Ultimate Masters: MMI Review
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 7th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Nov 30th, 2018
  • posted a message on A question about attacking
    For your situation you described, your opponent would be best to block your 8/8 with the 1/1, and use the 3/3s to block and kill your 2/2s. They lose no life, but you lost two creatures to their one. Not a good trade in my opinion unless you have a combat trick to boost the power of your 2/2s.

    To further the scenario you described let's say you still had an 8/8, 2/2, and 2/2. Your opponent has a 4/4, 3/3, and 1/1. You attack with everything. Your opponent can use all their creatures to block and kill your 8/8 and let the rest through for 4 damage.

    Some creatures like Bristling Boar say they can not be blocked by more than one creature. Other cards like Boggart Brute state they need to be blocked by two or more creatures, which is the menace ability. If you attacked with Bristling Boar(4/3) and Boggart Brute(3/2) and your opponent only had a 3/3 and a 1/1, they can use both to block Boggart Brute. The attacking player would then assign damage to each creature that was used to block, like 3 to their 3/3 and none to the 1/1 (or 2 to the 3/3 and 1 to the 1/1 killing only the 1/1). The end result of combat would be 4 damage from the Bristling Boar to the defending player and your Boggart Brute would die along with their 3/3.

    The other option would be to block the Bristling Boar with either the 3/3 or 1/1. If the 3/3 was used to block, both creatures would die in combat resulting in the Boggart Brute damaging your opponent for 3.

    In either case your opponent will need to decide if it's better to take the additional 1 damage to get rid of the harder to block Boggart Brute while still losing their 3/3 in either scenario.

    I hope this helps describe some of the thought behind the Combat step and certain evasion abilities.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Magic Pro League (9 pm announcement got spoiled early)
    Cool. Now when will the Arena Mac client be released? No mention of MTGO which doesn't bode well for its future IMO. This is a very significant change for WotC to throw millions behind Arena for real tournaments.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Fecundity
    I like this art better than the original.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Upcoming Norse-Inspired Set
    Quote from EddieEmmer »
    True or not true...

    Snow lands, yay!!!!

    (Snow duals maybe?...)


    I'll wish for full art snow lands, which would be fantastic and a huge selling point for a standard set. I think Snow Duals are technically not allowed due to the language of the RL but I may be wrong on this. Either way, it just seems too close for WotC to risk a lawsuit. We can dream though.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Upcoming Norse-Inspired Set

    I hope that snow will return, but i guess it won't


    It would fit a potential Norse theme. I hope there are Giants and cool equipment or artifacts. Do you think some Norse gods/legends could be constructed into Planeswalkers, like Odin and maybe an antagonist Ymir? I personally like Norse mythology and the landscapes of their region.

    It would also support creature types that are used in MtG. Dwarves in Norse are sometimes referred to as dark Elves, so could span RBG depending on the angle they want to take. Vanir are like wizards (U). Elves (G). Giants live in mountains and dense forests (RG). Humans would likely stay white. Valkyries would take on the angel model and mainly white. There is enough substance to create a world.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Ultimate Masters & Box Topper Promos + PSA regarding sealed Box Topper Boosters
    Quote from thatmarkguy »
    Quote from BB84Prez »
    At the time of this post, there are 34 Rares and 78 Uncommons to be spoiled.


    Do we know for a fact how many rares are in this set?

    The typical Masters set has had 15 mythics 53 rares, the typical distribution for a 121-card sheet with each rare appearing twice, and near the usual 1:7 mythic-to-rare ratio.

    This set is known to have 20 mythics.

    Does this mean there'll be ... 71 rares (so they can print two copies of each rare for each single copy of a mythic and keep the same ratio)? Does this mean they're screwing/redefining the ratio and having 20M+50R+blank on a 121 sheet? Or are they just printing 5 of the mythics separately and jamming them into collation somehow (which still feels to me like it'lll break ratio)? Do we know?

    There's two ratios they like to preserve:
    Each individual mythic is exactly half as many in circulation as each individual rare
    Each pack has about a 1 in 8 shot at containing a mythic

    The only way they can preserve both of these is to couple the 20-mythic roster with a ~71-rare roster.


    I pulled the numbers from the spreadsheet that is linked in the OP. I have not seen an official breakdown of the rarities and I did mean to say approximately, sorry. However, you brought up a good point with the 20 Mythics and not the usual 15. I crunched some numbers based on a 11x11 sheet and I don't see how they could print ~71 rares to maintain the 1:7 ratio even if the rares were on their own sheet. One scenario could be they print mythics on their own sheet but 6 times to make 120 cards, then have a 60 rare roster printing twice on a sheet with more sheets printed. That would effect the un/commons as well since their numbers will be lower and we know the set size already. That prospect of more rares than normal doesn't seem to add up especially since the MSRP is so much higher than before. On pure baseless speculation on my part, maybe more mythics are in a box of UMA and that justifies their price gouge...I mean increase? Could it be 1 in 5 (4-5 mythic box average not including the topper or foil) versus 3-4 mythic boxes? If I was getting 1 more mythic plus an altered art topper, that may justify the increase in price right there ~$50. Just something to think about until next week.

    Many people have said it before, that it does not cost them extra to print a mythic than it is a common...it's cardboard and ink. However, by them adding just one extra mythic per box they can net more money because they are adding more value. That would be a nice send off to the Masters sets.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Ultimate Masters & Box Topper Promos + PSA regarding sealed Box Topper Boosters
    The fact that they aren't starting the next round of spoilers until the 19th, then are done in 3 days total sends up a HUGE red flag to me. This set is going to have the same amount of chaff as Iconic and Masters25. There are going to be a lot more "feel bad" openings. There are going to be packs with 50 cent rares and 25 cent foils. A dollar worth of cards for 12 to 15 bucks. The only way to mitigate this is to buy in volume. Buy many and the randomness smooths out. They won't but people need to wait until the spoilers are up. Don't ride the hype train people. Wait and see what is spoiled. At these prices EVERY pack should have a borderless regular(non-foil) rare in it. They could have done it and it would have made the pack price more tolerable. There are going to be a TON of feel-bad openings for those that buy a pack or two on impulse or the 3 pack blister packs. But as long as buyers keep buying it will continue down this path. Frown


    At the time of this post, there are 34 Rares and 78 Uncommons to be spoiled. All the Mythics are known already; I think it's reasonable for 1 week for WotC (3 days of articles, assuming nothing drops on US Thanksgiving or US Black Friday) and all the other content creators to spoil the better parts of the set. I think starting around this time is when Youtube ad dollars are better for content creators so this set is a nice gift for them, whom quite honestly help WotC so much even to promote weak sets. I'm impressed that there has not been a major leak, so kudos to WotC legal and the printers for that.

    Ultimately, I'm nervous about how they are going to introduce expensive/disruptive rare and mythic reprints for Modern without going through Standard with this version of Master sets coming to an end. I think we can assume whatever does happen, it will still cost a lot of money.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Ultimate Masters & Box Topper Promos + PSA regarding sealed Box Topper Boosters
    I would be so happy if Oubliette was reprinted in this set for Pauper reasons, to be a little less expensive than it is now. I don't think it would be bad in a Limited environment even at common, but due to "scarcity" I can see them upshifting it just because.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Ultimate Masters & Box Topper Promos + PSA regarding sealed Box Topper Boosters
    If they printed the entire set in the borderless, or near borderless like the box toppers, then I can rationalize the increase in price since that's an extra printing cost to them. I just don't see the point to this set to happen now, since EMA and A25 were released this year as well unless it was intended all along (which it sounds like it). I just crossed checked the spoiled toppers with the other two sets' rares and mythics, and only Karakas was printed previously this year so far. So maybe, they came up with list of all the reprints they wanted to do for the year and they saved the "best" (chase cards) to get the special treatment and jack the price up to compensate for the value they are releasing.

    I'm curious to see what commons and uncommons are printed. If there was any chance of high costed commons like Oubliette, Rhystic Study, or Lotus Petal to get printed and likely shifted up to uncommon at minimum is in this set.

    On a side note, I like that they are experimenting more with the double-cut printing technology. I really like the borderless style and hope it becomes more of a standard printing for them.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Non-legendary planeswalkers?
    Planeswalkers are supposed to be "rare" and very special.

    Making them uncommon or even common would completely debunk all of that flavor, they just CANNOT do that to keep planeswalkers as a type credible.

    The vast majority of "bad" planeswalkers could and should simply be enchantments that do the effect you would use the planeswalker for.


    I do agree with most of what you say and you can argue that before PW cards existed, some Legendary creatures were highly sought after and others not so much. Now that WotC has precedent in down shifting Legendaries (in ONE set) to uncommon I do not think it's far fetched to see ONE set with uncommon PW cards. If I were to design an uncommon PW, I would have it as a loyalty of 2 or 3 max, with one or two abilities as only minus abilities. They would be purposefully designed to not stay on the board the whole game. You cast them, use their ability to help your cause, and then they go. I think it would still be credible, just not highly powered.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Non-legendary planeswalkers?
    I think they would still be Legendary, but downshift to Uncommon level (like in Dominaria) with adjusted abilities to suit the theme of the set. I think it's possible since Dominaria went over well with the Legendary matters theme.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Surveil and Madness
    Can Surveil trigger Madness if a madness card was selected to go to a graveyard? Or does Madness only work if it's in hand?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Surveil to replace Scry?
    I was doing some card searching and stumbled on the surveil mechanic in earlier sets. Taigam's Scheming and Contingency Plan. Surveil 5 for 1U doesn't seem so bad even though it's sorcery speed. I wouldn't be surprised if a reprint of one of these comes out in this set.
    Posted in: Speculation
  • posted a message on Thoughtbound Phantasm
    Can someone please clarify a couple things with Thoughtbound Phantasm.

    1. If I cast Mission Briefing, with Surveil 2, does that give Thoughtbound Phantasm two +1/+1 counters or just one?

    2. If I cast any pump spell like Giant Growth targeting the Phantasm, are those counted as counters and thus making it able to attack for that turn only?
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Mothership Spoilers 9-13
    I have a feeling this is going to find a nice home in Standard and possibly some Modern play as a Snappy-lite. I do like the Isochron Scepter and Mission Briefing combination to dig and fill graveyard in some Modern brew.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.