Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

[Report] 7 Pack Draft Experiment

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:26:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Last night (Mon. 4/12) I ran a draft event with the Boston group to
test the draft format I pitched to Newsgroup last week. We got 10
players to draft and got 2 rounds of games in. The goal was to test a
V:tes draft format, with existing sets, where each player started with
only 7 packs.

The Rules:

Each player purchased 7 booster packs which we drafted (in this order):

2 KMW
2 Black Hand
2 Sabbat War
1 Camarilla Edition

We built decks and played using the following special format rules:

Minimum Crypt Size: 7
Minimum Library Size: 40

Deck Recycling Rule:
A Methuselah with no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.


The Results:

The event went quite well. The format seemed popular. It was nice to
have a weeknight-viable draft with smaller time and money requirements.
There's a consensus building around doing a monthly draft-night and
using the format on a regular basis.

Even with the small card pool the decks seemed roughly as functional
(and dysfunctional) as V:tes draft from a larger card pool using the
standard rules. The smaller crypts and deck recycling both worked well.

I felt like (and heard others say the same thing) I had thirtysomething
cards I could actually use and had to puff up to 40. But with better
set selection and draft order that could be fixed. I'm inclined to
leave the library minimum at 40.

With only 40 cards, people were running through their decks -- which is
good. I don't think there should be an added "cost" to the library
reshuffle.

The spread of sets and order of drafting was not ideal. A better choice
would be:

More packs (4+) should come from a base set (Cam or SW)
Base sets should be drafted first
1-2 sets (3 is a stretch) total would be best


Perhaps other players who were there can add their comments. I look
forward to paying this format again.

-Ben Swainbank
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:58:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

That's a pricey draft though, nonetheless... though I guess its about 7
dollars... 77 cards...

Its all about the sets though... wiht this format even a slight nod
towards draft in expansions would create a better play experience...
like more generic cards, permanents, more cohesion between certain
sets...

anyhow. here are some thoughts on sets to work together:

Anarch theme
3 anarch
2 Gehenna
2 Cam (or SW)

Sabbat theme
3 SW
2 Black Hand
2 others (camerilla or more of above)

Indy Fun
3 Cam (or SW)
2 Final Nights
2 KMW

I think drafting should be split up for these with rotating expansions.
One pack here next pack and then another... Go back to first set and
repeat. Start with the packs that have three, so you start and end
drafting it.

I'm totally interested in this format. It'd take a while to draft
though... I'll see if anyone in columbus Ohio is interested.

~SV
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> I felt like (and heard others say the same thing) I had
thirtysomething
> cards I could actually use and had to puff up to 40. But with better
> set selection and draft order that could be fixed. I'm inclined to
> leave the library minimum at 40.

Yeah, it seemed like pretty much everyone had 30+ playable cards,
and padded out their decks with a few more. I liked John Eno's
tech of padding it out with burn option cards. :) 

> With only 40 cards, people were running through their decks -- which
is
> good. I don't think there should be an added "cost" to the library
> reshuffle.

Nobody came close to cycling through their decks twice, and by the
time people did run out of cards, we were pretty much in the endgame.
It also seemed to me to be more of a disadvantage to use a discard
phase action instead of a master phase action, 'cause it seemed like
players were typically short a card or two until they could get to
the
discard phase. Perhaps the master phase action option could be
tested.

> Perhaps other players who were there can add their comments. I look
> forward to paying this format again.

What I really liked was that despite all the grumbling about how
bad our cards were, the games were pretty dynamic. Even though we
ran out of time in the first game at our table, things were clearly
heading towards a conclusion. The second game (cut short 'cause we
only had an hour and a half before the store closed) was well on its
way to a conclusion as well (I'm pretty sure Enkidu was going to
annihilate us).

I gotta say, opening up that Camarilla Edition pack was like
breathing
in pure oxygen. I'm pretty sure we could get away with using only 6
packs of Camarilla Edition. I'd love to test that out sometime, but
I'm not sure our crew would be up for buying more CE. I do, however,
plan to run a free draft tournament at the Week of Nightmares, and
perhaps this could be changed to two tournaments using this format.
We could get a lot more feedback from a wider range of people (maybe
even getting LSJ involved).


- Ben Peal
Related resources
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 9:33:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Ben Swainbank <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I felt like (and heard others say the same thing) I had thirtysomething
> cards I could actually use and had to puff up to 40. But with better
> set selection and draft order that could be fixed. I'm inclined to
> leave the library minimum at 40.

I had more like twentysomething cards that I could "actually use", although
all of my cards were *technically* playable by at least one of my vampires,
other than the 5 Burn Option cards I snagged.. and the Hunting Ground I
drafted was only playable if I also played that Clan Impersonation.. :) 
Assuming 3 vampires per booster, you've got to make a 40 card library out
of 56 cards, so you're bound to need a significant amount of garbage.

> More packs (4+) should come from a base set (Cam or SW)

Agreed.

> Base sets should be drafted first

I'm not so sure about this.
It felt silly to be drafting KMW first out of what we did, but someone else
made a good point: If the base set were drafted first, there would be
more fighting over the "good cards" in the early draft... If you leave the
base sets until the end, then you have to make the tough decision between
good cards, and cards that work with what you already have. Which leads
to more diverse decks.
However, that being said...

> 1-2 sets (3 is a stretch) total would be best

.... I agree here too.
One or two cohesive sets together would make it easier to create more
usable decks, but still allow for the silly randomness, and using of
rarely-used cards, that drafting allows for.

Would love to do it again; let's just make sure next time that our choice
of sets corresponds with the cards available at the store :) 
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 11:05:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Jozxyqk wrote:
> Would love to do it again; let's just make sure next time that our
choice
> of sets corresponds with the cards available at the store :) 

I really want to see if it's workable with 6 packs. Maybe try
4 x CE and 2 x AN? I think the only way 6 packs would work with
SW is if all the packs were SW. I'm very confident that 6 x CE
would work if it wasn't for people being sick of CE cards.

Maybe we could try 4 x CE and 3 x BL to start, and save the
6-pack experiment for a later date.


- Ben Peal
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 4:13:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Jozxyqk wrote:
> >
> > Base sets should be drafted first
>
> I'm not so sure about this.
> It felt silly to be drafting KMW first out of what we did, but
someone else
> made a good point: If the base set were drafted first, there would
be
> more fighting over the "good cards" in the early draft... If you
leave the
> base sets until the end, then you have to make the tough decision
between
> good cards, and cards that work with what you already have. Which
leads
> to more diverse decks.

That was my thinking when I chose the draft order.

But what really happens is you think "If I got some stealth AND some
bleed modifiers I bet I could oust my prey!" So, you draft Vampires
with that plan in mind.

Then, near the end, the core cards show up and you suddenly realize
that the players next to you had a similar plan. You have to make a
course correction, but you're running out of picks.

Drafting core stuff early you might see "Hmm, some good Protean is
being passed my way. New plan." The course correction comes earlier,
and then from the more flavorfull sets you draft supplements to your
core strategy.

-Ben Swainbank
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 8:20:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Ben Swainbank wrote:

> But what really happens is you think "If I got some stealth AND some
> bleed modifiers I bet I could oust my prey!" So, you draft Vampires
> with that plan in mind.
>
> Then, near the end, the core cards show up and you suddenly realize
> that the players next to you had a similar plan. You have to make a
> course correction, but you're running out of picks.
>
> Drafting core stuff early you might see "Hmm, some good Protean is
> being passed my way. New plan." The course correction comes earlier,
> and then from the more flavorfull sets you draft supplements to your
> core strategy.

A couple weeks ago we ran a booster draft in DC. I think we had 2CE, 2SW
and 5KMW. Our draft order put the base sets toward the front. I think it
was something like CE-SW-KMW-CE-SW-KMW-KMW-KMW-KMW-KMW. The idea was we'd
get the good stuff out of the base sets and embellish it with KMW stuff.
Afterwards, Josh Duffin and I sort of felt that it might've been better to
go for KMW stuff first. Perhaps it's a "grass is always greener"
phenomenon or maybe KMW is a bit of an exception with a large number of
cards which are actually quite good in draft.

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:57:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

fudjo wrote:

> Maybe we could try 4 x CE and 3 x BL to start, and save the
> 6-pack experiment for a later date.

Mmmmm, CE and BL. I like that combo. May be we will have to try that
here.

best -

chris

--
chris shorb
!