New D&D expansion #MTGDND brings d20 rolls toMagic. Here is how to look at these random effects and my thoughts on some of the cards. Firstly, majority of the cards have 1-9 as baseline effect, 10-19 as bonus and 20 as a large success leading to these percentages: 1/x
Good Magic players tend to maximise deterministic outcomes, and even with die rolls, it is to some extent possible. To get there, Pixie Guide lets you roll more dice and chose the highest outcome: 2/x
How does it change outcomes? By quite a lot. Having a Pixie Guide more than halves the probability of lowest outcome, and nearly doubles the probability of rolling a 20, which usually comes with large bonus. The 10-19 outcome increases to 70% - which is much more reliable. 3/x
Having two Guides means you are MORE likely to roll a 20 than rolling the 1-9. and your odds of rolling 10 or more reach 91%. At the level of 2 Guides you can sort of start treating the 10-19 effect or better as deterministic with a small fail rate. 4/x
The uncertainty of die rolls can be offset by bonuses from die rolling payoffs. There are 4 spoiled so far. Some unconditional, some result oriented. Unconditional are pure value, especially Feywild Trickster looks great to me. Dwarf may be good if a 1/3 body is relevant. 5/x
Farideh has a mix of unconditional effect (flying menace) and a conditional draw. Here are the odds of drawing a card based on the Pixie Guide count - with 2x Guide you draw 9/10 times.
(btw - thx to @MTGGoldfish
for those translated versions, very useful at this stage) 6/x
@MTGGoldfish Critical Hit on the other hand, gets back to your hand from the graveyard whenever you roll a 20. It is not a realistically reproducible effect with no support, but a bonus happening once very 20 roll spells you play, but with some guides you can make the bonus every 7 spells 7/x
@MTGGoldfish Maybe I should have mentioned earlier: I am not a fan of random effects in magic. Games should not be determined on a coin flip if I can avoid it. But I think the design team managed to navigate the cards really well. The low rolls still fulfil the cards main role. 8/x
@MTGGoldfish You still get 1 life rolling 1 with Sylvan Shepherd, triggering life gain synergies, Lightfoot Rogue is still a deathtouch creature, etc. So I will start by treating the low roll result as a baseline and everything above it as a bonus, I am not expecting, but happy to get 9/x
@MTGGoldfish There are few cards I do have doubts: Scion of Stygia being one, and Power of Persuasion the other. Tapping a creature is very different from tapping and not making it untap. And I have a suspicion sometimes rolling 20 with Power of Persuasion is worse than rolling 19 10/x
The mechanic seems balanced, not prone to some big swings based on one roll and very on theme for the set. I hope the support is sufficient to make it draftable, but with a 3/3 Flying Menace Edgewall Innkeeper that seems likely.
Note - in tweet 6 60% should be 55%.
11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵It is hard to get into drafting. Format is complex. Player base dedicated and experienced. You need to draft a deck to build, build it and navigate it. But literally dozens of people love Limited so maybe it is worth it?
Quick on how to learn drafting in a structured way. 1/19
School sort of works. There is a reason for that. You start with basically structured playing in reception, move through learning to read and write, count. You move to more and more complex ideas and finally graduate and forget all about what you learn over time. 2/19
But in Magic we don't really do it. Teaching programme is not structured, it resembles an amalgam of self-teaching and random bits of advice we pick up on the way. Content will give advice to several ability levels of players at the same time, rarely drawing attention to it. 3/19
🧵 New Magic Numbers are on YT now (link at the bottom). I took on one of the oldest heuristics in draft: "Draft good cards". I didn't expect to break it (and indeed didn't), but I wanted to try an quantify: how beneficial is drafting good cards? 1/21
The "draft good cards" heuristic can be traced to @samuelhblack recount of strategy advice he got from a former Pro Mike Hron (Black, 2023), but different versions of this philosophy have been around for even longer. It just make sense. 2/21
Drafting good cards increases the probability of having said good cards in your deck and thus winning. This analysis is not aimed to challenge that assumption, it is aimed at showing you just how much you can gain by making sure you evaluate cards correctly. 3/21
New set is out so time to look at very early data to get the first hints of what it's all about. Remember - we are talking about very small sample size and a relatively bad dataset as people still don't know what they are doing so treat with caution! 1/8
When it comes to color pair power level it seems we have 3 early tier one combinations: WU, WB and RB. There is a large chunk of color pairs that are lagging behind - remains to be seen which of those are just bad and which ones are just badly build in the early days. 2/8
In terms of popularity of the color pairs - people love WB. The rest is evenly distributed, expect changes in the coming days. But Orzhov drafted so high and still winning is something to keep in mind. UR is less popular and wins much less as well, so probably will drop off. 3/8
Cube Season is upon us so a quick data thread. And it is about draft portion. Win rate data is still way too low in volume, but instead, I will focus on the pick rates of 17Lands users and general Arena population. 1/12
"But how do you get the Arena pick rate from non-17Lands users?" I estimate it. I know ALSA is non-linearly linked to pick rate and based on it, I can recalculate what the pick rate should be for given cards. Any outliers in the 17L user data can be then corrected for that. 2/12
So, which cards are picked much earlier than estimated by the 17L users? Here is the top 15 of them and you can notice some trend. First of them: Grenzo is undervalued by the general population. 17L users pick it ~50% of time they see it and for a good reason - it's busted. 3/12
Omniscience draft sounds like a coin-flip, but it isn't as it currently stands. If you think that who is on the play, wins - you are probably losing some value there. Also - you will probably have ~20% win rate against me. It took several drafts, but I think nailed it now. 1/9
First thing: the meta plan. Everyone figured out card draw is good. But this is only layer 1. Layer 2 is disruption. Counters and discard. Layer 3 is the inevitability. You want to build your deck so that after your turn oppo is locked. Hellbent against a counter or dead. 2/9
OK - Layer 1. Obvious choices are Drowned Diner and Derilict Attic - no limit on those in the deck. But Ricketty Gazebo and Glimmerburst are as good. Jam the deck full of those. 3/9
It is time to help constructed community with data and look at the RC DC metagame and win rates in Pioneer. Let's start with the tournament-wide win rates for the top 10 played decks. As you can see top 4 played decks did reasonably well, but MonoB was the real winner at 54%. 1/7
Notable flops were Greasefang and MonoG (not that @DanaFischerMTG cares - congrats). Also Rakdos Transmogrify and Jund Sac underperformed.
Of the top 4 played decks, Rakdos Aggro did best at 52.1% but Azorius Control, Phoenix and Enigmatic Incarnation were close behind. 2/7
But that doesn't tell the full story - plenty of other decks were played. Here are the next 10 archetypes. Here we have 3 notable flops: Boros Control, Gruul Aggro and MonoW Humans. But also 2 outstanding performances with Rakdos Cauldron and Selesnya Company. 3/7