Abstract thinking about strategy choices
legbiter
all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too
much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past
few nights.
Suppose you are building a deck. You decide that your deck is going to
have some number between 1 and x of Things It Does [this is how they
think in Atlanta these nights, so i'm told, and i think it's a strong
plan]. What is the chance that your deck will NOT be able to do one of
the Things It Does at any given time?
i think this is fairly easy to work out. Let's say you've decided to
put n cards in your [for the sake of argument] 90-card deck which will
allow you to Do Something. Then the chance that you'll be looking at a
7-card hand which will NOT allow you to pull off this particular trick
is [1-[n/90]]^7 ["^" means "to the power ..."]. For example, if you
have 14 cards in your deck then the chance you can pull off the trick
based on this card with any given hand is 69%. If you have 25 it is
90%. In practise, i find my reliable degenerate decks have about 16
cards in a 90-card deck which spookily enough works out to 75%
reliable.
Now it seems to me that following through this line of reasoning you
come up with something rather remarkable. Suppose you decide your deck
is going to do 3 things actively, when it's your turn, and three
things reactively, when it is someone else's turn. Let's say you
dedicate 10 cards to each thing. Now the chance that you won't be able
to do any one thing is 43% for each strategy. But the chance that NOT
ONE of your active or reactive strategies is going to come off is just
over 8%. In fact even if you put only 6 cards of any given type into
your deck you have still got a better-than-75%-reliable deck in the
sense that it will have something to say in any given situation. This
sounds awfully close to a mathematical argument for the Inherent
Superiority of Toolbox, but right now i am not claiming that at all,
at all [i'm assuming one-card strategies, which are likely to be weak
compared to multi-card-combo strategies if you can actually pull the
latter off].
i wonder if this is a way into quantifying deck-construction at a
higher-than-happy-families level. The basic idea is of course the
same, it's about proportions of cards. In this extension of the idea i
am trying to map something a bit more abstract than discipline-mixes
of decks onto crypt-vampires; i am trying to map strategies onto
decks. The enormous utility of DoTS, Distraction, Aura reading and so
on [card-cycling generally, in fact] become analysable in terms of
numbers rather than just instinct, and the same is true of the
dual-purpose cards like Telepathic Misdirection which can fit into
your 'i'm gonna intercept' and 'i'm gonna bounce' strategies. Or
modules, if you will.
i'll be thinking about this concept a bit more over the holidays and
i'ld be interested in other peoples' ideas on the subject, ESPECIALLY
corrections to my ABYSMAL arithmetic and algebra. But wouldn't it be
lovely if one could look at a deck you were building or someone else
was posting and say, well, that deck is 45% reliable but if you cut it
down to 65 cards, put in two more Beat the Unliving Shit out of Target
Minion cards, replace the Gimme More Bloods by another two No, No and
A Thousand Times No!s, then it would be 65% reliable.
Sten During
> i wonder if this is a way into quantifying deck-construction at a
> higher-than-happy-families level. The basic idea is of course the
> same, it's about proportions of cards. In this extension of the idea i
> am trying to map something a bit more abstract than discipline-mixes
> of decks onto crypt-vampires; i am trying to map strategies onto
> decks. The enormous utility of DoTS, Distraction, Aura reading and so
> on [card-cycling generally, in fact] become analysable in terms of
> numbers rather than just instinct, and the same is true of the
> dual-purpose cards like Telepathic Misdirection which can fit into
> your 'i'm gonna intercept' and 'i'm gonna bounce' strategies. Or
> modules, if you will.
>
> i'll be thinking about this concept a bit more over the holidays and
> i'ld be interested in other peoples' ideas on the subject, ESPECIALLY
> corrections to my ABYSMAL arithmetic and algebra. But wouldn't it be
> lovely if one could look at a deck you were building or someone else
> was posting and say, well, that deck is 45% reliable but if you cut it
> down to 65 cards, put in two more Beat the Unliving Shit out of Target
> Minion cards, replace the Gimme More Bloods by another two No, No and
> A Thousand Times No!s, then it would be 65% reliable.
From an area of non-gaming experience comes my question of deniability.
Basically the matter of cost-performance from a security point of view.
I place my serverapplication on this PC for $1500 or I place it on this
redundant system of firewalls and clustered servers for $150000.
Now, what on earth does this have to do with VTES?
In the example above I'll very often end up with a raw performance that
is
LOWER if I choose the more expensive version, but chances are very low
that any one single mishap will break my system. Converted into VTES this
could translate into the loss of performance when packing
stealth/intercept
as they steal cardslots. At the other hand, deniability also goes down as
I'll
be more likely to succeed when acting/blocking.
So you'll end up planning an n%reliability deck in an environment with
an m denial-rating. This is also reflected in the posts on strategy here.
Never
block a stealth/bleed deck for example which would translate into the
danger of being able to handle a too high m-value without the ability
discard several cards. I guess you will end up in this problem while
playing
an intercept-wall against people refusing to stealth.
For simplicity I guess you'll have to assume that a generic game takes X
rounds, and any cards attempting to deviate from that is also a denial-
strategy as all decks would be better off using the last library-card the
round it ousts the last remaining player.
--
NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/
Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se
417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45
Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39
Matt Latham
"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:68f2e9f8.01082...@posting.google.com...
Interesting thought experiment, but there is still deck randomization issues
that cannot be predicted in a mathematical models... ie DUMB LUCK.
I'll give the whole idea more thought and respond in kind, but this is the
first thought that popped into my head.
Matt
Derek Ray
and beer, partly a response)
Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in news:3B811699...@netg.se:
> So you'll end up planning an n%reliability deck in an environment with
> an m denial-rating. This is also reflected in the posts on strategy
(probably should hang onto these terms, as I can see it getting very wordy
otherwise: n% R, and an M-rating. :)
> here. Never
> block a stealth/bleed deck for example which would translate into the
> danger of being able to handle a too high m-value without the ability
> discard several cards. I guess you will end up in this problem while
> playing
> an intercept-wall against people refusing to stealth.
You will. It's one of the Great Tricks against intercept; if you don't
think you can ever stealth past him, discard any stealth you have, or if
it's a metagame issue, just play a nice l'il zero stealth deck.
> For simplicity I guess you'll have to assume that a generic game takes
> X rounds, and any cards attempting to deviate from that is also a
...12. ;)
> denial- strategy as all decks would be better off using the last
> library-card the round it ousts the last remaining player.
They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off on others for
some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your deck to make the whole thing
run more efficiently. :)
Sten During
> (partly a placeholder to remind me to reply later tonight, -after- games
> and beer, partly a response)
>
> Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in news:3B811699...@netg.se:
>
> > So you'll end up planning an n%reliability deck in an environment with
> > an m denial-rating. This is also reflected in the posts on strategy
>
> (probably should hang onto these terms, as I can see it getting very wordy
> otherwise: n% R, and an M-rating. :)
Oki, then let's call denial-rating D-rating and reliability R% :)
>
>
> > For simplicity I guess you'll have to assume that a generic game takes
> > X rounds, and any cards attempting to deviate from that is also a
>
> ...12. ;)
I guess this will need some actual clocking, ie round 2 table 3 ended in
turn 12, or timed out during round 15, that way we can also assume that
no generic game will last more than 15 (or whatever) turns.
>
>
> > denial- strategy as all decks would be better off using the last
> > library-card the round it ousts the last remaining player.
>
> They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off on others for
> some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your deck to make the whole thing
> run more efficiently. :)
Ok, then we split any turn into beginning-middle-end. The beginning game will
last for let's say four turns, after which the amount of ready minions will
no
longer increase. The middle-game will last until the second oust, and so on.
Now, how many cards will I play during each phase? More assumptions - I
will not run into hand-jam during the first phase, so I only have to care
about
D-rating in terms of succesfully acting or blocking, having my vamps
torporized
included. During the second phase I'll discard anything that potentially
hand-jams
me. During the last phase I'll discard anything that needs table-politics as
the
game (usually) becomes more prey-orientated.
Basic strategy will vary as well. During the first phase I'll build/deny
buildups.
The second phase will see table-control/prey-hurting/predator-protection, and
the third prey-hurting/planning to stay last/predator-protection. Each deck
will
have three R%, one for each phase with a weighting for each phase (Wn),
telling me how important the phase is for my deck (Equipment/Praxis vote
decks with all equip/praxis seizures failing during phase one will probably
fall over, stealth/intercept decks being refused to cycle will fall over
during
phase 2 etc etc)
So my deck ends up something like this: R1%/W1 + R2%/W2 + R3%/W3
being how reliably it will 'pull it off' with a given D-rating. It will also
produce three (check this) D-ratings. Denial of blocking (stealth, swarm),
denial of acting (wake, intercept, out-of-turn-masters) and denial of
deck-size
(changing game-length, pool-burning around the table or pool-addition around
the table being the most obvious).
A tool-box will probably have decent R% with low Wn coupled with the
capacity to handle a wider span of D-rating. Probably produces low
D-rating of all three kinds.
Your weenie-bleed will probably have high R% with low Wn coupled with
a total inability to handle large deviations of D-rating. It will produce
a high D-rating for blocking only.
Toreador gun-bleed sees a high R% with very high W1, decent W2 and low
W3. It will also be unable to handle a high D-rating for actions. Will
produce a high D-rating for actions only.
Sten During
Gene Wirchenko
>This is me thinking aloud, maybe asking for help, i'm not sure. It's
>all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too
>much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past
>few nights.
>
>Suppose you are building a deck. You decide that your deck is going to
>have some number between 1 and x of Things It Does [this is how they
>think in Atlanta these nights, so i'm told, and i think it's a strong
>plan]. What is the chance that your deck will NOT be able to do one of
>the Things It Does at any given time?
>
>i think this is fairly easy to work out. Let's say you've decided to
>put n cards in your [for the sake of argument] 90-card deck which will
>allow you to Do Something. Then the chance that you'll be looking at a
>7-card hand which will NOT allow you to pull off this particular trick
>is [1-[n/90]]^7 ["^" means "to the power ..."]. For example, if you
>have 14 cards in your deck then the chance you can pull off the trick
>based on this card with any given hand is 69%. If you have 25 it is
>90%. In practise, i find my reliable degenerate decks have about 16
>cards in a 90-card deck which spookily enough works out to 75%
>reliable.
Your formula is incorrect. Assume a 90-card deck with 84 of some
card. By your formula, it would be possible to not get your card, but
it is impossible not to as there are only six cards that aren't the
one you want and there are seven cards in a hand. i.e. You must get at
least one of your cards.
I think the correct figure is given by:
Let s be the size of the deck.
Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
legbiter
Oops, blush, you're right. Implicit in what i wrote out is that
actually you have a one-card hand and every time you draw or play a
card you shuffle the one you drawed/played back into your deck. This
isn't legal even in competitive magic [though i'm told it sometimes
happens anyway].
>
> I think the correct figure is given by:
>
> Let s be the size of the deck.
> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
>
> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
> P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
>
> [snip]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
Thank-you, that's MUCH better. And it draws attention to the effect of
depleting your library. Scott [if you're reading this] i know we can't
take notes, but can we take calculators into tournament games?
JonCooper
> This is me thinking aloud, maybe asking for help, i'm not sure. It's
> all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too
> much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past
> few nights.
>
I should lay off the strong cheese before bedtime if i were you.....:-)
Noal McDonald
> They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off
> on others for some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your
> deck to make the whole thing run more efficiently. :)
By all means, reduce your deck size whenever possible. That'll make my
"oust by deck death" decks much more efficient!
This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the
proportions are the same, there should be no reason that a smaller
deck is more efficient than a bigger one.
Regards,
Noal
Sten During
That would be only partially true. Some decks actually risk loosing by
getting a very good start, and while attemting to get rid of acute
hand-jam the rest of the table (by now being a very scared table)
removes the (by now no longer dangerous) offending player.
More usual is the toolbox with several different unique cards. With
a smaller deck the need for forced discard goes down rapidly as the
need for multiples of important uniques is lower.
Normally a deck based on non-combat transients can be more or
less whatever size without much difference, and so I tend to
build my 90 card libraries never seeing more than 50 cards being
played whenever playing one, but when I'm creating a deck that
needs multiple copies of The Barrens I always feel that a smaller
deck could have done the job as well.
Derek Ray
news:bb705c59.01082...@posting.google.com:
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off
>> on others for some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your deck to
>> make the whole thing run more efficiently. :)
>
> By all means, reduce your deck size whenever possible. That'll make my
> "oust by deck death" decks much more efficient!
I consider all the "n Raptors and run you out of cards!" decks to be
basically a cute idea, fun to play, and tier-2 because of WAY too many
moving parts required. If I sit next to one of them -and- it gets its
trick off, that's great, but I'm also not going to worry about them...
ever. Consider what you need in order to make it happen:
* must have superior Animalism
* must have 2 blood per Raptor
* must equip only 1 Raptor per turn, OR
- must play Shepherd's Innocence to move them all to one vampire
* must get the Raptors in your hand
* must have enough stealth to guarantee getting a Raptor
- must have enough stealth to guarantee the highly vulnerable
Shepherd's Innocence action, if you're using it
* must have enough untap to not be ousted while you are building up
* must have enough combat to not be killed while you are building up
* must have a repeatable trick to make someone lose lots of cards
* must be able to direct all this against your prey, while still
ensuring the above 8 things
AND, while you're doing all this, there are some other problems. One
Raptor actually helps most decks. Two Raptors are a minor nuisance, but
still not a problem. Three is where they start to be a real cramp; so
until you get 3 Raptors on one vampire, your deck is actually somewhat
beneficial to decks it blocks, unless you're including enough active combat
to kill things you block; which is more than "not be killed". While I'll
freely admit that the Raptor idea is amusing (and I posted the three-and-a-
half Raptors deck awhile back, based not on running your opponents totally
out of cards, but by constantly screwing up their hand with 3 Raptors on
one minion) and oodles of fun, I just don't see it ever being tier-1, or
being able to hold its own at a table with tier-1 decks.
> This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the
> proportions are the same, there should be no reason that a smaller
> deck is more efficient than a bigger one.
With cards you have 6+ of, the math works out to be negligibly better in
favor of a smaller deck. (1% difference, or so; not especially worth it).
The cards you only have 1-3 of in the deck start to matter a lot, though.
With a 70-card deck, I can put 1 of each of the news locations in, and
guarantee that I have at LEAST 2 out by end-of-game, and probably all 3.
With a 90-card deck, I'll be lucky to get 2 out by end-of-game, and my game
is much more likely to end early since I'm effectively operating with one
less "panic" intercept per turn. If you want a specific card such as the
Ivory Bow, it's safe to put only 1 in a 70-card deck; you should get it
within a reasonable amount of time. 1 card in a 90-card deck is a
"prayer" card, though. Including 2 of them begins to work against you; now
you have one of your valuable discard phases taken up with a card you'll
HAVE to discard late in the game, when hand jam will be more critical.
In addition, you have to look at how long the average game lasts, and how
often your decks run out of cards. If you have a 90-card deck, look at
where your deck is when you get ousted. Does it have 40 cards left? Were
there cards still in your library that could have saved you? Even if you
win, look at where your deck is... if you have 20 cards left, then you can
assume that your deck would only have run BETTER if you were a few cards
shorter, because there were unquestionably still cards you wanted to see
(Masters, whatever) hidden in those 20.
I did a bunch of math regarding this awhile back, and it can be chased down
on Google. But more easily than doing that, ...just try it and see.
(Don't try it with a deck that's going to blow cards out the wazoo every
action, however. Rush decks do well at 90 cards because they tend to run
out of cards ANYWAY.)
Brad Ward
> > This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the_________________
> > proportions are the same, there should be no reason that a smaller__________
> > deck is more efficient than a bigger one.___________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> With cards you have 6+ of, the math works out to be negligibly better in _____
> favor of a smaller deck. (1% difference, or so; not especially worth it).____
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> The cards you only have 1-3 of in the deck start to matter a lot, though. ___
> With a 70-card deck, I can put 1 of each of the news locations in, and _______
> guarantee that I have at LEAST 2 out by end-of-game, and probably all 3. ____
> With a 90-card deck, I'll be lucky to get 2 out by end-of-game, and my game __
> is much more likely to end early since I'm effectively operating with one ____
> less "panic" intercept per turn. If you want a specific card such as the ____
> Ivory Bow, it's safe to put only 1 in a 70-card deck; you should get it ______
> within a reasonable amount of time. 1 card in a 90-card deck is a ___________
> "prayer" card, though. Including 2 of them begins to work against you;
Derek, I think you missed the "SO LONG AS THE PORPORTIONS ARE THE SAME"
part of what he said. He is saying that 2 cards in a 60 card deck is the
same as 3 cards in a 90 card deck. In both cases 1/30th of your deck is
that card. But the 90 card deck is less likely to run out of cards.
In most cases reducing your deck to 60 cards is simply reducing the
longevity of your deck.
> In addition, you have to look at how long the average game lasts, and how ____
> often your decks run out of cards. If you have a 90-card deck, look at ______
> where your deck is when you get ousted. Does it have 40 cards left? Were
> there cards still in your library that could have saved you? Even if you ____
> win, look at where your deck is... if you have 20 cards left, then you can ___
> assume that your deck would only have run BETTER if you were a few cards _____
> shorter, because there were unquestionably still cards you wanted to see _____
> (Masters, whatever) hidden in those 20.
Games usually go between 10-15 turns. You should have your 90 card deck
tuned to be spent by roughly that many turns. If you deck doesnt go through
90 cards in 15 turns, then you should probably look at redesigning your deck
even if it means adding a Barrens or Fragment.
With unlimited
cardstock resources, I can think of only one reason to play with less
than a 90 card deck. That reason is Waste Management, Pocthli and
summon soul. If you are replenishing your library with cards that are
most usefull for the particular table set up, then you want to have a
small library. This will allow you to better customize your library to
overcome the particular table situation. That is if you got stuck between
two Combat End decks you start putting the Psyches and Immortal grapples
back into your deck to handle that particular situation. If your facing
a grapple deck you start packing your library up with manuevers. The
concept works great and I have won an LA tourney playing my 60 card
waste managment deck. However 60 card libraries are really corner cases
only productive when using those few library replenishing cards that exist.
I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get stronger
and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and larger.
Brad Ward
Prince of NLV
Robert Goudie
news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com...
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9104826B...@198.99.146.10>...
> > > This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the
Assuming there are any multiples of cards in the deck, a bigger deck is less
efficient than a smaller deck.
In a 40 card deck with 5 Minion Taps (1/8th of your deck) you stand about a 44%
chance of getting exactly one in your opening hand. In an 80 card deck, with 10
minion taps (still 1/8th) your chance of getting exactly one Minion Tap in the
opening hand is 41%. That's because the chances of getting *more than one* copy
of the card increases as your deck size increases. Think of that 3% difference
like you do the house edge in Vegas. Its not a huge difference but with enough
trials, the house will win.
Since each card draw is another trial, you can imagine that the variance will
have its way sooner or later. I personally prefer taking the risk and using a
90-card deck. I just seek to build the deck in a way that reduces the jamming
effects of variance.
-Robert
Gene Wirchenko
>ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in message news:<3b814499....@news.shuswap.net>...
[snip]
>> Your formula is incorrect. Assume a 90-card deck with 84 of some
>> card. By your formula, it would be possible to not get your card, but
>> it is impossible not to as there are only six cards that aren't the
>> one you want and there are seven cards in a hand. i.e. You must get at
>> least one of your cards.
>
>Oops, blush, you're right. Implicit in what i wrote out is that
>actually you have a one-card hand and every time you draw or play a
>card you shuffle the one you drawed/played back into your deck. This
Sampling with replacement.
>isn't legal even in competitive magic [though i'm told it sometimes
>happens anyway].
>>
>> I think the correct figure is given by:
>>
>> Let s be the size of the deck.
>> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
>> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
>>
>> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
>> P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
>> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
>Thank-you, that's MUCH better. And it draws attention to the effect of
>depleting your library. Scott [if you're reading this] i know we can't
>take notes, but can we take calculators into tournament games?
If you're playing with a 90-card deck, you can generate a
percentage table for c=1 to whatever concerns you and memorize the
table.
James Coupe
<legb...@my-deja.com> writes
>Thank-you, that's MUCH better. And it draws attention to the effect of
>depleting your library. Scott [if you're reading this] i know we can't
>take notes,
Of *other* players' activities:
"1.4. Taking Notes
Players are not allowed to take written notes of their opponents' decks
or activities [...]"
> but can we take calculators into tournament games?
"1.5. Electronic Devices
The head judge or tournament organizer may choose not to allow players
to participate with electronic devices (such as cellular phones, pagers,
and/or portable audio units) turned on."
Try a slide rule, just in case?
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F
They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6
I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D
W. Mark Woodhouse
<snip general discussion of hypothesis, which others have responded to
with far more erudition than I can summon>
>
>i wonder if this is a way into quantifying deck-construction at a
>higher-than-happy-families level. The basic idea is of course the
>same, it's about proportions of cards. In this extension of the idea i
>am trying to map something a bit more abstract than discipline-mixes
>of decks onto crypt-vampires; i am trying to map strategies onto
>decks. The enormous utility of DoTS, Distraction, Aura reading and so
>on [card-cycling generally, in fact] become analysable in terms of
>numbers rather than just instinct, and the same is true of the
>dual-purpose cards like Telepathic Misdirection which can fit into
>your 'i'm gonna intercept' and 'i'm gonna bounce' strategies. Or
>modules, if you will.
MOst of the discussion of the hypothesis so far, it seems to me, has
danced around something I consider highly important in trying to model
deck flow - which is essentially what we're attempting her, neh?
Sten's D-rating is about as close as anyone's come to mentioning the
non-uniformity of cards (and more importantly card TYPES) in terms of
how quickly a given card can flow through your hand. For example, all
master cards flow slowly, since they are limited to max 2 per turn
(play 1, discard 1) without other flow-enhancement effects. Action
cards flow at 1 per minion per turn max (without taking into account
untaps, cardless actions, or other effects). Combat cards flow very
nicely indeed, in general, but one must get into combat to use them -
hence the beauty of Obedience as combat defense. Stealth & intercept
flow well, but only if your opponent cooperates :-).
All well and good, but how does this map onto the putative
Mathematical Superiority of Toolbox ? I would suspect that it would
mean that there is some Golden Point of Toolboxiness (or Things The
Deck Does) that is the happy medium.
Essentially, if D is the Denial Rating of the table environment and R
is the deck's reliability, you'd see curves for deck reliablity like
THIS
|X
| X
R | X
| X
| X
| X
| X
-------------------------
D
for highly focused decks, and like
THIS
(curve X : moderately toolboxy, N=3)
(curve Y : extreme toolbox, N=6)
| X
| X
R |X X
| Y X
|Y Y X
| Y Y Y Y Y X
| Y
----------------------------------
D
for toolboxy decks.
The focussed deck is VERY efficient if it is not being denied
effectively, and flows nicely. Denial cuts its efficiency very
quickly, so it needs to have ways to bring more flow under its own
control and out of the control of opponents. Of course, including
those cards dilute its flow and increase its toolboxiness (including
enough Barrens in your Rush deck to be sure of getting in first means
2-3 less combat cards and rush actions, as well as getting rid of the
duplicates).
The toolboxy deck is _less_ effective in a low denial rating
environment, since some of its facets will not be particularly useful
at any given point in the game (e.g. I include anti-vote, no-one is
playing votes when I draw it, I either hold it until needed,
effectively reducing my hand size, or I have to discard it, impeding
flow.). As D-rating climbs, the toolbox GAINS effectiveness, since it
will be more likely to have SOMETHING to do at any given point - and
to have a countermeasure for whatever form the denial is taking. But
at some point the dropoff does take its toll and the toolbox weakens,
although more slowly than the focused deck.
As N (the number of things the deck does) increases, the curve
flattens and the mean reliability is lower.
This is pretty much raw theory, and I lack the math to prove it, but I
wanted to try to inject something into the discussion.
Mark Woodhouse
(who is definitely spending way too much time thinking about this)
Derek Ray
news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com:
> Derek, I think you missed the "SO LONG AS THE PORPORTIONS ARE THE
> SAME" part of what he said. He is saying that 2 cards in a 60 card
How do you match the proportions of individual unique cards, such as the
Parthenon? 1 in a 60-card deck is simply better than 1 *or* 2 in a 90-card
deck.
> deck is the same as 3 cards in a 90 card deck. In both cases 1/30th
What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something like
an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on Anneke quickly,
but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2 in a 60 is noticeably
better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you only have to get rid of one
card, instead of two.
And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on
Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch.
> of your deck is that card. But the 90 card deck is less likely to run
> out of cards. In most cases reducing your deck to 60 cards is simply
> reducing the longevity of your deck.
If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, runs
out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, but also
may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card deck every time.
I only need 3 VPs to win, and the entire point is to reduce the random
factor somewhat. Reducing it below 3 VPs is an indicator that you maybe
should start putting cards back IN.
> Games usually go between 10-15 turns. You should have your 90 card
> deck tuned to be spent by roughly that many turns. If you deck doesnt
> go through 90 cards in 15 turns, then you should probably look at
> redesigning your deck even if it means adding a Barrens or Fragment.
This strikes me as a very elaborate construct. If you have cards that
you're trying to find ways to discard, you OBVIOUSLY have too many of those
cards in the deck and should cut the size down. Creating additional
discards isn't the sign of a "good deck", it's the sign of a deck with too
much fluff in it. Take the fluff out, and you won't need the Barrens...
not to mention that relying on the highly-contestable Barrens and the
steal-me-please Fraggie is not a very safe plan.
A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard.
(I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well,
the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not implying
that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to throw
that in.)
[description of Pochtli and WMO tricks snipped; entertaining, but not
really relevant to the issue of whether small decks WITHOUT those tricks
work]
> LA tourney playing my 60 card waste managment deck. However 60 card
> libraries are really corner cases only productive when using those few
> library replenishing cards that exist.
It is worth noting here that I generally build 70 or 75-card decks if the
deck style is suitable. Going down to 60 is reserved for highly effective
pool-damage decks, or extreme-permanent decks, since you can be pretty sure
that you'll move through 60 cards within 15 turns. The idea isn't to
design a deck to run out early, it's to design a deck that has less than 10
cards left when you win or are ousted - and then it's very easy to alter
the design, and to identify which cards were ineffective.
> I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get
> stronger and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and
> larger.
Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush deck;
simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up on
something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you.
....salem christ....
>
> (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well,
> the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not implying
> that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to throw
> that in.)
actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this
somewhat horrible point to note:
the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps.
now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of _4_
games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors, couriers, etc).
But each game the prey of the LD deck clocked up quite a few vps. It
seems that being able to cycle all those extra cards can help. Or maybe
it's just that around here we build decks with too much "fluff", and this
sort of predator just helps us clear it out of our hands.
Curious, though....
salem...
Sten During
>
> Sten's D-rating is about as close as anyone's come to mentioning the
> non-uniformity of cards (and more importantly card TYPES) in terms of
> how quickly a given card can flow through your hand. For example, all
If we for simplicitys sake divide cards into denial-cards and
activity-cards
and create a hypothetical deck with 40 of each type, and then we also
assume
that one environment have a D-rating of 1, but our deck is meant to handle
a D-rating of 2 (10 Cloak the Gathering, 10 Faceless Night, 10 Spirits
Touch and 10 Precognition), then it would seem likely that if the decks
R% was 50% for it's designated D-rating, that deck ought to have its
actual chance of doing what it's supposed to do lowered because of the
20 unneeded denial-cards.
Personally I'd classify more or less all action-cards as activity-cards
and
dump any untap/wake -card into that cathegory as well. Stealth,
intercept and most in-referendum-cards would go into the denial-card
cathegory. I'm not sure where to place combat-cards, but I tend to
look at damage-dealing ones as denial-cards and all S:CE/prevent as
activity-cards.
Minions are activity-cards in themselves, but you can assign a number
of them to try to modify your impact on D-rating, the absurd example
of the latter being a 5 Cap Gangrel with Atonement, Guardian Angel,
7 Raptors, Dog Pack, Shadow of the Beast and an Assault Rifle.
In the stupid example above the minion actually only partially increases
your R% because of the Atonement, but it sure allows you to modify
the D-rating in a horrid way.
The other argument for dividing cards into denial and activity ones
is that I normally only hear complaints about hand-jam concerning
the denial-ones (wake-cards can by the classification above never
cause hand-jam, but you may regret designing a deck that is
100% reliable in order to react, but designed to handle a D-rating
of zero).
Hmm, is this rambling or going anywhere? :)
Sten
legbiter
Interesting, my intuition is the same as yours. i think the only thing
i would add [or maybe re-emphasise from what you say above] is that
the SOMETHING the toolboxy deck does PROBABLY will be qualitatively
inferior to what the focussed deck does. This is going to make it
difficult if not impossible to PROVE that toolbox is better [and
actually, i don't REALLY believe it is, but that's another debate].
Off to Portugal now, so until i get back thanks to all who have helped
with this. i'm coming round to the concept of Key Cards, which i'll
explain when i get back.
LSJ
> actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this
> somewhat horrible point to note:
> the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps.
>
> now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of _4_
> games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors, couriers, etc).
Raptors are "hand cycling" effects, not "library destruction" tools.
I can see where the prey of a Raptor deck has an advantage (until the
number of Raptors on a given minion is greater than 2 or 3).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Derek Ray
news:Pine.SOL.3.90.1010822171823.16381A-100000@bohm:
> actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this
> somewhat horrible point to note:
> the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps.
>
> now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of
> _4_ games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors,
> couriers, etc). But each game the prey of the LD deck clocked up quite
Hm. I want to clarify this one; a Courier deck is not library-destruction
in my opinion. It is SELECTIVE library-destruction, something which is far
more effective than simply chunking cards off the top of someone's deck.
If I make you burn 5 cards, and 3 of them were useless in your current
situation while 2 of them were good, I probably haven't *really*
accomplished anything. However, if, using Couriers, I make you burn a
Bonding, then a Minion Tap, and then find that the second card on top of
your deck is a duplicate of your Hunting Ground that is already in play...
then I can force you to not only lose good cards, but take a BAD card,
effectively a forced-discard. This can be even more annoying than losing
cards.
> a few vps. It seems that being able to cycle all those extra cards can
> help. Or maybe it's just that around here we build decks with too much
> "fluff", and this sort of predator just helps us clear it out of our
> hands.
Most decks, no matter how little "fluff" they have when you build them,
will develop fluff over the course of a game. Peter's POT-Rush deck has
"conditional fluff" in it; his maneuvers. If he sits at a table where
nobody is carrying maneuvers, then all those maneuvers are discards and
candidates for the fluff-pile. It's not to say that those cards should be
removed from his deck; far from it. But the varied situations you may be
in will cause your deck to develop fluff. (last Monday, I was in front of
a Setite Corruption horde with my Jan Pieterzoon* DOM/FOR deck; I was
pitching Deflections left and right, because they were fluff.)
This is one reason I cannot support deliberately putting extra fluff in
your deck just to make 90 cards; you're already going to need your discard
phase to get rid of things that just aren't appropriate for your situation.
You can't be running around increasing your own problem.
-- Derek
* ...Is my new favourite vampire. His effect on the table is probably not
TERRIBLY significant as far as people getting things done, but he
definitely makes people start to twitch and do crazy things. =) I should
maybe do the math sometime and see exactly how much less likely it is that
you can get a 4-card combo off with a 6-card hand, as opposed to a 7-card
hand. Hmm. =)
</ramble>
Brad Ward
> wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in
> news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com:
> > Derek, I think you missed the "SO LONG AS THE PORPORTIONS ARE THE
> > SAME" part of what he said. He is saying that 2 cards in a 60 card
> How do you match the proportions of individual unique cards, such as the
> Parthenon? 1 in a 60-card deck is simply better than 1 *or* 2 in a 90-card
> deck.
to make a 60 card library and put in 1 of that card. Your argument there is
silly. Silly because the same argument could be made that a certain deck
needs to have exactly 1/77th or 1/90th etc. of a certain card, and in that
case a 60 card deck could not produce that exact ratio.
> What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something like
> an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on Anneke quickly,
> but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2 in a 60 is noticeably
> better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you only have to get rid of one
> card, instead of two.
> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on
> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch.
this is variance. R. Goudie brought that up in a followup. I didnt want
to get into variance since its effect is marginal between a 60 and 90 card
deck and I also thought you might have some trouble understanding it.
> If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, runs
> out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, but also
> may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card deck every time.
> I only need 3 VPs to win, and the entire point is to reduce the random
> factor somewhat. Reducing it below 3 VPs is an indicator that you maybe
> should start putting cards back IN.
would be stronger, more efficeint and have more stamina if properly redesigned
to 90 cards.
> This strikes me as a very elaborate construct. If you have cards that _______
> you're trying to find ways to discard, you OBVIOUSLY have too many of those
> cards in the deck and should cut the size down. Creating additional
> discards isn't the sign of a "good deck", it's the sign of a deck with too
> not to mention that relying on the highly-contestable Barrens and the _
The above statement is SO absolutely wrong and self conflicting to boot.
We could start with that Arika Praxis Berlin Soul gem deck as an example.
That deck has 9 soul gems in which it only needs 1. That leaves 8 to be
discarded. Should the "fluff" be taken out of that deck? You also say a
good deck won't need the barrens and in the same breath say that its highly
contestable. Is it just that everyone brings crappy decks to tournaments
and therefor their decks contain the Barrens, or is it possible that the
discard the barrens provides is a very powerfull asset to almost any deck?
> A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard.
Sometimes that means intercepting, handling combat, stealthing actions,
bouncing bleeds, or passing votes. The discard phase lets you customize your
hand so that you can deal with the problems facing you at the moment. If
my prey and preditor are playing with no stealth, I want nothing more than to
be able to discard all my intercept cards. Discarding is a valuable tool
that gives you a dynamic advantage.
> > I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get
> > stronger and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and
> > larger.
> Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush deck;
> simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up on
> something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you.
If his deck is a potence rush deck im sure I could strengthen it up by going
to 180 cards. I would probably add the barrens and fragment and about 40
increased strength in addition to increasing the number of the rest of the cards.
Frederic Genest
>
> >This is me thinking aloud, maybe asking for help, i'm not sure. It's
> >all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too
> >much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past
> >few nights.
(snip)
> >i think this is fairly easy to work out. Let's say you've decided to
> >put n cards in your [for the sake of argument] 90-card deck which will
> >allow you to Do Something. Then the chance that you'll be looking at a
> >7-card hand which will NOT allow you to pull off this particular trick
> >is [1-[n/90]]^7 ["^" means "to the power ..."]. For example, if you
> >have 14 cards in your deck then the chance you can pull off the trick
> >based on this card with any given hand is 69%. If you have 25 it is
> >90%. In practise, i find my reliable degenerate decks have about 16
> >cards in a 90-card deck which spookily enough works out to 75%
> >reliable.
>
> Your formula is incorrect. Assume a 90-card deck with 84 of some
> card. By your formula, it would be possible to not get your card, but
> it is impossible not to as there are only six cards that aren't the
> one you want and there are seven cards in a hand. i.e. You must get at
> least one of your cards.
>
> I think the correct figure is given by:
>
> Let s be the size of the deck.
> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
>
> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
> P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
>
From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that
subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy
equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of
that, I'm not sure the above equation is valid, as it misses the
factorial part (even if you rework the equation, I seem to remember
that there is always a factorial remaining). I can check in my
textbooks later tonight, if nobody comes up with the answer before
then. :-)
Pat Ricochet
> will develop fluff over the course of a game. Peter's POT-Rush deck has
> "conditional fluff" in it; his maneuvers. If he sits at a table where
> nobody is carrying maneuvers, then all those maneuvers are discards and
> candidates for the fluff-pile. It's not to say that those cards should be
> removed from his deck; far from it. But the varied situations you may be
> in will cause your deck to develop fluff. (last Monday, I was in front of
> a Setite Corruption horde with my Jan Pieterzoon* DOM/FOR deck; I was
> pitching Deflections left and right, because they were fluff.)
>
> This is one reason I cannot support deliberately putting extra fluff in
> your deck just to make 90 cards; you're already going to need your discard
> phase to get rid of things that just aren't appropriate for your situation.
> You can't be running around increasing your own problem.
And this is really one of the biggest parts of the 90 card deck; your
numbers of discards do NOT scale with the number of cards in your deck. Any
*card* that gives you cycling may not show up in your opening hand, even if
you have 3 Dreams and 2 Barrens. And you'll cycle 1/90th of your deck with
that first discard. However, you're cycling 1/60th of your deck in the
60-card version, and therefore cycling 50% better.
Also, and someone should do the math out and stick it on a web page
where it can be pointed at, there is the standard deviation. A 90-card
replica of a 60-card deck is more capable of clumping, and more likely to.
When you compound this with discards becoming less efficient as you increase
your deck size, you have a hand-jam recipe.
Somewhere is an ideal, and from experience, it's less than 90 cards. In
*every* situation where I (or any other Atlantan) has trimmed a 90-card deck
to a 70 to 80 card deck, usually just by ratios, the deck has ALWAYS
performed better.
I really don't get clumping and hand jam much; I've had it in a few
games recently, and it surprised me. It was like "Hey, this...this is Hand
Jam! THAT'S what everyone's been complaining about!" UNsuprisingly, I was
playing 90-card decks when it happened.
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
Derek Ray
> Gee if you REALLY need 1/60th of your library to be a certain card you
> will have to make a 60 card library and put in 1 of that card. Your
> argument there is silly. Silly because the same argument could be
> made that a certain deck needs to have exactly 1/77th or 1/90th etc.
> of a certain card, and in that case a 60 card deck could not produce
> that exact ratio.
You've successfully ignored the actual point (which I made in my ORIGINAL
post as well), which is that unique cards, and cards you only have a few of
in the deck, are the ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller
library. You cannot match exact proportions of a single card, and many
times it is appropriate to only include one of that card. The Ivory Bow is
an excellent example. The Parthenon is another.
>> What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something
>> like an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on
>> Anneke quickly, but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2
>> in a 60 is noticeably better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you
>> only have to get rid of one card, instead of two.
You didn't respond to this point. I accept your concession.
>> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on
>> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch.
> 3 in 90 is just about as good as 2 in 60. The only valid argument
3 in 90 forces an extra discard, something you fail to address. With only
10-15 turns in a game, you may only discard 10-15 cards.
> against this is variance. R. Goudie brought that up in a followup. I
> didnt want to get into variance since its effect is marginal between a
> 60 and 90 card deck and I also thought you might have some trouble
> understanding it.
Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in
public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and search
Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful behind them.
>> If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs,
>> runs out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep,
>> but also may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card
>> deck every time. I only need 3 VPs to win, and the entire point is
>> to reduce the random factor somewhat. Reducing it below 3 VPs is an
>> indicator that you maybe should start putting cards back IN.
> Well, thats a mighty fine deck you have there then derek, I still say
> that deck would be stronger, more efficeint and have more stamina if
> properly redesigned to 90 cards.
And you provide no evidence to support your argument. However, I can
provide plenty of evidence to support mine; for one, a smaller deck size
makes it POSSIBLE to rely on individual unique cards, or permanents, or
cards you only put 3 of in the deck, WITHOUT requiring one to discard
multiples. Relying on discarding multiples requires putting in more
Masters instead of the ones you'd LIKE to see and begins adding points of
attack for your deck.
> > This strikes me as a very elaborate construct. If you have cards
> > that _______ you're trying to find ways to discard, you OBVIOUSLY
> > have too many of those cards in the deck and should cut the size
> > down. Creating additional discards isn't the sign of a "good
> > deck", it's the sign of a deck with too much fluff in it. Take the
> > fluff out, and you won't need the Barrens... _____ not to mention
> > that relying on the highly-contestable Barrens and the _
> The above statement is SO absolutely wrong and self conflicting to
> boot. We could start with that Arika Praxis Berlin Soul gem deck as an
Oh, you mean the best example of a deck which either sweeps or flops? Yes,
LET'S use that deck! That deck is a PERFECT support for my argument. It -
requires- so many discards that it makes itself extremely vulnerable.
> example. That deck has 9 soul gems in which it only needs 1. That
> leaves 8 to be discarded. Should the "fluff" be taken out of that
> deck? You also say a good deck won't need the barrens and in the same
I think the deck has too many weak points to be reliable. Intercept the
vote and it dies. Intercept the Soul Gem and it dies. Intercept a
Distraction and it dies. Kill Arika and it dies. Delaying Tactics the
vote and it dies. Bounce the bleed and it ousts the wrong prey. Direct
Intervention ANY of its key cards and it dies, and the deck is nothing BUT
key cards. All of the above are highly likely to be seen.
The weakest points are the Distractions, because the deck absolutely,
positively, MUST dump cards out of its hand like a maniac, or it will jam
up on stealth, Soul Gems, etc. If it ever reaches a situation where it has
no Praxis, Awe, Daring the Dawn, or Force of Will, it crashes to a halt.
If you think otherwise, feel free to play that deck in your next
tournament, and see how it fares. I think it's a very clever idea, and
when it works, it's funny as hell; and when it fails, it's going to crash
hard... and the failure is TOTALLY beyond its own control. If I wanted to
flip a coin, I'd just flip a coin.
> breath say that its highly contestable. Is it just that everyone
> brings crappy decks to tournaments and therefor their decks contain
> the Barrens, or is it possible that the discard the barrens provides
> is a very powerfull asset to almost any deck?
Both are true, actually; an awful lot of people bring crap. However, this
still supports my point that a good deck should not need to use the
Barrens. If you are relying on the Barrens, then you are adding an
additional weak point to your deck that should be taken out if at all
possible. If you can do this by reducing numbers of cards, so that you are
forced to discard less, then why not do so?
I won't even mention how common Arson is becoming these days, with all the
new location toys. The Barrens is a prime target around here; take away
someone's extra discards they were relying on and watch their deck grind to
a halt.
> actions, bouncing bleeds, or passing votes. The discard phase lets
> you customize your hand so that you can deal with the problems facing
[...]
> intercept cards. Discarding is a valuable tool that gives you a
> dynamic advantage.
Correct. This is why forcing yourself to discard cards by putting too much
fluff in your deck will cause you to be screwed. You need to have the
discard phase OPEN for your own use, not locked up with your third copy of
the Parthenon that you needed early and had to put 4 in your deck to
guarantee.
With 4 Parthenon in your deck, 3 of them are cards you NEED to discard.
Stealth and/or intercept may be things you WANT to discard, but I would
much rather have the option to discard those than have all my late-game
discard phases locked up with cards that HAVE to be got rid of.
>> Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush
>> deck; simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up
>> on something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you.
>
> I said, "properly designed decks" not just double up the deck
> porportions. If his deck is a potence rush deck im sure I could
Matching proportions is the primary argument of the bigger-decks-are-
always-better crowd. Deviating from it supports my point, because you
increase the size of the deck by using cards which are NOT fluff, or which
(as below) can be cycled in large multiples.
> strengthen it up by going to 180 cards. I would probably add the
> barrens and fragment and about 40 increased strength in addition to
> increasing the number of the rest of the cards.
Ah, so you would add cards that effectively collapse your deck size back
down to a much smaller deck? I see you actually support my point AFTER
all. And I still think you'd get completely crunched with that deck the
first time you got 5-7 Increased Strengths in your hand and no Rush action.
See if your playgroup will let you try it. I'll be interested in the
results. My results are as follows:
I played five different 70- or 75-card decks this past Monday, and six
games. Three of them got 3VP, and one got 4. One of them got 0VP twice -
the weenie Celerity-and-guns Rush deck, because everyone, strangely, kept
intercepting its "can i equip THIS .44?" actions. Not much can be said
about that with regards to deck size. One ran out of library completely,
and I ended the game with two cards in hand.
One of them, my Cailean/Eternal Vigilance/Combat Shotgun deck, survived
long enough to get 3VP UNQUESTIONABLY because of the smaller deck size. 70
cards, and at the end of the game 5 cards were left in my library. 3 of
those 5 were Eternal Vigilance cards; I had only put 4 in the deck to begin
with. I had included 5 Raven Spies, and was able early on to get 2 onto
Cailean, who was forced to mostly remain untapped just to survive. I
didn't draw the first EV until my 35th card, though; and it came just in
time, as my predator was probably going to blow through me that turn, as I
was out of transient untap (and could only block one action). After that,
I was able to start taking actions with Cailean, which were votes called
with BO/Voter Cap, which put more blood back on him, which let him untap
more and kill MORE vampires; and I finally was able to move forward.
If I had a 90-card deck, I'd have died miserably. 10 more cards would have
been too far to go, and the odds of my getting the Raven Spies early would
have been much less. I was already discarding extra Raven Spies as
unnecessary, and actually equipped a second minion with one to ward off any
potential Call of the Grateful Dead actions. I was also having to discard
piles of stealth, as nobody was even attempting to block ANY of my actions;
fortunately I had Cicatriz available to ditch two stealth cards at a time.
Empirical evidence shows that these reduced-size decks have done quite well
against high-caliber players. My observations during the game indicate
that the deck size is a significant factor. I get to my uniques earlier in
the game, I discard less, and I hand-jam rarely.
Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I've played LOTS of 90-card decks;
for two years I built nothing that wasn't 90 cards. Then Tatu proposed his
smaller-deck concept, and I gave it a whirl, figuring the only way to find
out for SURE was to test. He was right.
Pat Ricochet
> I still say that
> deck
> would be stronger, more efficeint and have more stamina if properly redesigned
> to 90 cards.
Question: Does your group play 5 or less player games, and NCL? And
how long do your games take, on average? And actually count them, if you
haven't; multiple experiences have shown that first guesses are way off, and
actual counting of turns is necessary. =)
Also, more general question for the group: Do people play with 2 hour
time limits or not? I hear occasionally about "7 player, 5 hour games"
which I find to be a bit silly[0]. Personally, I'd rather get in three
2-hour games instead of one 6-hour game, because I'd like to swap around
table positions and decks.
Our experience has been that we just keep playing so long as it's
interesting. However, if one week the games were held up by an unexciting
knock-down, drag-out match for hours on end, we usually institute time
limits for the following week. =)
[0] 5 is the rock solid best number of players, of course:
A kills B,
C gets a free ride and kills D,
D gets a free ride and kills A,
and WHUPS the pressure is a traveling wave, not a standing wave.
This would true of 7 player games as well, BUT, you have players you have
almost NO effect on. In a 5 player game, hurting my prey (something my deck
does anyway) helps my grandprey, and hurting my predator (again, something
my deck does already) helps my grand-predator. By the time we're up to
"great-grand-," you've basically got to Rush or KRC cross table to affect
them.
Jack Crow
<sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Question: Does your group play 5 or less player games, and NCL? And
>how long do your games take, on average? And actually count them, if you
>haven't; multiple experiences have shown that first guesses are way off, and
>actual counting of turns is necessary. =)
>
> Also, more general question for the group: Do people play with 2 hour
>time limits or not? I hear occasionally about "7 player, 5 hour games"
>which I find to be a bit silly[0]. Personally, I'd rather get in three
>2-hour games instead of one 6-hour game, because I'd like to swap around
>table positions and decks.
> Our experience has been that we just keep playing so long as it's
>interesting. However, if one week the games were held up by an unexciting
>knock-down, drag-out match for hours on end, we usually institute time
>limits for the following week. =)
>
I prefer the long drawn out types. So does everyone I play with (of
course, or we wouldnt be a group). Like any other game, tenacity is
just as much a part of it as forethought...which is why ppl like ME
dont like monopoly. Pertaining to whether or not you directly affect
another person excepting specific cross table cirsumstances, you get
into REAL meth politicking, when it's unclear IMHO. I mean, when a
couple of meths need to walk away from the table and discuss something
privately like in Diplomacy, I'm enjoying myself...not that I've ever
done that =p
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>> I think the correct figure is given by:
>>
>> Let s be the size of the deck.
>> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
>> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
>>
>> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
>> P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
>> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
>From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that
>subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy
>equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of
>that, I'm not sure the above equation is valid, as it misses the
>factorial part (even if you rework the equation, I seem to remember
>that there is always a factorial remaining). I can check in my
>textbooks later tonight, if nobody comes up with the answer before
>then. :-)
Factorials are not compulsory for calculating probabilities.
n/s is the probability of getting a card that you don't want for
the first card.
(n-1)/(s-1) is the probability of getting a card that you don't
want for the second card. The numerator is one less because there is
one less unwanted card (the first card), and the denominator is one
less because there is one less card in the deck to pick.
Similar reasoning applies to -2 to -6.
All of these events must occur in order for the stuck situation
to occur. That is why the probabilities are multiplied together.
Noal McDonald
> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on
> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch.
I'll have to take a look at your math and see if it takes into account
card redundancy (different cards that accomplish the same thing) or
not. Where possible, the permanents that I put in decks tend to have a
limited lifespan (Dreams of the Sphinx), have redundancy
(Ecoterrorists, Powerbase: Montreal) or have a low cost (2 pool or
less) of play.
> If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, runs
> out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, but also
> may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card deck every time.
Sure. But because the 60 card deck is more concentrated, any clumping
problems will be more frequent, not less.
> A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard.
I agree 100%. Occasionally, I drag out "The Grind" to reinforce that
point.
> (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well,
> the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not implying
> that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to throw
> that in.)
Again, I agree. Cards played that effectively advance you goal are
better than just playing cards. Were the above true, a Deal With The
Devil deck would be the ultimate deck. (but I still mantain that I'll
be able to build a sucessful deck around it some day)
Regards,
Noal
Noal McDonald
>> By all means, reduce your deck size whenever possible. That'll make
my
>> "oust by deck death" decks much more efficient!
>
> I consider all the "n Raptors and run you out of cards!" decks to be
> basically a cute idea, fun to play, and tier-2 because of WAY too many
> moving parts required.
Notice that I didn't specify Raptor decks, Derek. !Nosferatu Courier
Fleet decks can be just as effective. However, they excel more at
surgically striking, by discarding the cards you don't like, than
shoveling your prey's library to the ash heap. I've also got another
"library shovel" deck on the drawing board that'll blow the Raptors
away. However, it'll be several months before I unveil it as I'm still
in final development of the "Swinging Dick II" and "Loyalty of
Lunatics" decks and next couple in the development queue are the Uriah
Winter Betrayer deck that I discussed a few months ago and a Setite
rush combat deck with a dash of Necromancy.
> AND, while you're doing all this, there are some other problems.
> One Raptor actually helps most decks. Two Raptors are a minor
> nuisance, but still not a problem. Three is where they start to
> be a real cramp; so until you get 3 Raptors on one vampire, your
> deck is actually somewhat beneficial to decks it blocks, unless
> you're including enough active combat to kill things you block;
> which is more than "not be killed".
Which is why I maintain that my ANI/pro was the one of the best
versions designed. It not only regularly got at least 5+ Raptors on a
single vampire within 4-5 rounds, but Protean is the least card
intensive of the combat disciplines.
> While I'll freely admit that the Raptor idea is amusing (and I
> posted the three-and-a-half Raptors deck awhile back, based not
> on running your opponents totally out of cards, but by constantly
> screwing up their hand with 3 Raptors on one minion) and oodles
> of fun, I just don't see it ever being tier-1, or being able to
> hold its own at a table with tier-1 decks.
I would largely agree with that. My experience with my version was
that it was slightly more effective at gaining VPs than most intercept
combat decks that do not use Eagle's Sight.
Regards,
Noal
Derek Ray
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on
>> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch.
>
> I'll have to take a look at your math and see if it takes into account
> card redundancy (different cards that accomplish the same thing) or
> not. Where possible, the permanents that I put in decks tend to have a
> limited lifespan (Dreams of the Sphinx), have redundancy
> (Ecoterrorists, Powerbase: Montreal) or have a low cost (2 pool or
> less) of play.
It doesn't. It was mostly just a simple probability run on getting a card,
how likely you are to draw your next card, how easy it is to get a
multiple-card combo in your hand, etc.
Logical extension means it would actually support card redundancy; if you
have two different cards that perform the same function (London, KRCG),
then you have the advantage of having 'duplicated' a unique card (2 in a
60) without automatically having to discard the second one. 2 in a 60 is
better than 2 in a 90, obviously, and the only way to match the proportions
and effectiveness in the 90 is to either include a Rumor Mill (which
doesn't QUITE perform the same effect as London/KRCG), or to duplicate one
of your uniques and burn one of your discard phases.
All of this is assuming a game where 90 cards will be played, by the way.
If we assume a game where only 70 cards will be played, a 70-card deck
clearly has an advantage, as it sees ALL its cards, while a 90-card deck
will only see about 78% of them -- a nasty little gotcha. I believe this
is one of the advantages "short" decks gain over full ones; the initial
speed of a "short" deck is accelerated, and the game length is reduced
(thus reducing the number of cards played).
>> If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs,
>> runs out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep,
>> but also may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card
>> deck every time.
>
> Sure. But because the 60 card deck is more concentrated, any clumping
> problems will be more frequent, not less.
My experience indicates differently, and enough so that it was extremely
noticeable. I believe I did some math regarding this as well (how likely
it was to get 2 of the same card in hand, how likely it was to get 3 of the
same card in hand), but I don't remember exactly.
I will point out that simple logic indicates that with only 6 of any given
card in your deck, you'll have a hell of a tough time getting 3 of them in
your hand at once as compared to 9, unless you're just not playing them as
often as you thought you would and they pile up on you. (The solution
indicated here is obviously to put even FEWER in the deck.)
If you stick 9 in a 60 and 9 in a 90, then yes, you ARE asking for hand
jam, but you've also altered the proportions, which is kind of a dumb
thing. "more concentrated" is not the idea.
>> A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard.
>
> I agree 100%. Occasionally, I drag out "The Grind" to reinforce that
> point.
Amusingly, someone attempted to put that card in play Monday. =) It got
intercepted, which was a shame; I was sort of looking forward to it, since
I had about 5 minions by then to take actions and move cards for me.
>> (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that
>> "well, the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!"
>> ...not implying that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone
>> is tempted to throw that in.)
>
> Again, I agree. Cards played that effectively advance you goal are
> better than just playing cards. Were the above true, a Deal With The
> Devil deck would be the ultimate deck. (but I still mantain that I'll
> be able to build a sucessful deck around it some day)
Well, obviously it's going to need the Giovanni, since all it really does
is put lots of cards into your ash heap. I'd say start there, and continue
on. :)
Derek Ray
>> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I consider all the "n Raptors and run you out of cards!" decks to be
>> basically a cute idea, fun to play, and tier-2 because of WAY too many
>> moving parts required.
>
> Notice that I didn't specify Raptor decks, Derek. !Nosferatu Courier
I'm just heading that line of discussion off at the pass. =) Plenty of
people have drooled openly on this group over that combo; I remember a
NUMBER of threads about using Blaise and Psyche! to abuse the snot out of
someone's library. If it wasn't you, SOMEONE was going to jump in. =)
> Fleet decks can be just as effective. However, they excel more at
> surgically striking, by discarding the cards you don't like, than
> shoveling your prey's library to the ash heap. I've also got another
Yeah. I mentioned that in another post somewhere, I think; those aren't
what I think of as "library hose" decks, they're "hand screw" decks. They
create hand screw. =)
>> be a real cramp; so until you get 3 Raptors on one vampire, your
>> deck is actually somewhat beneficial to decks it blocks, unless
>> you're including enough active combat to kill things you block; which
>> is more than "not be killed".
>
> Which is why I maintain that my ANI/pro was the one of the best
> versions designed. It not only regularly got at least 5+ Raptors on a
> single vampire within 4-5 rounds, but Protean is the least card
> intensive of the combat disciplines.
Also the safest; Flesh of Marble is a lovely way to keep people off your
back. Sucks to fight the Assamites/Tzimisce/Gangrel, but everything has
its weakness.
Mine was largely !Nossies and all the 5-caps with ANI, with
Atonement/disguised .44s for permanent survival ability, and Carrion Crows
to back it up. I'm not sure what else I was doing other than pool-gaining
ferociously in an attempt to get 7-8 minions out.
> I would largely agree with that. My experience with my version was
> that it was slightly more effective at gaining VPs than most intercept
> combat decks that do not use Eagle's Sight.
Shame, in a way. It -is- amusing. =)
Roger Carhult
> > (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well,
> > the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not
implying
> > that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to
throw
> > that in.)
>
> Again, I agree. Cards played that effectively advance you goal are
> better than just playing cards. Were the above true, a Deal With The
> Devil deck would be the ultimate deck. (but I still mantain that I'll
> be able to build a sucessful deck around it some day)
heh speaking of which, I got a fun idea that I have to try sometime. Make a
60-deck and include like 5 deal witht he Devils...then have Pochtli out and
do some Summon Souls with Weenies and recycle with Carlotta/Sargon, then
you'll have a pretty control over what cards you're going to have in your
hand all the time :) You could possibly do a crossover with !Brujah (since
they got pot) and include Waste Management Op but that's probably not going
to be very effective heh.
Roger
Brad Ward
> > will have to make a 60 card library and put in 1 of that card. Your
> > argument there is silly. Silly because the same argument could be
> > made that a certain deck needs to have exactly 1/77th or 1/90th etc.
> > of a certain card, and in that case a 60 card deck could not produce
> > that exact ratio.
> You've successfully ignored the actual point (which I made in my ORIGINAL
> post as well), which is that unique cards, and cards you only have a few of
> in the deck, are the ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller
> library. You cannot match exact proportions of a single card, and many
> times it is appropriate to only include one of that card. The Ivory Bow is
> an excellent example. The Parthenon is another.
Let me clarify for you. You are saying that cards like ivory bow and
Parthenon?!? are cards you really like to have be 1/60th of your deck, no more
no less. My rebuttal is that in a 90 card deck its true you cannot get 1/60th
as a portion, but you can get 1/45th or 1/90th which is close enough. there
are also many fractions that a 90 card deck can create that a 60 card deck
cannot. You have a strange obsession with having ONLY 1 of a unique card,
perhaps this is due to your role playing proclivities. I prefer to have a
backup bow incase somthing happens to my first one, or make use of my discard.
.
> >> What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something
> >> like an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on
> >> Anneke quickly, but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2
> >> in a 60 is noticeably better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you
>> only have to get rid of one card, instead of two.
> You didn't respond to this point. I accept your concession.
No concession here. You are just plain wrong. 1/30th of your deck being
an assault rifle is 1/30th weather its in a 90 card deck or 60 card deck.
Variance will have an effect to clump your hand but its minimal between 60
and 90 card decks.
.
> >> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on
> >> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch.
> > 3 in 90 is just about as good as 2 in 60. The only valid argument
> 3 in 90 forces an extra discard, something you fail to address. With only
> 10-15 turns in a game, you may only discard 10-15 cards.
so you do make use of your discard phase? I was under the impression from you
that you make such tight decks that you rarely have to discard. If you do
bulk your decks up to 90 cards and you still cant play through 75 cards
(90 - 15 discards) in 15 turns, I suggest that you figure a way to get
Dreams of sphinx, Barrens, Fragment, Storage Annex, Ulugh Beg or other
cycling cards into your deck. This is all assuming of course that you are
interested in making your decks more competetive.
.
> > I also thought you might have some trouble
> > understanding it.
> Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in
> public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and search
> Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful behind them.
I've asserted your lack of mathmatical understanding back in our argument
about Abomination vs Garou. That was somthing fairly simple, variance and
probability is a whole step above basic addition and subtraction.
.
> a smaller deck size
> makes it POSSIBLE to rely on individual unique cards, or permanents, or
> cards you only put 3 of in the deck, WITHOUT requiring one to discard
> multiples. Relying on discarding multiples requires putting in more
> Masters instead of the ones you'd LIKE to see and begins adding points of
> attack for your deck.
Maybe you just design decks poorly. One discard every turn should be enough
to build a 90 card deck that flows through all its cards in 15 turns. Again
you obsess about putting only 1 of each unique card in a <90 card deck. I
have found that 2 in a 90 card deck works dandy well. But check this out, I
could even put 1 in a 90 card deck. That makes a 1/90th portion of my deck.
Can't do that in a <90 deck. you say put 3 of a card in a 75 card deck, 4 in
a 90 card deck is even better, more stamina, more card play, bigger advantage.
.
> Oh, you mean the best example of a deck which either sweeps or flops? Yes,
> LET'S use that deck! That deck is a PERFECT support for my argument. It -
> requires- so many discards that it makes itself extremely vulnerable.
> > example. That deck has 9 soul gems in which it only needs 1. That
> > leaves 8 to be discarded. Should the "fluff" be taken out of that
> > deck? You also say a good deck won't need the barrens and in the same
> I think the deck has too many weak points to be reliable. Intercept the
> vote and it dies. Intercept the Soul Gem and it dies. Intercept a
> Distraction and it dies. Kill Arika and it dies. Delaying Tactics the
> vote and it dies. Bounce the bleed and it ousts the wrong prey. Direct
> Intervention ANY of its key cards and it dies, and the deck is nothing BUT
> key cards. All of the above are highly likely to be seen.
The deck is not perfect, I would make many changes to it myself. My only
point that I was making was that is a prime example of a deck design that
having 8 extra soul gems is necessary even though it is somthing you stated
was "fluff". It is fluff, but that type of deck NEEDS 9 soul gems since it
is the pinnacle of the intire deck.
.
[Snip a lot of derek's attacks on the Arika Deck]
.
> > Is it just that everyone
> > brings crappy decks to tournaments and therefor their decks contain
> > the Barrens, or is it possible that the discard the barrens provides
> > is a very powerfull asset to almost any deck?
> Both are true, actually; an awful lot of people bring crap. However, this
> still supports my point that a good deck should not need to use the
> Barrens. If you are relying on the Barrens, then you are adding an
> additional weak point to your deck that should be taken out if at all
> possible. If you can do this by reducing numbers of cards, so that you are
> forced to discard less, then why not do so?
I say that you can make a GREAT deck using the barrens. That arika deck could
probably make great use of the barrens. The Barrens is one of the best cards
out there, which can make some decks way stronger.
.
> > actions, bouncing bleeds, or passing votes. The discard phase lets
> > you customize your hand so that you can deal with the problems facing
> [...]
> > intercept cards. Discarding is a valuable tool that gives you a
> > dynamic advantage.
> Correct. This is why forcing yourself to discard cards by putting too much
> fluff in your deck will cause you to be screwed. You need to have the
> discard phase OPEN for your own use, not locked up with your third copy of
> the Parthenon that you needed early and had to put 4 in your deck to
> guarantee.
I didnt say to pack your deck with fluff. I said if you are not capable of
building 90 card decks that expend themselves in 15 turns it would be
advantageous to increase to 90 and include barrens, frag or Dreams in that
increase. Try it! take one of your silly 75 card decks and add 10 more of
your functional cards and 2 barrens 2 dreams and 1 frag. Of course you still
need to know when and what to discard.
.
> > I said, "properly designed decks" not just double up the deck
> > porportions. If his deck is a potence rush deck im sure I could
> Matching proportions is the primary argument of the bigger-decks-are-
> always-better crowd. Deviating from it supports my point, because you
> increase the size of the deck by using cards which are NOT fluff, or which
> (as below) can be cycled in large multiples.
Guess you grouped me in the wrong crowd. Bigger decks are only better if you
still get through all your cards effectively. I agree with you on the point
that having extra cards when you win or are ousted doesnt do you a bit of good.
.
> > strengthen it up by going to 180 cards. I would probably add the
> > barrens and fragment and about 40 increased strength in addition to
> > increasing the number of the rest of the cards.
> Ah, so you would add cards that effectively collapse your deck size back
> down to a much smaller deck? I see you actually support my point AFTER
> all. And I still think you'd get completely crunched with that deck the
> first time you got 5-7 Increased Strengths in your hand and no Rush action.
could use the barrens, Frag, Dreams and discard phase to find myself a bums
rush. If they block I fight, if they dont I bled them. Its pretty nice
not to have your bleeds blocked.
.
> I played five different 70- or 75-card decks this past Monday, and six
> games. Three of them got 3VP, and one got 4. One of them got 0VP twice -
> the weenie Celerity-and-guns Rush deck, because everyone, strangely, kept
> intercepting its "can i equip THIS .44?" actions. Not much can be said
> about that with regards to deck size. One ran out of library completely,
> and I ended the game with two cards in hand.
That doesnt speak well for your playgroup. How about your results in tourney
settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right, you dont believe
in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your ineptitude of mathmatics.
Was it Tatu that blocked all your equips? Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he
sure could block a lot of stuff. He didn't last too long that game though.
How about the game when you ran out of cards, I guess you won that one?
Saying you win in your playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a
player. You could be playing with 14 yr olds that you also are teaching how
to play.
.
> Empirical evidence shows that these reduced-size decks have done quite well
> against high-caliber players. My observations during the game indicate
> that the deck size is a significant factor. I get to my uniques earlier in
> the game, I discard less, and I hand-jam rarely.
Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a big deck
like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a tourney or somthing
for you someday.
.
> Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I've played LOTS of 90-card decks;
> for two years I built nothing that wasn't 90 cards. Then Tatu proposed his
> smaller-deck concept, and I gave it a whirl, figuring the only way to find
> out for SURE was to test. He was right.
Like I said, I have won an LA tourney with a 60 card deck. I still think 60
cards are only good for corner cases.
.
You take a real "Hippy" approach to Jyhad. You think every card has its use
and that less is more.
Truth is that everyone isn't a special star and more really is more.
Roger Carhult
> Also the safest; Flesh of Marble is a lovely way to keep people off your
> back. Sucks to fight the Assamites/Tzimisce/Gangrel, but everything has
> its weakness.
Hmm ever tried with Adaptability? The card normally sucks, but with FoM and
no fortitude it can be a nice surprise factor =)
Derek Ray
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns91058CF5...@198.99.146.10>...
>> You've successfully ignored the actual point (which I made in my
>> ORIGINAL post as well), which is that unique cards, and cards you
>> only have a few of in the deck, are the ones that gain the most
>> benefit from a smaller library. You cannot match exact proportions
>> of a single card, and many times it is appropriate to only include
>> one of that card. The Ivory Bow is an excellent example. The
>> Parthenon is another.
> .
> Let me clarify for you. You are saying that cards like ivory bow and
> Parthenon?!? are cards you really like to have be 1/60th of your deck,
> no more no less. My rebuttal is that in a 90 card deck its true you
No, Bradley, I'm saying exactly what I said above. Unique cards and cards
you only have a few of (Shadow of the Beast in a PRO combat deck) are the
ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller library. I'm sorry if you
can't grasp basic English, and I'm sorry you don't understand
probabilities; it isn't simply "1/45th" or "1/60th". If you can't respond
to what I actually SAY, then move on and quit babbling like the tool you
are.
> can create that a 60 card deck cannot. You have a strange obsession
> with having ONLY 1 of a unique card, perhaps this is due to your role
> playing proclivities. I prefer to have a backup bow incase somthing
> happens to my first one, or make use of my discard. .
More of your discards locked up forever with excessive duplicates, when you
could be tuning your hand to perfection.
> No concession here. You are just plain wrong. 1/30th of your deck
> being an assault rifle is 1/30th weather its in a 90 card deck or 60
> card deck. Variance will have an effect to clump your hand but its
> minimal between 60 and 90 card decks.
Again, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that the
more Assault Rifles you have to put in when you only want one makes for
more discards that you'll be using later. Increasing your deck size
increases the number of them you must put in to ensure you have one early
on. This is a pretty simple concept.
>> 3 in 90 forces an extra discard, something you fail to address. With
>> only 10-15 turns in a game, you may only discard 10-15 cards.
> .
> so you do make use of your discard phase? I was under the impression
> from you that you make such tight decks that you rarely have to
> discard. If you do bulk your decks up to 90 cards and you still cant
I rarely have FORCED discards. I frequently discard something I don't
expect to need in the near future in order to draw up something I might.
The second copy of a Parthenon is a forced discard, however; as soon as it
hits your hand, you have to remove it. Same with the third, and any others
you happen to have in there.
> play through 75 cards (90 - 15 discards) in 15 turns, I suggest that
> you figure a way to get Dreams of sphinx, Barrens, Fragment, Storage
> Annex, Ulugh Beg or other cycling cards into your deck. This is all
> assuming of course that you are interested in making your decks more
> competetive. .
Yes, yes, Bradley, whatever. People who rely on discards too much are
simply filling their deck with fluff. I personally enjoy using Dreams with
a 75-card deck; it REALLY makes things go well. Of course, when I use
Dreams this way, I actually get a FULL 9 useful cards, instead of having to
use it to bring myself back up to an effective 7 cards, because I have two
pieces of fluff in my hand I need to get rid of.
>> Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in
>> public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and
>> search Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful
>> behind them.
> .
> I've asserted your lack of mathmatical understanding back in our
> argument about Abomination vs Garou. That was somthing fairly simple,
> variance and probability is a whole step above basic addition and
> subtraction. .
I accept your concession here, as well. This sort of blather is
insubstantive and meaningless.
Bradley, I'm starting to see why you're such a tool whereever you play, and
why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little lost sheep.
When confronted with something you don't have an answer to, you basically
froth at the mouth and spew out nonsense. If you aren't going to attempt
to address the points I've made, just let me know so I can not waste any
more time responding to you.
> Maybe you just design decks poorly. One discard every turn should be
> enough to build a 90 card deck that flows through all its cards in 15
You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the more
cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much speaks for
itself.
> turns. Again you obsess about putting only 1 of each unique card in a
> <90 card deck. I have found that 2 in a 90 card deck works dandy
> well. But check this out, I could even put 1 in a 90 card deck. That
> makes a 1/90th portion of my deck. Can't do that in a <90 deck. you
> say put 3 of a card in a 75 card deck, 4 in a 90 card deck is even
> better, more stamina, more card play, bigger advantage. .
You have yet to have supported it with any evidence, though, Bradley.
Random assertions will get you nowhere. Last chance.
> The deck is not perfect, I would make many changes to it myself. My
> only point that I was making was that is a prime example of a deck
> design that having 8 extra soul gems is necessary even though it is
> somthing you stated was "fluff". It is fluff, but that type of deck
> NEEDS 9 soul gems since it is the pinnacle of the intire deck.
I accept your concession that the deck's weak points make it very
unreliable. Soul Gem may well be the absolute key point in the deck, but
the amount of fluff in that deck means that if you EVER stop its discarding
mechanism (the Distractions), then you kill the deck immediately.
Like I said, it makes GREAT support for my argument.
>> Both are true, actually; an awful lot of people bring crap. However,
>> this still supports my point that a good deck should not need to use
>> the Barrens. If you are relying on the Barrens, then you are adding
>> an additional weak point to your deck that should be taken out if at
>> all possible. If you can do this by reducing numbers of cards, so
>> that you are forced to discard less, then why not do so?
> .
> I say that you can make a GREAT deck using the barrens. That arika
> deck could probably make great use of the barrens. The Barrens is one
> of the best cards out there, which can make some decks way stronger.
I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and you again concede my point by
failing to address it. If you have room for the Barrens, then include it.
But many times there are better Masters to include than the Barrens, and
this is why fixating on it is not a good thing. Removing the need for the
Barrens allows you to choose to remove the Barrens itself, making more room
for your primary strategy. The Barrens will never be a primary strategy;
it will always be merely a support card.
>> Correct. This is why forcing yourself to discard cards by putting
>> too much fluff in your deck will cause you to be screwed. You need
>> to have the discard phase OPEN for your own use, not locked up with
>> your third copy of the Parthenon that you needed early and had to put
>> 4 in your deck to guarantee.
> .
> I didnt say to pack your deck with fluff. I said if you are not
> capable of building 90 card decks that expend themselves in 15 turns
> it would be advantageous to increase to 90 and include barrens, frag
> or Dreams in that increase. Try it! take one of your silly 75 card
> decks and add 10 more of your functional cards and 2 barrens 2 dreams
> and 1 frag. Of course you still need to know when and what to
> discard. .
I -used- to build decks that way. Fraggie, Dreams, and Barrens in every
deck, and 90 card decks. Then I started pulling out the Fraggie and
Barrens, and trimming the deck down to only play the cards it needs to...
and they ran better. I've tried yours, and I have the evidence; now you
try mine. Or are you scared?
> Guess you grouped me in the wrong crowd. Bigger decks are only better
> if you still get through all your cards effectively. I agree with you
> on the point that having extra cards when you win or are ousted doesnt
> do you a bit of good. .
What do you do when someone steals your Fragment and Arsons your Barrens?
>> point AFTER all. And I still think you'd get completely crunched
>> with that deck the first time you got 5-7 Increased Strengths in your
>> hand and no Rush action.
> Id probably bleed with all my minions or take other directed actions
> until I could use the barrens, Frag, Dreams and discard phase to find
> myself a bums rush. If they block I fight, if they dont I bled them.
> Its pretty nice not to have your bleeds blocked.
Until you are ousted by the predator that you can't Bum's Rush and kill.
> That doesnt speak well for your playgroup. How about your results in
Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you know
better.
> tourney settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right,
> you dont believe in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your
I believe the VEKN rating system works great if you give a shit about it.
I certainly don't; V:TES isn't my primary form of recreation.
> ineptitude of mathmatics. Was it Tatu that blocked all your equips?
> Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he sure could block a lot of stuff.
> He didn't last too long that game though. How about the game when you
Way to show PLENTY of class there, Bradley. Tatu is well-known as one of
the best players out there; you only demonstrate your own incompetence by
spouting off in this fashion. I bet he was just lucky at Origins. I bet
it's just random chance that people constantly bring his name up when they
mention "Jedi Mind Trick", huh? Oh, wait, I guess Jedi Mind Tricks are a
sore spot with you, aren't they...
> ran out of cards, I guess you won that one? Saying you win in your
> playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a player. You could
> be playing with 14 yr olds that you also are teaching how to play.
However, I'm not. Personal attacks against me are one thing, Bradley, but
personal attacks like this against people who haven't even weighed into the
conversation are something entirely different. Do you normally go all
rabid like this when people question your fallacies?
>> Empirical evidence shows that these reduced-size decks have done
>> quite well against high-caliber players. My observations during the
>> game indicate that the deck size is a significant factor. I get to
>> my uniques earlier in the game, I discard less, and I hand-jam
>> rarely.
> .
> Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a
> big deck like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a
> tourney or somthing for you someday.
Perhaps it will... perhaps it won't. I won't lose any sleep over it.
>> Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I've played LOTS of 90-card
>> decks; for two years I built nothing that wasn't 90 cards. Then Tatu
>> proposed his smaller-deck concept, and I gave it a whirl, figuring
>> the only way to find out for SURE was to test. He was right.
> .
> Like I said, I have won an LA tourney with a 60 card deck. I still
> think 60 cards are only good for corner cases.
60-card decks are only suitable, as I've said elsewhere, for high-speed
pool damage decks, or for decks that intend to play very few cards per
turn. A 60-card Rush deck would be highly inappropriate. A 60-card Anson
"all-Masters" deck would be VERY appropriate.
However, dropping from 90 down to 80 or 70 makes a visible difference.
It's interesting to see; you should try it.
> You take a real "Hippy" approach to Jyhad. You think every card has
> its use and that less is more.
> Truth is that everyone isn't a special star and more really is more.
More random babble. Bradley, you don't actually know a THING about me, so
instead of spending all your adrenaline and rabid energy conducting random
personal attacks against Tatu and thinking up fantasies of who I might
be... why don't you actually attempt to respond to some things I say for a
change? It would certainly be novel.
In the meantime, I'll let everything I said stand. Either produce some
arguments backed by evidence, or I'll continue this debate with the others
(such as Noal), who are actually willing to -discuss- the issue.
which reminds me... Noal, can you resend that e-mail with a VALID return
address on it, instead of the none-of-your-fscking-business? =)
Derek Ray
news:9m1i5r$btb28$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de:
I've actually thrown a few of them in a Protean 'banzai' deck before, yeah.
It comes in handy to stop, say, Dragon's Breath Rounds or the Escaped
Mental Patient, and it can handle the occasional Breath of the Dragon from
a fiend-deck, but the Assamites tend to just Blur and hit you again, the
Gangrel usually press, and the Tzimisce are normally packing 9,207,398
aggravated-damage cards (good old Choppy Marauder). =)
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>> Hmm ever tried with Adaptability? The card normally sucks, but with
>> FoM and no fortitude it can be a nice surprise factor =)
>
>I've actually thrown a few of them in a Protean 'banzai' deck before, yeah.
Use it with Abominations, too, since they only have PRO.
Noal McDonald
>> tourney settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right,
>> you dont believe in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your
>
> I believe the VEKN rating system works great if you give a shit about it.
> I certainly don't; V:TES isn't my primary form of recreation.
VTES is certainly in my top five primary forms of recreation. Okay, top
six now that it's football season and I'm in two fantasy football
leagues. In spite of that, I don't give two shakes what my VEKN rating
is either. I go to tournaments, not to raise my rating, but to win
stuff. After all, I can't use my rating to trade for more Derange cards.
;)
Of the "deadly sins," I prefer greed to vanity.
>> Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a
>> big deck like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a
>> tourney or somthing for you someday.
>
> Perhaps it will... perhaps it won't. I won't lose any sleep over it.
I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!?
Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the above
passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting false
bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex.
To be honest, Derek, I'm not even certain why you wasted that much
typing on this useless waste of skin. Seems to me that you'd be better
off spending your time discussing issues with those that have enough
grey matter to understand them, or at the very least, be polite when
they don't.
> which reminds me... Noal, can you resend that e-mail with a VALID return
> address on it, instead of the none-of-your-fscking-business? =)
*laughs* By the way, you are aware that "fsck" is a Unix command, eh?
I don't usually keep copies of the e-mail I send out. If you want to
reply, replace "none-of-your-fscking-business" with "yahoo" and it will
get to me fine. I have the same user name (dharzhak) everywhere besides
work.
Regards,
Noal
Derek Ray
news:3B847CC1...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com:
> Derek Ray wrote:
>> I believe the VEKN rating system works great if you give a shit about
>> it. I certainly don't; V:TES isn't my primary form of recreation.
>
> VTES is certainly in my top five primary forms of recreation. Okay,
Oh, it's in my top five as well. I think it's number two, actually. But
pool is #1 and always will be, so that's the only one I'll ever worry about
my performance in as compared to others.
> top six now that it's football season and I'm in two fantasy football
> leagues. In spite of that, I don't give two shakes what my VEKN rating
> is either. I go to tournaments, not to raise my rating, but to win
> stuff. After all, I can't use my rating to trade for more Derange
> cards. ;)
LOL. I go to tournaments to have fun, drink beer, meet people, drink beer,
and test theories. =) And then drink beer while post-mortemming the
results. It's one of the best experimental environments you'll find, just
because you KNOW everyone is going to have something reasonably functional.
Matt Green will probably love me for saying this, but he can rest a bit
easier knowing that the last experiment finished 6th, only a half point out
of the finals. I don't experiment with crap. =)
> Of the "deadly sins," I prefer greed to vanity.
I prefer lust, when you get right down to it.
> I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!?
> Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the
> above passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting
> false bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex.
Now look what you did. I successfully avoided ANY small-penis jokes in my
response, out of some strange, foreign impulse to actually not inflame
things. =)
I'd say he's certainly waving SOMETHING around. If he ties an American
flag to it, maybe someone will salute.
> To be honest, Derek, I'm not even certain why you wasted that much
> typing on this useless waste of skin. Seems to me that you'd be better
> off spending your time discussing issues with those that have enough
> grey matter to understand them, or at the very least, be polite when
> they don't.
(shrug) I do have a good chunk of time at the moment. But by the same
token, I'm not going to waste any more time; he can either produce actual
concepts in defense of his position, or he can sod off and I'll just debate
it with everyone ELSE who holds that view. I'm tempted to just let him sod
off anyway; he doesn't seem to understand the underlying layers of the
discussion, and he's spending way too much time blowing his own horn... pun
intended.
It's one thing to insert snide cheap shots into a debate, and I'm certainly
guilty of that. But it's another thing to simply ignore the subject and
randomly flame away... and it's still ANOTHER thing to blather on about
"i'm so good, the rest of you must suck if you disagree, look at my rating,
i r3wl." And we aren't even going to go into the cheap shot at Tatu. I
know I set MYSELF up as a target, but there is absolutely NO need to take
aim at anyone but me... especially inaccurate aim.
> *laughs* By the way, you are aware that "fsck" is a Unix command, eh?
Quite. =) I keep multiple partitions; one of them is generally some
flavor of linux. =) I mangle and restore it every so often; I can't
convert to it completely, as I'm stuck having to keep Win2k around for the
roommate. Right now it's in one of its mangled states, and I just haven't
been motivated to fix and update it. =/
> I don't usually keep copies of the e-mail I send out. If you want to
> reply, replace "none-of-your-fscking-business" with "yahoo" and it
> will get to me fine. I have the same user name (dharzhak) everywhere
> besides work.
../done. =) I actually briefly was tempted to try an nslookup on
www.none-of-your-fscking-business.com to see if it existed. :)
....salem christ....
> "....salem christ...." wrote:
> > actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this
> > somewhat horrible point to note:
> > the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps.
> >
> > now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of _4_
> > games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors, couriers, etc).
>
> Raptors are "hand cycling" effects, not "library destruction" tools.
> I can see where the prey of a Raptor deck has an advantage (until the
> number of Raptors on a given minion is greater than 2 or 3).
umm.....if my prey's hand size is reduced by some number for a given
combat, so that he discards that number of cards (X, say). then at the
end of combat he needs to draw back up X cards to return to his handsize.
and thus, the library has X less cards in it. if you do this with about 4
raptors, and then heidleburg them over to some other minion and enter
combat again, that person has now 8 cards less in her library.
this, to me, looks like it is destroying the library.
what perplexes me is, even when they (the meth who's library is being
destroyed) don't get to choose which cards are gone (couriers tapping
instead of raptor hand size reduction), they still
seem to have a better time of it.
kooky.
salem.
....salem christ....
[snip a bunch of stuff, including who wrote what. sorry]
>
> >> Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a
> >> big deck like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a
> >> tourney or somthing for you someday.
> >
> > Perhaps it will... perhaps it won't. I won't lose any sleep over it.
>
> I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!?
> Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the above
> passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting false
> bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex.
>
> To be honest, Derek, I'm not even certain why you wasted that much
> typing on this useless waste of skin. Seems to me that you'd be better
> off spending your time discussing issues with those that have enough
> grey matter to understand them, or at the very least, be polite when
> they don't.
now, are you trying to imply that a big dick is a waste of skin? :/
personally, i feel that things might get a tad messy a tad quickly if,
say, it was skinless.
and that's really not something i encourage anyone to visualise.
salem. O:)
....salem christ....
> gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I think the correct figure is given by:
> >>
> >> Let s be the size of the deck.
> >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
> >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
> >>
> >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
> >> P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
> >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
>
> >From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that
> >subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy
> >equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of
well, there are factorials in the above expression. they're just
expressed explicitly.
n*(n-1)*...*(n-6) = n!/(n-7)!
so, the above P(stuck) formula could be re-written:
n!*(s-7)!
P(stuck)= -------------
s!*(n-7)!
with, of course, the *'s being superfluous as standard maths has an
implicit * wherever two values are slapped next to each other...
> >that, I'm not sure the above equation is valid, as it misses the
> >factorial part (even if you rework the equation, I seem to remember
> >that there is always a factorial remaining). I can check in my
that there are....
> >textbooks later tonight, if nobody comes up with the answer before
> >then. :-)
>
> Factorials are not compulsory for calculating probabilities.
>
> n/s is the probability of getting a card that you don't want for
> the first card.
>
> (n-1)/(s-1) is the probability of getting a card that you don't
> want for the second card. The numerator is one less because there is
> one less unwanted card (the first card), and the denominator is one
> less because there is one less card in the deck to pick.
>
> Similar reasoning applies to -2 to -6.
>
> All of these events must occur in order for the stuck situation
> to occur. That is why the probabilities are multiplied together.
and it's just a hell of a lot neater to write them as factorials,
especially if you have, say, a hand size of 11.
salem. (going on 8 years at university! yeah! ....still an undergrad...)
....salem christ....
> Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in
> news:3B847CC1...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com:
>
> > Derek Ray wrote:
> > I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!?
> > Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the
> > above passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting
> > false bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex.
>
> Now look what you did. I successfully avoided ANY small-penis jokes in my
> response, out of some strange, foreign impulse to actually not inflame
> things. =)
"inflame" things. hur hur hur.
um, let's just say i have absolutely nothing to say about this thread,
and am just a waste of bandwidth. sorry.
salem.
Karol Magda
> settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right, you dont believe
> in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your ineptitude of mathmatics.
> Was it Tatu that blocked all your equips? Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he
> sure could block a lot of stuff. He didn't last too long that game though.
> How about the game when you ran out of cards, I guess you won that one?
> Saying you win in your playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a
> player. You could be playing with 14 yr olds that you also are teaching how
> to play.
V:EKN ratings are not working as they should , you won't go to the
finals with 1.5 all other 0.5 VP deck but your V:EKN ratings will be
VERY high with such a deck.
Even if run out of cards in deck (especially 60-70 cards permanent
deck) it's not that bad ... you have probably +2 intercept on one
vampire and aproximately 10 point of bleed on the table and oh you are
gaing like 4-5 pool each turn - this whole setup is worth like milion
of cards on the hand. Such decks are impossible to build correctly
with 90 cards for example due to reasons Derek repeat here over and
over.
Running out of cards with 70 cards deck isn't very often , it usually
happens only in endgame (2-3 people left including you) where your
permanents are superior to their now jammed up because of 90 cards
deck hand , if it happens otherwise the game last more than 2 hours
which means it doesn't matter (from tournament perspective)
The concept of less then 90 cards decks is really very powerfull one ,
if you want an empiricall proof go to
http://www.geocities.com/area51/labyrinth/7031/decks.html
and look to the latest addition - this deck demonstrated everything
Derek say's , to your reference it
1) won Iberian Open (euro qualifier , 64 people) deck was 70 cards
2) make another person (Xavier Abad) qualify with it for Euro
championship in Vienna (6th place) , his version was 80 cards
3) Zolt Varga won latest tournament with it here in Kosice , his
version was 75 cards
Since you brought here an issue of Derek's V:EKN rating here note that
Xavier , Zolo and me (Karol Magda) are currenty in top 10 in Zolo's
and my case certainly because we play less than 90 cards deck.
Kajik
Andrew S. Davidson
>produce some arguments backed by evidence
I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping
into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks
listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for
this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no
winning library with fewer than 72 cards.
Also, neither the Barrens, Fragment of the Book of Nod nor Elder
Library seem very popular. The Barrens is the only one to get
significant usage - 12 decks out of 88.
However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since
April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA
Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since
>April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA
>Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens.
And checking further, I see that all the finalists had 90 cards in
their library except Stephen Fazio who had 91 (!?). There were no
more copies of The Barrens but Stephen did have an Elder Library.
Andrew
LSJ
> And checking further, I see that all the finalists had 90 cards in
> their library except Stephen Fazio who had 91 (!?).
Probably a transciption error on my part.
I'll check on that.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ
> "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> > And checking further, I see that all the finalists had 90 cards in
> > their library except Stephen Fazio who had 91 (!?).
>
> Probably a transciption error on my part.
> I'll check on that.
Yeah. The listing showed 2 Legendary Vampires. The deck has only 1.
I've posted a corrected deck listing.
Mongrel Matt Hirsch
> what perplexes me is, even when they (the meth who's library is being
> destroyed) don't get to choose which cards are gone (couriers tapping
> instead of raptor hand size reduction), they still
> seem to have a better time of it.
The answer is this:
If you play with Couriers as "library destruction", indiscriminately
peeling cards from the top of your prey's deck, you don't get any
advantage until you burn through your prey's entire deck. If you
don't burn up their deck, then they get an advantage because you've
been wasting actions, blood, and cards on Couriers. Also, the
Couriers have virtually no defensive value(-1 intercept to block
vampires), so you're more likely to get ousted as well.
-Matt H.
Derek Ray
news:D02CB8C991B881D1.274C6951...@lp.airnews.net:
> On 23 Aug 2001 01:43:04 GMT, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>>produce some arguments backed by evidence
>
> I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping
> into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks
> listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for
> this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no
> winning library with fewer than 72 cards.
Nor will you see any evidence, as far as THAT approach is concerned; this
theory isn't all THAT old, and hasn't had a whole lot of time to propagate.
Prior to now, conventional wisdom held that 90 cards was the only way to
fly.
I remember doing quite a bit last time this debate came up, though. Robert
Goudie had a telling point recently; 3% is *TWICE* as good as the odds the
house gets in Vegas. If you can get even as small as a 3% improved chance
in the card-by-card draw (where you have 63 or more occurrences of drawing
a card), you should be in pretty good shape. I'm going to have to go back
and find my OWN stuff, frankly... now I'm curious.
Other than the numbers from then, all I can do is challenge people to try.
Take decks that are a solid concept, but constantly have library left at
the end of the game, and trim cards out in reasonable proportion. Replay
and see. If you gain less than 3VP AND run out of cards, put the ones you
wish you'd had more of back in. If you gain less than 3VP and STILL don't
run out of cards, either trim more or go back and revisit the deck concept.
If you gain 3VP or more, check your library; the closer you are to the
bottom, the closer you are to the "ideal" size for that particular deck.
> Also, neither the Barrens, Fragment of the Book of Nod nor Elder
> Library seem very popular. The Barrens is the only one to get
> significant usage - 12 decks out of 88.
Not surprising. The Fraggie's built-in steal clause makes it suicide to
rely on, and the Elder Library costs pool, making many people shy away from
it. The Barrens is free, and even if someone else has it you can always
play it to contest, and then yield if the other guy doesn't. But even the
Barrens is a band-aid type of card... put in to fix a problem. Sometimes
it's necessary. But in every deck? =/
> However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since
> April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA
> Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens.
Not surprising there, either. That thing has a small pile of moving parts
and absolutely HAS to have the right thing in hand at the right time. :)
Sten During
> On 23 Aug 2001 01:43:04 GMT, Derek Ray wrote:
>
> >produce some arguments backed by evidence
>
> I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping
> into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks
> listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for
> this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no
> winning library with fewer than 72 cards.
>
That might not be the best of arguments ;) I do believe that a deck that
actually can make good use of <MAX-CARD-NUMBER> number of
cards and use all of them during a game WILL be an optimal deck.
However, if you have created a concept that will reliably cycle all
of its 75 cards during an average game, then you will more probably
than not lower it's performance by adding another 15 cards without
adding another angle to your deck allowing you to get those cards
in play as well.
I'll agree that an optimized 60-card concept will probably not do as
good as an 90-card concept. Not because of the number of cards, but
rather because the larger deck will almost guaranteed be built on the
assumption that it will have 50% more actions/reactions during an
average game, and VTES (insert protests here) is built around
'most actions wins'. That's why I see all the hate-posts about
weenie-decks ;)
My argument is based on my own experience. The number of cards
used during a non-combat-seeking action actually varies very
little between different decks. Those decks that differ are usually
based around heavy stealth/intercept, and it's also here we hear the
outcries about hand-jam when they run into a skilled opponent
refusing them to cycle cards.
I'd say that your standard action will use zero or two cards before
adding denial-cards.
I don't buy the argument about adding discardenhancing abilities
to enhance your deck (Arika-deck is a marvelous contradiction to
this general rule), as they both take up cardslots and you can't rely
upon getting them in play before hand-jam strikes.
Sten
--
NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/
Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se
417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45
Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39
Sten During
>
>
> Which is why I maintain that my ANI/pro was the one of the best
> versions designed. It not only regularly got at least 5+ Raptors on a
> single vampire within 4-5 rounds, but Protean is the least card
> intensive of the combat disciplines.
>
> > While I'll freely admit that the Raptor idea is amusing (and I
> > posted the three-and-a-half Raptors deck awhile back, based not
> > on running your opponents totally out of cards, but by constantly
> > screwing up their hand with 3 Raptors on one minion) and oodles
> > of fun, I just don't see it ever being tier-1, or being able to
> > hold its own at a table with tier-1 decks.
>
> I would largely agree with that. My experience with my version was
> that it was slightly more effective at gaining VPs than most intercept
> combat decks that do not use Eagle's Sight.
>
Hmm, reminds me that we might actually start playing with retainers
again. Was half a year when people even put guns in the hands of
Ghould Retainers, killing two retainers per combat without using
additional-strikes. Decks got REALLY low on retainers after a while.
I LOVE running into a Raptor-deck, but then I like playing with a
green wave - blue wake deck. Tap out using all your actions and
fill your hand with blue ones, react like mad etc etc etc. Usually
breaks sometime during the game, and then forcing another Meth
to cycle my hand comes in REALLY handy :) Also proves that I
need to tune my decks better - if I get hand-jam it's because I've
constructed a less than optimal deck.
Brad Ward
> V:EKN ratings are not working as they should , you won't go to the____________
> finals with 1.5 all other 0.5 VP deck but your V:EKN ratings will be__________
> VERY high with such a deck.
The ratings still go up if you win and down if you lose. So even though
they may not be perfect, they still represent who is winning and who is losing
.
> Even if run out of cards in deck (especially 60-70 cards permanent____________
> deck) it's not that bad ... you have probably +2 intercept on one_____________
> vampire and aproximately 10 point of bleed on the table and oh you are________
> gaing like 4-5 pool each turn - this whole setup is worth like milion_________
> of cards on the hand. Such decks are impossible to build correctly____________
> with 90 cards for example due to reasons Derek repeat here over and___________
> over.
.
By the time you have that kind of set up, you should have already won. I
Agree that setup is worth lots and lots of cards. The competition around
where I've played would never allow such a set up to happen, they'd either
block your equips, arson your locations, or burn your vamps. That's a real
Monty Haul playing scenario.
.
> happens only in endgame (2-3 people left including you) where your____________
> permanents are superior to their now jammed up because of 90 cards____________
> deck hand , if it happens otherwise the game last more than 2 hours___________
> which means it doesn't matter (from tournament perspective)
I seem to rarely have hand jams in my 90 card decks. Even ones without the
Barrens or dreams.
.
> http://www.geocities.com/area51/labyrinth/7031/decks.html_____________________
> and look to the latest addition - this deck demonstrated everything___________
> Derek say's , to your reference it
.
> Since you brought here an issue of Derek's V:EKN rating here note that________
> Xavier , Zolo and me (Karol Magda) are currenty in top 10 in Zolo's___________
> and my case certainly because we play less than 90 cards deck._
.
Nice some subtance, finally. So you regularly play with <90 librarys?
whats the average size of your library?
.
Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them are 90
card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were 90 card decks.
.
Brad Ward
Brad Ward
Interesting, in the 2001 NA Championship all 5 finalists had 90 card decks
and there was 3 Barrens amongst the 5, two of which were in the winning deck.
These piss poor players like Robert Goudie and Ben Peal really need to take
a lesson from Derek and slim down those fluff filled fat 90 card decks into
slimmer sleak ~75 card powerhouses filled with permanents and no more than
one of each unique card.
.
-Brad
Frederic Genest
>
> > gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> I think the correct figure is given by:
> > >>
> > >> Let s be the size of the deck.
> > >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
> > >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
> > >>
> > >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
> > >> P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
> > >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
>
> > >From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that
> > >subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy
> > >equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of
>
> well, there are factorials in the above expression. they're just
> expressed explicitly.
>
> n*(n-1)*...*(n-6) = n!/(n-7)!
>
> so, the above P(stuck) formula could be re-written:
>
> n!*(s-7)!
> P(stuck)= -------------
> s!*(n-7)!
Duh! (slaps head with hands) (knocks head on wall) (etc.)
Hidden in plain sight. Somebody must have had obfuscated the other
form ("Mask of 1k formulas"..?). I'm shamed. Thanks for pointing it
out.
Frederic.
Derek Ray
> The ratings still go up if you win and down if you lose. So even
> though they may not be perfect, they still represent who is winning
> and who is losing .
Hm. My rating is... 3046? Since all ratings start at 3000, that means I'm
winning. Not half bad for someone who doesn't care.
> Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them
> are 90 card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were
> 90 card decks. .
This is not a meaningful statement unless you also know how many decks in
those tournaments were LESS than 90 cards. In a field where all or nearly
all the decks are 90 cards, it's easy to predict that a 90-card deck will
win, and it proves nothing.
When challenging a current paradigm, it is not a valid defense to simply
quote the paradigm being challenged.
Fortunately, I believe LSJ has deck lists from everyone in the NAC, if he
is willing to post the number of "full" decks as compared to the number of
"short" ones. However, the only ACCURATE comparison of this type would be
to hold a tournament with an equal number of 60-, 70-, 80-, and 90-card
decks, and see which size did the best. And even then, there would be some
uncertainty from the fact that not all players would be of the same skill
level, and skill tends to matter more than deck size.
Emmit Svenson
number of certain awesome cards, putting them in a smaller deck
increases your chance of drawing them in at timely fashion. For
example, I own only three Freak Drives, so I put them in a 60-card
deck, along with my only Hostile Takeover. I've never run out of cards
with that deck either, since it packs plenty of Anarch Revolts.
Pat Ricochet
> On 23 Aug 2001 01:43:04 GMT, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>> produce some arguments backed by evidence
>
> I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping
> into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks
> listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for
> this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no
> winning library with fewer than 72 cards.
As Derek's said, the idea of using less than 90 cards in your library
(60 card bleed horrors aside) is a relatively New Thing (tm), and hasn't had
much time to catch on. It was a pretty foreign idea to everyone we even
knew till Tatu came up with trying it. We all thought he was crazy at
first, too.
> Also, neither the Barrens, Fragment of the Book of Nod nor Elder
> Library seem very popular. The Barrens is the only one to get
> significant usage - 12 decks out of 88.
>
> However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since
> April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA
> Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens.
Not that you could have known this, but some context shows that's quite
the exception and not the rule. I clearly remember Ben Peal when he was
last in Atlanta saying he puts the Barrens in EVERY deck, and that decks are
all about cardflow, not how many usable cards you have in your hand at any
given time. He also claims to play "with more Masters than any of you,"
("you" being limited to the 6 of us who still hadn't gone to bed) and I
believe him, having seen some of his decks.[0]
Add to that: I also remember Tatu's shock when Ben said yes, he was
*serious* when he said he could use more copies of the Barrens. I think
Tatu gave him about an inch worth of Barrens, and you'd think he just gave
him a stack of uncommons he's been looking for.
(To be fair, Ben likes to have a LOT of decks built at once; I've
actually traded Bum's Rushes in bulk to him for several uncommons and even
rares. =)
[0] I'm quite the opposite, and my reply to that was the origin of "the
grayer my hand, the grayer my mood."
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
Brad Ward
> No, Bradley, I'm saying exactly what I said above. Unique cards and cards ___
> you only have a few of (Shadow of the Beast in a PRO combat deck) are the ____
> ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller library. I'm sorry if you ____
> can't grasp basic English, and I'm sorry you don't understand ________________
> probabilities; it isn't simply "1/45th" or "1/60th". If you can't respond ___
.
You are the one who still doenst grasp it. I'll lay out some of the math
including the variance caused by having the same ratio in a larger deck.
.
Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5
marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble
the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble
content.
.
Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of
that marble being a red marble?
.
Here's the Answer:
5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%
10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%
.
Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3%
greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into
Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3
assault rifles:
.
Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards)
.
90 card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46%
60 card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09%
.
Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And this is
the most extreem difference in deck size possible in Jyhad. Let's take this
further and say you want to know the chance of drawing that assault rifle if
you burn through oh 15 cards looking for it
.
Chances of finding an assault rifle when cycling through 15 cards
.
90 card deck: 40.5%
60 card deck: 42.1%
.
Still only 1.6% difference when chugging through 15 cards!! to me, this does
not warrant limiting yourself to 60 cards.
.
Let's compare a 90 card deck with 6 assault rifles vs your favorite
75 card decks with 5 assault rifles (both decks 1/15th assault rifle)
.
Chance of drawing an assault rifle in first hand (7 cards)
.
90 card deck: 35%
75 card deck: 35.3%
.
chance of drawing an assault rifle after cycling 15 cards
.
90 card deck: 65.4%
75 card deck: 66.1%
.
> Yes, yes, Bradley, whatever. People who rely on discards too much are
> simply filling their deck with fluff. I personally enjoy using Dreams with
> a 75-card deck; it REALLY makes things go well. Of course, when I use
> Dreams this way, I actually get a FULL 9 useful cards, instead of having to
> use it to bring myself back up to an effective 7 cards, because I have two
> pieces of fluff in my hand I need to get rid of.
I've already proved with math (you may or maynot understand) that a 75 card
deck is going to function less than 1% better when using a dreams. That
is EXTREEMLY marginal and would not describe it as going REALLY well.
.
> >> Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in
> >> public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and
> >> search Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful
> >> behind them.
> > argument about Abomination vs Garou. That was somthing fairly simple,
> > variance and probability is a whole step above basic addition and
> > subtraction. .
> I accept your concession here, as well. This sort of blather is
> insubstantive and meaningless.
boy you sure like to point out concessions when they dont exist. You said
I was making random assertions. I stated that I have asserted you dont
know math from our past argument.
.
> Bradley, I'm starting to see why you're such a tool whereever you play, and
> why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little lost sheep.
Paul didnt lead me like a sheep, he simply lied to me about what phase we were
in. Do you consider this method of cheating sportsman like and good playing?
.
> You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the more
> cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much speaks for
> itself.
The more cards you play beneficially is certainly going to strengthen your deck.
.
> You have yet to have supported it with any evidence, though, Bradley.
> Random assertions will get you nowhere. Last chance.
see if you can comprehend the math above.
.
> I accept your concession that the deck's weak points make it very ____________
> unreliable. Soul Gem may well be the absolute key point in the deck, but ____
> the amount of fluff in that deck means that if you EVER stop its discarding __
> mechanism (the Distractions), then you kill the deck immediately.
Again with your concession problem, I said the deck could be better. Not that
your methods would make it better. You have conceeded that the "fluff" is
needed for that type of deck design. A good way to deal with not clogging
up with soul gems would be to add the barrens.
.
> I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and you again concede my point by ___
> failing to address it. If you have room for the Barrens, then include it. __
> But many times there are better Masters to include than the Barrens, and _____
> this is why fixating on it is not a good thing. Removing the need for the ___
> Barrens allows you to choose to remove the Barrens itself, making more room __
> for your primary strategy. The Barrens will never be a primary strategy; ____
> it will always be merely a support card.
You seem to have room for the barrens if your deck is only 75 cards. Hell
you could add Parthenon and the barrens and a frag and some dreams. Yeah
barrens suck, only beginner decks like Ben Peals NA championship winner would
dare to put 2 of them in his deck.
.
> Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you know ______
> better._
.
Actually I just know you mentioned Tatu. I dont know if you regularly play
with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only experience in
playing with him didnt seem like his deck did anything. Perhaps it was
just a case of the 75 card deck getting bad hand jam.
Maybe you have gotton a chance to play with Robin. Now she's a pretty good
player. Perhaps you can pick up some deck building tips from her.
.
> > You take a real "Hippy" approach to Jyhad. You think every card has________
> > its use and that less is more.______________________________________________
> > Truth is that everyone isn't a special star and more really is more.________
> More random babble. Bradley, you don't actually know a THING about me, so ___
> instead of spending all your adrenaline and rabid energy conducting random ___
> personal attacks against Tatu and thinking up fantasies of who I might _______
> be... why don't you actually attempt to respond to some things I say for a ___
> change? It would certainly be novel._
.
I do know you think every card has a good use to it and that smaller decks
are better. If not what are we arguing about here?
.
LSJ
> Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5
> marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble
> the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble
> content.
> .
> Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of
> .
> Here's the Answer:
> 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%
That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5).
> 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%
That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667
> .
> Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3%
> greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into
> Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3
> assault rifles:
> .
> Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards)
> .
> [60] card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46%
1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15%
> [90] card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09%
1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79%
> .
> Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And this is
The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity of your
point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged.
Sten During
Emmit Svenson wrote:
Agreed, but I think this subtopic of the topic actually deals with
wether lower than maxsized libraries will perform better than the
maxsized ones given a card-collection where you as a deck-
designer own at least 90 of every existing card.
From what I've read this far, the subthread has degenerated into
a abuse-contest, which is a pity. I know for certain that some
type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards, but
I most definitely don't know how to cathegorize those. My guess
is some kind of deck with heavy emphasis on permanents and
uniques and relatively few transients. However, if such a deck
will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on
transients remains a TOTALLY different question.
Sten
Derek Ray
> You are the one who still doenst grasp it. I'll lay out some of the
> math including the variance caused by having the same ratio in a
> larger deck. .
Congratulations. You have successfully recreated some of the math that I
did six months ago, when this subject was originally brought up. For
reference, please check Google on the following message-IDs... OK, don't
check Google for those, since it won't TELL me the message-IDs. Search
Google for threads with the subjects:
"How many turns in a game", and
"It's not the size that counts".
Both of these contain the math I worked on. They also contain some points
you won't like. You'll have to deal with it.
[math snipped, as I've done it all before and more besides... as I've
repeated OVER and OVER again, if you had the good sense to listen and the
clue to do your own web-search]
>> Bradley, I'm starting to see why you're such a tool whereever you
>> play, and why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little
>> lost sheep.
> .
> Paul didnt lead me like a sheep, he simply lied to me about what phase
> we were in. Do you consider this method of cheating sportsman like
> and good playing? .
He had a leash on you like a pimp had on his best ho, boy. You were
pissing, moaning, crying, and thinking about EVERYTHING except what was
happening on the table, because he fooled you. Welcome to Jedi Mind Trick
land; you have Been Tricked. (And yes, I think you should've been allowed
to replace the Wake. But it wouldn't have mattered; you STILL would've
been his tool.)
>> You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the
>> more cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much
>> speaks for itself.
> .
> The more cards you play beneficially is certainly going to strengthen
> your deck.
The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play beneficially
and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck. Make it too big, and
include too much crap, and you'll get hosed.
> Again with your concession problem, I said the deck could be better.
> Not that your methods would make it better. You have conceeded that
> the "fluff" is needed for that type of deck design. A good way to
> deal with not clogging up with soul gems would be to add the barrens.
I think that the Arika deck relies on a 5-card combo with 10 or more of
each card, actually, forcing it to be MUCH larger than it should really be
in order to be effective. For some giggly numbers:
The odds of getting a Soul Gem in the first 11 cards (opening hand and 4
discards before you get to take an action with Arika) are:
ncard(9,90,11) = 0.70859, or 71%. This is only slightly better than 2/3,
nothing I'd be TOO confident about. But you aren't totally screwed; if you
get a Distraction, you can go chasing for a Gem. This actually makes it,
to get either a Distraction or a Gem:
ncard(14,90,11) = 0.86234, 86%. That's much better. However, if you HAVE
to use a Distraction, the gem had better be in your next 5 cards:
ncard(9,79,5) = 0.46298, 46%. THAT sucks. Coin flips are bad enough
without having to take the short side on them. No wonder the deck had two
sweeps and two flops. You can also chunk around Praxis: Berlin and Freak
Drive (once) if you have those in your hand, but Distraction is your best
bet to get a Gem if you didn't get one already.
By the way, the 'ncard' you see here is a function I plugged into a tray-
calculator I have (www.allercalc.com) of the form:
1-((fact(b-a)*fact(b-c))/(fact(b)*fact(b-a-c))), where
a is the number of card "X" in the deck,
b is the number of cards currently in your library, and
c is the number of cards you intend to draw from that library.
It returns the likelihood of having at least one of card "X" in c cards
drawn. It also saved me a shitload of time 6 months ago, and it saved me a
shitload of time now.
> You seem to have room for the barrens if your deck is only 75 cards.
> Hell you could add Parthenon and the barrens and a frag and some
> dreams. Yeah barrens suck, only beginner decks like Ben Peals NA
> championship winner would dare to put 2 of them in his deck.
Again, I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and if I'm building a 75-
card deck, it's so I won't NEED the Barrens. You're so obsessed with
what's inside your own mind that you don't actually bother reading anything
that's said.
>> Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you
>> know ______ better._ .
> Actually I just know you mentioned Tatu. I dont know if you regularly
Oh, no, Bradley, you won't get out of it that easily. The only place I
mentioned Tatu in this thread before you took shots at him was when I gave
him credit for originally suggesting the "short deck" idea. I have taken
GREAT care not to mention who I was playing with this past Monday. You
went out of your way to make cracks about Tatu AND at the entire Atlanta
playgroup (there's only one, by the way), in hopes of somehow diminishing
my argument without actually providing any substance for your side.
Bradley, I'm going to say this once, and once only. Noal's message was
right on the button. That sort of stupid dick-waving not only won't get
you anywhere fast, it really DOES make you look like a complete waste of
skin. I don't personally give a shit what you say to me, because I don't
really think highly enough of you to care. When you start taking shots at
innocent bystanders who are also my friends, however, THEN I actually begin
to get annoyed.
Here's a lesson: Nobody gives a crap how good you think you are in V:TES.
Nobody cares about your rating except you. Nobody is the slightest bit
impressed. And you aren't as good as you think you are.
You've done well in this message by actually producing some math, although
you should have saved yourself the trouble and gone back and looked mine up
on Google. But this blather about how good you are and how everyone here
must suck is the mark of a pathetic, puling fool. Feel free to continue
the math, and say what you want to me, but as for the little side comments
about the rest of the group, please... put a sock in it. ;)
> play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only
This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking balls
to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or are yours
only marbles?
By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth move,
ex-lax.
> experience in playing with him didnt seem like his deck did anything.
> Perhaps it was just a case of the 75 card deck getting bad hand jam.
> Maybe you have gotton a chance to play with Robin. Now she's a pretty
> good player. Perhaps you can pick up some deck building tips from
> her. .
I have, in fact, had numerous opportunities to play with Robyn since she's
been here. We have had quite a few very interesting discussions regarding
deckbuilding. And she is quite a good player. I'm glad you don't think
our ENTIRE group sucks. We would just be heartbroken.
> I do know you think every card has a good use to it and that smaller
> decks are better. If not what are we arguing about here?
I do, in fact, believe smaller decks can be better (for the appropriate
deck). Peter's Rush deck would probably not do as well at 80 cards, since
it tends to run out of cards anyway. However, a lot of decks COULD do much
better with a trim-down; and some decks do VERY well if you break the
proportions. Curious as to what I mean? Go read the Google threads.
Derek Ray
> Agreed, but I think this subtopic of the topic actually deals with
> wether lower than maxsized libraries will perform better than the
> maxsized ones given a card-collection where you as a deck-
> designer own at least 90 of every existing card.
Dat's der bunny.
> From what I've read this far, the subthread has degenerated into
> a abuse-contest, which is a pity. I know for certain that some
OK, let's fix that by starting it off over HERE *without* the idiot
involved. I probably should've just gone back and scrounged up my old
posts and reposted them in the first place, really. =/
> type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards, but
> I most definitely don't know how to cathegorize those. My guess
> is some kind of deck with heavy emphasis on permanents and
> uniques and relatively few transients. However, if such a deck
> will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on
> transients remains a TOTALLY different question.
Well, one trick is, of course, getting the permanents and uniques in play.
If you're sitting next to Ridiculous Intercept(tm), you won't actually have
anything happen, and you'll die. But Creepshow Casino has definitely put
some help on the table for "permanents" decks; imagine a Tzimisce all-VIC
deck that keeps equipping Revenants at +3 stealth (casino + Changeling).
That's beyond the reach of 2nd Tradition, and therefore is quite
reliable... and once you get 3 Revenants on a minion and a news location
out, you no longer actually need any transient Auspex cards. Yes, you're
vulnerable to Call of the Grateful Telemarketers, Elder Impersonation, and
Seduction, but so is a transient intercept deck, really.
However, my original point (long ago) was something different. If you
break the proportions when reducing the deck size, and focus more clearly
on what you WANT to do, and how many times you REALLY want to play a
certain card, then you can actually improve a deck. THEN, you want to find
a deck's ideal size, which is where it has less than 10 cards in its
library when you win (or are ousted). For some decks, this will still be
90. For others, it can be smaller, reaping the inherent benefits.
Pat Ricochet
>
>> It may seem too obvious to state, but if you only have a limited
>> number of certain awesome cards, putting them in a smaller deck
>> increases your chance of drawing them in at timely fashion. For
>> example, I own only three Freak Drives, so I put them in a 60-card
>> deck, along with my only Hostile Takeover. I've never run out of cards
>> with that deck either, since it packs plenty of Anarch Revolts.
>
> Agreed, but I think this subtopic of the topic actually deals with
> wether lower than maxsized libraries will perform better than the
> maxsized ones given a card-collection where you as a deck-
> designer own at least 90 of every existing card.
type, I can try to make a 75 card version of it, right? All I have to do is
take out cards.
> From what I've read this far, the subthread has degenerated into
> a abuse-contest, which is a pity. I know for certain that some
> type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards, but
> I most definitely don't know how to cathegorize those. My guess
> is some kind of deck with heavy emphasis on permanents and
> uniques and relatively few transients.
That's actually not the issue under discussion, though it is an
interesting question in it's own right, but you need to drop the 90 card max
as "generally best"... or, at least, THAT'S what's under discussion.
The premise is this: for most 90 card decks, those the win lots and
those that don't win lots, you usually end up with 20+ cards left over in
your library at the end of the game (especially in 2-hour timeout
tournaments). Not only that, but every player has spent time discarding
cards they didn't need, whether duplicates of uniques, or just cycling to
get to "that card you need."
David Tatu, the Doubly Evil One, surmised one evening that you could
thin a deck out by ratios or somesuch to have the same effective deck, but
could maybe reduce the clumping, and make more effective use of your
discards.
Derek and Brad BOTH have produced math showing that there is a finite,
positive, albeit small, increase in getting or cycling efficiently to "the
card you need" in having a smaller deck size.
The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found
that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better. 65-70 starts to
get too small, and 90 starts to get unwieldy.
(special note: 60-card bleed monsters don't count, because 60 cards is
all you need to oust most tables when it's all Dominate. And for combat
decks, it's not hard to blow through 90 cards.)
Anyway, the conclusion being that, instead of:
> for certain that some
> type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards,
I'd say it as "MOST types of decks are usually better off with less than
90 cards."
> However, if such a deck
> will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on
> transients remains a TOTALLY different question.
A yet third question, actually. =)
But, to be honest, it's not totally unrelated. If you build a deck to
run through all it's cards by the end of the game, you have most all your
permanents in play, and you probably got them earlier on. And, since you DO
have less cards (undisputable fact), you are certainly more capable of
running out of cards, so you might toss in a .44, say, when designing the
deck.
However, experience has shown that you don't need to discard as much
with a tighter, smaller deck, and that you don't necessarily run out of
cards (90/N) times faster. Some of that is of course knowing that you HAVE
less cards, so you don't discard as freely, but that's never kept me from
discarding something I didn't need to go fishing for something I did.
The big point we're trying to get out there is TRY IT. We've played 90
card decks, and we all KNOW the pain of finding 10 cards, much less 15
cards, that you can take out, so it's kind of hard to get up the gumption to
strip GOOD, useful cards out of your deck. But, if you regularly leave 20+
GOOD, useful cards in your library by the end of the game, why not try it?
Better yet: If you've even clumped up and gotten killed before you could
get going, those 60+ cards in you library aren't doing you much good either!
What *I* think is the more interesting point is: Why does 75-80 cards
seem to work? For 4 and 5 player games, taking about 12 turns, and lasting
2 hours or less (basically irrelevant data with "about 12 turns" in there,
but) it seems to.
The only one I've really hammered on is that in a 12 turn game, you get
12 Master Phase actions, (usually 11, since so many Masters can't be played
on turn 1) and 12 discards. You can build a deck around the Parthenon and
the Barrens to get around these, introducing some fragility and
unreliability, but there are some tricks that just require this (lots of
Masters, fast, and then discarding lots of duplicates later on; a Brainwash
deck, say). But, outside of that, those kind of dictate things to every
deck about cardflow, affecting both cards cycled each turn, and the maximum
number of cards you'll ever play in a game.
But, it's a function of, well, everything: That vampires bleed for 1,
but can bleed for up to 6 (sometimes more). That you start with 30 pool.
That KRC does 3 and 1. That you get 4 transfers per influence phase. And
so on. This really gets into the MEAT of the game and it's flow, and the
kind of thing I'd like to get Legbiter chewing on. (Hi, James! =)
Roger Carhult
> >> your back. Sucks to fight the Assamites/Tzimisce/Gangrel, but
> >> everything has its weakness.
> >
> > Hmm ever tried with Adaptability? The card normally sucks, but with
> > FoM and no fortitude it can be a nice surprise factor =)
>
> I've actually thrown a few of them in a Protean 'banzai' deck before,
yeah.
> It comes in handy to stop, say, Dragon's Breath Rounds or the Escaped
> Mental Patient, and it can handle the occasional Breath of the Dragon from
> a fiend-deck, but the Assamites tend to just Blur and hit you again, the
> Gangrel usually press, and the Tzimisce are normally packing 9,207,398
> aggravated-damage cards (good old Choppy Marauder). =)
I usually play them in !Gangrel decks since the city ones lack fortitude. If
you have some celerity then you can always make additional strikes or press
against. Of course you could dodge too, but I guess it comes down to a
matter of taste and whather all of your !Gangrels have celerity or not
(Catilin and Pieter does not for example and they're good vamps). I've yet
to play an Adaptability ina game though! I include them sometimes (I've got
3) but never got agg when having them in hand and including more (by
borrowing) is a rather waste of slots I think.
Derek Ray
> ncard(9,79,5) = 0.46298, 46%. THAT sucks. Coin flips are bad enough
Self-correction: should be ncard(9,79,6) = 0.5283, 53%. Forgot to replace
the Distraction before performing its effect.
This logical extension follows, now that more of this is coming back to me:
the -true- chance of getting a Gem in the early game, whether via a
Distraction or just having one, is:
ncard(9,90,11) = 0.70859 (original chance of Soul Gem in hand)
ncard(5,90,11) = 0.48719 (chance of having Distraction in hand)
ncard(9,79,6) = 0.5283 (chance of drawing up Gem via Distraction)
1-.70859 = 0.29141*.5283*.48719 = 0.075004+.70589 = 0.78089, or 78%.
This is only 4 in 5. While I'll bet on it in Vegas all day long, it's a
little bit scary in a V:TES deck, especially for something the deck
absolutely MUST have to operate.
If you want to make things a little scarier, he has 9 stealth cards in. To
be proof against early-game light intercept, he'd also like to have a
stealth card handy while he's equipping the Gem (or chasing it via
Distraction). Chance to have stealth early is exactly the same as the Gem,
so you can simply take 0.78089*.70589 = 0.55122, or 55%. Add in the chance
of replacing the Distraction with a stealth card, and you get an extra
0.033197 to make 0.58442. This doesn't allow for the chance of drawing
into stealth from the resolution of the Distraction action, but someone who
is able will be intercepting the Distraction anyway, so it's not quite
relevant. And 58% would make ME worried; a LOT of people are packing +1
intercept these days.
This whole exercise had little bearing on the main debate, I know. But it
was amusing, and probably informational in SOME fashion. =)
Gene Wirchenko
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> I think the correct figure is given by:
>> >>
>> >> Let s be the size of the deck.
>> >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck.
>> >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.)
>> >>
>> >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6)
>> >> P(stuck)= -------------------------------------
>> >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6)
>>
>> >From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that
>> >subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy
>> >equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of
>
>well, there are factorials in the above expression. they're just
>expressed explicitly.
There are no factorials in the above expression. There aren't
any dollar bills either. "explicitly" doesn't mean implied but the
opposite.
>n*(n-1)*...*(n-6) = n!/(n-7)!
>
>so, the above P(stuck) formula could be re-written:
>
> n!*(s-7)!
>P(stuck)= -------------
> s!*(n-7)!
Sure, you can rewrite with factorials, but the resulting
expression is more complex. Unless you cancel out values, you will
get numbers well over 10^100. (70! is just over 10^100, and 90! is
even bigger.)
For s=90, c=20, and n=70, it is much easier to calculate
70*69*68*67*66*65*64
--------------------
90*89*88*87*86*85*84
than
70!*83!
-------
90!*63!
If you do cancel out values, you end up with the first
expression anyway.
[snip]
>and it's just a hell of a lot neater to write them as factorials,
>especially if you have, say, a hand size of 11.
It's neater from the theoretical perspective, but more awkward
for calculating.
From My Sig Collection:
The difference between theory and practice in practice is bigger than
the difference between theory and practice in theory.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Wes
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Nor will you see any evidence, as far as THAT approach is concerned; this
> theory isn't all THAT old, and hasn't had a whole lot of time to
propagate.
> Prior to now, conventional wisdom held that 90 cards was the only way to
> fly.
I think that the idea of keeping a deck at the smallest optimal size is
fairly intuitive; it's just that how large that optimal size will need to be
is always going to change. If I know that 60 cards are enough for my deck to
do what it needs to do, then 60 is good enough and any more would be
redundant. However, I cannot reliably say that I won't need 30 extra cards
(in most deck-types anyway).
I think there is a natural tendency to assume that games will last longer
than they do. And since we cannot accurately predict how long a given game
will be, we often guesstimate on the assumption that it will be longer than
it actually will be. So where 60 cards is usually safe, 90 *feels* safe.
A deck which forces the table to become much faster can take away this doubt
altogether. If I know that my deck is capable of tremendous speed, indeed
relies on its speed, then I can reliably prepare less cards for a shorter
game. I don't *know* that the game will be shorter, but since *I* know how
my deck works, it's probably a safe bet.
My weenie politics deck, listed here for your convenience uses only 60
cards. I made this decision based on several factors:
1) I used *no* disciplines and therefore had fewer options to work with
2) I had to be *sure* that at least one of my Praxis Seizure cards came up
in the first hand... preferrably two or three.
3) Limited resources (using a lot of the same cards was at that time a
problem... some Conservative Agitations vs KRC frex)
4) I had no need to prepare for a long haul... I only needed to be sure that
I had vote lock to reliably oust all of my opponents within about eight
turns.
I saw no reason to increase this to 90 cards, and in fact using 90 cards
would have made it considerably harder to get going. The deck relies on its
speed and the inability of opposing Methuselahs to outvote you in the first
two turns. Failing that, being able to shmooze a vote always helped.
Since I didn't prepare for combat aside from a few dodges, nor for intercept
except for a few Change of Targets, this deck really needed to just
concentrate on what it did best and ignore everything else.
If I wanted to take this further, I could just eliminate most of the Masters
and non-damaging votes and just go for 20 Praxis Seizures and 20 KRC. I
think the actual minimum is 40 cards, correct? Of course, this would also
create a new problem... the deck would be as boring as shit. I suppose if I
did that, I could also choose to go 45 PS and 45 KRC, but this would
actually make it slightly harder to get those initial PS out, and indeed I
would spend much of the game discarding the PS that I don't need (which is
already a problem).
Cheers,
WES
CRYPT (12 vampires)
Julius 1
Navar McClaren 1
Antoinette DuChamp 1
Hasina Kesi 1
Smudge the Ignored 1
Nik 1
Igo the Hungry 1
Franciscus 1
Angel 2
Rufina Soledad 2
Magdelena Schaefer 2
Normal 2
Roreca Quaid 2
Dimple 2
Total 20 -- Average 1.6 -- Best 4 -- Worst 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
LIBRARY (60 cards; 12 Master, 48 Minion)
Effective Management 5
Anarch Revolt 4
Info Highway
Elysium: the Arboretum
Antedilluvean Awakening
Praxis Seizure (various, less-popular ones) 15
Kine Resources Contested 15
Dodge 4
Change of Target 2
Autarkis Persecution 2
Banishment 2
Disputed Territory 2
Judgment: Camarilla Segregation
The First Tradition: The Masquerade
Dramatic Upheaval
Kindred Restructure
Political Flux
Rumors of Gehenna
Brad Ward
> Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of
> ._____________________________________________________________________________
> Here's the Answer:____________________________________________________________
> 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%_________________________________________
> 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%_____________________________________
sorry, this example was for drawing 3 marbles from the bag, not 2.
-brad
Wes
"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote
>
> I LOVE running into a Raptor-deck, but then I like playing with a
> green wave - blue wake deck. Tap out using all your actions and
> fill your hand with blue ones, react like mad etc etc etc. Usually
> breaks sometime during the game, and then forcing another Meth
> to cycle my hand comes in REALLY handy :) Also proves that I
> need to tune my decks better - if I get hand-jam it's because I've
> constructed a less than optimal deck.
I'm sorry... 'green wave', 'blue wake'? Are these Magic: the Crack Habit
concepts or am I missing something?
Cheers,
WES
Andrew S. Davidson
>The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found
>that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better.
But I don't play in Atlanta. One thing we observe about the folk
there - yourself, David Tatu, Derek Ray, LSJ - is that you go on and
on. If you get a game where folk keep yapping (like the NA
championship final) then not many turns will be played before time is
up. But supposing folk play at a brisk pace instead - maybe there's a
more significant risk of running out of cards. I'm not taking that
chance for a marginal increase in focus.
BTW, I don't know why folk think this is such a revolutionary concept.
Keeping your deck to the minimum size is almost an article of faith in
Magic. It's a flaw in the game, IMO - there should be pros and cons
to decks of different sizes - makes for a more interesting metagame
that way.
Note that the DCI/VEKN tournament rules mandate a deck minimum of 60
rather than the rulebook's 40. This suggests that there was a time
when players were aping Magic and trimming their decks as tight as
possible, eh? Otherwise, why bother to raise the minimum?
Andrew
James Coupe
<wa...@nevada.edu> writes
>Interesting, in the 2001 NA Championship all 5 finalists had 90 card decks
In a situation where the concept of slimming down to 70 is supported by
a small minority of players, this is to be expected.
>and there was 3 Barrens amongst the 5, two of which were in the winning deck.
>These piss poor players
No-one's said that, so far as I can see. The suggestion is how to make
a good deck better. (Obviously, we can all debate our views as to
whether it could/would work.)
>like Robert Goudie and Ben Peal really need to take
>a lesson from Derek and slim down those fluff filled fat 90 card decks into
>slimmer sleak ~75 card powerhouses filled with permanents and no more than
>one of each unique card.
For many deck strategies, the idea has some potential. In a one-trick
pony deck, this will reduce (though I recall the statistics show that it
isn't a huge reduction) the chance of unfortunate runs (in a deck with
12 Bum's Rushes, you'll get more chance of hand jam on them than in a
deck with 8, say).
This does, however, work against the toolboxing principle. Those 15
cards could quite happily include 2 Dreams, 6 Wakes, 4 Deflections, 1
Archon Investigation and 2 Delaying Tactics, say. I, for one, have seen
a number of powerful decks excel with such diversity at their finger-
tips.
Where one is playing a clearly focused deck, slimming can be a useful
aid, though.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F
They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6
I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>Note that the DCI/VEKN tournament rules mandate a deck minimum of 60
>rather than the rulebook's 40. This suggests that there was a time
>when players were aping Magic and trimming their decks as tight as
>possible, eh? Otherwise, why bother to raise the minimum?
There was a fairly large amount of the DCI rules for Magic that was just
adopted more or less wholesale. This might have been one of them,
originally.
Derek Ray
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:13:48 -0500, Pat Ricochet wrote:
>
>>The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found
>>that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better.
>
> But I don't play in Atlanta. One thing we observe about the folk
> there - yourself, David Tatu, Derek Ray, LSJ - is that you go on and
> on. If you get a game where folk keep yapping (like the NA
> championship final) then not many turns will be played before time is
> up. But supposing folk play at a brisk pace instead - maybe there's a
> more significant risk of running out of cards. I'm not taking that
> chance for a marginal increase in focus.
(puzzle) Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure where you got THAT impression; we're
the ones who originally counted turns and came up with a consistent average
of 12, while everyone else was guessing 20-and-up. During the time we were
counting, we NEVER had to call a game on time, either. 12 turns is NOT an
especially long game; it's actually kind of a pointy, vicious one.
We *will* stop and make deals[0] whenever we see a convenient opportunity
[1], and that might have contributed some to the impression. I understand
that you and Tatu have met several times, and he's certainly fond of
offering deals[2]. But I don't believe we necessarily play at a SLOW pace;
and how much time any given turn takes doesn't have a direct effect on the
number of cards played. More vice-versa, really; there simply isn't much
to deal about on "Govern, Lost in Crowds", but an AWFUL lot more to discuss
with regard to "Charming Lobby, KRC, Bewitching Oration, Malkavian Rider
Clause". =)
Oh, LSJ is in the Carolinas, by the way, not Atlanta. =) But I suppose if
you lump all the Southeast US players together...
> BTW, I don't know why folk think this is such a revolutionary concept.
Actually, I don't either, if you want the truth. The little I knew about
CCGs before I started this game was Magic, and the dogma there was 40 cards
or bust.
> Keeping your deck to the minimum size is almost an article of faith in
> Magic. It's a flaw in the game, IMO - there should be pros and cons
> to decks of different sizes - makes for a more interesting metagame
> that way.
Fortunately, there ARE. =) Short decks CAN run out.
> Note that the DCI/VEKN tournament rules mandate a deck minimum of 60
> rather than the rulebook's 40. This suggests that there was a time
> when players were aping Magic and trimming their decks as tight as
> possible, eh? Otherwise, why bother to raise the minimum?
(shrug) I remember seeing a 40-card weenie bleed deck a long time ago.
This certainly makes sense to -me-.
-- Derek
[0] lie
[1] someone whose position is tits-up
[2] blatant lies
Karol Magda
> > V:EKN ratings are not working as they should , you won't go to the____________
> > finals with 1.5 all other 0.5 VP deck but your V:EKN ratings will be__________
> > VERY high with such a deck.
> .
> The ratings still go up if you win and down if you lose. So even though
> they may not be perfect, they still represent who is winning and who is losing
They go sometimes way down when you are losing by gaining 0 VP in
tournament round you can lose anything between 16-64 points although
when you get majority of V.P (3-5) you always get 64 (assuming
everyone has equal rating and 5 people table) .That means that ratings
are little bit out of way and using 'you have less than average
rating' 'argument' when all rest fail is little bit silly.
> > Even if run out of cards in deck (especially 60-70 cards permanent____________
> > deck) it's not that bad ... you have probably +2 intercept on one_____________
> > vampire and aproximately 10 point of bleed on the table and oh you are________
> > gaing like 4-5 pool each turn - this whole setup is worth like milion_________
> > of cards on the hand. Such decks are impossible to build correctly____________
> > with 90 cards for example due to reasons Derek repeat here over and___________
> > over.
> .
> By the time you have that kind of set up, you should have already won. I
> Agree that setup is worth lots and lots of cards. The competition around
> where I've played would never allow such a set up to happen, they'd either
> block your equips, arson your locations, or burn your vamps. That's a real
> Monty Haul playing scenario.
The competition here is VERY fierce but even then such setup CAN
happen , anyway having LOT of permanent in play counts for lot of
cards , especially in endgame and I built my decks accordingly.
> .
> > happens only in endgame (2-3 people left including you) where your____________
> > permanents are superior to their now jammed up because of 90 cards____________
> > deck hand , if it happens otherwise the game last more than 2 hours___________
> > which means it doesn't matter (from tournament perspective)
> .
> I seem to rarely have hand jams in my 90 card decks. Even ones without the
> Barrens or dreams.
> http://www.geocities.com/area51/labyrinth/7031/decks.html_____________________
> > and look to the latest addition - this deck demonstrated everything___________
> > Derek say's , to your reference it
> This doesnt seem to demonstrate anything Derek has said. It just lists decks.
Look at the last deck and count number of cards. It's very succesful
deck (two tournament wins) but is still using 70 card , it shows at
the very least that concept of less than 90 cards in deck is perfectly
viable.
.
> > Since you brought here an issue of Derek's V:EKN rating here note that________
> > Xavier , Zolo and me (Karol Magda) are currenty in top 10 in Zolo's___________
> > and my case certainly because we play less than 90 cards deck._
> .
> Nice some subtance, finally. So you regularly play with <90 librarys?
> whats the average size of your library?
Average size of library is around 70. I prepare my decks for average
12 turns games (it was first said by Derek , my testing showed that
average game last 12 turns)
> .
> Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them are 90
> card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were 90 card decks.
As other people have pointed out this concept is new to most people.
Kajik
> .
> Brad Ward
Jason Bell
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> Brad Ward wrote:
> > Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack
has 5
> > marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red
marble
> > the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red
marble
> > content.
> > .
> > Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the
chances of
> > [one of those marbles] being a red marble?
> > .
> > Here's the Answer:
> > 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%
>
> That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5).
Um, shouldn't that be 40%? The 60% is the chance
that neither draw is the red marble (80% first draw) X
(75% second draw) = 60%. And the 40% of one red marble
is the rest of the universe of two draw probability (100%).
If you don't like the bass acward way of doing it, go with
20% (got it first draw) + 80% (darn) X (25% get it second).
Pretty sure, but math is my least favorite thing to do
on newsgroup, what with all the fire.
Check that, math corrections are my least
favorite thing to do on newsgroup.
> > 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%
>
> That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667
Um, this one is a bit more difficult, since the question
doesn't make it clear whether it's ok to draw two red
marbles. But I think it's
80% (not red first) X 78% (not red second) = 62% that
neither are red. That means 38% that at least one is
red, but you may have to subtract the 2% chance that
both are red if that's important, which would make a 36%
chance that exactly one is red. I think.
If not, it's on account of my being terribly stupid.
> > Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a
8.3%
> > greater chance of pulling the red marble.
I think it's either a 2% better or 4% better, depending on how many
reds are acceptable.
> > But now lets take this example into
> > Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3
> > assault rifles:
> > .
> > Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards)
> > .
> > [60] card deck:
1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46%
>
> 1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15%
This looks right.
> > [90] card deck:
1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09%
>
> 1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79%
Also looks right.
But again, we don't know whether it is acceptable to have multiple assault
rifles
in the opening hand or not. I refuse to do the calculation for this one, on
account
of my profound laziness.
> > Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And
this is
>
> The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity
of your
> point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged.
Oh well, I suppose I'll weigh in with my opinion of smaller vs. larger
decks.
I like 90, not only because I may run out of cards, but because I like
the freedom of discarding something that's not vital *right now* but
may be vital later, where in a smaller deck, I may be forced to hang onto
such a card because it is necessary later.
To use the Assault Rifle example above, given that I have one in my opening
hand and don't want it until turn 4 or even 6 (maybe bad example for
Assault Rifle, but I'm using the example anyway), I can discard it from
my 90 card deck, knowing I have 2 in my next 83 cards. With the 60
card deck, I may not like the lower probability of getting the only other
one in my next say, 10 cards.
By the way, I think that probability would be:
Getting at least one more Assault Rifle in my next 10 cards:
90 card deck (83 remaining cards when AR discarded) = 22.8%
60 card deck (53 remaining cards when AR discarded) = 18.9%
I suppose 4 percentage points is not such a big deal, but the
90 card deck has a 20% better chance relative to the 60 card.
But third and last, the reason I like 90 is that I can put some
specialized cards in the 90 deck and plan to filter them out if they
aren't useful, while that is less of an option in a 60. Cards that alone
can hose certain types of decks (maybe Dog Pack, maybe Atonement,
Far Mastery, Archon Investigation) are nice to have a chance at,
but may not always desirable or woth playing at certain tables or
in certain seating positions.
I don't think I could put all those bells and whistles in if I limited
myself to 60, and those bells and whistles are one of the reasons I
enjoy the game (and random event games more generally).
My friends always (and rightly) criticize me for letting my
sealed and draft Magic decks creep over 40 cards, but that's
the way I like to play.
On a final note, since I am responding to LSJ, let me beg the
V:tES gods for some clan hosers that have a backup purpose.
Most of the clan hosers weren't amazingly useful before the
number of clans exploded (I've never seen a Letter from Vienna
played), and are almost unusable now. If these cards had a
secondary purpose, or even the ability to gain another discard
action if they are discarded during the discard phase (maybe
even then only if none of the appropriate clan are in play),
perhaps they could see some play.
As an excercise for the reader, how many tournament winning decks
have included a clan hoser (excluding Malkavian Dementia)? A single
Brujah Frenzy? One Cultivated Blood Shortage? One Obsession?!?
A very small handful overall, of probably over 100 decks that I
searched through (I am, as always, grateful for your site, Lasombra).
- Jason Bell
Sten During
>
>
> However, my original point (long ago) was something different. If you
> break the proportions when reducing the deck size, and focus more clearly
> on what you WANT to do, and how many times you REALLY want to play a
> certain card, then you can actually improve a deck. THEN, you want to find
> a deck's ideal size, which is where it has less than 10 cards in its
> library when you win (or are ousted). For some decks, this will still be
> 90. For others, it can be smaller, reaping the inherent benefits.
No objections here ;)
I have a feeling that some combat-decks will actually have an optimal size
far larger than the tournament-legal.
Sten During
Oh, it's all about probability actually. A deck based around a somewhat
even distribution of cards (masters uncounted) that can be used wither
during your actions or during your reactions will see your hand slowly
filling up with reactioncards (may be combat-ones you prefer to use
when blocking as well) while you tap out taking all your actions.
After that, when you wake/block/deflect etc, your hand will slowly
be less and less adequate for reactions, which if your deck is well
balanced is good as you're not only reacting but also preparing for
your own turna again.
So, action-cards are green (and in this case equipment etc are conceptually
green as well), and any reaction-card is then conceptually blue.
Sten During
> > Well, it's not THAT abstract. If I can make a 90-card of, well, ANY
> type, I can try to make a 75 card version of it, right? All I have to do is
> take out cards.
Only if you don't count on running out of cards during the game as a
result.
>
>
> The premise is this: for most 90 card decks, those the win lots and
> those that don't win lots, you usually end up with 20+ cards left over in
> your library at the end of the game (especially in 2-hour timeout
> tournaments). Not only that, but every player has spent time discarding
> cards they didn't need, whether duplicates of uniques, or just cycling to
> get to "that card you need."
Ending up with x cards should actually be counted only in those games
where you achieve your goal, which should be to get a minimum of
3 VP and preferably to sweep. For simplicity, never count a game
where you're not the last man standing.
> Derek and Brad BOTH have produced math showing that there is a finite,
> positive, albeit small, increase in getting or cycling efficiently to "the
> card you need" in having a smaller deck size.
If the chance is one third of a precent better, then the deck is one third of
a percent better, which still is better. It actually doesn't matter how much
better.
> I'd say it as "MOST types of decks are usually better off with less than
> 90 cards."
I'd say that most decks would benefit from adding more weenies, but that
is very often a rather hated idea. People don't like weeniestupidity actually
performing very well, but I don't hear many complaints about the one
single unbalance in the game that is clear. This game is all about being
able to perform the largest amount of actions and reactions. Weenie-decks
get that advantage so easily that they're more forgiving to designers
building otherwise less than optimal libraries.
>
>
> > However, if such a deck
> > will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on
> > transients remains a TOTALLY different question.
>
> A yet third question, actually. =)
> But, to be honest, it's not totally unrelated. If you build a deck to
> run through all it's cards by the end of the game, you have most all your
> permanents in play, and you probably got them earlier on. And, since you DO
> have less cards (undisputable fact), you are certainly more capable of
> running out of cards, so you might toss in a .44, say, when designing the
> deck.
>
I partially agree here. I think the question to ask is how many cards will I
be playing in average per action/reaction, and then start counting
minions. If we assume an 12 round game the math should be pretty
straightforward.
>
> The only one I've really hammered on is that in a 12 turn game, you get
> 12 Master Phase actions, (usually 11, since so many Masters can't be played
> on turn 1) and 12 discards. You can build a deck around the Parthenon and
> the Barrens to get around these, introducing some fragility and
>
I personally don't like discard-enhancers as they make me feel that I've
failed during deck-construction somewhere else. I do have a fondness
for mastercards and often play with Anson and the Parthenon, but that's
because I can make good use of two masteractions.
There's one obvious deck-type that'll make VERY good use of discard-
enhancers, and that's a massive Embrace/Progeny -deck. You pour in
far more diciplinecards than what's good for you and throw them away
as they come, but in this case we're not discarding an unwanted card.
LSJ
> wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote:
> > Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them
> > are 90 card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were
> > 90 card decks. .
>
> This is not a meaningful statement unless you also know how many decks in
> those tournaments were LESS than 90 cards. In a field where all or nearly
> all the decks are 90 cards, it's easy to predict that a 90-card deck will
> win, and it proves nothing.
>
> When challenging a current paradigm, it is not a valid defense to simply
> quote the paradigm being challenged.
>
> Fortunately, I believe LSJ has deck lists from everyone in the NAC, if he
> is willing to post the number of "full" decks as compared to the number of
> "short" ones.
The NAC event hosted 37 players.
25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries).
7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89).
5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76).
0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to rulebook, card text, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Bradly Ward
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B8554A8...@white-wolf.com...
> > Here's the Answer:
> > 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%
>
> That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5).
>
> > 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%
>
> That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667
Yeah, I Was using Excel spreadsheet to do the calculation and accidently
left the first iteration out of the calc. Made each of the probabilities a
little lower than they should be.
> > Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a
8.3%
> > greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this
example into
> > Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3
> > assault rifles:
> > .
> > Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards)
> .
> > [60] card deck:
1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46%
>
> 1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15%
>
> > [90] card deck:
1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09%
>
> 1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79%
> The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity
of your
> point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged.
yeah, even with the first iteration left and the numbers arent exact, the
difference between them is about the same.
brad
Andrew S. Davidson
>The NAC event hosted 37 players.
That seems low when the program advertised 50 places and the qualifier
attracted 70. And not being a multiple of 5 is an obvious nuisance.
You should arrange it so that the final on-site qualifier provides a
reserve list to fill up all the empty places resulting from no-shows.
>25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries).
> 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89).
> 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76).
> 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries.
I hope you're going publish more stats and/or deck lists. It'd be
interesting to see what the metagame was like there - the exact mix of
clans and deck types.
Andrew
Derek Ray
news:eb4eb7f8.01082...@posting.google.com:
> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> When challenging a current paradigm, it is not a valid defense to
>> simply quote the paradigm being challenged.
>>
>> Fortunately, I believe LSJ has deck lists from everyone in the NAC,
>> if he is willing to post the number of "full" decks as compared to
>> the number of "short" ones.
Muchas gracias, senor.
> The NAC event hosted 37 players.
>
> 25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries).
> 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89).
for purposes of producing as realistic as possible numbers, i'm going to
add the three decks which contained 87+ cards into the "full library" slot.
I am aware that this technically is not accurate, but realistically, the
difference between an 87-card and a 90-card library is insigificant at
best. Note that all my posts advocate removing at LEAST ten cards from
your library in order to have ANY appreciable impact.
> 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76).
> 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries.
So, this gives us a tournament in which 76% were "full" decks, 11% were 80-
ish card decks, and 13% were 70-ish card decks.
Strictly according to the math, this should produce a final with 4 "full"
decks and one "short" deck. Further analysis of the "short" decks could
help indicate whether or not their "shortness" was at fault, or whether or
not their concepts were ill-advised; however, I don't think we need to do
this. Again, to make any results drawn from an exercise such as this truly
valid, the tournament would have needed to have 9 in each "slot".
Bradly Ward
> >> play, and why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little
> >> lost sheep.
> > .
> > Paul didnt lead me like a sheep, he simply lied to me about what phase
> > we were in. Do you consider this method of cheating sportsman like
> > and good playing? .
>
> He had a leash on you like a pimp had on his best ho, boy. You were
> pissing, moaning, crying, and thinking about EVERYTHING except what was
> happening on the table, because he fooled you. Welcome to Jedi Mind Trick
> land; you have Been Tricked. (And yes, I think you should've been allowed
> to replace the Wake. But it wouldn't have mattered; you STILL would've
> been his tool.)
>
You werent there, you dont know what your talking about. You just talking
out of your ass again.
> >> You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the
> >> more cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much
> >> speaks for itself.
> > .
> > The more cards you play beneficially is certainly going to strengthen
> > your deck.
>
> The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play
beneficially
> and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck. Make it too big, and
> include too much crap, and you'll get hosed.
I will accept your concession that a deck that flows through 90 cards played
is better than a deck that only flows through 60 cards played.
[Snip repeat of math on arika deck and dereks nerdy calculator talk]
> > You seem to have room for the barrens if your deck is only 75 cards.
> > Hell you could add Parthenon and the barrens and a frag and some
> > dreams. Yeah barrens suck, only beginner decks like Ben Peals NA
> > championship winner would dare to put 2 of them in his deck.
>
> Again, I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and if I'm building a 75-
> card deck, it's so I won't NEED the Barrens. You're so obsessed with
> what's inside your own mind that you don't actually bother reading
anything
> that's said.
And im saying that if you only have 75 cards you could add 2 barrens and 13
other cards to you deck. Then you have an extra discard every turn and a
better ability to dynamically enhance your decks capabilities.
Seems like we both understand each other on this point, but still have
diffrernce of opinions on which method is better. You like small with 1
discard. Given those as the only two choices, I like big with 2 discards.
> >> Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you
> >> know ______ better._ .
> > Actually I just know you mentioned Tatu. I dont know if you regularly
>
> Oh, no, Bradley, you won't get out of it that easily. The only place I
> mentioned Tatu in this thread before you took shots at him was when I gave
> him credit for originally suggesting the "short deck" idea. I have taken
> GREAT care not to mention who I was playing with this past Monday. You
> went out of your way to make cracks about Tatu AND at the entire Atlanta
> playgroup (there's only one, by the way), in hopes of somehow diminishing
> my argument without actually providing any substance for your side.
Yeah, you mentioned Tatu... I know he lives in Atlanta via Robyns move
there. I know of no one else who plays in Atlanta other than you, Tatu and
Robyn. Robyn had just moved there so you didnt regularly play with her.
> Bradley, I'm going to say this once, and once only. Noal's message was
> right on the button. That sort of stupid dick-waving not only won't get
> you anywhere fast, it really DOES make you look like a complete waste of
> skin. I don't personally give a shit what you say to me, because I don't
> really think highly enough of you to care. When you start taking shots at
> innocent bystanders who are also my friends, however, THEN I actually
begin
> to get annoyed.
Oh, shut up derek. Work yourself up and get annoyed then.
> You've done well in this message by actually producing some math, although
> you should have saved yourself the trouble and gone back and looked mine
up
> on Google. But this blather about how good you are and how everyone here
> must suck is the mark of a pathetic, puling fool. Feel free to continue
> the math, and say what you want to me, but as for the little side comments
> about the rest of the group, please... put a sock in it. ;)
I havent said everyone here sucks, I have on several occasions admired the
skill of other players such as Goudie, Ben Peal, Robyn.. etc. I do however
think you are a mediocre player with too much time on his hands to post and
argue.
> > play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only
>
> This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking balls
> to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or are yours
> only marbles?
Dick waving, now ball waving.. whatever derek.
> By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth move,
> ex-lax.
yeah, ok so?
> > experience in playing with him didnt seem like his deck did anything.
> > Perhaps it was just a case of the 75 card deck getting bad hand jam.
> > Maybe you have gotton a chance to play with Robin. Now she's a pretty
> > good player. Perhaps you can pick up some deck building tips from
> > her. .
>
> I have, in fact, had numerous opportunities to play with Robyn since she's
> been here. We have had quite a few very interesting discussions regarding
> deckbuilding. And she is quite a good player. I'm glad you don't think
> our ENTIRE group sucks. We would just be heartbroken.
I dont know who the rest of your group is. Yes ive played several games
with robyn and think she's great!
> > I do know you think every card has a good use to it and that smaller
> > decks are better. If not what are we arguing about here?
>
> I do, in fact, believe smaller decks can be better (for the appropriate
> deck). Peter's Rush deck would probably not do as well at 80 cards, since
> it tends to run out of cards anyway. However, a lot of decks COULD do
much
> better with a trim-down; and some decks do VERY well if you break the
> proportions. Curious as to what I mean? Go read the Google threads.
I believe that smaller decks do better only in corner cases, such as the
library replenishing cards (Waste management) or even the Anson all
mastercard library. But designing a deck you will either want a few cards
as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with a 30 card
difference variance comes into play at a percent or two depending on how
many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to 75 has almost no
effect mathmatically at improving the chances of drawing certain cards that
have the same ratio content in each deck. This has been proven with math by
both of us.
So what are you talking about?
LSJ
>
> On 24 Aug 2001 05:27:13 -0700, LSJ wrote:
>
> >The NAC event hosted 37 players.
>
> That seems low when the program advertised 50 places and the qualifier
> attracted 70.
It was high, actually. The qualifying system was set up to produce a
25-player NAC. 50 slots were allocated to handle all conceivable
possibilities.
The Qualifier had 100 slots, for a similar reason, even though the
75-player turnout was higher than expected.
> And not being a multiple of 5 is an obvious nuisance.
Not really. Non-multiple-of-five tournaments happen about 80% of
the time. Most judges are accustomed to handling that state.
Multiple-of-five's major benefit is that handling players who
drop after the second round is much easier. Given the nature
of the NAC, that was not much of a consideration.
> You should arrange it so that the final on-site qualifier provides a
> reserve list to fill up all the empty places resulting from no-shows.
Why?
The method used proved more than satisfactory.
>
> >25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries).
> > 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89).
> > 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76).
> > 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries.
>
> I hope you're going publish more stats and/or deck lists. It'd be
> interesting to see what the metagame was like there - the exact mix of
> clans and deck types.
I hope I have enough time to do so.
(Like I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant :-)
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Matt Latham
> I hope I have enough time to do so.
> (Like I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant :-)
>
> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
> Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Man I've got to get a job with WW! You've got room in your house for an
elephant? Wow! I can't even convince my wife to buy me a Pony! ("Where are
we going to put a Pony Matt!")
Matt
Derek Ray
news:b0d2gQJR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
> For many deck strategies, the idea has some potential. In a one-trick
> pony deck, this will reduce (though I recall the statistics show that
> it isn't a huge reduction) the chance of unfortunate runs (in a deck
> with 12 Bum's Rushes, you'll get more chance of hand jam on them than
> in a deck with 8, say).
That's a given. Plus, you encounter some very interesting statistics with
regard to actually getting your combos off. Say, for example, that we
design a deck around Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost, and Blur, with the
occasional Amaranth. That's a 3-card combo with drop-ins by a 4th card.
(Whether this combo is effective or not is not relevant to the discussion;
I'm well aware that it lacks an IG at the moment. PATIENCE.)
Let's go ahead and start off with 12 of each card in a 90-card deck. Good
industry-standard type of number. Again, nc(X,Y,Z) gives the chance of
drawing card "N" in the next Z cards, given X of that card in a remaining
library of Y.
nc(12,90,8) = 0.69752^3 = 0.33937, or 34% ...the chance of having at least
one of all 3 cards in your opening hand. Um, Batman? That number looks
pretty goddamn small, doesn't it? Yes, Robin, it does. Once you begin
doing the math, you start to realize very quickly just how vulnerable the
industry-standard Rush deck IS, and how much it relies on the
interchangeability of its strike cards and strength increasers.
Fortunately for the Rush deck, the only number it REALLY has to worry about
is the one for having a Rush on hand... which is a much safer 70% (and we
haven't even included the 4 Havens yet).
So you Rush someone and play your cards. Your chances of having each of
those cards back in your hand are now nc(11,82,3) = 0.35462^3 = 0.044595,
or 4.5%... which can be colloquially referred to as "dick".
That won't do at all. Let's slop it down to a 60-card deck. Same 12
actions, since we're only using 36 cards and haven't even come close to our
deck maximum yet.
nc(12,60,8) = 0.85252^3 = 0.6196, 62%... difference of 28% (!)
nc(11,52,3) = 0.51765^3 = 0.13871, 14%... difference of 9.5% (!)
That's pretty strong out of the gate there. But we also barely have room
for anything else, with only 24 card slots left. That won't do. What if
we only rip 10 cards out of the total; how much of a change is the 80-card
deck going to make?
nc(12,80,8) = 0.74499^3 = 0.41348, 41%... difference of 7%
nc(11,72,3) = 0.39655^3 = 0.062358, 6%... difference of 1.5%, negligible
So far we've been playing with number theory, and while it's amusing, we
also have a deck that really doesn't do shit because the combo has big
holes in it. We're just going to have to rip up an existing deck, and
guess whose we're going to use to do it. (You saw this coming.)
1x Fame
1x Pentex Loves You!
2x Dreams of the Sphinx
3x Blood Doll
3x Potence
4x Haven Uncovered (total 14 masters)
12x Bum's Rush
12x Immortal Grapple
10x Undead Strength
10x Torn Signpost
4x Fists of Death
4x Disarm
4x Decapitate
8x Behind You!
8x Taste of Vitae
4x Computer Hacking (total 76 other cards, 90 card library)
Which deck could this be? It's certainly focussed enough for our purposes,
though, and easy to define.
I'm going to assume that for each action, two cards are absolutely desired:
a Bum's Rush/Haven and an Immortal Grapple. The Havens actually
potentially provide more than one Rush action, but odds are you'll vaporize
the guy on the first go-round anyway, so it more-or-less works out. I'm
also going to assume that we'd like to have one strength increaser and one
strike card for every action as well, and I use those terms in order to
take advantage of the duplication of purposes in the deck.
So, to have a turn-2 kill, the chances are...
nc(16,90,8) = 0.80557 = 81% chance of having a Rush. Play that, and:
nc(14,89,8) = 0.76112 = 76% for having Torn Signpost/FoD. Play that, and:
nc(12,88,8) = 0.70665 = 71% for having an IG. Play it, and:
nc(14,87,8) = 0.76996 = 77% for having a strike card (US/Decap).
Looks good at first, but: .80577*.76112*.70665*.76996 = 0.33369. HOWEVER,
this is not the chance of the victim-vampire being dead, because IG
provides a press and TS lasts for the whole combat; further cards don't
necessarily have to be played. Also, the only card that the other three
are dependent on is the initial Rush. You can prove a lot of the wrong
things with math, too. That number is simply the chance of those four
cards being available to be played in that sequence at the top of your
deck.
Get a Dreams out on turn 2 and the numbers improve:
nc(16,89,10) = 0.87781 (Rush)
nc(14,88,10) = 0.84084 (TS/FoD)
nc(12,87,10) = 0.79281 (IG)
nc(14,86,10) = 0.84857 (Strike)
.87781*.84084*.79281*.84857 = 0.49656. Not bad; 17% improvement just from
having a hand size of 2 greater. Says a LOT about Dreams right there.
Let's see what trimming this bastard down to 80 cards would do. I'm going
to be cavalier about it; I'm going to throw out all four Disarms, two
Decapitates, three Taste of Vitae, two Behind You, and a Computer Hacking.
To make up the shortage of strike cards, I'm going to include two extra
Undead Strength. There's my 80 cards.
nc(16,79,8) = 0.85155 (Rush) 90 w/Dreams: .87781
nc(14,78,8) = 0.81123 (TS/FoD) 90 w/Dreams: .84084
nc(12,77,8) = 0.76013 (IG) 90 w/Dreams: .79281
nc(14,76,8) = 0.82069 (strike) 90 w/Dreams: .84857
.85155*.81123*.76013*.82069 = 0.43094, 43% as compared to 33%. The
individual numbers themselves actually are VERY close to the numbers for a
90-card deck with Dreams -- but a reduced deck size doesn't go away like a
Dreams does. I like this already.
We need to assess the "cons", though. I've given the deck increased
killing ability. What have I pulled away from it? Well, it has to
actually beat vampires down to empty now, it can't just rip their arms off;
but that's a preferable solution anyway. It can't burn people quite as
easily. It doesn't have as much blood gain onto vampires, but since you're
only being punched for 1 most times anyway, you aren't hurting to just save
your Taste in-hand, since you're much less likely to get multiples of them.
It's -slightly- more vulnerable to maneuvers, but against decks that aren't
maneuvering (which are more common to see) it has fewer cards it needs to
get rid of. And one time, it will bleed for 1 less than usual.
It's possible that the -exact- ratios might need to be shuffled a bit; I
hate actually removing all 4 Disarms, for example. Maybe rip out another
CH and put a Disarm back in instead.
> This does, however, work against the toolboxing principle. Those 15
> cards could quite happily include 2 Dreams, 6 Wakes, 4 Deflections, 1
> Archon Investigation and 2 Delaying Tactics, say. I, for one, have
> seen a number of powerful decks excel with such diversity at their
> finger- tips.
Dreams is a big key to this, too.
> Where one is playing a clearly focused deck, slimming can be a useful
> aid, though.
It'd be entertaining to get Peter to play with this deck and see what he
"feels" about what it does. =)
Derek Ray
news:tocpag4...@corp.supernews.com:
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9106A6BF...@198.99.146.10...
>> Mind Trick land; you have Been Tricked. (And yes, I think you
>> should've been allowed to replace the Wake. But it wouldn't have
>> mattered; you STILL would've been his tool.)
>
> You werent there, you dont know what your talking about. You just
> talking out of your ass again.
I see the tears forming in your eyes now. And I know a whole lot more than
you think I do, Bradley... even if the entire situation, details and all,
HADN'T been posted to this group.
>> The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play
>> beneficially and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck.
>> Make it too big, and include too much crap, and you'll get hosed.
>
> I will accept your concession that a deck that flows through 90 cards
> played is better than a deck that only flows through 60 cards played.
This is, of course, not what I said, but again you fail to actually
understand. I'll move on; you really are basically a waste of skin, and
there are other people who are willing to support your side of it who can
read English. And some of them are Europeans. You know, Bradley, I'd be
embarrassed if I were you; there are people who have English as a second
language posting here who comprehend more than you.
> [Snip repeat of math on arika deck and dereks nerdy calculator talk]
Oh, I'm sorry, did you not like it that I just COMPLETELY showed up all
your little snide comments? That's a SHAME, Bradley.
Yes, I can DEFINITELY see the tears forming in your eyes. Tool.
> And im saying that if you only have 75 cards you could add 2 barrens
> and 13 other cards to you deck. Then you have an extra discard every
> turn and a better ability to dynamically enhance your decks
> capabilities.
And then someone Arsons or contests your Barrens, and you die. I have
removed a weak point from my deck by not requiring the Barrens; you have
ADDED a weak point to yours. And what happens if you don't draw the
Barrens? With 2 in a 90-card deck, you still only have a 75% chance of
drawing one in your first 45 cards. And until you've cycled 26 cards on
your own, you have LESS than a 50% chance of seeing one. That's more than
a quarter of your deck that you're going to have to burn through on your
own before you even can beat a coin flip! Really, Bradley, the Barrens is
a nice card, but hardly a be-all, end-all for the game.
> Seems like we both understand each other on this point, but still have
> diffrernce of opinions on which method is better. You like small with
> 1 discard. Given those as the only two choices, I like big with 2
> discards.
ACTUALLY, I like not having points of attack for other decks. People
around here play real aggressively and real smart, Bradley. I've had a
stealth/bleed predator who chose to take my Fragment and Arson my Barrens
when he had 4 bleed cards in hand, because he knew my deck relied on both
of them. That was when I quit putting both in every deck I played, and
started learning to REALLY build decks. That was about a year, year and a
half ago.
> Yeah, you mentioned Tatu... I know he lives in Atlanta via Robyns move
> there. I know of no one else who plays in Atlanta other than you,
> Tatu and Robyn. Robyn had just moved there so you didnt regularly
> play with her.
If you don't actually know anyone who plays here, wouldn't you think it's
just a little bit foolish to spew bullshit about how you think everyone
here sucks? It's sort of similar to walking into a pool hall, beating one
person once, and saying "Man, isn't there anyone around here who can play
this game?"
When you do that, you usually get shaken down until your teeth rattle.
Which is what is happening to you right now.
> Oh, shut up derek. Work yourself up and get annoyed then.
It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac.
> I havent said everyone here sucks, I have on several occasions
You most certainly implied (and long ago, said outright) that all of us
here in Atlanta did. After all, I couldn't have gotten so many VPs against
a "competent" group, right? Still more backpedaling from you.
> admired the skill of other players such as Goudie, Ben Peal, Robyn..
> etc. I do however think you are a mediocre player with too much time
> on his hands to post and argue.
And I think you're an older version of that one fat kid who always talked
too much, got beaten up and had his lunch money stolen, and sat in the
middle of the cafeteria crying. What's your point?
>> > play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only
>>
>> This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking
>> balls to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or
>> are yours only marbles?
>
> Dick waving, now ball waving.. whatever derek.
Yes, yours are definitely marbles. How totally pathetic.
>> By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth
>> move, ex-lax.
>
> yeah, ok so?
Nope, I'm wrong. Yours are actually BBs. Even more pathetic.
> I dont know who the rest of your group is. Yes ive played several
> games with robyn and think she's great!
I sense more backpedaling. Don't worry, there's no fin in the water behind
you... or is there? Maybe that's just a dolphin.
> few cards as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with
> a 30 card difference variance comes into play at a percent or two
> depending on how many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to
The casinos in Vegas only have about a 1.5% advantage on the odds, and look
how much THEY rake in. It is unwise to underestimate the effects of
variance, although with such a small model to draw from, we won't be seeing
quite the same benefits that the Vegas casinos do.
> 75 has almost no effect mathmatically at improving the chances of
> drawing certain cards that have the same ratio content in each deck.
> This has been proven with math by both of us.
>
> So what are you talking about?
Why don't you have a look at what happens when you break the ratios?
There's some math on Google in a couple threads, if you'd like to look...
Or, if you like, you can view my responses in different threads, where I'm
going to discuss it with people who are more capable of actually debating
the issues. Noal was right. You really ARE a total waste of time.
Gene Wirchenko
>Brad Ward wrote:
>> Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5
>> marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble
>> the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble
>> content.
>> .
>> Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of
>> [one of those marbles] being a red marble?
>> .
>> Here's the Answer:
>> 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%
You are only drawing twice, so the expression is
4*3
1 - ---
5*4
3
1 - - = 2/5 = 40% exactly
5
>That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5).
>> 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%
Again, it's only two draws, so the expression is
8*7
1 - ----
10*9
56
1 - -- = 34/90 = 17/45 = 37.78%
90
>That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667
^
Nope. That should be 8.
>> Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3%
>> greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into
>> Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3
>> assault rifles:
>> .
>> Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards)
>> .
>> [60] card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46%
This formula is correct, but the result is wrong.
>1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15%
This is a correct simplification. The answer is correct.
>> [90] card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09%
This formula is correct, but the result is wrong.
>1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79%
This is a correct simplification. The answer is correct.
>> Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And this is
>The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity of your
>point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged.
Approximately .36%.
Handjamming is more complex than this. Looking for just one card
is easier than looking for a multiple number of cards for a combo.
Back when I played MtG, I had a red-black deck that had about 200
cards. It was purely for fun. I had all kinds of stuff in it. I was
very careful about shuffling fairly, but it could be very different
depending on what came up: VERY different.
Suppose one has a two card combo and that there are two of each
combo card in a 60-card deck and three of each combo card in a 90-card
deck. Asking what is the chance of getting the combo in the first n
cards isn't good enough to settle the issue of handjamming as there
are going to be other combos as well.
Can someone put together a reasonable scenario for handjamming?
I can then try to work out the probabilities.
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >Brad Ward wrote:
> >> Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5
> >> marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble
> >> the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble
> >> content.
> >> .
> >> Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of
> >> [one of those marbles] being a red marble?
> >> .
> >> Here's the Answer:
> >> 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%
>
> You are only drawing twice, so the expression is
Brad's already corrected that point - the equations are for 3 draws.
(And the figures he arrives at are faulty in that they all
replace the first fraction with 1).
I was correcting the math, not the mistake in the problem statement
(which I overlooked - the formulae are clearly based on 3 draws).
> >> 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%
> >That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667
> ^
> Nope. That should be 8.
For three draws (as in the equation being referenced), it should be 6.
The eights cancel.
Derek Ray
wolf.com:
> (Like I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant :-)
I'm not even going to ASK what you might want to do with an elephant.
-- Derek
(although I'm having a terrible case of flashbacks to "Thank You Mask Man"
right now.)
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>I believe that smaller decks do better only in corner cases, such as the
>library replenishing cards (Waste management) or even the Anson all
>mastercard library. But designing a deck you will either want a few cards
>as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with a 30 card
>difference variance comes into play at a percent or two depending on how
>many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to 75 has almost no
>effect mathmatically at improving the chances of drawing certain cards that
>have the same ratio content in each deck. This has been proven with math by
>both of us.
It has only been proven for single named cards. What about more
than one? What about combos? That slight advantage is going to apply
to each case. I don't know how to calculate the interaction of
probabilities, but it's going to be there.
It's something like the Birthday Problem: what is the minimum
number of randomly-selected people required to have a 50% or higher
probability of at least two sharing the same birthday?
Most people will guess 100 or more. The answer is 23. Some
combinations combine quickly.
Pat Ricochet
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:13:48 -0500, Pat Ricochet wrote:
>
>> The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found
>> that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better.
>
> But I don't play in Atlanta. One thing we observe about the folk
> there - yourself, David Tatu, Derek Ray, LSJ - is that you go on and
> on. If you get a game where folk keep yapping (like the NA
> championship final) then not many turns will be played before time is
> up. But supposing folk play at a brisk pace instead - maybe there's a
> more significant risk of running out of cards. I'm not taking that
> chance for a marginal increase in focus.
I think you've mistaken our propensity for blathering at length on the
newsgroup with our playstyle. We like to keep the game moving, and at local
(or even away) tournaments, we're usually the ones badgering people who are
obviously stalling for the timeout.
Heck, if a tournament round is going to timeout, we like to offer
everyone turbo-discard and all withdrawal, for 1 VP each instead of 0.5.
> BTW, I don't know why folk think this is such a revolutionary concept.
Well, like a newly bought used automobile, it's "new to me," and really,
new-ish to the game. The usual argument goes like:
"Have you ever considered a less-than 90 card deck? You might because..."
"Heck, no, I might run out of cards, and then the world would end!"
"Have you tried it?"
"Heck, no, I might run out of cards, and then..."
so you get the feeling that maybe
> Keeping your deck to the minimum size is almost an article of faith in
> Magic. It's a flaw in the game, IMO - there should be pros and cons
> to decks of different sizes - makes for a more interesting metagame
> that way.
Well, if you play VTES with a 4CL, you'd come up against the same thing,
trying to get a 3 card combo with only 4 of each card in your whole deck.
Being an NCL game, it means you can "size up" any deck by an arbitrary
amount (given, say, mostly common cards, and a modestly sized collection).
Oddly, IIRC, Magic had "Millstone" decks from the start, to destroy your
library (deck, or whatever it's called in Magic), but even a Dirty Little
Secrets deck will oust it's prey before burning through their library. But
minimum size libraries is, as you say, an "article of faith" in Magic, and
people actually argue against less-than-90 card libraries by holding up the
Dirty Little Secrets/Courier or Raptor deck.
(I *will* say that one argument against thinning down my ratios that
I've seen be relevant is Revelations. If you've got 9 Deflections in a 90
card deck and 7 in a 70 card deck, losing both in your hand to 2 consecutive
Revelations really SUCKS. =)
It also takes a certain number of cards to oust 3 or 4 prey, while
remaining alive, in your usual 4 and 5 player games. Magic is traditionally
a 2-player game. If I was playing 2-player VTES (with a gun to my head, of
course), I'd ALSO want a 40 card deck.
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
Steve Bucy
Derek Ray wrote in message ...
(big snip)
>> I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get
>> stronger and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and
>> larger.
>
>Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush deck;
>simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up on
>something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you.
This "distribution curve" is the criticle point, at least for me. The larger
the deck the more chance the "random" distribution will screw you. I've been
getting screwed hard by card distribution in my 90 card decks over the last
year. Anyone that plays with me can vouch for this fact. I have recently
been getting a reputation for being the most cursed V:TES player in
existence. I have played 100's of games using 90 card decks that I have gone
through 25, 30, 40, even 45 cards or more with out seeing a single criticle
card type of which 10, 12, or even more copies are in the deck. Tatu, Josh
Duffin and others had the opportunity to witness me cycle through 30 or so
cards of my 90 card Shambling Hoard deck without seeing a single blood doll
(out of 10) and only getting one Shambling hoard (out of 15 or so allies).
Tatu suggested me trim my deck size to 70 or 80 and see if it helps. So far
I have not had much of a chance since Gen-Con to experiment. However, at
this point, I do see any postive change in variance as a really good thing
and will be trying smaller decks.
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
Derek Ray
news:9m64b...@enews4.newsguy.com:
> This "distribution curve" is the criticle point, at least for me. The
> larger the deck the more chance the "random" distribution will screw
> you. I've been getting screwed hard by card distribution in my 90 card
> decks over the last year. Anyone that plays with me can vouch for this
> fact. I have recently been getting a reputation for being the most
> cursed V:TES player in existence. I have played 100's of games using
> 90 card decks that I have gone through 25, 30, 40, even 45 cards or
> more with out seeing a single criticle card type of which 10, 12, or
> even more copies are in the deck. Tatu, Josh Duffin and others had the
THIS is the prime reason we advocate short decks; those critical cards are,
well, critical, and anything you can do to help yourself get them is
worthwhile. If this means shrinking your deck around it...
> opportunity to witness me cycle through 30 or so cards of my 90 card
> Shambling Hoard deck without seeing a single blood doll (out of 10)
> and only getting one Shambling hoard (out of 15 or so allies). Tatu
You got screwed... =) nc(10,90,30) = 0.98682... congratulations on
successfully finding the 1.4%. The Shambling Horde situation is even
worse: nc(14,89,30) = 0.99826. Changing your deck size won't stop extreme
situations like this, but you'll at least have to blow through fewer cards
to get to the same point.
However, I feel your pain, having been there before. =)
> suggested me trim my deck size to 70 or 80 and see if it helps. So far
> I have not had much of a chance since Gen-Con to experiment. However,
> at this point, I do see any postive change in variance as a really
> good thing and will be trying smaller decks.
Climb aboard. Plenty of room. ;)
Bradly Ward
>
> 25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries).
> 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89).
> 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76).
> 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries.
How many VPs did the 12 small decks achieve?
-Brad
Pat Ricochet
> Pat Ricochet wrote:
>
>>> Well, it's not THAT abstract. If I can make a 90-card of, well, ANY
>> type, I can try to make a 75 card version of it, right? All I have to do is
>> take out cards.
>
> Only if you don't count on running out of cards during the game as a
> result.
(Hey, hey, watch the context, there! I was replying to the outrageous
and untrue "assuming you have 90 of every card" statement you snipped.)
Yes and no. If I run out of cards and still get 3 or more VPs, that
deck is success. As far as "counting on it," I elaborate on that below:
>> The premise is this: for most 90 card decks, those the win lots and
>> those that don't win lots, you usually end up with 20+ cards left over in
>> your library at the end of the game (especially in 2-hour timeout
>> tournaments). Not only that, but every player has spent time discarding
>> cards they didn't need, whether duplicates of uniques, or just cycling to
>> get to "that card you need."
>
> Ending up with x cards should actually be counted only in those games
> where you achieve your goal, which should be to get a minimum of
> 3 VP and preferably to sweep. For simplicity, never count a game
> where you're not the last man standing.
I disagree there. Last man standing with 2 VPs and cards left in a 5
player game is a failure. All I should care about is 3 or more VP. Sure,
I'll try to sweep, but if I get 3/5 VP, I win, right?
Something we'll have to agree to disagree on is that if I get 3 VPs
regularly and then run out of cards, and fail to sweep, I *don't* think I
necessarily need more cards in the deck. The key word is "regularly." If I
keep winning but run out of cards in some games, "costing me" that last
oust, I'd rather have the reliability of a tight, tuned, slightly smaller
deck. The reason I think this is experience; usually I've got a 90 card
deck that does ok, but dies too much with lots of cards left in my library,
but then I thin it down, and it starts winning, but maybe occasionally runs
out of cards in doing so.
Basically, I contend that, for some (but not all) decks, a reliable
70-80 card version of a deck cannot be "scaled up" to a 90 card deck that
runs out of cards less. For me personally, "for some decks" has been "for
most decks."
>> Derek and Brad BOTH have produced math showing that there is a finite,
>> positive, albeit small, increase in getting or cycling efficiently to "the
>> card you need" in having a smaller deck size.
>
> If the chance is one third of a precent better, then the deck is one third of
> a percent better, which still is better. It actually doesn't matter how much
> better.
And all these calculations are for *1* card. This small differences
will compound over the course of the game, and IME, they add up to success
for the thinned down deck, and eventual handjam for the 90 card deck.
>> I'd say it as "MOST types of decks are usually better off with less than
>> 90 cards."
>
> I'd say that most decks would benefit from adding more weenies, but that
> is very often a rather hated idea. People don't like weeniestupidity actually
> performing very well, but I don't hear many complaints about the one
> single unbalance in the game that is clear. This game is all about being
> able to perform the largest amount of actions and reactions. Weenie-decks
> get that advantage so easily that they're more forgiving to designers
> building otherwise less than optimal libraries.
Actually, I've (along with David Davila) been around that basically
every deck can use 1 or 2 Embraces, because, of course, more is better.
"Hated idea" or not, I couldn't agree more with you.
Somewhat of a sideline to other posts: If you have a crypt that
requires duplicates, consider putting in some weenies instead of duplicates.
If you get an opening crypt of all weenies, even, you're not in BAD shape;
you can bring them out quickly, maybe grab an Edge, and go fishing for the
minions you need. And, I'd rather have Smudge and Andrea Giovanni in my
opening draw of 4 over 2 Andrea's. =)
>> But, to be honest, it's not totally unrelated. If you build a deck to
>> run through all it's cards by the end of the game, you have most all your
>> permanents in play, and you probably got them earlier on. And, since you DO
>> have less cards (undisputable fact), you are certainly more capable of
>> running out of cards, so you might toss in a .44, say, when designing the
>> deck.
>
> I partially agree here. I think the question to ask is how many cards will I
> be playing in average per action/reaction, and then start counting
> minions. If we assume an 12 round game the math should be pretty
> straightforward.
Now, I've tried this one before, but never taken it to it's conclusion.
You kind of have to write off the first couple of turns as you get out
vampires, and ramp up the actions/reactions. Sure, you could make an
"average," but I think that's the wrong way to go. There's usually a few
turns of setup, and then you have out all the vamps you're going to have for
a while (till you get pool gain going enough to outstrip your pool loss),
and then you can use an average number. But, since that "mid game" is where
all the action is, it's a good place to look.
It's very deck dependent, of course, but let's try a basic bleeding
deck, maybe with some stealth or bruise. You expect to get out 3 or 4
small-to-mid-caps, depending on your crypt draw or what's behind you.
Turn 1: transfer 1-4 on a vamp. No one comes out. Discard? (1 card cycled)
Turn 2: transfer 4 more, vamp comes out. Discard again. (+1=2 cards cycled)
Prey/Predator turn 3: play 2 reactive cards (not neccesarily reactions, but
reaction, combat, etc.) (+2=4 cards cycled)
Turn 3: Master, bleed with stealth or bruise, playing 3 cards. transfer 4,
get another vamp. Discard. (+5=9 cards cycled)
Prey/Predator turn 4: (+2=11 cards cycled)
Turn 4: Master, 4 active cards, transfer a third vamp out, discard (+6=17
cards cycled)
Ok, from here on, you can expect to cycle at least EITHER a Master OR a
Discard (if I've got no Master to play, I'm discarding to look for one,
usually), and probably 2 active and 1 reactive card per each of 3 vampires,
for about 10 cards each "full turn."
Do this for turns 5,6,7,8,9 and 10, and you've cycled 77 cards, say.
You can probably bring out another vamp if you're still alive by then, and
so play 13 cards a turn (2 more active, and 1 more reactive card per turn),
so by turn 12 you've cycled 103 cards.
Anyone believe that?
Well, no, of course. Vamps get torporized and get rescued. Hand jam
happens, and you sit tight some turns, etc. Cardless actions happen; people
stop blocking you, so you don't get to play your bruise or your stealth. If
your deck actually flowed 10 cards perfectly each time around the table with
a bleed deck, you'd have already swept the table *before* turn 11 (the magic
90 cards cycled turn, for this construct).
BUT, the question is, when "sh*t happens", do you lose out on action
cards or reaction cards? Both?
(The idea of "averages" gets all messed up when you're playing an
Embrace weenie deck, of course, because your number of ready minions is
constantly changing. Or something like the "Turbo-Arika" deck, that does
nothing for 3 turns, and then ousts the table. =)
I've seen a deck that won tournament finals once that was !Ventrue
counting on this kind of card flow. Lots of reactive cards all played when
not it's turn (Deflection, intercept, prevent), to fill it's hand with
active cards. Most decks do this to some degree, this was just tuned to the
right amount and kinds of cards to keep flowing right.
The deck can be found here:
http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/decks_Stu.htm
and be sure to read the descriptions and decks on "Bi" and "It's All
About the Flow (Bi 2.0)" before clicking on the links.
(note: not for everyone: this deck was played by Stuart Pieloch, an
excellent table balancer/manipulator. Well versed in the arts of holding
cards till the right moment to make the table fall as he wished. He
actually took all 5 VPs with a judicious use of Life Boon, when he would
have had 3 and won anyway had he not bothered. =)
What I guess one need to do is, just like counting turns, card counting
needs to be done. I've got some pretty vague notions, but actually counting
cards played out of turn and in turn in "an average game" for a few deck
types might be enlightening. I just hate counting anything that takes pen
and paper during a card game. =)
>> The only one I've really hammered on is that in a 12 turn game, you get
>> 12 Master Phase actions, (usually 11, since so many Masters can't be played
>> on turn 1) and 12 discards. You can build a deck around the Parthenon and
>> the Barrens to get around these, introducing some fragility and
>
> I personally don't like discard-enhancers as they make me feel that I've
> failed during deck-construction somewhere else. I do have a fondness
> for mastercards and often play with Anson and the Parthenon, but that's
> because I can make good use of two masteractions.
Which is somewhat of the type I'm thinking about, a Master-heavy deck,
but being open to Rumors of Gehenna, the World(of Darkness)'s Most Passable
Vote, since I'm tired of playing Anson. =)
What hand-cyclers allow, really, is for you to build decks with multiple
copies of costly or Unique cards that you NEED to get early, but need to
ditch the extra copies later. Even having a 70 card deck doesn't do good
enough here if you've got 10 extra cards you know you'll have to ditch,
clamboring for attention of your ~12 discards.
But, I concur about discard-enhancers *in* *general*. I think putting
them in just for hand cycling is, as you say, a failure of deck
construction.
> There's one obvious deck-type that'll make VERY good use of discard-
> enhancers, and that's a massive Embrace/Progeny -deck. You pour in
> far more diciplinecards than what's good for you and throw them away
> as they come, but in this case we're not discarding an unwanted card.
An interesting variant I've seen is a Potence Shock Troops decks with
mostly Thrown Gates, but also with Cailean and Relentless Pursuit, so when
Cailean blocks, he can press, gain 2 cards, and be full of Potence skill
cards on his turn to drop the Shock Troops. Dreams is obviously good to
have, here, too, but not as a discard-enhancer as it's often seen, but
*truly* for it's hand-size increase.
Bradly Ward
> > talking out of your ass again.
>
> I see the tears forming in your eyes now. And I know a whole lot more
than
> you think I do, Bradley... even if the entire situation, details and all,
> HADN'T been posted to this group.
Yeah im all choked up about Derek, you got me buddy.
> >> The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play
> >> beneficially and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck.
> >> Make it too big, and include too much crap, and you'll get hosed.
> >
> > I will accept your concession that a deck that flows through 90 cards
> > played is better than a deck that only flows through 60 cards played.
>
> This is, of course, not what I said, but again you fail to actually
> understand. I'll move on; you really are basically a waste of skin, and
> there are other people who are willing to support your side of it who can
> read English. And some of them are Europeans. You know, Bradley, I'd be
> embarrassed if I were you; there are people who have English as a second
> language posting here who comprehend more than you.
>
Yep, sure I just dont understand english. That must be it Derek. You are
so superior.
> > [Snip repeat of math on arika deck and dereks nerdy calculator talk]
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, did you not like it that I just COMPLETELY showed up all
> your little snide comments? That's a SHAME, Bradley.
You just repeated yourself again is all.
> Yes, I can DEFINITELY see the tears forming in your eyes. Tool.
Again, true.. I can barely make out the screen through my misty eyes :~(
> > And im saying that if you only have 75 cards you could add 2 barrens
> > and 13 other cards to you deck. Then you have an extra discard every
> > turn and a better ability to dynamically enhance your decks
> > capabilities.
>
> And then someone Arsons or contests your Barrens, and you die. I have
> removed a weak point from my deck by not requiring the Barrens; you have
> ADDED a weak point to yours. And what happens if you don't draw the
> Barrens? With 2 in a 90-card deck, you still only have a 75% chance of
> drawing one in your first 45 cards.
Here you go again throwing out unrelated scenarios to make some type of weak
counter argument. If you were to take your suggestions you'd never play
with locations out of fear that they might be arsoned. Also by your logic
you'd never play with any card that might be contested. Guess that limits
you to playing Aabt Kindred decks with no locations or unique library cards.
Really a pathetically weak counter argument.
You have also missed the major point. The barrens is only there to help you
get through most of your 90 card library since you dont have the ability to
design (or play) a deck that can get through all its 90 in 10-15 turns. If
you dont get the barrens fine, you just wont run out of your library is all.
We both have seen the math a 90 deck cycles less than 1% different than a 60
card deck with the same card ratios.
> And until you've cycled 26 cards on
> your own, you have LESS than a 50% chance of seeing one. That's more than
> a quarter of your deck that you're going to have to burn through on your
> own before you even can beat a coin flip! Really, Bradley, the Barrens is
> a nice card, but hardly a be-all, end-all for the game.
Yup, exactly this means half the games of which you last 5 turns you will be
putting the barrens into play. You dont have to put it out the first turn.
> ACTUALLY, I like not having points of attack for other decks. People
> around here play real aggressively and real smart, Bradley. I've had a
> stealth/bleed predator who chose to take my Fragment and Arson my Barrens
> when he had 4 bleed cards in hand, because he knew my deck relied on both
> of them. That was when I quit putting both in every deck I played, and
> started learning to REALLY build decks. That was about a year, year and a
> half ago.
AGain you dont have to RELY on the barrens, the barrens is just a bonus
dynamic power booster to any deck that sacrafices cards for enhanced
performance. The Fragment is a double edged sword and I wouldnt put it in a
deck that couldnt protect it. Dreams of the Sphinx would still work in this
situation.
> > Yeah, you mentioned Tatu... I know he lives in Atlanta via Robyns move
> > there. I know of no one else who plays in Atlanta other than you,
> > Tatu and Robyn. Robyn had just moved there so you didnt regularly
> > play with her.
>
> If you don't actually know anyone who plays here, wouldn't you think it's
> just a little bit foolish to spew bullshit about how you think everyone
> here sucks? It's sort of similar to walking into a pool hall, beating one
> person once, and saying "Man, isn't there anyone around here who can play
> this game?"
You said you won 5 games with your <90 card decks last week.
I said "Big deal, for all I know you are playing with 14 year olds whom you
are teaching the game too."
Is this spewing bull shit about people I dont know? I'm just pointing out
that winning a game of ping pong with your dog doesnt mean you are the ping
pong champ of the world. I dont know who you played with that weekend.
You bragging about winning some games in your backyard means that you are
only besting the level of competition in your backyard.
> When you do that, you usually get shaken down until your teeth rattle.
> Which is what is happening to you right now.
Im so shaken up, please help me!
> > Oh, shut up derek. Work yourself up and get annoyed then.
>
> It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac.
It was you who was crying when you thought I was talking bad about your
jyhad buddies.
> > I havent said everyone here sucks, I have on several occasions
>
> You most certainly implied (and long ago, said outright) that all of us
> here in Atlanta did. After all, I couldn't have gotten so many VPs
against
> a "competent" group, right? Still more backpedaling from you.
Right, who is in your group? I still don't know who these poeple are. Is
it Tatu and Robyn?
Maybe if you put a little more substance rather than just bragging about
winning some backyard games with 75 card decks.
I think if you came to LA you would get your ass handed to you and almost
never make it to a finals of a tournament. Have you ever made it to a final
in a tournament?
> > admired the skill of other players such as Goudie, Ben Peal, Robyn..
> > etc. I do however think you are a mediocre player with too much time
> > on his hands to post and argue.
>
> And I think you're an older version of that one fat kid who always talked
> too much, got beaten up and had his lunch money stolen, and sat in the
> middle of the cafeteria crying. What's your point?
My point is that im not saying everyone sucks except me. Im saying that
only you suck.
Maybe Tatu sucks too, Maybe hes is a Jedi master, I dont know. Ive only
played with him once and never had a chance to read any of his thoughts on
the game.
> >> > play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only
> >>
> >> This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking
> >> balls to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or
> >> are yours only marbles?
> >
> > Dick waving, now ball waving.. whatever derek.
>
> Yes, yours are definitely marbles. How totally pathetic.
>
> >> By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth
> >> move, ex-lax.
> >
> > yeah, ok so?
>
> Nope, I'm wrong. Yours are actually BBs. Even more pathetic.
You just want to come over here and feel my hairy balls dont you Derek?
> > I dont know who the rest of your group is. Yes ive played several
> > games with robyn and think she's great!
>
> I sense more backpedaling. Don't worry, there's no fin in the water
behind
> you... or is there? Maybe that's just a dolphin.
No backpedaling. Ive played with robyn several times. I have also read
several of her views on game dynamics. She understands the game well.
> > few cards as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with
> > a 30 card difference variance comes into play at a percent or two
> > depending on how many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to
>
> The casinos in Vegas only have about a 1.5% advantage on the odds, and
look
> how much THEY rake in. It is unwise to underestimate the effects of
> variance, although with such a small model to draw from, we won't be
seeing
> quite the same benefits that the Vegas casinos do.
I have lived in Las Vegas for 25 years. The casinos have way more than a
1.5% advantage in the odds. They have figured out exactly how much of your
money to take in order to keep you comming back for more. Generally the
casinos give back 90% of your money. They take 10%, more on holidays and
weekends and less when its not busy.
As far as Table games go, yes if you play perfectly you can edge the house
to a 1.5% advantage when playing blackjack. If you play sloppy and I when I
visit the tables most people do play incorrectly, the house gets more like a
25% advantage. I taught myself to count cards and have been able to push
the odds to my advantage to date (4 years of gambling) ive taken $400.00
from the vegas casinoes. Not nearly enough to make a living, but the
advantage is obviously in my favor.
High rollers and whales can sink a casino if they get lucky one weekend.
Last month the Rio hotel and casino reported losses due to high stakes
gambling.
> > 75 has almost no effect mathmatically at improving the chances of
> > drawing certain cards that have the same ratio content in each deck.
> > This has been proven with math by both of us.
> >
> > So what are you talking about?
>
> Why don't you have a look at what happens when you break the ratios?
> There's some math on Google in a couple threads, if you'd like to look...
>
> Or, if you like, you can view my responses in different threads, where I'm
> going to discuss it with people who are more capable of actually debating
> the issues. Noal was right. You really ARE a total waste of time.
I think I have joined the team that's willing to buy you a pint or pay you
to shut up. Add another beer to that list.