Mythic Rares are rarer than Rares, but considering the smaller set size you got about the same chance opening an MR as you had getting a normal Rare in 10th Edition, iirc with big sets the chance of getting a MR is about 75% of getting a normal rare in previous sets.
The intent was to work against the loss of sales that come with making sets so much smaller, since Wizards still is a business and wants to make money
The intent was to work against the loss of sales that come with making sets so much smaller, since Wizards still is a business and wants to make money
Actually I am pretty sure the intent was to compete with the games such as Yu-Gi-Oh, World of Warcraft, and Pokemon, all of which have at least 4 levels of rarity for their cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
You don't compete with other games by saying "look i got super rare cards you won't get unless you buy tons of booster packs!!" Don't get fooled by their excuses
You don't compete with other games by saying "look i got super rare cards you won't get unless you buy tons of booster packs!!" Don't get fooled by their excuses
I completely agree, but I am pretty sure that was their reason... and most of the cards they debut in the mythic slot are nothing short of timmy or casual cards anyways, the only ones that really see any competitive play are the REAL Bombs, and those are a dime a dozen, and or are planeswalkers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
I thought the point of Mythic Rares was to not only add a more flavorful rarity meant for big timmy cards, legends, and planeswalkers, but to give Wizards more control over card rarity. Rares from big sets are rarer than smaller sets... kinda messes with stuff. At least I think that's what wizards intent was.
I thought the point of Mythic Rares was to not only add a more flavorful rarity meant for big timmy cards, legends, and planeswalkers, but to give Wizards more control over card rarity. Rares from big sets are rarer than smaller sets... kinda messes with stuff. At least I think that's what wizards intent was.
That was part of it... and probably the only truth to what they said in the press release
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -- Varsuvius, Order of the Stick
If your point here is that Mythics are, on average, below the power level of Rares, you're semi-right and semi-missing-the-point.
As far as the "Rares are more powerful than commons" argument is true, it seems fairly reasonable to put Mythics where you put them. But they weren't designed to be constructed powerhouses anyway, and Rosewater and co. specifically promised that they'd avoid printing tournament staples at Mythic. If they did, after all, we'd replace every "mythics are too underpowered" thread we have right now with ten "mythics are too expensive" threads.
That is, of course, assuming I didn't completely misinterpret your post.
Mythic Rares are a cheap way to make a lot of money - they can just release a powerful staple card playable in many archetypes, like Elspeth, Ajani Vengeant (see it's price on MODO where it wasn't a prerelease promo) or Jenara at Mythic rarity and have it sell the set almost all by itself. The set can be complete crap but people will need the rarest mythics to remain competetive.
I'm saying they're a CHEAP way because they don't need to work on a big set which would require a lot more art an playtesting, but can release small sets while still keeping the 1:120 rarity for some top cards, resulting in the playerbase needing to open the same number of boosters (or more!) to get their decks tournament worthy.
I guess some commons (Wild Mongrel) can be uncommons. Some uncommons (Imperious Perfect) can be rares. Some rare can be MR (Maelstrom Pulse). And some MR can be commons/uncommons (Conflux). And the list goes on and on.
Mythics are a great move from this initial situation :
The last core set had 121 rares, 121 uncommons, 121 commons.
Rares are defining the boosters sales. To put a playset of a given rare in the market, you must open 484 boosters.
Thus, by craking 484 boosters, there are about 1 playset of each rare, 3 playsets of each uncommon, 10 playsets of each common in circulation.
We design too much cards per set.
Competitive Standard has never been so expensive, and we don't like it more than the players, as we don't gain any dollar from the secondary market.
We don't want a change that would sell less boosters. It is our source of cash.
By creating a higher rarity which is more splashy but not necessary more powerful than regular rares (perhaps what you meant with "between uncommon and rare"), Wizards went to this :
The next core set has 15 mythics, 53 rares, 60 uncommons, 101 commons.
Mythic rares are defining the booster sales. To put a playset of a given mythic in the market, you must open 480 boosters.
Thus, by cracking 480 boosters, there are about 1 playset of each mythic, 2 playsets of each rare, 6 playsets of each uncommon, 12 playsets of each common in circulation.
We design less cards per set, and the number copies of each rare and uncommon in the market has doubled.
Competitive standard will become cheaper when Lorwyn rotates. Mythics are as rare as a former rare, and that 1/3 of the mythics are planeswalkers is soften by the fact that they're alreday printed in many copies in the current standard, hopefully droping their prices once M10 puts even more of them in our hands.
We will sell the same amount of boosters than before. Perhaps even more, since getting a playset of a given mon-mythic rare becames more affordable for our casual audience, who'll crack and trade more boosters.
However, we are now getting two Core Sets in the same window in which we originally got one. So, essentially, we have to chase 30 mythics, 106 rares, 120 uncommons, and 202 commons. That is a higher commitment required from the consumer than with the previous model.
That's not necessarily true. we know that ~50% of M10 will be reprints, and there's nothing suggesting that M11 will have at least that many reprints, if not more. So, instead of your numbers, think of it as:
Obviously, we can't know for sure, and I don't know for sure either, but you can't just assume that the new cores will be the same as the old expansions. For example, we know for sure that the M10 duals will be new, and if the players like them (i.e. if they're good), then they will probably be reprinted for a few years, anyway.
That's not necessarily true. we know that ~50% of M10 will be reprints, and there's nothing suggesting that M11 will have at least that many reprints, if not more. So, instead of your numbers, think of it as:
Obviously, we can't know for sure, and I don't know for sure either, but you can't just assume that the new cores will be the same as the old expansions. For example, we know for sure that the M10 duals will be new, and if the players like them (i.e. if they're good), then they will probably be reprinted for a few years, anyway.
Either way, the new model is not saving the consumer significantly more money, if any at all. The game is just as expensive as ever, there has just been a shift in where most of that expense lies. Competitive players are not spending less than they did before mythics were introduced, and when the rotation occurs, I fully expect a lot of Shards block stuff to spike in value to compensate, as cards that are currently borderline playables will become nearly staples in the new format.
Mythics are a mind-game, just like labeling prices ending in .99, or naming car models released in 2009 as 2010 models.
Either way, the new model is not saving the consumer significantly more money, if any at all. The game is just as expensive as ever, there has just been a shift in where most of that expense lies. Competitive players are not spending less than they did before mythics were introduced, and when the rotation occurs, I fully expect a lot of Shards block stuff to spike in value to compensate, as cards that are currently borderline playables will become nearly staples in the new format.
This is the case, and it's a fairly simple economic principle... it's also why I laugh Every. Single. Standard season when I see the following thread:
"<Standard x> is too expensive because of card N, I'd play it otherwise".
The funny part is that if you remove the cost from Card N, the cost would just shift, but would remain the same overall. It's not a specific card that creates the cost it's the demand for the cards that win that creates the cost. If you remove one card that wins and is expensive that demand will just flow downwards to the next card that helps people win, and the cost to play standard remains the same.
Have people ever noticed that there's usually a card or two from each set that contain most of the value of the set? This was true long before Mythics, and will remain true as long as Magic supports the desire to win in competition. The more top heavy the prices the lower the rest of the prices will be, as can be seen in Alara on MTGO. The PW's have the bulk of the value and have then pushed pretty much everything else in the set to 'jank' rare prices (for example, Cruel Ultimatum is .60 and Broodmate is .90).
And as you mentioned, when the formats rotate and the Lorwyn card go away all that demand for cards that win will shift from being spread across Lorwyn and Alara and 10th and will then be focused on Alara, M10 and one set of Zendikar. Much fewer cards competing will mean that the costs for the specific good ones will increase a lot, I'm guessing.
All this ties to Mythics in that WotC has essentially created a situation where any playable Mythic will automatically become one of the top-heavy cards of the set, and will therefore, decrease any other playable rares accordingly. There's only so much money as a whole that can be allocated to any set, and if that's all fighting for the top three, then the rest decrease as they are in lower demand.
It's far easier to see this happen on MTGO than in MTGP, since MTGO is a much smaller economic world than MTGP.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
^^
MTGO Writer and Epic Time-Waster.
If you have questions about MTGO PM me, I'm all up ons, as it were.
Check out my articles on http://puremtgo.com/ I'm the nerd you see there... wait, not that one. Nope, not that one either... yeah. That one.
This is the case, and it's a fairly simple economic principle... it's also why I laugh Every. Single. Standard season when I see the following thread:
"<Standard x> is too expensive because of card N, I'd play it otherwise".
The funny part is that if you remove the cost from Card N, the cost would just shift, but would remain the same overall. It's not a specific card that creates the cost it's the demand for the cards that win that creates the cost. If you remove one card that wins and is expensive that demand will just flow downwards to the next card that helps people win, and the cost to play standard remains the same.
This.
People should say, "I can't afford to play standard because it is too popular." You could adjust the cost by changing the price of boosters, but then you would be messing with a free market, which is generally not helpful. If you want to play standard, go to college. If only there was a 4 year degree in Magic.
EDIT: By the way, Wizards, shame on you for printing tournament quality 4-of mythics. Just... shameful... Don't say one thing then do another. It is just not good business.
Well Wizards COULD make the competive seen alot cheeper... Just print all the good cards as common. the slightly worse ones as uncommon and the crap as rares. This makes Touniment players happy AND collectors will remian as they are they are out for a whole set of everything anyways. make the game get back to its collectable roots.
EDIT: By the way, Wizards, shame on you for printing tournament quality 4-of mythics. Just... shameful... Don't say one thing then do another. It is just not good business.
Just to clarify, they never, ever, ever, ever, ever said by them. Ever.
The quote, which people seem to have interpreted very differently from what was said is this:
"This now leads us to the next question: How are cards split between rare and mythic rare? Or more to the point, what kind of cards are going to become mythic rares? We want the flavor of mythic rare to be something that feels very special and unique. Generally speaking we expect that to mean cards like Planeswalkers, most legends, and epic-feeling creatures and spells. They will not just be a list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards.
We've also decided that there are certain things we specifically do not want to be mythic rares. The largest category is utility cards, what I'll define as cards that fill a universal function. Some examples of this category would be cycles of dual lands and cards like Mutavault or Char. That also addresses a long-standing issue that some players have had with certain rares like dual lands. Because we're making fewer cards per set, in the new world individual rares will be easier to acquire because each rare in a large set now appears 25% more often."
They never said they wouldn't put powerful cards at Mythic.
They never said they wouldn't put "4x" cards at Mythic.
What they've said is they don't want utility cards at Mythic, and they list the examples above.
Planeswalkers (namely Ajani V and Elspeth) are 4x in many block decks, which does make them expensive, but they certainly aren't breaking the initial rules that they laid out for what a Mythic rare would be.
For some reason people read that quote above and translate it into:
"Mythic's shouldn't be expensive, or good, or playable", which isn't what was stated. Most aren't expensive, good, or playable, but there are some that are and there will be more in the future, I'm fairly sure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
^^
MTGO Writer and Epic Time-Waster.
If you have questions about MTGO PM me, I'm all up ons, as it were.
Check out my articles on http://puremtgo.com/ I'm the nerd you see there... wait, not that one. Nope, not that one either... yeah. That one.
To expand on hamtastic's post. Utility cards are cards that can go in different types of decks and are not really build around me. Maelstrom Pulse is a utility card at rare and so is banefire and noble heirarch, they can go into different decks pretty easy. Jenera can really only go into one or two decks and the mana requirement makes the card build around me if I dont already fit in a deck. Planeswalkers are mythics for flavor and limited reasons.
I thought the point of Mythic Rares was to not only add a more flavorful rarity meant for big timmy cards, legends, and planeswalkers, but to give Wizards more control over card rarity. Rares from big sets are rarer than smaller sets... kinda messes with stuff. At least I think that's what wizards intent was.
Agreed. But I also think it highly reduces the number of people who get a full set online . . .
To expand on hamtastic's post. Utility cards are cards that can go in different types of decks and are not really build around me. Maelstrom Pulse is a utility card at rare and so is banefire and noble heirarch, they can go into different decks pretty easy. Jenera can really only go into one or two decks and the mana requirement makes the card build around me if I dont already fit in a deck. Planeswalkers are mythics for flavor and limited reasons.
I see the point, and yes to this and Hamtastic's point that Wizards did not print a archetypal utility card at mythic. I also upon rereading the article and reflecting think I overstated my accusation, so I apologize. I think the set is great, and all in all I like where Magic is going.
But I think the reason I am uneasy about Jenara is still valid, and I think both the above statement and hamtastic's are incomplete. Here is why. A utility card is terminology that we all recognize, but is not concretely defined. In fact, Mutavault, if it were printed in this block, might not be considered a utility card at all, because it is not particularly good in Shards, even though the creature type relevance in Lorwyn was strong. Char is not good in a deck without red, though we can understand the ease of splashing for it so it is generally a utility type card.
At this time in Shards block, when there is an historic level of access to tournament-quality manafixing, A card like Jenara can still be played in a wide variety of decks, and I think it will. You have to take the card in context of it's splashiness, and despite it's 3-color requirement, it can still be reliable cast in nearly any deck willing to splash white. So, to me, in Shards, it is in fact a utility card. So let's not mince words. If Jenara is utility, then I am right. If it is not, then I am wrong. In fact, in the quoted article, it is mentioned that there are more categories of cards besides utility that they were avoiding making mythic, so utility is just one perspective.
In my opinion, and in my interpretation, Wizards is overstepping the playability value of mythics with Jenara by their own publicly revealed measure, and slippery slope definitely applies here. When the next block comes out, and they print something even more blatantly utility, they could rightly say, why didn't we get your feedback before, when we printed an undercosted mythic? We thought you liked undercosted mythics! It's time now to say, if it quacks, chances are good that it is, in fact, a duck, and not the lesser know duck-billed chicken.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Student of the Game
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That WAS the intent, right?
Common - Uncommon - Mythic Rare - Rare
The intent was to work against the loss of sales that come with making sets so much smaller, since Wizards still is a business and wants to make money
Actually I am pretty sure the intent was to compete with the games such as Yu-Gi-Oh, World of Warcraft, and Pokemon, all of which have at least 4 levels of rarity for their cards.
I completely agree, but I am pretty sure that was their reason... and most of the cards they debut in the mythic slot are nothing short of timmy or casual cards anyways, the only ones that really see any competitive play are the REAL Bombs, and those are a dime a dozen, and or are planeswalkers.
That was part of it... and probably the only truth to what they said in the press release
If your point here is that Mythics are, on average, below the power level of Rares, you're semi-right and semi-missing-the-point.
As far as the "Rares are more powerful than commons" argument is true, it seems fairly reasonable to put Mythics where you put them. But they weren't designed to be constructed powerhouses anyway, and Rosewater and co. specifically promised that they'd avoid printing tournament staples at Mythic. If they did, after all, we'd replace every "mythics are too underpowered" thread we have right now with ten "mythics are too expensive" threads.
That is, of course, assuming I didn't completely misinterpret your post.
I'm saying they're a CHEAP way because they don't need to work on a big set which would require a lot more art an playtesting, but can release small sets while still keeping the 1:120 rarity for some top cards, resulting in the playerbase needing to open the same number of boosters (or more!) to get their decks tournament worthy.
Hope you get my point.
http://magikero01.wordpress.com/
Please see my online binder
http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/hipster.drop99
They've made draft better and made sealed worse.
However, we are now getting two Core Sets in the same window in which we originally got one. So, essentially, we have to chase 30 mythics, 106 rares, 120 uncommons, and 202 commons. That is a higher commitment required from the consumer than with the previous model.
~20-25 mythics
~75-85 rares
~90-100 uncommons
~150-180 commons
Obviously, we can't know for sure, and I don't know for sure either, but you can't just assume that the new cores will be the same as the old expansions. For example, we know for sure that the M10 duals will be new, and if the players like them (i.e. if they're good), then they will probably be reprinted for a few years, anyway.
T2
TokEnS!
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Planes Studios!
Avatar from: http://www.recoculous.com/2008/09/18/slivers/
Either way, the new model is not saving the consumer significantly more money, if any at all. The game is just as expensive as ever, there has just been a shift in where most of that expense lies. Competitive players are not spending less than they did before mythics were introduced, and when the rotation occurs, I fully expect a lot of Shards block stuff to spike in value to compensate, as cards that are currently borderline playables will become nearly staples in the new format.
Mythics are a mind-game, just like labeling prices ending in .99, or naming car models released in 2009 as 2010 models.
This is the case, and it's a fairly simple economic principle... it's also why I laugh Every. Single. Standard season when I see the following thread:
"<Standard x> is too expensive because of card N, I'd play it otherwise".
The funny part is that if you remove the cost from Card N, the cost would just shift, but would remain the same overall. It's not a specific card that creates the cost it's the demand for the cards that win that creates the cost. If you remove one card that wins and is expensive that demand will just flow downwards to the next card that helps people win, and the cost to play standard remains the same.
Have people ever noticed that there's usually a card or two from each set that contain most of the value of the set? This was true long before Mythics, and will remain true as long as Magic supports the desire to win in competition. The more top heavy the prices the lower the rest of the prices will be, as can be seen in Alara on MTGO. The PW's have the bulk of the value and have then pushed pretty much everything else in the set to 'jank' rare prices (for example, Cruel Ultimatum is .60 and Broodmate is .90).
And as you mentioned, when the formats rotate and the Lorwyn card go away all that demand for cards that win will shift from being spread across Lorwyn and Alara and 10th and will then be focused on Alara, M10 and one set of Zendikar. Much fewer cards competing will mean that the costs for the specific good ones will increase a lot, I'm guessing.
All this ties to Mythics in that WotC has essentially created a situation where any playable Mythic will automatically become one of the top-heavy cards of the set, and will therefore, decrease any other playable rares accordingly. There's only so much money as a whole that can be allocated to any set, and if that's all fighting for the top three, then the rest decrease as they are in lower demand.
It's far easier to see this happen on MTGO than in MTGP, since MTGO is a much smaller economic world than MTGP.
MTGO Writer and Epic Time-Waster.
If you have questions about MTGO PM me, I'm all up ons, as it were.
Check out my articles on http://puremtgo.com/ I'm the nerd you see there... wait, not that one. Nope, not that one either... yeah. That one.
This.
People should say, "I can't afford to play standard because it is too popular." You could adjust the cost by changing the price of boosters, but then you would be messing with a free market, which is generally not helpful. If you want to play standard, go to college. If only there was a 4 year degree in Magic.
EDIT: By the way, Wizards, shame on you for printing tournament quality 4-of mythics. Just... shameful... Don't say one thing then do another. It is just not good business.
Just to clarify, they never, ever, ever, ever, ever said by them. Ever.
The quote, which people seem to have interpreted very differently from what was said is this:
"This now leads us to the next question: How are cards split between rare and mythic rare? Or more to the point, what kind of cards are going to become mythic rares? We want the flavor of mythic rare to be something that feels very special and unique. Generally speaking we expect that to mean cards like Planeswalkers, most legends, and epic-feeling creatures and spells. They will not just be a list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards.
We've also decided that there are certain things we specifically do not want to be mythic rares. The largest category is utility cards, what I'll define as cards that fill a universal function. Some examples of this category would be cycles of dual lands and cards like Mutavault or Char. That also addresses a long-standing issue that some players have had with certain rares like dual lands. Because we're making fewer cards per set, in the new world individual rares will be easier to acquire because each rare in a large set now appears 25% more often."
They never said they wouldn't put powerful cards at Mythic.
They never said they wouldn't put "4x" cards at Mythic.
What they've said is they don't want utility cards at Mythic, and they list the examples above.
Planeswalkers (namely Ajani V and Elspeth) are 4x in many block decks, which does make them expensive, but they certainly aren't breaking the initial rules that they laid out for what a Mythic rare would be.
For some reason people read that quote above and translate it into:
"Mythic's shouldn't be expensive, or good, or playable", which isn't what was stated. Most aren't expensive, good, or playable, but there are some that are and there will be more in the future, I'm fairly sure.
MTGO Writer and Epic Time-Waster.
If you have questions about MTGO PM me, I'm all up ons, as it were.
Check out my articles on http://puremtgo.com/ I'm the nerd you see there... wait, not that one. Nope, not that one either... yeah. That one.
U/
Agreed. But I also think it highly reduces the number of people who get a full set online . . .
Conflux as an uncommon/common? Are you stark raving mad!?
It got used against me earlier today.
It's the worst mythic rare, but not the least played mythic rare.
I see the point, and yes to this and Hamtastic's point that Wizards did not print a archetypal utility card at mythic. I also upon rereading the article and reflecting think I overstated my accusation, so I apologize. I think the set is great, and all in all I like where Magic is going.
But I think the reason I am uneasy about Jenara is still valid, and I think both the above statement and hamtastic's are incomplete. Here is why. A utility card is terminology that we all recognize, but is not concretely defined. In fact, Mutavault, if it were printed in this block, might not be considered a utility card at all, because it is not particularly good in Shards, even though the creature type relevance in Lorwyn was strong. Char is not good in a deck without red, though we can understand the ease of splashing for it so it is generally a utility type card.
At this time in Shards block, when there is an historic level of access to tournament-quality manafixing, A card like Jenara can still be played in a wide variety of decks, and I think it will. You have to take the card in context of it's splashiness, and despite it's 3-color requirement, it can still be reliable cast in nearly any deck willing to splash white. So, to me, in Shards, it is in fact a utility card. So let's not mince words. If Jenara is utility, then I am right. If it is not, then I am wrong. In fact, in the quoted article, it is mentioned that there are more categories of cards besides utility that they were avoiding making mythic, so utility is just one perspective.
In my opinion, and in my interpretation, Wizards is overstepping the playability value of mythics with Jenara by their own publicly revealed measure, and slippery slope definitely applies here. When the next block comes out, and they print something even more blatantly utility, they could rightly say, why didn't we get your feedback before, when we printed an undercosted mythic? We thought you liked undercosted mythics! It's time now to say, if it quacks, chances are good that it is, in fact, a duck, and not the lesser know duck-billed chicken.