This happened to me at my last FNM draft. I managed to go 2-0-1 in the draft since I just didn't care much about really winning anything this week.
The thing that I am sure came here was you were asking "why are you mentioning playsets in draft?". Normally I have no problem with that, but the fact that I was lucky to draft a playset of a kinda nutty uncommon.
Since I got 4 of that 1 uncommon, it ended up turning to be the big MVC (most versatile/valuable card) of the draft. I know I could have changed a few cards in the list, but it ended up where so many playables make it tough to decide what else to use for it.
Rate/comment/give opinions on what you think of it
I don't really understand. Why shouldn't people get playsets? I read the title as a comment on drafting in general, and I don't see a ton of followup to it. Did I misunderstand here?
Crimson Muckwader is really, really good, we all know that. Getting multiples shouldn't be too surprising, as whatever ones opened in a draft will go to whatever BR drafters there are. The card isn't playable outside of that archetype, so you're bound to see whatever copies are opened if you're the only drafter in the color combination.
What do you mean about it being versatile? It seems pretty straightforward to me. With a deck like BR, it's going to be aggressive about 95% of the time, and those rarities in which you need it to be defensive are often games you aren't winning anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Providing a plethora of pompous and pedantic postings here since 2009.
:dance:Fact or Fiction of the [Limited] Clan:dance:
Signalling is like farting: it's a natural thing that helps people avoid being where you are, and if you try to do it deliberately, things turn to crap fast.
Quote from Hardened »
I hereby found the American Chapter of the Zealots of Semantics. All glory to The Curmudgeon.
Brag post is braggy. It might have been worth bragging about if the card wasn't a card that requires a very specific archetype. 4 nighthawks? That's worth bragging about.
The odds of 4 copies of an uncommon even being opened at the table are very small, so congrats on exploiting a once-in-a-lifetime card pool. As Calavera pointed out though you left way too many good removal spells in your sideboard. I don't necessarily agree with his cuts but you need at least Drain, Execution, and Cower in the deck. I'd pull Torch Fiend, Arsonist, and 1 Jester. You need those Jesters to push through late damage but 3 might be too many.
I've gotten Muckwaders 11th-14th pick sometimes just because they're useless if no one is dedicated BR, so getting them in bunches is not exactly unheard of.
But the thing is, Mark is so obnoxiously swingy that it's sheer power outweighs the risk of a 2-for-1, ergo making it yet another good card. However he does have a few derpy creatures that Mark would turn into legitimate threats, and the Muckers he's starry-eyed for get even more busted when Mark'ed. Mark is something you only consider cutting if you have relatively few creatures and/or already have a couple creature-enhancing cards that are better(but there aren't too many of those). Also can be sided out if it's clear your opponent has a ridiculous amount of removal, like 3 Searing Spears, and some Unsummons or something, but this should obviously be somewhat unlikely.
The odds of 4 copies of an uncommon even being opened at the table are very small, so congrats on exploiting a once-in-a-lifetime card pool. As Calavera pointed out though you left way too many good removal spells in your sideboard. I don't necessarily agree with his cuts but you need at least Drain, Execution, and Cower in the deck. I'd pull Torch Fiend, Arsonist, and 1 Jester. You need those Jesters to push through late damage but 3 might be too many.
I've gotten Muckwaders 11th-14th pick sometimes just because they're useless if no one is dedicated BR, so getting them in bunches is not exactly unheard of.
Its really not that odd. I remember getting multiple hammers back in original triple mirroden drafts, saw multiple moldervine cloaks in triple RAV just to name a few. People evaluate cards different depending on their decks, play experience, group they are playing with, etc.. Yes its gets less common the more sets you add, but in triple anything its not that uncommon.
60 uncommons in M13, and repeats within a pack are mostly impossible (ignoring foils). 24 packs opened in a draft (assuming 8-player - since this was obviously FNM, there might have been more, which would make the situation less weird). 3 uncommons per pack. 3/60 is 5% chance to open any given uncommon in a single pack. So if we're talking about Crimson Muckwader specifically, the odds of opening 4 of them in a draft are .05^4*.95^20*24!/20!/4!=about 2.38%, or 1 in 42.
About 1 in every 42 or so drafts will have 4 of any particular uncommon. There being 60 uncommons in the set, if you have 60 different things which each have a 1 in 42 chance of happening, there's a pretty solid chance of it happening in any given draft: 1-(1-.0238)^60 = 76.44%. So definitely not a once in a lifetime thing. Just because the average is a little higher than 1 of any uncommon per draft doesn't mean that it's remotely likely for every uncommon to appear that often in a single draft. Four of something showing up is very plausible.
Of course, looking through the spoiler, only about half the uncommons in M13 are cards I'd much care to have multiples of, and many fewer which I'd actively want 4 of, and many fewer again which are low enough picks to make it plausible for one person to get them all. So is the OP saying that uncommons shouldn't be designed in such a way that getting 4 of one of them can be extremely strong, or is he saying that getting 4 of something in a draft should be prevented, like having print runs across packs, or is he saying they should make a whole lot more uncommons to reduce the odds of stuff like this happening?
Or is he just bragging about how it's more important to be lucky than good (see Execution in sideboard)?
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
I played a draft a few weeks ago where I literally drafted playsets of the following: Duty-bound Dead, Tormented Soul, Mark of the Vampire, Sign in Blood. I played BW Exalted, went 4-0, didn't lose a single game. Apparently Duty-Bound Dead is a good card.
I had 7 timberpack wolves about a month ago. I couldn't even fathom losing a single game. The rest of the deck was 7 removal (2 prey upon, 2 murder, 3 crippling blight), thragtusk and some bigger dudes and 2 mark of the vampire.
The thing that I am sure came here was you were asking "why are you mentioning playsets in draft?". Normally I have no problem with that, but the fact that I was lucky to draft a playset of a kinda nutty uncommon.
Deck is here
1 duty bound dead
1 goblin arsonist
4 crimson muckwader
2 mogg flunkies
1 torch fiend
2 arms dealer
1 rummaging goblin
1 servant of nefarox
3 goblin battle jester
1 bladetusk boar
1 bloodhunter bat
instant/sorcery
1 searing spear
1 murder
1 turn to slag
1 volcanic geyser
1 mark of the vampire
land
9 swamp
8 mountain
playables
1 chandra's fury
2 fire elemental
1 canyon minotaur
1 volcanic strength
1 cleaver riot
1 cower in fear
1 sign in blood
1 ravenous rats
1 tormented soul
1 essence drain
1 public execution
1 prized elephant
1 archaeomancer
1 switcheroo
1 divination
1 scroll theif
1 downpour
Since I got 4 of that 1 uncommon, it ended up turning to be the big MVC (most versatile/valuable card) of the draft. I know I could have changed a few cards in the list, but it ended up where so many playables make it tough to decide what else to use for it.
Rate/comment/give opinions on what you think of it
-1 Mark of the Vampire
+1 Essence Drain
+1 Public Execution
+1 Cower in Fear
+1 Sign in Blood
Crimson Muckwader is really, really good, we all know that. Getting multiples shouldn't be too surprising, as whatever ones opened in a draft will go to whatever BR drafters there are. The card isn't playable outside of that archetype, so you're bound to see whatever copies are opened if you're the only drafter in the color combination.
What do you mean about it being versatile? It seems pretty straightforward to me. With a deck like BR, it's going to be aggressive about 95% of the time, and those rarities in which you need it to be defensive are often games you aren't winning anyway.
:dance:Fact or Fiction of the [Limited] Clan:dance:
I've gotten Muckwaders 11th-14th pick sometimes just because they're useless if no one is dedicated BR, so getting them in bunches is not exactly unheard of.
Wrong. Always wrong.
How you should approach every game of Magic.
Mod Helpdesk (defunct)
My Flawless Score MCC Card | My Other One | # Three!
Its really not that odd. I remember getting multiple hammers back in original triple mirroden drafts, saw multiple moldervine cloaks in triple RAV just to name a few. People evaluate cards different depending on their decks, play experience, group they are playing with, etc.. Yes its gets less common the more sets you add, but in triple anything its not that uncommon.
About 1 in every 42 or so drafts will have 4 of any particular uncommon. There being 60 uncommons in the set, if you have 60 different things which each have a 1 in 42 chance of happening, there's a pretty solid chance of it happening in any given draft: 1-(1-.0238)^60 = 76.44%. So definitely not a once in a lifetime thing. Just because the average is a little higher than 1 of any uncommon per draft doesn't mean that it's remotely likely for every uncommon to appear that often in a single draft. Four of something showing up is very plausible.
Of course, looking through the spoiler, only about half the uncommons in M13 are cards I'd much care to have multiples of, and many fewer which I'd actively want 4 of, and many fewer again which are low enough picks to make it plausible for one person to get them all. So is the OP saying that uncommons shouldn't be designed in such a way that getting 4 of one of them can be extremely strong, or is he saying that getting 4 of something in a draft should be prevented, like having print runs across packs, or is he saying they should make a whole lot more uncommons to reduce the odds of stuff like this happening?
Or is he just bragging about how it's more important to be lucky than good (see Execution in sideboard)?
EOT I cast spiritual visit splicing 4 more onto it, untap attack, Charge across the Araba
But that's more of an example of why Saviors was terrible.
Because we care about facts.
EDH:
[Competitive] Azusa, Lost but Seeking (54 Lands)
[Competitive] Azami, Lady of Scrolls (Time Warp combo/control)
[Competitive] Kruphix, God of No (True EDH DrawGo)