All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
 
The Magic Market Index for Oct 20, 2017
 
The Magic Market Index for Oct 13, 2017
 
The World of Kamigawa
  • posted a message on [Primer] U/G Merfolk
    Quote from Simto »
    I'd like to try a Merfolk deck. Seems very fun, but not strong enough to me.


    Best not to think of it as a merfolk deck. While in limited they are kind of forced to play with themselves, creatures like Merfolk Branchwalker are just good on their own and if someone is playing blue Kumena's Speaker is very playable with at least some other merfolk in the deck. I'm much more a fan of explore on a 2 cost piker and a 1/1 that can become a 2/2 easily by turn 2, than the whole "lets be merfolk" angle. At least, that is my stance until the next set comes out. My feeling is that we will get an enemy land cycle at some point to allow more consistent decks come Rivals.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on [PRIMER] The Pirate God
    Quote from patbou »
    Lukas Berthoud got 2nd at Brazil Nationals with a UB Midrange deck that has some similarities to The Pirate God. You can read what Frank Karsten has to say about it in this article.

    Lukas' deck is really deep into Midrange, and I like The Pirate God better because our Aggro-Control plan helps us cover a wider range of matchups. But maybe there are some hidden secrets in his decks that we should look at...

    River's Rebuke for the Tokens matchups; Contraband Kingpin vs Aggro... what else?


    I've been running River's Rebuke for a while now. It seems like it is slow, but against tokens it's really, really good. Against opposing scarab gods I still kind of like the good old fashion Unsummon since it basically reads "Destroy target eternalized creature, it can't be regenerated". I still like it more in my merfolk build because of Rishkar, Peema Renegade sometimes letting you get to use it more quickly than expected.

    Mostly been playing against friends at the moment, though, and some of the antics that happen there aren't exactly common in tournament play. Namely, one of them runs what he has named "Ral Zarek's Gifts", which is basically completely built on just gambling like a madman on cards like Combustible Gearhulk and Rowdy Crew along with cheating out God-Pharaoh's Gift. I kind of want to see his list because somehow he has made it work.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on [Primer] U/G Merfolk
    I've actually been trying out some various Panharmonicon builds of the deck that tries to combo out with merfolk in the mid-game. It basically doubles all the ETB token +1/+1 counter generation and also doubles the effect River Sneak gets from a merfolk entering the battlefield. It doubles the explore triggers as well, so Merfolk Branchwalker and Vineshaper Mystic trigger twice.

    Another card I'm thinking about is Animation Module, which combos with the +1/+1 counter theme by allowing a way to make servos, while offering a relevant way to buff River Sneak further.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on What does "Go wide" mean in Magic?
    Usually the question I get is "what is an aggro / midrange / control / combo deck and how do I play it" more than what go wide means. Smile I remember explaining it through the lens of martial arts and fighting games.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Fatal Push rarity
    Quote from Morphling »
    I'm just gonna leave this here.. Sneaky


    Seems to be a super shady video.

    Fatal Push is no where more rare than other uncommons.

    And it doesnt even make sense, on the Print Sheets it has the same number as the other uncommons.

    But if you look for just 1 specific uncommon, your perception will be extremely shifted to look out for exactly that card.

    ----

    I am not sure if print sheets in US are any different than in EU , maybe that is a factor too (while i doubt it).


    I don't think there is a conspiracy at all. Wizards has had packs of cards where a rare is missing from the pack while other packs sometimes have two rares. It's not super common, but packing errors have been known to happen with MTG booster packs. Let's say every 1/16 packs that were supposed to have a fatal push in them in a particular run of boxes ended up with some other uncommon in it's place: It doesn't sound like a lot, but that would be all it would take to make it harder to find than other uncommon cards.

    Again, I'm not supporting the entire "mythic rare" uncommon insanity because if it was that bad pre-order season would have had a very large number of back orders and angry customers. I think there may have been a print or packing error on one or two runs of the boxes and some unlucky people cracked those boxes, starting up the entire rumor.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Fatal Push rarity
    Quote from Morphling »
    I'm just gonna leave this here.. Sneaky


    Yeah, unfortunately the people who actually did the mass openings have a much different story to tell. Whether by some unforeseen circumstance or by intentional design, the card did show up less than some other uncommons in the set. What I don't agree with is that Fatal Push was as rare as a mythic. It was more like it was caught between being a rare and uncommon. What I think would put the story to bed is if the mega sellers like SCG, Channel Fireball, and Card Kingdom could pitch in on the numbers opened, assuming they have records.

    Also, as far as variance goes, I've had a friend open a booster box of Innistrad that had 3 Snapcaster Mage in it. Those kinds of things can happen as much as someone getting nothing but all the junk rares and maybe one or two good ones.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from rigeld2 »
    Quote from Colt47 »
    In the case of fatal push, the sheer volume opened across multiple venues gives plenty of credence that there is a lot wotc is loath to share. The fact is that they want people to open packs and if they know which cards will drive people to do so over others making them have to statistically open more to do so is in their best interest. They also probably wouldn't admit to doing it for that reason due to the ramifications of admitting to it.

    So Wizards is smart enough to know a card will see significant play across multiple formats so the demand will be there, and be able to do so far enough in advance to alter print runs... and yet they can't predict a combo like Saheeli Cat.

    Yup.


    Because one card was built with constructed in mind. The other was probably built as filler for draft.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Primer] U/G Merfolk
    Also curious what gets sided out. Everyone brings in a sideboard, but not a lot of people explain the reasons they typically side out X card to make room for it. (Usually, you can kind of figure out what to side out, but sometimes it isn't obvious).

    I really wish engulf the shores was legal right now.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from Pokerkingdave »
    Quote from sss123 »
    Quote from Pokerkingdave »
    From what recall, modern masters aether vial was around $10 when modern masters 2013 came out.


    When MMA1 comes out, I open one, and then spend $25 for another three copies.
    But this is nothing related to the current price tag.


    History can often be an indication of the future.
    blood moon dropped around 50% when it was reprinted in MM17.

    When I reread my prior post, I realized it wasn't very clear what I meant.


    It wasn't just the reprint that hit Blood Moon. In the case of that card it also dropped in popularity due to a lot of decks not actually running it anymore. It's kind of like Spellskite and how that card was once 20+ usd for a time, then dropped back to sub 10 usd when the meta shifted.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on Wizards is controlling secondary market prices and it just keeps getting worse for us!
    Quote from Sharpened »
    Quote from Colt47 »

    I'm not even arguing against reprinting them in standard, actually. I'm more curious to see what happens when they do since I still do not believe that the prices would act identically to the Kahns fetches. Somehow I got a feeling that wizards wants them to be expensive, which is why they aren't doing it and probably don't have plans to do it outside masters sets. Also, when I say wizards, I mean wizards department in charge of figuring out the max value they want to cram into a set to preserve some semblance of a secondary market.


    There is no department of max value to preserve the secondary market. That's just ridiculous.

    From a play perspective, fetchlands kind of suck. I'm not talking about their powerlevel, although without fetchable duals or things like brainstorm, that is lower than most people think. Fetchlands make you shuffle. And shuffling sucks. It's not fun. It takes time. It's added opportunity for sketchiness/cheating. It sucks. It's a necessary evil, but the fewer cards that cause players to shuffle, the better.

    When you combine that aspect with what happens to the environment when there are fetchable duals, there are plenty of reasons to not reprint the fetches, that have little to do with their secondary market value.

    The fundamental guiding principle if they are willing to reprint a card into a Standard legal set appears to have nothing to do with price, and everything to do with it not screwing up standard. From Khans fetch reprints, to Thoughtseize and Mutavault, to their claims that they were at least testing reprinting Damnation into standard, it really doesn't look like price is the defining issue. Besides, most cards that are strong enough to have their price rise to ridiculous heights are either too powerful for standard, or powerful enough to be the dominant/defining card in the format. And if a card has dominated standard once, it's far less enjoyable bringing it back to dominate it again, even if that would result in a huge price dip.

    That's what the Masters sets are for, even if they are far less effective at lowering prices (~25% drop).

    And I, and I'm pretty sure Wizards reject drmarkb's suggestion that they can just reprint something and ban it so it doesn't warp Standard. Bannings may be a necessary evil, but you should never print something that you have a good idea that you are going to have to ban.



    ... are you serious? You think that Wizards of the Coast, a company that has been selling magic for over two decades and pioneered the entire trading card game industry, doesn't understand that they need a secondary market and for cards to have secondary market value (for varying underlying reasons)? If you want to see a company that doesn't understand how the secondary market works and loves shooting itself in the foot, check out the Force of Will company... well that or possibly Konami. I'm not really sure which one of the two is worse. Uhh
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from thatmarkguy »
    Quote from Colt47 »
    Without going deep into this, Jeremy from unsleeved media did a video on this already quite recently and maro also admitted that mythic rares in Ixalan are rarer due to the flip lands.


    Yeah, this was known. Because of the flips, as you said, so wouldn't apply at all to a nonflips set like IMA. And all the Mythics in IXA are equally probable as one another (Vraska isn't more-mythic than other mythics)... but they're less frequent than past-large-set mythics overall because of the flips.

    Quote from Colt47 »
    Also, wizards has admitted some cards in a given rarity are printed less than others multiple times.


    Also known, but as I stated before, the only actual practical instance of this in recent sets is the 101st common. One common in IXA was printed 5/6 as frequently as the other 100 commons. (Usually the 'odd common' is an artifact or a fixing land - in IXA I would guess it was Unknown Shores. ) The commons are comprised of 2 sheets, one has 40 commons each appearing 3 times (C3) plus one instance of the odd common, and one has 60 commons each appearing twice (C2) plus that same odd common. The former is printed 2 times for every 3 printings of the latter, resulting in there being 5 copies of the odd common for every 6 copies of each other one.

    But 80-uncommon sets have 2 equally-printed sheets of 40 U3s plus a throwaway filler. 60-uncommon sets have one sheet of 60 U2s plus a throwaway filler. 53-rare sets have 1 sheet of 53 R2s (rares) and 15 R1s (mythics). Again, unless you're contesting that they're actually throwing cards (other than the filler) away, these quantities and proportions are known. Tracks determine sequencing, not total distribution.

    If it is a fact that there are fewer Fatal Pushes in circulation, I would suspect that it was a printing and quality control issue - if the sheet was prone to mangle the card in a specific spot on the print sheet and those cards were apt to get filtered away because of said mangling, then a single card could have its circulation virtually halved by that (Concealed Courtyard would probably have a notably lower distribution if they were better at detecting such recurring issues based on placement on the print sheet - it had an unusually high number of ink errors). But it's tinfoil-hat-conspiracy-theory time if the suggestion is that they deliberately destroyed that card for market control reasons.

    More likely: confirmation bias. For any given case opening, simple probability dictates that some uncommon would occur the least-frequently, and half the uncommons would appear somewhat less than frequently as expected. The people whose cases had fewer Enraged Giant never even noticed because they weren't counting Enranged Giants, and they didn't report about their normal number of Fatal Pushes because people seldom report on normalcy. But the people who were counting Fatal Pushes and binning every other uncommon - if they were the ones for whom Fatal Push occurred a below-average number of times, they'd be apt to raise an audible stink.


    In the case of fatal push, the sheer volume opened across multiple venues gives plenty of credence that there is a lot wotc is loath to share. The fact is that they want people to open packs and if they know which cards will drive people to do so over others making them have to statistically open more to do so is in their best interest. They also probably wouldn't admit to doing it for that reason due to the ramifications of admitting to it.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Wizards has been doing this for years now, but they print and pack cards so that some cards may show up less than others in a given rarity. I used fatal push as an example because of reports from multiple channels that when they were mass opening boxes and fat packs it was notably harder to find than other uncommon cards.

    Without going deep into this, Jeremy from unsleeved media did a video on this already quite recently and maro also admitted that mythic rares in Ixalan are rarer due to the flip lands. Also, wizards has admitted some cards in a given rarity are printed less than others multiple times.

    Would go more into this but at work at the moment. The entire rarity thing bugs the heck out of me.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from Kruphix7 »
    Iconic masters vial is selling for $30, will it get any lower than that or only uphill from here? Predictions?


    Just if you see them drop, don't wait a long while to pick them up because beyond it being a popular card it's probably one of the track b cards like fatal push was. I've noticed that wizards has been playing with the print numbers to keep prices inflated on things like Vraska in standard, as there really hasn't been as many copies of her in comparison to a few other cards from what I've heard from singles sellers.
    Posted in: Modern
  • posted a message on [Primer] Hidden Trea-zzeret - UB/x Board-clogging Treasure Midrange/Control/Combo
    Kind of funny that no one thought about trying to do a Metalwork combo with the gifts and throw Marionette master in with it. I've always liked Kevin's build (also love it when someone shares the same first name as me in real life. Laughing )
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on [Primer] Hidden Trea-zzeret - UB/x Board-clogging Treasure Midrange/Control/Combo
    Well, I can't find the listing online that I played prior, but I did see a deck that looked like this one that had Underhanded Designs in it being used in combination with Hidden Stockpile. The other variant I've seen uses Maverick Thopterist, using the Etherium cells and treasures to cast it.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.