Introduction
Sealed is a format in which the players are asked to build a deck from a limited and given pool of cards. The most significant feature of Sealed Format [SF], which distinguishes it from other formats in the game, is the limited pool of cards from which the player builds the deck. As we know, the size of the card pool is the principal difference that separates the different environments in MTG.
When playing constructed, the pool is very wide. Actually , only two constraints are imposed on the player: (1) She can only choose cards from certain sets (depending on the format); (2) She is not allowed to use more than 4 copies of the same card (we are not referring to budget and inventory limitations since they are circumstantial and in theory can be surmounted by the appropriate money and time resources). In SF, which is at the other end of the spectrum, the deck is built from a random and limited pool of 90 cards.
By contrast, in draft format, although the final selection is made from a pool of 45 cards, the player is actually exposed to a much larger number of cards than in SF. In a DF of 8 players, for example, each player gets to see 276 different cards that pass through their hands. This fact, plus the possibility of cooperation between the players (the division of colors), significantly changes the way we build a deck in DF compared to SF. Why does the size of the card pool matter so much in how we build the deck?
constructed environment,
In a constructed environment, the quality of cards is much less important than the synergistic effect created as a result of their combination. In fact, the quality of the cards is not a factor at all: the players can get any card they want. The game is decided not by the deck with the best quality of cards but by the deck that combines the cards in the most successful way (plus the players’ skill and luck, of course).
Smaller the pool of cards available to the player to build the deck, the less powerful the synergistic effect, and the importance of the absolute quality of the deck cards increases. In DF, as we have seen, there is a kind of balance between the two. In SF, by contrast, the scales are tilted towards the quality of cards.
This does not mean that in SF you should not build a deck around a strategic idea according to the principles presented in Chapter 8. On the contrary: the typical strategic ideas presented in that chapter are first and foremost relevant to sealed, since in draft it is also possible to achieve a finer mechanical synergy based on the different mechanisms of the set. However, the recognition that in sealed quality must often be preferred over synergy dictates a series of principles that the player must consider when building a deck in this environment. Now we will present these principles and try to explain the logic behind them.
The card quality factor in sealed
The choice of colors
The pool of cards available to the player significantly affects the number of colors she will choose to play. In MTG, the player is caught in a dilemma: the desire to include in the deck the best quality cards available works against the desire to maintain a deck with operational synergy, that is, a consistent deck that allows the player to play the cards at hand. As I play more colors, I will be able to choose from a larger pool of cards; therefore, the quality of the cards I will play will increase. Yet, I could cast those spells with reduced consistency as I would probably face mana problems.
In constructed, this dilemma is almost non-existent: the huge pool of cards at my disposal allows me to play high quality cards without getting into mana problems. So, for example, I can play a single color. If I choose to play more than one color, I will have the means to minimize the risk of mana problems (e.g., mana fixers.)
One color limit
In DF, the tension is more acute. Trying to limit yourself to one color will almost always lead to the inclusion of very poor-quality cards. Choosing two colors allows for quite a lot of consistency in casting spells and a nice pool of high-quality, playable cards. A fairly simple calculation shows that the player playing 2 colors in DF can hope to get at least 11 category A & B cards in each of the 2 colors she has chosen (the calculation is presented in the appendix to this chapter .) A player can choose to play an additional color in order to increase the overall quality of the cards. However, in doing so she takes a risk: she may find herself holding cards that she is unable to cast.
Since she is capable of building a good quality two-color deck anyway, including a third color often just isn’t worth it.
Reminder
Beginners tend to forget this fact and are too reckless in sacrificing mana consistency on the altar of attractive cards.
In SF the situation is different. Here we have 90 cards randomly distributed among the different colors. It has been said that 5–10 of them are not of a certain color (lands or artifacts) because on average we have 13 cards of each color (this is highly dependent upon the set played). We will remember that on average half of the cards in a certain color are high quality or at least playable. If so, on average we will have 5 series of colors with 7 playable cards, from which we must choose 2. Since there are always colors with a higher number of cards, we can hope for 16–17 playable cards.
We will add 1–2 colorless cards and get 19 cards in total. This number is not enough to build the deck.
Now we have two options: (1) fill in the gaps with fillers (category C cards); or (2) include 2–4 quality cards of another color (a third one). The advantage we can derive from this is obvious. We give up weak cards in exchange for the best cards of another color (provided they are splashable). There is a high chance that out of the 3 remaining color series you will find one that offers high quality splashable cards. The difference in quality between these cards and the cards we give up is much greater than what usually exists in DF. There is another reason for choosing the third color option in SF. As we will see below, this environment tends to be slower than DF.
Result:
Due to the above , the damage caused by drawing a card that we cannot play in the initial hand will be less severe because we will have more time to find the mana that allows us to cast it eventually.
Conclusion: In SF, the inclusion of a third color (as a splash) should be considered very seriously if enough playable cards in two colors were not found.
Mechanical synergy in sealed format
In constructed and draft format, building a deck around the mechanism that stands at the center of a particular set is common. This synergy, as opposed to ‘normal’ functional synergy based on a looser matching of cards, requires a considerable pool of cards. In SF no such conditions exist. The limited pool of cards from which the player builds the deck does not usually provide enough ‘ammunition’ of a satisfactory quality to create a sufficiently powerful mechanical synergy. You must remember that this synergy is very demanding regarding the cards it needs and cannot be easily replaced with other cards without losing much of the strength of the synergistic effect.
Conclusion: in SF, the player should rein in the temptation to build the deck around the mechanism offered by the series. The burden of proof is on the cards pool: only if we are lucky and receive enough cards to achieve a real synergistic effect should we be prepared to sacrifice the quality of the cards for this synergy.
Using high mana cost cards in sealed format
It is well known that the size of the pool of cards available to the player for building the deck has a great impact on the speed of the format. Constructed is usually faster than limited. Of course, there is a generalization in this, but it is possible to point to such a pattern. Again, the reason for this tendency is a lower ability to achieve synergy as well as a lower quality of the various cards from which the deck is built.
It follows that an SF deck tends to be slower than a DF deck. A fast deck, consisting of cheap and aggressive creatures, requires a critical mass of such creatures as well as cheap removals and good finishers. If the player doesn’t draw this critical mass, the slower deck will be able to stabilize the battlefield and the faster deck’s chances of winning will be greatly reduced: from a certain point in the game, drawing a 3/1 creature at 2 mana is no longer an asset but rather a nuisance.
conclusion
The pool of cards available to the player in SF often does not provide the cards needed to achieve this critical mass. Therefore, one should be less hesitant to include expensive cards that have a lot of impact on the battlefield. Of course, this is not to recommend the inclusion of too many expensive spells. Even in SF, the phenomenon of ‘6+ mana rule’ should not be ignored and therefore a player should limit the number of expensive spells included in a deck. However, unlike DF, where including expensive spells only if they fit the strategic idea of the deck (late game strategy) is recommended, in sealed the decision must often be made according with the quality of these spells, in absolute terms. So, for example, I will be less hesitant to include a quality creature at 7 mana even if my deck is relatively aggressive.
Conclusion: In SF, the suitability of expensive spells for a deck should be evaluated mainly according to their quality. Therefore, one should be more willing to include expensive spells in the deck (provided that they are expected to have a significant impact on the game). However, their quantity should still be severely limited.