|
What do you mean Zurgo is less badass as a Bellstriker? Just imagine this card: Zurgo Bellstriker - 3R Legendary Creature - Orc Warrior Dash 2R T: Tap target creature and put a Bell Strike counter on it. It doesn't untap during it's controller's upkeep as long as it has a Bell Strike counter on it and gains "6: Untap this creature." 3/3 I would play the poo poo out of this card. Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Mar 2, 2015 |
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
I'm late for this, but RE: Tribal mechanic. Part of the problem isn't even the complexity of it being a type. There is definitely a problem with the fact that it's a type that means nothing by itself, but there's a much bigger underlying issue. It would be almost impossible to fairly distribute Tribal types for spells. Bitterblossom is one of the premier examples of this. Why is Bitterblossom a tribal faerie? What about Bitterblossom makes it a tribal faerie and not a tribal rogue or tribal faerie rogue? Especially in the set that explicitly cares more about you being a rogue than being a faerie? In fact, Notorious Throng in the exact same set makes the exact same tokens yet is a tribal rogue. There's very little consistency in the implementation and they have absolutely no reason to want to errata older cards that make perfect sense as tribal spells into tribals. There's no reason Boggart Shenanigans should be a tribal goblin but Goblin Assault can't be one. There's far more cards that don't have the tribal type (basically all token makers) that should have it than cards that actually have the mechanic. WotC has simply said that "this was a bad idea from the beginning, just ignore every card with the mechanic and we will never go forward with it," rather than trying to fix an incredibly broken and inconsistent framework.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Pussy Snorkel posted:Making top eight should have earned you more than two packs, and I can't really think of a scenario where this would make sense unless there were only twelve people in the event or something. I played in a PPTQ where we had 5 rounds of Swiss and cut to top 8. I lost in the first round of top 8 and ended up with only 2 packs. E: Or maybe I'm remembering wrong and there were just under 16 people. It was somewhere between 15 and 18 people in the tournament though. Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:I don't think ROE had one, did it? RoE, AVR, and Alara didn't. If you go further back very, very few blocks had rare land cycles (All of Mirrodin/Kami didn't have them, TSP didn't until the last set).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Jokes going to be on everyone calling formidable a win-more mechanic when it's incredibly easy to activate and 45% of the time it's active you're not even winning because every board in every matchup in standard looks like GW devotion mirrors. Yeah, everyone will sure look dumb then (especially WotC).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Spiderdrake posted:
The joke is that formidable will actually be an incredibly powerful and nearly unconditional mechanic because WotC wants all of standard to look like this: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
lol if you're playing commander and this rule makes you mad because now you can't beat the decks that should combo off too fast to be vulnerable to tuck effects anyways (aka what you should be playing if you had any clue what you were doing)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Wurzag posted:I joke but having watched people play 1v1 commander at fnm I honestly don't see why anyone would choose to play it over any of the other formats. Baffles me even more that I know several people who play nothing but edh 1v1 edric is the true essence of magic, and if people would play against it with their garbage commander decks all day I would rather do that than play any other format tbh
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:God, I wish eight drops were playable in this format. All I want to do is jam collossus of akros and that new archon of despair guy that exiles a permanent when it ETBs. Is that too much to ask? Um, Colossus is certainly castable for green devotion decks but it just isn't what you want to be doing in any format ever. Ashen Rider had also seen some play in Whip decks when those were still around. E: Ugin sees plenty of play. This is one of the most friendly formats for casting your 8 drops of all time. Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Emrakul was worth slightly more than the others when it was legal in EDH. Then Ulamog was worth the most until a few months after the reprint. Also the problem with Emrakul wasn't even ramping into it. It was banned because it made games a race to cast Bribery first.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
It's not an anime girl version of Primeval Titan, it's the literal anime girl Suika Ibuki. The joke is she has the same horns as Primeval Titan I guess so she's used as a stand-in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
CVM's deck is mislabeled. It's playing 7-drops, 0 Heir of the Wilds, 0 Rabblemaster, 0 Surrak, and 0 Rattleclaws while running 4 copies of Caryatid and Courser. That said clearly this shows GR aggro and Abzan aggro are very dominant right now, and the mono R/Rg aggro decks are also a major threat as they are in every format ever. Surrak is better than anyone could have guessed, and Thunderbreak Regent is everywhere as expected.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:The definition of "aggro" is being stretched to hell when a deck with the Mystic/Caryatid/Courser ramp strategy is being defined as "aggro" because it wins with swinging creatures. Abzan Aggro specifically plays Fleecemanes and Rakshasas and Anafenzas, the non-aggro Abzan decks run Caryatid/Wayfinder and Courser instead. The reason you would consider it a typical junk deck is because the midrange Abzan deck has basically totally died out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
http://nationaldirectrepro.com/shop/canon-ipf-605-24-color-plotter/ Sick deal on the printer though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
E: n/m
Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
There's definitely a critical mass aspect of it and it's also part of the reason there's less women playing Magic than men. People are just going to be more likely to do something when they see a lot of other people like them doing so, and less likely when everyone doing something is not like them.
Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Apparently Tara Babcock is an incredibly popular streamer who is the single person most responsible for Twitch.tv changing its guidelines so you had to wear a shirt and pants while streaming last year. Like I looked at the rest of her twitter and she linked a vlog where she says she's actually happy that guys masturbate to her tits but doesn't like it when they "objectify her by implying she doesn't work hard on her gaming channel." It has like 2 million views.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:I am specifically against giving people an out to penalties because of video review that players who don't have a camera over their head would not get. If a video review means you don't get a penalty applied that someone else would, then we should not use video review. What about when no one near the table notices an accidental GRV has been made but stream viewers/the commentary notice it and call a judge? Because that's definitely a thing that happened before. If that match were not on camera, no judge would be called to fix the GRV. Does that count as an inconsistency in how matches on camera are judged?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Someone please explain the manabase of the Esper dragons decks a bunch of pros were playing at the GP. There's 1 Flooded Strand in their lists but 0 plains to fetch. E: Nevermind they're maxed on Deltas and want another fetch for DTT. Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
I didn't notice the URL but I did notice this:quote:the last big shift was attached to the release of the Magic2010 core set in 2005.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Gensuki posted:Actually in HS it would be better off? it would go from an 8/8 with 7 damage (displays as 8/1) to a 1/1 with no damage Also that rules question has been around since original Mirrodin, like 10 years before Hearthstone was released.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/spikes/comments/33wbb5/standard_mike_flores_crushed_esper_dragons_with/ Some history about the deck in question, because I'm sure no one in here listens to Chapin's podcast: 2 weeks ago: -Gerry Thompson (I think) posted a mono blue list that top 8ed some tournament running either 2 or 3 Haven of the Spirit Dragon and 4 Radiant Fountain, with Regent and Ugin as win conditions. The deck has 4 maindeck Encase in Ice, I think 1 or 2 Master of Waves in the sideboard, and relies on Perilous Vault to manage the board -Chapin says that this deck is not actually very good, but is the start of something truly format warping -Chapin points out that Haven of the Spirit Dragon is seeing a lot of play in Esper Dragons right now, and he thinks the card is not even close to being as dominant as it should be -Flores and Chapin discuss the following changes: there's no reason this deck should not be playing Ojutai and Silumgar with some temples, 4 Encase in Ice main is really stretching it and there should be some thought put into running Ultimate Price on the splash instead, Master of Waves absolutely has to be a 4 of in the sideboard, and there needs to be some thought directed towards Aetherspouts as a sweeper -Flores questions the Voyage's Ends and Nullifies that the original list was running, Chapin says he actually thinks they are fine, obviously not great, but you have to make some concessions since you're mono blue -Flores asks what if you just put Atarka into the deck and go all in on dragons, Chapin says that's definitely an option, but obviously there would have to be some consideration made towards the manabase, like cutting some Radiant Fountains -Chapin says he would probably end up playing the normal Esper Dragons list instead, but this is definitely a format defining deck because it represents where the format is going Last week: -Chapin says that the GP that Hayne won is a sign of where the format is going, he doesn't understand the SCG tournament that was all Abzan at all, says those players just didn't get the memo and the good players all went to the GP -Chapin says if you are not playing Esper dragons or a totally new brew you know can beat Esper at the RPTQ, you're making a huge mistake -Flores asks what's wrong with mono red or Jeskai, since those decks are good against Esper control -Chapin says that he believes the reason that people have said the aggro decks beat Esper is because the pros came up with a deck so good, none of them could even believe it didn't have a bad matchup so they said "well this deck is PROBABLY bad against mono red"; he points out the CFB team playing Esper at Krakow went 12-0 against mono red and that does not happen when the deck just loses to mono red -Back on the manabase discussion, Chapin says he believes that it's time for the control decks to just let go of Radiant Fountain because Silumgar's Scorn is probably the most powerful card in the entire format; he understands that Radiant Fountain is very good, but you just have to make that concession because Scorn is not a remotely fair card -Chapin continues to say that he thinks Haven is not even close to being fully realized as a card yet, and he thinks Esper with Haven is at the moment the only competitive deck in the format -Flores asks what kind of deck he thinks would be a potential competitor for Esper -Chapin says he wants to see some kind of red deck that attacks from a lot of different axes, and the two of them come up with a potential midrangey Mardu tokens deck running Butcher of the Horde, Crackling Doom, and Sorin -When talking about the manabase, Chapin says that he wants to start with 10 temples, and that basic lands are at a premium in this format with mono red running around (they end up cutting some number of Nomad Outposts and painlands from their deck to play more basics) The deck is just a further step down the developmental line of all the things Chapin has been talking about with respect to the format. 4 MoW and 4 Omenspeaker are a pretty strong sideboard plan against mono red, and apparently they decided that Shorecrasher was not really doing enough. Dragonlord Dromoka has already been seeing significant sideboard play, and LSV posted a thing about sideboarding against Esper, saying that Dromoka is the direction you absolutely want to be going as Abzan in that matchup, that extra Duress effects and Foul-Tongue Invocations are just awful. My friend ran Abzan control at a RPTQ and he says in testing Dromoka was great against Esper (he originally was running Whip, which LSV also said can be a nightmare for Esper, but decided Dromoka in practice was much better). It also is very good against the red aggro and green ramp decks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
It's because they don't want to mix creature types with land types mainly. There's too many types of noncreature cards that have functionality that makes it weird. Basic land types, auras, and equipment have a lot of functionality that would be weird on other card types. Planeswalker types also have some functionality but it matters a lot less.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
I mean they could just say there's still a list of creature types, land types, sorcery types, etc, but creatures can only ever have creature types and any other card can have both their own types and creature types. It's just weird and inconsistent to do this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:It's not clear to me why one is so preferable to the other that it was worth errataing a dozen years' of cards and saddling every tribal-related card with more verbose wording that never ever matters. I think the reason they changed it was that the rules manager was existentially terrified of the idea of an enchantment having vigilance. It's generally poor design to reference things like this. If you put an ability on a card you should make an effort to make that ability actually have some function, because if it literally has no function it creates a source of confusion. Angry Grimace posted:Which is totally weird since Scion of Oona does in fact give Bitterblossom Shroud and, now that I think about, also gives Bitterblossom +1/+1. It doesn't. It has 2 separate abilities, +1/+1 only applies to creatures.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Oops, you're right. But that's totally weird, right? Would it break the game if Bitterblossom got +1/+1? It would not, but at the same time it creates a source of confusion. It would be ambiguous to players who did not have it explicitly explained if the Bitterblossom suddenly becomes a 1/1 creature or just stays an enchantment where +1/+1 has no effect at all. Like, Raging Ravine and Llanowar Reborn are already sources of confusion, and those cards explicitly give a reason as to why you'd want +1/+1 counters on them. Only giving creature abilities and +x/+x effects is not a functional thing, but it makes the effects of the card clearer. It's similar to why all creatures that give abilities to creatures now have that ability themselves and give all other creatures the ability, like Dragonlord Kolaghan. While it would save space to just say "Creatures you control have haste," the wording they use is clearer and a lot harder to get wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
dragon enthusiast posted:Also I think MaRo's current line on the issue is that people would look at Form of the Dragon and be like "why the heck isn't this a Dragon" and the benefits of a Grand Subtype Update aren't worth the confusion This is definitely one of the concerns. No matter which way we go, some old cards will be anomalies. Either people will wonder why Goblin Offensive isn't a Goblin or think that Bitterblossom is kind of weird. Letting only a small handful of Lorwyn cards and like 1 card from Rise of the Eldrazi be anomalies minimizes the number of them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Niton posted:This seems really simple to solve, even by new player standards. Just add italics or rules text saying (Only creatures have power and toughness.) to entry level products for a while & update the comp rules to mention such. This literally adds even more ugly words to cards, and the entire reason people don't like how it is right now is because of the addition of 1 ugly word to cards. I mean this poo poo is the reason people are notoriously bad designers. Letting +1/+1 lords affect tribal enchantments is like allowing Lightning Bolt to target any permanent. It functionally does almost nothing and serves only to confuse new players. The only reason people like it is because people think it's "cute" that you have to stop and think for a moment to realize it does nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Well, if they've explicitly said infect is not in, it'd be weird to have infect cards in the set, right? Just like it's really weird to have UB mill cards in a set where UB mill isn't a theme. 
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
It's unfortunate that Borderland Ranger and Merfolk Looter are considered so overpowered today that strictly worse versions of them can only be printed at mythic. No seriously both of those are much worse than their common counterparts and Borderland Ranger has probably seen way more constructed play than any of the 5 walkers will see in their lifetimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:"An 0/2 that transforms into a Planeswalker is much worse than a 1/1 that draws you a card and makes you discard a card." The planeswalker is a much worse card than just having a looter in play and it's not optional.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Isn't that just Ender's Game?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:What? You're going to have to explain the connection, here. Brilliant kid gets bullied for being really smart and different from everyone. Gets confronted by bullies, then fucks them up. He gets in trouble but then gets picked up by the authority to undergo training because of his brilliance. Authority leads him through a bunch of training and tasks while keeping a lot of things secret from him, and eventually he finds out he was being misled the entire time, then runs off to be in solitude. I mean sure Ender didn't kill Graff but the characters are similar in a lot of ways. Alhammaret was manipulating Jace for his own selfish means while Graff's motivations were way more complicated. But they were both loners who no one liked because they were smarter than everyone around them who got trained and then led to doing a bunch of poo poo unknowingly by an authority figure.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
The flavor doesn't match because it's literally the card from YMTC with tiny modifications. The YMTC submission was "Destroy target creature, draw 2 cards and lose 2 life, _________________, or you lose the game." They just filled in the 3rd ability, replaced kill a creature with drain life (so it works even if your opponent has no creatures in play), and removed the life loss from the card draw.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Someone I know just put together a WoW TCG cube about a month ago and I've played with it a few times (but can't any more cause I just moved). WoW TCG is actually really cool and it's kind of sad that it died and is now Hearthstone. Basically for everyone who has played Hearthstone (a shitload of people): if you imagine all the things Hearthstone did that weren't simplifications of Magic, and then added on all the things that Hearthstone did simplify from Magic, that's WoW TCG. Players start at ~25-30 life, depending on what class you're playing, there are instant speed abilities and spells, creatures have way more mechanics and have tap abilities and everything, but combat is still you tap a creature to attack a target creature or player, and damage is permanent. Instead of Taunt or blocking, WoW TCG uses the same mechanic Duel Masters/Kaijudo does where you have creatures with Protector and a Protector creature can tap to redirect any attack to it. Weapons exist, but so does equipment for all your other equipment slots, and they're way better than they are in Hearthstone. Instead of having limited uses, you pay mana and tap a weapon to give an amount of power to your hero, and then tap your hero to attack a creature. Alternatively, if you have power and a creature attacks you, they take that much damage. Which means if you have a 4 power weapon you can use it to kill a guy on your turn, or leave it up to prevent all your opponent's guys from attacking you. Accessory slots tend to be basically artifacts and enchantments, while armor has an armor value and can be tapped to prevent that amount of damage from one source hitting your hero. Also I think it has the best resource system I've seen in a game based on Magic. Instead of lands and spells like Magic or guaranteed mana like Hearthstone, there are land cards (called Quests), but you can play any card face down as a land. Quests while face up act as a mana source, but you can pay some amount of mana to "complete" the quest, turning it face down and getting some effect. Usually they cantrip for 3 mana, and maybe you have to fulfill a specific conditon and pay 4 mana to draw 2 cards, or cantrip + some minor other effect if your hero is a Tauren for 3 mana, or whatever. So you're rewarded for drawing a mix of lands and spells, but you can still play the game fully without ever drawing a land, and if you draw all lands you'll not be doing much for a few turns but all your cards will draw into more cards. Hero powers exist, but they're quite different from how they work in Hearthstone. Instead of being things you can use once per turn at sorcery speed, they are things you can use once per game at instant speed (they have the ability while face up, and when you use it you turn the hero face down where the card only shows their name/class/hp). Something like pay 2 mana once per game to shock a target, and your opponent also shocks a target of their choice. Of course there's variations on this, like heroes that have one minor ability on the front, then another bigger once per game ability on the back. Also a few heroes I saw don't have an ability but have a special passive buff to stuff and a crazy deckbuilding restriction. Instead of Hearthstone's classifying everything into two buckets: class card or neutral card, the deckbuilding restrictions are way more complex. You have cards only Alliance heroes can use, cards only Mages can use, cards only Restoration Druids can use, cards only Horde Warlocks can use, cards only "Traitor heroes" can use, etc. Most equipment is restricted to a set of classes instead of 1 class, like a sword might be usable by Warriors, Paladins, and Rogues. Apparently the game got power creeped really bad, and the baseline for creatures is like Hearthstone where creature base stats that would be insane in Magic are nothing special (3/2 for 2 with no abilities is the Grizzly Bears of the game). For example, Al'Akir, which isn't really that good in Hearthstone, is a 7 mana 7/5 neutral creature that gives all air elementals shroud (including himself), and has "during your upkeep, make a 2/1 air elemental" and "tap an untapped air elemental: tap target creature." I lost to that in limited a few times and it was pretty stupid cause I could never attack it since he just tapped down whatever was a threat, and shroud made him immune to removal, then he just continually spawned air elementals that locked down my whole board until I died. I'm pretty sure Al'Akir was not even remotely close to playable in constructed, to give an idea about what the power level was like. Water Elemental (a good card in Hearthstone) was a card I heard was actually playable in control decks in constructed, and is a 3 mana 3/4 with T: deal 1 damage to all opposing creatures and players, those creatures and players can't attack this turn. Yes, a 3 mana 4 toughness pinger in a game where damage lasts forever and also happens to tap down your opponent's entire board while pinging all their guys every turn. Also there are a lot of cards like Lord Jaraxxus in HS, where they transform your hero into another hero, but they tend to have higher starting life than your normal starting life total where Jaraxxus has a lot less (so basically once you play them you can't really die unless you're horribly behind on board), and also they seem to do way more ridiculous things. I heard Deathwing was a constructed card at one point, and Deathwing costs 60 mana, reduced by 5 for each permanent you sac while casting him, has 40 life, 5 power on your turn, and during your upkeep each opponent sacs 2 permanents. Supposedly there were decks that could make a lot of tokens and turbo out Deathwing on turn 5 or something, and leave your opponent with 0 permanents very fast. I mean obviously Hearthstone brings in way more players and is infinitely more accessible but it's kind of sad seeing this is the game Hearthstone used to be since it's basically if a Magic player saw Hearthstone and was like "why don't you have X" and the game actually had every possible X you could have wanted. Ultima66 fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:But paper MtG is supposedly really really popular atm. Do the audiences somehow not align? Or do people not make the connection that a digital version exists/is streamable? (Talking from the viewers' perspective) I play paper Magic and barely ever touch Hearthstone. I would watch Kripparian play Hearthstone for 5 hours straight over watching anyone play Magic. I honestly don't know why and don't care to find out any actual reason for this because Kripparian isn't exactly a particularly good streamer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
eSporks posted:With stuff like NFC being super cheap these days, I wonder if we will ever see any cross over between physical and digital product. Pokemon TCG just has a card that has some code you type in to PTCGO included in their packs that I think gives you the contents of that paper booster pack onto your online account. It's on their equivalent of the tips and tricks/token card that's thrown into the back of every pack. Magic's not the game for something like this though, because Magic is the only card game where limited play is a driving factor for card sales. It would lead to people who primarily draft in paper flooding the online market with cards they won't really use, or makes drafting online kind of lovely since virtual packs are now strictly worse than opening physical packs unless WotC lowers the price on the virtual packs (which they won't do). E: Non-tradeable would help the problem somewhat but not really fix it because a lot of people play both limited and constructed in paper and online so it would still cut down on the demand for constructed cards on MTGO, tanking prices.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I forgot that instead of a flash keyword (which is a bit awkward) they'd make instant a supertype that can modify any spell. So instead of creature spells with flash, you'd just have instant creatures. Dispel would just change to "counter target instant sorcery" which sounds clunky to us, but would probably feel pretty natural in this alternate universe. It just wouldn't do what it does right now or not exist. Just like how there isn't a card that exists which says "Counter target creature with Flash." There's no reason the exact same cards have to exist in a game that's theoretically different ruleswise.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
The most efficient way to fix your mistakes in deckbuilding is to not do it at all. And yes, many of the pro players do follow this principle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Hellsau posted:I just fired up MTGO and opened the store tab: Intro decks are a ripoff that only new players will buy, earning WotC money. Removing those from the store will not increase their sales of anything else while costing them that small segment of the market. Commander decks set a price ceiling on certain cards and are primarily bought by players who know how to buy/sell cards. Removing those from the store forces people to spend more money on playing events or buying singles, increasing the number of players buying tickets and playing in their events.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 01:41
|
|
