Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 28th, 2018
  • posted a message on Fetch a land to play an instant?
    Quote from Pedro Rocha »
    Is it possible to add new spell on the stack after just some of them resolved?


    Yes. It can happen when the right conditions are met, such as what was discussed above.

    It's not usually a "thing" in modern Magic anymore but it still does happen. Most spells or abilities are stacked in a sensible way and resolved to completion without further interaction. However such a thing was very common in old Magic, sometimes to the point of bending the rules.

    A modern example might include Slimefoot, the Stowaway and Epicure of Blood and say... ten dead Saprolings. Slimefoot life loss/gain effect goes on the stack ten times then begins to resolve. Each time I gain life, Epicure's effect goes on the stack once, resolves. Then the next Slimefoot resolves putting Epcure on the stack. So on and so forth....


    In this case, Misty’s ability resolved (and the land is now on the field) but, after this resolution and before the next spell resolves, may I add more spells to the stack?


    Yes. Whenever the topmost spell resolves, there is always a "round" of priority where each player receives priority to do what they can. Only when all players pass priority does the topmost spell or ability resolve. Then the entire process is repeated on the next spell (which is now the top most spell or ability) to resolve from the stack. Most of the time, players will simply short cut the entire process and just pass on everything on the stack (such as if the player is tapped out or have no cards in hand that can be cast at that time).


    I thought that after the two players pass in succession the stack should obligatory resolve everything from top to bottom in the exact order.


    No. All players must pass in succession for each item on the stack from last on placed on the stack to first placed on the stack (or top to bottom if you wish).
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Fetch a land to play an instant?

    I think this isn’t possible because the fetch ability will be put on the stack and won’t resolve before Dispel... só there won’t be an island available to cast Dispel. Am I right?


    No.

    Player casts random instant spell. That spell goes on the stack.
    You crack Misty. Missy's ability goes on the stack.
    Both players pass priority and Misty is allowed to resolve. You search for your island and put it into play.
    Now priority passes around again, but this time for the random instant. When you have priority, before the random instant resolves, you cast Dispel and that is now on the stack.
    Priority passes for both players and Dispel resolves countering the instant.
    With nothing more on the stack, game play continues.

    The point here is that the stack is a first in-last out arrangement and the stack resolves one-at-time in sequence.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Quick and easy large life gain and counters visual representation.
    The majority of players at my LGS I see with a "count" higher than what is normally represented on a single die will usually resort to dice positioned in their numeric position. For example, if you have six 6D, then you arrange them in two rows, three columns and ensure you don't go over 999. Representing 0 is tricky and most players will "shift" or stack dice to represent the zero. One player uses 10D for this express purpose. I'm not a huge fan of this method.

    One player has a mat with a scale. One side runs from 10 to 90 in increments of 10. The other side goes from 1-9. Very similar to this mat (different design obviously). He slides two metal "coins" up and down this scale. Whenever he surpasses 99, he'll add a die as a 100x multiplier. He doesn't do anything for counters AFAIK. I like this method personally but haven't found a design I liked.

    I personally just use a cheap a 3"x5" notebook from the dollar store to track life. I prefer this method over any dice since it's far too easy to bump the table and move dice. It also lets me look back on matchup to see how my deck played out on a particular game. Our store players has an unspoken rule where both players (or all in EDH) keeps track of everyone's life totals. So a small notebook really helps for that. For counters, I use several different colored glass "drops", I have blue, green, yellow and clear. During a game where I want to cut down on the number of counters on the table, I'll declare what each color denotes, such as blue is 1x and green is 10x, and write it down to avoid any issues. I used to use dice but I had a couple of my favorite 25 year old dice inadvertently stolen so I don't use dice that way anymore.

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on No more MSRP
    It appears that WOTC will no longer have an MSRP for Magic products as per this recent announcement titled No More MSRP

    I feel this is somewhat troublesome for the consumer (i.e. Everyone who actually plays the game) because we no longer have a metric to measure against to determine if what we're buying is a good deal or not. For example, my LGS sells standard boosters for about $100-$110-ish (tax muddles things a bit). A competing LGS charges $120-$130-ish. Without an MSRP, both stores are free to raise, and lower of course, prices. So the real question I have is, without any sort of metric, how can consumers ensure we get fair prices? Amazon? eBay?

    But I digress, before formulating an opinion, I wanted to learn more about what the MSRP really means, specifically the history of how it came about. So the first Google hit brought me to a Wikipedia article about it. It had some information, notably the controversy around it but not enough to satisfy my curiosity. Further searches turn up very little other than automobile MSRP.

    So there it is. Without an MSRP, my LGS may or may not adjust the prices of boxes and singles. By extension, this could influence singles but not in any way I predict without a reference price point.

    How would this affect LGSes? Would this push more players to buy online?

    What say you?


    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on B&R Announcement: Nexus of Fate banned from Standard, Arena only
    They are just too stupid to properly program their software.

    The easy way out is to flex the rules of the game to the software and simply ban cards for use in that software.

    Its a pathetic show of failed software skills.

    But what else to expect from WotC , thats how they operate now.

    Does this makes sense to anyone? What does this have to do with improperly programmed software? They apparently programmed the software very well, because they can address this issue with surgical precision allowing players to use the card in formats they want it to be used in and banning it where its undesired.

    Your suggestion to ban "for use in that software" rather than in individual Arena formats is akin to banning "for use in paper" rather than having separate banlists for Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Commander, Pauper etc. How is having a singular banlist a sign of better programming? The opposite is the case: Having a singular software-wide banlist would indicate that they didn't have the foresight to implement more differentiating options.


    He's not talking about the ban list in that context. We already know Arena can do "surgical" bans with that Dino card.

    What the poster is talking about is that Arena isn't capable of detecting a no-wincon never-ending loop involving Nexus. From what I understand, Arena can detect infinite loops where the controller would take the same voluntary action but, for whatever reason, isn't advancing the game state. Nexus is different because the loop crosses turn boundaries. If four Nexus... Nexii? remain in the deck, programmatically, they are tagged as four distinct cards and are shuffled accordingly each time. My guess is these elements are just enough to prevent the loop algorithm from seeing it as an infinite, non-incrementing, state in the game.

    So... rather than writing the necessary code to recognize this corner case and greatly increase the possibility of introducing a game breaking bug, WotC likely opted to take the easier (i.e. Less costly) route and ban the card from BO1.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on 4 Color Gates
    Quote from speedstar15 »
    I run 4 copies of Thud on sides against Control, so I can throw my 15/15 goats and colossus on their face when they go removal/control sides on me. Thus I earned the title "Goat Launcher".


    Yeah, I seriously considered it long with Rythm of the Wild to let me punch them in the face then throw the critter at their dome. I couldn't really find room for Rythm though.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Bought LP Beta, got a signed one.
    I've never really understood the idea by getting an artist to sign it as "damaged." It's not like it fully kills the card to the point of structural integrity.


    This is because some stores don't actually have a category that allows for "signed" or even "altered". So the only choice is to simply list it as "damaged" even if the condition is LP or NM otherwise.

    There is a really good article I can't find (Star City Games maybe?) that talks about how signature/artist alters can flip-flop between damaged to NM depending on who is looking at the card.

    Anyways, thanks for the input from all of you.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Bought LP Beta, got a signed one.
    So I went through a large online store and, on a whim, threw a LP BETA card into my basket. Got the card yesterday but didn't look too closely at it until today after "processing" the rest of the order.

    At first blush, I thought the mark, where the expansion symbol would go, was on the sleeve. I do this sometimes with with the inner sleeve, usually to note hard to see damage on higher priced cards or to denote ownership of a borrowed card. I NEVER write directly on any MTG card, even the checklist cards.

    This card was in a penny sleeve, placed into a top loader, then packed into a team bag, by itself. So I really didn't think anything of it. It was only after pull the packaging apart that I realize the card was marked. Woof, it smells like it came from a smokers home 25 years ago too.

    WTF! So I start writing an angry email to the company before I thought to take a closer look at the mark. A couple of squiggly lines with a number next to it. Very small, not much bigger than a pencil eraser head. Hhmmm....

    It wasn't long before I realized that it's Jesper Myrfors initials. Comparing Google images of his signature seems to confirm this.

    I paid less than $20 USD for the card so I'm not out a ton of money. I also like artist or Garfield signed cards*, my signed Fallen Angel is one of my prized cards. But purely on a principle of the matter, the card, by definition, is not anything other than Damaged.

    I double checked my basket and my order. I most certainly did NOT order a signed copy.

    So I'm torn between saying nothing and sending a nicely worded email back to the store telling them of the error.

    What do you ya'll think?








    * but no one else, not even MARO. He can roast for all I care.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on What happens
    Generally, yes. You're describing the stack.

    However, payment does not use the stack, just the ability from Banewhip. By the time your opponent has a chance to use Icy and Assassin, your Banewhip is already dead and gone. There is nothing your opponent can do.

    Even if your opponent decides to use that combo to kill Banewhip first, you can still activate his ability and he dies anyways due to the sacrifice.

    Edit:

    I realized that I understand your confusion. Twenty years ago, the rules regarding sacrificing a creature were a lot different. Notably during combat and the damage step and using a card like Ashnod's Altar. Those rules were changed somewhere along the line. You can't stop a sacrifice anymore (were you ever able to? I don't remember) if it's a payment.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on 4 Color Gates
    Quote from LeoninKha »
    Luck is always a factor, but so is deck composition. If your plan is to ramp into huge X spells you will of course be weaker to aggro decks and rely heavily on the Angel (a 6cc spell). Thats why I've personally chosen to stay away from the big spells and hence I've been getting good results against aggro. I run a lot of incidental lifegain which helps me stay alive against them.
    Mix that with sweepers and its not so hard to get into the late game where we rock with huge Rams, free colossuss' and/or Multani or the recursive Chamber Sentry which combined make for a control deck's nightmare.


    Chamber Sentry seems more useful after a second look. I lost last FNM because everyone was running anti-Nexus decks (note: no one was running Nexus that night) and employing a ****-ton of exile cards. Kept getting all my key cards exiled on game 1. Game 2, I would swap out my own exiles for my Banefires, but game 2 would go to time pushing me down in the ranks.

    Nexus is a cancer on the format even when it doesn't make an appearance. Swear
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Combatting Ramp
    It's really weird to look at old Magic and how ramp was handled then to new Magic and how land destruction is handled.

    Employ using ramp yourself. Pretty simple.

    As an aside, "ramp" doesn't necessarily describe the amount of land. It describes the amount of available mana at your disposal.

    I know a lot of players frown on cards like Sol Ring or Mishra's Workshop but they exist for a reason. Especially since black, and later red, had Rituals for so long and Green now generally gets most of the ramp goodies. Also a critical reason why the oldest MLD belonged to White. But I digress, if Sol Ring isn't your gig then employ any number of the available mana rocks at your disposal. If that's not your flavor, then mana "borrowing" like Carpet of Flowers, theft like Annex, Denial like Choke, slowing them down with Kismet, use a multiplier like Dawn's Reflection, don't even worry about land destruction with Equinox, give yourself a bit of a boost with Circuitous Route, be a jerk with Kudzu (that card is crazy good fun).

    All sorts of ways to deal with ramp or just jump on the bandwagon and get your own.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Late February "Innovative Product"
    Quote from JovianHomarid »
    Quote from SavannahLion »
    Quote from JovianHomarid »
    what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.

    Would keep the format fresh,
    and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.


    Good gravy, as a set collector, that would be an astronomical nightmare. Brings back memories of the absolute horror that was Legends or the stupid stunt they pulled with Unstable. Yeah, I didn't appreciate either happening.

    Alot of players don't buy boxes/packs throughout a season but rather at the beginning, on day one. A lot of early sets and bulk sales are created by an individual cracking hundreds of boxes at a time. It would be a HUGE disservice to these players to withhold almost 10% of a set back to encourage them to...what? Buy more boxes??

    If a set is honestly good, WotC doesn't need to do these kind of shenanigans.


    Interesting to see different opinions. Kinda shows the challenge Wotc has, trying to keep everyone happy when everyone wants different things. My suggestion was from the drafter-perspective, and seemed like a small thing, but there you go.

    I still don't think it would be that big of an issue, as long as they kept this to a few commons/uncommons only. In that case it shouldn't be difficult for collectors to pick up the few new cards as they trickle in.

    And to answer your question on what it would encourage players to do: It would encourage them to draft more, and to keep drafting after the format gets stale.

    But it could still be that it is a bad idea overall. The upside is more drafts (= more sales) and better drafts for the draft afficianados. The downside is frustration (whether it turns out to be justified or not it will still be there, and it will still be a cost) from collectors, as well as confusion from less enfranchised players. 'What the heck is this "War of the spark vol II" - nonsense, is it a completely new set? Neat I'll get some boosters. ANGER! I only got cards I already owned!'


    I would much much rather WotC creates a "tiny" set of 100 or something cards and create a draft format of 2+1 or 3+2 packs than mess with the particulars of a set and the card selection on the reprints.

    Should be worth pointing out that the swapped commons and uncommons would NOT have the same rarities as the rest c/u's of the set due the overwhelming print run differences.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Shackles in the current style of storytelling? Or the very setting?
    I'm not going to quote...

    In terms of #1....

    I left Magic shortly after Tempest was released. Then I returned during Shadows over Innistrad. To me the introduction, and reliance, on Planeswalkers like Bolas and Jace was a shock. Now, we're into Ravnica part three and quite frankly, the entire Planeswalkers story arch already bores the bejesus out of me. Just kill them already, keep them dead, and move on.

    Here's the thing everyone seems to forget. We're the Planeswalkers. Think about what this means when a bunch of characters, who also happen to Planeswalkers, get watered down and printed onto a card. The story of Urza and Mishra happened in such a way that they were near myths. You never saw either one directly on a card. Just their artifacts or their spells or whatever. Those characters aren't printed until later. So it was up to the player, the Planeswalker, to piece the story together.

    So we got to visit Urza's Tower or Mishra's Workshop and leverage their toys in our own battles.

    Instead, we get spoon fed a story arch played by the same characters over and over and all we get to do is to watch. It's no longer my battle, it's Jace's.

    In my view, Amonkhet block really pushed this story based narrative to an extreme. Not even Homelands was that bad. At least we could ignore Sengir and his family.

    Don't get me wrong. The Egyptian theme was fine. I just could've done without the whole Bolas thing.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • posted a message on 4 Color Gates
    Quote from Teysa_Karlov »
    Quote from SavannahLion »
    Quote from somemtgplayer »
    I'm on this build for casual games. (I don't play FNM or qualifiers etc). It runs alright unless against heavy RDW etc.



    More often than not I have found the Circuits to be absolutely useless, have never needed ONCE to cast those.



    Blood Sun? Comes into play a full turn earlier and, thanks to the new rulings, turns off ETBT. Effectively turns the Gates into Standard ABUR duals.


    Also turns off Plaza of Harmony, which can hurt.


    ****! You're right. I didn't see that on his list.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Late February "Innovative Product"
    Quote from JovianHomarid »
    what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.

    Would keep the format fresh,
    and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.


    Good gravy, as a set collector, that would be an astronomical nightmare. Brings back memories of the absolute horror that was Legends or the stupid stunt they pulled with Unstable. Yeah, I didn't appreciate either happening.

    Alot of players don't buy boxes/packs throughout a season but rather at the beginning, on day one. A lot of early sets and bulk sales are created by an individual cracking hundreds of boxes at a time. It would be a HUGE disservice to these players to withhold almost 10% of a set back to encourage them to...what? Buy more boxes??

    If a set is honestly good, WotC doesn't need to do these kind of shenanigans.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.