**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).