Monday, August 31, 2020

Card Sleeves

How do you protect your Magic cards? At the game's start in 1993, nobody was asking that question. The goal was playing with them, early and often. The cards were often released in cardboard 60-card deck boxes like this:

And these were probably the most common method for transporting your decks to a friend's house or local tournament. These boxes (which I love and still prefer) had room only for the cards themselves and a rulebook. But then, Magic got popular- and valuable.

On their own, Magic cards are quick to show wear. Not from any product deficiency; through typical play, cards are subject to:
- the oils and dirt on your hands
- the friction from shuffling
- the particles and friction on the playing surface

This (apparently ancient) website gives Scrye magazine's grading system as an example of how cards wear (and are thus graded, which affects resale value):

Once Magic hit it big, the wear on cards caused two main problems:
1) It diminished a card's value, and
2) made it easier to cheat (since cards develop unique wear patterns on front and back)

Enter card sleeves.

In 1995, Ultra Pro was the first to release card sleeves (specifically designed for games), which protected the cards and made it harder to cheat by marking cards.  Like any industry, over time competitors would arise, and products were refined. Today, the three biggest names in the industry (I think; this is just from observation) are KMC, Ultra Pro, and Dragon Shield.  And sleeves come in as many colors, finishes, and art prints as you can imagine.

Sleeves are now the norm. Wizards now packages select Magic products with a cardboard deck box sized to hold sleeved cards. More tellingly, they've produced double-sided cards (starting with the Innistrad block in 2011), meaning they expect players to sleeve up. Finally, using sleeves has become so common that they're mentioned in the Magic Tournament Rules:
3.10 Sleeves 
Players may use plastic card sleeves or other protective devices on cards. If a player chooses to use card sleeves, all sleeves must be identical and all cards in their deck must be placed in the sleeves in an identical manner. If the sleeves feature holograms or other similar markings, cards must be inserted into the sleeves so these markings appear only on the faces of the cards.  
During a match, a player may request that a judge inspect an opponent’s card sleeves. The judge may disallow the card sleeves if they believe they are marked, worn, or otherwise in a condition or of a design that interferes with shuffling or game play. In the interest of efficiency, the judge may choose to delay any change of sleeves until the end of the match.  
Competitive and Professional Rules Enforcement Level tournaments impose additional restrictions on sleeves. Highly reflective backs are not allowed. Sleeves with hologram patterns across some or all of the sleeve front or back are not allowed. Sleeves with artwork on their backs may be subjected to additional scrutiny, especially if there is no solid border around the edges.  
When using sleeves on double-faced cards, sleeves must be completely opaque.  
The Head Judge is the final authority on what sleeves are allowed.
Note that sleeves, like cards, can wear and thus be investigated/disqualified at tournaments. In addition, some crafty people have even figured out how to read a card by its reflection of the card sleeve under it, so be wary of sleeves with a higher degree of reflectivity. If you're playing in tournaments.

But wait- there's more! I don't know when they came into use, but many players now double-sleeve their cards. Yes, double-sleeve. Why? Single-sleeved cards are still exposed to the air, dust/dirt can still get inside, etc. A second sleeve- smaller and placed on the card from the opposite side- creates an air-tight pocket for your card, prevents contact with any contaminants, and thus provides extra protection. This video shows the how and why of double-sleeving:


You can even play under water, apparently (start at 11:13):


Wow.

Let's talk sizes.
63mm x 88mm - Magic card size
64mm x 89mm - typical inner sleeve size
66mm x 91mm - typical outer sleeve size

See how tight those inner sleeves are. Impressive.

Now, the downsides of single- or double-sleeving:
- it's more expensive (perhaps $2-3 for a pack of 100 inner sleeves and $10 for 100 outer)
- it takes a long time to sleeve your cards
- it's more laborious to swap cards into/out of your deck
- sleeved cards take more room to store

It's not for everyone. And if you're playing with cheap cards, I say forget about sleeving entirely. But if your deck is full of $20+ singles, and/or you play with the same decks repeatedly, and/or you have young children with no regard for your personal property, sleeving may be the right choice for you.  Personally, I've never double-sleeved, but I do keep my absolute favorite decks single-sleeved, ready to go.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Arena Stats


Every few months, I get an email from Wizards with some of my Arena stats.  The stats started out different each time, but settled into a structure as Wizards worked out what people wanted.  Anyway, here they are:

Received 9/29/2019, as they wrapped up the beta version of the platform:
Total Matches Played: 2,489
Total Booster Packs Opened: 404
Gold Earned from Quests: 142,250
Gold Earned from Daily Wins: 123,500


Received 1/16/2020, as they prepared for Theros Beyond Death's release:
In total, you have cast 11,611 spells!
(cast since Throne of Eldraine was released the previous September)

Received 4/16/2020, as they prepared for the Ikoria:Lair of Behemoths release:

Received 6/26/2020, as they prepared for Core 2021:

Received 9/18/2020, as they prepared for Zendikar Rising:

Received 1/29/2021, as they prepared for Kaldheim:

Received 4/16/2021, as they prepared for Strixhaven:

Received 11/11/2021:

Received 2/18/2022:

I'll add to this as I receive more. It fascinates me that I'm in the 80th percentile for many categories, and yet still so bad at this game. Also, Arena is great. You can have a ton of fun without spending any money.

Friday, August 21, 2020

Oracle

In the '90s, Magic's popularity created a slew of competitors. Many of these Collectible Card Games (CCGs) are 'dead,' meaning they are no longer produced and no new expansions will ever be released. The existing cards are still usable, of course- if you can find another player of a given game- but a big element of this genre is keeping things fresh with new releases. Magic, of course, is alive and well as it creeps towards the 30th anniversary of its beginning. But Magic is 'alive' in more senses than one- not only are new expansions coming out at a regular clip, but the wording on the cards is subject to change.

To play Magic, of course you must understand the basic rules and turn structure. But much of Magic is explained on the cards themselves- each card can break the rules (remember the golden rule, on the rules page). But when you're as old as Magic, it stands to reason that the designers change things over time, which includes the card wording. Changes happen for two main reasons:
  1. To improve the game. Every now and then, Wizards looks at the state of the game and identifies areas of confusion. In response, they'll making wording or rules changes to make the game verbiage more intuitive, thematic, or streamlined. This article from 2009 highlights big changes to wording (and rules) ushered in with the release of Magic 2010.
  2. To correct mistakes on the cards. This doesn't happen often (mercifully), but sometimes they can (for example) just misprint a card, or change their mind about what tribe a given creature belongs to. 
When a change is needed, what do you do? You can't recall the cards or print replacements- that would be logistically impossible to manage. Enter Oracle and Gatherer.

We begin with section 108.1 of the comprehensive rules:
108.1. Use the Oracle card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at Gatherer.Wizards.com.
To be absolutely certain that a given card's wording is accurate, you must consult this resource.  Let's look at an example.

Llanowar Elves is a card that's been printed many times over Magic's history. Consulting Gatherer, I pulled two copies of the card; one from Alpha (the first set ever), and one from Dominaria (released in 2018).  Note that the Oracle text for the game-related text is the same (the flavor text may differ, but that has no bearing on gameplay). Though the core of the card is the same- the power, toughness, and ability- there are a few differences:
- The presentation of the ability has changed quite a bit, as Wizards has evolved their symbols and keywords over the years.
- The Alpha Elf is not listed as a creature (just as a "summon"), nor as a druid- just an elf. The Dominaria Elf is clearly printed as a creature- Elf Druid.
Looking at the Oracle wording, Llanowar Elves is an Elf Druid. So any cards or abilities that affect Druids will affect the Elf- even the Alpha version, which doesn't have 'Druid' printed on it.

Another example: changing the tribe. The Homelands expansion had five creature cards where the art was clearly a minotaur, but only three actually say minotaur on them (the other two are 'ghost' and 'bodyguard'). Players noticed that immediately. Wizards corrected it- not on the card, but in Oracle:
- Anaba Ancestor is printed as a "ghost," but the Oracle text says it's a "minotaur spirit."
- Anaba Bodyguard is printed as "bodyguard," but the Oracle text says it's a "minotaur."

Sometimes the tribe names can change, too. If you look at the comprehensive rules from April 2020, section 205.3m lists all creature types and subtypes. It lists "Hound" but not "Dog."  Now look at the comprehensive rules from August 2020. That same section now lists "Dog" but not "Hound." What happened?  In July 2020, Core 2021 came out. It had a few cards that were given the Dog creature type.  Wizards decided that "Dog" and "Hound" were similar enough that they discontinued the latter in favor of the former.  When you look at Oracle, many cards printed as "Hound" are now listed as "Dog."

The above examples focused on creature types, but there are many other examples where wording has changed over the years:
  • "Comes into play" became "enters the battlefield." 
  • "Remove from the game" became "exile." 
  • Just a few months ago, "put [x] cards from the top of a library into that player's graveyard" became "mill [x] cards."
  • More keywords (like vigilance, lifelink, or deathtouch; see the Rules page) were introduced.
Gatherer- the database run by Wizards- is the only official source here. But many good card search engines- like Scryfall- link to this official reference (in Scryfall, on a given card's page, click "View on Gatherer"- see screenshot below).

The bottom line: the Oracle text in the Gatherer database is the authoritative reference for all card wording, and older cards have the newer wording automatically applied to them. You won't need this 99% of the time, but it's an important nuance that may pop up from time to time.

Thursday, August 13, 2020

Theme vs. Function

Magic card art is wonderful, but it serves no game play purpose; it's for flavor only.  But not to me.

I like it when decks are thematically consistent- meaning that the art of cards in a deck look like they could be part of the same story. But such consistency can come at the cost of success (I assure you, tournament winners focus on function and synergy, not theme). I get it, but I don't like it.
I'll share a few examples.

I have a deck termed "Song of the Sea" (I like to name my decks based on movies or cultural references). Some key cards are below.



It's thematically consistent- a sea-based deck where all cards are things that could be reasonably associated. There is a functional synergy, too- this is a deck about fast card drawing and related benefits- but repeated play has shown it just doesn't compete. It doesn't move quickly enough and is easily derailed by removal spells. Fair enough. It bums me out, though, because I like the consistency.

Next example: a white/black deck focused on life gain. Key cards:


The concept is simple: play creatures that enable life gain (Healer's Hawk, Impassioned Orator) and cards that benefit from life gain (Bloodthirsty Aerialist, Ajani's Pridemate). I've played against several decks with these cards; they're functionally powerful and synergisted, but look at the theme. Vampires allied with clerics, cat soldiers, and birds?! I have problems wrapping my head around that, even if it works.

Third example: a black/green adventure deck. Key cards:



Edgewall Innkeeper is key. Playing him plus Foulmire Knight (as a creature, not adventure) gives cheap and fast card draw. Lucky Clover helps copy adventure spells- especially Smitten Swordmaster, once you have a few knights out.  The deck works well, but again, consider the theme. An innkeeper cavorting with zombie knights?!

Magic is a great game. The possibilities are endless, even if they aren't "likely." But hey, this is a fantasy card game, so I should just get over it.  If you want to compete, focus on function. 

Saturday, August 8, 2020

Dominaria Drafting


I'm really enjoying the Dominaria draft event Arena is running right now. It was a fun set and great for limited play.  This post recaps my three drafts; the decks presented are formated for export into Arena.

Draft 1
Record: 2-3
I ran a red-green (with splash of white) deck. Some great cards like Siege-Gang Commander gave me a chance, but I didn't do well overall; I saw a lot of blue decks that kept returning creatures to my hand, finishing with the hexproof creature Cold-water Snapper. The deck:
1 Siege-Gang Commander (DAR) 143
1 Keldon Raider (DAR) 135
2 Marwyn, the Nurturer (DAR) 172
2 Keldon Overseer (DAR) 134
1 Primordial Wurm (DAR) 177
1 Llanowar Elves (DAR) 168
2 Adventurous Impulse (DAR) 153
1 Seismic Shift (DAR) 141
1 Mammoth Spider (DAR) 171
1 Warlord's Fury (DAR) 151
1 Shanna, Sisay's Legacy (DAR) 204
1 Steel Leaf Champion (DAR) 182
1 Krosan Druid (DAR) 167
1 Clifftop Retreat (DAR) 239
1 Gaea's Protector (DAR) 162
1 Yavimaya Sapherd (DAR) 189
1 Skizzik (DAR) 145
1 Llanowar Envoy (DAR) 169
2 Llanowar Scout (DAR) 170
1 Pierce the Sky (DAR) 176
1 Zhalfirin Void (DAR) 249
1 Run Amok (DAR) 140
2 Plains (IKO) 262
5 Mountain (IKO) 271
7 Forest (IKO) 274

Draft 2
Record: 4-3
This was the worst draft ever, with the most unexpected result. I had horrible rares from which to choose, and I ended up unwisely running with a five-color monstrosity:
1 Primevals' Glorious Rebirth (DAR) 201
1 Cast Down (DAR) 81
1 D'Avenant Trapper (DAR) 11
1 Yargle, Glutton of Urborg (DAR) 113
1 Cabal Paladin (DAR) 79
2 Rona, Disciple of Gix (DAR) 203
1 Benalish Honor Guard (DAR) 5
1 Fungal Infection (DAR) 94
1 Pardic Wanderer (DAR) 226
1 Artificer's Assistant (DAR) 44
1 Howling Golem (DAR) 218
1 Darigaaz Reincarnated (DAR) 193
1 Danitha Capashen, Paragon (DAR) 12
1 Final Parting (DAR) 93
1 Caligo Skin-Witch (DAR) 80
1 Amaranthine Wall (DAR) 210
2 Divest (DAR) 87
1 Jhoira's Familiar (DAR) 220
1 Windgrace Acolyte (DAR) 112
1 Chainer's Torment (DAR) 82
1 Drudge Sentinel (DAR) 89
1 Invoke the Divine (DAR) 22
1 Healing Grace (DAR) 20
1 Mox Amber (DAR) 224
1 Tiana, Ship's Caretaker (DAR) 208
1 Valduk, Keeper of the Flame (DAR) 148
1 Short Sword (DAR) 229
1 Urgoros, the Empty One (DAR) 109
1 Sparring Construct (DAR) 232
2 Navigator's Compass (DAR) 225
1 Forest (IKO) 274
3 Mountain (IKO) 271
6 Swamp (IKO) 268
3 Island (IKO) 265
4 Plains (IKO) 262

There are many problems with this. The three biggest:
1) I had a 50-card deck (typical is 40), but only 17 lands (which is okay . . . if you have a 40-card deck).
2) There was no real plan. Sort of focused on Legends, a splash of other things, but just listless.
3) I ran five colors. Why . . . why why? With 17 lands?! 

I knew the deck was bad going in . . . but I ended up 4-3 . One victory was because an opponent probably had network problems, so it was really 3-3.  But still. It was perhaps the most fun, because I expected nothing. There was enough power here (at higher mana costs) to hang with people, if I lasted that long. I had much fewer problems with mana than I expected- luck of the draw plus Navigator's Compass helped.

Draft 3
Record: 5-3
I knew I had hope when my first pack featured Karn, Scion of Urza. I ran white/blue artifacts, to reasonable effect. In the games Karn came out, I won.
1 Karn, Scion of Urza (DAR) 1
1 Triumph of Gerrard (DAR) 38
1 Amaranthine Wall (DAR) 210
1 Sparring Construct (DAR) 232
1 D'Avenant Trapper (DAR) 11
1 Pegasus Courser (DAR) 29
1 Invoke the Divine (DAR) 22
1 Bloodtallow Candle (DAR) 212
1 Guardians of Koilos (DAR) 216
1 Jhoira's Familiar (DAR) 220
1 Short Sword (DAR) 229
1 Cold-Water Snapper (DAR) 48
1 Serra Disciple (DAR) 34
1 Voltaic Servant (DAR) 236
1 Knight of New Benalia (DAR) 24
1 Benalish Honor Guard (DAR) 5
1 Blessed Light (DAR) 7
1 Danitha Capashen, Paragon (DAR) 12
1 Jousting Lance (DAR) 221
1 Aesthir Glider (DAR) 209
1 Navigator's Compass (DAR) 225
1 Call the Cavalry (DAR) 9
1 Curator's Ward (DAR) 49
1 Board the Weatherlight (DAR) 8
1 Unwind (DAR) 72
1 Tragic Poet (DAR) 37
6 Island (IKO) 265
10 Plains (IKO) 262

Sunday, August 2, 2020

The Surveys of Old

Every now and then, I get nostalgic. Not for a specific time or event- just a general yearning for the simplicity and joy of childhood and adolescence.  Even stumbling across silly things can trigger this desire- like this survey I came across recently in a Seventh Edition starter deck:

This survey was from 2000. It not only triggers nostalgia- it provides a few insights into that time:

  • Question 3 gives insight into the Collectible Card Game (CCG) industry in this time. The late '90s bubble had burst, but Wizards still had several strong competitors to Magic. Pokemon, Star Wars, Harry Potter- no shocks there.  But MLB Showdown?!  WCW Nitro?!  Weird. And what about Yu-Gi-Oh!- why wasn't that listed? Oh right . . . that wasn't released until 2002.
  • Question 7: rating Magic. Ignoring the 'overall' question, two of the five questions (card art and package design) have no bearing on game play.  The others (easy to learn, fun to play, complexity level) help us understand Wizards' goals for the product.
  • Question 8 sheds light on the types of media common at the time and how they expected Magic to be advertised. Internet was gaining popularity- in this year, 42% of US households had Internet, though only 4% had broadband. It mentions the Internet, but focuses more on television advertisements (I never saw one of those, to my recollection).  It also mentions magazine advertisements (Scrye magazine, how I miss you!), the Magic Guru program (whatever that was), and expected things like game stores, friends, and tournaments. And, of course, they expected people to mail the survey in. I wonder how many did? Remember the days of doing that?
  • Question 9: How did you learn to play?  Note that the Internet isn't a listed option- there just weren't the resources online for new players (or, if there were, they weren't significant to warrant inclusion in the question). Two of the answers are "self-taught."  Wow.
  • Questions 10 and 11: on favorite television shows and video games. These intrigue me; I wonder how they'd use these in product development.

I'm glad it's 2020 (well, sort of . . . it has been a messed-up year). Part of me, however, does wish I could go back in time to:

  • Tell my younger self to invest in Magic; I'd be a millionaire now
  • Enjoy what seems like a simpler era, before information overload, fake news, the expectation of instantaneous communication, and social media dominated our lives

Ah, I'm complaining. Back to the present.