2 hours ago, blindside14 said:

I would love to know the odds of getting the three factions desired and getting a particular card for all three factions someone was wanting.

Getting three specific factions from a blind purchase is 1 in 35.

If my guesses about card distributions are correct, or at least close, the odds of having three specific commons in there different houses is about 1 in 1000. Three different specific rares in different houses is just under 1 in 200,000.

A specific rare and two specific commons in the same house, with no other restrictions on the rest of the deck, is about 1 in 500... not counting any adjustments they might make for cards that need prerequisites.

3 minutes ago, Xelto said:

Getting three specific factions from a blind purchase is 1 in 35.

If my guesses about card distributions are correct, or at least close, the odds of having three specific commons in there different houses is about 1 in 1000. Three different specific rares in different houses is just under 1 in 200,000. 

A specific rare and two specific commons in the same house, with no other restrictions on the rest of the deck, is about 1 in 500... not counting any adjustments they might make for cards that need prerequisites.

Quite some odds, there is no way anyone should try to keep buying decks to get exactly what they'd want, its a fools errand.

I guarantee, assuming Garfield finally managed to rebottle lightning, that a deckbuilding format will exist within three months of release.

If said lightning were bottled, singles would have value and FFG would have to take sanctioned play seriously in a way they never have.

I'd say odds are 50/50 on success given much of the game is Magic, but super streamlined. Introduce instants and we've really got something here.

On 8/7/2018 at 9:00 PM, schild said:

I guarantee, assuming Garfield finally managed to rebottle lightning, that a deckbuilding format will exist within three months of release.

If said lightning were bottled, singles would have value and FFG would have to take sanctioned play seriously in a way they never have.

I'd say odds are 50/50 on success given much of the game is Magic, but super streamlined. Introduce instants and we've really got something here.

Soooooo you want this to just be a Magic clone? I don't see that happening.

I don't think a constructed format is viable. Because of the game and cards having been designed for a singleton unique deck format.

The only people who really want a secondary card market are the people profiting from it.

4 hours ago, netherspirit1982 said:

Soooooo you want this to just be a Magic clone? I don't see that happening.

No, I want an alternative that scratches the same itches and this is a fart away from it.

4 hours ago, dirtmuncher said:

I don't think a constructed format is viable. Because of the game and cards having been designed for a singleton unique deck format.

The only people who really want a secondary card market are the people profiting from it.

It's not a singleton format. A given deck could have up to 12 identical cards - each house comprises 12 of the 36 cards in the deck. I have nary a guess as to what the actual algorithm is, but they said that it could produce multiple identical cards in a deck.

There are also Maverick cards, so it's possible for there to be more than 12 maybe?

Quote

MAVERICK - RR p.10

This symbol indicates that a card is a maverick. A maverick is an extremely rare instance of a card that has left its standard house and is now a part of a new house. For all game purposes, treat a maverick as belonging to the house printed on its graphic template.

On 8/8/2018 at 3:00 AM, schild said:

I guarantee, assuming Garfield finally managed to rebottle lightning, that a deckbuilding format will exist within three months of release.

If said lightning were bottled, singles would have value and FFG would have to take sanctioned play seriously in a way they never have.

I'd say odds are 50/50 on success given much of the game is Magic, but super streamlined. Introduce instants and we've really got something here.

Yeah, that’s not gonna happen, sorry man.

there will be deckbuilding rules pretty soon, but they will be fan made, not official.

Yea I'm fine with that. The best formats I've played in nearly every ccg have been fan made.

Though it'd be the right play to get ahead of that and not cut off half the potential fanbase (if not more). Please note, nowhere am I saying that it needs to be some big sanctioning tournament thing, I just want to know that every aspect of an obvious potential future is accounted for.

On 8/7/2018 at 2:12 PM, Ignithas said:

It isn't handicapped in competitive tournaments though.

That's not what FFG staff said at their booth at Gencon. They clearly stated that decks seen to be OP or containing OP cards may be retired at some point, or they may start each game already suffering from the chain mechanic.

1 hour ago, Zeelobby said:

That's not what FFG staff said at their booth at Gencon. They clearly stated that decks seen to be OP or containing OP cards may be retired at some point, or they may start each game already suffering from the chain mechanic.

It is written in the rulebook that the chain mechanic for winning games is only used outside of tournaments. Banning on the other hand could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any deck that isn't completely broken.

16 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

It is written in the rulebook that the chain mechanic for winning games is only used outside of tournaments. Banning on the other hand could happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any deck that isn't completely broken.

You mean the beta ruleset which only barely touches on competitive play and is open to modification? I wouldn't hold my breath. Everything they discussed by the 4/5 demoers, 3 game info staff and designer I talked to seemed to imply that they weren't a hundred percent sure how they would handle possible imbalances. Decks or cards having a chain penalty was just one of the things they mentioned several times independently, so it must be doing rounds somewhere inside FFG.

1 hour ago, Zeelobby said:

You mean the beta ruleset which only barely touches on competitive play and is open to modification? I wouldn't hold my breath. Everything they discussed by the 4/5 demoers, 3 game info staff and designer I talked to seemed to imply that they weren't a hundred percent sure how they would handle possible imbalances. Decks or cards having a chain penalty was just one of the things they mentioned several times independently, so it must be doing rounds somewhere inside FFG.

Quoting Garfield

"Garfield wrote
If I said that I misspoke or spoke unclearly. The FFG OP will have the final word on how this is implemented but there is a good chance handicaps won't be used in tournaments, at least in the sense that a deck has a handicap assigned before the tournament. Bidding handicaps or something like that might happen. There is no way FFG wants to be in the position of separating deck power from play skill ... and it is easy to game the system if your record determines a handicap.

That is why the chains are mentioned in the rules as being a handicapping system outside of tournaments - when you know the decks and want a fair (or more fair)game."

Especially the part of "there is a good chance handicaps won't be used in tournaments, at least in the sense that a deck has a handicap assigned before the tournament." indicates that your sentence "or they may start each game already suffering  from the chain mechanic" is more likely false than true, especially in combination with the rules indicating this.

10 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

Quoting Garfield

"Nushura wrote:

I specifically remember Richard saying that they will use chains to balance decks in tournaments. As in, the current "official" handicap of all decks is zero but this may change in some future FAQ."

"Garfield wrote
If I said that I misspoke or spoke unclearly. The FFG OP will have the final word on how this is implemented but there is a good chance handicaps won't be used in tournaments, at least in the sense that a deck has a handicap assigned before the tournament. Bidding handicaps or something like that might happen. There is no way FFG wants to be in the position of separating deck power from play skill ... and it is easy to game the system if your record determines a handicap.

That is why the chains are mentioned in the rules as being a handicapping system outside of tournaments - when you know the decks and want a fair (or more fair)game."

Especially the part of "there is a good chance handicaps won't be used in tournaments, at least in the sense that a deck has a handicap assigned before the tournament." indicates that your sentence "or they may start each game already suffering  from the chain mechanic" is more likely false than true, especially in combination with the rules indicating this.

I mean lets just not tie it down to a percentage at this point, lol. I'd say there's a good chance the balance of decks has yet to really be tested, at least not to the scale of worldwide community of events will test it on its release. Everyone at the FFG as a whole at GenCon seemed to indicate that they really didn't know how balanced things would actually be, just that the ceiling and the floor should be closer than most other CCGs. I think it's premature to assume that FFG won't implement any additional systems to restore greater balance to the game, we've seen it done elsewhere in FFG games. And unlike other games where FAQs or updates can modify existing cards/rules, it's not like they can easily "patch" decks. Garflield comments does leave it open for modification. It's definitely not definitive, and neither were any of their representatives at the con. The rules are the most definitive response, and everyone at the Con stressed that they were BETA rules and subject to change.

So I wanted to throw some more numbers out there. Before I do, I absolutely believe some decks and card combinations will be more powerful than others. People will naturally want to seek out the "best" decks, but I think people are vastly underestimating the difficulty.

I mainly see people discussing favored houses. But even within each house there are 50+ cards. The incomplete lists on reddit are showing upwards of 16+ commons, 16+ uncommons, and the rest in rares. But if each deck only has approximately 12 cards out of that pool and commons seem to be in multiples, there will be significant variance in what any specific decks version of a given house looks like.

The probability on each of these choices makes it increasingly unlikely to find a deck that meets your criteria.

- Are you looking for specific house? 1 house, a combination of 2, or a combination of 3 specific houses?

- For each favored house, you obviously are looking for specific common cards for each. So what are the odds those cards even appear for each of those houses? How many do you want to see?

- Are you also hoping for certain uncommons, or even a specific rare? Good luck!

- Just as important, are there specific cards you don't want in the deck?

You can potentially choose 1 of these options. 2 options varies on your choices but could be 1 in 500 or 1 in 1000s (much higher depending on your choices). The math of trying to find these combinations make it incredibly improbable that a deck has A) been printed, B) been opened and C) listed somewhere for you to find and purchase. Realistically you can pick a single house and look for a couple of key cards in that house. And while a couple key cards in a deck may increase it's percentages in some match ups, it's unlikely to drive huge value. I simply don't think hunting for a good deck is viable in this way.

Conversely, I do think decks with the "special" cards, like the four horsemen, should be rare enough to drive some value on the secondary market. These appear to be the unique "chase" cards, and even appear to add multiple cards to a deck causing a more meaningful change in the play style. If someone wants to try them, they'll likely need to buy a deck on the secondary market.

Am I the only one that finds it a little sad that the game hasn't even released yet and people are already worried about a secondary market? What happened to buying a game to play and enjoy? Not hope I pull something good so I can sell it for a profit.

End rant.

53 minutes ago, Darkjawa said:

Am I the only one that finds it a little sad that the game hasn't even released yet and people are already worried about a secondary market? What happened to buying a game to play and enjoy? Not hope I pull something good so I can sell it for a profit.

End rant.

I think it comes with the territory. I can't really blame anyone for wanting to turn a profit. As long as they go about it in a fashion that is on the level and doesn't hurt the game or take advantage of someone else then people should be free to sell something they own for however much they can get.

Now if this turns into someone buying up all the product and creating an artificially low supply, then trying to sell their decks for more, and pushing people into a position where they have to spend more than normal to play, or if someone is going to lie about the quality of the contents of a deck to trick someone into buying it for more than it's worth, or if someone is counterfeiting cards................ yeah I'd have a problem with all these things.

1 hour ago, Darkjawa said:

Am I the only one that finds it a little sad that the game hasn't even released yet and people are already worried about a secondary market? What happened to buying a game to play and enjoy? Not hope I pull something good so I can sell it for a profit.

End rant.

I mean to be fair as a long time collector of Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh , MtG and Baseball cards, I'm still hoping there's some collectors market to the game. Even better, I'm hoping the format means collectors/players won't artificially boost each other's prices.

On 8/16/2018 at 3:02 PM, Zeelobby said:

I mean to be fair as a long time collector of Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh , MtG and Baseball cards, I'm still hoping there's some collectors market to the game. Even better, I'm hoping the format means collectors/players won't artificially boost each other's prices.

If each and every deck is different, that means that each and every card is, in some way, unique. A Bad Penny in one deck will have a different face/back than a Bad Penny in another deck. If there are technically 0 duplicate cards in the entire game, what will Keyforge collecting look like?

9 minutes ago, twinstarbmc said:

If each and every deck is different, that means that each and every card is, in some way, unique. A Bad Penny in one deck will have a different face/back than a Bad Penny in another deck. If there are technically 0 duplicate cards in the entire game, what will Keyforge collecting look like?

Collecting is all about completionism and rarity. If a Bad Penny is an ultra rare card, you can still collect it regardless of the name or back of the set. It can still be graded and kept in mint condition. And whose to say there won't be community created formats (ie Commander/EDH) that won't spring up that allow deck building. Hopefully it not being officially pushed means we won't end up with broken cards that cost thousands of dollars to get a hold of. I think it'd be cool to own all of the Untamed faction cards even if they've clearly come from different decks.

I mean heck, I have an entire set of fallen empire which has almost 0 deck building value, but still has varying value based on rarity.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/8/22/the-enigmatic-architect/

The questions will include:

• What's a playset? In a traditional game (after Magic changed from infinite copies to 4) the playset defines the number needed to collect of a given card
• Do you collect Mavericks? Mavericks are cards traditionally in a given house, but in some other house. Can a Maverick be in all 6 other factions?

I like collecting, but I have no plans to do so here. Merely posing the queries.

I don’t think “collecting” is the experience here

40 minutes ago, Ywingscum said:

I don’t think “collecting” is the experience here

I mean in the end it's just a game, and it's experience can be different for anyone. I don't plan on getting into uber-competitive deck building, but you know that there will be people out there who try it. That said, I might try to grab the rares/specials out of the initial released factions. I like a lot of the artwork/flavor text.

53 minutes ago, Zeelobby said:

I mean in the end it's just a game, and it's experience can be different for anyone. I don't plan on getting into uber-competitive deck building, but you know that there will be people out there who try it. That said, I might try to grab the rares/specials out of the initial released factions. I like a lot of the artwork/flavor text.

Quote

Brobnar was Norse mythos, and in fact was originally labeled House Berserker. Dis was sort of techno-demons. Logos was the mad scientist House—I was drawing from Rick and Morty and Futurama. Shadows was a "world of thieves." Sanctum was techno-knights. Untamed was a faerie and beast House. Mars drew from War of the Worlds and Mars Attacks!

For me, I'll want to have decks that have different arrays of houses. So, I might want a Dis/Logos/Mars deck (for theme) and a Shadows/Untamed/Sanctum deck (for strategy). It will be unrealistic for me to pick up 35 decks to get (on average) 1 deck of each of the 35 trifecta options. That's why I think the secondary market will be selling with reasonable prices. I know I'll want to pick up a few specific trifectas.

For play, I'm particularly interested in OP where part of the entry fee is a new deck. That, and comparable messing about with friends, is where I'll get the majority of my decks.

Who knows, if the game does well and there's a particularly good player-made deckbuilding option, maybe I'll try it out.

I won't lie, I'm not a collector at heart, but I see the attraction of owning a set of each possible combination of houses. I don't imagine I'd actually do it, but I might make a checklist to see how close I come before new houses are introduced.