According to the new newsletter there is supposed to be a change to rules on randomization, I don’t have the problem with changes themselves but the use of the word distribution is bad/confusing;
“ A deck is considered sufficiently randomised when no player can reasonably predict the position or distribution of any card or group of cards.”
The reason for this is that distribution of any card can be predicted even in completely randomized deck. For example, consider something else that is random, dice throws. Suppose we have 2 fair dice and we want to look at sum of those dices. Even if we can’t predict whether we get 7 or 10 or 12 on a first or next dice roll, nor any dice roll individually, we can predict the distribution of possible outcomes, in this case that it’s a triangular discrete distribution with peak on outcome 7. Anyone would also be able to very accurately predict that if we throw these dices let’s say a 1000 times we get about 167 7, 139 6 and 8 etc, precisely because we can predict how these outcomes are distributed.
Similarly, distribution of various possible card combinations can be calculated and their distribution predicted for any VTES deck.
Ironically, it would be more difficult and harder to predict the distribution if someone would stack their deck by some non-random shuffling because we have mathematical formulas allowing us to predict all possible distributions of particular card or groups of cards assuming random shuffling but for non-random shuffling we would first need to know how the deck was shuffled to do so, or estimate the bias.
What we cannot know is with certainty what outcome or sequence cards will happen in the random deck. But we can predict distribution of cards and all possible sequences.
My best guess is that by distribution the writer meant something else like precise ordering of the cards in the deck. If this was the intent even if it’s a little bit longer I think it would be better wording.
In any case current wording is confusing in my humble opinion, because technically even perfectly randomized deck would violate the rule as it’s written.
I am not saying this is intentional, but I think the wording should change, either explaining what is meant by distribution in this case, or it should simply use other words, like order of cards (which is my best guess what was meant by the writer but if something else was meant it could be explained).
PS: there is also a niche problem, that you might want to also address, in this game it is feasible someone would play crypt consisting of a 12 copies of a single vampire.
In that case not only distribution but also exact ordering/position is known. Maybe the wording should also state with exception of a crypt/library consisting of a single card, otherwise this would make 12 same vampire deck like Unnamed soul gem technically illegal.
Suggested wording change in changed rules
