Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gobberlerra

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
  1. @LordFajubi If you want to be truly zen: Is not the effect of the card part of playing a card? So if you were to ignore game changes related to playing a card, you must ignore all changes due to the effect of the card too (for they are part of the card being played). As such all cards are but pass actions in disguise... </zentroll>
  2. @isthar I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that player knowledge is part of the game state (and you kind of have to for this rule to work). How do you think that would work with inferred knowledge then (so using one street informat does change it, two in a row doesn't, and one this turn then one next turn might depending on if I can infer the contents of their hand? If I forgot am I allowed to use it again :D, or is it too bad for me, because I should know?) I would have to disagree with you on dice movement though, at least by a standard definition of game state. If I described all the information needed to recreate the game and have the players continue where they left off (excluding the exhausted card) you would not be able to tell whether it was before or after the die roll. At the very least it is unclear enough that it should be called out explicitly (which I'm sure they will because it is madness to have an action be sometimes a pass dependent on a random roll IMO). To play devil's advocate on the last one: If the die had two blank sides and I turned it from one to the other is it the same state? (I think the answer is yes But technically it is different depending on how you define state).
  3. @Murth The argument is basically 'discarding a card for a reroll is not the same as playing a card for an effect'. That sound reasonable, but really ignores the main issue which is "Does rerolling a die that comes up on the same side count as the game state changing". The same situation can occur after, say, activating Power of the Dark Side. @boomaster The rules don't say you have to have *attempted* to change the game state, it says you have to have actually changed it (hence the question on whether rolling a dice to the same side counts as the state changing as by the basic english definition of game state it doesn't). Clarifying by saying that dice rolling counts would certainly help, though still leaves oddball cases like Street Informants.
  4. Here is another fun edge case: Does using "Street Informants" count as passing? Or is whether or not you know the contents of your opponents hand part of the game state? Would activate a second one count as passing then (because you already know their hand)? What if you can infer the contents of their hand... is using street informants a passing action then? (e.g last turn they had 2 dodges, didn't discard them and have played 3 non-dodge cards therefore their hand must be 2 dodges so activating street informants is a passing action.) Or should 'viewing your opponents hand' always be considered to be changing the game state, even if I already knew the contents of their hand? Mostly this is for my amusement after finding street informants, but it does a pretty good job of illustrating why clarification is needed, and why this fuzzy game state approach isn't great. Some sort of "If you play/activate a card and *anything happens*" would seem like a much safer route IMO.
  5. Getting a turn to end earlier than anticipated can often be advantageous for a player. E.G if you had already resolved more dice (or rolled poorly) or think that both sides gaining +2 resources would benefit you, or would like a chance to discard cards and draw into something. It is why before this change non-pass passing was beneficial sometimes as it let you wait out opponent's plays before resolving yours to play around disruption (or keep your disruption open) without giving them the chance to deny the remaineder of the turn. This change does the opposite, making certain actions give the opponent an opportunity to end when you perform them.
  6. I don't think anyone is confused about the *intent*, but rather where the line is drawn as to what is considered to be 'gaming the system' vs not. Typically, 'game state' refers to all the things you would need to uniquely identify and set back up the current board position and continue play. If you take that definition of game state then making any action that does change that equivalent to passing is kind of reasonable (though even then later printings could result in weird circumstances if you don't remember everything). However, the rules are saying that certain things aren't part of the 'game state', e.g cards in hand, exhausted supports etc. Now any given game state is not unique so it is entirely reasonable to ask which actions fall on the side of 'valid' transformative actions and which don't. There will always be some edge case where you will want to change from one of these 'same' states to another, and more of them will occur as more cards are printed so having a general rule that can be universally applied seems like a really good idea. Personally I think it would be much better to just allow you to take these 'non-actions' because it isn't that big of a deal, just a small edge, and have some rules preventing infinite looping but I prefer clean simple rules over complex exceptions. Another option might be to say that one of X effects must resolve otherwise it is considered to be a pass (X being say, re-roll a die, deal damage, add shield, draw a card etc). More convoluted in my mind, and when you actually want to do the edge case it is gonna suck ('I discard this to no effect, now your mind probe will do nothing. Ok I pass ending the turn. Sucks to be you.) but gets away from this non-unique game state business and seems to do a good job of dividing mostly nothing actions with ones that do things.
  7. There are cards that care about cards in hand though right? So, for instance, discarding a card to no effect when your opponent has a mind probe in play might be a good heads up play. I mean, sure, it is a corner case but so is the rule in general. Seems... well intentioned but poorly thought out :P.
  8. You're right, more players should equate to lower overall prices for singles. Is it time to start talking about breakfast yet? Sure... that is totally how supply and demand effects prices of limited rare objects... I'm thinking bacon and waffles... mmm baaaaacon.
  9. @Starbane Sure, both a compression of information about the actions, but I feel like referring to it is as 3 actions is more lossy about the action cost information than to say it is one action extra over normally deploying an upgrade. My argument for this comes from the fact that let us consider some support 'holisupport' that is a holicron that is a support. I would also take '3 actions' to put in an upgrade, but if we consider it comparatively, it would be 2 actions difference vs deploying an upgrade normally (ignoring other evaluations, holisupport could easily be a better card). Part of what I am loving about this game is there is a lot of depth to the ordering of actions and grouping of them for both efficiency and to try and minimise disruption. The most complete description would be: It requires 3 actions, one before character activation, one character activation action and one special resolution action... but that is so long winded! As you say, we are basically in agreement and quibbling over semantics . Definite agreement that the value goes down over time, especially if you have to deploy it on the second turn. If it is already in play on the second turn, then you get the edge of being able to do all the damage/dice manipulation w/e first, then precede with getting the extra edge out of the holicron. Hyper-aggro seems like the best answer as beating the holicron in the mid game seems tougher. @Hida77 There is an over 50% chance of facing down a T1 holicron. So in more than 1/6 games you have to deal with a special of a holicron on the first turn without any extra work from the opponent. That is kinda more than 'maybe effecting 5% of games'. Now obviously this isn't unbeatable, but we are playing a TCG not chess, win rates are never even close to 100% and don't need to be for a card to be 'broken'. @WonderWAAAGH Comparing a game with several orders of magnitude more players on pricing probably isn't fair... Lets tone the language down to something I think most people can agree on: I would argue that holicron is the strongest card in the set, likely to to get stronger with subsequent sets and opponents can play it T1 50% of the time (To me this makes it a design mistake, as if the strongest card in your set is also the one that is likely to increase in power the most with time it is gonna limit design space or warp the meta around it). Given that is the case, what is the best way to counter a holicron deck? Stuff like electroshock are universally good, but having to spend a resource and a card to delay their 0 cost upgrade will definitely leave you behind as you now can't deploy that T1 upgrade. Just try to go fast and pile damage on the holicron target and hope that you 'get there' (kind of a universal approach to upgrades I guess...) Use Confiscation to bounce if it they roll the special, or after they activate their other character (at least it doesn't put you down resources on T1 so you can still deploy a 2 cost upgrade). Curious about any other ideas.
  10. @yodaman1971 Nice mathings, good to see my code matched up to someone doing it right . I think he wants 8 abilities (that is the number I used to find the 1 and 1 pairing probability) as that seems to be about the number of ones you can run which are all top notch. @KrisWall: Getting three character dice all showing resources is a bit over 0.5% chance (assuming 1/6). That is a 10x difference. @Starbane I think that is an oversimplification (but I do think we arrive at the same conclusion). Turn 1, action economy is relatively low value, later turns action economy will increase in value (claiming will also consequently increase in value as it gives you the first action). Playing an upgrade has the reverse effect, playing it early has high value, and the overall value lowers as the game goes on. End result is still the same (turn 1 holicron is by far the best) but it does have an elegant slide off. Saying it costs 3 actions per holicron is either deliberate hyperbole or a fundamental misunderstanding of how the action economy works. The character activation cost is not real, as you will activate the character regardless, so that brings it down to 2. If we were to compare it to playing an upgrade normally you have a difference of 1 action (play upgrade -> activate character vs play holicron -> activate character -> activate special). You can even steal back another action if your ending pool has a special in it, though that is hardly reliable. Finally, if we compare it to a normal upgrade that is trying to generate resources it ends up ahead (play resource generating upgrade -> activate character -> activate resources -> play upgrade vs play holicron -> activate character -> activate special). That said, I do think it has the biggest impact by far turn 1, but you should expect to have an opponent have it in their starting hand ~50% of games if they mulligan for it. @Hida77: Well, in my experience with other card games, a good matchup would be about a 60 - 40 win rate and an amazing one would be 70 - 30. In that context a 5 percentage point shift is huge. 5% number is also wrong: 8% for a T1 mindprobe in play, but also ~15% of something in play and the holicron ready to go on another character in future turns. This also leaves open chances to reroll etc if you don't have better things to do. And about half of the games you should expect to be facing down a T1 holicron. Seems to me if you aren't planning to be able to beat T1 holicron you are gonna have a pretty poor match up. It might not be completely format warping because I think you want all the dice manipulation stuff that helps against holicron regardless, but in my mind it sits as the strongest card in the set, from shear raw power for such a little opportunity cost.
  11. MAAAAAATH Calculations are done using a quick python script I hacked up to sum the probabilities. It worked for some stuff I knew soooo I am assuming it is right . Go below the dotted line if you just want to see the results Method for mulliganing, given we want at least one of type A and one of type B. calculate pr(at least one A) calculate pr(at least one B) calculate pr(at least one A and at least one B) pr ( no A or B) = 1 - pr(at least one A) - pr(at least one B) + pr(at least one A and at least one B) now we need to calculate the mulligan part: calculate pr(at least one A | B is the first card) calculate pr(at least one B| A is the first card) total probabilities = (calculate pr(at least one A) - calculate pr(at least one A and at least one B)) * pr(at least one A | B is the first card) + (calculate pr(at least one B) - calculate pr(at least one A and at least one B)) * pr(at least one B | A is the first card) + (pr ( no A or B) * pr(at least one A and at least one B) + pr(at least one A and at least one B) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Probability of drawing at least 1 of each given two ofs (without mulligans) = ~8% (bit over) Probability of drawing at least 1 of each given two ofs (with mulligans) = ~24% (bit under) so that gives about an 8% chance of rolling the special first time in that circumstance. If you have 8 of the abilities you are happy with the probability of having at least one of holicron + ability is ~46%. The ability to keep cards gives you dramatically better odds of getting combinations you want. I do feel you are overstating the action inefficiency, as it is an upgrade (so doesn't cost you extra to roll it into the pool) and gives you back an action by immediately rolling in the upgrade dice once you resolve it. So it essentially costs you a single action in the end vs someone who is just playing out an ability the old fashioned way. This puts it on par with actions that grant credits, and ahead of upgrades/supports that are trying to do so. Certainly behind just playing aggro but faster than other ways of getting more out. I think one of the strongest arguments as to why it is pretty broken is that it has such a little cost to your deck for playing it. You would expect a card that gives you an 8% chance of a huge edge on the first turn to force you to restrict your deck a lot, but it doesn't really make you work for it. Abilities don't seem to be, on average, dramatically worse than their weapon counterparts for the cost and all cards have an alternative use so you don't clog up your hand with the holicrons when you don't want them. You also don't have to commit resources to it or additional actions after the first so any answer from the opponent would put them behind. anyways, I was mostly just here to post the math MATHS AWAAAAAAY
  • Create New...