MTG Salvation

Quote from Frozen Fire »

Assuming the new tango lands won't see modern play (most likely scenario), will they fall to the 5$ range of the temples at their time of release?

Quote from Permanence »

I love this article. Thank you for putting all the work into it.

Can you add a section for Expeditions, please?

RIP Kraken Token

Quote from cml73264 »

I guess you can't use the MTGDark skin if you want to be able to read this article.

Quote from Minowara »

I liked the old colors. It's also presumptuous to think that there will be a Modern Masters 2016 when the trend appears to be every other year.

Quote from Wildfire393 »

Of note, Jace, Vryn's Prodigy has already seen a small amount of Legacy play. He has several major things going for him there, even though Snapcaster Mage doesn't see a ton of play:

1) His Looting ability allows you to filter past lands, which is great for decks that don't want to have more than a few in play
2) His Looting ability can stock the graveyard, allowing you to bolster Tarmogoyf at instant speed, enable surprise flashback of Lingering Souls or Cabal Therapy, or just pitch Reanimation targets
3) His "Flashback" ability doesn't require that you flashback the spell on the same turn you cast him. This actually makes it easier to Flashback spells, as something like Abrupt Decay costs 1UGB to Snap Back
4) His Flashback ability does not actually grant Flashback, it merely enables you to cast the targeted spell. This may seem inconsequential, but it means you can target a Daze or Force of Will to enable you to cast it with its alternate cost, which helps you use Jace to protect the resolution of a threat or combo.
5) The +1 of Jace isn't entirely inconsequential either. It can completely neutralize a lot of threats, which can help combo decks buy time to go off.

Quote from Bristol »

These were so much better when this was a forum post with insight and discussion. Discussing two cards per set is hardly enough. Why not spend more time on at least the latest one or two? Plus, this article format is clearly not encouraging conversation, versus the forum threads had pages of responses.

The layout here is absolutely terrible. The bordered tables with default fonts look like they're from 1998 and are unreadable at a glance. Why cram the most pertinent information onto the side of each group? Putting it above or below the table would allow for more horizontal space, which would move the data closer to the column headings and make at least that better. But the information hierarchy here is non-existent.

And why not spell out what each column is describing? "Change since last week" and "Change since launch" would be a huge improvement.

Quote from Wildfire393 »

Nitpick: You mention Erebos is seeing an uptick in JOU when I think you mean Keranos. He's played a bit in Modern/Legacy as an extremely difficult-to-answer threat for winning the attrition race in control mirrors, generally as a 1- or 2-of in sideboards of Grixis and Jeskai decks.

Quote from SonofaBith »

Re: use of Low vs. Medium, that's fine, I DO understand your point, but MY point is, is are you not seeing the same drop in Med as I am in Low?

If Kozilek went from $30 low to $20 Low, are you not seeing the same percentages in Medium, except with a higher starting and ending number? I see ON TCGP, that on 5/22 his Medium was $45.92. Now his Medium is $25. THEREFORE his medium dropped from 4$6 to $25, while his low from $30 to $20.

Goyf's (MM) Medium on 5/22 was $187, in your chart it's now $159. Low went from $165 to $146.

Both Low and Medium are dropping, we're just starting from and ending on different points.

And please explain why this set was supposed to reduce the cost of Modern staples across the board because for the life of me I'm not seeing why that was EVER the expectation for this set. That Wurmcoil went up, or Grove went up, is irrelevant. The set was designed to put more of THESE 235 cards on the market, and to reduce to cost of THESE 235 cards. You said "To be blunt, Wizards failed to lower the price of entry for Modern with this set". When did Wizards say these cards would have a bearing on other cards?

The set is already on the uptick and most of the losses in value are in the pennies.

Quote from SonofaBith »

In addition to what Teia said, my point was not that the cards are cheaper now than they were they came out but rather the set is already gaining in value instead of gong down. Any card that sees extensive play is going up or not moving down.

• But that's not all you said. You said "To be blunt, Wizards failed to lower the price of entry for Modern with this set", and "The only thing that is concerning is how little Modern Masters 2015 seems to affected card prices". Were you (and Teia) expecting this set to reduce the barrier of entry for ALL of Modern, specifically for cards NOT in this set? Because if you did, that's beyond absurd. To expect a 265 card set to reduce the costs of literally thousands of other cards is just ridiculous. And actually I wouldn't even consider it 265 cards; remove the 101 Commons because a common reprint shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on Modern's entry point, Serum Visions excluded. So what you're saying is MM15 failed to do it's job because its 164 cards didn't reduce the financial barrier of entry? When practically ALL the cards that were actually, you know, IN MM15 went down 10-50%?

I disregard Low as an indication of the value of the card. Low is how cheap you can get the card and almost always factors condition into the numbers, which artificially lowers the price further. I have never taken Low as anything other than what people will try to sell their cards for a competitive edge, which is fine for selling, but not for determining value.

• That's fine if you want to disregard low by burying your head in the sand. But Low is what I happened to have historical data on. If prices are down 11-50% in Low, wouldn't they be down similarly in Medium as well, only starting with and ending with a higher value as well? And BTW, your comment on condition is COMPLETELY unfounded, because I wasn't using the stated Low value, but rather all my prices that I quote as low represent the lowest price I was finding near mint copies for. Go ahead, look at the prices I quoted yesterday and you'll see that's the case. I don't count the prices of lightly played.

I didn't even care for the set, but there's no denying that the reprinting of these 265 cards lowered the price of these 265 cards (Spellskite excluded). If you want 265 cards to be responsible for lowering the price of 5,000 other cards your expectations were too high.

The prices come from TCG Player’s median, tracking cards valued at $2.00 USD and up.