Yeah our previous options were a little underwhelming...
I think power level wise we've upgraded from Valorous Stance over the last few years, but I LOVE this new art, and always thought the old one was mediocre
Hahahaha, this is the best one yet! In fact, I don't think any meme cleave card can beat this :')
I wonder how the numbers look if you exclude sets with DFC's. We have been getting a lot of those recently, and they are probably the wordiest cards out there. I might be wrong, but I'm assuming this will be the last set in a while with a heavy DFC component. Mark Gottlieb wrote an article last year about average word count (which you can find here). Obviously, averages are dangerous, because they obfuscate a lot of information. What this article does proof is that word count is something WotC is very conscious of. The article lists the average word count per rarity for Ixalan through Ikoria with and without reminder text, which are two additional parameters that are great for additional insight. Ideally, you'ld want even more information, like mean values and standard deviations, to get an even better idea of word count distribution. Pretty fascinating insight regardless, because it's very clear most complexity is allowed within the mythic and (to a lesser extent) the rare slot. (PS. Don't be fooled by the color scheme, for some reason they haven't bothered to align the chart colors with rarity colors, so we have yellow representing mythics, silver representing rares, and orange representing uncommons :facepalm
I haven't seen as expansive an article since, but I'm pretty sure all of the DFC's haven't improved things, since each of those is basically two cards in one. It would be interesting to get an update along the same lines, honestly!:minus one” because originally it refers to the ’s restriction on mana value but after you’ve paid the it simply says
It's so simple, but it works on every angle, even the card name and flavor text!Oh this one!
to have a card saying “target permanent.” Why one mana?"Mean" and "average" are synonyms, and as I noted standard deviation isn't particularly useful for this dataset because the data itself doesn't follow a normal distribution; therefor I used a different statistical approach to means bounding instead (the Chebyshev Bound in this specific case, with an arbitrary determination on what bound I actually wanted):Hahahaha, this is the best one yet! In fact, I don't think any meme cleave card can beat this :')
I wonder how the numbers look if you exclude sets with DFC's. We have been getting a lot of those recently, and they are probably the wordiest cards out there. I might be wrong, but I'm assuming this will be the last set in a while with a heavy DFC component. Mark Gottlieb wrote an article last year about average word count (which you can find here). Obviously, averages are dangerous, because they obfuscate a lot of information. What this article does proof is that word count is something WotC is very conscious of. The article lists the average word count per rarity for Ixalan through Ikoria with and without reminder text, which are two additional parameters that are great for additional insight. Ideally, you'ld want even more information, like mean values and standard deviations, to get an even better idea of word count distribution. Pretty fascinating insight regardless, because it's very clear most complexity is allowed within the mythic and (to a lesser extent) the rare slot. (PS. Don't be fooled by the color scheme, for some reason they haven't bothered to align the chart colors with rarity colors, so we have yellow representing mythics, silver representing rares, and orange representing uncommons :facepalm
PS2. I also wanted to put a shoutout to @Nemo here, who created this fantastic thread last year, where they calculated the average word count (at the time) for a bunch of cubes. It would, again, be interesting to see mean values in addition to the averages, because like I said, averages tend to obfuscate a lot of information.
If you mean "median" instead of "mean", we still get a similar trend (median shows a higher character discrepancy than mean does actually):
I found this to be a very funny cleave parody because it sits at the intersection between clever and stupid that matches my sense of humour. The removal of [text] from the title and flavour text means that the meaning is maintained: you are doing nothing more than indicating a permanent, choosing “you”.Oh this one!
View attachment 5525
I don’t understand the flavor text. I also don’t understand the relationship between paying one
Honestly this is not a bad card! It has a raise dead tacked on when it dies, so it's kind of a cantrip dude, plus it enables itself with some mill.
I would probably play this if it was a 2/2, as is I think my black section in my main cube is a little too tight for this. Having said that, I think there are a ton of Cubes where this is just a flat-out good card. I think this is a must-have card.
Just not brilliant because the changes don’t make much sense to me. Maybe someone can explain them to me and then I’ll board the brilliant train.Yes. My current analysis is underestimating the complexity increase.
It's just a reference to an old-ish meme. There's not much else to it, you indicate something by targeting it.Sure. I also found it funny because of the name and flavor text []
Oops, yeah, I meant median. That's my non-native English confusing two words. Interesting that it doesn't change the trend much.
That's goldIt's just a reference to an old-ish meme. There's not much else to it, you indicate something by targeting it.
Pretty cool!
