February 2006

Rant: Regarding Tebezu's Review of Gravekeeper's Spy

Tebezu's card review on Gravekeeper's Spy struck something in me. There some
things I really disagree with him. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to bash
Tebezu here but rather I just list out some of his errors.

1. "But simply running 2 is a mistake beyond comparison"

Mistake beyond comparison? How about running Petite Dragon? I'm pretty sure
that's a greater mistake. I know he is trying to exagerrate here, but
recklessly using hyperboles to strengthen points is unnecessary.

2. "Draw into 2 of these girls and you will know what I mean."

This has happened to me before, and I still don't know what you mean. I
rather draw 2 Gravekeeper's Spy than a Petite Dragon any day. I am fully aware
that drawing two of them is not the greatest, but to use this as a reason
for "a mistake beyond compare" is a mistake.

3."A gadget player will probably just use snipe hunter to kill it while its
face down anyway.... Run Sand Moth, that will make the snipe hunters cry."

Is it more probably for a Gravekeeper's Spy to get hit by Snipe Hunter or
a Sand Moth to get run down by a Cyber Dragon? Hmm... Let's say the Gadget
player runs 3 Snipe Hunter and the Gravekeeper Spy player runs around 10
set-able monsters.

For the sake of having a standard to work with, let's calculate the chances
of the Gadget player drawing a Snipe Hunter in his opening hand and his
opponent drawing a Gravekeeper's Spy in his opening hand.

% Chance of Gadget player drawing a Snipe Hunter
= 1 - (37/40 * 36/39 * 35/38 * 34/37 * 33/36 * 32/35)
= 39.4% (rounded to the nearest tenth)

% Chance of opponent drawing a Gravekeeper's Spy
= 1 - (38/40 * 37/39 * 36/38 * 35/37 * 34/36 * 33/35)
= 28.1% (rounded to the nearest tenth)

% Chance of the above happening at the same time
= 39.4% * 28.1%
= 11.1% (rounded to the nearest tenth)

So there's an 11.1% chance of them drawing the required cards in their opening
hands. Multiply this by 66.7% because of Snipe Hunter's die roll and you get
7.4%. Now add in the fact that the opponent will have to set the Gravekeeper
Spy and the Gadget player will have to use Snipe Hunter on it and this
percentage goes even lower. If the Snipe Hunter die roll fails, then this
results in a 3.9% (11.1% * 33.3%) chance of a -1 in card advantage. As well,
7.4% is far from probable. I remember in elementary school that when we had to
classify events as "certain", "likely", possible", "unlikely" and "impossible",
7.4% surely falls under the "unlikely" classification.

Now if we calculate Cyber Dragon attacking Sand Moth percentage in the same way,
assuming the Gadget player runs 3 Cyber Dragons and the opponent running 2
Sand Moths, we get the same 11.1% chance. However, this time there's no need to
apply the 66.7% chance because there is no die roll. So it's a 11.1% chance of
a +1 in card advantage, and a chance of no change in advantage if the opponent
responds with a reactive trap. If the opponent happens to use 3 Sand Moths
instead of 2, then it just becomes even more probable for a Cyber Dragon to
attack it.

As we can see, the chance of a Gravekeeper's Spy being messed up by a Snipe
Hunter is higher than a Sand Moth being run down by a Cyber Dragon. As well,
if the Snipe Hunter works, then it's a 1 for 1. If it fails, it's a -1. A
Cyber Dragon attacking a Sand Moth, however, gives no chance for a -1 and
can give a +1 when it works. From this, we can see that Tebezu's argument
on how running Sand Moth over Gravekeeper's Spy is flawed.

I would also like to mention how the probability of Gravekeeper's Spy getting
its effect is much higher than Sand Moth getting its effect because flipping
a Gravekeeper's Spy can be done without any situational triggers whereas
Sand Moth requries one. Tebezu also fails to notice that the metagame is
shifting away from Zaborgs because of Gadgets, and so one of Sand Moth's
trigger is declining in usage.

4. "Maybe throw a kinky Lightning Vortex out their to remove the plus."

Using a Lightning Vortex on 2 Gravekeeper's Spy is still a -1. It's actually
quite easy to see this:

Gadget player uses up 2 cards: Lighting Vortex and the discard.
Opponent uses up 1 card: Gravekeeper's Spy

I guess Lightning Vortex does remove the plus, but it gives the Gadget player
back a -1. By not mentioning this, some unsuspecting readers might actually
believe Tebezu that Lightning Vortex can neutralize Gravekeeper's Spy's
advantange.

That's all for this rant. If you want to flame me, you can do it by emailing
watashi__@hotmail.com. But please, keep your flames intelligent and actually
back up your claims with some logical proof(s).