|
mcmagic posted:A cycle of rare lands that are all going to be above 30 bucks will CRATER the prices for everything else in the set. That is going to really rely on how many good cards are in the set. Per the spreadsheet, it looks like caverns is going to be in the set. With the cards spoiled so far it looks like anything goes. Here is the spoiled cards from TWoo. I am going to laugh if its correct. It would also mean we are totally wrong about what WOTC will put into masters sets. Griselbrand Lili of the veil Cavern of Souls Grafdiggers cage Omniscience Engineered explosives Chalice if the void Blood Moon Voice of resurgence Craterhoof behemoth Karn, Liberated Batterskull Spells kite Surgical Extraction Inkmoth Nexus* Mox opal Scapeshift Valakut, the more pinnacle Crucible of worlds Grove of the burn willows Horizon canopy Damnation Ancestral vision Infernal tutor Group's vengeance Through the breach Auriok champion Oblivion stone Ensnaring bridge If mm2017 is really this stacked and more, the price of everything will drop for a while. Sickening fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Feb 27, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Cactrot posted:Don't we usually see an initial drop, followed by a later spike and then a stabilization higher than the initial price? Exactly. You can already pick up Tarns for €30 LP on MKM, these are dropping to ~$30 max. They'll then fairly rapidly make it back up to $50-60
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A cycle of rare lands that are all going to be above 30 bucks will CRATER the prices for everything else in the set. Not really. It's simple supply and demand - the idea that some set of expensive cards can crater the value of everything else in the set only works when supply is effectively unlimited. In a regular set the value of a box is completely fixed due to the fact that demand never outstrips supply. If they just reprinted MM2013 straight-up it would still be worth a lot. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:Don't we usually see an initial drop, followed by a later spike and then a stabilization higher than the initial price? SaffronOlive just wrote an article saying that's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A cycle of rare lands that are all going to be above 30 bucks will CRATER the prices for everything else in the set. I think it will hinge more on how much of the set is opened. We saw this with KTK because not only were those packs regular price, but people really enjoyed KTK's limited environment so a whole lot of KTK got opened. To say nothing of the fact that it was the first time those fetches were Modern-legal. At $10 a pop I highly doubt more MM17 will be opened than KTK, but putting fetches in like this will definitely drive pack sales. I've been wanting to pick up Catacombs for a while. evilweasel posted:I assumed mcmagic was talking about the rationale for not reprinting the fetches in a new standard set. Oh yeah, that makes sense. But putting fetches in a Standard set can definitely drive sales of said set, and it's not like Wizards profits directly from the contents of packs once they're opened. C-Euro fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A cycle of rare lands that are all going to be above 30 bucks will CRATER the prices for everything else in the set. Ehhhh, that's a lot less true at the inflated MSRP right? I mean you're right, but maybe "crater" is a little hyperbolic
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
I assumed mcmagic was talking about the rationale for not reprinting the fetches in a new standard set.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:SaffronOlive just wrote an article saying that's wrong. his article says MM causes cards in it to go on sale, meaning they see a price drop that doesn't last.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
I'm not as cynical as the rest of you that reprinting Scalding Tarn at rare will make it $100, but I don't know what to base that on because #mtgfinance doesn't always follow what I think real life should be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
So far I'm not unimpressed. Going for the boxes, one to sit on, two to draft for fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A cycle of rare lands that are all going to be above 30 bucks will CRATER the prices for everything else in the set. That only happens in sets where a whole bunch of it is printed and sold at MSRP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:I'm not as cynical as the rest of you that reprinting Scalding Tarn at rare will make it $100, but I don't know what to base that on because #mtgfinance doesn't always follow what I think real life should be. Efficient market hypothesis believers hate them! Learn this one weird trick mtgfinance experts use to befuddle all economic models!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Walked posted:So far I'm not unimpressed. Going for the boxes, one to sit on, two to draft for fun. I mean, let's not count out the combo of Corpsejack Menace and Armada Wurm yet. They're both eligible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
How many rares are usually in these sets; i'm trying to justify buying a box, but not if only one out of my packs is going to have a fetch. I don't own any enemy fetches, and that is my biggest barrier to completing some modern decks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I assumed mcmagic was talking about the rationale for not reprinting the fetches in a new standard set. I was. But i think that leans more toward gameplay concerns. (It also makes standard way more expensive)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:I'm not as cynical as the rest of you that reprinting Scalding Tarn at rare will make it $100, but I don't know what to base that on because #mtgfinance doesn't always follow what I think real life should be. I can't imagine anyone really buys into legit troll economics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
DangerDongs posted:How many rares are usually in these sets; i'm trying to justify buying a box, but not if only one out of my packs is going to have a fetch. 53r/15m
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Sickening posted:That is going to really rely on how many good cards are in the set. Per the spreadsheet, it looks like caverns is going to be in the set. With the cards spoiled so far it looks like anything goes. If the set was legitimately this stacked, the price of everything wouldn't drop so much as the price of boxes would go up. But its not going to be that stacked because if it was, vendors would have figured it out and sold them for more money to begin with. MM2015 boxes started higher than 2017 boxes have started at. Angry Grimace fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
i realize stoic angel was on the packaging and stuff but i still like the spoiler method of "here's a terrible reprint but then look at this good reprint!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
DangerDongs posted:How many rares are usually in these sets; i'm trying to justify buying a box, but not if only one out of my packs is going to have a fetch. You can generally expect >50% of the rares to be garbage, but the top 20% or so of the rares/mythics will end up being more than the price of a back. You basically have to hope that you open a money mythic or two to offset all the chaff. If you look up MM15 on tcgplayer, rares and mythics only, and sort by price from low to high, you get to page 4 out of 7 before you get above the $1 mark. I think the only non-mythic in the set that's above $20 is Noble Hierarch. Having the whole fetch cycle taking up 5 rare slots probably means the EV will be better this time around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
value of this set sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:value of this set sucks So far only 1 garbage rare...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
WOTC: please play standard *prints in-demand modern format cards* *reprints them like eternal masters* ??? why isn't anyone attending standard showdowns?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
ZEN Goblin Guide has a market price of $20 according to TCG. Is that really lovely and I'm just unaware?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
TheMaestroso posted:ZEN Goblin Guide has a market price of $20 according to TCG. Is that really lovely and I'm just unaware? It was over 35 very recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
No one's gonna be selling boxes for under $250 if that rumored reprint list ends up being true lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:No one's gonna be selling boxes for under $250 if that rumored reprint list ends up being true lol I really hope that it's true because it will at least temporally drive down the prices for everything and I can pick up the few things I need for cheap lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:value of this set sucks That art blows but hell yeah I can get my Guides back. Probably not at $7 a pop like a few years ago but back nevertheless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:No one's gonna be selling boxes for under $250 if that rumored reprint list ends up being true lol Number crunch rules out Grove and Canopy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Surprised they didn't re-art the fetches to match the standardized ones
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Is there anybody in here who is super loving into Pauper and wants to PM me to talk shop a little? I wanna sleeve up a bunch of decks that are more-or-less balanced against each other to keep around for pickup games, which I think a couple of people have also posted about a couple times in the past few months. I think tier-1 pauper netdecks would be the best baseline because it's somewhat well documented, and then I can support less viable archetypes with the inclusion of some modest rares and uncommons. So I guess I'm fishing for notions about which Tier-3 decks would stack up if only a few certain cards were added to the format, or a madman who wants to brainstorm other gimmicks to showcase (an entire deck illustrated by Rebecca Guay??)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:value of this set sucks Has this artist been working for them for a while? I like this, and I don't recall having seen anything else in quite this style recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:value of this set sucks 96/249 in red? There are gonna be a poo poo-ton of lands, artifacts, and multicoloured cards in this set. It looks great so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Has this artist been working for them for a while? I like this, and I don't recall having seen anything else in quite this style recently. http://magiccards.info/query?q=a%3A%22filip+burburan%22&v=card&s=cname He's done 26 cards, all recent. I think the earliest he did anything was M15.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Has this artist been working for them for a while? I like this, and I don't recall having seen anything else in quite this style recently. E:F;b
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
That art is not bad, but nothing about it says 2/2 super aggro haste guy to me, it conveys no motion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Surprised they didn't re-art the fetches to match the standardized ones
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Bonus posted:That art is not bad, but nothing about it says 2/2 super aggro haste guy to me, it conveys no motion. Neither did the original Guide TBH
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Bonus posted:That art is not bad, but nothing about it says 2/2 super aggro haste guy to me, it conveys no motion.  And this does?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
True, I guess I'm just used to the old art more. The old art has better composition though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 19:05
|
|