Legacy is far from a dead format, but if I walk into my LGS and pull out my grindstone deck and ask if anyone wants to sling around some legacy, there's an 80% chance no one has a deck.
Comparing MTGO to your LGS experience is foolish. MTGO is not your local gaming store... Unless your local gaming store has 1000s of people in it playing at any one moment.
Those making the argument that its OK to push the rarity on these because the P9 should be that rare and expensive are gluttons for punishment. Your format is dead in paper magic for that exact reason, and you want them to do it AGAIN?
You mean like Legacy is dead in paper magic with cards that that far exceed the cost of everything online? Cause if that is your defintion of what will happen to formats where you need dozens of $80-350 cards then sign me up.
Seriously, does anyone in here even bother to look the prices of cards online vs paper for this stuff? Or do you all still think Force of Will is cheaper in paper?
LOL!
Legacy isn't dead, and there are events locally that either allow proxies for unsanctioned or no proxies for sanctioned. And Imperial Painter's one of the most fun decks ever in Legacy.
Ummm, My point was that even with Dual lands ranging from $80 (for plateau, which almost no one uses) to $350 for U. Sea, Legacy isn't close to dead. If the P9 are $60, 100, $150... whatever, it probably won't stop Vintage from being "Dead"
You do know that most Vintage events, and there are many, are 10-15 proxy events, right? There are pretty much only two big events where you need to own the cards each year, one being Bazaar of Moxen, and the other Vintage Champs... And maybe Gencon. So in paper magic, my real Moxen are functionally the same to cards with sharpie on them saying "Mox ___", that by no means devalues what I own.
You do know that these events are so infrequent and often so far away for so many people that for the average person even if they were to top 8 every event they went to that spending even a single nickel on a piece of cardboard would be operating at a loss, right?
Or was there a recent uptick in the amount of proxies allowed to 75?
Those making the argument that its OK to push the rarity on these because the P9 should be that rare and expensive are gluttons for punishment. Your format is dead in paper magic for that exact reason, and you want them to do it AGAIN?
You mean like Legacy is dead in paper magic with cards that that far exceed the cost of everything online? Cause if that is your defintion of what will happen to formats where you need dozens of $80-350 cards then sign me up.
Seriously, does anyone in here even bother to look the prices of cards online vs paper for this stuff? Or do you all still think Force of Will is cheaper in paper?
Seeing how the set will be released in June of 2014, in many, many months.
I imagine it will be before June, as the Beta for the set will spoil the whole set. And if they have a release week (Maybe, crosses fingers) then it would be a week even before that.
You are both incorrect. The mere fact that the paper cards are use-able independent of any restrictions from the issuing company makes them more valuable intrinsically.
This is true. Intrinsically, magic cards provide value you to as an object that can only provide that value in that state. So for example, in their paper or physical they provide value in the smell they make in when first opened or the or the ability for them to make sound when you put them in the spoke of your tires. And of course their lack of dependency on a provider once purchased.
By the same token, digital cards provide other value that not having a corporeal state has. For example, their "indestructibility" in face of physical elements or their ability to exist in multiple derived states (I'm talking about being in more than one deck)
Many of the value traits are shared - most notably their ability to allow you to play a game of magic, which has huge derivations from user to user based on any number of conditions.
As always, value is largely a function of the individual who assigns it.
So far, I've yet to see an argument that assigns value on a global level to all magic cards that can conclusively proclaim one type of magic card as more valuable than another in all cases.
If you read the announcement, every pack of Vintage Masters is going to have a foil, just like Modern Masters.
I did, in fact read that. I had to cut back my original post which was waaaay tl;dr and it ended up like that. It doesn't change the math, which I used from a standard booster. Even with every pack containing a foil, there is nothing stopping WoTC from replacing that foil with a P9 at whatever ratio they wish. The good bet is it will be significantly more than 1 in 8, or they could have simply made the P9 mythic and made the set size with respect to rares accordingly like a normal set and not had to bother with the foil replacement trick.
So if they decide to replace a foil with a P9 one in every 36 packs, it's still once a box. Better yet, set it as 1/24 and every time a draft fires off someone will get one P9.
The chance of opening any specific foil in a pack is 1 in X, where X is set number. And to do what you suggest would imply that the people coding MTGO are competent enough to code it that way (have you seen MTGO?)
Huh?
The chance of getting a foil - any foil - in a standard MTG pack is ~ 1 in 4 packs (it's probably closer to 1 in 5 actually, but this illustrates the point better).
Now, if you read the announcement, you can get either a foil OR a P9. So lets say they set the ratio of foils to P9 is set by WotC at 1 to 9 (meaning for every 9 foils you get instead get one of the P9). Since foils are 1 in 4 packs and P9 in one in every 9 foils, that would make P9 1 in 36, or one P9 per BOX (if such a thing existed online).
Of course, nobody knows what the chances of getting a P9 instead of the foil are - WoTC isn't saying.
By comparison Mythics are about 1 in 8 packs.
This is how WoTC will make P9 more mythic than mythic without having to invent a new rarity distribution to do so. You're earlier math is ludicrously off-base
Not sure about reserved list status of Covetous and Lin Sivvi. If they are on it, I'd go with Temporal Aperture and Parallax Wave respectively instead.
That would be a great list because then I wouldn't have to touch it with a 10ft pole.
I really hope WoTC learns their lessons from FTV:Legends - these need to have a hook that almost everyone wants.
I think we can be fairly certain that they are not going to give away anything of consequence, I just don't see packs or tickets as even a slight possibility.
Come get your unwanted tat....
This
WoTC is not in the habit of giving away for free what it sells for $3.99 in the order of millions per month.
If you have dreams about every pack having a code for a free MTGO pack, you are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment.
The secondary market says Tarmo is worth X, not WotC. WotC doesn't get any money when someone shells out X for Tarmo to SCG or CFB.
The only pricing that matters to WotC are boosters (and by extension boxes and fatpack). Modern Masters is trying to push a new format the extension of this that it is likely that some staples go down in price due to supply increasing (maybe demand will increase more than supply if modern hits home though!).
I love when people write this.
If this were the case, Modern Masters wouldn't be coming out. Secondary Pricing matters to them - a lot.
The price of something is linked to both it's supply and demand. Wotc is in control of the supply (in so much as how much supply enters the market... not so much the leaving) and partially in control of the demand - after all, it's a card game where are cards are not equal, and they are the ones that make them so.
They are totally affecting the supply of Modern Cards by reprinting this set, and are totally reliant on the demand created by the power of the cards placed within and the players desire to obtain those cards.
After Apprentice, after MWS, and now Cockatrice, would it help if WoTC/Hasbro just put up a sign somewhere that said "Hey, if you try and play MTGO for free, we're going to shut it down"?
Would that even stop the next iteration of whomever I assume is going to waste their time trying to build the next one?
1996 is my joke card because everyone likes to name impossible things. Really, It's my hint that I think that year HAS to include specifically a card from the World Champion deck, not a mere ProTour deck. It was the first Worlds.
Comparing MTGO to your LGS experience is foolish. MTGO is not your local gaming store... Unless your local gaming store has 1000s of people in it playing at any one moment.
Ummm, My point was that even with Dual lands ranging from $80 (for plateau, which almost no one uses) to $350 for U. Sea, Legacy isn't close to dead. If the P9 are $60, 100, $150... whatever, it probably won't stop Vintage from being "Dead"
You do know that these events are so infrequent and often so far away for so many people that for the average person even if they were to top 8 every event they went to that spending even a single nickel on a piece of cardboard would be operating at a loss, right?
Or was there a recent uptick in the amount of proxies allowed to 75?
You mean like Legacy is dead in paper magic with cards that that far exceed the cost of everything online? Cause if that is your defintion of what will happen to formats where you need dozens of $80-350 cards then sign me up.
Seriously, does anyone in here even bother to look the prices of cards online vs paper for this stuff? Or do you all still think Force of Will is cheaper in paper?
Yeah and Mona Lisa's mana cost is way too high - she's strictly win-more.
Liliana is hotter anyway.
I imagine it will be before June, as the Beta for the set will spoil the whole set. And if they have a release week (Maybe, crosses fingers) then it would be a week even before that.
So probably sometime in May
This is true. Intrinsically, magic cards provide value you to as an object that can only provide that value in that state. So for example, in their paper or physical they provide value in the smell they make in when first opened or the or the ability for them to make sound when you put them in the spoke of your tires. And of course their lack of dependency on a provider once purchased.
By the same token, digital cards provide other value that not having a corporeal state has. For example, their "indestructibility" in face of physical elements or their ability to exist in multiple derived states (I'm talking about being in more than one deck)
Many of the value traits are shared - most notably their ability to allow you to play a game of magic, which has huge derivations from user to user based on any number of conditions.
As always, value is largely a function of the individual who assigns it.
So far, I've yet to see an argument that assigns value on a global level to all magic cards that can conclusively proclaim one type of magic card as more valuable than another in all cases.
I did, in fact read that. I had to cut back my original post which was waaaay tl;dr and it ended up like that. It doesn't change the math, which I used from a standard booster. Even with every pack containing a foil, there is nothing stopping WoTC from replacing that foil with a P9 at whatever ratio they wish. The good bet is it will be significantly more than 1 in 8, or they could have simply made the P9 mythic and made the set size with respect to rares accordingly like a normal set and not had to bother with the foil replacement trick.
So if they decide to replace a foil with a P9 one in every 36 packs, it's still once a box. Better yet, set it as 1/24 and every time a draft fires off someone will get one P9.
Huh?
The chance of getting a foil - any foil - in a standard MTG pack is ~ 1 in 4 packs (it's probably closer to 1 in 5 actually, but this illustrates the point better).
Now, if you read the announcement, you can get either a foil OR a P9. So lets say they set the ratio of foils to P9 is set by WotC at 1 to 9 (meaning for every 9 foils you get instead get one of the P9). Since foils are 1 in 4 packs and P9 in one in every 9 foils, that would make P9 1 in 36, or one P9 per BOX (if such a thing existed online).
Of course, nobody knows what the chances of getting a P9 instead of the foil are - WoTC isn't saying.
By comparison Mythics are about 1 in 8 packs.
This is how WoTC will make P9 more mythic than mythic without having to invent a new rarity distribution to do so. You're earlier math is ludicrously off-base
That would be a great list because then I wouldn't have to touch it with a 10ft pole.
I really hope WoTC learns their lessons from FTV:Legends - these need to have a hook that almost everyone wants.
This
WoTC is not in the habit of giving away for free what it sells for $3.99 in the order of millions per month.
If you have dreams about every pack having a code for a free MTGO pack, you are setting yourself up for a huge disappointment.
I love when people write this.
If this were the case, Modern Masters wouldn't be coming out. Secondary Pricing matters to them - a lot.
The price of something is linked to both it's supply and demand. Wotc is in control of the supply (in so much as how much supply enters the market... not so much the leaving) and partially in control of the demand - after all, it's a card game where are cards are not equal, and they are the ones that make them so.
They are totally affecting the supply of Modern Cards by reprinting this set, and are totally reliant on the demand created by the power of the cards placed within and the players desire to obtain those cards.
Would that even stop the next iteration of whomever I assume is going to waste their time trying to build the next one?
I guess not.
This. The old borders had much more flavour. The new borders are like the diet soda of card frames - lots of advantages, less flavour.
1994 was the first Worlds. Zak Dolan.