Taking Sol Ring out of my commander decks - a reasoning.

[anjinsan]

Whether something reminds you of a saying or not doesn’t make it valid or invalid. The point is that t1 Sol Rings show up more than one might expect considering it’s just 1 card in 100.

A t1 Sol Ring isn’t always the be all and end all. However, like all fast mana, it enables stuff that only other fast mana enables, like a t2 Rhystic Study, Smothering Tithe or Grand Arbiter Augustin IV. It’s not so much a boogeyman as just a very powerful thing to do. This is simple fact; no one card will entirely warp the game alone, but it doesn’t take a genius to look at Sol Ring, look at the next-best mana rock, and realise that being twice as effective for half the price makes this rather more powerful.

In cEDH we kind of expect this. However in games where people are literally banning fast mana to avoid this, it’s pretty strange to me then to allow Sol Ring still to happen.

[robort]

Whether something reminds you of a saying or not doesn’t make it valid or invalid. The point is that t1 Sol Rings show up more than one might expect considering it’s just 1 card in 100.

A t1 Sol Ring isn’t always the be all and end all. However, like all fast mana, it enables stuff that only other fast mana enables, like a t2 Rhystic Study, Smothering Tithe or Grand Arbiter Augustin IV. It’s not so much a boogeyman as just a very powerful thing to do. This is simple fact; no one card will entirely warp the game alone, but it doesn’t take a genius to look at Sol Ring, look at the next-best mana rock, and realise that being twice as effective for half the price makes this rather more powerful.

In cEDH we kind of expect this. However in games where people are literally banning fast mana to avoid this, it’s pretty strange to me then to allow Sol Ring still to happen.

Actually it does make it invalid when I just proved it. Facts are facts when someone is trying to use an "if" case scenario. While there is a probability of something happening doesn't make it so. A turn 1 sol ring also shows up less then one might expect. The instinct is "always" expect a turn 1 sol to be a powerful thing to do when in actuality it isn't "always" fact. Same thing could be said that Someone playes farseek on turn 2 while I just play a land and pass. Now that person is up 1 land and has more mana then I do come turn 3. That could be considered a powerful play because now I am behind on mana. So now I could use the same "of" scenario where we all muligined down to 5 cards and I kept a 2 land hand while that opponent has 3 lands and a farseek means "if" that happens it becomes a powerful play. Never mind it could be a fact that I am playing 34-35 lands, 2 mana accelerators with an avg cmc of 3.25 excluding the commander which is a 3 color commanders that cost 5 to play. Or I am playing just with basic lands with a 2 color commanders and my 1st opening hand indeed had 3 lands but they were of the same color. Or that I am not that great yet in shuffling 100 cards so I don't randomize the deck cause of my shuffling to have a decent opening hand. I do agree with the what "if" this happens, so yes it can happen but not as often as we'd like to think.

[Morganator 2.0]

Do you understand how probabilities work? How the math of probabilities is entirely about predicting "if" an event will happen?

[robort]

Do you understand how probabilities work? How the math of probabilities is entirely about predicting "if" an event will happen?

You do understand how human variables work? How the math of probabilities especially in this "if" event that doesn't include human variables? That the way one does or doesn't shuffle correctly can change such variables?? Never mind the emotional aspect of it all. These are 4 humans/people deciding to mulligan and shuffle down to 5 cards each not 5 robots. Ignoring the human variables once again doesn't make the "if" statement correct.

[Morganator 2.0]

So now you're describing error, something statistics and probability takes into account with mean, standard deviation, and significance values.

I'm a little lost now. What's the issue with Aetherium Slinky's calculations?
And what does this have to do with the decision to include or not include Sol Ring?

[anjinsan]

So wait, your argument is that we’ll see Sol Ring less than we expect… because people don’t shuffle properly? 

[robort]

The calculations are just fine if there wasn't human involvement around. 4 players mulligan 3 times equals a 25% of a turn 1 sol ring. That's only if all 4 players/humans stick to said calculations which to keep it simple include lands and shuffling (each mulligan does this). Any player/human can derive from said land count because of a few factors. Some of those reasons include the avg mana curve of the deck, deck building skills, and just out right refusal to actually have the right amount of lands. Now brings me to mulligan which means shuffling. I don't know about you but there are some people who just can't shuffle or have hard time shuffling or just aren't shuffling correctly (which this includes those cheating). Correct shuffling requires it to be random and if it isn't random then that throws off said calculations.

Yet since such a scenario is very unlikely to happen because of other reasonings such as having a better starting hand before mulligan. Again makes sol ring a boggy man.

[robort]

So wait, your argument is that we’ll see Sol Ring less than we expect… because people don’t shuffle properly? 

So you've never seen anybody struggle to shuffle cards before especially 100 or more cards? Now add sleeves to those 100 cards and it becomes even more of a struggle.

[Aetherium Slinky]

It's not 3 mulligans, it's up to. Going down to 5 is a reasonable assumption in my opinion. At least I mulligan to 5 if needed... Okay, not everyone is hunting for the Sol Ring hand, some hands with Sol Ring might be bad (like no lands), not everyone plays Sol Ring on turn 1 even if they have the capability... The probability of anyone playing Sol Ring on T1 is lower, yes. My wording was "seeing a turn 1 Sol Ring", not whether people actually play it or not.

I didn't understand the rest of your arguments except the shuffling one which sounds a little dubious at best. I know one person who doesn't shuffle properly and I've played a lot of games. The rest shuffle just fine.

Actually it does make it invalid when I just proved it. Facts are facts when someone is trying to use an "if" case scenario. While there is a probability of something happening doesn't make it so. A turn 1 sol ring also shows up less then one might expect. The instinct is "always" expect a turn 1 sol to be a powerful thing to do when in actuality it isn't "always" fact. Same thing could be said that Someone playes farseek on turn 2 while I just play a land and pass. Now that person is up 1 land and has more mana then I do come turn 3.

I'm sorry, I don't see proof of anything. Having 4 mana on turn 2 is much more potent than having 4 mana on turn 3.

Compare:

• T1: Land + Sol Ring (accumulated 2 free mana)
• T2: Land (accumulated 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 free mana
• T3: Land (accumulated 6 + 3 + 2 = 9 free mana)
• T4: Land (accumulated 9 + 4 + 2 = 15 free mana)

and:

• T1: Land (accumulated 1 free mana)
• T2: Land + Farseek (accumulated 1 free mana)
• T3: Land (accumulated 1 + 4 = 5 free mana)
• T4: Land (accumulated 5 + 5 = 10 free mana)

Assuming both players hit their 4th land drop, which is reasonable, the Sol Ring player has had an accumulated 50% more mana to play with. How are these two scenarios comparable?

EDIT: Heck, let's throw in the lands only option.

• T1: Land (1 accumulated free mana)
• T2: Land (1 + 2 = 3 accumulated free mana)
• T3: Land (3 + 3 = 6 accumulated free mana)
• T4: Land (6 + 4 = 10 accumulated free mana)

Playing lands only is on par with playing Farseek up until turn 4.

[robort]

As you said you "seeing" a turn 1 sol ring doesn't make it also degenerate, ruin your games, and archenemy. 

As for the rest lets start that again with seeing a turn 1 sol ring. You have 4 players who have to have X amount of lands for this to happen to equate to %Y which is seeing a turn 1 sol ring. These 4 players can deviate from X for whatever reason which would then change the % of Y. Call the shuffling aspect dubious all you want but shuffling has to happen even at the start of the game. So shuffling correctly is keeping it random. Incorrectly defeats this purpose and then %y outcome would then become less random. I've played a lot of games to along with plethora other card games and there are people who can't shuffle. It isn't a life skill that is needed but can be learned in a matter of time. I've even seen people who still can't riffle shuffle a regular 52 card deck of playing cards after being taught. Shuffling 100 sleeved magic cards isn't easy. One also has to shuffle a correct number of times for it to become random as well. So again yes someone may know to shuffle but not everyone knows the correct number of times either.

You don't see anything but it is more potent not "much" more potent.

How are those 2 scenarios related? I'll first answer the question with a question. It'll be a yes or no because aren't you ahead in mana in either scenario? Now to answer it without the question. Both scenarios put you ahead in mana and while I agree one puts you ahead further but non the less both put you ahead in mana.

On that, enjoy the boogy man.

[anjinsan]

OK you seem to be talking about a bunch of things so let’s break it down…

Deviation from the model mulliganning strategy.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the ~25% chance of seeing a Sol Ring isn’t realistic because people may mulligan less or mulligan away their Sol Ring? Sure, but I think this strategy is a reasonable enough model and, anyway, the number doesn’t actually matter that much. Even if Sol Ring showed up maybe 10% of the time turn 1 (and we’re not counting early-turn top decks, which obviously have a lesser but still-relevant impact) that’s quite a lot, and maybe more than most might expect.

Poor shuffling
The rules say people should shuffle to randomise their decks. They might not, but that’s not really something we can account for when thinking about cards, just as we also ignore all those tables that houserule Sol Ring down to 0 mana and say it taps for 6, or the people who let you have it in the command zone.

Besides, does poor shuffling increase or decrease the chance of a Sol Ring. Assuming no I’ll intent/cheating, one would expect that actually it would balance out, certainly if the first shuffle is good. So either way I think this is a non-issue.

Impact of Sol Ring
A totally different question is what impact Sol Ring actually has. Now actually, I don’t think it is “ruinous” or “degenerate”… but I do think you’re understating it. It’s far more impactful than a t2 Farseek, which is already actually quite good. No or almost no semi-decent decks eschew 2-mana ramp, which implies that cards like Farseek are really rather powerful. If they weren’t, people would skip them and just play impactful 2- and 3-drops on curve. Then, consider that Sol Ring is about (by some metric) four times more powerful than Farseek! It also lets me play powerful cards on t2 than 2-mana ramp simply cannot enable by itself.

The whole point of this thread, in fact, is someone saying they’ve taken Sol Ring out and they prefer it like that. Now, obviously, you may disagree, but the examples I gave before (turn 2 Rhystic, Tithe or GAAIV) I think illustrate well just the impact that Sol Ring can have.

[Dactylartha]

This thread is totally off the rails.

[Aetherium Slinky]

As you said you "seeing" a turn 1 sol ring doesn't make it also degenerate, ruin your games, and archenemy.

[...]

How are those 2 scenarios related? I'll first answer the question with a question. It'll be a yes or no because aren't you ahead in mana in either scenario? Now to answer it without the question. Both scenarios put you ahead in mana and while I agree one puts you ahead further but non the less both put you ahead in mana.

I am so confused. Do you not understand how much more 15 mana is over 10 mana? The discrepancy grows the further the game progresses! How is that not super lopsided?

[Kelly]

This thread is totally off the rails.

"Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their downfall."  The Silmarillion

[robort]

Amjisan,

The poor shuffling and deviation go hand in hand but yes deviation also happens another way I have previously mentioned. Granted it wouldn't change the 25% outcome to be noticeable it just does. To get the 25% out come all 4 players have to play X amount of lands between them. Remember there is a chance to see the turn 1 sol ring and you need lands for this to happen. I don't know about you but I've known players who play with the incorrect amount of lands and mostly not enough.

The shuffling aspect is yes we can think about it especially in cards. Shuffling randomizes any deck and creates variance. So at the bottom we have a 52 card deck of playing cards that "Riffle seven times and you’ll have a sufficiently random ordering of cards, an ordering that has likely never existed before. In other words, it’s unlikely you’ll ever shuffle two decks the same.". But magic players actually don't riffle shuffle because of course we don't like destroying our cards especially if they aren't sleeved. So this is normally done with some type of overhand shuffle. Now lets bring this 1st into the 60 card format and sticking with the 7 times to shuffle to make it random. To off set some of this randomness we like to put 4 of a card into the deck. We now go up to 100 cards and the 7 times goes up higher. Where that number is I admittingly don't know. I do know that shuffling does play an important part of randomization. I do know magic players like to have a much control over such randomization because of the variance it comes with. With the mulligan rule changes that have happened proved that theory.

Yeah I am understating sol ring while everyone else is over stating it, It is so easy to constantly use an echo chamber stating that a turn 1 sol ring iis indeed impactful. Yes it can be impactful ss it consistently impactful? No because most everyone can remember a game where it was but not a single one of use will remember the games where it wasn't. So much easier to constantly point at the impactfulness then to look at it as a whole. So just echo what everyone else keeps echoing of sol ring impact. This also comes from my own personal experience as well. I normally play EDH 3 days a week but not always. I play at my local LGS on Thursday from 6-10, my Friday night play group from 5:30-10:30 and again on Saturday from 1-6. I've been doing this well over 2 years now and avg from 9 games to 12 or more depending on what decks we are running. Are there games in all those I've played that sol ring was impactful? Yes because 1 in particular I did myself which was a turn 1 sol ring into smothering tithe, and then into anointed procession. That was only 1 time out of who knows how many games I have played. I can recall more games though were there was a turn 1 sol ring has been played and turned into almost nothing. I've seen way to many more impactful things then a turn 1 sol ring.
Now I also know people over stat it because of those lurking in the shadows and a belligerent statement about my intelligence.I'll expect non the less on this part.

I am so confused. Do you not understand how much more 15 mana is over 10 mana? The discrepancy grows the further the game progresses! How is that not super lopsided? Let me take a wild guess.. 25.. nope that isn't it... 67.. nope that isn't correct either.... 2 nope that isn't correct either.. Screw it and I will guess 5 for final answer.  But then again you didn't answer my question which is ok. It'll be a yes or no because aren't you ahead in mana in either scenario? Now as the game progresses does it not occur to you that a player or the other players are also ramping? Or is ramping mad progressively only for sol-ring and not the other multitudes of cards that supplant ramp?

Now on that you guys can respond, the lurkers can lurk(got to love the negative drops from them) After this post I am done and moving on away from the boogy man. So go ahead and fire away