Community

Feb 24, 2012 -- 9:21PM, SadisticMystic wrote:

Any takers for a game of "Guess the unspoken subtexts that will underpin the article"?

Umm...

• "We intentionally create exactly one chase mythic per set, and mostly garbage for the rest"
• "Rarer = Better is good for you.  Disregard those several years we crapped all over Ricky for doing that in Alpha." 
• "[Roseanne reference here]"

"We care about Limited players more than you rabble"

That's not fair. Zendikar wasn't all about attacking with two drops.

A certain one drop was very important too.

Mythics aren't absutively necessary for tournament play. The WhiteBlue Humans deck that carried Jon Finkel, Jelger Wiegersma, and Denniz Rachid to the top 8 of Pro Tour: Dark Ascension had no mythics. Sure, none of those three took home the final prize, but that's still 3 out of 8 in the top eight at a Pro Tour running no mythics.

Decks running mythics tend to be better, but that stems as much from the fact that adding mythics adds more options. If you're looking for the best cards, they will inevitably be spread across all rarities. The current most important one-drop in standard is a common. One of the most powerful combo engines is also rare. Tiago is also format-defining, and rare.

Sure, a larger ratio of mythics are playable in constructed than any other rarity, but there's a lot fewer of them. Of all the mythics in Innistrad (Not using DKA as an example since it's generally assumed to be a weakish set overall) I count three that see serious play. (NOTE: Your area may see others, this is just from my experience) That's 3/17, or about 18%, which is not even close to Mythic = Awesome. Is it better or worse for more mythics to be awesome cards? Unimportant. The fact is that the need to possess mythics is nowhere near as great as people claim.