It's double-sided full art lands because two is always better than one. But there's a 1-in-3 chance you'll get an advertisement on the other side instead.
Here is my vision with a lowered typeset and a sense of order given to the bottom:
Hope you don't mind, but I liked your mock-up best so far, so I used it as a base:
Instead of the ugly foily sticker, I actually think they should just foil up parts of the set symbol like they do with foil card art.
I'd also like to see them be rid of the rounded corners and change the colors to give more of a magic tablet/scroll type feel that the one old cards had (without sacrificing the readability gains of the 8th ed frames). I think the reason the Planar Chaos frames were so popular was because those over-saturated frames gave off more of that vibe.
We're on page 12, and it's like some people still haven't read the article, so I"ll quote it for you:
Quote from Erik Lauer »
In a large tournament, such as a Grand Prix, when time for the round expires, players are given five additional turns to complete their game. Usually, this takes a few minutes to conclude the rest of the games. However, a player playing Eggs might have a fifteen-minute turn during the additional turns, delaying the start of the next round by ten minutes or more (beyond the next-longest match). Over the course of a day, this can mean an extra hour of waiting for everyone else in the tournament.
You can argue over whether the deck warrants banning cuz it's unfun or non-interactive or whatever but just know that's not the reason they gave for the banning.
Can you elaborate on this? Any and all sources would be helpful. I'd like to know more about it.
Me too. I heard this myth during the Zendikar timeframe, and then, I thought it was confirmed by Wizards that they do any many print runs as they need to. I don't have any links to sources, and I certainly don't know what the policy is now, but that's what I recall from back then.
I agree with alastingepiphany. As the sole supplier of Magic, Wizards manipulates the market to their full advantage, by region even. I saw supply/demand mentioned a number of times. You remember graphing the supply and demand curves and finding the equilibrium point? That's not what's happening here. Wizards predicts the demand curve and chooses the price that maximizes their profits (there is no supply curve or equilibrium point involved). Then, they produce that amount of supply. If Wizards is significantly under-supplying for the price they set, I'd guess they underestimated supply for RtR, and both RtR and Gatecrash prices will go back down once Wizards re-adjusts supply, like they did with Zendikar. As for who's profiting in the short term, based on the comments here, it sounds like mostly stores and some distributors.
However, are we sure Wizards didn't also increase prices to distributors? The online prices since Innistrad have been higher than by about $5. It's been a struggle to get $90 shipped boxes in the last year, which is the magic $2.50/pack.
Just heard back from WOTC The sent me alot of really cool stuff!
first off I got a letter saying the card was in fact real. 2nd, they sent the card back and the creator signed/dated it so that I would always know I had the first. 3rd was a banner with new RTR art signed by the whole dev. team for RTR, and lastly 2 spots on the VIP list for the RTR preview in seattle on sep 1st!
Great news. Really happy for you. I think you deserve it with all the hype you generated for them, and everything you did to prove it's real, but regardless, that's just really sweet. Looking forward to the pics/movies. Hey, could this be the start of the Bruce Magic Show? You'll have an RTR preview to film too!
I think this card is just slightly better than:
Not-so-vexing Devil R
When ~this~ deals damage to an opponent, sacrifice it.
4/3
Don't get confused by the choice. Your opponent will calculate whether they will be hurt by it, and if so, he/she will take the sacrifice (equivalent of one hit from it).
Also, I wouldn't play it turn 1. I assume you have other creatures to play. Rather, it helps you fill up the board on turns 2-3 and finish the game.
Seems to have a good specialized role for creature-spamming in RDW and zoo.
I mean, there is plenty of room to debate the degree of impact The Dream has on peoples' desire to play recreationally, especially in aggregate. But that there is an impact, on some level? Obvious.
If by "The Dream," you mean the existence of any tournaments at all where you can win a nice chunk of change and free travel, then certainly.
If by "The Dream," you mean playing in tournaments as your main job, squeaking out a poverty-line living, and enjoying all the free travel, then I agree, that's possible.
If by "The Dream," you mean having millions of people enjoy watching your performances and in turn, earning millions from ticketholders and advertisers, then no.
I'm not debating the existence of an impact. I'm also not debating that an allure exists. I'd just rather state what it is rather than bring in analogies that overstate the allure.
Actually though, I think the number of players impacted is closer to 100%, or at least, certainly above 90%.
Impacted doesn't mean "will quit the game," though. It means we get less rich strategy articles, less rich exploration of formats, less trickle-down effects as our friends' friends play the pro's decks and force us to tune in response, etc etc etc. It makes Magic worse, even if the impact is subtle and only felt through several degrees of separation. Even the most casual of casual players will feel this.
Unfortunately, this is not the impact that matters in this case, and that's why your definition doesn't match up with everyone else's. Since pro perks are a marketing expense, the impact that matters is whether a marketing expense generates a net gain in profit. Conversely, will they lose more profit than the savings gained by cutting it?
I have no idea because I've never attended a tournament except for big prereleases. I thought attendance would plummet when they took those away, but Wizards said Innistrad store-only prereleases broke records. I also spend significantly less on Magic now with the smaller sets and cheaper singles (depressed by mythic values). Certainly feels like they just keep taking things away, and I wonder if there's a breaking point...
I think the basketball analogy does not apply at all because of one overwhelming point: NBA pros playing basketball is the product. When the pros don't play, there is near-zero revenue for the NBA. In Magic, Magic is the product. Pro tours and perks are marketing expenses, and as such, are expendable to Wizards/Hasbro.
However, the confusion is no coincidence. Wizards themselves created this delusion in order to help market their game. I actually think that the success of the SCG Opens is a big reason why they are re-thinking their approach. I don't know what the right answer is better than anyone else, but it does seem more like cuts than replacements.
There's nothing stopping stores from asking Wizards for a PTQ now. What's happening is that Wizards is trying to force TOs to partner with a store so that more profits go to the store. However, as with prereleases, many TOs will simply drop out, either because the profit becomes too low for the amount of work involved, or they cannot find a store willing to partner with them. As a general principle, with less competition, prices rise and/or quality falls.
So the question is not whether this is good or bad for PTQs (it should be the same or worse), but whether the sacrifice is worth it. Whether this step will have a significant effect on keeping and increasing stores and thereby increasing sales for Wizards. It has to increase it more than the lost sales from people who stop attending PTQs because of the change.
How did the big prerelease killing work out for them? I stopped attending prereleases after that, but I think it must have gone well for them to try this. I don't like it, but it's up to the vote by wallet.
MSRP is 3.95$ currently for a pack. Most places sell individual packs cheaper than MSRP with cost to the stores being something like 70$ a box (Or well they used to be back when I worked at a comic store (been awhile don't know if that has changed). Also jumping up in cost an entire dollar isn't really wizards thing either as in the past their increases have been around 50+-15 cents or so as I recall. We haven't had an entire dollar jump ever.
I always deal hunt for my play group and based on the prices I see, I believe the large stores can get them for around $60/box. The smaller stores being around $70/box seems right. Recently, a large online store messed up my order and sent me a New Phyrexia fat pack. They said that they would cover shipping to have it returned, or I could have it "at cost." Naturally, I asked "how much?" $20 (MSRP $39.99). Of course, I accepted. There's 9 packs in there!
When the stores pay less than $2/pack, and you pay $4, unless you need packs for draft, you really are better off buying singles. I always buy by the box, and my limit is actually around $2.50/pack. Past that, I buy less, and at $2.75, I stop buying. Some posts here accuse others for being not making sense to pay $1 more. That logic is flawed because if I keep increasing the cost by $1, you must have a breaking point, right? Everyone must have a $0.01 line where they go from buying to not buying. If the current price is near everyone's breaking points, then Wizards is doing a good job as a business (to earn as much as they can). Otherwise, Wizards is woefully undercharging. I know that some people overreact with the "I quit" mentality, but accusing everyone when most people have real limits is just as bad.
Also, even if you stop buying packs, you can still play Magic with your existing cards, Duel of the Planeswalkers on PC, or as one of my friends does, fire up the color printer, lol.
I'm going to vote with my pocketbook because in the end, that's really the only thing that they listen to:
- When mythics came out, I vowed to not buy any mythic singles and trade my unused mythics. After a one-year lull, they started printing chase mythics. Since then, my singles purchases are a quarter of what they used to be thanks to the cheaper singles prices and trading mythics for non-mythics.
- Now, as a clear-sleever, I am considering doing the same thing to protest this implementation. I'll put a thin printout of the transform card (double-sided) into the same sleeve with a magic card, and my friends will not complain because that's the best solution for a clear-sleever (not checklist card with extra cards on the side, pffftt...). I'll show them the real transform card once and then trade it away.
But it's restricted there
Hope you don't mind, but I liked your mock-up best so far, so I used it as a base:
Instead of the ugly foily sticker, I actually think they should just foil up parts of the set symbol like they do with foil card art.
I'd also like to see them be rid of the rounded corners and change the colors to give more of a magic tablet/scroll type feel that the one old cards had (without sacrificing the readability gains of the 8th ed frames). I think the reason the Planar Chaos frames were so popular was because those over-saturated frames gave off more of that vibe.
You can argue over whether the deck warrants banning cuz it's unfun or non-interactive or whatever but just know that's not the reason they gave for the banning.
Me too. I heard this myth during the Zendikar timeframe, and then, I thought it was confirmed by Wizards that they do any many print runs as they need to. I don't have any links to sources, and I certainly don't know what the policy is now, but that's what I recall from back then.
However, are we sure Wizards didn't also increase prices to distributors? The online prices since Innistrad have been higher than by about $5. It's been a struggle to get $90 shipped boxes in the last year, which is the magic $2.50/pack.
Great news. Really happy for you. I think you deserve it with all the hype you generated for them, and everything you did to prove it's real, but regardless, that's just really sweet. Looking forward to the pics/movies. Hey, could this be the start of the Bruce Magic Show? You'll have an RTR preview to film too!
Not-so-vexing Devil R
When ~this~ deals damage to an opponent, sacrifice it.
4/3
Don't get confused by the choice. Your opponent will calculate whether they will be hurt by it, and if so, he/she will take the sacrifice (equivalent of one hit from it).
Also, I wouldn't play it turn 1. I assume you have other creatures to play. Rather, it helps you fill up the board on turns 2-3 and finish the game.
Seems to have a good specialized role for creature-spamming in RDW and zoo.
Item #2 - Autographed Picture of Mark Rosewater
Item #1 - Mark Rosewater Bobblehead
If by "The Dream," you mean the existence of any tournaments at all where you can win a nice chunk of change and free travel, then certainly.
If by "The Dream," you mean playing in tournaments as your main job, squeaking out a poverty-line living, and enjoying all the free travel, then I agree, that's possible.
If by "The Dream," you mean having millions of people enjoy watching your performances and in turn, earning millions from ticketholders and advertisers, then no.
I'm not debating the existence of an impact. I'm also not debating that an allure exists. I'd just rather state what it is rather than bring in analogies that overstate the allure.
Unfortunately, this is not the impact that matters in this case, and that's why your definition doesn't match up with everyone else's. Since pro perks are a marketing expense, the impact that matters is whether a marketing expense generates a net gain in profit. Conversely, will they lose more profit than the savings gained by cutting it?
I have no idea because I've never attended a tournament except for big prereleases. I thought attendance would plummet when they took those away, but Wizards said Innistrad store-only prereleases broke records. I also spend significantly less on Magic now with the smaller sets and cheaper singles (depressed by mythic values). Certainly feels like they just keep taking things away, and I wonder if there's a breaking point...
NBA pros playing basketball is the product.
When the pros don't play, there is near-zero revenue for the NBA. In Magic, Magic is the product. Pro tours and perks are marketing expenses, and as such, are expendable to Wizards/Hasbro.
However, the confusion is no coincidence. Wizards themselves created this delusion in order to help market their game. I actually think that the success of the SCG Opens is a big reason why they are re-thinking their approach. I don't know what the right answer is better than anyone else, but it does seem more like cuts than replacements.
So the question is not whether this is good or bad for PTQs (it should be the same or worse), but whether the sacrifice is worth it. Whether this step will have a significant effect on keeping and increasing stores and thereby increasing sales for Wizards. It has to increase it more than the lost sales from people who stop attending PTQs because of the change.
How did the big prerelease killing work out for them? I stopped attending prereleases after that, but I think it must have gone well for them to try this. I don't like it, but it's up to the vote by wallet.
I always deal hunt for my play group and based on the prices I see, I believe the large stores can get them for around $60/box. The smaller stores being around $70/box seems right. Recently, a large online store messed up my order and sent me a New Phyrexia fat pack. They said that they would cover shipping to have it returned, or I could have it "at cost." Naturally, I asked "how much?" $20 (MSRP $39.99). Of course, I accepted. There's 9 packs in there!
When the stores pay less than $2/pack, and you pay $4, unless you need packs for draft, you really are better off buying singles. I always buy by the box, and my limit is actually around $2.50/pack. Past that, I buy less, and at $2.75, I stop buying. Some posts here accuse others for being not making sense to pay $1 more. That logic is flawed because if I keep increasing the cost by $1, you must have a breaking point, right? Everyone must have a $0.01 line where they go from buying to not buying. If the current price is near everyone's breaking points, then Wizards is doing a good job as a business (to earn as much as they can). Otherwise, Wizards is woefully undercharging. I know that some people overreact with the "I quit" mentality, but accusing everyone when most people have real limits is just as bad.
Also, even if you stop buying packs, you can still play Magic with your existing cards, Duel of the Planeswalkers on PC, or as one of my friends does, fire up the color printer, lol.
- When mythics came out, I vowed to not buy any mythic singles and trade my unused mythics. After a one-year lull, they started printing chase mythics. Since then, my singles purchases are a quarter of what they used to be thanks to the cheaper singles prices and trading mythics for non-mythics.
- Now, as a clear-sleever, I am considering doing the same thing to protest this implementation. I'll put a thin printout of the transform card (double-sided) into the same sleeve with a magic card, and my friends will not complain because that's the best solution for a clear-sleever (not checklist card with extra cards on the side, pffftt...). I'll show them the real transform card once and then trade it away.