Very Rares in future cases


Miniatures


Given the case reports, it seems clear that the 'Rare' category of miniatures is further stratified, with some of those figures being 'Very Rare' and occurring half as often as the more normal Rares.

In future sets (presuming this practise continues) would it be possible to provide the number of each of these subcategories beforehand? In my case, it's actually of more use than knowing what figures you're including, since in deciding how many cases to get I want to factor in how many of each mini I'd like to aim for.

There may well be stratification within the uncommons and commons as well, I guess. If that information is easy to provide, it would be appreciated (although it's of less interest to me, since I'm not worried about falling short in these categories).


I'd agree. I pretty much just want to be as close to 100% super within a case I get every model. Then it's just a matter of how many dupes of each model I get (because I'll buy several cases).

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
KakarisMaelstrom wrote:
I'd agree. I pretty much just want to be as close to 100% super within a case I get every model. Then it's just a matter of how many dupes of each model I get (because I'll buy several cases).

I expect that this won't be possible for Rise of the Runelords, and Paizo won't claim it to be possible. The number of different minis will be increasing to 60, which will make getting them all into a case with a similar quantity of minis in the case really difficult.


The question will be whether I should get 2, 3 or 4 cases though. If there are only rares 2 cases will probably suffice or possibly 3. If there are some super-rares, then I'd expect to need 3 or possibly 4 (in order to ensure myself a decent chance of getting a complete set.
.
I'm not expecting any kind of 'guaranteee' but it will help to know what categories there are. It seemed a little odd to me to be so up front about all the information for this set in advance - except for the fact that there are two categories of 'rare'. I dont really see the reason for withholding that information, so thought I'd point out that it is useful (in case it was excluded from public release on the grounds that nobody would care).


Steve Geddes wrote:

Given the case reports, it seems clear that the 'Rare' category of miniatures is further stratified, with some of those figures being 'Very Rare' and occurring half as often as the more normal Rares.

In future sets (presuming this practise continues) would it be possible to provide the number of each of these subcategories beforehand? In my case, it's actually of more use than knowing what figures you're including, since in deciding how many cases to get I want to factor in how many of each mini I'd like to aim for.

There may well be stratification within the uncommons and commons as well, I guess. If that information is easy to provide, it would be appreciated (although it's of less interest to me, since I'm not worried about falling short in these categories).

This is one area where I am very disappointed with Paizo/WizKids. It seems like their description of 'common', 'uncommon', and 'rare' are not based on any numbers what-so-ever. From the numbers we've gathered, there are four miniatures that appear only once per case; elven miniature that appear on average between 1 and 2; and 49 miniatures that appear more than twice on average per case.

For example, you get 2.36 'rare' Medusas per case and 2.18 'common' Lizardfolk Champions.

Steve Geddes wrote:

The question will be whether I should get 2, 3 or 4 cases though.

... snip ...

My question: "is Paizo/WizKids willing to ship six bricks in a case?" If they are, they should be able to provide the same set per case guarantee in this set. Six bricks per case has several advantages:

1) Complete set per case on average
2) One promo per six bricks not per four

Basically, I purchased a case because I had reasonable assurance that I'd have complete set. With four bricks per case and a 60 miniature set, Paizo won't be able to provide this guarantee. With four bricks per case there is no way to guarantee six consecutive bricks (which seem logical) that you would need to get a complete set. So now you do need a minimum of two cases to have a shot at a complete set. Since you can't guarantee consecutive bricks in anything but a case, if there are not six bricks per case, you could buy four cases and not get a complete set.

My suggestion, have 40 miniature per set and have the sets come out more frequently. Yes, that means change the Rise set, but there is still time to do that. So I guess a better question is "is Paizo willing to change to 40 miniature per set?"

-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts


Swiftbrook wrote:
Basically, I purchased a case because I had reasonable assurance that I'd have complete set.

Outside of all other considerations, I agree with this statement.

While this is sliding off-topic somewhat, if there isn't a reasonable way to order and probably get a complete set, my spending will likely be reduced. I'm not going to play the random game in large scale. I'm willing to entertain it at the current 2:1 level (buy twice as many minis as you need, get dupes but one full set). If it goes up, I'll be re-thinking my purchasing methods. I don't need promo minis that badly.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

I seem to recall them saying that the case size would be different for the Rise of the Runelords minis.


Swiftbrook wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Given the case reports, it seems clear that the 'Rare' category of miniatures is further stratified, with some of those figures being 'Very Rare' and occurring half as often as the more normal Rares.

In future sets (presuming this practise continues) would it be possible to provide the number of each of these subcategories beforehand? In my case, it's actually of more use than knowing what figures you're including, since in deciding how many cases to get I want to factor in how many of each mini I'd like to aim for.

There may well be stratification within the uncommons and commons as well, I guess. If that information is easy to provide, it would be appreciated (although it's of less interest to me, since I'm not worried about falling short in these categories).

This is one area where I am very disappointed with Paizo/WizKids. It seems like their description of 'common', 'uncommon', and 'rare' are not based on any numbers what-so-ever. From the numbers we've gathered, there are four miniatures that appear only once per case; elven miniature that appear on average between 1 and 2; and 49 miniatures that appear more than twice on average per case.

I'm more surprised than disappointed - I can't see any downside to revealing a 'very common' and 'very rare' category (if they exist - though the very rare spider/frost giant/etcetera seems hard to refute).

Of course, there have been many times when something I thought was easy turned out to be practically impossible. I'm happy to be told that too. :)

Sczarni

gbonehead wrote:
I seem to recall them saying that the case size would be different for the Rise of the Runelords minis.

They also said that because of the larger size of the set, they would not need to do 1 character packs.


Cpt_kirstov wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
I seem to recall them saying that the case size would be different for the Rise of the Runelords minis.
They also said that because of the larger size of the set, they would not need to do 1 character packs.

Ah, that sounds promising (although I'd still like a "complete" picture of the various rarities).

Sounds like it will still be easy enough to aim for a complete set, anyhow.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

For every random release, WizKids will tell us what customers need to do to "usually" get a complete set, and we'll pass that info along.

As far as the Rise of the Runelords set goes, we don't have any details to share yet, as WizKids is still finalizing the plan (so anything you may have read so far is not set in stone) but that info should be coming fairly soon.


Vic Wertz wrote:

For every random release, WizKids will tell us what customers need to do to "usually" get a complete set, and we'll pass that info along.

As far as the Rise of the Runelords set goes, we don't have any details to share yet, as WizKids is still finalizing the plan (so anything you may have read so far is not set in stone) but that info should be coming fairly soon.

Thanks Vic, I appreciate it. In case I wasn't clear, do you have any comment about the rare/super-rare division and whether such things would be able to be made public in the future?

As I mentioned above, I appreciate that sometimes there are reasons not immediately obvious to those of us not in the business, but it seemed odd to me that so much information was put out about the initial set, yet Cave Spiders and Ettins were both listed as "rare" - even though the Cave Spider seems twice as rare as the Ettin (based on the collation of sets we have, anyhow).

If there's no reason for witholding that information and if it's easy to provide it - it's something I'd be interested in knowing about future releases (moreso even than the actual figures to be included, as it happens).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

All I'm really prepared to say about aspects of randomization are that I've been surprised by a lot reading the customer case reports from Heroes & Monsters, and I was the project coordinator and printer liason for Magic: The Gathering for a couple of years, so practical randomization is not exactly a new concept to me. I also popped a *lot* of D&D Minis cases for sale as singles her at Paizo.

The biggest surprise is that I was expecting the difference between rarities to be more sharply defined, and the variation within a given rarity to be a bit lower.


Thanks for that - it surprised me too (though I dont have any experience with randomisation - just a gut feel for sample sizes and a bit of probability training). Given the reported patterns with placement of minis in the cases, I guess it's plausible that the '1 cave spider/frost giant, 2 minotaurs/trolls' pattern is specific to one particular batch (or to the batch sent to Paizo) and that somewhere there's a batch where the incidences are reversed.

The Exchange

Vic Wertz wrote:

All I'm really prepared to say about aspects of randomization are that I've been surprised by a lot reading the customer case reports from Heroes & Monsters, and I was the project coordinator and printer liason for Magic: The Gathering for a couple of years, so practical randomization is not exactly a new concept to me. I also popped a *lot* of D&D Minis cases for sale as singles her at Paizo.

The biggest surprise is that I was expecting the difference between rarities to be more sharply defined, and the variation within a given rarity to be a bit lower.

Vic, I've not ground the statistics myself, but I think that we have seen only the results of order 100 cases being opened on the boards. I think that the confidence levels in the statistics presented are still low.

Grand Lodge

Swiftbrook wrote:
Some really sensible comments based on great data.

Swiftbrook for Space Pope!


sveden wrote:
Swiftbrook wrote:
Some really sensible comments based on great data.
Swiftbrook for Space Pope!

x2


brock wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

All I'm really prepared to say about aspects of randomization are that I've been surprised by a lot reading the customer case reports from Heroes & Monsters, and I was the project coordinator and printer liason for Magic: The Gathering for a couple of years, so practical randomization is not exactly a new concept to me. I also popped a *lot* of D&D Minis cases for sale as singles her at Paizo.

The biggest surprise is that I was expecting the difference between rarities to be more sharply defined, and the variation within a given rarity to be a bit lower.

Vic, I've not ground the statistics myself, but I think that we have seen only the results of order 100 cases being opened on the boards. I think that the confidence levels in the statistics presented are still low.

The spot on 1.0 cave spider/frost giant/etcetera average is pretty compelling over 100 cases (no matter how big the actual production run).


brock wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

All I'm really prepared to say about aspects of randomization are that I've been surprised by a lot reading the customer case reports from Heroes & Monsters, and I was the project coordinator and printer liason for Magic: The Gathering for a couple of years, so practical randomization is not exactly a new concept to me. I also popped a *lot* of D&D Minis cases for sale as singles her at Paizo.

The biggest surprise is that I was expecting the difference between rarities to be more sharply defined, and the variation within a given rarity to be a bit lower.

Vic, I've not ground the statistics myself, but I think that we have seen only the results of order 100 cases being opened on the boards. I think that the confidence levels in the statistics presented are still low.

Depends on what you are looking at.

It's certain the Chimera, Manticore, Giant Caveweaver Spider, Frost Giant, Succubus, Lich, and Vampire are ultra-rares. Every reported case has fit the pattern. Based on math and confirmed by case reports, we also know the average pull rates from a case are 2.55 of each common, 2.22 of each uncommon, 2 of each medium rare, 2 of each large rare, 1.33 of each ultra-rare, and 1 of each large ultra-rare. So we know there is little difference between a common, uncommon, and rare.

Other observations are only speculation and we will probably never have enough case reports to prove them. Things like cases generally have exactly one common with a quantity of 1 and exactly one common with a quantity of 4. And the Medusa's pull rate is so high it could be considered an uncommon while the Gnome/Rat booster's pull rate is so low it could be considered a rare.

The Exchange

Mandor wrote:
brock wrote:


Vic, I've not ground the statistics myself, but I think that we have seen only the results of order 100 cases being opened on the boards. I think that the confidence levels in the statistics presented are still low.

Depends on what you are looking at.

It's certain the Chimera, Manticore, Giant Caveweaver Spider, Frost Giant, Succubus, Lich, and Vampire are ultra-rares. Every reported case has fit the pattern.

I'm not disputing that it's likely to be the case. I'm saying that I don't think that 100 samples is enough to achieve statistical significance.

We might just be seeing an effect of the kind where someone packing three items into a case with both hands will pick right-left-right, and then repeat for the next case.


brock wrote:
Mandor wrote:
brock wrote:


Vic, I've not ground the statistics myself, but I think that we have seen only the results of order 100 cases being opened on the boards. I think that the confidence levels in the statistics presented are still low.

Depends on what you are looking at.

It's certain the Chimera, Manticore, Giant Caveweaver Spider, Frost Giant, Succubus, Lich, and Vampire are ultra-rares. Every reported case has fit the pattern.

I'm not disputing that it's likely to be the case. I'm saying that I don't think that 100 samples is enough to achieve statistical significance.

We might just be seeing an effect of the kind where someone packing three items into a case with both hands will pick right-left-right, and then repeat for the next case.

Sure, packing like that has happened before. One report from opening LotR Heroclix was a store received 8 identical cases - an obvious case of clustering considering the chase pieces in the set and cases generally did not come with a complete set of commons.

But that theory doesn't hold water here. The case reports are from cases received from all the different sources - Paizo, at least 4 online retailers, and retail stores. There is no clustering.

So we have case reports from a wide variety of sources all showing the same thing with no exceptions, we have opening day singles availability numbers from 2 online retailers, we have singles pricing consistent across all "reasonable" singles resellers (Paizo has never been known for reasonable pricing), and we have the set list with the 7 ultra-rares listed last. It's certain.


brock wrote:

I'm not disputing that it's likely to be the case. I'm saying that I don't think that 100 samples is enough to achieve statistical significance.

We might just be seeing an effect of the kind where someone packing three items into a case with both hands will pick right-left-right, and then repeat for the next case.

Actually, I did some quick Internet research and found several, independent sites like this one What Is The Right Sample Size For A Survey?

They show that with a sample size of 100 you can be 95% confident with a 9.8 margin of error. So our conclusion that there is one Chimera per case is pretty good. At worst, five cases out of a hundred would have two and five cases would have none. However, IMO, because the statistics are based on a manufacturing process (or at least a packing process) and not opinions, I believe our calculations are more accurate than that.

My hope is that Paizo and WizKids use this information to better advertise the rarity of the miniatures in future sets. How "rare" really is a Medusa when it occurs more frequently per case, than the "common" Lizardsfolk Champion?

-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts


I really want to see a little more certainty in the common/uncommon/rare distribution. The two things that sold me on PF battles is the buy a case, get a set or close to it and the common sense commons. Ie commons you actually want a few of.

The commons selection is great, but after a case I wound up with 3 of almost every common and uncommon, and some medium rares, and one of every large rare. One problem, only 1 watch officer common, and 2 watch guard commons, 1 Gnome, and 1 dire rat uncommon pairing. Personally with one case I would like to see a 4 common, 2 uncommon, and 1 rare break down.

Something I noticed a lot of today as I hit the local stores, the medium small blisters do not appear to be selling quite as well as the larges, one place even went to a $9 for a large, $3 for medium/small.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Miniatures / Very Rares in future cases All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Miniatures