I am fully aware that the going recommendation is to just buy singles unless you want to gamble given the price tag but I am wondering more specifically what people think about the greater number of rares and mythics. In my opinion they have generated a fantastic list of reprints, possibly one of the best of all time, but underlying this (and as of yet seemingly little discussed) is the increased variance they have introduced by adding more slots. Has anyone actually crunched this to see if they pulled a move on us all by reprinting some fantastic cards but then changing the numbers to actually reduce the chance we get a great pull overall?
I just wonder why they didn't just keep the incredible reprints only AND the normal numbers of each rarity for a total slam dunk set. Unfortunately the only thing I can think of is greed.
1. I truly do think that pack EV is a big consideration. I think that problems emerge when more than a certain percentage of packs “pay for themselves” and that the extreme value of a few cards in a set may force wizards to use several more weak cards to avoid an EV too high.
2. Going into more detail on one, I fear that prices would inevitably stabilize at an appropriate price to balance against EV as there is no MSRP to look at anymore. If anything, packing in weaker rates helps the price stabilize around $15 per pack instead of rocketing to $25+ per pack as any limited-run “pure gas” set would. It also disincentivizes scalpers a bit, which is a notable consideration for a limited release product (I still have Commander Arsenal flashbacks, I swear). Plus, the higher price allows wizards to put in rates that are “disappointing” but that are still interesting around the $5-10 level.
3. In the same way that including weak cards can balance out putting in $50+ cards, putting in weak cards can balance putting in additional strong cards. While there are an embarrassing number of stinkers in this set, this set also has the greatest number of valuable cards (in general, not relative to price of pack) that I think we’ve ever seen in a single set. To someone who approaches masters sets as an opportunity to buy a bunch of good cards at a 25% discount, having a wider array of cards to choose among is good... arguably (more on that later).
4. While I feel that a high price may disincentivize some scalpers, I do worry that a combination of high price and high variability will reduce the number of people pitching this product in quantities less than a case (AKA: fewer people are going to be buying unless they can buy enough to basically force values to regress to the mean). If fewer average Joes are selling their lucky pulls on Ebay or TCGPlayer, I worry that the prices won’t be nudged down as much as they have been with previous masters sets.
5. I see the large number of good cards as a pro and con here. While I have saved up money specifically for this set, there are more things that I want to buy than I can reasonably afford... and there’s no guarantee that there will be another master’s set any time soon (this one reportedly arose because there was already an artifact masters in the works when the line was “discontinued” and there just so happened to be an opening in the product schedule). While it has more to do with masters sets in general than this set, this is still annoying.
I just wonder why they didn't just keep the incredible reprints only AND the normal numbers of each rarity for a total slam dunk set. Unfortunately the only thing I can think of is greed.
If you want the answer to your stated question, then it is because they design this set like all their other sets to be drafted so there is a number of cards needed to fill out their draft theme. If they dropped the number of rares to normal mostly the cards you want would be cut from the set.
If your question is actually "Why doesn't Wizards only reprint the high-value cards I want?" Then the answer is technically greed. But its more appropriately good business sense. Look at how many masters sets they have made. As long as the amount they can make is "less" if they only print high-value cards then it isn't a sound business decision to do so. You can only print a $10 card so many times before its $1.
The actual numbers(EV) on this set won't be out until at least the full spoiler is up. Possibly longer.
I appreciate these replys and discussion. I guess (to clarify) the underlying question in my post is: should we as players support this new change if in fact they are using the increased number of rare and mythic slots to further modify rarity, something which first started with the creation of the mythic rarity? I see the creation of all the new full arts and alt arts as them experimenting with ways to further modify rarity levels and honestly feel like this product may be a similar experiment via increasing the number of rare and mythic slots, pouring in chase rares and then diluting. I just don't know how to mathematically prove this
I appreciate these replys and discussion. I guess (to clarify) the underlying question in my post is: should we as players support this new change if in fact they are using the increased number of rare and mythic slots to further modify rarity, something which first started with the creation of the mythic rarity? I see the creation of all the new full arts and alt arts as them experimenting with ways to further modify rarity levels and honestly feel like this product may be a similar experiment via increasing the number of rare and mythic slots, pouring in chase rares and then diluting. I just don't know how to mathematically prove this
I think that it depends on context, honestly.
Keep in mind that this sort of change really doesn't have the same sort of effect most places. Consider a standard-legal set (other than a core set), for example. As 95% of the rares are brand new, there are no "known chase cards" to elevate the EV of packs and demand chaff as a "counterbalance". While Wizards could theoretically stick a hundred new rares into Zendikar Rises, doing so would blaze through design space like wildfire and that would probably be avoided at all costs. Likewise, doing something like printing cultivate at rare isn't something that can often be done outside of core sets as printings of "iconic" reprints aren't too common. I don't think that anyone would be seriously chasing after a foil opt, for example. Even if there is one such card every set or two, I'm not sure how bad I really feel about.
I can see more rares being used to stuff in more rares as is done in Double Masters. I can see semi-randomized products like Mystery Boosters or Jumpstart becoming a regular thing. While we will likely get some products like Jump Start with a few new cards, however, I imagine that this change will be almost entirely restricted to Reprint sets... which doesn't really bother me all that much. A policy that encourages more frequent reprints with fewer copies of each card being printed seems like an okay deal on my end as long as the changes of getting any given card are no worse than 1:121 packs (the approximate odds of pulling a mythic in a pack... or getting a specific card in mystery boosters... or getting a specific jumpstart pack), (ignoring masterpieces and similar "lottery ticket" items).
If you are worried about new rarities beyond mythic you are 5 years late. They delved into this space with Zendikar expeditions, box toppers are just the next phase.
As for the tricky theme of double masters your fears are pseudo-founded. The likely hood of opening a specific rare in a normal set is (7/8×1/53)1.6% and a specific mythic is (1/8×1/15)0.8%. While in double masters a rare is (7/8×1/121×2)1.4% and a mythic is (1/8×1/40×2)0.6%. Assuming my math is correct you are less likely to pull a specific rare or mythic in double masters than you are to pull a specific rare or mythic in a normal set. By raising the number of rares they are decreasing the likely hood of getting a specific rare because they are adding more than double the normal rarity. However its by a small amount because they are only increasing beyond double by a small amount.
at first I wasn't too interested in it but now I like it as both a reprint set and a draft set. I like the quality of reprints as well as the fact that you can draft actual archetypes such as thopter sword and dark depths combo in the set
part of me thinks that an increased number of rares/mythics makes the theme slightly better as you can get 2 rares/mythics in the pack, so you can get more value in the pack
I just wonder why they didn't just keep the incredible reprints only AND the normal numbers of each rarity for a total slam dunk set. Unfortunately the only thing I can think of is greed.
1. I truly do think that pack EV is a big consideration. I think that problems emerge when more than a certain percentage of packs “pay for themselves” and that the extreme value of a few cards in a set may force wizards to use several more weak cards to avoid an EV too high.
2. Going into more detail on one, I fear that prices would inevitably stabilize at an appropriate price to balance against EV as there is no MSRP to look at anymore. If anything, packing in weaker rates helps the price stabilize around $15 per pack instead of rocketing to $25+ per pack as any limited-run “pure gas” set would. It also disincentivizes scalpers a bit, which is a notable consideration for a limited release product (I still have Commander Arsenal flashbacks, I swear). Plus, the higher price allows wizards to put in rates that are “disappointing” but that are still interesting around the $5-10 level.
3. In the same way that including weak cards can balance out putting in $50+ cards, putting in weak cards can balance putting in additional strong cards. While there are an embarrassing number of stinkers in this set, this set also has the greatest number of valuable cards (in general, not relative to price of pack) that I think we’ve ever seen in a single set. To someone who approaches masters sets as an opportunity to buy a bunch of good cards at a 25% discount, having a wider array of cards to choose among is good... arguably (more on that later).
4. While I feel that a high price may disincentivize some scalpers, I do worry that a combination of high price and high variability will reduce the number of people pitching this product in quantities less than a case (AKA: fewer people are going to be buying unless they can buy enough to basically force values to regress to the mean). If fewer average Joes are selling their lucky pulls on Ebay or TCGPlayer, I worry that the prices won’t be nudged down as much as they have been with previous masters sets.
5. I see the large number of good cards as a pro and con here. While I have saved up money specifically for this set, there are more things that I want to buy than I can reasonably afford... and there’s no guarantee that there will be another master’s set any time soon (this one reportedly arose because there was already an artifact masters in the works when the line was “discontinued” and there just so happened to be an opening in the product schedule). While it has more to do with masters sets in general than this set, this is still annoying.
If your question is actually "Why doesn't Wizards only reprint the high-value cards I want?" Then the answer is technically greed. But its more appropriately good business sense. Look at how many masters sets they have made. As long as the amount they can make is "less" if they only print high-value cards then it isn't a sound business decision to do so. You can only print a $10 card so many times before its $1.
The actual numbers(EV) on this set won't be out until at least the full spoiler is up. Possibly longer.
I think that it depends on context, honestly.
Keep in mind that this sort of change really doesn't have the same sort of effect most places. Consider a standard-legal set (other than a core set), for example. As 95% of the rares are brand new, there are no "known chase cards" to elevate the EV of packs and demand chaff as a "counterbalance". While Wizards could theoretically stick a hundred new rares into Zendikar Rises, doing so would blaze through design space like wildfire and that would probably be avoided at all costs. Likewise, doing something like printing cultivate at rare isn't something that can often be done outside of core sets as printings of "iconic" reprints aren't too common. I don't think that anyone would be seriously chasing after a foil opt, for example. Even if there is one such card every set or two, I'm not sure how bad I really feel about.
I can see more rares being used to stuff in more rares as is done in Double Masters. I can see semi-randomized products like Mystery Boosters or Jumpstart becoming a regular thing. While we will likely get some products like Jump Start with a few new cards, however, I imagine that this change will be almost entirely restricted to Reprint sets... which doesn't really bother me all that much. A policy that encourages more frequent reprints with fewer copies of each card being printed seems like an okay deal on my end as long as the changes of getting any given card are no worse than 1:121 packs (the approximate odds of pulling a mythic in a pack... or getting a specific card in mystery boosters... or getting a specific jumpstart pack), (ignoring masterpieces and similar "lottery ticket" items).
As for the tricky theme of double masters your fears are pseudo-founded. The likely hood of opening a specific rare in a normal set is (7/8×1/53)1.6% and a specific mythic is (1/8×1/15)0.8%. While in double masters a rare is (7/8×1/121×2)1.4% and a mythic is (1/8×1/40×2)0.6%. Assuming my math is correct you are less likely to pull a specific rare or mythic in double masters than you are to pull a specific rare or mythic in a normal set. By raising the number of rares they are decreasing the likely hood of getting a specific rare because they are adding more than double the normal rarity. However its by a small amount because they are only increasing beyond double by a small amount.
part of me thinks that an increased number of rares/mythics makes the theme slightly better as you can get 2 rares/mythics in the pack, so you can get more value in the pack