@BetweenWalls: Trying to figure out if pre Ice Age rarities are common, uncommon or rare is like trying to figure out if right and left are blue, yellow or red. The systems are different, simple as that. IMO, the reason for the different rarities is that WotC also takes into account the card's power level. They are free to redefine rarities as they see fit (much like they did with Modern Masters, except I doubt Maze is reprinted soon). Since we regard WotC rarities as axiomatically true in other circumstances (despite Delver for instance), there's no reason to question it over this. WotC create the game so their database cannot be wrong, by definition, whether we find it appropriate or not.
I'm not sure I agree with that line of reasoning; the gatherer database may be considered official, but that doesn't make it correct, or the best list. Gatherer is notorious for lacking support - the advanced search has 'features' that haven't worked for years, and shows no signs of being fixed. It's unsurprising that it also has other bugs and inconsistencies.
Also, determining older cards rarity is actually fairly easy. I did the math for it in the paper pauper thread.
For the record, the Gatherer rarity inconsistency thing bothers me as well, and it has for a long time. I just cannot think of a more elegant solution, though. I can't see making new players refer to archaic collector's check sheets to see if their decks are legal or not. I wish WotC had been more consistent, but I don't think it is a big enough deal for us to fix.
As it turns out, magiccards.info is both accurate and consistent with rarity. (if you define rarity as how common/uncommon a card is) Why can't we just use that?
Either way, I agree with dorino about outlining the gatherer inconsistencies:
As it turns out, magiccards.info is both accurate and consistent with rarity. (if you define rarity as how common/uncommon a card is) Why can't we just use that?
I myself am more comfortable with the idea that it is legal to play if it was printed as a common at least once, so +1 for this idea.
As it turns out, magiccards.info is both accurate and consistent with rarity. (if you define rarity as how common/uncommon a card is) Why can't we just use that?
Because it's unofficial? Also, gatherer seems to take the power level of the card into account. It's more appropriate that Strip Mine and Maze of Ith are uncommons when you compare them to the likes of Wasteland and Kor Haven, whereas Merchant Scroll at common makes sense when compared to something like Muddle the Mixture. I foresee less need for a ban list without these "super commons".
Also, determining older cards rarity is actually fairly easy.
Again - if one accepts a given unofficial mathematical model as the only and best way to answer the question. I'd rather accept WotC "rarity errata" for some (un)commons.
Either way, I agree with dorino about outlining the gatherer inconsistencies:
I do to. Moar info = bettar.
So, the vote is drawing to a close and with 88% in favor and some minor nit picks, here are the changes I suggest to finalize this:
*Change the rules basis to apply multiplayer rules for multiplayer games, and dual commander rules for dual commander games
*Clarify that PDH = (un)common commander/general, though you can of course build EDH decks with (un)commons
*Describe rarity inconsistencies but maintain that Gatherer is the official law by virtue of its officialness (and sort-of-balanced-ness)
Btw, I've received an update from the committee and they say YES to PDH primers Stay tuned!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe! "At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted." [Click here for the articles!]
Because it's unofficial? Also, gatherer seems to take the power level of the card into account. It's more appropriate that Strip Mine and Maze of Ith are uncommons when you compare them to the likes of Wasteland and Kor Haven, whereas Merchant Scroll at common makes sense when compared to something like Muddle the Mixture. I foresee less need for a ban list without these "super commons".
Again - if one accepts a given unofficial mathematical model as the only and best way to answer the question. I'd rather accept WotC "rarity errata" for some (un)commons.
*Describe rarity inconsistencies but maintain that Gatherer is the official law by virtue of its officialness (and sort-of-balanced-ness)
I think you may be misunderstanding how rarity works for older sets, as Strip Mine (a U3 from Antiquities) & Maze of Ith (a C1 from The Dark) are both uncommons, each having a 4.96% chance of being opened in a booster. I'm not sure who is considering them commons. Merchant Scroll, (a C1 from Homelands) also at a 4.96% chance, is unsurprisingly an uncommon as well, though not on gatherer for whatever reason. I'm inclined to attribute it to an error on their part, rather than a specific exception for power level reasons, however. It was one of the better cards in all of Homelands, after all.
This 'unofficial mathematical model' is just listing cards by how rare they actually were, nothing more.
I think you may be misunderstanding how rarity works for older sets, as Strip Mine (a U3 from Antiquities) & Maze of Ith (a C1 from The Dark) are both uncommons, each having a 4.96% chance of being opened in a booster. I'm not sure who is considering them commons. Merchant Scroll, (a C1 from Homelands) also at a 4.96% chance, is unsurprisingly an uncommon as well, though not on gatherer for whatever reason. I'm inclined to attribute it to an error on their part, rather than a specific exception for power level reasons, however. It was one of the better cards in all of Homelands, after all.
This 'unofficial mathematical model' is just listing cards by how rare they actually were, nothing more.
I'm referring to the very post you authored and linked:
While Gatherer seems to display rarities based on which sheet cards were printed on, and ignoring how often they were printed on it, Magiccards.info displays rarities based on how rare the cards were, regardless of how they were printed. Makes a lot more sense to me! It seems the rarity breakdown is as follows:
<= 1.65%: Rare
2.48% - 7.44%: Uncommon
9.09%+: Common
It seems to you that the rarity breakdown according to magiccards.info (an unofficial source) is thus and thus, and it makes more sense to you to do it that way. What the cards "actually were" was U1-3 and C1-3 etc. - finding a "translation" to common/uncommon/rare that suits one's personal taste is as you note, a matter of opinion. To my knowledge, most people accept gatherer rarities and it has the benefit of being an official source.
As for the Maze of Ith power level adjustment, I assumed based on the following:
It seems that Gatherer lists these C1 cards as commons because they were printed the 'common' sheet of the print-run, even though they have the same rarity as U3 cards. (printed 3 times on the 'uncommon' sheet)
C1 Uncommons
Ambush
Chandler
Clockwork Gnomes
Clockwork Steed
Clockwork Swarm (common in MTGO - ME4)
Coral Reef
Delif's Cone
Ebony Rhino (common in MTGO - ME4)
Farrel's Mantle (mislabeled as C1; should be U3)
Feldon's Cane (common in CHR)
Funeral March (common in 5ED)
Greater Werewolf
Headstone
Jinx
Joven
Joven's Ferrets
Leaping Lizard (common in MTGO - ME2)
Maze of Ith
Merchant Scroll
Prophecy
Renewal
Roterothopter (common in MTGO - ME2)
Serra Bestiary (common in MTGO - ME4)
Serra Paladin
Serrated Arrows (common in DDD - Garruk vs. Liliana, a non-random set)
Kei Takahashi
Marhault Elsdragon
Sivitri Scarzam
Tobias Andrion
Tor Wauki
So Gatherer should according to this print both Merchant Scroll and Maze of Ith as commons (though magiccards.info think they should all be uncommon), yet now choose to list Maze of Ith as uncommon. I have no evidence to suggest it's a willful power level adjustment, I simply assumed so. As for Strip Mine, the forum has received many questions on its rarity so I assumed it was "one of those commons", though magiccards.info only lists the antiquities rarity as "special".
Regardless, I just want to say that I have no personal opinion on which method of deciding rarities is best. Your method and that of magiccards.info makes as much sense to me as any other. I just find it less confusing to direct people to an official database, prone with errors as it may be, as most players will accept it.
Thanks all voters - this poll is now closed and an official rules thread will be up shortly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe! "At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted." [Click here for the articles!]
I know this is closed now, but I think "PDH" should stand for one thing, one format, and you should keep that one format simple: Uncommon Creature as the commander, and 99 commons. Determine rarity based on gatherer if you want, or just determine it based on the highest rarity printing.
Pauper format commander (PDH, meaning an Uncommon commander and 99 commons) is much easier to understand and control, and in my experience much more common than any sort of Peasant format. So what I'm saying is that "PDH" should be understood to mean Pauper Commander (Uncommon General and 99 commons)
Of course there are Peasant players out there, and they will be able to continue playing however they wish but under a different definition, which I don't feel is the goal of this thread. For the purpose of seeking a definition, PDH should mean one thing and one thing only. And determine that format by what is already the most popular set of rules, and by what is the simplest. The only variations of PDH should be multiplayer and 1v1. Of you ever want PDH to take off, you've got to limit the definition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, determining older cards rarity is actually fairly easy. I did the math for it in the paper pauper thread.
As it turns out, magiccards.info is both accurate and consistent with rarity. (if you define rarity as how common/uncommon a card is) Why can't we just use that?
Either way, I agree with dorino about outlining the gatherer inconsistencies:
I myself am more comfortable with the idea that it is legal to play if it was printed as a common at least once, so +1 for this idea.
Because it's unofficial? Also, gatherer seems to take the power level of the card into account. It's more appropriate that Strip Mine and Maze of Ith are uncommons when you compare them to the likes of Wasteland and Kor Haven, whereas Merchant Scroll at common makes sense when compared to something like Muddle the Mixture. I foresee less need for a ban list without these "super commons".
Again - if one accepts a given unofficial mathematical model as the only and best way to answer the question. I'd rather accept WotC "rarity errata" for some (un)commons.
I do to. Moar info = bettar.
So, the vote is drawing to a close and with 88% in favor and some minor nit picks, here are the changes I suggest to finalize this:
*Change the rules basis to apply multiplayer rules for multiplayer games, and dual commander rules for dual commander games
*Clarify that PDH = (un)common commander/general, though you can of course build EDH decks with (un)commons
*Describe rarity inconsistencies but maintain that Gatherer is the official law by virtue of its officialness (and sort-of-balanced-ness)
Btw, I've received an update from the committee and they say YES to PDH primers
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe!
"At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted."
[Click here for the articles!]
Turn 2 Two Goblin Guide
I think you may be misunderstanding how rarity works for older sets, as Strip Mine (a U3 from Antiquities) & Maze of Ith (a C1 from The Dark) are both uncommons, each having a 4.96% chance of being opened in a booster. I'm not sure who is considering them commons. Merchant Scroll, (a C1 from Homelands) also at a 4.96% chance, is unsurprisingly an uncommon as well, though not on gatherer for whatever reason. I'm inclined to attribute it to an error on their part, rather than a specific exception for power level reasons, however. It was one of the better cards in all of Homelands, after all.
This 'unofficial mathematical model' is just listing cards by how rare they actually were, nothing more.
I'm referring to the very post you authored and linked:
It seems to you that the rarity breakdown according to magiccards.info (an unofficial source) is thus and thus, and it makes more sense to you to do it that way. What the cards "actually were" was U1-3 and C1-3 etc. - finding a "translation" to common/uncommon/rare that suits one's personal taste is as you note, a matter of opinion. To my knowledge, most people accept gatherer rarities and it has the benefit of being an official source.
As for the Maze of Ith power level adjustment, I assumed based on the following:
So Gatherer should according to this print both Merchant Scroll and Maze of Ith as commons (though magiccards.info think they should all be uncommon), yet now choose to list Maze of Ith as uncommon. I have no evidence to suggest it's a willful power level adjustment, I simply assumed so. As for Strip Mine, the forum has received many questions on its rarity so I assumed it was "one of those commons", though magiccards.info only lists the antiquities rarity as "special".
Regardless, I just want to say that I have no personal opinion on which method of deciding rarities is best. Your method and that of magiccards.info makes as much sense to me as any other. I just find it less confusing to direct people to an official database, prone with errors as it may be, as most players will accept it.
Thanks all voters - this poll is now closed and an official rules thread will be up shortly.
A series of seven articles using Magic to explore the very stuff of the Universe!
"At least for those who can play cards, their present incarnation is not quite wasted."
[Click here for the articles!]
Pauper format commander (PDH, meaning an Uncommon commander and 99 commons) is much easier to understand and control, and in my experience much more common than any sort of Peasant format. So what I'm saying is that "PDH" should be understood to mean Pauper Commander (Uncommon General and 99 commons)
Of course there are Peasant players out there, and they will be able to continue playing however they wish but under a different definition, which I don't feel is the goal of this thread. For the purpose of seeking a definition, PDH should mean one thing and one thing only. And determine that format by what is already the most popular set of rules, and by what is the simplest. The only variations of PDH should be multiplayer and 1v1. Of you ever want PDH to take off, you've got to limit the definition.