A while back I kept track of online wins and losses, and over hundreds of games I found that my limited game win rate was approximately 80%, provided that I wasn't forced to muligan, didn't miss any of my first 3 land drops, and didn't draw more lands than spells over the course of the game. IE, no muligans or mana issues. If I did have muligans or mana issues, the win rate dropped to around 30%. So even though muligans and mana issues didn't happen in the majority of games, they did happen in the majority of my losses. Adding mythic bombs to that mix would surely skew the numbers even further, since muligans and mana issues already account for the majority of losses.
So what you're saying is that you won more games when you started with a great hand/draw, and lost more games when you had a bad hand/draw. That sounds like almost all the Magic games I've ever seen. Regardless of whether or not your data is accurate, it's just not relevant. First, it has absolutely nothing to do with bomb rares. Second, every format is defined to some degree on the luck of what you draw as well as who plays the best cards. Nothing you have mentioned here is specific to Innistrad or Limited, all of it is true in every game of Magic you play anywhere.
I wouldn't say that not-muliganing and not having mana-issues constitutes a great hand/draw, as this is what I expect to happen more often than not. A quick calculation reveals that you should have muligan/mana issue free games a minimum of 60% of the time. More than that even, because the hands you are muliganing are the ones most likely to lead to mana flood and mana short, so any hand you keep is less likely to hit the mana conditions.
As for keeping track of bombs vs non-bombs, I did that in a separate log, but the data there is considerably more subjective. In that log I made a record at the end of the game of the card or factor that I felt most contributed to my loss. In that log the individual cards that came up as the deciding factor the most often were the best uncommons in the set. Which were Skinrender and Oxidda Scrapmelter . However collectively rares and mythics came up much more often than the commons and uncommons put together, it was just spread out over a greater number of cards. In that sense I predict the uncommons/rares in this set would follow the same pattern. While cards like Fiend Hunter and Slayer of the Wicked come up much more often than Olivia Voldaren in winning decks due to there being 6 times as many of those cards in each pool, I also suspect that the win rates for decks that run at least one Olivia far exceed the win rates for decks that run at least one Slayer or Hunter.
All your threads are exactly the same. The majority of people here disagree with you in this regard. Please stop making new threads with exactly the same topic.
Imi, I didn't know you looked at the limited boards! I wish it was under better circumstances though.
----
Many limited games can be dominated by rares, which are very bomby, but it is important to note that Innistrad (and now Dark Ascension) are more centered in uncommons. Furthermore, given the amount of removal in the set (its not alot, but there's plenty if you know what you're doing) it is possible to avoid bombs. So far I'm proud to say I never actually lost a round solely against an Olivia, a few games here and there, but I've won 2 out of 3 games where Olivia was involved (and got played) in my matches. This is because white decks have a lot of removal in them. Blue has more answers to things than you can shake a stick at, and redhas at least four ways of distrupting Voldaren. Voldaren with blue? If at first Smite the Monstrous does not succeed, try Fiend Hunter or a Slayer of the Wicked, and if neither of those work (pesky counter spells) a rebuke will work nicely. Gavony Township is a monster bomb, and so is Kessig Wolfrun. The thing is that there are a lot of little answers built into the game to deal with this. There's a few black land destructions that are terrible in a normal deck, but completely sideboardable in Innistrad. There's also Into the Maw of Hell and Ghost Quarter, both of which you have a chance of grabbing in a draft. That's not to say you won't be blown out by them, it just happens. Me? I'm a terrible drafter. I lost on turn five because of an explosive bomby run by my opponent: Pilgrim, Mayor Stromkirk, and it just gets worse from there. It happens. Also you can mulligan down to five or four and be on the play (happened yesterday) and lose against a great deck that uses a lot of uncommons and doesn't even have a rare. Your mana base is also incredibly important, that's why there's a recommended number of lands for limited decks. 16 monocolored, 17 two colored, 18 only if your curve is over the top or if you have far more colors than you should, with minor variations. The reason why this land is planned out this way is because mathematics and chance is a major role in Magic. Because its such a major part players have found out exactly which number allows for the most success. There's always the chance your hand won't play out or your draws will flood you or drought you. There's always the chance that your opponent just has the better deck and you win or lose depending on how their deck plays out in terms of luck.
Innistrad may exacerbate these issues, but its nowhere near as simple as you seem to describe it.
Be sure to join A Contest Like No Other! It is currently the longest lasting continuous contest in the YMtC forum. New designers are always welcome and can join in at any time.
Every week after I play draft I'll record my Draft Decks and the results. With a new deck every Friday or Saturday it is a wealth of interesting new decks. Feel free to drop by at any time to give suggestions or critiques!
All your threads are exactly the same. The majority of people here disagree with you in this regard. Please stop making new threads with exactly the same topic.
Imi, I didn't know you looked at the limited boards! I wish it was under better circumstances though.
----
Many limited games can be dominated by rares, which are very bomby, but it is important to note that Innistrad (and now Dark Ascension) are more centered in uncommons. Furthermore, given the amount of removal in the set (its not alot, but there's plenty if you know what you're doing) it is possible to avoid bombs. So far I'm proud to say I never actually lost a round solely against an Olivia, a few games here and there, but I've won 2 out of 3 games where Olivia was involved (and got played) in my matches. This is because white decks have a lot of removal in them. Blue has more answers to things than you can shake a stick at, and redhas at least four ways of distrupting Voldaren. Voldaren with blue? If at first Smite the Monstrous does not succeed, try Fiend Hunter or a Slayer of the Wicked, and if neither of those work (pesky counter spells) a rebuke will work nicely. Gavony Township is a monster bomb, and so is Kessig Wolfrun. The thing is that there are a lot of little answers built into the game to deal with this. There's a few black land destructions that are terrible in a normal deck, but completely sideboardable in Innistrad. There's also Into the Maw of Hell and Ghost Quarter, both of which you have a chance of grabbing in a draft. That's not to say you won't be blown out by them, it just happens. Me? I'm a terrible drafter. I lost on turn five because of an explosive bomby run by my opponent: Pilgrim, Mayor Stromkirk, and it just gets worse from there. It happens. Also you can mulligan down to five or four and be on the play (happened yesterday) and lose against a great deck that uses a lot of uncommons and doesn't even have a rare. Your mana base is also incredibly important, that's why there's a recommended number of lands for limited decks. 16 monocolored, 17 two colored, 18 only if your curve is over the top or if you have far more colors than you should, with minor variations. The reason why this land is planned out this way is because mathematics and chance is a major role in Magic. Because its such a major part players have found out exactly which number allows for the most success. There's always the chance your hand won't play out or your draws will flood you or drought you. There's always the chance that your opponent just has the better deck and you win or lose depending on how their deck plays out in terms of luck.
Innistrad may exacerbate these issues, but its nowhere near as simple as you seem to describe it.
It is possible to lose against Olivia even when you've removed her. For example, in one game she prevented me from attacking with two 2/2s the turn she came in, and then killed one of those 2/2s the following turn, making her eligible for Smite the Montrous which I took her out with. However, the difference that she made -- stopping 4 damage, killing off a card and requiring me to use removal, was enough to win the game for my opponent. Based on the final life totals, she was certainly the difference maker. As I illustrated in my previous post, while it may seem like uncommons account for more wins and loses in a set, that is only because there are 3x as many of them as the rares. Collectively rares/mythics are the determining factor in far more games as the commons and uncommons tend to cancel out.
While I realize looking at bombs, mana issues and muligans as the deciding factor in magic games is a simplification, like looking at the quarterback as the deciding factor in football (there are 11 guys on the field!) it is a simplification that is generally helpful. While there is 'more to it than that' looking at a simplification that gets you most of the way there is helpful, it's why simplifications are made in the first place.
Here's another more detailed tournament report from my latest tournament, detailing why mana issues, muligans and bombs are typically the deciding factor in losses:
Game 1: Win, kept a 3 land hand, won primarily with commons, no one common stood out Game 2: Win, kept a 2 land hand, won primarily because of Sever the Bloodline
___
Game 1: Win, kept a 2 land hand, got mana short, won due to Bloodgift Demon , Sever the Bloodline and Unburial Rites , BGD was the most important. Game 2: Loss, muliganed a 1 land hand into a 4 land hand, mana flooded, lost to second casting of spider spawning, could have won if turn 5 Bloodgift Demon stuck around, but it was killed off by Smite the Montrous the following turn. Game 3: Win, kept a 3 land hand, opponent muliganed to 6, opponent mana short, he nearly came back with Butcher's Cleaver and a bunch of good targets, I won due to the massive card advantage and damage from Bloodgift Demon
____
Game 1: Loss, kept a 2 land hand, got mana short, would have been an easy win otherwise (Started w/ Sever + BGD) Game 2: Win, mulled a 0 land hand into a 3 land one, opponent was mana short so I got an aggro win (1st turn Diregraf Ghoul , second turn Vampire Interloper , third turn Avacynian Priest ) Game 3: Loss, an exceptionally long game, huge number of key cards at different times. Managed to get mana flooded (made first 12 land drops) after keeping a 4 land hand. Top key cards were Divine Reckoning and Bloodgift Demon on my side, and Geist-Honored Monk on my opponents. I still have an 0-x recond vs Geist-Honored Monk.
So reading this report, we see:
I have a 3-0 record when I don't muligan, get mana flooded or mana shorted. 2-3 in muligan or mana flood games. The difference making cards on my side most often were Bloodgift Demon and Sever the Bloodline (Actually, looking back on it, it would be insane if they weren't) The top card on my opponent's side in the match I lost was Geist-Honored Monk , a card I believe I have yet to defeat, and in the final game my opponent cast the Monk at a point where it was literally the only card in his deck that would have saved him.
It doesn't matter how many games you report or how much data you have. None of it changes the fact that what you are describing is not specifically about Innistrad. Given a reasonably equal skill level, every game of Magic in every format will come down to who gets the better/more relevant cards. You could say that it's a problem of limited in general that certain rares seem to be "I win" cards, but that's something everybody already knows and just has to live with.
I've followed this thread on the edge of my seat and I can add these three things:
1. It's "losses", not "loses" when you talk about how many "losses" you have 2. It's "mulligans", not "muligans" 3. Of course you're going to lose more games when you start a card or two short or when you have bad luck with mana. Do you have a comparison with other sets that shows that Innistrad is worse in this way than any other block? Also, as another poster pointed out, you are one person. No matter how many games you log, it's possible that your play style or skill level affect how many games you win or lose in each of these situations. I mean, if you're a perfect player - you always make the perfect play - then how are you going to lose? By luck. If Innistrad were truly "dominated" by luck issues as you seem to think, then you wouldn't have an 80% win rate (or whatever it is). You'd have close to a 50% win rate, because it wouldn't matter how much you outplayed your opponent. Whoever got luckier would win most of the time, which would be 50/50 to each of you.
All your threads are exactly the same. The majority of people here disagree with you in this regard. Please stop making new threads with exactly the same topic.
If you think I am incorrect in this matter, make your own log. Then post the log here and use it to illustrate why you feel that the majority of your game loses did not come down to mana issues, muligans or mythic [bombs]. This type of post amounts to little more than:
"Copernicus, the majority of people disagree with you."
The fact that you are this arrogant astounds me. And don't imply things from my post that aren't there.
I'm not telling you not to post, nor that your opinions are wrong. But all your threads border on identicality. You complain about mythics and bombs, tell everyone how utterly awesome you are as long as x and y and z don't happen to you, murder statistical analysis and then disagree with everyone when they suggest that you might be incorrect in any way. You have plenty of threads open saying the same thing. Don't le me stop you posting, but how about you start a new thread when you have something new to say.
The conclusion that limited in general is dominated by mana issues, muligans and bomb rares/mythics is one I came to after reading back two logs I collected. The first log was a record of the situations that most often led to loses in limited. While mana issues or muligans happened in very few games overall, they happened in the vast majority of loses. The second log was a record of which card or cards proved to be the turning point in any given loss, if a single card or pair of cards could be identified. Reading back this log, rares and mythics collectively came up far more often than commons and uncommons. In addition, rare and mythic bombs tended to come up multiple times in the same matches -- if an opponent won via Argent Sphinx round 1, and lost round 2 without drawing it, he often won round 3 by drawing it again. With the understanding that mana, muligans and Mythics dominate limited play in general, I had hoped this thread would be a dicussion about whether Innistrad 'upped the ante' on mythic/mana/muligan importance, or if those factors were less important in this format than previous ones, but the discussion quickly got derailed.
Magic is a simple and finite game, so either mana issues, muligans and mythic [bombs] dominate limited play in general, or they don't, and that effect is greater in Innistrad than it has been in previous sets, or it is not. To prove this either way you need evidence, which is traditionally the interpretation of play logs that you have collected. No amount of name calling or agreeing with people who are name calling will change this.
So if you wish to disprove the assertion that mana, muligans and mythic bombs dominate either Innistrad or limited in general, either repeat the logs I originally collected, and show that you come up with different results, or come up with a new way of logging the results that you think will illustrate that mana/muligans/opponent mythics are not present in the majority of loses.
"I think Bobus is wrong +1" type posts add nothing to the discussion.
Magic is a simple and finite game, so either mana issues, muligans and mythic [bombs] dominate limited play in general, or they don't, and that effect is greater in Innistrad than it has been in previous sets, or it is not. To prove this either way you need evidence, which is traditionally the interpretation of play logs that you have collected. No amount of name calling or agreeing with people who are name calling will change this.
So if you wish to disprove the assertion that mana, muligans and mythic bombs dominate either Innistrad or limited in general, either repeat the logs I originally collected, and show that you come up with different results, or come up with a new way of logging the results that you think will illustrate that mana/muligans/opponent mythics are not present in the majority of loses.
Why bother trying to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place?
I'll ask again... do you have logs from past blocks that prove that Innistrad is worse in these respects than any other block?
I'll also repeat again... the fact that your losses are mostly due to these issues does not show that the game in general is "dominated" by these issues. If you are winning (as an example) 80% of your games by grinding out your opponents with some commons and uncommons, and you lose 20% of your games mostly due to mana issues, mulligans, and "bombs" then that shows that grinding out wins with commons and uncommons is what dominates the game.
I'll further repeat again... it's "losses", not "loses" and "mulligans, not "muligans".
