chick...@aol.com (ChickLewis) wrote:
> So, Noal, would you be willing to repost the official information
> from LSJ ? I missed it.
The plan was that each booster would have thre vamps (no more, no
less), except that exactly 1% of the boosters would be "odd" and
have only two vamps.
Apparently, the printing/collating/distribution didn't end up
matching that, though. As near as I can figure, the sheets have
been randomized a little more than was planned. Not sure at
this time what happened.
If you open 100 packs, you should still get 299 vampires on
average, but they won't be as evenly distributed through the
packs as we had planned.
If the distribution is completely randomized, but contained to
a sheet (i.e., one sheet is "packaged" before another sheet is
started), then the packs would look like this:
0 vamps: 2%
1 vamp: 11%
2 vamps: 24%
3 vamps: 39%
4 vamps: 21%
5 vamps: 9%
6 vamps: 2.4%
more: 0.43%
(numbers do not sum to 100% due to rounding)
This will probably pose no problem for sealed deck play, but
will likely make booster draft and table draft drafting a
bit (or a lot) more difficult. Mixed draft (since it mixes
more packs in before drafting) will suffer less than the
other two draft formats.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
[ quoted text not captured ]