2020 Arena Stats

I conclude 2020 by looking at my Arena stats for the year (Magic: The Gathering Arena is a free-to-play digital online PC version of the collectible card game).

To date, Arena doesn't keep stats for you (they send occasional emails, which I capture here, but that's all), so I kept stats by hand using an Excel spreadsheet. Never again; it was time-consuming to go through the data. There are helpful trackers out there (my friend recommends https://mtga.untapped.gg/ as having the best game and deck stats). But moving on.

This year, I played 1450 games that 'counted' on Arena (meaning they weren't against the AI bot or in friendly matches with friends). My overall record was 721-729; almost dead-even. (I told you I'm not a good Magic player.) But I had fun. Here are some further breakdowns (you'll note a few game difference in these numbers, because I made a mistake somewhere when consolidating and refuse to spend hours finding where).

I played Constructed 80% of the time, Limited 20%.

Constructed: 582-593

(Constructed includes Standard and Historic play)

In Constructed, my Home Brews fared better (446-434) than my Net Decks (136-159). I enjoyed my Home Brews better anyway, playing them 75% of the time.

I played mono-colored decks 49% of the time, two-colored 36%, three-colored 14%, and five-colored 1%. I fared best in mono-black (102-77) and blue/red/green (76-43); my record by color:

My favorite Constructed decks were (not surprisingly) also my most-played and most-successful, going 302-221:

- mono-black "Tony" decks (100-71)

- mono-blue "Mill" decks (80-68)

- blue/red/green "Elemental" decks (76-43)

- white/black "Cleric" decks (46-39)

My biggest disappointments collectively went 80-141:

- mono-green "stompy" decks (53-61)

- mono-red "burn" decks (5-14)

- mono-blue "Song of the Sea" deck (5-16)

- red/green "Satyr" and "Landfall" decks (8-22)

- blue/red "Chimaera" deck (2-10)

- white/blue "High Alert" deck (7-18)

Limited: 139-139

(Limited includes draft, sealed, JumpStart and other Arena events)

In Limited, I liked Sealed the best, but Drafts and JumpStart were fun, too. Other events, not so much, and there were a few games (I call them 'unknown') that I think were Limited events but I didn't record sufficient detail on my spreadsheet to know for certain. The breakdown by event type:

By Month

Looking at games by month only, we have the following:

We'll see what 2021 brings.

The Benefits of Observation and Trial

Today's post is a reflection on a time when I failed to observe a nuance in the rules that rendered my deck useless.

Magic requires a good amount of pre-game planning. The 'generic' victory condition is reducing your opponent to zero life before he/she does the same to you.  There are several 'gimmick' cards, however, that present alternate victory conditions- one such is below, called Near-Death Experience.

A few years ago, I decided to make a deck based around this victory condition.  I decided to go with white/black for my colors, as they (especially black) had a number of cards (examples below) that enabled me to lose  life (which normally is a bad thing, but here was desired) while doing something cool, or profited from me having low life (Death's Shadow, for example).

So far, so good.  I needed some more ways to lose life, and certain lands helped:

I was well on my way.  But I needed a way to get down to 1 life without getting to 0.  Here's where these two cards were key- I'll call them my 'lifelines':

With these in mind, I made my deck.  The lifelines plus the victory condition were a pretty cool combo; if I could use the other cards to decrement my life total, I figured I had a good shot.  I was excited to try it today . . . and got destroyed, twice, because I failed to heed the wording on my lifelines.

In any game, failure to comprehend the nuances of the rules can be catastrophic.  In this case, I neglected to realize that losing life and taking damage are not inherently the same thing.  From the comprehensive rules (found here):

• 118.2. Damage dealt to a player normally causes that player to lose that much life. See rule 119.3.
• 118.3. If an effect causes a player to gain life or lose life, that player’s life total is adjusted accordingly.

If you look at my non-land cards above, their effects say 'lose X life' and not 'take X damage.'  But if you look at Angel's Grace and Worship, they say "damage that would reduce your life total to less than 1 reduces it to 1 instead."  Damage causes loss of life (rule 118.2), but loss of life is not necessarily caused by damage- you just adjust the life total (rule 118.3).  My entire deck was based upon a misunderstanding.  My cards worked well in the early game, but once I got down to a few life, there were cards I couldn't play without destroying myself.  Sheesh.  General life lessons:

• the details matter.
• trials/play-testing are necessary to determine the quality of a design.

I did a similarly foolish thing in 2008 at a Star Wars Miniatures tournament in Germany.  I had misunderstood the targeting rules, and my friends shared my confusion.  We were summarily destroyed as a result.  Pay attention, folks!  And test, test, test.

CCG

Today I want to take a step back and enjoy collectible card games in general. This post is based on a talk I gave several years ago about the subject for a church event. We were limited to five powerpoint slides and five minutes.

---------

Tabletop games are an excellent hobby for many reasons: mental exercise, social interaction, teamwork, imagination, and just plain fun. But my very favorite type of game is called a collectible card game, or CCG. In a nutshell, this is a game where each player builds a deck of cards and uses it to battle opponents to the stated victory condition.

CCGs differ from traditional games in two ways: distribution model and preparation.

Distribution: You can't pick up the complete game in a self-contained package.  Instead, players obtain cards by purchasing randomized packs, with varying rarities. New sets of cards (called expansions) are released regularly, adding to the available card pool.

Preparation: Players must build a deck before any play happens.  Often, they invest a considerable amount of time learning cards, testing interactions, and constructing their decks. Most players spend more time preparing for games than playing them.

CCGs burst on the scene in 1993, when mathematician Richard Garfield wanted a compact filler game to pass time between games at board game conventions. He invented Magic: the Gathering, and its phenomenal success would see a predictable boom in the industry by 1995. Anything and everything had a CCG. There were encyclopedias and magazines dedicated to the hobby. There were even three Christian-themed games. But the bubble burst as quickly as it had formed. There were later successes- like Pokemon and Yu-gi-oh, but the golden age had passed.

That said, the hobby enjoys a steady following today: there are over 20 million Magic: the Gathering players in the world, with tournaments occasionally appearing on TV.

Sometimes, we’re drawn to hobbies- consciously or otherwise- because they point to truths greater than themselves. I believe CCGs have several unique characteristics that reflect our reality more than typical tabletop offerings. Just a few:

- (top left picture in above slide) The joy of creating: your deck is a personal creation you nurture to reach its potential, which echoes of the Genesis cultural mandate and our responsibilities to do the same for creation as stewards of the Earth

- (bottom right) Diversity & Vastness: with over 15,000 unique magic cards, the possibilities are nearly infinite. Like the world, it’s too big to experience it all- though maybe you can reach .002%.

- (bottom left) Progressive revelation: the games are a living, unfolding drama. You know there’s a plan, but never know what’s coming. Cards which seem to have no purpose can become valuable when paired with later releases.  We can experience this in our lives, at times being unsure where we fit.  But as life progresses, our purpose can become evident.  Additionally, as new expansions release, which cards are important changes, reflecting our changing roles in society as we age and pass the torch to the next generation.

- (top right) The need for synergy/community.  New players often make the mistake of packing their decks with expensive and powerful cards.  But the best decks are ones that synergize well, where each card plays a role and some of the most important cards can be commons.  It reflects the Christian Church as a whole, as discussed in 1 Corinthians 12 and elsewhere.  There are many members, gifts, and functions the body requires- and the most important is not always visible.

- (also top right) Need to focus and develop.  Individual decks must have internal synergy, but even then, no deck does all things well or wins in all conditions.  This reflects our finite capacities and need to nurture specific gifts to fulfill our calling.  No community is perfect, and each is geared to thrive in certain scenarios.

For these and other reasons, CCGs have a special place in my heart. I’d be happy to demonstrate them sometime; see me if interested. And I encourage you to look at your hobbies and determine the greater truths behind them- for the Lord’s invisible attributes have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made (from Romans 1).

Scrye Magazine

Today's post is a walk down memory lane.  Scrye Magazine was published from 1994-2009 and covered the collectible gaming industry (most notably Magic).  Each issue had price guides, card lists, strategy articles, deck designs, game company advertisements, and previews of new games and/or expansions.  Sometimes, they even packaged exclusive cards with the magazine.

This magazine was a product of its time.  In an era before ubiquitous internet, it was the resource people used to determine card values when trading/buying/selling.  The articles were often written by gamers- meaning they were poorly done- but had information you couldn't get anywhere else on the best strategies and decks.  (Indeed, I picked up a few old issues because this is still the only place you can get information on some long-dead* CCGs.)  The advertisements for getting cards via mail order made me smile and laugh . . . ahhh, the way things used to be.  (As an aside, a quick study of companies in one issue found that only six of the 32 companies are still in business.)  And the price guides remind me that I should have spent my savings on Magic cards twenty years ago, so I could enjoy an early and luxurious retirement today.  Hindsight, as they say.  Anyway, I enjoyed this magazine and continue to thumb through back issues on occasion, mindful of the Internet's obvious advantages while mourning a bygone era (and the demise of physical conduits of gaming information).  R.I.P., Scrye magazine.  Thanks for the memories.

*a dead CCG is a collectible card game that is no longer produced.

The Sets of Old

This post continues reflecting on Magic's days of old. Last time, I looked at art. Today, the sets themselves.

I've spent the last month or so dwelling fondly on Magic's sets of ages past- specifically, Fourth Edition, which (as near as I can remember) was the release on the shelves when I began playing the game in 1995. I liked Ice Age, too, though in hindsight it was for the theme but not the mechanics (those weren't great). As I love core sets (see last month's posts), Fourth Edition has been most on my mind.

Though the game has certainly become more polished and streamlined, it is impressive how much they got right early on. I like Fourth (4ed) in particular because it is when they started cleaning up the rules text. See example below; in this case the wording switched from passive voice to active, respectively, in the 3ed and 4ed versions of Disenchant:

The wording changes were welcome, and the set also retained many of the original cards (~75% of the cards in Alpha are still around in 4ed), which I also liked. Why? 

I've debated exactly what it is I miss about these old core sets. Is it simply looking back fondly on the past? Is it more about those memories than the quality of the cards (their stats/abilities) themselves? Perhaps. But I definitely miss the cards as well. They were just . . . simpler.

Over the years, Magic has increased in complexity and and experienced "power creep" (the tendency of a card's abilities at a given cost and rarity to become comparatively more powerful as the years progress). This can be proved, and I plan to look at it next year in a quantitative analysis. For now, I limit myself to a few examples. In the four below, I look at common cards of equal casting cost; the left-hand column has cards from 4ed, and the right cards from M21 or another modern set:

See what I mean? In each case, the modern version is superior. Outside of a handful of overpowered cards, the early sets don't hold up to today's (which is why, as an aside, you can pick up many old cards for less money than you'd think).

Though these newer cards outclass the old in most respects, I still miss those sets of yore. The games went longer, the creatures had fewer abilities, and the combinations of or interactions between cards weren't as significant or likely to produce a chain-reaction instant win. In particular, I've been bizarrely obsessed with the Hurloon Minotaur:

The creature is not great . . . but back then, a 2/3 creature wasn't as easily removed as today. 

In our remaining time here in Europe, I'm collecting some of these old cards and intend to assemble a core set or cube using a good deal of them. Magic is many things, but ultimately, we play because it is satisfying, which does not necessarily equal having the best cards or most powerful decks. There is value in the old and simple.

The Art of Old

Magic is more than a game- it's a showcase for artists. The art of Magic has changed quite a bit as the game has progressed. I miss how it used to be- we no longer get cards like Durkwood Boars (see above image). This post is a very basic history of Magic art.

One difficulty in launching Magic was the amount of artwork needed- about 300 pieces- for just one set. Remember, Magic was not a polished juggernaught at that time. It was a completely new concept- a new genre- and it needed a lot of fantasy art quickly.  The original art design was directed by Jesper Myrfors, and he convinced a number of students at nearby Cornish College in Seattle to lend their talents to the game. The artists were given a good deal of freedom (modern sets are far more artistically cohesive). Look through the art of the first set, Alpha, here on Scryfall and observe the diversity of styles (now look at Zendikar Rising, released 27 years later, and observe the comparative homogeneity). But note, too, the overall tone the art sets for the game: those diverse styles worked together wonderfully to convey Magic's fantasy theme and diverse possibilities. It's light-hearted but a serious game. There are thousands of deck possibilities, with different themes and strategies, and the art reinforces that. You don't know what to expect- in the game or in the art. And it's a bit geeky.   

Over time, the art would get more consistent (within a given set) and perhaps of higher quality. And certainly feature more realism and power in its imagery. (In a way, it reminds me how video games have graphically progressed since the days of the 8-bit NES. As designers have more bits and computing power, the product gets increasingly real and menacing.) To see what I mean in Magic, let's look at some cards that have been reprinted several times over the years with new artwork. Check out how Serra Angel, Drudge Skeletons, Shivan Dragon, and Llanowar Elves have evolved over the years:

  

See the trend? The mechanics of the game are the same as they were almost 30 years ago, but the art has taken a more 'real' and serious tone. I wish I had the art knowledge and vocabulary to better articulate how this is conveyed, but it's clearly there.

Today, each set's art is planned right along with the theme and mechanics. Artists are restricted in color and style. The result is more cohesive but (perhaps) less original or unpredictable. And recents sets feature showcase cards (see Eldraine's here) that more closely reflect the inspiration for the set (Eldraine's was fairy tales).

The modern Magic game has tightened up the wording, mechanics, and cohesiveness within a set. It's improved in many respects from the original offerings. That said, art of old holds a special place in my heart. I miss that whimsical fantasy flavor and the game in its more original state- but more on that next time.

Core Reprints

Today I'll close out the month with another look at core sets (see previous post). From last time, there are 21 core sets to date in Magic's history. Adding up the cards in each, we have 6,451 total cards available in booster packs, but recent releases have offered further core set cards available only in preconstructed planeswalker decks (or other products), driving that number up to 6,725 cards. This counts everything (multiple copies of basic lands in each set, for example), so let's look at things in more detail, with a focus on reprints.

As you'd expect, reprints are common in core sets. Last time, we learned that 10 core sets featured only reprints. This time, I want to look at reprints as the occur in core sets only- in other words, I don't count if a given card was reprinted in an expansion or special release. Looking at the 21 core set releases, what do we see?

A few caveats: I don't count basic lands, and I count instances where cards were printed twice in one core set with differing artwork only once.

At a high level, 

• 131 cards have been reprinted in 7 or more core sets, or 33% of the releases.
• 37 cards have been reprinted in 11 or more core sets, or 50% of the releases.
• 9 cards have been reprinted in 14 or more core sets, or 67% of the releases.

The 5 most commonly reprinted cards:

• Shivan Dragon, Giant Spider, Serra Angel (16 core sets)
• Nightmare, Unsummon (15 core sets)

One in each color, it just so happens:

Let's look at more numbers, focusing on those 131 cards that show up in 1/3 or more of core sets. Those cards, in total, account for 1,226 of the 6,725 core set cards- over 18%. Of these 131 cards,

• 111 (85%) first appeared in Alpha; see list below

• 1 first appeared in Beta (Circle of Protection: Black)
• 3 first appeared in Revised (Millstone, Ornithopter, Aladdin's Ring)
• 1 first appeared in 4th Edition (Spirit Link)
• 5 first appeared in 6th Edition (Gravedigger, Pacifism, Shock, Phantom Warrior, Rampant Growth)
• 2 first appeared in 7th Edition (Mind Rot, Duress)
• 2 first appeared in 8th Edition (Naturalize, Diabolic Tutor)
• 1 first appeared in 10th Edition (Cancel)
• 2 first appeared in Magic 2010 (Negate, Act of Treason)
• 1 first appeared in Magic 2011 (Plummet)
• 2 first appeared in Magic 2012 (Lava Axe, Titanic Growth)

Looking at types, rarities, and colors, we have the following breakdown:

• 46 creatures
• 27 enchantments
• 22 instants
• 20 artifacts (or artifact creatures)
• 16 sorceries
• 56 commons
• 41 uncommons
• 34 rares
• 23 White
• 20 Blue
• 22 Black
• 21 Red
• 25 Green
• 20 Artifact

As you'd expect, the first sets (Alpha through 5th Edition) have many of these most commonly reprinted cards (over 100 each). 

• Revised and Fourth Edition have the most, at 114 cards
• Core Set 2021 has the least, at 5 cards
• There's a steady decline of commonly reprinted cards, as shown below

Of course, this is looking only at those reprinted in 7 or more core sets. Numbers swell dramatically when we include those printed (say) in 3 or more core sets. But that analysis is for another time.

This work further informs my 2021 goal: designing My Own Core (or "MOC") set, drawing from Magic's history and taking a cue from these frequently reprinted cards. Wizards is telling us something: with these 131 cards showing up in so many of the games foundational products (which is what core sets are- or at least were), they warrant likely (or mandatory) inclusion in MOC.

At the Core

Giant Spider

I love core sets. By definition, they're the basis of the game. They were the first releases, they contain so many classic cards, they focus on fundamentals . . . they're great. To date, we've had 21 core sets: Alpha, Beta, Unlimited (Second Edition), Revised (Third Edition), Fourth through Tenth Edition, Magic 2010 through Magic 2015, Origins, and Core 2019 through Core 2021. Today's post looks at some stats based on core sets. Throughout, scryfall syntax commands are presented should you wish to reproduce any of the results.

Basics

Here are the core sets with their release date, set code, and number of cards.

Two things to note:

1) The number of cards in a core set has varied between roughly 250 and 450 cards, with an average of just over 300.

2) The time between releases varies from a few months (the first few) to every two years (Fourth Edition-Magic 2010) to every year (Magic 2010-Origins and Core Set 2019-Core Set 2021). There was a three-year gap between Origins and Core Set 2019.

Number of Same Cards Reprinted Across Core Sets

How many cards have "passed through" all core sets? In other words, how many of the same cards are printed in Alpha, Beta, Unlimited, and so on? (I omit basic lands.) As you'd expect, the number drops as we include more core sets. All cards in Alpha show up in Beta, for example, but fewer are in Alpha/Beta/Unlimited, fewer still are in the first four core sets, and the number drops to zero by Magic 2013. So there is not one card that shows up in all core sets. The one that does through the first thirteen? Giant Spider. Graph shown below. 

Scryfall syntax:

in:lea in:leb [returns cards printed in both Alpha and Beta]

in:lea in:leb in:2ed [returns cards printed in Alpha, Beta, and Unlimited]

and so on.

Number of Alpha Cards Reprinted in Other Core Sets

The next analysis focuses on Alpha. How many cards in Alpha got reprinted in subsequent core sets? (Again, I omit basic lands.) In other words, how many Sixth Edition cards were first printed in Alpha? How many Origins card were printed in Alpha? And so on. This number also dropped as we progress in time, but remains nonzero until Core 2021- the first set that contains zero cards printed in Alpha. Five cards from Alpha show up in Core 2020: Disenchant, Air Elemental, Unsummon, Fire Elemental, and Shivan Dragon. Graph shown below. 

Scryfall syntax:

in:lea in:6ed [returns cards printed in both Alpha and Sixth Edition]

in:lea in:m19 [returns cards printed in both Alpha and Core 2019]

and so on.

Number of Cards Reprinted in Adjacent Core Sets

This next topic concerns 'adjacent' core sets. This ignores expansions or other special releases and looks at how the core sets 'evolved' over time. How many cards in Alpha showed up in Beta? How many in 3rd Edition showed up in 4th Edition? How many in M13 showed up in M14? And so on. There have never been fewer than 12 cards reprinted from this perspective (between Origins and M19), and every other adjacent core release has had at least 23 reprints. Graph shown below. 

Scryfall syntax:

in:9ed in:10e [returns cards printed in both 9th Edition and 10th Edition] 

in:m13 in:m14 [returns cards printed in both M13 and M14] 

and so on.

Cards in Core Sets That are Not Reprints

This final category flips it around. How many cards in each core set are unique- in other words, have never been reprinted? Initially, the goal with core sets was to provide staple cards to players, so after Alpha, core sets were always 100% reprints through 10th Edition. [But, from the previous graphs, we see that the reprints weren't always coming from previous core sets- in fact, most were not. That meant cards first printed in expansions were finding their way into later core releases.] But the 'reprint only' policy changed with the release of M10. I still remember the buzz around that change- people were so excited (I among them). Those first few "M[x]" core sets featured ~100 new [meaning unique] cards per release. That number has jumped to ~180 since Origins. Graph shown below. 

Scryfall syntax:

e:ori not:reprint [returns cards printed in Origins that are not reprints] 

e:m21 not:reprint [returns cards printed in Core 2021 that are not reprints] 

and so on.

Concluding Thoughts

Core sets are worth studying because they give insight into what Wizards considers the nucleus of the Magic experience. Through reprints have always played a big role, they were not always from previous core sets, and new [unique] cards are increasingly featured in the last few. 

I did this analysis as part of my goal for 2021: to design my own core set, using only existing cards, drawing from Magic's rich history, and using statistics to include most commonly-reprinted cards, etc.