Magic Market Index for Nov 2nd, 2018
Magic Market Index for October 26th, 2018
Magic Market Index for October 12th, 2018
  • posted a message on well it finally happened someone is selling a card for 100K
    It might not sell at that price, but it does establish a data point for pricing. If something is pulling data on that card, the average and median prices will eventually skew upwards. This is slow movement to manipulate the market prices of that card.

    Exactly my point. You articulated it better than I did.

    This is one of the most annoying facets of the "investor" driven market.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on well it finally happened someone is selling a card for 100K
    Quote from Teia Rabishu »
    Just because it's listed for that amount doesn't mean it's necessarily going to sell that amount. I could ask a million dollars for a basic Plains but that doesn't mean it'll sell, either.

    Didn't the BGS 10 Lotus sell for $100K last year?

    Even if it doesn't, just the mere fact that it's listed at that price means we're going to start seeing "deals" where damaged Unlimited Lotuses will be listed for $90,0000 or some nonsense. Those won't sell either so those prices will eventually settle down to a more reasonable level which is probably going to be some percentage higher of what it would have been if said card was never listed at all.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Sylvan Awakening Deck

    I put this deck together about three or four weeks ago using almost entirely cards I already had in my collection. I purchased about 12 cards to complete the deck including Multani, Tatyova and Immortal Sun amongst others.

    This deck originally evolved from my old Saprolings deck to pump as many lands and creatures out to cast things like Impervious Greatwurm and Arboretum Elemental quickly. That first iteration is now gone (never made a deck list) but lost miserably to token hate like Goblin Chainwhirler and faster Angel/Knight decks amongst others. The deck isn't intended to go 5-0 but I don't really want it doing 0-5 either. I can't find the score cards but I think the best this deck ever did was 2-2 or 1-2-1 and those wins were due to variance, not the deck itself. Most nights are 0-4 or 1-3.

    One note... Detection Tower exists to combat Carnage Tyrant (I don't own this card due to expense), Shalai, Voice of Plenty (which is usually in the Angel/Knight deck) and Merfolks. The local meta tends to ebb and flow on hexproof. I can play an entire night without seeing any hexproof and next weekend it's nothing but.

    This deck has an absolutely tough time with Green Stompy, Angels & Knights and Merfolk decks without fail. Chainwhirler has all but disappeared from my meta (bet you it will show up tonight) and replaced with Crackling Drake. The current Drake decks I saw so far are really drag the game out but since I rarely win. I never play against it.

    The deck does OK against others but I strongly feel that wins are due to variance such as land screw.

    I tried modifying the list for more blue counterspells or adding for a splash of red or white but the deck seems to stumble a lot during play testing without all the land search cards. I'm sure a lot of people smarter than I am looked at Sylvan Awakening and saw zero wins so I guess I'm going to have to accept this one is a lame duck I suppose.

    Any ideas to improve the deck list?
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Hexproof & Detection Tower
    I see... it didn't occur to me that it's the targeting that defines it. I was still thinking of it like a keworded protection. That means that cards like Sleep are still fully functional.

    Thanks guys and/or gals.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Hexproof & Detection Tower
    Last week, an opponent played Carnage Tyrant. Expecting such a move, I dropped Detection Tower on my turn then played Capture Sphere. At the end of the turn the Tower wore off and my opponent claimed my Sphere falls off. I pointed out the obvious then referenced a forum topic about this exact thing. He said it was an old ruling. So has it changed since 2011? I learned at a time when "protection from" was still a thing so I get it mixed up a lot with hexproof. However, I'm confident (mostly) that hexproof doesn't cause auras to fall off like Protection does.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on MTG Storage Solution?
    I remember seeing this too. I only ever saw it on Pinterest though.

    You likely would need to have the dividers custom cut at a place like TAP Plastics or similar. I recall looking at the IKEA Alex drawers a while back but I was largely unsatisfied by the bottom drawers.

    It's hard to tell in this photo but the Alex drawers on the bottom are taller than the top most drawers. So the bottom drawers would have to have inserts made or you'll need to pop the boxes in the bottom.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How much manipulation is taking place in the match maker?
    Quote from Algernone25 »
    Wizards has said that they use an algorithm to pair people based on "deck strength" though that term has never been defined and likely never will. It's generally assumed that it's based on how many rares/mythics you have in your deck, so the F2P players with lesser put together decks should get paired with other F2P players with less put together decks - generally it'll keep your deck on par with your opponent's, though plenty of exceptions exist (The mono blue curious obsession deck comes to mind)

    If the amount of variation bugs you, then playing in the constructed events (as opposed to ladder) should smooth it out.

    Was there an attempt to analyze this like players did with the land ratio vs draw algorithm?
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Combat-tap-sacrifice
    Hey guys/gals. I wanted to extend my thanks for the responses. I would've responded sooner but I keep forgetting that the forum doesn't automatically notify you of new responses to threads you create.

    On a completely unrelated note, the individual left because they had a ***ty pull on their packs and didn't even know what was going on with my game.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Recurring Nightmare, Summoning Sickness
    That is correct but you're neglecting the limitation imposed by Recurring Nightmare restricting the ability to sorcery speed. As such, you can only sacrifice the creature during your main phase(s), not during your upkeep.

    There are exceptions of course such as if you have a creature with some sort of ability like haste that allows it to attack or use abilities on the turn you cast it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on GRN Guild Kits will have doubled-sided tokens and one side will be blank.
    There really isn't a compelling reason for WotC to print "blank tokens" when they can simply print the actual tokens said set/deck needs or fill it with advertising (a personal pet peeve of mine).

    Quote from Ninja Bob »
    I might be the only one excited for this, but I've been using blank tokens from old World Championship decks for years in my Ravnica Cube (where you use a sharpie on a clear sleeve).

    Do you mean the blank cards with the old mtG card frame with the WC backing? Those aren't tokens, they're proxies. About as close to an official proxy as we'll get in a set. WotC created those cards so people can pen in proxies of other existing or future cards and play them. Those sets were only printed 1997 to 2004 when sleeving was still in its infancy so players weren't really able to mix 'n' match card backings like we can now.

    Obviously, nothing stops you, or any other player, from using the proxy cards as tokens. Just like people use 3D models, Yu-GI-Oh, Pokémon or anything else for that matter. I'm just saying those cards weren't intended as such.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Reserved List Discussion
    Quote from drakeavril »
    Quote from Hermes_ »
    I hope they respond to you Smile

    Thank you, I put it in the mail today so here's hoping Grin

    So any response?
    Regarding counterfeiting, do people actually check the cards in sleeves at tournaments?
    If someone sleeved up some duals, I probably won't notice the difference if played across from me.

    It appears that people do. Andrew Jessup was issued a game loss at GP in August after he was deck checked and was caught with a handful of counterfeits. I don't remember what was counterfeited. Some of the Tarmogoyfs and some silly lands I think. I'm too lazy to look it up.

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Rat Colony decks legal for singeton?
    Quote from ST Aabra »
    Rat Colony is a stupid card. It encourages players to make magic boring which isn't fun. Playing with or against that deck just kills all the fun. All I fought against were rat colony decks in the singleton event and it was dumb. I run into them in standard though as well rather frequently and they are still a major problem for me. I'm open to suggestions on how to counter it. It's easy with red or black or a deck that generates a million tokens. When I'm playing my mono blue deck though it's just dumb. Once they're on the board there doesn't seem to be anything I can do except maybe return some to their owner's hand. Is there a blue card that I'm unaware of that will deal 1 damage to them all, make them -1 or something that can deal with more than 1 rat at a time? Right now all I can find are counter creature spell and disperse spells.... which are not very effective at all against this since they have unlimited copies of the card and returning rats to their hand just delays the inevitable.

    That is how the pillars of Magic work. Has been that way since the beginning of the game. Traditionally it is Control < Weenie < Combo < Control. Modern Magic is something like Control < Aggro < Midrange < Combo < Control. A pure U control deck is going to get pounced by a pure any color aggro deck more often.

    Unfortunately, I have no suggestions for a pure U player other than the obvious. Shift your strategy accordingly and play a Ux deck or even an entirely different color(s).
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on The Guild booster kit cards use the old coating...
    I noticed the same "faded" look in my GNR box as well that isn't present in even the pre-release kit. Some also seemed "out of focus" or smeary. It's the smeariness you get from low quality ink jets. It's so noticeable, just by itself, that I had this strong desire to reach for my loupe, despite pulling them from sealed packs from a sealed box straight from a very reputable LGS at pre-release.

    The roughness doesn't bother me. I played through Mirage and it was never an issue then. What bothers me is some of the cards have printing quality that is just garbage.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Combat-tap-sacrifice
    Quote from void_nothing »
    Costs can't be responded to, which kicker is. You had to sac as part of paying for the Offering and not as part of an effect, so trying to kill the creature in response is nonsense.

    Exactly, but what's the rule? Is it under 116.1d?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Combat-tap-sacrifice
    Last night I played, what I thought, was a perfectly reasonable play. I was down to 10 life.

    Opponent had two 5/5 creatures in play and I had two 1/1 creatures w/o sickness, no other creatures, Song of Freyalise (Stage 1) and all lands were tapped. Opponent declares attack and I block with both 1/1's. Then, after blockers were declared but before damage step, I tap both creatures for mana then cast Vicious Offering. I paid the kicker by sacrificing one of the creatures in order to kill a 5/5. My opponent attempted to cast Dual Shot after blockers were declared to prevent me from paying the sacrifice.

    This caused a bit of an uproar at the LGS, possibly prompting at least another player to leave, since my opponent claimed I couldn't sacrifice my 1/1 since it was already on its way to the graveyard. I pointed out that I had cast Offering before damage and thus it wasn't on its way to the graveyard yet. He countered that since Dual Shot was on top, it would resolve first, killing the creature. I replied this is true but since the kicker was a cost as per rule 702.32a it had to be paid in order to have the spell on the stack.

    Yeah, this ticked him off.


    Was that play correct? I obviously think so but I can't find the section on costs that related to another player preventing a cost from being paid, such as blowing up a land to prevent a player from tapping it for mana.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.