Rare Cards

artificer · Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 66

Rare and uncommon cards are by definition harder to get on real live magic or sealed deck tournaments but I wonder if they are really “better” than common spells.

ZW · Joined: 25 Apr 2008 Posts: 137

Usually, rares and uncommons are better than commons, because they arn't as simple as commons. While the simple common may be better(Lightning Bolt, Llanowar Elves) usually, the rares and uncommons have more intricate effects and therefore usually see more tournament play.

MaksymG · Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 174

Better is a poor term to use in this case. The rares and uncommons usually have a higher power level associated with them. Tooth and Nail for example, is not STRICTLY better than lets say llanowar elves, or rampant growth as they are different cards, but it is nonetheless considered to be a generally more powerful card. Then there are some cards that cannot be printed on a common level for the sake of limited. Tarmogoyf is an example of this as the format would be broken if there was a common 2 drop with that type of effect, even without tribals and planewalkers in the set. Generally, lands that have the option to produce 2 colours of mana, without a significant drawback, (vivid lands) or with an alternate cost to the drawback (wilt leaf palace), are considered rare and are printed as such. Once again for the sake of serious IRL constructed, this is largely irrelevent as most players will be able to get all the cards they need for the deck anyways, but imagine a limited environment where your colours are basically whatever you want due to the presence of common or even uncommon duel lands. This was seen in Ravnica by the way with the bouncelands which in limited are better than the shocklands.

FirstType · Joined: 26 Jun 2008 Posts: 11

Rares are not necessarily more powerful than commons. Many tournament staples, such as point removal (e.g. Nameless Inversion), is usually common.