There are several ways to obtain new tournament legal Magic: The Gathering game cards. You can open Booster Packs, Tournament Decks, Theme Decks, or Two-Player Starters. If you delve into non-traditional methods of distributing cards, you can add Boxed Sets (Anthologies, Beatdown, Deckmasters and Battle Royale), demo packs (Portal), Promotional Giveaways (APAC lands, Dragon*Con cards, send-in cards), Prerelease cards, Player Rewards cards, Judge Promos, Friday Night Magic cards, and Arena League cards to that list. I might have missed a method or two, but the above list is pretty complete. The two main methods of getting new cards is from Booster Packs and Tournament decks. The other methods aside, there is a question that has been asked time and time again. This is a question I am going to answer today.
Are there some rares that are more rare than other rares?
The answer is… no and yes.
Let me explain.
Magic cards are divided into three rarities. These are Rare, Uncommon and Common. When you open a typical fifteen-card Booster pack you get one Rare, three Uncommons, and eleven commons. Tournament decks contain three Rares, ten Uncommons, thirty-two Commons, and thirty Basic Lands. This means that three Booster Packs are roughly equivalent to one Tournament Deck. You get one less Uncommon and one more Common from the Booster Packs than you would from the Tournament Deck.
Most Magic card sets are printed on one-hundred and ten card sheets. Ravnica has eighty-eight Rares, eighty-eight Uncommons, one-hundred and ten Commons and twenty basic lands. In addition, there are foil cards randomly inserted into packs – these cards take the place of a card of a similar rarity. For instance, if you open up a foil Rare, you will be missing a non-foil Rare from your pack.
Most expansion sets have one-hundred and sixty-five cards. There are broken down to fifty-five Commons, fifty-five Uncommons, and fifty-five Rares.
Now, let’s look at the sheet-size to rarity-sample ratio. If there are one-hundred and ten Commons in a set, and a sheet of Magic cards holds one-hundred and ten cards, it is reasonable to assume that each Common appears once on the Common sheet. These Commons will be abbreviated as C1. C1 simply means that you have a common that appears once on the common sheet.
In an expansion set with fifty-five cards of each rarity, each sheet will have two of each card. For instance, the Uncommons sheet for Guildpact will have two copies of each Uncommon, which adds up to exactly one-hundred and ten cards. These Uncommons will all have the rarity of U2 – they are Uncommons that appears twice on the Rarity sheet. Since every Uncommon is U2 in this case, they are all equally rare.
In Ravnica, there are eighty-eight Uncommons, eighty-eight Rares, and twenty Basic Lands. What happens to the extra twenty-two slots on the Uncommon and Rare sheets? It is very likely that the Basic Lands are printed in these slots. They would either fill all twenty-two slots, or would fill twenty slots and leave two blank spaces. The first explanation would allow Wizards to print extra lands for tournament organizers (who receive large shipments of lands for running prerelease and draft events) while the latter would account for the blank-faced, Magic-backed error cards that sometimes find their way into packs.
There are other explanations for those last twenty-two slots, but I will debunk them all quickly. First, it might be possible that Wizards prints the cards for Theme decks in the empty spaces. However, this is not the case – there are more than forty-four cards between the three/four/five Theme decks in each set, and there is proven existence that Theme Decks are given their own sheets. During Scourge, a batch of Theme decks were accidentally printed using the backs of the Harry Potter game (also a Wizards of the Coast product). These cards had Magic fronts, but were clearly cut from a different print sheet than normal Magic cards.
The second explanation, and certainly the more sinister one, is that Wizards of the Coast prints more copies of some Rares/Uncommons and less of others. The reasoning people put behind this explanation is simple – if Wizards prints fewer copies of the "good" Rares in a set and more copies of "bad" Rares, people will have to buy more product in order to get the most desired cards. This is the theory behind why people claim Wizards makes certain Rares "more Rare" than other Rares.
This is absolutely not the case. All Rares are printed equally on print sheets. There are no Rares that are printed more/less in Booster Packs and Tournament Decks than any other Rares.
Let me give the exceptions to the rules. Super Secret Tech (from Unhinged) did not appear as often as regular Rares in Unhinged, but appeared more often than foil Unhinged Rares. This was a special chase card, and is not relevant to regular releases.
In the distant past, there were cards printed more often on the print sheet. I’ll use the most extreme example in Magic: Arabian Nights. Arabian Nights contained seventy-eight cards, but several cards were printed with light/dark variants (mana costs on the card were printed in lighter/darker boxes), making for a ninety-two card set.
Arabian Nights had a total of two print sheets – Common and Uncommons. Here are the breakdowns of each of the print sheets (Courtesy of www.crystalkeep.com):
Common: | ||
Black | ||
Kaja Foglio | C4 | |
Erg Raiders (a) | Dameon Willich | C3 |
Erg Raiders (b) | Dameon Willich | C2 |
Hasran Ogress (a) | Dan Frazier | C3 |
Hasran Ogress (b) | Dan Frazier | C2 |
Oubliette (a) | Douglas Shuler | C2 |
Oubliette (b) | Douglas Shuler | C2 |
Ken Meyer, Jr. | C3 | |
Ken Meyer, Jr. | C1 | |
Blue | ||
Drew Tucker | C4 | |
Fishliver Oil (a) | Anson Maddocks | C3 |
Fishliver Oil (b) | Anson Maddocks | C1 |
Christopher Rush | C5 | |
Giant Tortoise (a) | Kaja Foglio | C3 |
Giant Tortoise (b) | Kaja Foglio | C1 |
Douglas Shuler | C5 | |
Green | ||
Jesper Myrfors | C4 | |
Christopher Rush | C4 | |
Nafs Asp (a) | Christopher Rush | C3 |
Nafs Asp (b) | Christopher Rush | C2 |
Brian Snoddy | C4 | |
Wyluli Wolf (a) | Susan Van Camp | C4 |
Wyluli Wolf (b) | Susan Van Camp | C1 |
Red | ||
Bird Maiden (a) | Kaja Foglio | C2 |
Bird Maiden (b) | Kaja Foglio | C2 |
Christopher Rush | C4 | |
Drew Tucker | C4 | |
Ken Meyer, Jr. | C5 | |
Rukh Egg (a) | Christopher Rush | C3 |
Rukh Egg (b) | Christopher Rush | C1 |
White | ||
Army of Allah (a) | Brian Snoddy | C3 |
Army of Allah (b) | Brian Snoddy | C1 |
Sandra Everingham | C5 | |
Moorish Cavalry (a) | Dameon Willich | C4 |
Moorish Cavalry (b) | Dameon Willich | C1 |
Piety (a) | Mark Poole | C3 |
Piety (b) | Mark Poole | C1 |
War Elephant (a) | Kristen Bishop | C3 |
War Elephant (b) | Kristen Bishop | C1 |
Land | ||
Desert | Jesper Myrfors | C11 |
Douglas Shuler | C1 | |
Total: 121 Cards | ||
Uncommon: | ||
Black | ||
Dameon Willich | U2 | |
Ken Meyer, Jr. | U2 | |
Christopher Rush | U2 | |
Mark Tedin | U2 | |
Douglas Shuler | U3 | |
Kaja Foglio | U3 | |
Blue | ||
Jesper Myrfors | U2 | |
Tom Wanerstrand | U3 | |
Susan Van Camp | U2 | |
Anson Maddocks | U2 | |
Anson Maddocks | U2 | |
Julie Baroh | U3 | |
Green | ||
Mark Tedin | U3 | |
Susan Van Camp | U3 | |
Anson Maddocks | U2 | |
Ken Meyer, Jr. | U2 | |
Jesper Myrfors | U2 | |
Rob Alexander | U2 | |
Red | ||
Julie Baroh | U2 | |
Julie Baroh | U3 | |
Mark Poole | U2 | |
Susan Van Camp | U3 | |
Susan Van Camp | U2 | |
Drew Tucker | U2 | |
White | ||
Ken Meyer, Jr. | U3 | |
Mark Poole | U3 | |
Brian Snoddy | U2 | |
Mark Poole | U2 | |
Drew Tucker | U2 | |
Kaja Foglio | U2 | |
Artifacts | ||
Mark Tedin | U2 | |
Dan Frazier | U2 | |
Jesper Myrfors | U2 | |
Christopher Rush | U3 | |
Drew Tucker | U2 | |
Anson Maddocks | U2 | |
Dameon Willich | U2 | |
Mark Tedin | U3 | |
Dan Frazier | U2 | |
Dameon Willich | U2 | |
Amy Weber | U3 | |
Amy Weber | U2 | |
Dan Frazier | U2 | |
Dan Frazier | U3 | |
Land | ||
Jeff A. Menges | U3 | |
Mark Tedin | U3 | |
Brian Snoddy | U2 | |
Rob Alexander | U2 | |
Douglas Shuler | U2 | |
Mark Poole | U3 | |
Brian Snoddy | U4 |
Total: 121 cards
It stands to reason that the Arabian Nights sheets were eleven-by-eleven – unlike the eleven-by-ten sheets of today. There certainly were some Commons that were more Common than others – there were eleven copies of Desert for every one copy of Mountain on the Common print sheet! Likewise, there are two copies of Oasis in existence to every one copy of Juzam Djinn.
Wizards of the Coast thankfully abandoned the practice of multiple rarities within each set around the time of Mirage. This accounts for several oddities.
Alliances had three cards – Sol Grail, Urza’s Engine and Whirling Catapult – that were R6’s. Every other Rare in the set was R2, meaning that there were three copies of each of those three cards to every other single rare in the set.
Antiquities had C4, C2, C1, U3, U2 and U1. There were eight cards in a pack of Antiquities – two Uncommons and six Commons. That means any given pack had three Commons to each Uncommon – C1s were equally as rare as U3s. However, C1s appeared on the Common print sheet while U3s appeared on the Uncommon print sheet. Different Rarities, same rarity. There are as many Antiquities C1s in existence as there are Antiquities U3s.
Let’s bring this discussion back around to Ravnica. What would keep Wizards from printing more or fewer of any given Rare on the Rare sheet? There are a few explanations.
Which cards would Wizards short/overprint? The argument goes that Wizards of the Coast print less of the good cards and more of the bad ones. However, Wizards of the Coast does not know for sure which cards will be good and which will be bad. There are countless examples of this – Rares which have vastly outperformed initial expectations.
Sets have a vast, vast lead time between development and release, and the cards are finalized long before they ever reach the shelves. For every surefire hit in Darksteel Colossus, you have a completely missed sleeper card in Arcbound Ravager. Remember the Ravager? When it was first released, it was thought of as a niche Affinity card, one that would see play in only a few block-theme decks. Within a month, it was the most expensive card in Standard. The same applies to Pithing Needle.
Do you think Wizards has the foresight to under/overprint a card that they thought would be marginally playable? Of course they wouldn’t – using the under/overprint logic, Wizards would overprint cards that players don’t like, while underprinting tournament staples. To this day, people still complain that Pithing Needle and Arcbound Ravager are underprinted.
This complaint makes no sense, and has no basis in reality, for the reasons stated above.
Moreover, Magic appeals to a very broad spectrum of players. What is good to one player – Thorn Elemental/Verdant Force/Rhox – is trash to another. What a control player likes – Jushi Apprentice/Meloku the Clouded Mirror/Disrupting Shoal – is garbage to the aggressive player. Given that Wizards must design/market to dozens of different types of players all at once, how could they under/overprint certain Rares without alienating their own customer base?
We, at StarCityGames.com, have opened a not-insignificant number of packs – both Booster and Tournament – for singles at each set’s release. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is absolutely no evidence that any one Rare has been printed in fewer or greater numbers than any other Rare.
We did open more of some Rares and less of others. If you take the average number of each Rare that we opened for Ravnica, we ended up with an extra thirty-two Excruciator, and we were short twenty-something Vinelasher Kudzu. We were over on half the new Dual Lands and under on the other half.
Basically, there was no pattern to Rares appearing/not appearing more/less than other Rares. It all came down to luck.
If Wizards truly printed twenty-two Rares in a higher quantity than other Rares, we should have ended up with a sample size as follows:
Eighty-eight rares total.
Twenty-Two R2s.
Sixty-Six R1s.
This would mean that there would be double the number of twenty-two Rares, as compared to the other sixty-six Rares. This was not the case – and it would have been easy to notice if exactly twenty-two cards ended up being twice the stack size of the other sixty-six by the time we were done alphabetizing/sorting all the Ravnica we opened.
It is similarly unlikely that any Rares were printed in any higher/lower than the twenty-two duplicates. It would be prohibitively expensive for Wizards to have multiple print sheets for each set, it would be obvious if some Rares were being printed in triple-to-quadruple numbers, and nobody can come to any agreement on exactly which cards are or aren’t short printed.
Still, faced with factual evidence, some people still insist that certain Rares are short printed. They give the following evidence:
- They opened fewer copies of Rare X, even after cracking multiple boxes
- They don’t see Rare X appearing in other people’s trade binders very often, or
- They keep opening bad Rare Y, while they barely ever open good Rare X.
These are all just fallacies of perception. You might have opened only one Watery Grave in three boxes of Ravnica, but this is perfectly normal! There are thirty-six Booster Packs in a box of Ravnica, each with a single rare. There are eighty-eight Rares in Ravnica. This means that, statistically, you will get any given rare once every eighty-eight packs – or once every 2.44 boxes.
Real life does not conform to statistical perfection, so some people will not open a single copy of Watery Grave within three boxes, whereas someone across the country might open three in three boxes. For the first person, they view Watery Grave as underprinted. The second person might not have opened any Temple Gardens, and would think that the Garden was shorted.
In both cases, each person is victim to perception wound around luck. This goes for the trade binder argument – you are going to see less of good Rares because people are using those Rares – if fifty people in a ninety-player tournament are running Goblins, you’re not going to see a ton of copies of Goblin Piledriver in binders, since they’re being used.
As for the last argument, people tend to remember extremes. There are fewer good Rares than bad Rares in Saviors of Kamigawa – so it might seem like you are not opening a lot of good Rares in a box, since there aren’t a lot of good Rares. If you buy two boxes of Saviors and end up with one copy of Pithing Needle, but two copies each of One with Nothing, Masumaro, Akuta, Seed the Horizon, Blood Clock, Bounteous Kirin and Endless Swarm, it’s going to seem like the good Rares are underprinted – even though you’re well within the statistical norms.
Within modern Booster Packs and Tournament Decks, there are no Rares that or more or less Rare than other Rares. The only accounting for uneven distribution comes from Theme decks, which pump extra copies of several Rares, Uncommons and Commons into circulation. Just remember, next time you complain that Umezawa’s Jitte seems like a super-Rare in Betrayers of Kamigawa packs, the truth is that there are a significant number of Jittes printed – thanks to the Rat’s Nest Theme deck – than Nourishing Shoal.
– Tommorrow: The other Pro Tour.