Quote from tronix »man you guys are thinking way too hard over-analyzing what, at face value, was a rather straightforward decision.
like attributing choosing bridge over another card because they are greedy and only care about selling new product. is it not possible that bridge was chosen because it was actually the appropriate choice given its role in the most degenerate play patterns and its awkward and frankly poor design?
similarly their citing of certain data points but not including all the data they looked at isnt some deliberate attempt at deceive or hide anything. there isnt some set of immutable guidelines for ban decisions where some burden of proof exists. they are just people designing a game, and they adapt the 'rules' as they see fit in order to craft what they believe is a more enjoyable environment. so you either agree or you dont, and in turn you trust them or you dont. i get that players, especially ones that might use this forum/thread, would delight in more transparency; however it behooves wizards not to share everything they look at and the specifics because its needlessly constrains future decisions by setting precedent/expectations that most will likely misinterpret.
i mean did anything about the announcement seem unreasonable if taken at face value? regardless if anyone believed bridgevine didnt ultimately cross some line, i dont believe it can be argued the deck w/ bridge wasnt at least a borderline case.
All of this. People need to look at this and internalize it.
I dont know if you are on twitter tronix, but I consistently think 'this is someone people should listen to more.'
2
consider me on board the hype train.
7
like attributing choosing bridge over another card because they are greedy and only care about selling new product. is it not possible that bridge was chosen because it was actually the appropriate choice given its role in the most degenerate play patterns and its awkward and frankly poor design?
similarly their citing of certain data points but not including all the data they looked at isnt some deliberate attempt at deceive or hide anything. there isnt some set of immutable guidelines for ban decisions where some burden of proof exists. they are just people designing a game, and they adapt the 'rules' as they see fit in order to craft what they believe is a more enjoyable environment. so you either agree or you dont, and in turn you trust them or you dont. i get that players, especially ones that might use this forum/thread, would delight in more transparency; however it behooves wizards not to share everything they look at and the specifics because its needlessly constrains future decisions by setting precedent/expectations that most will likely misinterpret.
i mean did anything about the announcement seem unreasonable if taken at face value? regardless if anyone believed bridgevine didnt ultimately cross some line, i dont believe it can be argued the deck w/ bridge wasnt at least a borderline case.
1
if anything the format has been too chaotic as of late. better to give things time to settle its shown up as a 1-of in urza lists. other than that the card is just way too slow to be relevant in a format like modern.
if you are really sitting on a stack of them id bite the bullet quick and dump them as quickly as possible.
1
what im genuinely curious about though is who actually WANTS bridgevine to stick around as yet another 'top deck'?
i just dont see how anyone could be content with it being a thing influencing what modern is about on top of the direction the format has noticeably been moving in
1
like look at punishing fire. who the hell would play that card? at first blush id think it wouldnt show up anywhere, but i cant be sure cause there are way too many unknowns.
so basically wizards will (probably) never even attempt cleaning up the ban list and challenging assumptions of the past because its a huge pain in the ass; to the point where you'd probably be better served just remaking the format from the ground up. whereas the alternative is to just keep doing what they are doing, design new cards, they trickle into the format and it develops organically. ban stuff when it looks like its harmful and just move on.
1
being that close together if we DO see action taken on 7/8 id attribute it to one thing and one thing only: the mythic championship.
1
besides god bolas already has 3 versions without this one added on. his endgame is over. dude needs to move on
1
as for mh1 cards if anyone might see themselves wanting any of the cards such as ranger captain of eos, seasoned pyromancer, hexdrinker, giver of runes, goblin engineer, unsettled mariner, force of negation + other forces, etc. you are probably better served just biting the bullet and picking them up now.
the market for mh1 is looking to be quite volatile since the set, its timing and nature, are unprecedented. even print to demand sets have their limits for how much will hit the market (as implied by the 'to-demand'). as mentioned above m20 looks to be quite a sweet looking core set, and with standard popping-off as it has been stores wont be as inclined to go as deep on mh1 boxes; even WAR box/packs are in still in heavy demand and stores only have so big of a budget. the sense im getting from the set (mh1) is that people want the cards but no one wants to purchase/open the product at its price point.
if you are into buying boxes id also keep an eye out for mh1 boxes to dip in the coming weeks. its not implausible that stores that went in too deep on the set will want to offload product at little to no profit (or even a small loss) just to recoup that capital to spend elsewhere.
1
force of negation is more of a wildcard. before i would have said that it was on track to go down to at least 15ish in the first few weeks after release. unfortunately hype/fomo caught on from a minimal showing in the mtgo challenge, and with the 8% kickback on tcgplayer the rush to buy made it look like there was a supply shortage when really only qualified sellers can post preorders; so it spiked $10 overnight. so now the card has an even higher starting point.
id think its fairly low risk to at least wait until after release when real competition/undercutting kicks in
2