You do realize it's not a contract, right? Not even the tiniest bit. You know no one has ever actually been able to definitively say anything like: "Wizards can't violate the reserved list without being sued because of <insert case precedent/law>" on this forum, despite the fact that multiple prolific posters are actually lawyers and/or have been to some law school because no such precedent or law exists, right? It would vaguely resemble some pretty minor things, but that's about it. Anyone who thinks they don't violate it because they don't want to get sued is foolish. I have no idea why they don't, but a company is undeniably allowed to say it will never do something and then do it. No one bought a thing from them based on the promise, given that the cards were no longer being printed and they don't see singles. They didn't bait and switch anyone or make any money off of their "lie."
What? It's 100% a contract. Just go read the wikipedia for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract . Either way, it doesn't matter. They breached their contract many years ago.
Except, you know, it's not a contract. Even if you stretch the definitions as far as possible and pretend that the elements of "offer and acceptance" (they didn't offer us anything in return for anything) and "intention to be legally bound" are there (hint: they're not), in what way is the element of "consideration" present? We're not giving them anything. We're not doing anything for them.
Do you think if you buy something from a company that promises to the general public to never outsource labor to a third world country and they break their promise, you can sue them? Ha. Good luck.
Tip: saying something doesn't make it true. Something isn't a contract or legally binding just because you say it is.
I guess I made a huge mistake by asking you to read that and understand it. My apoligies.
The offer:
Wizards saying: We will not reprint X cards.
The Acceptance:
"those accepting the offer are not required to communicate their acceptance to the offeror."
Intent to be legally bound:
You're taking this too literally. Go read the wikipedia section on it.
Consideration:
In exchange for them not reprinting X cards, collectors continued to support their company.
It's a really simple concept. It's 1st year contracts all over again. This isn't stretching anything at all. It's a simple contract.
But I don't know why we're arguing over this. It's irrelevant due to prior breaches unless a court would find the contract divisible or some foreign court would find otherwise (which I know nothing about and am assuming the same for you.)
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"The spirit of the reserved list" is utter nonsense. The idea that the reserved list itself is somehow binding to Hasbro is just disingenuous, and the idea that its "spirit" is binding is simply laughable.
WOTC's corporate marketing people just believe they have a "profile" of what a "new customer" wants. And according to them, "new customers" dont like things that are complicated or even slightly difficult to understand. Thus they actively seek to limit the profile of eternal formats, and the reserved list provides a convenient excuse for furthering that goal. Its the same logic behind their "new world order" shift in design.
Its the only rational explanation for why they act the way they do regarding the idea of reprinting eternal staples, regardless of whether a card is on the reserved list or not. The only other reason would be that they hate making money, but that seems doubtful.
Never mind that Legacy has successfully thrived and grown despite their steadfast resolve to strangle it, which entirely disproves the idea that it cant draw in new business for them. Different people like different things. Making more options more available is generally profitable.
Although MaRo emphasizes those newbie-friendly points, he also goes on about how different cards appeal to different kinds of players. So I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning. Also, I understand that New World Order limits commons, not rare or upped to rare/mythic rare like the stuff that's worth reprinting.
ok. Let's get away from the reserved list discussion for awhile. Here's a question I think is relevant to the OP (supporting legacy without violating the RL):
What duals could Wizards make (say within a commander set as not to disrupt modern & standard) that are 1) not a violation of the reserved list (including legendary/snow duals), and 2) good enough that they would be more viable alternative to ABU duals in legacy than shocks are. Basically, the drawback would have to be different than the shock drawback.
I've tried to think of a viable design and haven't really come up with one. The life-loss method of the shocks is simple and effective, but obviously adds up if you have to pay it more than once. What other drawback could be used that would still be playable?
I would believe that such wouldn't violate the RL, the issue is that we kind of have to go all in, or fold. This is the issue brought up when people say "reprint non-RL cards" because following such, the RL cards skyrocket. In this same way, while the lands would be fixed, the other RL cards would rise, and I believe they would rise in direct proportion to how the lands drop.
Snow isn't "functionally" identical because some cards care about snow lands and others don't. That said, the reason legendary and snow don't get around the reserved list is because Wizard's reserved list policy page literally say they don't. They define something as a functional reprint if it shares the same mana cost, type, subtype, rules text, power and toughness. All of these are the same with Tundra, Legendary Tundra and Snow Tundra. Supertype isn't mentioned. That said, you could obviously justify making a legendary dual land that's strictly better as a one of with different rules text and that would get around the letter of the reserved list, although not necessarily around the spirit of it. For example, a legendary tundra that gains you 1 life when it enters the battlefield.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
ok. Let's get away from the reserved list discussion for awhile. Here's a question I think is relevant to the OP (supporting legacy without violating the RL):
What duals could Wizards make (say within a commander set as not to disrupt modern & standard) that are 1) not a violation of the reserved list (including legendary/snow duals), and 2) good enough that they would be more viable alternative to ABU duals in legacy than shocks are. Basically, the drawback would have to be different than the shock drawback.
I've tried to think of a viable design and haven't really come up with one. The life-loss method of the shocks is simple and effective, but obviously adds up if you have to pay it more than once. What other drawback could be used that would still be playable?
I would believe that such wouldn't violate the RL, the issue is that we kind of have to go all in, or fold. This is the issue brought up when people say "reprint non-RL cards" because following such, the RL cards skyrocket. In this same way, while the lands would be fixed, the other RL cards would rise, and I believe they would rise in direct proportion to how the lands drop.
Snow isn't "functionally" identical because some cards care about snow lands and others don't. That said, the reason legendary and snow don't get around the reserved list is because Wizard's reserved list policy page literally say they don't. They define something as a functional reprint if it shares the same mana cost, type, subtype, rules text, power and toughness. All of these are the same with Tundra, Legendary Tundra and Snow Tundra. Supertype isn't mentioned. That said, you could obviously justify making a legendary dual land that's strictly better as a one of with different rules text and that would get around the letter of the reserved list, although not necessarily around the spirit of it. For example, a legendary tundra that gains you 1 life when it enters the battlefield.
I just want that card for its art, in fact they're all quite beautiful. Although that is going off topic, just wanted to note it.
Thanks, I put some serious time in them.. It's not easy trying to make a dual with a drawback combined with a fetch.. so neither is better than the original yet are good enough to be played.. I apparently still haven't hit the mark lol.
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
That literally makes no sense. Collectors buy new cards (some of them, not all of them) because they were promised that the value of their old cards they can no longer purchase won't drop drastically in value? They're completely unrelated. A collector isn't buying a box of Theros because he's confident his Underground Sea will always be worth a few hundred dollars. Even if he was, he couldn't possibly prove it in court.
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
That literally makes no sense. Collectors buy new cards (some of them, not all of them) because they were promised that the value of their old cards they can no longer purchase won't drop drastically in value? They're completely unrelated. A collector isn't buying a box of Theros because he's confident his Underground Sea will always be worth a few hundred dollars. Even if he was, he couldn't possibly prove it in court.
See the above post. It doesn't seem you played at the time the reserved list was created. Furthermore, you don't have to prove that the consideration actually happened. You just have to show that both parties believe that the consideration existed. Since Wizards specifically stated their consideration, it would meet the element required by the courts.
Even if true, they could certainly abolish it for the cards that they weren't selling at the time. Not that you would ever even remotely make it to court with such a frivolous lawsuit even if they reprinted Urza's cards.
Even if true, they could certainly abolish it for the cards that they weren't selling at the time. Not that you would ever even remotely make it to court with such a frivolous lawsuit even if they reprinted Urza's cards.
Only if the contract is divisible. In general, consideration for any part of the contract is sufficient for the entire contract. You would absolutely make it to court with "such a frivolous lawsuit." That's how the courts work, you're given your chance. You can undoubtedly establish the prima facie case necessary. However, like I said before, the contract was breached many years ago. Most jurisdictions would side with Wizards
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
That literally makes no sense. Collectors buy new cards (some of them, not all of them) because they were promised that the value of their old cards they can no longer purchase won't drop drastically in value? They're completely unrelated. A collector isn't buying a box of Theros because he's confident his Underground Sea will always be worth a few hundred dollars. Even if he was, he couldn't possibly prove it in court.
See the above post. It doesn't seem you played at the time the reserved list was created. Furthermore, you don't have to prove that the consideration actually happened. You just have to show that both parties believe that the consideration existed. Since Wizards specifically stated their consideration, it would meet the element required by the courts.
Can you cite any relevant cases to support this? I'd be interested in seeing if there's any relevant precedent to back that viewpoint.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
Can you cite any relevant cases to support this? I'd be interested in seeing if there's any relevant precedent to back that viewpoint.
I'm interested as well, because Holynorth's explanation is the first time the Reserved List has made any sense to me. Everyone else needs to lay off him a little bit.
ok. Let's get away from the reserved list discussion for awhile. Here's a question I think is relevant to the OP (supporting legacy without violating the RL):
What duals could Wizards make (say within a commander set as not to disrupt modern & standard) that are 1) not a violation of the reserved list (including legendary/snow duals), and 2) good enough that they would be more viable alternative to ABU duals in legacy than shocks are. Basically, the drawback would have to be different than the shock drawback.
I've tried to think of a viable design and haven't really come up with one. The life-loss method of the shocks is simple and effective, but obviously adds up if you have to pay it more than once. What other drawback could be used that would still be playable?
All of this is silly anyway because as Black Lotus has said... it's not profitable enough to do. Seriously.... how dumb do you think Hasbro is? If they thought they could make huge profits off of something like a legacy masters they would already do it. The fact that they haven't done it yet means they still dont think it would be a good move for their bottom line.
Of course it would be very profitable, you wouldn't hae $200 lands if there weren't alot of demend for cards in tha format. They probably rather have legacy die and force people into modern and standerd were the playable decks change more frequently so players are forced to continuessly buy cards to stay competitive.
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
By that logic Wotc Could be sued everty time they print a utility mythic.
A 40 dollar mythic rare would constitute a must have 4 of that goes in many decks.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled. I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
That literally makes no sense. Collectors buy new cards (some of them, not all of them) because they were promised that the value of their old cards they can no longer purchase won't drop drastically in value? They're completely unrelated. A collector isn't buying a box of Theros because he's confident his Underground Sea will always be worth a few hundred dollars. Even if he was, he couldn't possibly prove it in court.
See the above post. It doesn't seem you played at the time the reserved list was created. Furthermore, you don't have to prove that the consideration actually happened. You just have to show that both parties believe that the consideration existed. Since Wizards specifically stated their consideration, it would meet the element required by the courts.
Can you cite any relevant cases to support this? I'd be interested in seeing if there's any relevant precedent to back that viewpoint.
Here's relevant common law on the subject:
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of
a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action
or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
Any damage, or suspension or forbearance of a right, will be sufficient to sustain a promise. Consideration can be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee.
The Golden Case for consideration not actually having to occur or be possible: Fiege v. Bohem
The plaintiff becomes pregnant and believes the defendant, who is not her husband, is the father. She makes a deal with the defendant that he will pay child support in exchange for her not bringing the child support claim to court. He later finds out that the child is not his and stops paying. She takes him to court. The court holds that it doesn't matter whether the consideration, forbearance of her legal right to take him to court, was possible or actually happened. It only matters that the promise (consideration here) was made in good faith. To compare, it does not actually matter that collectors buy product from MTG because they have faith in their reserved list policy. It only matters that Wizards made the promise in good faith.
I don't know what else you could want. I obviously won't be able to find a case where a trading card company has made a promise to not reprint certain cards and then is sued for doing so. However, these cases are very basic principles and they will undoubtedly apply. It's a simple case.
However, to restate what I have said, Wizards has already breached its contract. Go here to find a list of each state's statute of limitations. I cannot speak for jurisdictions outside of the US.
By that logic Wotc Could be sued everty time they print a utility mythic.
By that logic Wotc Could be sued everty time they print a utility mythic.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I think it comes from the mistaken belief by some that wizards made a definitive statement at one point (when announcing the mythic rarity) that mythics would never be powerful utility cards. It is a false recollection of the statement wherein people (myself included) read what we wanted to read into the announcement, only to later go back and reread it and see what MaRo actually said. The difference is that I long ago acknowledged that I did not read the announcement closely enough and changed my view of what was trying to be communicated, whereas some continue to stubbornly read it as an example of a point where WotC went back on their "promise".
Except collectors of the cards in question don't support the company. Random collector John Smith doesn't even slightly help Wizards of the Coast by holding onto 250 ABU dual lands. He hurts it. Pretending you went to law school doesn't give you any credibility, particularly when you link Wikipedia without saying anything to try to prove your point.
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
That literally makes no sense. Collectors buy new cards (some of them, not all of them) because they were promised that the value of their old cards they can no longer purchase won't drop drastically in value? They're completely unrelated. A collector isn't buying a box of Theros because he's confident his Underground Sea will always be worth a few hundred dollars. Even if he was, he couldn't possibly prove it in court.
See the above post. It doesn't seem you played at the time the reserved list was created. Furthermore, you don't have to prove that the consideration actually happened. You just have to show that both parties believe that the consideration existed. Since Wizards specifically stated their consideration, it would meet the element required by the courts.
Can you cite any relevant cases to support this? I'd be interested in seeing if there's any relevant precedent to back that viewpoint.
Here's relevant common law on the subject:
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of
a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action
or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
Any damage, or suspension or forbearance of a right, will be sufficient to sustain a promise. Consideration can be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee.
The Golden Case for consideration not actually having to occur or be possible: Fiege v. Bohem
The plaintiff becomes pregnant and believes the defendant, who is not her husband, is the father. She makes a deal with the defendant that he will pay child support in exchange for her not bringing the child support claim to court. He later finds out that the child is not his and stops paying. She takes him to court. The court holds that it doesn't matter whether the consideration, forbearance of her legal right to take him to court, was possible or actually happened. It only matters that the promise (consideration here) was made in good faith. To compare, it does not actually matter that collectors buy product from MTG because they have faith in their reserved list policy. It only matters that Wizards made the promise in good faith.
I believe that your analogy on the last case is off, first off you'd have to consider buying magic to be acceptance of the reserve list, unless it's printed on the booster pack somewhere I doubt this is the case. 2nd I don't think "good faith" is actually applicable here, "good faith" seems to mean forbearances are still a consideration independent of if it's something you could forbear so long as you thought you could. In this case though there is no question about the validity of the forbearances, the question is was buying magic cards a forbearance none of the cases sited shows that defiantly is.
To clarify in order for good faith to be relevant it would mean Wotc would either mean that Wotc unknowingly was already unable to print any of the cards on the reserve list or the consumers would have unknowingly be unable to not buy magic cards or do what ever thier condiration was.
I don't know what else you could want. I obviously won't be able to find a case where a trading card company has made a promise to not reprint certain cards and then is sued for doing so. However, these cases are very basic principles and they will undoubtedly apply. It's a simple case.
I'm sure there are pleanty of cases of companies telling consumers they wouldn't do something but then later changed their mind.
By that logic Wotc Could be sued everty time they print a utility mythic.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
I think it comes from the mistaken belief by some that wizards made a definitive statement at one point (when announcing the mythic rarity) that mythics would never be powerful utility cards. It is a false recollection of the statement wherein people (myself included) read what we wanted to read into the announcement, only to later go back and reread it and see what MaRo actually said. The difference is that I long ago acknowledged that I did not read the announcement closely enough and changed my view of what was trying to be communicated, whereas some continue to stubbornly read it as an example of a point where WotC went back on their "promise".
No the actully said that
1. They will not just be a list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards. (a statment that is technically true though it's spirit has been violeted)
2. They said there were cetain catagories of cards that they didn't want to be mythic (the only catagory they listed though was "utility". Socically stating that you want a certain outcome then failing to deliver that outcome despite having complete control over it is breaking you word, I'm not sure what wording constitues an agreement legally though.)
In that annoucement they also said they would be printing fewer cards per year, They actully tend to print more cards per year now.
A 40 dollar mythic rare would constitute a must have 4 of that goes in many decks.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled. I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
I believe that your analogy on the last case is off, first off you'd have to consider buying magic to be acceptance of the reserve list, unless it's printed on the booster pack somewhere I doubt this is the case. 2nd I don't think "good faith" is actually applicable here, "good faith" seems to mean forbearances are still a consideration independent of if it's something you could forbear so long as you thought you could. In this case though there is no question about the validity of the forbearances, the question is was buying magic cards a forbearance none of the cases sited shows that defiantly is.
To clarify in order for good faith to be relevant it would mean Wotc would either mean that Wotc unknowingly was already unable to print any of the cards on the reserve list or the consumers would have unknowingly be unable to not buy magic cards or do what ever thier condiration was.
No offense, but you're completely incorrect. I stated somewhere else in this thread, but there does not have to be an actual acceptance since the offer was made to a group of people. Secondly, your analysis of good faith is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. We're looking at the good faith of the promisor, not the collectors.
The question is not "whether buying magic cards is a forbearance of a right." It does not have to be a forbearance of a right for there to be consideration, that was merely an example. There only has to be a detriment. See Hamer v. Sidway. Undoubtedly, spending money to buy magic cards is a detriment. (Did you even read what I wrote?)
I'm sure there are pleanty of cases of companies telling consumers they wouldn't do something but then later changed their mind.
Very well. I have about 15 minutes of free time to find some random cases.
Plaintiffs sue company for not backing their rewards program after they bought into the product. Appellate court reverses, finding that the plaintiffs proved the company breached their contract.
Edit: I'm having problems finding sufficient search terms. I'll give it some more time.
Also, remember that Wizards operates in a number of jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions will absolutely blow you away if you read about them. They're completely anticompany and the most vague statement is a binding promise.
The legality of the reserved list is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they want to support eternal formats, because if they actually wanted to, they could support them. Literally every card on the reserved list could be replaced by cards that are not technically functionally identical by the definition in the reserved list but are basically identical for gameplay purposes. At the end of the day, they do not want to, and THAT is what matters. They aren't chained by the reseved list. They stop themselves from supporting Vintage and Legacy.
I believe that your analogy on the last case is off, first off you'd have to consider buying magic to be acceptance of the reserve list, unless it's printed on the booster pack somewhere I doubt this is the case. 2nd I don't think "good faith" is actually applicable here, "good faith" seems to mean forbearances are still a consideration independent of if it's something you could forbear so long as you thought you could. In this case though there is no question about the validity of the forbearances, the question is was buying magic cards a forbearance none of the cases sited shows that defiantly is.
To clarify in order for good faith to be relevant it would mean Wotc would either mean that Wotc unknowingly was already unable to print any of the cards on the reserve list or the consumers would have unknowingly be unable to not buy magic cards or do what ever thier condiration was.
No offense, but you're completely incorrect. I stated somewhere else in this thread, but there does not have to be an actual acceptance since the offer was made to a group of people.
That part of my post is only about the relevancy of good faith, which seems irrelevant to this case. Also is making an unconditional promise the same as making on offer?
[ Secondly, your analysis of good faith is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. We're looking at the good faith of the promisor, not the collectors.
Still in order for it to be good faith by the promisor to be relevant it would mean that Wotc would have to been unknowingly unable to print cards on the reserve list.
The question is not "whether buying magic cards is a forbearance of a right." It does not have to be a forbearance of a right for there to be consideration, that was merely an example. There only has to be a detriment. See Hamer v. Sidway. Undoubtedly, spending money to buy magic cards is a detriment. (Did you even read what I wrote?)
Why is spending money on magic cards a detriment? Hammer V Sidway just says that forbearance of a right is consideration even if such a forbearance is a benefit to you. It doesn't say that buying a product mean that in buying a product from a company you automatically accept all the corporate policies of that company.
I'm sure there are pleanty of cases of companies telling consumers they wouldn't do something but then later changed their mind.
Very well. I have about 15 minutes of free time to find some random cases.
Plaintiffs sue company for not backing their rewards program after they bought into the product. Appellate court reverses, finding that the plaintiffs proved the company breached their contract.
Edit: I'm having problems finding sufficient search terms. I'll give it some more time.
Also, remember that Wizards operates in a number of jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions will absolutely blow you away if you read about them. They're completely anticompany and the most vague statement is a binding promise.
I think that case differs in the fact that promise was conditional, you buy the product: you get rewards.
We'd need a case where the company made a genial promise that wasn't reliant on the actions of the customers to fulfill it, then for the company to be successfully sued because of it.
Also even if Wotc could be successfully sued for getting rid of the reserve list would the legal fees/settlements really be more than the millions they would get from not only being able to reprint those cards but other legacy and vintage staples?
The legality of the reserved list is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they want to support eternal formats, because if they actually wanted to, they could support them. Literally every card on the reserved list could be replaced by cards that are not technically functionally identical by the definition in the reserved list but are basically identical for gameplay purposes. At the end of the day, they do not want to, and THAT is what matters. They aren't chained by the reseved list. They stop themselves from supporting Vintage and Legacy.
No they also have the option of printing functionally different cards that directly compete with cards on the reserve list or cards that punish people for using cards on the reserve list.
A 40 dollar mythic rare would constitute a must have 4 of that goes in many decks.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled. I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
I believe that your analogy on the last case is off, first off you'd have to consider buying magic to be acceptance of the reserve list, unless it's printed on the booster pack somewhere I doubt this is the case. 2nd I don't think "good faith" is actually applicable here, "good faith" seems to mean forbearances are still a consideration independent of if it's something you could forbear so long as you thought you could. In this case though there is no question about the validity of the forbearances, the question is was buying magic cards a forbearance none of the cases sited shows that defiantly is.
To clarify in order for good faith to be relevant it would mean Wotc would either mean that Wotc unknowingly was already unable to print any of the cards on the reserve list or the consumers would have unknowingly be unable to not buy magic cards or do what ever thier condiration was.
No offense, but you're completely incorrect. I stated somewhere else in this thread, but there does not have to be an actual acceptance since the offer was made to a group of people.
That part of my post is only about the relevancy of good faith, which seems irrelevant to this case. Also is making an unconditional promise the same as making on offer?
[ Secondly, your analysis of good faith is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. We're looking at the good faith of the promisor, not the collectors.
Still in order for it to be good faith by the promisor to be relevant it would mean that Wotc would have to been unknowingly unable to print cards on the reserve list.
The question is not "whether buying magic cards is a forbearance of a right." It does not have to be a forbearance of a right for there to be consideration, that was merely an example. There only has to be a detriment. See Hamer v. Sidway. Undoubtedly, spending money to buy magic cards is a detriment. (Did you even read what I wrote?)
Why is spending money on magic cards a detriment? Hammer V Sidway just says that forbearance of a right is consideration even if such a forbearance is a benefit to you. It doesn't say that buying a product mean that in buying a product from a company you automatically accept all the corporate policies of that company.
I'm sure there are pleanty of cases of companies telling consumers they wouldn't do something but then later changed their mind.
Very well. I have about 15 minutes of free time to find some random cases.
Plaintiffs sue company for not backing their rewards program after they bought into the product. Appellate court reverses, finding that the plaintiffs proved the company breached their contract.
Edit: I'm having problems finding sufficient search terms. I'll give it some more time.
Also, remember that Wizards operates in a number of jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions will absolutely blow you away if you read about them. They're completely anticompany and the most vague statement is a binding promise.
I think that case differs in the fact that promise was conditional, you buy the product: you get rewards.
We'd need a case where the company made a genial promise that wasn't reliant on the actions of the customers to fulfill it, then for the company to be successfully sued because of it.
Also even if Wotc could be successfully sued for getting rid of the reserve list would the legal fees/settlements really be more than the millions they would get from not only being able to reprint those cards but other legacy and vintage staples?
The legality of the reserved list is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they want to support eternal formats, because if they actually wanted to, they could support them. Literally every card on the reserved list could be replaced by cards that are not technically functionally identical by the definition in the reserved list but are basically identical for gameplay purposes. At the end of the day, they do not want to, and THAT is what matters. They aren't chained by the reseved list. They stop themselves from supporting Vintage and Legacy.
No they also have the option of printing functionally different cards that directly compete with cards on the reserve list or cards that punish people for using cards on the reserve list.
The rule to take from Hamer v. Sidway is the same rule I posted above: "Any damage, or suspension or forbearance of a right, will be sufficient to sustain a promise. Consideration can be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee." Purchasing cards is a detriment.
You're throwing around legal terms like conditional promises, but you're incorrect about them. The case I am citing is practically identical as far as facts go.
I believe that your analogy on the last case is off, first off you'd have to consider buying magic to be acceptance of the reserve list, unless it's printed on the booster pack somewhere I doubt this is the case. 2nd I don't think "good faith" is actually applicable here, "good faith" seems to mean forbearances are still a consideration independent of if it's something you could forbear so long as you thought you could. In this case though there is no question about the validity of the forbearances, the question is was buying magic cards a forbearance none of the cases sited shows that defiantly is.
To clarify in order for good faith to be relevant it would mean Wotc would either mean that Wotc unknowingly was already unable to print any of the cards on the reserve list or the consumers would have unknowingly be unable to not buy magic cards or do what ever thier condiration was.
No offense, but you're completely incorrect. I stated somewhere else in this thread, but there does not have to be an actual acceptance since the offer was made to a group of people.
That part of my post is only about the relevancy of good faith, which seems irrelevant to this case. Also is making an unconditional promise the same as making on offer?
[ Secondly, your analysis of good faith is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. We're looking at the good faith of the promisor, not the collectors.
Still in order for it to be good faith by the promisor to be relevant it would mean that Wotc would have to been unknowingly unable to print cards on the reserve list.
The question is not "whether buying magic cards is a forbearance of a right." It does not have to be a forbearance of a right for there to be consideration, that was merely an example. There only has to be a detriment. See Hamer v. Sidway. Undoubtedly, spending money to buy magic cards is a detriment. (Did you even read what I wrote?)
Why is spending money on magic cards a detriment? Hammer V Sidway just says that forbearance of a right is consideration even if such a forbearance is a benefit to you. It doesn't say that buying a product mean that in buying a product from a company you automatically accept all the corporate policies of that company.
I'm sure there are pleanty of cases of companies telling consumers they wouldn't do something but then later changed their mind.
Very well. I have about 15 minutes of free time to find some random cases.
Plaintiffs sue company for not backing their rewards program after they bought into the product. Appellate court reverses, finding that the plaintiffs proved the company breached their contract.
Edit: I'm having problems finding sufficient search terms. I'll give it some more time.
Also, remember that Wizards operates in a number of jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions will absolutely blow you away if you read about them. They're completely anticompany and the most vague statement is a binding promise.
I think that case differs in the fact that promise was conditional, you buy the product: you get rewards.
We'd need a case where the company made a genial promise that wasn't reliant on the actions of the customers to fulfill it, then for the company to be successfully sued because of it.
Also even if Wotc could be successfully sued for getting rid of the reserve list would the legal fees/settlements really be more than the millions they would get from not only being able to reprint those cards but other legacy and vintage staples?
The legality of the reserved list is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they want to support eternal formats, because if they actually wanted to, they could support them. Literally every card on the reserved list could be replaced by cards that are not technically functionally identical by the definition in the reserved list but are basically identical for gameplay purposes. At the end of the day, they do not want to, and THAT is what matters. They aren't chained by the reseved list. They stop themselves from supporting Vintage and Legacy.
No they also have the option of printing functionally different cards that directly compete with cards on the reserve list or cards that punish people for using cards on the reserve list.
The rule to take from Hamer v. Sidway is the same rule I posted above: "Any damage, or suspension or forbearance of a right, will be sufficient to sustain a promise. Consideration can be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee." Purchasing cards is a detriment.
You're throwing around legal terms like conditional promises, but you're incorrect about them. The case I am citing is practically identical as far as facts go.
How is purchase cards a detriment? In order for it to be a detriment it would have to be done in exchange for a promise. Which brings up 2 problems. 1 people already bought magic cards with no promise being made so you'd have to show that peope only bought magic cards because of said promise. 2 as I don't believe Wotc ever said anything along the lines of "we'll stop preinting cards on the reserve list, if you buy magic cards", I'm not a layer but I'm sure there some rule that inorder for something to be consideration, it has to be asked for explictly or implicty.
No there are major differences. Which all depend conditional/unconditional promises
In order for the case to be identical the nephew would have had to made a promise to give up alcohol with no expectation to receive anything in return(aka unconditional), then the uncle would motivated by the the nephews new found abstinence would have had given him money, then later when the nephew decided he wanted to start drinking again the uncle suing for his money back.
Or another way to put it, in order for the cases to be identical, the magic community would have had to stop buying magic cards and said we'll only start buying magic cards again if you promise to never reprint certain cards.
A 40 dollar mythic rare would constitute a must have 4 of that goes in many decks.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled. I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
So, here's my basic understanding of policy that you could claim on the reserve list. WOTC has promised not to reprint or functionally reprint cards on the reserve list. That is easily enough considered a contract and can be held as such. All that said though, WOTC determines what cards are on the reserve list and retains the right to add or remove cards or change the definitions of functional reprint as needed. In other words, WOTC could easily terminate the reserve list and print whatever they want so long as they update the reserve list first. That said, it is not in their best interest to do this as it would upset a lot of people while it may please some others.
Personally I just don't see the point of debating the reserve list at this point at all. As it stands the individuals making the decisions at WOTC have determined that they will hold the reserve list as sacred and not violate or even toy with violating it. They do this of their own choice and this is not going to change no matter how much a few people bicker in a forum. WOTC has found other ways of helping legacy though and is doing them:
1. Print stronger cards in standard that will play directly into legacy.
2. Print sets outside of the standard rotation that are legacy legal.
3. Create a cardbase that allows for viable competitive strategies that do not require cards on the reserve list.
If you want to look at ways to help legacy, those are the routes to consider.
Because ABUR Duals are on the reserve list it also means that at least for now we're going to be looking mostly at mono-color strategies for advancing legacy. Printing a better or functional reprint would not solve your problem and does not advance the discussion because having them with ABUR duals would still be better than not having the reserve duals. In a mono-color strategy it makes advancing cards to promote the growth of legacy a lot easier. Other viable strategies to promote would include Graveyard and alternative costs. I believe we got some interesting graveyard (flashback, unearth) and alternative cost strategies (cascade/suspend, phyrexian mana) in the last few years, and a heavy push on mono-color (devotion, gods, nykthos) as well. If you're too blind to see that there may be a plan in this then it's your problem, not WOTC's.
I guess the last thing I would want to say on this is that I realize WOTC isn't perfect and not all the plans are going to work. At some point they may have to cave on the reserve list. But, for right now at least there are other viable options that don't have to open that floodgate and it makes sense that they should explore those first as they have been.
No the actully said that
1. They will not just be a list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards. (a statment that is technically true though it's spirit has been violeted)
If by spirit you mean "how people read it" then yea, I suppose in some cases it was. It was, however, plain and unambiguous English that they have not contradicted, and Mythics have not even become close to being just a "list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards."
2. They said there were cetain catagories of cards that they didn't want to be mythic (the only catagory they listed though was "utility". Socically stating that you want a certain outcome then failing to deliver that outcome despite having complete control over it is breaking you word, I'm not sure what wording constitues an agreement legally though.)
I'm not sure what Mythic rare utility cards you are referring to, aside from those printed in MMA- which was clearly announced as having different rarity considerations. I would not consider Rakdos's Return or Sphinx's Revelation to be "cards that fill a universal function." Especially since the examples he gave were certain dual lands and Mutavault, which are in fact about as general utility as you can get in MTG.
In that annoucement they also said they would be printing fewer cards per year, They actully tend to print more cards per year now.
If you read more than the headline MaRo says pretty explicitly, "we wanted to give ourselves a little wiggle room for when we came up with interesting ideas like Time Spiral's "timeshifted" set or the Lorwyn / Shadowmoor mini-block structure. 519 cards is not our cap, but our new baseline." Thus any increase in numbers is covered there.
So, here's my basic understanding of policy that you could claim on the reserve list. WOTC has promised not to reprint or functionally reprint cards on the reserve list. That is easily enough considered a contract and can be held as such. All that said though, WOTC determines what cards are on the reserve list and retains the right to add or remove cards or change the definitions of functional reprint as needed. In other words, WOTC could easily terminate the reserve list and print whatever they want so long as they update the reserve list first. That said, it is not in their best interest to do this as it would upset a lot of people while it may please some others.
Personally I just don't see the point of debating the reserve list at this point at all. As it stands the individuals making the decisions at WOTC have determined that they will hold the reserve list as sacred and not violate or even toy with violating it. They do this of their own choice and this is not going to change no matter how much a few people bicker in a forum. WOTC has found other ways of helping legacy though and is doing them:
1. Print stronger cards in standard that will play directly into legacy.
2. Print sets outside of the standard rotation that are legacy legal.
3. Create a cardbase that allows for viable competitive strategies that do not require cards on the reserve list.
If you want to look at ways to help legacy, those are the routes to consider.
Because ABUR Duals are on the reserve list it also means that at least for now we're going to be looking mostly at mono-color strategies for advancing legacy. Printing a better or functional reprint would not solve your problem and does not advance the discussion because having them with ABUR duals would still be better than not having the reserve duals. In a mono-color strategy it makes advancing cards to promote the growth of legacy a lot easier. Other viable strategies to promote would include Graveyard and alternative costs. I believe we got some interesting graveyard (flashback, unearth) and alternative cost strategies (cascade/suspend, phyrexian mana) in the last few years, and a heavy push on mono-color (devotion, gods, nykthos) as well. If you're too blind to see that there may be a plan in this then it's your problem, not WOTC's.
I guess the last thing I would want to say on this is that I realize WOTC isn't perfect and not all the plans are going to work. At some point they may have to cave on the reserve list. But, for right now at least there are other viable options that don't have to open that floodgate and it makes sense that they should explore those first as they have been.
Even if they tried pushing mono color. I see problems for it to be effective cards would need to cost like GGG. Even then a 2 color deck with fetches still could play that card. Also this method gets worse as the CMC gets lower. Legacy for the most also tends to focus on lower casting costs. Short of playable cards with Imperiosaur basic only clause or a card like this:
Bleed BB - Instant
Bleed deals damage two times the number of Basic Swamps you control to target creature or player. You gain life equal to the damage dealt this way.
The cards would need to be a lot stronger than Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx, and most the mechanics wizards makes tend be unplayable in non-rotating formats the exceptions that come to my mind immediately are storm, dredge, and flashback. A legendary dual land would help a lot more than trying to push mono-colored decks.
I guess I made a huge mistake by asking you to read that and understand it. My apoligies.
The offer:
Wizards saying: We will not reprint X cards.
The Acceptance:
"those accepting the offer are not required to communicate their acceptance to the offeror."
Intent to be legally bound:
You're taking this too literally. Go read the wikipedia section on it.
Consideration:
In exchange for them not reprinting X cards, collectors continued to support their company.
It's a really simple concept. It's 1st year contracts all over again. This isn't stretching anything at all. It's a simple contract.
But I don't know why we're arguing over this. It's irrelevant due to prior breaches unless a court would find the contract divisible or some foreign court would find otherwise (which I know nothing about and am assuming the same for you.)
Again, go try to sue a company for changing a policy it inflicted upon itself (like not outsourcing labor) after you purchased things by saying that you only purchased them because of the policy, particularly when the things you bought are still being manufactured locally. Good luck.
Although MaRo emphasizes those newbie-friendly points, he also goes on about how different cards appeal to different kinds of players. So I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning. Also, I understand that New World Order limits commons, not rare or upped to rare/mythic rare like the stuff that's worth reprinting.
Vintage: Dredge | Legacy: Burn, Goblins, Soldier | Standard: Mono-Red Aggro
Commander: Nicol Bolas, Sliver Overlord, Rafiq
Casual: Selesnya Saproling Smackdown, Izzet Labs, Rebel
Played since June 2004, mostly inactive June 2011 to March 2018
Other usernames include AlanFromRochester, homerthebeerbaron
MTG checklists from Alpha to Ravnica Allegiance - https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/other-magic-products/third-party-products/805324-checklists-for-everything-from-alpha-to-ravnica
I would believe that such wouldn't violate the RL, the issue is that we kind of have to go all in, or fold. This is the issue brought up when people say "reprint non-RL cards" because following such, the RL cards skyrocket. In this same way, while the lands would be fixed, the other RL cards would rise, and I believe they would rise in direct proportion to how the lands drop.
I just want that card for its art, in fact they're all quite beautiful. Although that is going off topic, just wanted to note it.
"To maintain your confidence in the Magic game as a collectible, we've created this Magic: The Gathering card reprint policy." (Source)
This is the consideration. Collectors continue to purchase future MTG product due to the promise that their cards will not be reprinted. This is more than sufficient for consideration. I really don't know hwy you are arguing this. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Thanks, I put some serious time in them.. It's not easy trying to make a dual with a drawback combined with a fetch.. so neither is better than the original yet are good enough to be played.. I apparently still haven't hit the mark lol.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=517520
That literally makes no sense. Collectors buy new cards (some of them, not all of them) because they were promised that the value of their old cards they can no longer purchase won't drop drastically in value? They're completely unrelated. A collector isn't buying a box of Theros because he's confident his Underground Sea will always be worth a few hundred dollars. Even if he was, he couldn't possibly prove it in court.
See the above post. It doesn't seem you played at the time the reserved list was created. Furthermore, you don't have to prove that the consideration actually happened. You just have to show that both parties believe that the consideration existed. Since Wizards specifically stated their consideration, it would meet the element required by the courts.
Only if the contract is divisible. In general, consideration for any part of the contract is sufficient for the entire contract. You would absolutely make it to court with "such a frivolous lawsuit." That's how the courts work, you're given your chance. You can undoubtedly establish the prima facie case necessary. However, like I said before, the contract was breached many years ago. Most jurisdictions would side with Wizards
Can you cite any relevant cases to support this? I'd be interested in seeing if there's any relevant precedent to back that viewpoint.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
I'm interested as well, because Holynorth's explanation is the first time the Reserved List has made any sense to me. Everyone else needs to lay off him a little bit.
It would have to be something like the filter lands were there are both drawbacks and advantages
Of course it would be very profitable, you wouldn't hae $200 lands if there weren't alot of demend for cards in tha format. They probably rather have legacy die and force people into modern and standerd were the playable decks change more frequently so players are forced to continuessly buy cards to stay competitive.
By that logic Wotc Could be sued everty time they print a utility mythic.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
Here's relevant common law on the subject:
a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action
or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
The Golden Case for consideration not actually having to occur or be possible: Fiege v. Bohem
I don't know what else you could want. I obviously won't be able to find a case where a trading card company has made a promise to not reprint certain cards and then is sued for doing so. However, these cases are very basic principles and they will undoubtedly apply. It's a simple case.
However, to restate what I have said, Wizards has already breached its contract. Go here to find a list of each state's statute of limitations. I cannot speak for jurisdictions outside of the US.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I believe that your analogy on the last case is off, first off you'd have to consider buying magic to be acceptance of the reserve list, unless it's printed on the booster pack somewhere I doubt this is the case. 2nd I don't think "good faith" is actually applicable here, "good faith" seems to mean forbearances are still a consideration independent of if it's something you could forbear so long as you thought you could. In this case though there is no question about the validity of the forbearances, the question is was buying magic cards a forbearance none of the cases sited shows that defiantly is.
To clarify in order for good faith to be relevant it would mean Wotc would either mean that Wotc unknowingly was already unable to print any of the cards on the reserve list or the consumers would have unknowingly be unable to not buy magic cards or do what ever thier condiration was.
I'm sure there are pleanty of cases of companies telling consumers they wouldn't do something but then later changed their mind.
No the actully said that
1. They will not just be a list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards. (a statment that is technically true though it's spirit has been violeted)
2. They said there were cetain catagories of cards that they didn't want to be mythic (the only catagory they listed though was "utility". Socically stating that you want a certain outcome then failing to deliver that outcome despite having complete control over it is breaking you word, I'm not sure what wording constitues an agreement legally though.)
In that annoucement they also said they would be printing fewer cards per year, They actully tend to print more cards per year now.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
No offense, but you're completely incorrect. I stated somewhere else in this thread, but there does not have to be an actual acceptance since the offer was made to a group of people. Secondly, your analysis of good faith is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. We're looking at the good faith of the promisor, not the collectors.
The question is not "whether buying magic cards is a forbearance of a right." It does not have to be a forbearance of a right for there to be consideration, that was merely an example. There only has to be a detriment. See Hamer v. Sidway. Undoubtedly, spending money to buy magic cards is a detriment. (Did you even read what I wrote?)
Very well. I have about 15 minutes of free time to find some random cases.
Edit: I'm having problems finding sufficient search terms. I'll give it some more time.
Also, remember that Wizards operates in a number of jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions will absolutely blow you away if you read about them. They're completely anticompany and the most vague statement is a binding promise.
That part of my post is only about the relevancy of good faith, which seems irrelevant to this case. Also is making an unconditional promise the same as making on offer?
Still in order for it to be good faith by the promisor to be relevant it would mean that Wotc would have to been unknowingly unable to print cards on the reserve list.
Why is spending money on magic cards a detriment? Hammer V Sidway just says that forbearance of a right is consideration even if such a forbearance is a benefit to you. It doesn't say that buying a product mean that in buying a product from a company you automatically accept all the corporate policies of that company.
I think that case differs in the fact that promise was conditional, you buy the product: you get rewards.
We'd need a case where the company made a genial promise that wasn't reliant on the actions of the customers to fulfill it, then for the company to be successfully sued because of it.
Also even if Wotc could be successfully sued for getting rid of the reserve list would the legal fees/settlements really be more than the millions they would get from not only being able to reprint those cards but other legacy and vintage staples?
No they also have the option of printing functionally different cards that directly compete with cards on the reserve list or cards that punish people for using cards on the reserve list.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
The rule to take from Hamer v. Sidway is the same rule I posted above: "Any damage, or suspension or forbearance of a right, will be sufficient to sustain a promise. Consideration can be either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee." Purchasing cards is a detriment.
You're throwing around legal terms like conditional promises, but you're incorrect about them. The case I am citing is practically identical as far as facts go.
How is purchase cards a detriment? In order for it to be a detriment it would have to be done in exchange for a promise. Which brings up 2 problems. 1 people already bought magic cards with no promise being made so you'd have to show that peope only bought magic cards because of said promise. 2 as I don't believe Wotc ever said anything along the lines of "we'll stop preinting cards on the reserve list, if you buy magic cards", I'm not a layer but I'm sure there some rule that inorder for something to be consideration, it has to be asked for explictly or implicty.
No there are major differences. Which all depend conditional/unconditional promises
In order for the case to be identical the nephew would have had to made a promise to give up alcohol with no expectation to receive anything in return(aka unconditional), then the uncle would motivated by the the nephews new found abstinence would have had given him money, then later when the nephew decided he wanted to start drinking again the uncle suing for his money back.
Or another way to put it, in order for the cases to be identical, the magic community would have had to stop buying magic cards and said we'll only start buying magic cards again if you promise to never reprint certain cards.
Stats About Mythics
-Mythics are on average 40% rarer than pre-mythic rares
(old blocks about 200 rares, Mythic blocks 35+ mythics)
-They are printing more new cards a year not less
(about 665 now vs. 630 in most pre-mythic block)
-To drop the value of a rare by $1 a mythic must go up $2
-In a 3 year time span deck prices doubled.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause.
Personally I just don't see the point of debating the reserve list at this point at all. As it stands the individuals making the decisions at WOTC have determined that they will hold the reserve list as sacred and not violate or even toy with violating it. They do this of their own choice and this is not going to change no matter how much a few people bicker in a forum. WOTC has found other ways of helping legacy though and is doing them:
1. Print stronger cards in standard that will play directly into legacy.
2. Print sets outside of the standard rotation that are legacy legal.
3. Create a cardbase that allows for viable competitive strategies that do not require cards on the reserve list.
If you want to look at ways to help legacy, those are the routes to consider.
Because ABUR Duals are on the reserve list it also means that at least for now we're going to be looking mostly at mono-color strategies for advancing legacy. Printing a better or functional reprint would not solve your problem and does not advance the discussion because having them with ABUR duals would still be better than not having the reserve duals. In a mono-color strategy it makes advancing cards to promote the growth of legacy a lot easier. Other viable strategies to promote would include Graveyard and alternative costs. I believe we got some interesting graveyard (flashback, unearth) and alternative cost strategies (cascade/suspend, phyrexian mana) in the last few years, and a heavy push on mono-color (devotion, gods, nykthos) as well. If you're too blind to see that there may be a plan in this then it's your problem, not WOTC's.
I guess the last thing I would want to say on this is that I realize WOTC isn't perfect and not all the plans are going to work. At some point they may have to cave on the reserve list. But, for right now at least there are other viable options that don't have to open that floodgate and it makes sense that they should explore those first as they have been.
If you hate the deck, I'm probably playing it!
I'm not sure what Mythic rare utility cards you are referring to, aside from those printed in MMA- which was clearly announced as having different rarity considerations. I would not consider Rakdos's Return or Sphinx's Revelation to be "cards that fill a universal function." Especially since the examples he gave were certain dual lands and Mutavault, which are in fact about as general utility as you can get in MTG.
If you read more than the headline MaRo says pretty explicitly, "we wanted to give ourselves a little wiggle room for when we came up with interesting ideas like Time Spiral's "timeshifted" set or the Lorwyn / Shadowmoor mini-block structure. 519 cards is not our cap, but our new baseline." Thus any increase in numbers is covered there.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Even if they tried pushing mono color. I see problems for it to be effective cards would need to cost like GGG. Even then a 2 color deck with fetches still could play that card. Also this method gets worse as the CMC gets lower. Legacy for the most also tends to focus on lower casting costs. Short of playable cards with Imperiosaur basic only clause or a card like this:
Bleed BB - Instant
Bleed deals damage two times the number of Basic Swamps you control to target creature or player. You gain life equal to the damage dealt this way.
The cards would need to be a lot stronger than Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx, and most the mechanics wizards makes tend be unplayable in non-rotating formats the exceptions that come to my mind immediately are storm, dredge, and flashback. A legendary dual land would help a lot more than trying to push mono-colored decks.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)