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.