Looking for some advice. I currently have 3 JTMS and I am debating finishing the playset before a the next B&R announcement. What does everyone think the price spike will be if it is unbanned (which I will admit is a long shot)? Putting up $200 for a spec is too much but is it worth it for just another $50 to insure I have the playset?
I wouldn't worry about getting a JTMS playset - even if it does get it's time in the sun in modern it's pretty doubtful that it would ever be a 4-of.
Thats what I was thinking too. I am going to hold off then. Thanks
Looking for some advice. I currently have 3 JTMS and I am debating finishing the playset before a the next B&R announcement. What does everyone think the price spike will be if it is unbanned (which I will admit is a long shot)? Putting up $200 for a spec is too much but is it worth it for just another $50 to insure I have the playset?
Cards worth mentioning somewhere in the primer: Logic Knot, Think Twice, Jace, Archtect of Thought.
Apart from that, good job.
No, on all of those. None of those have ever showed up in a Jeskai Nahiri list. Those are sub-par cards from a bygone era.
While i do agree on TT, I think logic knot as an alternative to a 3rd mana leak is viable and there is at least a discussion about JAOT if thopter gains more meta share as a SB card. I think that staying competitive is the goal. it is the experimentation that allows the community to discover the correct and potential 1-ofs in the MB and SB.
The push for competitive known lists cannot be at the expense of innovation and improving the decklist
I rounded a bit at various points in the middle of things, so it's just a rough estimation, but when I ran the numbers I came out with an as-fan of ~2.3 for cards that either are Eldrazi or have the word 'Eldrazi' somewhere in their mechanical text (the token makers and anti-Eldrazi cards - I didn't count Foul Emissary even though only Eldrazi cards have emerge, but it wouldn't have shifted the numbers significantly): about 2/3 of a common per pack, about 1/3 of an uncommon, about 1/5 of a rare mythic, and about 1 and 1/8 DFCs per pack. Basically, however many DFCs you get per pack are (almost always) Eldrazi, and then there's one other Eldrazi-related card in that pack on average. (Which I honestly think was a pretty good way to show how the Eldrazi are around and a thing without actually giving them a very large pack presence: you're guaranteed at least one in the standard DFC slot, but very little outside of that slot.)
You are right that it isnt that bad, not nearly what I thought, but i can help but be sad that so many of the DFCs are not werewolves... i was really hoping that werewolves would make it out of limited a be a tribe in constructed. Guess i will need to wait another 4 years ubtil innstrad is returned to
Goryo's Vengeance does see some legacy play as well, though it's mostly confined to a single fringe deck. I could also see some legacy players picking them up just to have them. I'm not sure what could be printed to make it more powerful than it already is (particularly in legacy, with Entomb), but 2 CMC, instant speed, and a powerful effect are all big pluses for legacy playability.
On the more modern side of things I'm glad Jace, Vryn's Prodigy is dropping. He's not low enough for me to pull the trigger yet, but I'd like to pick up a couple sometime and this decline bodes well for his post-standard-rotation price.
I am optimistic about this as well. It really does not see all that much play in eternal formats (but definitely some). I am hoping that around rotation it gets to 20-30, then I would jump on it. I think realistically it will rest at 30 to 35 and slowly creep up. But PW always hold more value so fingers-crossed.
Some things should be updated, but I would think there should be input. The original primer says things like "All lists play 26 lands, don't play less". Actually I'd seen very few lists with this many lands. In fact I would say the opposite, don't play more than 25.
Definitely should be input, this s a community resource and should be treated as such.
I wanted to gauge the interest of updating the primer for the deck. The first post has not been updated since July 2014. While the premise of the deck remains intact; card section, combo finish vs grindier list, or different innovations with results are terribly out of date. I wanted to get some feedback about what could be included, taken out, or added to the primer before I approach a mod about it. If there is a consensus that the primer is fine as is than I know not to waste my time.
Hey guys, so I was wondering why we run 25 lands? traditionally this deck ran 26 and for good reason, it too important for this deck to hit its 4th land drop. I have been a proponent of 25 lands in the past. But after researching proper manabase construction I think that with the slower meta (http://www.gatheringmagic.com/building-manabase), it may be time to reconsider our land count. I have had a lot of success at the two WNMs (wed. night magic) these past two weeks. going 10-2. I know that they are not great events to judge by, but in my testing the deck has felt more consistent and reliable as I am getting to Cryptic Command mana on turn 4 often, and has cut down on some of the variance of the deck. I will say that this 26 Land discussion may only apply to decks running 5+ CMC 5 spells and maybe even limited to running 3-4 Cryptics. But I thought I would share my results with you guys.
Do you enjoy having people to play against? Yes? Then this change affects you. There are only GPs and SCG Opens that feature Modern now, which are few and far between, and as demand for Modern dries up the local stores are going to suddenly stop hosting their weekly events. This is possibly the most consequential decision they could make to regular players in terms of downside (because I'm assuming we want people to play against at our events), but of only speculative value in the upside, because we have no idea what they'll ban or unban in the future.
Not sure you can say there is speculative value to the upside and just assume the consequence of the downside. Your downside is just as speculative as his upside. Maybe pulling PT support leads to the format's crash. Or maybe Wizards replaces it with an extra GP on each continent in 2017. Maybe players don't want to play Modern because there is one less feature event for Modern. Or maybe players double-down on the format believing bans are less likely and their decks/investments will stay safe and be supported for longer. It's all speculative at this point.
I'm willing to give Wizards the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing. I'll revisit this, favorably or unfavorably, when they announce the 2017 GP schedule. For now, I'm going to read in this announcement a nuanced understanding of Modern that Wizards previously lacked (or didn't act on).
My post was tongue-in-cheek and not really serious.
The only actual point I'd want to make to cpfusion's post is that new players watching pros play a format on the largest stage in the game is a large draw to that stage's format(s) and dropping a format from that stage does have real downside in bringing new players to the format. I don't know how much of a downside that is, nor do I know if it outweighs anything. I was really just having a go at his post more than anything.
oh, OK. I thought u were actually serious.
I don't believe anyone new to magic actually starts from modern. they likely begin at limited/standard, where they WILL invariably learn about modern, because they WILL invariably ask: uh so what happens to my cards after rotation?
I highly doubt the sudden loss of the PT will result in any lower supply of players to the format. In fact, I believe Standard players who previously avoided Modern and its horribly fickle ban-list may actually now consider holding on to their rotated cards and playing ported versions of their decks.
Yeah sorry if the sarcasm wasn't obvious. I thought the mimicry would standout.
I think some players come to Modern specifically because they see Pros play it. I don't know how many so don't want to make a huge deal out of this, but I'm certain that some players do. They idolize Reid Duke or LSV, see them on deck XYZ and want to try it out. Maybe they're new players, maybe they're not. I'm sure some people who have played the game for a while never wanted to get into Modern until they saw a Pro they respect on a spicy brew.
The point is really that there's an unknown amount of draw to any format because of the large stage and Modern no longer has that now.
I know that is how I got into modern, I was a strictly kitchen table player until I was PT Born of the Gods (I think?). But I do think that I am an exception to the rule, at least among the people I have talked to at my LGS.
So for the Avacyn i've tested them for something like 15-16 matches, they were amazing. Every time i casted them it was answer or die (swing for 8 with Colonnade), the only time they were removed was with Path. But i have to admit that sometimes are dead in my hand (like vs burn or explosive start by zoo). Perhaps a 1 of could be more flexible, and it allows me to go back to 2 Lyze.
The manabase is very stable, it's the same from almost 1 year and half (but Loothouse that used to be a 3rd GQ). It might seem greedy, but i found myself managing it pretty good. I'm able to have UU/UR/UW without many problems in the first 2/3 turns.
So now with the free spot would you run an additional counter, a 2nd lyze or a 2nd Clique? (pretty much what i removed for AV)
Not a great fan of filter lands though. They are clunky sometimes.
I agree generally about the manabase and filterlands. However I am trying to see if it might be beneficial to cut 1-2 islands in favor of some other dual land. I find that I am almost never fetching them up unless my back is against the wall and I really need to conserve life, and even then I feel bad about it.
As for your flex spot I think it really depends on what you are playing against. You mentioned you wanted another early game tool, and there are a lot of options.
Heck I think you could justify even running a maindeck dispel or negate. Both are hardly ever dead in all the popular matchups.
Ive always been partial to including more flash creatures (another Clique) since it provides a form of disruption to the opponents gameplan while allowing you to take chip shots to get their life total in burn range. Not to mention it lets you filter dead cards in your own hand in those rare cases.
Considering you are still planning on playing Avacyn then having another creature (for flipping) is probably the best idea. Clique is a good choice
Currently I have been testing a 1-of Izzet Charm (as a flexible card that allows the filtering of late game dead or extra AV). It has been pretty good. I have played with it for about 10 matches, unfortunately as a 1-of I haven't seen it very much so there is more testing that I would do before I would suggest it other than testing atm. But I am still excited/optimistic about it.
It is a bad helix-priced removal and a bad spell pierce. But my theory has been that the flexibility of the card might make up for that as well as being able to filter the AV, I run 4 AV so that I can have the best chance of turn-1 casting I am seeing if the izzet charm helps filter the extra AV out of my hand. Pretty sure it would be better to run any of the more proven cards that you mentioned above, especially the Logic Knot or Spell Snare (if thopter becomes a bigger player in the meta).
Edit: If Izzet Charm hit players it would be so much better, I think I would be singing its praises.
"Its an invalid way of arguing high prices in MTG. Prices are high because people are buying. Plain and simple. Supply and demand."
Not "feeling right" about spending money on card board does not make your rant about high prices, valid. So, that makes it invalid. Right? Right.
You have a point about coins and stamps.
Lets not get salty here. My "feeling" were merely a demonstrative device used to convey a concern about investing any significant amount of money into a market with the attributes of MTG, you can decide that you disagree with my opinion or my use of demonstration, but lets not get all defensive. That "feeling" comes from money spent on an item with no insulation from controllable market forces (i.e. reprints or bannings). It was not a "rant" it is me voicing a concern about investing or putting significant money into any industry without said industry having clear rules and policies that allow a person to properly assess the risk. Because these cardboard pieces do not carry value intrinsic to just themselves.
I don't think your argument is invalid btw, it added to a discussion and that is good enough by my standards.
Im not just talking about infect I could throw up multiple examples. point is it wouldn't hurt if modern was a little cheaper.
Rather than go back-and-forth on different deck prices, which is how this thread seems to be devolving, do you have an idea of your ideal Modern price range? I'm thinking of a future QS article on this topic and am just trying to see different users' takes on it.
This is just my opinion, but I think I view price of the format a little differently. I think for me it is about the reasonableness of price of each specific card. I think that if all cards were maxing out around $40 to $60, that the price issue would mostly go away. For me when I buy a card it seems irrational and offends my sensibilities to pay more than that for a "piece of cardboard." Is it worth (4x$130= 520)it to buy a goyf so I can get into GBx? For this price I have never built a Jund List even though Tarmo is all I need, because a whole deck may be worth the extra 500 but when I realize it is for just 4 pieces of cardboard i cannot justify it, there is a lot of things that are better investments of my money (stock portfolios)(also I do not support mtg being an engine for investing, its a unregulated market with no consumer protection its riskier than any stock you can find).
I want to restate that this is just my opinion and a response to what I think is an important question in modern.
Yea. Why pay 100 times the sticker price for a rare car? Or excessive amounts of money for stamps, or coins, or the million other hobbies people take part in where the resources put in are rarely equivalent to the resources taken out.
Its an invalid way of arguing high prices in MTG. Prices are high because people are buying. Plain and simple. Supply and demand.
But tomorrow WOTC could reprint it all. They can ban something, they have control over the market like no other unregulated industry. Stamps, coins, etc are all markets that are self valuing. The market for each of these does not depend on a reprint policy or the banning or unbanning of certain items. Stamps and coins have value for historical context and the rarity of the original. You cannot make a new stamp that will hurt the market of an original high valued stamp, the new one is a "knock off" and will have little value. That market is far more insulated to any reprint, the fact that MTG cards are not as insulated makes you examples flawed in very crucial ways.
I think that you throw out the word "invalid" too freely here, because your argument, by relying on those two hobbies as parallels, really disregards the uniqueness of how value is created in the MTG market. In MTG supply and demand play together with a reprint policy that makes them more similar to stocks in a Stock Exchange and not a hobby like stamps or coins.
Im not just talking about infect I could throw up multiple examples. point is it wouldn't hurt if modern was a little cheaper.
Rather than go back-and-forth on different deck prices, which is how this thread seems to be devolving, do you have an idea of your ideal Modern price range? I'm thinking of a future QS article on this topic and am just trying to see different users' takes on it.
This is just my opinion, but I think I view price of the format a little differently. I think for me it is about the reasonableness of price of each specific card. I think that if all cards were maxing out around $40 to $60, that the price issue would mostly go away. For me when I buy a card it seems irrational and offends my sensibilities to pay more than that for a "piece of cardboard." Is it worth (4x$130= 520)it to buy a goyf so I can get into GBx? For this price I have never built a Jund List even though Tarmo is all I need, because a whole deck may be worth the extra 500 but when I realize it is for just 4 pieces of cardboard i cannot justify it, there is a lot of things that are better investments of my money (stock portfolios)(also I do not support mtg being an engine for investing, its a unregulated market with no consumer protection its riskier than any stock you can find).
I want to restate that this is just my opinion and a response to what I think is an important question in modern.
@CryptoSC
My reasons for jeskai was:
- Snap + Bolt interaction, allow removal or straight up counter burn (4 mana deal 6 and get a 2/1 on board at instant speed).
- a draw-go control deck, but unlike esper was not 100% locked into that plan as jeskai control can shift to more counter-burn to turn the corner
- Also some of my favorite cards (lightning helix, electrolyze, cryptic command, resto angel)
- pretty flexible as a deck and card choice amounts i.e. 4x Paths or 3X, etc... unlike some combo decks
- liked that for mostly the same cards I could run giest-midrange
- thought it had the best answers in modern from the W & R color choice (stoney, crumble to dust (used to be sowing salts), supreme verdict, anger of the goods, celestial purge, just the first I could think)
- felt like it was a deck that played a interactive game of mtg (but this is true for grixis and esper too)
There are probably more. But this is what came to my mind first. I also fell in love with modern when I watched the PTs where McLaren and MTG Cup were Shenhar played UWR and loved the gameplay of the deck. Not sure if this was any help.
While i do agree on TT, I think logic knot as an alternative to a 3rd mana leak is viable and there is at least a discussion about JAOT if thopter gains more meta share as a SB card. I think that staying competitive is the goal. it is the experimentation that allows the community to discover the correct and potential 1-ofs in the MB and SB.
The push for competitive known lists cannot be at the expense of innovation and improving the decklist
Edit: Jace did actually show up in 1st place deck in the SB as a 1-of (http://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/modern-jeskai-control-26020#paper); cards like this should be in the primer as SB options. But that is my two cents
You are right that it isnt that bad, not nearly what I thought, but i can help but be sad that so many of the DFCs are not werewolves... i was really hoping that werewolves would make it out of limited a be a tribe in constructed. Guess i will need to wait another 4 years ubtil innstrad is returned to
I am optimistic about this as well. It really does not see all that much play in eternal formats (but definitely some). I am hoping that around rotation it gets to 20-30, then I would jump on it. I think realistically it will rest at 30 to 35 and slowly creep up. But PW always hold more value so fingers-crossed.
Definitely should be input, this s a community resource and should be treated as such.
I wanted to gauge the interest of updating the primer for the deck. The first post has not been updated since July 2014. While the premise of the deck remains intact; card section, combo finish vs grindier list, or different innovations with results are terribly out of date. I wanted to get some feedback about what could be included, taken out, or added to the primer before I approach a mod about it. If there is a consensus that the primer is fine as is than I know not to waste my time.
Thanks
I know that is how I got into modern, I was a strictly kitchen table player until I was PT Born of the Gods (I think?). But I do think that I am an exception to the rule, at least among the people I have talked to at my LGS.
Currently I have been testing a 1-of Izzet Charm (as a flexible card that allows the filtering of late game dead or extra AV). It has been pretty good. I have played with it for about 10 matches, unfortunately as a 1-of I haven't seen it very much so there is more testing that I would do before I would suggest it other than testing atm. But I am still excited/optimistic about it.
It is a bad helix-priced removal and a bad spell pierce. But my theory has been that the flexibility of the card might make up for that as well as being able to filter the AV, I run 4 AV so that I can have the best chance of turn-1 casting I am seeing if the izzet charm helps filter the extra AV out of my hand. Pretty sure it would be better to run any of the more proven cards that you mentioned above, especially the Logic Knot or Spell Snare (if thopter becomes a bigger player in the meta).
Edit: If Izzet Charm hit players it would be so much better, I think I would be singing its praises.
Lets not get salty here. My "feeling" were merely a demonstrative device used to convey a concern about investing any significant amount of money into a market with the attributes of MTG, you can decide that you disagree with my opinion or my use of demonstration, but lets not get all defensive. That "feeling" comes from money spent on an item with no insulation from controllable market forces (i.e. reprints or bannings). It was not a "rant" it is me voicing a concern about investing or putting significant money into any industry without said industry having clear rules and policies that allow a person to properly assess the risk. Because these cardboard pieces do not carry value intrinsic to just themselves.
I don't think your argument is invalid btw, it added to a discussion and that is good enough by my standards.
But tomorrow WOTC could reprint it all. They can ban something, they have control over the market like no other unregulated industry. Stamps, coins, etc are all markets that are self valuing. The market for each of these does not depend on a reprint policy or the banning or unbanning of certain items. Stamps and coins have value for historical context and the rarity of the original. You cannot make a new stamp that will hurt the market of an original high valued stamp, the new one is a "knock off" and will have little value. That market is far more insulated to any reprint, the fact that MTG cards are not as insulated makes you examples flawed in very crucial ways.
I think that you throw out the word "invalid" too freely here, because your argument, by relying on those two hobbies as parallels, really disregards the uniqueness of how value is created in the MTG market. In MTG supply and demand play together with a reprint policy that makes them more similar to stocks in a Stock Exchange and not a hobby like stamps or coins.
This is just my opinion, but I think I view price of the format a little differently. I think for me it is about the reasonableness of price of each specific card. I think that if all cards were maxing out around $40 to $60, that the price issue would mostly go away. For me when I buy a card it seems irrational and offends my sensibilities to pay more than that for a "piece of cardboard." Is it worth (4x$130= 520)it to buy a goyf so I can get into GBx? For this price I have never built a Jund List even though Tarmo is all I need, because a whole deck may be worth the extra 500 but when I realize it is for just 4 pieces of cardboard i cannot justify it, there is a lot of things that are better investments of my money (stock portfolios)(also I do not support mtg being an engine for investing, its a unregulated market with no consumer protection its riskier than any stock you can find).
I want to restate that this is just my opinion and a response to what I think is an important question in modern.
My reasons for jeskai was:
- Snap + Bolt interaction, allow removal or straight up counter burn (4 mana deal 6 and get a 2/1 on board at instant speed).
- a draw-go control deck, but unlike esper was not 100% locked into that plan as jeskai control can shift to more counter-burn to turn the corner
- Also some of my favorite cards (lightning helix, electrolyze, cryptic command, resto angel)
- pretty flexible as a deck and card choice amounts i.e. 4x Paths or 3X, etc... unlike some combo decks
- liked that for mostly the same cards I could run giest-midrange
- thought it had the best answers in modern from the W & R color choice (stoney, crumble to dust (used to be sowing salts), supreme verdict, anger of the goods, celestial purge, just the first I could think)
- felt like it was a deck that played a interactive game of mtg (but this is true for grixis and esper too)
There are probably more. But this is what came to my mind first. I also fell in love with modern when I watched the PTs where McLaren and MTG Cup were Shenhar played UWR and loved the gameplay of the deck. Not sure if this was any help.