|
Sickening posted:People are really REALLY upset about the small bit of false advertising. I almost get where you're coming from, but we're talking about a billion dollar company selling randomized cardboard crack to addicts for a loving hundo and repeatedly misrepresenting the odds. That is absolutely egregious.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:LMAO I just checked the difference between Boxtopper Crypts and Foil Boxtopper Crypts Given The Pringles Problem I think we're at a point where people are shying away from putting foils in the decks they actually play. In a vacuum if someone offered me a foil vs non-foil chase mythic card I think I'd take the non-foil every time as I don't have to worry about it warping and losing all value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:This is what you mean? https://twitter.com/wangthatgotaway/status/1291173791029243904?s=20 The back of the box literally says "2 foil rares or mythics" This is monumentally hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
crazy that company selling cardboard at 20000% markup turned out to be slightly dishonest
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
That is.... really bad Paging thread-lawyer evilweasel, is that actionable false advertising? Or is it just blatantly misleading
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:That is.... really bad as i read it the package is misleading but not false, because (0-1) mythics and (1-2) rares is "two rares or mythics". my understanding, however, is that a misleading but not technically false claim can support a false advertising claim. having never litigated a false advertising case before i dunno if the outright false statements made by wotc employees re: ability to pull two mythics are enough to support false advertising claim (you might have intent and/or innocent error issues), or the packaging is misleading enough to qualify as false advertising. it probably also matters if the "mythic" slot has a double chance of being a mythic (1 in 4 as opposed to 1 in 8) so that there is no EV loss when it comes to proving damages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:as i read it the package is misleading but not false, because (0-1) mythics and (1-2) rares is "two rares or mythics". my understanding, however, is that a misleading but not technically false claim can support a false advertising claim. I think the issues is made worse by the fact that they had some video interviews that were trying to confirm two mythics were possible previously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
Sickening posted:I think the issues is made worse by the fact that they had some video interviews that were trying to confirm two mythics were possible previously. the question would be (and again, i've never litigated one of these claims so I don't know what the standards are) if a video interview reaches enough people to support a false advertising claim, and if an off-the-cuff statement in an interview is held to a higher standard of intent to deceive (e.g. you get a lot more leeway for an honest mistake) than packaging that presumably went though multiple levels of review and should have been reviewed for accuracy
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:10
|
|
|
There isn't any ev loss because the secondary market doesn't exist. All cards have the same value monetarily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
lmfao Double Masters rocks, what a top-to-bottom funny set.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:There isn't any ev loss because the secondary market doesn't exist. All cards have the same value monetarily. Yeah, they cannot mention EV because that would make them legally recognize the secondary market which is a huge loving can of worms right now that they do not want to go down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Paul Zuvella posted:Yeah, they cannot mention EV because that would make them legally recognize the secondary market which is a huge loving can of worms right now that they do not want to go down. you don't need to do EV in the sense of $$$ value, you can do it in "a VIP pack has, on average, a quarter of a mythic card and a quarter of a boxtopper mythic" in addition, the person bringing the claim must allege a mythic is worth "more" in some sense and is thus deceived and worse off, so you can make the argument without conceding the point ("even if plaintiff is correct that a mythic card is worth more than a rare, which for the avoidance of doubt Hasbro does not concede, plaintiff still has failed to state a claim/has failed to prove their case because...")
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
This is amazing, they need to make way more products that are Not For Me
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
Most of the posts I've seen from MTG finance folks have said that they don't mind the VIP boxes never having double mythics because it reduces variance while not hurting the value. The more hardcore gamblers and streaming pack openers I've seen are upset that the boom and bust highs and lows aren't as extreme which makes for less excitement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
A Moose posted:This is amazing, they need to make way more products that are Not For Me I’ve got good news for you! There’s a draftable commander booster set coming later this year!!! It might be a fun format if the 20 card packs are not super marked up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the question would be (and again, i've never litigated one of these claims so I don't know what the standards are) if a video interview reaches enough people to support a false advertising claim, and if an off-the-cuff statement in an interview is held to a higher standard of intent to deceive (e.g. you get a lot more leeway for an honest mistake) than packaging that presumably went though multiple levels of review and should have been reviewed for accuracy oooh i've actually litigated some of these! under the california consumer protection statutes (which are really expansive and what most of these class actions are brought under) the standard is 1) misrepresentation 2) reliance 3) damage. even if you argue that WOTC's claims are false and misleading, reliance and damage would be difficult. especially damage, because it's so freaking variable-- you'd have to explain to an old-rear end federal court judge what EV is, what a mythic rare is, what the secondary market is, and now you're so many steps away from saying "this is worth more than this, our client was harmed by getting this instead of this." especially since the defense would be pointing out constantly that some of the rare box toppers are worth more than some of the mythic box toppers (sneak attack and SoBaM vs. stoneforge and thoughtseize). also certifying a class on this would be hell because, you'd have to prove they were all harmed the same way. e: i notice you pointed out you don't have to do EV, but you do have to demonstrate that a mythic rare is worth more in some firm sense, such that everyone in the class is harmed the same way by the loss of that value. i can think of a dozen different ways hasbro's legal team could argue against class cert on this basis. DAD LOST MY IPOD fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Aug 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:oooh i've actually litigated some of these! under the california consumer protection statutes (which are really expansive and what most of these class actions are brought under) the standard is 1) misrepresentation 2) reliance 3) damage. so a lawsuit would at least force them to acknowledge the secondary market? seems like there would be repercussions to that even if they won the case
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:so a lawsuit would at least force them to acknowledge the secondary market? seems like there would be repercussions to that even if they won the case no, you can argue in the alternative: "your honor these are all cardboard pieces with equal intrinsic value, but even if you assume for the sake of argument the plaintiff's argument they should be valued by the secondary market (which we dispute), they still lose because..." arguing in the alternative like that is actually preferable because the less stuff a judge has to decide, the better: if you can prove the other side still loses even if you spot them all of their factual claims you can get out of the lawsuit quicker and cheaper but yeah, you risk having a court decision recognizing the secondary value which is an incentive to quietly settle the class claim beforehand by giving everyone in the class a $1 off your next booster coupon or five cents, plus a nice payout for the attorneys
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
It seems hard to argue that rarity is unrelated to value in something that's intended as both collectible and tradeable. If Mythics are the rarest, they are harder to acquire and thus more valuable by, like, the dictionary definition of value. Even without a secondary market, artificially lowering the appearance rate of mythics lowers the value of the pack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It seems hard to argue that rarity is unrelated to value in something that's intended as both collectible and tradeable. If Mythics are the rarest, they are harder to acquire and thus more valuable by, like, the dictionary definition of value. Even without a secondary market, artificially lowering the appearance rate of mythics lowers the value of the pack. They did come out and say that Set Booster would be more expensive because they could have more rares, so they've already conceded that. Its always been the party line that each rare is equally likely to be pulled and thus equally valuable, but I don't think I've seen them comment on that post-Mythics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It seems hard to argue that rarity is unrelated to value in something that's intended as both collectible and tradeable. If Mythics are the rarest, they are harder to acquire and thus more valuable by, like, the dictionary definition of value. You have rares that are way more expensive than mythics in this very set.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ppkpanda/status/1291328048994942976?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Interesting, so you can pile counters on it without exposing it to creature removal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:Interesting, so you can pile counters on it without exposing it to creature removal. Also it can spend its mana on itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Looking forward to letting my opponent know that tapping 4 lands and putting 2 counters on it doesn't mean they can declare it as an attacker, sorry. Then looking forward the arguments that happen because of wotc's clarification that players can silently do this at EoT and it's assumed they're not making it a creature, but if they do the same thing in first main or beginning of combat then they are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
First ever with decent image quality? Truly we live in strange times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
The may part of this seems like it’s going to make needless issues in paper play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Did they say six rare lands or six dual lands? Because this clears something up if it's the former.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
BizarroAzrael posted:Did they say six rare lands or six dual lands? Because this clears something up if it's the former. It was dual because I remember that being so odd. Presumably zendikar will have more than six lands total, being zendikar
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
odiv posted:Looking forward to letting my opponent know that tapping 4 lands and putting 2 counters on it doesn't mean they can declare it as an attacker, sorry. Unless it's a high level tournament, just ask if they are making it a creature if it isn't clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
I feel like that's on them to say. I don't want to either reveal I have removal or ask every single time to mask whether I do or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Wouldn't most players move it from their land pile to their creature area?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Wouldn't most players move it from their land pile to their creature area? Most reasonable players would, but even after Dryad Arbor gate I've had people keep Arbor in the land zone. Some people will angle shoot anything they can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:It was dual because I remember that being so odd. Presumably zendikar will have more than six lands total, being zendikar Maybe tribe-linked pairs? Maybe BW Vampires, WR Kor, UG Merfolk. There's Humans Goblins and Elves too but I don't know there's a precedent for pairs for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
What's the official-rule timing of a "then you may" card effect? E.g. could I do the mana spend, put the counters on in my first main phase, and then have a combat (it doesn't participate in), and then at the end of my second main phase, declare that now it's a creature, for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What's the official-rule timing of a "then you may" card effect? E.g. could I do the mana spend, put the counters on in my first main phase, and then have a combat (it doesn't participate in), and then at the end of my second main phase, declare that now it's a creature, for some reason? You have to decide when the ability resolves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What's the official-rule timing of a "then you may" card effect? E.g. could I do the mana spend, put the counters on in my first main phase, and then have a combat (it doesn't participate in), and then at the end of my second main phase, declare that now it's a creature, for some reason? The choice has to be made as the ability resolves, you can't hang on to the choice until later in the turn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What's the official-rule timing of a "then you may" card effect? E.g. could I do the mana spend, put the counters on in my first main phase, and then have a combat (it doesn't participate in), and then at the end of my second main phase, declare that now it's a creature, for some reason? No, its one ability so it all resolves together. You put the counters on, then you decide if you want it to be a creature, then the ability leaves the stack. Efb
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What's the official-rule timing of a "then you may" card effect? E.g. could I do the mana spend, put the counters on in my first main phase, and then have a combat (it doesn't participate in), and then at the end of my second main phase, declare that now it's a creature, for some reason? You decide during resolution, in the order the ability specifies. So you put 2 +1/+1 counters on the land. Then, immediately, you make a decision for it to become a creature, or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
odiv posted:Looking forward to letting my opponent know that tapping 4 lands and putting 2 counters on it doesn't mean they can declare it as an attacker, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 20:42
|
|