What he said.                                                                                                                     

"I am the Prince of Dorne. Men seek my favor."

Wytefang said:

Wytefang said:

Alright....I found the answer in an old stat book. I will not graph all the data for Fang...just look up Hypergeometric distributions

Anyways.... for 50 card deck drawing 1 card a turn- 32% chance of seeing it in your opening hand ( I would do it as you draw during the turns...but it gets more complex than I would like...I think)

for 75 card deck drawing 1 card a turn- 22% chance of seeing it

for 100 card deck drawing 1 card a turn- 19% chance of seeing it

Makes sense right...more cards less chance to draw them. The probality trend will continue if we increase the number of cards draw, just that the smaller decks will deck themselves but see the cards they want even faster. Agreed?

Now lets say You don't want to deck yourself so lets vary the number of cards draw for these decks

for 50 card deck drawing 3 card a turn- 40% chance of seeing it

for 75 card deck drawing 5 card a turn- 35% chance of seeing it

for 100 card deck drawing 7 card a turn- 32% chance of seeing it

So for 100 card deck to equal the same probaility of a 50 card deck that was drawing only 1 card a turn....it have to draw 7 cards a turn! Smaller decks it is! 65 card deck ..with 4 cards drawn per turn....Would be 36%

The deck size has more influence in one turn card draws

For 50 card deck drawing 5 card a turn for 3 turns - 17% chance of NOT seeing it

for 75 card deck drawing 5 card for 3 turns- 35 % chance of NOT seeing it

for 100 card deck drawing 5 card for 3 turns- 47% chance of NOT seeing it

Same result!

Vary the cards drawn

For 50 card deck drawing 3 card a turn for 3 turns - 46%c hance of seeing it

for 75 card deck drawing 5 card for 3 turns- 45 % chance of seeing it

for 100 card deck drawing 7 card for 3 turns- 44% chance of seeing it

So for my deck of 65 cards with 4 cards drawn per turn....I would have a 45% chance of seeing it

Wow . . . nice work. Haha.

Stats are great and all (cool site, btw) but the thing is they leave out the dynamic factor.  Just because a larger deck-size means 1 particular card may end up in your hand a bit less frequently completely ignores the fact that most decks aren't hinged on any one single card (or even multiple cards) - they're focused on being an entire cohesive whole.  :)  At different times, your deck may require a variety of cards and effects to function efficiently  - that dynamism is what's overlooked by mathematical statistics.  I'm not saying that such an examination couldn't prove useful for specific themes, it can help you to balance out card types and ratios and such but all too often these types of statistical analysis leave out too many dynamic aspects of the game (personalities, game importance, luck factor, etc...).

This is something I've learned from playing Spellfire, which for all its many flaws, had one strange but useful rule that has always stood me well in deck-design mode - you could only have a SINGLE COPY of any card in a deck.  While that sounds bizarre to some, it's taught me the value of similarly-powered cards and the usage of similar but different cards much more than I'd have learned while playing CCGs that require multiple copies of the same card to be successful.  I've found in playing players of CCGs that require multiple card copies to enforce a theme, that my freedom from the robotic deck-building "rules" or "expectations" has given my decks the edge at times.  in other words, being freed from the artificial constraints of deck-sizes, has yielded a whole cool world of deck-design building.  :)

So feel free to live by a hard and fast rule when it comes to deck design and sizes, I'll stick with my open-ended building and be every bit as happy and probably just as successful, too.  ;)

Perhaps down the road, as more cards are introduced and gameplay aspects and trends begin to set in, people can point to a specific deck-size as being more functional or more potent but for now, none of us can really know what's best in deck-design. 

Yeah of course...math can't solve everything....except ..42. :) You can do the math for multiple cards showing up. I just did one card because A.) its easier to calculate. B.) suits my needs for deck size versus card draws. C.) Its interesting

Anyways, I think If I have my deck size around 65 and quickly achieve drawing 4 cards a turn. I'll get the cards I want with a high level of probability. Ultimately, thats what I want. The most important piece of data was that for 100 card deck to equal the same probaility of a 50 card deck that was drawing only 1 card a turn....100 card deck will have to draw 7 cards a turn!

AKPenned, I should clarify that I wasn't trying to rip on you (at all) for posting that.  It was really cool and insightful (though I've seen that sort of analysis previously).  I'm really happy with a deck size between 60-75.  I like the extra cards to cover me in case someone attempts a deck-out on me. 

Statistics don't lie, but they rarely mean what we think they mean, and never tell the entire story.

What I mean by this, is that knowing the percentages of drawing a single card in a deck of a given size is incredibly useful for figuring out howe many times a card that fits a specific slot should appear in your deck. We have a limit of 3 cards per deck, but if I have 12 cards that all serve the same purpose, that redundancy is going to give me a higher chance of seeing the card effect even in a larger deck than a smaller deck where a specific effect appears on a single card x3.

This also goes along with the idea that if I'm cutting cards or instances of cards to get to 50 I have less versatility and if my deck does not have the solution then how fast I can draw a card is immaterial when compared to my inability to draw the card.

These stats let me  see what an ideal draw number is for a deck of a certain size to get the effects I want into my hand, and that info is priceless. Building a deck is all about built in redundancy and synergy. The stats provided are invaluable. Some people will assume that the stats are telling them to play a 50 card deck... to which I have to smile and say, yes, yes they are. :)

"I am the Prince of Dorne. Men seek my favor."

Hehehe.  I prefer larger decks but I'll tweak them to ensure their maximum efficacy.  :)

That being said, of course, it also all depends on how you plan to play.  If you're playing for fun, you probably won't be worried about having the most brutally efficient, perfectly synergistic decks either!

But for tournaments, learning the stats is incredibly useful, no doubt about it.  Kudos again to AKpenned for posting that info.

If I were going to play a straight Orc deck, I'm going to want the fewest cards possible so I can draw into my Waarghs and other monster cards which in the right combination can burn an under-defended zone with one combat phase. Hit fast, hit hard, hit often. With a Dwarf deck I'll probably play a more medium sized deck, heavier on tactics than I might otherwise play, because the supports and units can withstand so much damage, I can outlast a number of my opponents just by playing conservatively and using my tactics to control tempo.

Different deck sizes for different builds, races, and strategies.

"I am the Prince of Dorne. Men seek my favor."

dormouse said:

I think all races can control temp in some way (Some are stronger than others)...Dwarves have damage reduction to capital and troops. Chaos has corruption and discard effects. Orcs have mass creature kill and support destroy...Empire has tactical control and mass destruction card.

They all have ways for them to work at their optimum speed, but Orcs don't need to try and control the games tempo. They are a rush race for the most part the question is do you want to hold back and blitzkrieg or just go drag race to the finish line? Dwarves played in that fashion would lose terribly. Empire is probably the most versatile thanks to their mobility. Extending heavily in one zone can net you a hug card advantage and then the next two turns those units spread out and are attacking and pooling resources to just toss out more units than you can effectively deal with, weaknesses magically shoring up before your eyes. Chaos and Dwarves though need that tempo control, ways of slowing their opponent down or forcing them to overextend.

Or at least so it appears to me.

"I am the Prince of Dorne. Men seek my favor."

40 to 45 is my favorite, fill it with low cost cards and few combos.  I now I havent play destruction since my son and nephews dig on it.  I dont play mix since the starter set only has one alliance cards for Empire/dwraves and you could be half way through your game before the they come up.  I find speed and simiple win more often they waiting for that cool combos.

Wytefang said:

Actually I have a tendency to do that. I tend to focus on building a swarm in the battlefield with Chaos or the Orks (usually Chaos) and going offensive quite a lot. Only if a card has a really useful ability or I need a quick boost in carddraw or money do I put units in the other 2 zones. I just don't usually see the use of spreading over all three.

How has that worked for you with Chaos? I've found that type of setup for Chaos pretty much ensure that my head is handed to me by Dwarves or Orcs.

"I am the Prince of Dorne. Men seek my favor."

Hmmm varies. First game I played was against Empire and I won relatively easily. Against Dwarves with Chaos I won too but it was far more hardfought. With Orks vs Empire, I crushed the Empire through a quick mass 'Waaagh'.

I only have 4 or so games under my belt so a bit early to tell. But so far:

- Investing heavily early on in first the Questzone than Kingdom and than wherever best seems best. Taking some early hits is fine if it means gaining extra resources/card draw early on

- Normally it seems that the winner usually looses 1 zone regardless.

Most of the time I don't really see the use of spreading my forces. It makes it easier for the enemy to push through across the board. Most of my troops I join in the battlefield to mass attack his weakest zones. Or try to force him into a confrontation at his own battlefield.
The only units I tend to place in another zone besides battlefield are those who give a distinct advantage through an ability or so. (or if I really don't have any supportcards or so to place there)