That is already 8 cards you have listed assuming the "bunch of equipment" is one other equipment. I count 12 damage as the most you can do in this scenario.
I assume he used the plains and Mox Opal to drop a Puresteel Paladin before dropping equipment to keep his hand full.
When you cast an X spell, you declare the value of X and then pay for it.
So, if you want to counter a spell with CMC 3 using Disrupting Shoal, X = 3 and then the UU of the spell makes the total CMC = 5 total. Just because you exile a card with CMC 3 to pay for it without paying its mana cost doesn't change the actual mana cost.
In short, you will include the value of X when determining CMC of the Shoal spell.
1) You have two triggers and they are handled separately. So, one trigger allows them to sacrifice a creature or pay 3 life. If they don't, you draw a card. They then have the same choices for the second trigger. This means that the end result is one of the following:
You draw 2 cards
They sacrifice a creature and you draw a card
They pay 3 life and you draw a card
They sacrifice 2 creatures
They pay 6 life
They pay 3 life and sacrifice a creature
You will still draw a card for turn no matter what they decide as these triggers happen during the upkeep and you don't draw until the draw step. This means you could end up drawing 3 cards for the turn.
2) Again, there will be two triggers and each will let them draw a card. They will end up drawing two cards if you have two Masters of the Feast on the battlefield.
EDIT: This should also be in the Magic Rulings page, rather than Magic General.
If I remember correctly this set will be standard rotation which means some cards they can't reprint that are modern staples because they would rule standard. Correct me if I am wrong please
However cards like scape shift and aven and others won't be that great in standard and could be reprinted to help even more modern prices drop. I know people are crying for damnation and blood moon but I doubt we will see those if this is standard legal.
This is still a "Core Set", just with a fancy name. It will be Standard legal.
I think Hixus could be good in limited if his stats are high enough, but I doubt he makes any sort of impact on Constructed formats.
So my reasoning for Library of Leng, along the same lines, is that the event it replaces is the discard, not the putting in the graveyard. WizardMN's argument supports this well, in a way that I wasn't thinking of (thanks, by the way). With that said, your sentence here reflects why I still have a small doubt, i.e., the phrasing of Library with "instead of putting it in the graveyard". I think this just describes what the effect does, and not what event it replaces, but I might be wrong.
Fascinating stuff, really.
It actually doesn't replace the discard. No matter what, the discard happens (so would trigger cards like Liliana's Caress). It just affects what the end result is, which would be putting it into the graveyard.
Keep in mind that "Discard a card and put it into your graveyard" is the entire event and is considered one event. The replacement effect generated by Library of Leng replaces this entire event, not just part of it.
So, a good way to think of this is that the normal event of "Discard a card and put it into your graveyard" is replaced by Library of Leng with "Discard a card and put it on top of your library". You still discard the card but then put it somewhere else.
I agree it is fascinating.
I am always intrigued with the nuances of the rules of Magic and this one in particular is one that doesn't come up often. Recognizing the exact steps doesn't do a whole lot since the end result is still the same if they are seen as competing replacement effects, even if they are not. But, it is nice to look at the bare bones of the rules to see everything that is happening.
Segoth, while the end result is the same (Guerte would choose between the 2 same end results), you do see how our explanations differ, right? I'm interested to know who's exactly right, here. I'm not 100% certain here because of the Library's odd wording, but I believe this is a case similar to magma spray VS regeneration.
Yes to discard means to take a card from your hand and put it into the graveyard. So thinking along the same lines as the magma spray type spell and regeneration where you can choose to apply either exiling or regeneration (though in the end it won't matter, it will end up being regenerated), the reasoning is the same because to destroy means to put into the graveyard from the battlefield.
So library of leng says if you would discard a card, discard it. So that effect is saying to put the card from your hand into the graveyard, at this point you have two replacement effects trying to apply the Library's and the Blightsteel's which you can choose to apply in any order.
That was my line of thinking. As you said regardless of who's explaination is correct it's the same result either way, players choice.
MadMage is actually correct in the way this plays out. Just because a card is "discarded" doesn't mean it goes to the graveyard. That is just usually the end result, but is not actually a guaranteed part of discarding (as shown in the Library of Leng example we are talking about).
In this case, Library of Leng prevents the card from hitting the graveyard (if you choose to apply the replacement effect). This means that the replacement effect of Blightsteel won't happen at the same time as Library.
As you have already pointed out, the end result is the same in this scenario, but it is good to remember. This is why the cards that are discarded are not revealed to all players if the player chooses to put them on top (in the event of a random discard for example). They never hit the graveyard (which is a public zone).
These rulings support this:
10/4/2004 You can look at a randomly discarded card before deciding where it goes.
10/4/2004 Since the card goes directly to the library, the card is not revealed unless the spell or ability requiring the discard specifically says it is.
10/4/2004 The ability replaces the normal discard action with a discard action that puts the card on the library instead of the graveyard.
I agree with eflin. Snapcaster probably has another two years before possibly being reprinted (assuming Modern Masters 2017) and almost any 2 shocks not named Blood Crypt are equal to, or greater than, that of a single Flooded Strand at current values. currently, the Snapcaster + shocks is the better value. It is possible the Fetch and Clique rise quicker than Snapcaster + shocks, but that is hard to say considering Clique has 4 printings and Snapcaster only has 1.
OP: In the end, it probably depends on what cards you need as the trades are close enough that if you don't need Clique and Strand, the Snapcaster + shocks is good value for it and even long term, I doubt you will regret the trade.
They still don't belong to any MTG set. "Modern Masters" is a name given for a compilation of cards that come from many different MTG sets. This much is even admitted in the official descriptions of the set. It is not an MTG set. It is a collection of printings of cards from other sets, with a different expansion symbol to indicate that the cards you're holding don't actually belong to any MTG set. The very name 'Modern Masters' denotes clearly what it is. It does not exist within the game of Magic per se but is rather a 'look' back at some of the best cards of the last several years. It is not an MTG core set or expansion; that pretty much is all that's needed to support my view.
Well, inevitably everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. I still haven't seen a good argument about the significant difference between an 8th, 9th, 10th edition core set and the modern masters set, other than one was made for standard, and the other for modern, its simply a core set for the modern format, as much as the 8th, 9th, 10th edition core sets were for the standard format.
No, core sets were always more simple than expansions, and they would never include significant amounts of really powerful, rare or complicated cards.
Modern Masters literally just picked out cards from pre-existing sets, on the basis of picking really valuable cards that people want to play with more, for the sake of getting to play with them again without having to get the actual cards from the sets that they were printed in. Core sets were printed and distributed for the sake of continuing the core set tradition, not for the sake of making highly-sought-after cards readily available again.
It seems like you are splitting hairs here. It is understandable that the Modern Masters sets could be less desirable for a number of reasons, but the Standard Core Sets up to and including 10th edition are a very good counter argument to the point you seem to be trying to make.
Unlimited through 10th edition did the same thing. They picked cards from pre-existing sets to print again to let more people play with them. I don't quite understand why there should be a distinction between these two extremely similar products. The motivation for each may have been different, but the end result was exactly the same. They both reprinted cards to generate more supply. Modern Masters just does it on a relatively smaller level (considering the print run).
Your argument about the Standard Core Sets being okay while Modern Masters not being okay is partially based on the tradition of printing Core Sets. When does something start to become a tradition to the point where a set like Modern Masters is fine in your eyes? After all, if they print Modern Masters 2017, that makes 3 printings on a set schedule. To me, that seems enough to make Modern Masters a tradition in an identical vein (and print schedule) to that of the original Core Sets.
The other argument is based on power level, but that seems like a weak argument. Should we consider Magic 2012 a set that is not a "real" Core Set because its power level is greater than that of previous sets, such as 9th Edition. I don't think that just because this set is more complex or more powerful than traditional Core Sets means that we should disregard it. Power and Complexity has always ebbed and flowed and it will continue to do so. It is not a metric that should be used in this particular argument.
In fact, as I am writing this, and reading arguments by other posters, Modern Masters products represent a parallel to the Core Sets that we used to get. They are "all reprint" sets, they are printed every two years, and they are meant to be drafted. The only difference is that that don't flow through Standard. That last exception doesn't seem like enough to see Core Sets and Modern Masters sets as being anything other than the same thing.
As an aside, while there are plenty of valuable cards in this set, there were plenty of glaring omissions (Serum Visions, Gitaxian Probe, Inkmoth Nexus) that at least partially shows that this set is not just about printing expensive cards. Instead, it also tries to achieve a goal of using the right "expensive" cards to produce a good limited environment. Whether or not it achieved that doesn't detract from the fact that this is a goal that is above and beyond just reprinting a bunch of expensive cards.
Core sets were the continuation of Magic itself, the base game, beginning with Alpha. Of course there was a core set, the term 'core set' is synonymous with 'Magic: The Gathering.' It served the purpose of having a core to the game where certain cards could keep being reprinted for regular use. But most of the time if a new expansion included a really unique or powerful card, it was never reprinted in any core sets. This is the colossal distinction between the core sets and Modern Masters.
Look at expansion sets from, say, Invasion through Ravnica: City of Guilds. Look at all the really popular/valuable/powerful cards from those sets. How many of them were ever reprinted in core sets? The purpose of the core sets was not to diminish the significance or rarity of the cards in the expansions. It was just to have a core set that could function as a game in itself and have a balanced card pool to build decks from, and serve as a kind of perpetual portal for reprinting staple cards that are central to the game. Not cards that are really special, unique and specific to the stories of the different expansions.
If core sets in more recent years have become more powerful and filled with unique, rare cards from previous expansions, all I can say is that that is why they're doing away with the core set now, as it has becoming illogical and meaningless. Four expansions per year will continue the classic tradition of the game, and if you suddenly go back through time and pick out all the special cards from all the sets, and reprint them in the way Modern Masters is being done, you don't get a new set, you don't get the equivalent of what the core set was, you just get a bunch of fake copies of cards that exist in their legitimate forms in the sets in which they were originally printed.
Think of an example. Karn Liberated is a card from New Phyrexia. He fits in that set, he's part of that story. He is part of the New Phyrexia set and always will be. If you have a copy of him that doesn't have the New Phyrexia symbol on it, you don't really have an authentic Karn Liberated. He is part of that set.
I definitely get where you are coming from, but I still disagree. You are right that Core Sets have traditionally reprinted cards that were core to the game without necessarily being tied to a story. However, they weren't limited to just those cards. For example, Teferi's Puzzle Box, Hurkyl's Recall, Phage the Untouchable, Squee, Goblin Nabob, and others all reference characters from other stories and planes. I am not sure why we can't reference Karn outside of New Phyrexia if we can reference Squee and Jeska (Phage) outside Dominaria.
There definitely were fewer of these types of reprints compared to the mythics in Modern Masters, but they certainly existed.
The decision to treat the Modern Masters cards as less than originals on a flavor level is yours to make and I certainly respect your passionate arguments for defending your viewpoint. Everyone has reasons to want or not want reprints like this. However, as Magic is primarily a card game, there is a benefit to having multiple printings of cards and I think this is the side most people are on. We want cards to play with and welcome any sort of reprint.
This isn't the same thing as reprinting something like the T206 Honus Wagner card. That card is part of a hobby that is primarily based on collectibility. If we were talking about a reprint of that card, then I would totally be on your side saying that a reprint is not the real thing.
However, this is reprinting cards that serve the exact same purpose as the original. That purpose is to play with so even if they do exist outside the set that originally told their story, they are still real in that respect.
So I've been brewing a Ruhan of the Fomori aggro deck, and I've hit.... not a snag, but a small problem.
My Ruhan deck is going to try to use all the on color undercosted/good beaters with a equipment subtheme (LD and Artifact Destruction to keep mana in check). One of them is giving me a small problem; Jace's Phantasm.
A 5/5 for U is about as good as you can hope to get, honestly. Too good to pass up, at least. Now, Sword of Body and Mind were going to be in the deck anyway (Free beats and the color pair is highly relevant in Commander), but it doesn't really seem good to only count on one card to turn another on.
Is there anything else I could use the Mill for in an Aggro deck?
In terms of other uses for milling, you could use Rest in Peace to exile everything and prevent Eldrazi from shuffling the graveyard to give your opponent's their cards back. I know it turns off Jace's Phantasm, but it gives you another use for mill if you don't draw the Phantasm. You could include Helm of Obedience as a combo win, if your group doesn't frown on that sort of thing.
You could also use some reanimation spells to use the cards in opponent's graveyards. Diluvian Primordial and Chancellor of the Spires lets you cast instants and sorceries you have milled.
They still don't belong to any MTG set. "Modern Masters" is a name given for a compilation of cards that come from many different MTG sets. This much is even admitted in the official descriptions of the set. It is not an MTG set. It is a collection of printings of cards from other sets, with a different expansion symbol to indicate that the cards you're holding don't actually belong to any MTG set. The very name 'Modern Masters' denotes clearly what it is. It does not exist within the game of Magic per se but is rather a 'look' back at some of the best cards of the last several years. It is not an MTG core set or expansion; that pretty much is all that's needed to support my view.
Well, inevitably everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. I still haven't seen a good argument about the significant difference between an 8th, 9th, 10th edition core set and the modern masters set, other than one was made for standard, and the other for modern, its simply a core set for the modern format, as much as the 8th, 9th, 10th edition core sets were for the standard format.
No, core sets were always more simple than expansions, and they would never include significant amounts of really powerful, rare or complicated cards.
Modern Masters literally just picked out cards from pre-existing sets, on the basis of picking really valuable cards that people want to play with more, for the sake of getting to play with them again without having to get the actual cards from the sets that they were printed in. Core sets were printed and distributed for the sake of continuing the core set tradition, not for the sake of making highly-sought-after cards readily available again.
It seems like you are splitting hairs here. It is understandable that the Modern Masters sets could be less desirable for a number of reasons, but the Standard Core Sets up to and including 10th edition are a very good counter argument to the point you seem to be trying to make.
Unlimited through 10th edition did the same thing. They picked cards from pre-existing sets to print again to let more people play with them. I don't quite understand why there should be a distinction between these two extremely similar products. The motivation for each may have been different, but the end result was exactly the same. They both reprinted cards to generate more supply. Modern Masters just does it on a relatively smaller level (considering the print run).
Your argument about the Standard Core Sets being okay while Modern Masters not being okay is partially based on the tradition of printing Core Sets. When does something start to become a tradition to the point where a set like Modern Masters is fine in your eyes? After all, if they print Modern Masters 2017, that makes 3 printings on a set schedule. To me, that seems enough to make Modern Masters a tradition in an identical vein (and print schedule) to that of the original Core Sets.
The other argument is based on power level, but that seems like a weak argument. Should we consider Magic 2012 a set that is not a "real" Core Set because its power level is greater than that of previous sets, such as 9th Edition. I don't think that just because this set is more complex or more powerful than traditional Core Sets means that we should disregard it. Power and Complexity has always ebbed and flowed and it will continue to do so. It is not a metric that should be used in this particular argument.
In fact, as I am writing this, and reading arguments by other posters, Modern Masters products represent a parallel to the Core Sets that we used to get. They are "all reprint" sets, they are printed every two years, and they are meant to be drafted. The only difference is that that don't flow through Standard. That last exception doesn't seem like enough to see Core Sets and Modern Masters sets as being anything other than the same thing.
As an aside, while there are plenty of valuable cards in this set, there were plenty of glaring omissions (Serum Visions, Gitaxian Probe, Inkmoth Nexus) that at least partially shows that this set is not just about printing expensive cards. Instead, it also tries to achieve a goal of using the right "expensive" cards to produce a good limited environment. Whether or not it achieved that doesn't detract from the fact that this is a goal that is above and beyond just reprinting a bunch of expensive cards.
A few questions regarding this card came up. The first is does Possibility Storm have the potential to deck you, whether you are running it or not? We believe it does have that possibility because of the way the events are listed on the card:
"Whenever a player casts a spell from his or her hand, that player exiles it, then exiles cards from the top of his or her library until he or she exiles a card that shares a card type with it. That player may cast that card without paying its mana cost. Then he or she puts all cards exiled with Possibility Storm on the bottom of his or her library in a random order."
The part that has me thinking this is the case is it seems that in order for the library to return from temporary exile, you have to have a card that shares the type with the triggering hard cast card come up, be it on the field or in hand, in order for those cards from the library to came back in from that exile effect. If you have nothing, you would obviously have cycled your entire library into exile, and have nothing to satisfy the "until he or she exiles a card that shares a card type with it." Everything has do this *then* do this, so it seems to me if you cannot satisfy the previous action, the next action cannot work. I think of this description in the card as being similar to old if/then style of programming code. If a part is missing you get a loop. If my belief that this card can deck you is incorrect, please explain *why* it doesn't worth that way. I saw in the archives a partial answer as to why you can still stay in the game even if you don't have a second card for the rest of the effect, but it was not really explained well.
The second question hinges on the word may in the second action. So, generally, may offers you a choice that is more specific, but in this case the question is, what if I do not choose to cast that card? Does it exile or go into hand? If I don't cast it, my understanding is it would be exiled because until you cast it, it is still in that contingent exile zone that Possibility Storm creates, but I think this was played with that by not choosing to cast the card, it goes to hand.
Third, and I think I am correct here, if you can cast from your graveyard (Flashback cost or some other aspect) Possibility Storm won't trigger as it is not from hand.
1) No, you will not mill yourself. The "until" clause waits for a card to share a card type. The sentence starting with "Then" is not tied to the first event. If you don't reveal a card that shares a card type, or you don't cast that card, you will still shuffle everything back in as the shuffle is not part of the "cast the spell" clause.
2) If you do not cast the revealed card, it will be part of the group of cards shuffled back in (along with the original spell). The second gatherer ruling explains this scenario:
4/15/2013 The original spell is part of the group of exiled cards put on the bottom of the library in a random order. If the exiled card that shared a card type with that card wasn't cast, it's also part of this group.
No. The trigger on Groundbreaker triggers at the "Beginning of the End Step". If you wait until the end step has started before you cast Collected Company, the Beginning of the End Step has already passed, so you won't sacrifice it until the beginning of the next end step, which will be the one on your turn.
On topic: From what I've been seeing around the mill it looks like the MM2 cards might be lower quality prints, not to mention the myriad of other problems from registration issues to staining. While this shouldn't affect players, it could cause collectors to shy away from the set a bit, which could be bad or it could have no effect whatsoever on prices. It will be interesting to see.
Off topic: So is Azusa's price just totally related to availability? I mean I can see it's a unique ability and all that but it just strikes me as a card that has one home (and EDH of course). Doesn't seem like it should command $30 a piece.
Most of it is related to availability and part of it is a spike that was encountered after Bloom Titan took off. Granted it was about $20 before the spike and it has settled back down to $30 after being around $40-$45.
If I have Grafted Wargear equipped to a creature and my opponent enchants the Grafted Wargear with Song of the Dryads, would I have to sacrifice my creature? I'm thinking no because the Grafted Wargear would lose its trigger before it falls off.
"lose its trigger"?
Song of the Dryads removes intrinsic abilities from the permanent it is attached to. It will not even try to touch Grafted Wargear's own "Whenever Grafted Wargear becomes unattached from a permanent, sacrifice that permanent." ability. That ability will trigger and do exactly what it says.
Oops. I thought you were attaching Song of the Dryads to the creature rather than the equipment. You are correct.
I am pretty sure this is incorrect. Grafted Wargear will only be unattached as a State Based Action, which will only occur after it (Grafted Wargear) has been turned into a forest and has lost all abilities. Since it is unattached after losing its abilities, there is nothing there to trigger when the Equipment becomes unattached. This means the creature will not be sacrificed.
I have 11 EDH Decks: WUR UR WUG WBR W WBG WU BRG URG UB (Basically mono brown with splashes of U and B) G
Broken down by colors: W: 6 U: 6 B: 4 R: 5 G: 5
Its actually surprising how many decks I have that run blue and how few run black. When I first started EDH, I avoided blue decks for quite a while and black is my favorite color in Magic. Its also kind of surprising how balanced the numbers are since I have never made a conscious effort to keep the numbers close.
I assume he used the plains and Mox Opal to drop a Puresteel Paladin before dropping equipment to keep his hand full.
So, if you want to counter a spell with CMC 3 using Disrupting Shoal, X = 3 and then the UU of the spell makes the total CMC = 5 total. Just because you exile a card with CMC 3 to pay for it without paying its mana cost doesn't change the actual mana cost.
In short, you will include the value of X when determining CMC of the Shoal spell.
Indulgent Tormentor
Master of the Feast
1) You have two triggers and they are handled separately. So, one trigger allows them to sacrifice a creature or pay 3 life. If they don't, you draw a card. They then have the same choices for the second trigger. This means that the end result is one of the following:
You draw 2 cards
They sacrifice a creature and you draw a card
They pay 3 life and you draw a card
They sacrifice 2 creatures
They pay 6 life
They pay 3 life and sacrifice a creature
You will still draw a card for turn no matter what they decide as these triggers happen during the upkeep and you don't draw until the draw step. This means you could end up drawing 3 cards for the turn.
2) Again, there will be two triggers and each will let them draw a card. They will end up drawing two cards if you have two Masters of the Feast on the battlefield.
EDIT: This should also be in the Magic Rulings page, rather than Magic General.
This is still a "Core Set", just with a fancy name. It will be Standard legal.
I think Hixus could be good in limited if his stats are high enough, but I doubt he makes any sort of impact on Constructed formats.
It actually doesn't replace the discard. No matter what, the discard happens (so would trigger cards like Liliana's Caress). It just affects what the end result is, which would be putting it into the graveyard.
Keep in mind that "Discard a card and put it into your graveyard" is the entire event and is considered one event. The replacement effect generated by Library of Leng replaces this entire event, not just part of it.
So, a good way to think of this is that the normal event of "Discard a card and put it into your graveyard" is replaced by Library of Leng with "Discard a card and put it on top of your library". You still discard the card but then put it somewhere else.
I agree it is fascinating.
I am always intrigued with the nuances of the rules of Magic and this one in particular is one that doesn't come up often. Recognizing the exact steps doesn't do a whole lot since the end result is still the same if they are seen as competing replacement effects, even if they are not. But, it is nice to look at the bare bones of the rules to see everything that is happening.
MadMage is actually correct in the way this plays out. Just because a card is "discarded" doesn't mean it goes to the graveyard. That is just usually the end result, but is not actually a guaranteed part of discarding (as shown in the Library of Leng example we are talking about).
In this case, Library of Leng prevents the card from hitting the graveyard (if you choose to apply the replacement effect). This means that the replacement effect of Blightsteel won't happen at the same time as Library.
As you have already pointed out, the end result is the same in this scenario, but it is good to remember. This is why the cards that are discarded are not revealed to all players if the player chooses to put them on top (in the event of a random discard for example). They never hit the graveyard (which is a public zone).
These rulings support this:
OP: In the end, it probably depends on what cards you need as the trades are close enough that if you don't need Clique and Strand, the Snapcaster + shocks is good value for it and even long term, I doubt you will regret the trade.
I definitely get where you are coming from, but I still disagree. You are right that Core Sets have traditionally reprinted cards that were core to the game without necessarily being tied to a story. However, they weren't limited to just those cards. For example, Teferi's Puzzle Box, Hurkyl's Recall, Phage the Untouchable, Squee, Goblin Nabob, and others all reference characters from other stories and planes. I am not sure why we can't reference Karn outside of New Phyrexia if we can reference Squee and Jeska (Phage) outside Dominaria.
There definitely were fewer of these types of reprints compared to the mythics in Modern Masters, but they certainly existed.
The decision to treat the Modern Masters cards as less than originals on a flavor level is yours to make and I certainly respect your passionate arguments for defending your viewpoint. Everyone has reasons to want or not want reprints like this. However, as Magic is primarily a card game, there is a benefit to having multiple printings of cards and I think this is the side most people are on. We want cards to play with and welcome any sort of reprint.
This isn't the same thing as reprinting something like the T206 Honus Wagner card. That card is part of a hobby that is primarily based on collectibility. If we were talking about a reprint of that card, then I would totally be on your side saying that a reprint is not the real thing.
However, this is reprinting cards that serve the exact same purpose as the original. That purpose is to play with so even if they do exist outside the set that originally told their story, they are still real in that respect.
Mind Sculpt, Increasing Confusion and Archive Trap are one shot effects. Telemin Performance gets you a creature and mills them. Ambassador Laquatus, Sands of Delirium, and Keening Stone could be used as repeatable effects.
In terms of other uses for milling, you could use Rest in Peace to exile everything and prevent Eldrazi from shuffling the graveyard to give your opponent's their cards back. I know it turns off Jace's Phantasm, but it gives you another use for mill if you don't draw the Phantasm. You could include Helm of Obedience as a combo win, if your group doesn't frown on that sort of thing.
You could also use some reanimation spells to use the cards in opponent's graveyards. Diluvian Primordial and Chancellor of the Spires lets you cast instants and sorceries you have milled.
Undead Alchemist can give you an army as you are milling.
It seems like you are splitting hairs here. It is understandable that the Modern Masters sets could be less desirable for a number of reasons, but the Standard Core Sets up to and including 10th edition are a very good counter argument to the point you seem to be trying to make.
Unlimited through 10th edition did the same thing. They picked cards from pre-existing sets to print again to let more people play with them. I don't quite understand why there should be a distinction between these two extremely similar products. The motivation for each may have been different, but the end result was exactly the same. They both reprinted cards to generate more supply. Modern Masters just does it on a relatively smaller level (considering the print run).
Your argument about the Standard Core Sets being okay while Modern Masters not being okay is partially based on the tradition of printing Core Sets. When does something start to become a tradition to the point where a set like Modern Masters is fine in your eyes? After all, if they print Modern Masters 2017, that makes 3 printings on a set schedule. To me, that seems enough to make Modern Masters a tradition in an identical vein (and print schedule) to that of the original Core Sets.
The other argument is based on power level, but that seems like a weak argument. Should we consider Magic 2012 a set that is not a "real" Core Set because its power level is greater than that of previous sets, such as 9th Edition. I don't think that just because this set is more complex or more powerful than traditional Core Sets means that we should disregard it. Power and Complexity has always ebbed and flowed and it will continue to do so. It is not a metric that should be used in this particular argument.
In fact, as I am writing this, and reading arguments by other posters, Modern Masters products represent a parallel to the Core Sets that we used to get. They are "all reprint" sets, they are printed every two years, and they are meant to be drafted. The only difference is that that don't flow through Standard. That last exception doesn't seem like enough to see Core Sets and Modern Masters sets as being anything other than the same thing.
As an aside, while there are plenty of valuable cards in this set, there were plenty of glaring omissions (Serum Visions, Gitaxian Probe, Inkmoth Nexus) that at least partially shows that this set is not just about printing expensive cards. Instead, it also tries to achieve a goal of using the right "expensive" cards to produce a good limited environment. Whether or not it achieved that doesn't detract from the fact that this is a goal that is above and beyond just reprinting a bunch of expensive cards.
1) No, you will not mill yourself. The "until" clause waits for a card to share a card type. The sentence starting with "Then" is not tied to the first event. If you don't reveal a card that shares a card type, or you don't cast that card, you will still shuffle everything back in as the shuffle is not part of the "cast the spell" clause.
2) If you do not cast the revealed card, it will be part of the group of cards shuffled back in (along with the original spell). The second gatherer ruling explains this scenario:
3) Yes, that is correct.
No. The trigger on Groundbreaker triggers at the "Beginning of the End Step". If you wait until the end step has started before you cast Collected Company, the Beginning of the End Step has already passed, so you won't sacrifice it until the beginning of the next end step, which will be the one on your turn.
Most of it is related to availability and part of it is a spike that was encountered after Bloom Titan took off. Granted it was about $20 before the spike and it has settled back down to $30 after being around $40-$45.
I am pretty sure this is incorrect. Grafted Wargear will only be unattached as a State Based Action, which will only occur after it (Grafted Wargear) has been turned into a forest and has lost all abilities. Since it is unattached after losing its abilities, there is nothing there to trigger when the Equipment becomes unattached. This means the creature will not be sacrificed.
EDIT: Looks like you caught your own mistake
WUR
UR
WUG
WBR
W
WBG
WU
BRG
URG
UB (Basically mono brown with splashes of U and B)
G
Broken down by colors:
W: 6
U: 6
B: 4
R: 5
G: 5
Its actually surprising how many decks I have that run blue and how few run black. When I first started EDH, I avoided blue decks for quite a while and black is my favorite color in Magic. Its also kind of surprising how balanced the numbers are since I have never made a conscious effort to keep the numbers close.