok.
Which is a whole different situation from the clumping issues people
are reporting on 3rd. Edition (I haven't had access to those yet
myself).
> For example this at the moment are the Uncommons I still miss
> for my collection after 3 boxes and half:
<snip list of 13 commons>
That's the problem, IMHO. After my first Camarilla Edition booster box,
I had at least one copy of each uncommon in that set (except for some
vampires). And the same goes for practically every booster box I have
opened so far.
Even if 3rd. Edition has more uncommon cards than most expansions
usually do (don't have time to check the actual numbers right now,
sorry), to be missing 13 of them after 3 boxes is clearly too much,
based on past experience.
Abraços,
Luiz Mello
Brazil VTES NC
librarian
favorite Frenchmen that I have never met. In the US, what he refers to
as "repartition" is usually said as "collation".
Having just looked it up on Dictionary.com, I find that Collation is
not nearly as good a term as Repartition to describe the distribution
of cards from an entire set over the course of multiple boosters
opened. Collation is a better term to describe the situation as what
happened in Sabbat War, wherein the cards within the pack did not seem
to fall in the right places - too many vampires, not enough commons,
rares in the "wrong" place, etc etc.
So, I guess that means that we Americans can't even speak our own
language right.
best -
chris
Collation: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=collation&x=0&y=0
[Collate]: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=collate&x=46&y=8
Repartition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=repartition&x=0&y=0
Rehlow
I don't have it with me but it is something like, Black Forest Base.
Master. Unique Location. Once per turn a Sabbat vampire may call a vote
to give its controller 2 pool from the blood bank. A changeling can
burn this location as a +1 stealth action. Or something like that.