Magic Market Index for March 15th, 2019
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2019
  • posted a message on Changes that MTG should make to text cards
    Quote from Domri »
    Hi guys! It's know that the rules text in a magic card is an impediment that limit the complexity of a card, and even dont let a card to be printed unless it cutted. Over the years, Wizards made changes to reduce card's text (like create) , but thats doesnt be enough.
    Today, I bring you some changes that Magic should make. Lets start


    No uh... thanks. But I'll give you a listen and see what you have to say.


    1. New Keyword: Fury
    This would replace the ability "This creature must attack if able". Why?, because this ability was in Magic since its born, and is used very often in all sets. Keyworded the ability would safe space in texts.


    Potential keywords need to see a lot of use across a lot of cards in order to be... well, keywirded. I see less than a dozen? Maybe? Am I missing something here? Are there more?


    2. New rule term: Revive
    In the same way of die, this would replace phrases like "Put one creature card from your graveyard onto the battlefield" with "Revive your target creature card".


    A little better but I don't really care for this one either. This sort of concept has so many conditions or exceptions that it ends up there are very few cards that really work well with keywording. The cards that really need it have such a long wall of text that keywording it isn't going to change much.

    In essence, keywording won't help when there is so much additional text involving exceptions or special conditions.


    3. Name cards by its types, no by its names,
    Instead of putting rhe complete name of a card in its rules text, it's better to put its permanent type only. For example, "Tin Street Assassin can block an additional..." to "This creature can block an additional...". This change should let to put long names on cards and should reduce rules text from older cards with long names. Legendary cards and planedwalkers should not be affected, for flavor reasons only.


    I'm actually quite content when they name the specific card instead of using the "creature" template. Believe it or not, I find it easier to parse for negative conditions when playing cards. But I digress, changing the existing template to allow for longer names is not a good enough reason for this change IMHO. YU-GI-OH has many of the longest names found in a game and it's absolutely absurd. Seriously, Magic needs to stay far far away from absurd garbage like Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Evening Twilight.


    4. Owner's
    Eliminate the word "owner". Cards like Unsummon, for 3xample would only reads "Return target creature to the hand", instead of "its owner's hand". That the current rules text clarify that the permanent return to its owners hand sounds redundant and unnecesary.


    It's not redundant. There is actually a bit of history as to why this is. But in a nut shell, it boils down to who is casting Unsummon and whose hand said card returns to. Rules Lawyers love this sort of inane crap and I don't want to give them more ammo. So no.


    5. Cast X spell
    In Magic, the only thing you can cast is a spell, so write "artifact spells" or "instant spells" is unnecesary too. Saying "You can cast artifacts as though they have flash..." (without using the word "spell") is enough for me.


    This on also has history though I'm not as intimately familiar with it. Very old cards actually did read this way, such as Metamorphosis. However, over time, I believe there was a number of clarifications as to what, exactly, a spell means. So many cards now have this templating for this reason. For instance, the previous mentioned Metamorphosis received errata to read "cast creature spell" instead of "summon creature". At this point, I think there has to be a very compelling reason to go back and, more importantly, to make it worth errata a bunch of cards again. Something I really have no interest in if the reason you gave is the only one.


    6. Attacks or blocks
    They need to create a unique word that binds both the axtion of attack and block. Since "fight" is already use, I would use words like battle. "Target creature can't attack or block" to "Target creature can't battle", for example.


    There are 69 cards that have the phrase "attack or block" in its text. I do not believe that is enough cards to really justify such a keyword. Especially if said keyword is going to have reminder text anyways.


    7. Activated and triggered abilities
    The phrase "activated abilities can't be activated" sounds redundant. Its better to say only "Abiities can't be activated"


    For 24 cards? Why??
    Besides, "Activated Ability" has a very specific rules definition (602.1). Ability is a bit more general encompassing four different types of abilities. I suspect removing "activated" would add a layer of potential ambiguity that's just not worth dealing with.
    Posted in: The Cube Forum
  • posted a message on A million game study says shuffler is rigged
    Just anedoctal but...

    I decided to always mulligan at least once in every game, even if I had a good hand. I still had the default RW deck in my library (I forget the name) and my daily was to play a bunch of RW spells so....

    I won 5 out of 7 games. The only losses were against a red Goblin Legion Warboss/Needletooth Raptor deck where I was just overwhelmed with creatures and a Golgari deck that eventually Ultimated.

    Notably, except for my Golgari match and a weird Induced Amnesia deck, all of the games felt more normal drawing lands and spells in general. It didn't matter if I kept a difficult 3 mountain hand or a single Plains hand, I drew into my lands roughly when I expected to for that deck.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on A million game study says shuffler is rigged
    Pretty close.
    A Fisher-Yates shuffle can randomize a list in place.
    Say we have a deck (list) of 4 cards (slots) numbered 0 - 3.
    - starting at slot 0
    - select a random slot of 0,1,2 or 3 and swap them with slot 0.
    - move to slot 1
    - select a random slot of 1,2, or 3 and swap it with slot 1.
    - move to slot 2
    - select a random slot of 2 or 3 and swap it with slot 2.
    - ignore slot 3

    The method as you describe creates additional work since the algorithm has to do a lot of shifting around with the source list. The Fisher-Yates shuffle takes advantage (in part) of the fast pointer functions of many CPU's. It's also nice and efficient with low RAM requirements.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Using Wish Cards as Intended
    Quote from Weebo »
    Waiting for someone to sort through their entire collection to find the one perfect card seems like a great way to bring any game to a grinding halt. Double that if they don't know what they're tutoring for.


    This... I played against the original wish card. It was an absolute pain shortly after that was printed. That was at a time no one really had more than 200 worthwhile cards.

    Can you visualize an already slow game of EDH getting bogged down as the player searches through 1,000 or more cards they just happened to bring along?

    No thanks.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on A million game study says shuffler is rigged
    I have not read the entire Reddit post yet. It's not a revelation to me since I had long suspected these things just with my very small sampling size (my own games). The scale of the data set is a lot to digest.

    Quote from Algernone25 »

    --By all accounts this appears to be a common mistake in implementing the shuffler algorithm in which the deck is randomized, but not randomized enough. This is why taking a mulligan fixes it. This is an act of incompetence moreso than malfeasance.


    Interestingly, the Unity document is using the wrong algorithm. WotC was called out on some time ago for using this bad shuffle algorithm on MTGO back in 2014. If we look past the fact that WotC shouldn't be using this algorithm at all, even if it's just the sample hand feature in question, then I would like to believe that WotC knows better. And this understanding of shuffling algorithms carried over into Arena.

    If anything, I suspect the hand shaping is the root of the problem. Which would be why mulliganing "fixes" the problem. No hand shaping is occurring thusly no weighting cards to get those artificial hands.

    Of course, without looking at the source code, I could be fantastically and gloriously wrong here.

    Edit:

    Maybe I misunderstood your post. I just had a thought that there is the possibility that the Devs intentionally did not use Fisher-Yates in order to get the hand shaping they're looking for. In other words, they could be using an algorithm that has a known tendency to clump cards in order to reduce, what they consider, bad hands. Mulliganing doesn't do a poor shuffle on an already poorly shuffled deck but literally uses the correct algorithm. If for no other reason that they are not doing the hand shaping so there's no reason to use the garbage shuffled. This could explain the anecdotal evidence that Arena also tends to grab particular 4-ofs early on. The same algorithm that "pulls" lands towards the top also pulls the 4-ofs.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on MTGWAR - Possible Emblem Interaction?
    Quote from Melkor »
    I don't know how likely it is, Rosewater seems opposed, but it's clear that he doesn't have the kind of pull he likes to think. I would like to see it. it would be really handy and I think with the printing of Teferi it's probably time, that emblem is ridiculous.


    I kind of agree. I'm of the opinion that Rosewater needs to step aside on any pull whatsoever, assuming he has any pull at all. See his position on poison counters and the only direct counter for it. Magic is, in part, about having answers and figuring out if it's worth choosing those answers in your 75 cards.

    It can be argued that directing damage to a Planeswalker is a viable answer, which it is. So is straight up removal and the like. But my beef with PW's isn't getting rid of them, it's getting rid of or neutralizing emblems when they hit. I find it absolutely bizarre that WotC pushes less, "feel bad," moments then they subvert that with one of the more difficult scenarios for some new players to deal with.

    Printing a narrow direct answer to Emblems isn't going to kill Magic or mess the rules up too far. Everyone knows how willing WotC is to errata hundreds of direct damage spells for the sake of Planeswalkers when the original wording was correct the entire time.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on 4 Color Gates
    I was crushed tonight.

    Game 1 was against Green Stompy. My deck played perfectly on round 1 binding his Gigantosaurus and Ghalta. Round 2 I stumbled and got color screwed. Round 3, my deck pulled through despite my opponent sideboading Naturalize.

    After that game, the rest of my night was just trash....

    Game 2. A Rakdos deck that just outright pummeled me. I was mana screwed round 1 and color screwed round 2. Spectacle was just nuts.

    Game 3 was marginally better against a RW deck. Round 1, I couldn't draw any cards to permanently deal with Hero of Precinct One and Judith, the Scourge Diva. Gates Ablaze and Deafening Clarion took care of his creatures but he always had more in hand. I wasn't finding Ixalan's Binding or anything else to control his creatures long enough to put pressure. Round 2 fared better after finding and holding Binding to hold Judith at bay until my Rams went down. Round 3 I had the most bizarre hand where I found and cast all four Circuitous Routes but didn't find a single creature or damage spell to play. Ugh....

    Game 4 against another Rakdos. Round 1 was a struggle but ended up losing after he stole my Ram and I didn't have any other defenses. Round 2 was equally bad after he played two Duress and essentially dismantled my hand. For the rest of the game, I was essentially mana flooded. I think I pretty much tI ticked off my opponent when he tried to claim the Ram he stole keeps its +1/+1 from my Gates.

    I'd have to say there were roughly 1 out of 3 rounds where Circuitous Route was a dead card or a card I really wanted to push down into the deck. Is that enough to remove the card from the deck? I'm not sure. Route feels like it's an all or nothing card. I play four or I play none. Anyone else feel that way about the card?
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Mana Burn?
    Mono, Poly and Continuous Arifacts.
    Tapping turned off any continuous artifact.
    No 4 card limit (Landless Rukh Egg was actually a thing).
    Only Walls had Defender.
    Banding that only so-called Pro players detested.
    Circle of Protection printed in every core set.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on My friend is having a baby!!!
    Make a DFC with the revealed gender on the back? Be sure to use black sleeves.

    Like...I dunno.

    Crib 4 mana
    Artifact - Equipment
    ~ can only be attached to target Baby you control.
    Equipped creature does not untap during your untap step.
    1 mana : Untap equipped creature. Deal one damage to any target. You may transform ~.
    Equip 0 mana
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Alternate Art Fnm Promos Gone?
    Quote from Patch8700 »
    This is accompanied by a change in how stores are ranked with WPN. It used to be they needed a number of unique players, now it's changing to be based around repeat regular players.

    The promo packs are going to be different depending on the level of the store.

    When we spoke to wizards they said that there are only 18 stores in the world that might qualify for the highest tier status.


    Just 18? Wow. How big do you need to be, jeez.


    Wait... 18? Highest old tier or the new Premium membership? At less than 5%. Even if it's just 1% of the WPN stores in existence, that works out to a paltry 1,800 stores. There's no way that's right.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Alternate Art Fnm Promos Gone?
    Quote from Mishotem »
    Quote from SavannahLion »
    Since the packs are replacing the FNM promo, does that mean stores will receive a one-fourth of the packs for the same number of cards as the FNM promo or the same number of packs resulting in four times the number of cards? The article makes it pretty clear the stores can do what they want with these packs so I can see a new level of sleaze where the store breaks the packs open and hands the individual cards out.


    Why exactly would that be "sleaze"? I mean, it would suck in comparison to a store that just hands out the four-card packs, but if a store decides to extend their prize support, perhaps to run more events, what would be wrong about that? We still don't know exactly how this new system will work in terms of what a store gets compared to what they get now.


    I agree. It is early. It largely depends on what's in the packs, and an individuals preferences. I'm not even sure if they're randomized.

    What I have a problem here is is that I don't really see anything that discourages sleazy WPN members from siphoning off the prize packs. Basically, break the packs open, keep the good cards, hand out the jank.


    Is every store going to do that? No, of course not.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Alternate Art Fnm Promos Gone?
    Since the packs are replacing the FNM promo, does that mean stores will receive a one-fourth of the packs for the same number of cards as the FNM promo or the same number of packs resulting in four times the number of cards? The article makes it pretty clear the stores can do what they want with these packs so I can see a new level of sleaze where the store breaks the packs open and hands the individual cards out.

    And 1 in 4 is an all foil pack? Yeah, I can see them being searched. Sweat

    At least my LGS is honest but he's tiny. He hasn't even decided what kind of floor to install so we've been playing on bare concrete. He puts most of his money back into hosting games and merchandising.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Original Phyrexian
    Quote from void_nothing »
    Quote from Gutterstorm »
    Now I may be misunderstanding things because I'm not versed in the old ways but Yawgmawth, who was Thran, did not create Phyrexia. He found it. So how could Phyrexians be Dominarians before Yawgmawth?
    So when we say Phyrexians, we mean the compleat - biomechanical beings who serve Yawgmoth or, later, the Praetors of New Phyrexia. That's because there was no such thing as a "native Phyrexian" ever seen "onscreen" in the storyline; when Yawgmoth and Dyfed got there for the first time there were seemingly no living beings and certainly no civilizations. In other words, the first Phyrexians were in fact brought there from Dominaria.

    From what we know, an unknown (and allegedly evil, but this is just by implication and inference) humanoid planeswalker who assumed Dragon shape created Phyrexia as an artificial, metallic plane. This person was dead by the time Yawgmoth first laid eyes on Phyrexia, and it's unclear why they created the plane or what they used it for, but they were definitely not ruling over any vast populations.


    Couldn't that be what Maro is talking about? The race of people before Yawgmoth found Phyrexia. Basically, Yawgmoth popped in on a WotC version of Catalhöyük, decided to call it Phyrexia, and took it over because everyone who lived there either left or died, including the creator.

    To put it simply, how do we identify the (possible) race that existed before Phyrexia? The mysterious, evil, creator had some people hanging around them at least?
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on Animate Dead/Necromancy, targetting?
    Quote from void_nothing »
    It is absolutely possible to attach a permanent to something without targeting that object. See again the example of Aura Graft. This spell has only one target, the Aura.


    I understood and already knew this..


    Enchant specifies a target for an Aura spell, which is not relevant in this situation because Necromancy is - under normal circumstances - never an Aura spell, and Animate Dead can only target a creature card in a graveyard while it's a spell.


    Ahh... now I understand. I couldn't understand why you even brought up the subject of enchant targeting anything in the first place. I thought I was misunderstanding some interaction between attach and enchant here.

    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.