Quote from DawdlingSphinx »
You understand correctly.
Thanks so much!
Quote from DawdlingSphinx »
You understand correctly.
Fair enough. I think I actually run less ramp than you and a higher curve. It works for me, though, because the power of my big spells allows me to catch up in the late game even if I fall behind a bit in the early game. This is possible in part because of the environment that I play in. There are so many wraths being cast that the games tend to go longer and having creatures that are very powerful on their own is important since they might only stick around for a turn or two.Quote from Outcryqq »Early on, I had Avenger and Createrhoof in, but the problem is that I don't really have a way to cheat them into play. I picked Armada Wurm because he's much easier to hardcast, and I can still blink him for value. If I were to put in the aforementioned finishers, I'd probably want more ramp, and include some way to cheat them in, maybe Tooth and Nail. Lately this deck has been playing a much more control-type game, but if I feel that a more aggressive strategy is necessary, this will be the first change I'll make. Same thinking about Woodfall Primus.
Mana hasn't been a problem for me, but I'm running more fetches (all the Zendikar fetches, plus Windswept Heath), the pain lands, and no man lands, so my mana base is a bit more stable. In addition, my meta might be slower and grindier than yours, so it might just be that I'm under less pressure to have perfect mana early. I would give Nature's Lore a try, but Farseek might just be better.
The reason Prophet of Kruphix is so good is that you basically get another turn for each turn your opponents take. You (player 1) take your turn, playing some creatures or whatever, then pass the turn, untap on player 2's turn, play MORE guys because they have flash, then untap on player 3's turn, etc. etc. As for mana sinks, Roon himself is an awesome mana sink, especially since you get to untap him every turn. Deadeye Navigator is even better, and if you ever get Prophet of Kruphix and Deadeye Navigator out at the same time, you probably just win, assuming you have something for Deadeye to blink. So you play out your hand, or, if you've already done that, you play Roon and just start blinking stuff every turn. The best is when you start blinking a creature that draws you cards and draw into more guys to play on other people's turns. It might not sound that broken, but you're doing this every single turn, not just your turns, and that adds up very quickly to an insurmountable advantage. I'd say the only cards in my Roon deck that are better than Prophet of Kruphix are Deadeye Navigator and Tooth and Nail... and I usually fetch PoK with Tooth and Nail.Quote from ajprokosFor Kruphix, I am looking through the guides to find mana sinks....or is basically to be able to hold up counters?
That's exactly how I built Roon and it's worked out great for me as well. You just play a ton of creatures that are good on their own and REALLY good when blinked, and this allows you to grind people out through sheer card advantage. It's actually a fairly aggressive deck, especially since I run a bunch of broken equipment that can be fetched with Stoneforge Mystic and Stonehewer Giant (swords, jitte, etc.). I've won plenty of games where I never needed to cast Roon. It's not cutthroat competitive, but it can certainly hold its own.Quote from zer0faultsRoon is great if you are going to either present enough threats or protect him. He basically acts as another saving blink spell on a stick. I run a heavy blink deck. I don't need Roon on the field, but when I can get him to the field and to stay, its basically impossible at that point to remove him.
I built my blink deck more as a grind out a victory kind of a deck, it slowly builds up board position and with that resilience while stopping other shenanigans through destroying lands / artifacts / enchantments that have a potential to shift the game to far away from me.
Agree to disagree then. I think the new one looks terrible.
That's the point. The emphasis and style make a huge difference, which is why I dislike the new artwork and like Jace Beleren's and JTMS's artwork.
No one's bashing the artist himself. On the contrary, every post I've seen that addresses the artist at all has basically said "You're awesome, but this particular piece of artwork sucks."Quote from BitsyIts sad to see people bashing the artist himself. There are so many worse artists and artworks...
It's not the outfit, it's the depiction of the outfit in this particular artwork. Compare it with, say, the Jace Beleren artwork. The outfit in the Jace Beleren artwork looks very substantial and three dimensional. The outfit in this artwork looks very flat and two dimensional, like a cheap costume.has mentioned that there are strict guidelines on planeswalker style and attire, and that he has received corrections on that very front. Those corrections may not have been on this piece, but the fact is that this is the outfit that Wizards of the Coast wants Jace to wear.
For what it's worth, I actually really like most of your stuff, including the Elspeth vs. Tezzeret artworks. Elesh Norn is one of my favorite artworks ever. And the Vraska half of the Jace vs. Vraska picture is fine. I really don't like the Jace artwork, but meh, you can't please everyone all the time. That sucks that there are a lot of compositional constraints for vs. deck artworks, though. I can see how that would be aggravating.Quote from SmokestackIt has nothing to do with phoning in. You have to put two characters together in one piece but they have to work separately. There are also some pretty aggravating compositional restraints.
There's a reason I don't do comic covers and, given the reaction I see here,I won't be doing any more VS products for the foreseeable future either. Not my cup of tea it seems.
I didn't notice it until you pointed it out. I just assumed the background of the arch was "inside," but looking closer it is indeed night. That's pretty cool.Quote from LullyHas anyone pointed out that it is both night and day in the art? That is a pretty cool backdrop for a w/b card.
I guess, but there are some flavor things that need to make sense. If you're going to make gods into cards, you better make them huge, powerful, and awesome. My jaw should be hitting the floor with how powerful they are. They're gods, for crying out loud. They need to be Eldrazi-esque in their power level. Instead, we get 5/5s. Not even as big as the titans. Not even as big as green commons. That's just a flavor fail.Quote from gereffiMagic flavor doesn't always make sense. You're telling me that the fat, 7th edition Eager Cadet can only trade with an Elite Vanguard, but can't kill a Laboratory Maniac? And what's with creatures both killing each other during combat?
I've been noticing that too. Scavenge, Unleash, Evolve, Monstrosity, the hydras... plus individual cards like Scavenging Ooze and Archangel of Thune. Ooze I like the design for, but the others seem pretty uninspired mechanically. I think Monstrosity will play better than it looks on paper, but that by itself is indicative of the problem: adding counters to creatures just isn't that exciting, even if it plays well. It certainly isn't exciting enough to take up multiple mechanics in a set like the guild abilities did. It also doesn't help that among all the guild abilities that use +1/+1 counters, there are only a few playable playable cards, and they only see fringe play at best.Quote from hittheroadjackgetting pretty tired of wizards constantly making mechanics that just add counters to creatures...
Quote from "Sam Stoddard" »Current Standard mana bases are about as strong as we have ever allowed mana to be in Standard. ... By the time Gatecrash was released, we saw a great number of three-color aggro and control decks, and this really afforded players to cast the Return to Ravnica cards they wanted without going too far out of their way. I think this was tremendous boon for Return to Ravnica block.
Quote from "Sam Stoddard" »As Zac Hill mentioned last year, the core duals introduced with M10 wouldn't have been included in M13 except for how well they played with the Ravnica shocklands... . It was very important for us that Return to Ravnica, a block based around multicolor cards, have the Standard support to make said multicolor cards playable.
Quote from "Sam Stoddard" »Everything in Magic is cyclical. I think if you asked most people what the most powerful part of Standard is right now, you would get a lot of different answers—the creatures, the spells, the Planeswalkers. I don't think many people would answer what I believe is the actual answer—the mana. While the mana bases in Standard may not be up to the level of mana bases in Modern or Legacy, they are a fundamental part to many of the top decks right now, and have allowed almost every deck in the format to exist without having to put a whole lot of thought into its mana base.
While we have no intention of going back to an era where players are unable to cast their spells, we are leaving an era of Standard where mana fixing was overly abundant, and most importantly incredibly easy. The opportunity cost was almost zero, but that was done intentionally to support the Return to Ravnica block.
Oh, I see. It's just the coloring. I guess that's different. I was mixing up "border" with "card frame," and was looking for a change as drastic as the Mirrodin/8th Edition card frame change. Derp.Quote from ghetaWhat we're saying is that the area between the black borders and the card art was altered with a space/glitter look. That's more a background to the card than a border.
Yeah, how is it that I've never even heard of this card???? It seems disgustingly powerful in any sort of green-based graveyard deck. Just imagine Life from the Loam with a stocked graveyard and this in play.Quote from LycianaP.S: Thanks to you, I now have to find a Manabond for my Mimeo deck.
Because the ability is targeted, it is not a mana ability. It can only be activated when you have priority, and goes on the stack like other non-mana abilities.
Even a 25% decrease in the price of the rares is being VERY generous. All the numbers I've seen, including both of the articles that nerf linked to in the post of his I'm quoting now, have said that the prices on rares will move very little, if at all. Every little bit helps, but Modern Masters won't be dropping decks down into the standard deck price range, at least not because of cheaper rares/mythics.Quote from makubexxImagine the price of rares drop by 25-50%.
The new price will be between 450-700$.
Even if it's only 700, it will be 200$ less. And it is a good thing.
But, again, there is a strong negative correlation between card availability and price (ie, low availability --> high price, and vice versa), which Wizards knows. And card prices are the thing that most people cite as the barrier of entry to modern, which Wizards also knows. When people talk about how legacy isn't accessible because of card availability, they are usually talking about how legacy is extremely expensive. "Card availability issues" and "high card prices" are basically synonymous. I can't cite a definition somewhere, but that is always how I've heard the terms used, and many, many other people interpret those terms the way I do. I think Wizards can't or won't directly say that they want to affect secondary market prices on cards, but that is very clearly what they're trying to do, and they've all but spelled it out by talking about card availability.
Oh, I do. I think we'll be disappointed, though.
Again, this isn't about Goyf and Bob in particular, it's about expensive modern cards in general, and how Modern Masters isn't going to do much to bring down the prices on them.
Which of those maroon lists run Goyf? Zoo? Ok.
Fine, let's look at the UWR deck from the top 8, take all the pre-Zendikar uncommons in it, and cut the prices on them in half. This deck runs a significant number of Modern Masters-legal uncommons. Since I used deckstats to calculate the price of the decks, I'll use them to calculate the price of these invidual cards as well.
True, but it's the barrier of entry that's the problem, not the barrier-of-after-you've-already-bought-all-the-cards-you-need. You're basically saying that modern is super cheap after you get past the barrier of entry... which is great, but doesn't solve the barrier of entry problem.
I hope you're right. I didn't realize they had already talked about MM2. Do you have a source for that info?
Well, I agree with you that we probably won't agree.
This is a really interesting point, and one I hadn't considered. None of the ~3 shops I attend on a regular basis function like this, which is why I hadn't considered it. In the shops I attend, when a FTV or something comes out, the copies get bought up by people that attend the shop, but it doesn't seem to change much. You'll occasionally see some of the cards in binders, but for the most part, the trade landscape stays pretty much the same. This isn't because people only play or trade standard in the shops, either; it just seems like sets like FTV don't make a big enough impact to change the trading environment significantly. Still, your shop may function differently. I guess we'll have to wait and see whether more shops are like mine or like yours.
This is demonstrably false. While some standard decks are more expensive than some modern decks, modern decks are generally more expensive by several hundred dollars. I compared the prices of the top 16 decks of GP Portland and the latest SCG Classic using deckstats.net and compiled the information here. In a nutshell, there were nine different archetypes in both modern and standard. The most expensive standard archetype, Jund, is, on average, less expensive than the majority of the modern archetypes. As in, more than half (five) of the modern archetypes were more expensive than the most expensive standard archetype. In fact, the vast majority of the modern archetypes were more expensive than the vast majority of the standard archetypes. Here's the list of archetypes, by average price (maroon for modern, green for standard):
See, I think the problem, at least in my shops, is that the players who can afford to buy any significant amount of modern masters product are the ones who can already afford expensive cards and are already playing modern/legacy.
Yeah, seriously haha. Hopefully they learned their lesson about that from the Commander decks.Quote from Canadian Guy of WrathAgreed
That's why I consider MM an experiment
That's also why I think MM won't do as much good as WotC might have hoped: they were too conservative (I can understand why) and will adjust it for MM2 (which is inevitable unless Modern just doesn't pick up at all, I don't see that happening)
What will be interesting to see is how fast WotC comes out with an MM2 (if they do): I know that if I was in charge I would have told WotC "you guys better have a second edition not too far behind if we were too conservative with the print run, I don't want to have to wait 2 years for Modern to be as accessible as we want it to be if MM1 doesn't meet our targets"
If that happens, then WotC will have failed in their goal of making modern more accessible. In the short term, it would be good that there were more players, but they'd still have the same problem a year from now of not being able to grow the format due to lack of accessibility.Quote from Canadian Guy of WrathIsn't it possible that the increased supply will not be able to keep up with increasing demand from players as Modern picks up steam?
Right, except that they're not significantly adding to the supply because of all the reasons that itachiitachi mentioned, which is the problem. Putting the most expensive cards at mythic, packaging 24 packs in a box, and having a limited print run will not add to the supply enough to make those cards more available.
The FTV series and judge promos are great examples of print runs that are too small to affect prices or the availability of cards. The number of copies of the card entering the market has to be large enough to actually affect the price of that card. For the FTV series and judge foils, it isn't, and if the number of mythics in Modern Masters is comparable to a FTV, then Modern Masters won't affect the price of those cards, either. That actually supports my argument perfectly.
You're missing the point. The intended goal of Modern Masters is to increase the accessibility of modern as a format. The biggest barrier to that is the cost to build a competitive deck. Modern Masters was supposed to help make that barrier smaller. Therefore, if increasing supply doesn't drive down prices, Modern Masters is not achieving its intended goal. So no, increasing supply without decreasing prices is not desirable. As a matter of fact, it is exactly what they do not want to happen.
Individually, no, those cards are not barriers of entry into the format. Collectively, however, most modern decks take a lot of investment, and cards like that are one of the biggest reasons why. And just because there are a couple of cheap decks doesn't mean that modern is accessible. That's like saying legacy is accessible because you can just build burn. One or two cheap decks does not make an accessible format.
Only if there is a significant increase in supply. Again, the key word here is "significant." You have to increase the supply enough that it will actually make a difference, and for the big money cards, the supply will not increase enough to make a difference, as you yourself pointed out with your FTV example.
This argument again? I don't know where people are getting the notion that increasing the availability of a card will somehow not affect its price. Furthermore, even if it was possible (which it's not), why would that be at all useful to anyone?Quote from Devil"s AdvocateSo a lot of people are complaining that Bob and Goyf are being moved to mythic (and presumably so will the other money cards be) so their prices will probably not change much... Did any of you actually read the article announcing Modern Masters? It was pretty explicitly stated that the goal was to increase the availability of modern staples without decreasing their prices... So... Yeah... If you were expecting prices to drop, sorry, but that was never the intent.
Not really. You have to consider that most stores get multiple playsets of each mythic for normal sets just to sell as singles. This doesn't count copies of the card opened from people who buy sealed product from the store or from people who draft the card and keep it. For this set, assuming your math is right, just over 3 of each mythic will be opened at the store total. That is a tiny amount when you consider that the demand for these cards is extremely high.Quote from jimmyrussles77ok so, math isin't my strong point but lets see.
1 in 8 packs have a mythic.
3 mythics (on average) per box of MM
15 mythics in the set.
1 in 5 boxs will have any given mythic.
Now i've heard numbers range from 9 to 32 boxs per store, lets find a happy median, assume 18 boxs per store.
thats 3.25? Of any given mythic per store.
How many stores will carry this product? Y?
3.25 x Y = how many of the card is printed and will be on the market.
Thats alot guys.
Fair point. I really hope you're right that making the commons/uncommons more affordable will have a significant impact on the price of decks. I'm worried, though, that the commons/uncommons aren't expensive enough, and won't go down enough, to make that much of a difference. In Jund, for example, you still need 4 Bobs, 4 Goyfs, 4 Lilianas, and 3 Thoughtseizes. That's easily $1000 right there, not even counting the rest of the deck. Is it really going to matter at that point if you save $20 on your playset of Kitchen Finks?Quote from slantdeyevisionModern is expensive all around, when some of the rares and uncommons fall in price then you'll see more people with expendable cash to grab their goyfs, bobs, etc... This set regardless of Goyfs price will help more people get into modern... Which is a good thing, I don't think they ever intended to bring the prices down of the money cards... I think they wanted to bring down the prices of all the others so you can have a little more cash to spend on them...
It doesn't matter how many cards have been spoiled. Even if they reprinted literally all of the expensive cards in the set, we already know the size of the booster boxes and print run. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to come to the conclusion that I did. And the set's being released in two weeks, not a month.Quote from Kane493 Card spoiled, set not due to be released for a month and your conclusion is:
THEY HAVE COMPLETELY FAILED THEIR PURPOSE.
Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. So you're saying that, rather than increase the supply to lower the prices on the secondary market, WotC is trying to make the cards available via limited so that people don't have to buy the cards on the secondary market? Or don't have to buy as many cards on the secondary market?
Except they're not fixing modern. They're only lining their pockets, because the price of the staples was what needed to be fixed, and this set will have very little effect on the price of those staples. That's why people are complaining: WotC is still going to make a lot of money from Modern Masters even though the set is going to fail at its intended purpose of making modern more accessible, which is frustrating.Quote from TobyornotTobyThus, Wizards wants to fix Modern and line their pockets at the same time.
I'm not sure if you're just trolling, but this is completely wrong. Wizards has stated on numerous occasions that mythics are not meant to be "better" than rares, and, furthermore, that they aim to make powerful cards at all rarities. Mythics are cards with big, splashy, unusual effects, but that doesn't make the effects "better," necessarily. Goblin Guide, for example, is arguably the most powerful aggressive creature ever printed, but that doesn't mean it should be mythic. It's definitely better as a rare. Likewise, Worldspine Wurm is big and splashy and very "mythic," but that doesn't make it good, and it is certainly a lot worse than a lot of the rares in Return to Ravnica.Quote from BryanMThe thing is, Mythic Rares are not a special rarity. They're just rares, that tend to be on the "better" side. Like, say before you'd have 15 good rares on the sheet. These days, 6 of those would be mythic, the other 9 remain at rare.
The entire point of Mythic is to have a higher percentage of them being "good", so players don't have to play Where's Waldo as much to find The Good Cards.
Yes, obviously making cards more available means more people can play the format. And the reason that making cards more available allows more people to play the format is because those cards become cheaper to buy.
Which means that the demand will stay the same.
But, again, tackling card availability is tackling the price problem. If they say "We want cards to be more readily available to players, so we're printing more of them," what they're essentially saying is "We want the cards to be cheaper, so people can more easily afford them."
Right, except that secondary market value and card access are closely tied. If there is limited access to a card, it will have a higher secondary market value due to scarcity. Conversely, a card will have a lower secondary market value if more people have access to it.
You pay to play, same as anything.
OK, now imagine that Orcish Librarian was drawn not only cartoonishly, but badly as well, and didn't have a picture of an orcish librarian, but instead some random picture of something completely unrelated. So instead of having an admittedly cartoonish depiction of an orcish librarian, you had a badly drawn cartoonish depiction of something having nothing to do with the card.
This. There's really no one-size-fits-all metric for how many colorless non-basics to include in a deck. There are factors that can give you a general idea though:Quote from BlackViseIn all honesty, it depends on the deck
Oh for sure, there are a lot of things that deal with Mike and Trike if you're looking at all five colors, but the OP asked for mono-black specifically. But yes, you can exile, tuck, or bounce either of them in response to the last counter being removed from Triskelion.
Quote from Patrick Chapin »...Karoos' real strength is that the land that gets removed from play goes to your hand, not your graveyard. This is akin to "drawing" a land.
This means your dual land is effectively drawing you a card (which is always a land). To balance things out a bit, Karoos come into play tapped, which may appear to cost you two mana, though it really only costs one because you can use the land you bounce. This is essentially paying one mana to draw and select a card.
Fair enough. I was just pointing out that white is run for reasons besides its equipment tutor package. It's not really relevant to our main discussion about Maze, but I wanted to clarify.
See, the thing is I agree with basically everything you're saying except the [I]degree[/I] to which voltron decks are worse off because of Maze of Ith. They're definitely worse off, but I just don't think Maze is as significant as you think. Yes, Maze is harder to answer than theft/tuck effects, which consequently makes voltron worse. Yes, mono black has trouble answering it, which is one of mono black voltron's many weaknesses. Yes, a G/x voltron general without hexproof should have versatile answers that can hit Maze of Ith. All that is true. But Maze of Ith is not what is making voltron generals unplayable. I guarantee you that if you banned Maze of Ith today, Skithiryx would remain virtually just as good/bad as he is right now. He might get slightly better, but not much. Same goes for other voltron strategies.
Black has a good tutor package, sure, but consider that you have to tutor for boots every game. Enlightened Tutor = Vampiric for those purposes, and SFM has more recurrability and versatility than Demonic. And besides as you mentioned, defensive abilities generally are better in those colors. So since black has nothing to offer, and its tutor advantage is spent because of Maze and others, black aggro decks are considerably worse because of being forced to answer Maze.
Theft is theft. It will continue to be a threat to vultron. But there's a host of things that solve it that don't solve maze. Homeward Path and sacrifice, already mentioned, as well as pro-blue, one-shot hexproof effects, etc. So all in all, vultron still has to answer Maze, and it's still substantially worse off for having to do so.
That's it. They're substantially and intractably worse off because they need to answer Maze. Sure, mono-color will suffer from being mono-color. Skittles will suffer from being skittles. But Maze causes problems for Vultron, and those problems are substantial and intractable.
...[I]t does warp the format and keep otherwise good strategies out.
Greaves/Boots is run in voltron decks because of spot removal and, most importantly, theft. Yes, you can sac in response or hope to get Homeward Path, but it's much easier to be proactive against theft and simply make your glass cannon untargetable instead. There are tons of answers to generals without hexproof/shroud; Maze of Ith is only one of those answers (and not the best one). Voltron strategies are inherently fragile because you're essentially putting all of your eggs in one basket. It's not just Maze that exploits this weakness. Basically, I think you're greatly overestimating Maze of Ith's impact on the format.
The playable voltron generals are in green and white because
Last I checked, black had the best tutor suite of any color. There's a long list of cards in black that can tutor for Greaves/Boots. Also, Skittles Voltron is not limited by Maze of Ith, it's limited by the fact that it runs out of steam before it can kill an entire table. Mono-colored voltron decks are also even more inherently fragile than normal voltron decks, as the weakness of the voltron strategy is compounded by the weakness of only having access to a single color (although obviously there are advantages as well). Skittles Voltron suffers from this weakness. Maze of Ith is only one of many cards that hoses it.