I don't know if I put this thread on the right place..
For the upcoming dragon maze event.. What do you think about the clan pair arrangement? Who will become an ally for each clan?
In my opinion wotc will make 5 clan in rtr be paired with 5 clan in gtc... Any ides about this?
There have been suggestions throughout the set, but nothing really definitive.
Examples inclue Golgari+Simic, Izzet+Boros, Izzet+Gruul. We'll find out for sure soon enough, assuming it's a set pair.
Whichever guild you choose for your prerelease pack will be paired with one of the four guilds from the opposite set that shares a color with your chosen guild, chosen at random. For example, if you choose Izzet, the other guild in your pack is equally likely to be Dimir, Simic, Boros, or Gruul.
There are no pre-determined pairs or alliances outside of those criteria, which were selected to make sure you have a three-color combination that uses cards from both Return to Ravnica and Gatecrash together.
It doesn't necessarily mean its random. It's just that we simply won't know. To be clear, I'm not saying it won't happen to be random, it's that we don't have enough evidence to be 100% certain. And there's a greater odds of expecting one or the other than one specifically. Just my thoughts.
It doesn't necessarily mean its random. It's just that we simply won't know. To be clear, I'm not saying it won't happen to be random, it's that we don't have enough evidence to be 100% certain. And there's a greater odds of expecting one or the other than one specifically. Just my thoughts.
Wizards employees on Twitter have also been saying that you won't know the ally until the box is opened. (Please don't ask me to go looking for citations, finding old tweets is awful if you don't know the exact phrase to search for.)
Why do you think there's any significant chance it won't be random? That seems like the most sensible and fair way to run things. Give each store an equal number of each "secret ally" for each guild and let them get divvied up. I don't see the advantage of, say, making sure that each particular guild is more likely to end up with a particular partner. The point of the set is being able to mix-and-match any possible tricolor combination. So roughly equal numbers of each appearing makes perfect sense.
I just think it's more cost efficient to do so. Plus I think a few people enjoy the speculation of who matches up with who, and discuss the flavor behind it. But if you say that it's absolutely random, then sure.
I just think it's more cost efficient to do so. Plus I think a few people enjoy the speculation of who matches up with who, and discuss the flavor behind it. But if you say that it's absolutely random, then sure.
What would make it more cost-efficient? And would that be worth misleading everyone by presenting the system as an equal distribution when it actually isn't? If I'm hoping for a particular guild to pair with my primary choice, I'm assuming there's a one-in-four chance of me getting it (same as anyone else hoping for a particular pair). If it's actually much lower than that because things are weighted toward another guild, I'd feel like I'd been mislead, and rightfully upset about it.
The last time there was unequality in this sort of thing was the Helvault event, which resulted in a lot of backlash from the community (which Wizards employees have publicly apologized for). Making the same mistake again would be unwise on their part.
What would make it more cost-efficient? And would that be worth misleading everyone by presenting the system as an equal distribution when it actually isn't? If I'm hoping for a particular guild to pair with my primary choice, I'm assuming there's a one-in-four chance of me getting it (same as anyone else hoping for a particular pair). If it's actually much lower than that because things are weighted toward another guild, I'd feel like I'd been mislead, and rightfully upset about it.
The last time there was unequality in this sort of thing was the Helvault event, which resulted in a lot of backlash from the community (which Wizards employees have publicly apologized for). Making the same mistake again would be unwise on their part.
Well, ease in packaging one type of guildpack with another eliminates need for additional randomization. And to be clear with you, they could do a slow reveal on who's with who, in manner of flavor and mechanical synergy. It's not necessarily a bad thing. And the helvault event is an aweful example. What they did wrong there was that they gave some shops an unfair bonus that others didn't have any chance to get, as opposed to my idea wherein everyone is affected equally.
Also before you misunderstand, I didn't say that the odds of one guild to be paired with another is skewed among the four possible. Rather, I think there's a likelihood (without claiming it will be he case) that there -could- be a one-for-one ally case. The whole shebang with the likelihood a I mentioned in a previous point was along the lines of , if you keep an open mind to both your and my perception, you'd be more likely to be right with at least one of them than to be certain of a specific outcome. In otherwise probability of A OR B is > probability of A if not B
Alright guys, this has long since passed out of any real flavor discussion, but I was willing to see if you guys would run out of steam first.
As it seems that isn't the case, let me know if you'd like me to move this elsewhere or just have the discussions closed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For the upcoming dragon maze event.. What do you think about the clan pair arrangement? Who will become an ally for each clan?
In my opinion wotc will make 5 clan in rtr be paired with 5 clan in gtc... Any ides about this?
Cōnservātum album delenda est.
In the story, the guilds are far too self-interested to compromise with another guild for more than a temporary allegiance.
Level 1 Judge
I write flavor articles for RoxieCards.
I play and judge at Giga Bites Cafein Marietta, Georgia.
Examples inclue Golgari+Simic, Izzet+Boros, Izzet+Gruul. We'll find out for sure soon enough, assuming it's a set pair.
There are no pre-determined pairs or alliances outside of those criteria, which were selected to make sure you have a three-color combination that uses cards from both Return to Ravnica and Gatecrash together.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Wizards employees on Twitter have also been saying that you won't know the ally until the box is opened. (Please don't ask me to go looking for citations, finding old tweets is awful if you don't know the exact phrase to search for.)
Why do you think there's any significant chance it won't be random? That seems like the most sensible and fair way to run things. Give each store an equal number of each "secret ally" for each guild and let them get divvied up. I don't see the advantage of, say, making sure that each particular guild is more likely to end up with a particular partner. The point of the set is being able to mix-and-match any possible tricolor combination. So roughly equal numbers of each appearing makes perfect sense.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
What would make it more cost-efficient? And would that be worth misleading everyone by presenting the system as an equal distribution when it actually isn't? If I'm hoping for a particular guild to pair with my primary choice, I'm assuming there's a one-in-four chance of me getting it (same as anyone else hoping for a particular pair). If it's actually much lower than that because things are weighted toward another guild, I'd feel like I'd been mislead, and rightfully upset about it.
The last time there was unequality in this sort of thing was the Helvault event, which resulted in a lot of backlash from the community (which Wizards employees have publicly apologized for). Making the same mistake again would be unwise on their part.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Well, ease in packaging one type of guildpack with another eliminates need for additional randomization. And to be clear with you, they could do a slow reveal on who's with who, in manner of flavor and mechanical synergy. It's not necessarily a bad thing. And the helvault event is an aweful example. What they did wrong there was that they gave some shops an unfair bonus that others didn't have any chance to get, as opposed to my idea wherein everyone is affected equally.
As it seems that isn't the case, let me know if you'd like me to move this elsewhere or just have the discussions closed.