"Mythic Rares"

[Gexzilla10]

If you have read the updates on magicthegathering.com from Saturday (after recovering from the restriction of Brainstorm) you noticed that there is a new level of rarity being added to Magic, that of a "Mythic Rare" level. This "Mythic Rare" will take the place of a rare at a ratio of 1:8 packs and will have a foil version of the card at about the same ratio foil rares currently are. These "Mythic Rares" have a red-orangeish color symbol (see Mark Rosewater's column on Saturday to see the preview). These "Mythic Rares" differentiate themselves from normal rares, as Rosewater explains, by having a special and unique flavor, meaning cards like Planeswalkers, most Legends, and "epic-feeling creatures and spells".

The question:
Is this good for Magic? Does this open the door to better cards and more players or will this lead to more expensive cards, an alienation of existing Magic players, or another step toward making Magic more like Yu-Gi-Oh and pandering to a younger audience?

Discuss...

[Ephraim]

The question:
Is this good for Magic? Does this open the door to better cards and more players or will this lead to more expensive cards, an alienation of existing Magic players, or another step toward making Magic more like Yu-Gi-Oh and pandering to a younger audience?

Discuss...

My first inclination was to disapprove of this move, but after reading the feature article and MaRo's explanation, I am satisfied regarding the introduction of mythic rares into the game.

I think that MaRo was entirely forthright that they are doing this, in part, to attract younger players to the game.  He cited that having only three rarities makes Magic feel less state-of-the-art than more contemporary CCGs.  Magic now has to compete with its own progeny for mindshare.  I agree that meeting the expectations of people who do not currently play Magic is one way to make Magic more appealing to them.  I also think that if they follow the execution that MaRo laid out, that the introduction of mythics will not aversely affect the game, nor its primary and secondary markets.

I also think that it was appropriate that they introduced this change in the same article in which they introduced the plan to create smaller sets.  That will increase the overall density of each individual card, making coveted mythics and rares less rare than they otherwise could be.  (Tangentially, I am also excited about smaller sets because I have gotten really sick of buying a booster box and a fat pack and not ending up with a playset of commons.)

Finally, I must note that I object to the phrasing of your question.  I have little experience with Yu-Gi-Oh, so I won't pretend that I can speak for its quality.  Nonetheless, you have explicitly included "being like Yu-Gi-Oh" in your list of negative traits and you've used the word "pander" to insinuate that appealing to a younger audience somehow cheapens the game of Magic.

I have to admit that I do find it a little bit thrilling to imagine cracking open a Shards of Alara booster to find a mythic Planeswalker card.  Granted, I am a somewhat childlike adult when it comes to my appreciation of the different aspects of Magic.  I happen to enjoy the wonder of looking at each card in my booster pack, reading flavour text, studying the illustration, and generally soaking in the flavour.  I think that I will also enjoy the anticipation of opening up a pack that might contain a mythic, just like I now opening up a pack and seeing that it has a foil card, but not knowing until the end whether it's a foily common, uncommon, or rare.

[zeus-online]

I honestly don't like this move, but i've said that before about new card types, new frames etc...so i'll probably just deal with it.

I still hate the "new" frame though....but i'm kinda okay with some of the new card types.

Mythic just feels "Yu-gi-oh"-ish...which i think is a bad thing as i do not enjoy that game and find it really ridiculous.

/Zeus

[Sextiger]

Magic will be attractive to younger players once they knock the price in half or more and start putting bunnies or furries on the cards as the main creature types.  I feel bad enough watching parents get their kids into Yugioh, try explaining a vastly changing and rotating game like magic to them.   

[Moxlotus]

I love their logic.  Other card games had more than 3 levels of rarity, so magic should to.  Becuase clearly all of those other card games have survived and the ultra rares had no ill effect on the longevity of the games...

[Gexzilla10]

Finally, I must note that I object to the phrasing of your question.  I have little experience with Yu-Gi-Oh, so I won't pretend that I can speak for its quality.  Nonetheless, you have explicitly included "being like Yu-Gi-Oh" in your list of negative traits and you've used the word "pander" to insinuate that appealing to a younger audience somehow cheapens the game of Magic.

I think that most Magic players are a mostly tightknit group of people who generally aren't a big fan of change. As a Magic player of 8 years, this move seems like Wizards is trying to draw new players in (from Yu-Gi-Oh or Pokemon or whatever) at the expense of they're older players. MaRo states that they are essentially trying to keep up with other card games. Has Magic fallen that much? Has Magic stopped playing the role as trendsetter in the CCG industry or is it content to sit back and let other games innovate and just follow they're lead?

I love their logic.  Other card games had more than 3 levels of rarity, so magic should to.  Because clearly all of those other card games have survived and the ultra rares had no ill effect on the longevity of the games...

Exactly!! What's next? "Super Rare"? "Ultra Rare"? "Secret Rare"? "Super Duper Ultra Rare"? "I Can't Believe It's Not Rare Rare"? Alright... maybe not that last one but this does open the door for more rarities, so what's next?

[Apollyon]

It is interesting to note that there was a set released where the super rares were more common than the regular rares. This was because they had more rares than there were super-rares, taking the ratio into account.

Something to think about is that they've already had a set with different levels of rarity in Planar Chaos, with the colorshifted rares and the regular rares.

This will also have an impact on Limited. You no longer need to worry about opening 8 mana Legends as your rare.

[Ephraim]

I think that most Magic players are a mostly tightknit group of people who generally aren't a big fan of change. As a Magic player of 8 years, this move seems like Wizards is trying to draw new players in (from Yu-Gi-Oh or Pokemon or whatever) at the expense of they're older players.

How can you even say something like this with a straight face?  Your argument amounts to, "People who play Magic right now are closed-minded and Wizards of the Coast should cater to nobody but us."  Frankly, I don't think that they're doing anything "at the expense of older players."  Although I am inclined to see aspects of greed in this change, I don't think they're taking anything away from us.  I'm trying to maintain perspective regarding this decision and ultimately, it really doesn't upset me all that much.  I believe that I qualify as an "older player" so, clearly, there's some subset of older players that finds this upsetting and another subset that does not.  I predict that you will try to claim that most older players think like you and not like me, but I will preempt that claim unless you can provide evidence to back it up.  (Polling TMD is not going to be sufficient.  The Vintage community is not a representative sample of all "older players.")

[Gexzilla10]

How can you even say something like this with a straight face? 

I have a great poker face.

Your argument amounts to, "People who play Magic right now are closed-minded and Wizards of the Coast should cater to nobody but us."  Frankly, I don't think that they're doing anything "at the expense of older players."  Although I am inclined to see aspects of greed in this change, I don't think they're taking anything away from us.  I'm trying to maintain perspective regarding this decision and ultimately, it really doesn't upset me all that much.  I believe that I qualify as an "older player" so, clearly, there's some subset of older players that finds this upsetting and another subset that does not.  I predict that you will try to claim that most older players think like you and not like me, but I will preempt that claim unless you can provide evidence to back it up.  (Polling TMD is not going to be sufficient.  The Vintage community is not a representative sample of all "older players.")

I agree that not all players will disagree with this change. However this change may represent a shift away from maintaining they're player base in order to expand the game. I'm merely saying that that may not be the best thing to do for the prolonged health of the game. I'm still on the fence on what to believe on this. It may work and contribute to a more stable game but I would caution against radical change just because of greed when the current system works fine.

[Ephraim]

I agree that not all players will disagree with this change. However this change may represent a shift away from maintaining they're player base in order to expand the game. I'm merely saying that that may not be the best thing to do for the prolonged health of the game. I'm still on the fence on what to believe on this. It may work and contribute to a more stable game but I would caution against radical change just because of greed when the current system works fine.

I still see no reason to believe that this change will cause any greater attrition from the established player base than that which already occurs anyway.  I think that it is entirely possible for them to both maintain the existing player base and also to attract new players to the game more effectively than they have previously done.  In my opinion, the addition of mythics will probably annoy many people, but will cause few to quit playing Magic.  On the other hand, I trust that WotC's market research is at least a little accurate.  I certainly don't think that they're changing for no reason.  I agree that greed is a partial motivator.  In fact, WotC anticipates that this maneuver will help them to sell more packs to more players, so greed is probably a major motivator.  Here is the kicker:  Some people perceive this change as decreasing the value of each pack.  If that was the general perception, however, it would fail to produce the results that WotC intends.  Therefore, many or most of the players who will be motivated to investigate Magic as a result of this change will do so because it increases the perceived value of the game.  If, in fact, the majority of the established player base believes that this is a negative change, then, yes, it will have been executed "at the expense of older players."  I would speculate, however, that after initial reactions have subsided, that older players will, as a whole, be ambivalent.

One final point that I would like to make is that I believe that it is unhealthy for the game to differentiate between new and old players.  I identify with the vintage community as well as with the standard community mostly because I like to play Magic.  Even if this change results in old players being a little more unhappy about Magic, if it attracts many new players who are all happy about Magic, then the aggregate satisfaction with the game among Magic players will be greater than it was before.  That, I think, is good for the game.  In fact, one positive attitude I'm trying to adopt is that of civic-mindedness.  Even if I am a little bit unhappy about this change, I'm very happy about new players learning and enjoying the game that I love.

[Godder]

Duel Masters and L5R both have "box-toppers" (or had - I'm a little behind on those two games), which were uber-rare cards that were one to a box. Annoyingly, some of them were requirements for certain decks, so if you wanted to play a particular tournament deck, you had to get these super-rare cards. Compared to that, this is relatively benign (1 in 8 > 1 in 36...).

(I could be wrong, but I think L5R's box-topper actually came with the box rather than in a booster, and was a reprint of old-school awesome cards rather than awesome new cards, but still...)

[oneofchaos]

The one thing I loved about magic, was that the card prices were determined by not rarity, but usefulness, playability, casual and tournament crowds.  When yugioh has the super duper secret ninja rare, it's worth money regardless of how crappy it is.  In magic, rares that sucked were worth far less than decent commons/uncommons.  I don't quite know what this will do to magic.

[Anusien]

Super Rares are about 33% more rare than a normal rare from a set, but some of the non-mythic rares will be more common.  I think it was 1/3 more rare for a big set for mythic, but 50% less rare for a non-mythic rare in a small set.  So more Tarmogoyfs!

[Hellsing293]

In his article, MaRo stated that the cards won't all be crazy broken.  The cards that are mythic rares are simply cards which seemed, flavor wise, that should be considered 'mythic rare'.

The one thing I loved about magic, was that the card prices were determined by not rarity, but usefulness, playability, casual and tournament crowds.  When yugioh has the super duper secret ninja rare, it's worth money regardless of how crappy it is.  In magic, rares that sucked were worth far less than decent commons/uncommons.  I don't quite know what this will do to magic.

As for being higher in price, I don't think so.  MaRo also stated that since the sets contain less cards,there will be more of each rare.  Having more of each rare, the individual card prices should, if anything, go down.  Not to mention, some card prices are determined by rarity.  When I say rarity, I don't mean common/uncommon/rare as much as sparsity.  Power 9 for example--yes it's broken, but the cards are $1K+ because of the small number of them too.

Overall, I don't feel that there will be much change.  Pulling a 'mythic rare' from a pack will give a magic player the same feeling as if they pulled a foil Thoughseize or Tarmogoyf (ok, this would probably give me a heart attack) from a pack.  Being mainly a retired vintage/current peasant magic player, this has no effect on me.

[Harlequin]

As long as I can proxy them, I'm fine with it. 

It's always been true that the best rares in T2 are almost not worth paying money for in T1.  I have the luxery of owning some power as well as a healthy set of duels and fetches.  I have a big collection.  This means I typically only buy cards when they cycle out of standard. 

Mythic I think are a neat idea.  If they do it right They are cool because they can print powerful constructed effects without hurting limited formats too much.  And at the same time focus the "rare" cards towards powerful limited cards.  However if they are too zealous in making great effects at the Mythic Level... they run the risk of hurting Competative(non-pro) Standard.  I would hate to see standard turn into a game like so many other CCGs where the winner is decided by how much money your deck costs.

[ReAnimator]

The one thing I loved about magic, was that the card prices were determined by not rarity, but usefulness, playability, casual and tournament crowds.  When yugioh has the super duper secret ninja rare, it's worth money regardless of how crappy it is.  In magic, rares that sucked were worth far less than decent commons/uncommons.  I don't quite know what this will do to magic.

Juzam Djinn and Zodiac dragon would like a word with you. Why don't you go over there and wait in the corner.

[Harlequin]

The one thing I loved about magic, was that the card prices were determined by not rarity, but usefulness, playability, casual and tournament crowds.  When yugioh has the super duper secret ninja rare, it's worth money regardless of how crappy it is.  In magic, rares that sucked were worth far less than decent commons/uncommons.  I don't quite know what this will do to magic.

Juzam Djinn and Zodiac dragon would like a word with you. Why don't you go over there and wait in the corner.

Sure rarety has importance.... but seriously, If you think only rarety matters I'll trade you TWO rare alliance Lord of Thresherhorns for your pittly uncommon Force of Wills.  Or how about some nice Rare Rasputin Dreamweavers to take those uncommon Mana Drains off your hands. ^_^


Also Look at how many COMMONS are restricted...

ponder
brainstorm
Gush
crop rotation
frantic search
lotus petal

Rarety doesn't Equal Power
Price doesn't Equal Power
Rarety doesn't Equal Price

I don't think Mythics will change that for Vintage

[ReAnimator]

Sure all of what you say is true. But it doesn't make my statement untrue either.

Rarity is tied to price even if those things aren't playable, this is a collectible game after all.

My post was mostly just to point out that there are two sides of the rarity=price coin.
There was also a good amount of tung in cheek in my post too, i wasn't literally saying that rarity is the only driving factor, that is insane, and that was the flaw in oneofchaos' post saying that it wasn't a factor at all which is just not true.

Legacy is a great example of this, there are fringe cards that don't have much play value and are really niche, and almost no casual following, yet they have big price tags mostly because of rarity not their niche playability. eg: Tabernacle, Sea drake, cruel bargain, ect.

[Godder]

If something is old enough, rarity is relevant, but with modern print runs, not really.

[Gexzilla10]

As for being higher in price, I don't think so.  MaRo also stated that since the sets contain less cards,there will be more of each rare.  Having more of each rare, the individual card prices should, if anything, go down.  Not to mention, some card prices are determined by rarity.  When I say rarity, I don't mean common/uncommon/rare as much as sparsity.  Power 9 for example--yes it's broken, but the cards are $1K+ because of the small number of them too.

I'm not so sure about that. Even if the sets are going to be smaller, some of these "Mythic Rares" could become chase cards and shoot their value skyward. The size of a set doesn't have much of an impact on the value of a card (see Lorwyn with Thoughseize or FutSig with Tarmogoyf). Planeswalkers (the few we've seen) and Legends generally are deck staples, so making the cornerstones of popular decks even rarer will only up their value. Given all of this, I can't see many reasons other than greed being the biggest factor behind this decision. If Wizards has poll numbers that coinside with their statement, I would love to see them.

[jro]

I dunno.  The way MaRo describes the mythic rares makes me think their secondary market value shouldn't be too elevated, but then all it would take is one of them being a key card for a Standard deck for that card to hit $30 easy.  For instance Garruk Wildspeaker would obviously be a mythic rare and it's worth $15.  And if they (perhaps unintentionally) print some other Tarmogoyf-level card at mythic rarity you may just see an in-print Magic card reach $100.  This is all irrelevant to Vintage players, of course, but we should remember that WotC's job is to sell more packs.  Appealing to younger players may do that, but if other players have to open more packs searching out the playable mythic rares, that works too.

As a limited player, what interests me is whether or not they'll make commons designed to give a fighting chance against mythic rares in limited.  Traditionally they'll put in some commons or uncommons to deal with the game-winning rares in a set.  Will mythic rares be considered so rare that it won't be necessary to make those commons?

[LordHomerCat]

As a limited player, what interests me is whether or not they'll make commons designed to give a fighting chance against mythic rares in limited.  Traditionally they'll put in some commons or uncommons to deal with the game-winning rares in a set.  Will mythic rares be considered so rare that it won't be necessary to make those commons?

The thing is, A) they will be much rarer IE an average of 3 mythic rares per draft versus 21 regular rares, or, given, Maro's description, about half as many drafts with a Jitte in them as usual, and B) they are supposed to be huge splashy effects rather than efficient good cards.  I mean, if you have 20 mythic rares, and half of them are cards like Warp World and other giant effects that are complete trash in draft, then the possibility of seeing the good Planeswalker or something is considerably lower than in previous sets.  I'm sure there will be ways to beat them, as no rare is unstoppable, and even the best Mythic is unlikely to approach the power level of Jitte or Meloku or Masticore, but I don't see any reason to make cards to specifically mess with Mythics when they will be so rare in limited environments.

Sealed gives you 5 packs worth, so you'll get sllightly more than one mythic rare per two sealed pools, and if there are 20 different mythics, then theoretically it would take like 60+ players before you saw a repeat Mythic.  If, out of 60 players, only one has a pool with a Jitte in it, I don't see any reason to print a bunch of crap to specifically deal with it.

[Gexzilla10]

The thing is, A) they will be much rarer IE an average of 3 mythic rares per draft versus 21 regular rares, or, given, Maro's description, about half as many drafts with a Jitte in them as usual, and B) they are supposed to be huge splashy effects rather than efficient good cards.  I mean, if you have 20 mythic rares, and half of them are cards like Warp World and other giant effects that are complete trash in draft, then the possibility of seeing the good Planeswalker or something is considerably lower than in previous sets.

You're probably right however wouldn't that be counterproductive to print Warp World-esque cards at the "Mystic Rare" level? If I were draw into Magic because of these "Mystic Rares" only to get a bunch of Warp Worlds I'd be more than a little disappointed.

[LordHomerCat]

The thing is, they are supposed to be huge, mythic things.  Planeswalkers, giant spells, major legends, that kind of thing.  Tarmogoyf is not mythic.  Bitterblossom is not mythic, Thoughtseize is not mythic.  Efficient spells and things are not anything particularly exciting or unique, and MaRo said that Mythic was for big splashy exciting things.  Therefore, something like Warp World, which has never been done before, would be a good candidate.  Remember, if you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, Mythic will not just be the 20 best cards in the set.  It will be big fun legends and stuff like that.

Honestly, a Warp World or like Eternal Dominion or the Epic spells from CHK are perfect candidates, and will be a much much stronger draw for new players than cheap tournament rares would be.  The only people who would be excited about mythic Thoughtseize are people who are already competitive players in some other game looking to get into ultra-competitive tournament magic, and that is not the demographic they are trying to attract.  The average Kitchen Table player will be much more excited for giant legends and huge spells.

[Apollyon]

Your happiness at getting Warp World depends entirely on what kind of player you are. This is a predominantly Spike forum, so it doesn't appeal to them. But in casual circles, you are far more likely to see a Johnny open one of those and go "I want to build a deck around this card."

If anything, Warp World is probably a better case for mythic rares than against. If you are the kind of player who doesn't like it, there are fewer of them. If you are the kind of player who would like it, the change in rarity won't really make a huge difference.

[arctic79]

I think a lot of you are missing the point of mythic rares.  Do any of you receive quarterly financial updates from WotC?  We don't know for sure if they are hitting the financial targets given to them by Hasbro.  If they aren't, they have to do something to sell more packs or we lose the game period.  Most of us are Vintage/Legacy players, it's not like we add much to WotC's sales when compared to the other formats.

Is it so bad to have new players come into the fold?  Outside of the pro's in Standard it seems to be mostly younger players that play Standard on a regular basis, and I seriously doubt that the Pro Circuit will be affected by the influx of new players (no matter how much I'ld like to see some of the perennial pro's ousted by a twelve year old piloting a pile of Giants or Elementals). 

Another thing to remember is MaRo has pointed out in many articles that Magic is designed with different player archtypes in mind.  There is a large part of the community that plays only casual, or collects for the sake of collecting.  So WotC has to please them as consumers as much as they have to please competitive players.  Why else does Warp world exist?  Creating a set full of uber effecient cards to keep the competitive players happy is not healthy for the game (ie: Urza's block), and we would have so many restrictions and bannings that the current Brainstorm Fiasco would be looked upon as the good old days.

On a personal level I look forward to the changes because one of the most exciting things in magic is cracking a booster to see what lies inside.

[Matt]

1. We're not solely Eternal players. Many of us play casual formats like EDH and Skittles. I personally have been drafting a lot recently, because SHM drafting is really great and there's a bevy of cheap drafts near me (four days a week if I want it).

2. Most everyone here knows (or they should if they want to debate in an informed manner), from reading Rosewater's past articles, that the kitchen-table crowd actually makes up the majority of Wizards' sales base. However, I seriously doubt that collectors-who-only-collect make up any substantial fraction of sales. Most people like to play with their toys.

[arctic79]

Matt I agree, SHM draft is one of my favorites as well.  And yes I believe most people like to play with their toys.
 But we don't know what kind of statistics WotC has or uses to determine their market, and which group actually spends the majority of the money.  Either way WotC has to sell cardboard or bust.  We don't even know if Mythic rares will be around for all that long, and that will ultimately be up to the consumers to buy or not to buy.
I don't know why people are concerned about this new type of rarity.  It's not not like Magic the game as we know it is going to degenerate into Yu-gi-oh or W.o.W.  I'ld be more concerned with the addition of a basic land and the loss of a common before I worried about a new rare type.

[Cavius The Great]

I think that Mythic rares are great. Who wouldn't want to aquire or possess these cool cards, especially if you can use it as secret tech in some sort of combo deck. I love the idea.

[Matt]

But we don't know what kind of statistics WotC has or uses to determine their market, and which group actually spends the majority of the money.

Actually, we kind of do. We KNOW that tournaments and tournament players represent a minority of overall Magic sales. We KNOW that the kitchen-table gamer demo outweighs the tournament-gamer demo in Magic, both in raw numbers and in overall sales. While raw numbers are not made publicly available, Mark Rosewater has let us know the gross structure on several occasions. I think it first came up when  he mentioned the results of the Godbook study for Invasion, letting us know that Heroes' Reunion was the most popular card in the entire set.