rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Three new starters...

7 messages from 5 participants · 24 April 2003 – 30 April 2003
original thread on Google Groups

Jozxyqk

How are pre-release events going to be arranged? With only 3 starters, it means there's a guaranteed duplicate deck at each table, even in first-round tables of 4. Will there have to be a "volunteer" to take a starter from a previous set, or will dependence on variety from vampires in the boosters be enough? Or will there have to be a "non-contestation" blanket rule? Just speculation, as these events are coming up soon...

Johannes Walch

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:uFTpa.625785$S_4.679573@rwcrnsc53... [ quoted text not captured ] There was a fair amount of discussion of this subject in the conclave mailing list. Probably there should be an official website or an official statement about the exact format of the pre-release, but regarding your question about the starters : Every player will receive one half of a starter (and four boosters if I remember correctly). That should avoid contestation. Contestation rules are not changed/removed afaik johannes walch

LSJ

Johannes Walch wrote: > There was a fair amount of discussion of this subject in the conclave > mailing list. Probably there should be an official website or an official > statement about the exact format of the pre-release, but regarding your > question about the starters : Every player will receive one half of a > starter (and four boosters if I remember correctly). That should avoid > contestation. Contestation rules are not changed/removed afaik There is no "official" format - the prerelease events are unsanctioned and can be run however the organizers wish. Contact your organizer to find out what format will be used at your local event. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

salem

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<uFTpa.625785$S_4.679573@rwcrnsc53>... [snip] > Or will there have to be a "non-contestation" blanket rule? there would be no need, in my opinion, of having a blanket 'no-contestation' rule. even if all you got was one starter, with no boosters at all to draft/build from, the chances of getting the same opening crpyt draw as the other guy at your table that has the same deck is reasonably small. and even if you do get the same or some sort of overlapping draw, there is no reason why you'd actually need to bring out the same vamps. a little table-talk goes a long way. consider just 1 table where there is exacly 1 person with the same deck as you. assume you get a full starter, with 12 vamps, and you use all of them and no others. assume exactly one other person at your table with the same starter, and no extra vampires. probabilities of drawing AT LEAST X vampires in your opening draw, that the other deck has in their uncontrolled region X=1, Pr= 85.859% X=2, Pr= 40.606% X=3, Pr= 6.667% X=4, Pr= 0.202% Or, presented slightly differently: probabilities of drawing EXACTLY X X=0, Pr= 14.141% X=1, Pr= 45.253% X=2, Pr= 33.939% X=3, Pr= 6.465% X=4, Pr= 0.202% Now, with the addition of possible other vampires from boosters (there are three uncommons per booster, and it looks like most, if not all uncommons are going to be vamps), these chances of merely getting same vampires in your uncontrolled region are going to be reduced. Then, factor in the chances of actually wanting, from your 4 vampires, the same vampire(s) as the other person wants, and the probabilities of actual contestion are reduced again. CONCLUSION: You'll likely get 1 vamp in your uncontrolled the same as the other guy playing the same starter. Getting all four the same will happen about 1 in 500 games. Being forced to contest, almost never. as far as i can tell, contesting will be as little a problem as it is in regular tournies. salem.

Jozxyqk

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<uFTpa.625785$S_4.679573@rwcrnsc53>... > [snip] >> Or will there have to be a "non-contestation" blanket rule? > there would be no need, in my opinion, of having a blanket > 'no-contestation' rule. ... > CONCLUSION: You'll likely get 1 vamp in your uncontrolled the same as > the other guy playing the same starter. Getting all four the same > will happen about 1 in 500 games. Being forced to contest, almost > never. > as far as i can tell, contesting will be as little a problem as it is > in regular tournies. You're forgetting about the non-vampire unique cards that are fixed in the deck, which we won't see until the day we open the decks. Zoo Hunting Ground and Ecoterrorists are bound to be in the Gangrel starter, and there's tons of other cards that are unique... It's either going to give a predator (contesting with his prey) an advantage, or it's going to require a lot of game-slowing table talk while negotiations are made about who can have what cards in play. If I were running a prerelease, I'd find some way to increase the card pool. Maybe even introduce older starters into the mix, but that wouldn't really be fair to 25% of the players. *shrug* I'm not sure I am a fan of the "give each player half a deck" idea either, unless the Princes are privy to decklists beforehand and have already determined a fair split. I'll play it however the Princes deem it, and contestation will probably not end up being much of an issue anyway... -- Jozxyqk, who will play with a few "Thanks for the Donation"s up his sleeve ;)

Stefano Calzighetti

salem_ch...@yahoo.com (salem) wrote in message news:<293af2cc.03042...@posting.google.com>... > Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<uFTpa.625785$S_4.679573@rwcrnsc53>... > [snip] > > Or will there have to be a "non-contestation" blanket rule? > > there would be no need, in my opinion, of having a blanket > 'no-contestation' rule. > SNIP a well calculate chance to contest vampire > > as far as i can tell, contesting will be as little a problem as it is > in regular tournies. > > salem. There aren't only vampire in a preconstructed deck. There are many other unique cards, like (a reasonable supposition) hunting ground (at least for gangrel) and other locations/equipment/effect. In a 4 players table the 2 players who share the same decks have an high chances to contest at least a vampire or a unique card than the other 2 players, and this in unfair, imho. A temporaneal rule who avoid contest only for vampire and cards that appare in the precon deck only can help. Is not the perfect solution of course. Two copy of a particular strong vampire/unique cards in a table can be annoing for the 2 other player, but maybe less annoing than 2/3 contested card for the 2 unluck players who share the some deck. I think that in my playgroup we'll try tomorrow to simulate a similar condition using the CE precon, just to see if the 'no contest' rule have sense. I'll post the result here, if we play of course. ;-) ciao Stefano, prince of Pordenone, Italy.

salem

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<739qa.617198$F1.82759@sccrnsc04>... > salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:<uFTpa.625785$S_4.679573@rwcrnsc53>... > > [snip] > >> Or will there have to be a "non-contestation" blanket rule? > > > there would be no need, in my opinion, of having a blanket > > 'no-contestation' rule. > > ... > > > CONCLUSION: You'll likely get 1 vamp in your uncontrolled the same as > > the other guy playing the same starter. Getting all four the same > > will happen about 1 in 500 games. Being forced to contest, almost > > never. > > > as far as i can tell, contesting will be as little a problem as it is > > in regular tournies. > > You're forgetting about the non-vampire unique cards that are fixed in > the deck, which we won't see until the day we open the decks. yes. i did totally forget that. ummm. with no idea on possible numbers, and with libraries being much larger and varied, there is no way i am going to bother hacking through some stats for those probabilities. :) but it's a good point. still, personally, table talk is as much a part of this game as any other, so for the few unique cards in the starters that do come up for both methuselahs i am sure they can work something out, and/or contest to their perceived strategic advantage. O:) > Zoo Hunting Ground and Ecoterrorists are bound to be in the Gangrel starter, this point i will contest (heh. i made a pun). art museum wasn't in the toreador starter, neither was arcane library in the tremere. and we now know ecoterrorists is in the boosters (from the WW checklist), so i am triply sure ecoterrorists won't be in the starter. zoo hunting ground? maybe. backways? dartmoor? who knows.. > and there's tons of other cards that are unique... > It's either going to give a predator (contesting with his prey) an > advantage, how is that an advantage? as far as i can tell it's just detrimental to both parties, unless the meth who contested in the first place planned for it well. > or it's going to require a lot of game-slowing table talk > while negotiations are made about who can have what cards in play. ? it really shouldn't be that hard. "hey, i have zoo hunting ground, i'm going to play it". "ok, i won't contest it as long as you let me have backways" "ok". i mean, sure, that's a best-case scenario, but still.....talking _before_ playing a card into contestion is a Good Thing. > If I were running a prerelease, I'd find some way to increase > the card pool. Maybe even introduce older starters into the mix, but that > wouldn't really be fair to 25% of the players. *shrug* i'm going with the idea that players would rather have a slight contestion chance than not get a full anarch starter at a pre-release. and from the ones i have spoken to, this seems about right. > I'm not sure I am a fan of the "give each player half a deck" idea either, > unless the Princes are privy to decklists beforehand and have already > determined a fair split. that'd still be terribly subjective. a random split would likely be more "fair", unless you got a totally skewed split of say, masters and minion cards. > I'll play it however the Princes deem it, and contestation will probably > not end up being much of an issue anyway... let's hope! :) > -- Jozxyqk, who will play with a few "Thanks for the Donation"s up his > sleeve ;) praxis solomon and clio's kiss, too! salem. my way or the highway.