Rarity, is it really still neccessary?
Miles Gilbert
at all sorts of levels but I'm a tournament player at heart. I sort of
lost interest when stronghold came out and I'm just considering coming
back.I used to buy cards by the display box, especially when a new set
came out, and have no complaint about the price or anything like that.
However when I stopped playing there were a few cards that were
inordinantly expensive and demanded by virtually everyone. Since then I
find that it has only gotten worse with cursed scroll.
Now the point, people never stop complaining about rare cards
dominating the scene. I know the history of rare cards, in the beginning
who'd ever even know that moxes exist so they can't be much of a
problem. Now the theory is that rares are more specialized cards that
would only confuse the ordinary player, cute.
The question is, "Do we really find that rarity is a fair way for
cards to be doled out so that they can recoup their costs? Or, are
rarities simply interfering with the enjoyment and the growth of the
game?"
It's imposing to enter a game like this with such problems with
attaining certain cards so that you can try to compete with the world's
best. That's not really a genuine worry, newbies rarely have a voice,
even though Wizards might consider it carefully. To players like
ourselves who are trying to improve our play through these groups rarity
often proves to be a significant worry.
We have a voice, and if there is any truth to my words we can put
pressure on Wizards to seriously reconsider the rarity system. What's
the answer? I don't know yet but there are plenty of options. Rares
could be abandoned and there would only be commons and un-. All the
cards could be the same rarity, although I doubt thast this is
realistic.
Consider my opinion, maybe I have a point. If I don't its a good
discussion.
Chen
wrote:
> It's imposing to enter a game like this with such problems with
>attaining certain cards so that you can try to compete with the world's
>best. That's not really a genuine worry, newbies rarely have a voice,
>even though Wizards might consider it carefully. To players like
>ourselves who are trying to improve our play through these groups rarity
>often proves to be a significant worry.
bingo, and this problem was only made worse by WotC's policy of
reserving cards. i can understand the removing of cards that are
simply too unbalanced (and thus banning them from tournaments) but
this arbitrary "we wont reprint 75% of the rares" policy is
unjustified and does interfere with the game. in a few years, a new
player will find it impossible or unreasonably expensive to access
literally hundreds of cards. sets like Fallen Empires and Homelands
are a godsend to me - who would have thought that i could get cards
from 1994? but since they have a reputation of being crappy, they're
still available and reasonably priced. and of course, FE also had the
"mistake" of being overprinted, which is just fine with me. the newer
sets will simply run out shortly after they stop printing them, and
newer players wont be able to get some of those cards. thats wrong.
> We have a voice, and if there is any truth to my words we can put
>pressure on Wizards to seriously reconsider the rarity system. What's
>the answer? I don't know yet but there are plenty of options. Rares
>could be abandoned and there would only be commons and un-. All the
>cards could be the same rarity, although I doubt thast this is
>realistic.
i would really push for abolishing rares. i think Arabian Nights was
the best distribution scheme they ever had. two sheets, and no U1s.
the absence of rares doesnt seem to have much of an impact on the
secondary market, however. then again, there is the issue of card
quality and the rarity of the set itself...as for going all-commons,
that might actually make things harder to collect. buying 15 cards out
of 500 is not going to be pretty. i think a 1:3 U/C sheet ratio would
work fine. they could even print them in 12-card 3/9 packs like they
did in Chronicles.
> Consider my opinion, maybe I have a point. If I don't its a good
>discussion.
>
>qc...@mediaone.net
>
-----
To email me, change "com" to "net"
The Scrub Pages
http://www.pcmagic.net/kchen/
T3Dy
You only get one rare card per booster-so you have to buy a whole frackload to
get a complete set or that rare card you want in quadruplicate.
I do wholeheartedly agree about rarity. I also believe that all the
superpowerful old cards should be reprinted. Keeping cards like black lotus
out of the hands of new players doesn't make it fair for anyone, and only
creates the ridiculous second market for singles ($300 for a piece of
cardboard?)that WOTC doesn't profit from at all anyway.
Things would be better if we could all just make decks out of whatever cards we
wanted to (don't bother telling me about the computer game-it ain't the same)
without having to spend the big money. Then again, that would spoil the fun
for the hardcore collecters.
Bit of a Catch 22. Oh well, frick it.
Sned The Bold
"you're not a model, you're not an angel,
you're just... a person,
you're not an axe murderer, you're not a monster,
you're just... a person"
-Helium
Robert Klemic
>
>Things would be better if we could all just make decks out of whatever cards we
>wanted to (don't bother telling me about the computer game-it ain't the same)
>without having to spend the big money. Then again, that would spoil the fun
>for the hardcore collecters.
>
Actually, as far as I have been discussing with some of the people I
play with, about Ice Age/Mirage was the time when MTG lost the
collecting aspect because WOTC started printing so many of every card.
Robert Klemic (Kelric in Undernet/Dalnet, RobGoob in AIM)
Kim Robert Blix
[snip]
>Bit of a Catch 22. Oh well, frick it.
'xactly :)
>-Helium
--
Kim Robert Blix ( kb...@c2i.net )
"How do you shoot the devil in the back?"
"What if you miss?" -Verbal Kint
sagrillo
First I'd like to address the early run up in prices:
The extremely high prices for first edition cards / comics /
etc. comes primarily from the fact that new ones are printed in pretty
small quantity since most new ones do not sell much. When a winner
comes along and actually sells well, it takes a few editions for the
press volume to catch up with demand. Meanwhile, the relatively small
first run is in demand by all the readers/players who've come into the
popular comic/game. Speculators make money by guessing what is going
to be hot and buying the first editions of those items, then reselling
them as the trend peaks.
Once you have an ongoing product (game or comic), demand and
supply more or less match and there is no huge profit to be gained in
the short term on the secondary market.
Now, about rarity. I've always favored factory sets. All
arguements about rarity keeping new "hidden" and exciting cards
appearing as you play new people dissolved many years ago. There is
no GAMING reason to have rarity. There are lots of GAMING reasons to
provide factory sets. Doing anything else is in conflict with the
GAMING part of magic.
---
Your garden variety mage,
DeAnn Iwan
Ilya
: Hi. I've been playing magic since Ledgends and have had occasion to play
: at all sorts of levels but I'm a tournament player at heart. I sort of
: lost interest when stronghold came out and I'm just considering coming
: back.I used to buy cards by the display box, especially when a new set
: came out, and have no complaint about the price or anything like that.
: However when I stopped playing there were a few cards that were
: inordinantly expensive and demanded by virtually everyone. Since then I
: find that it has only gotten worse with cursed scroll.
: Now the point, people never stop complaining about rare cards
: dominating the scene. I know the history of rare cards, in the beginning
: who'd ever even know that moxes exist so they can't be much of a
: problem. Now the theory is that rares are more specialized cards that
: would only confuse the ordinary player, cute.
: The question is, "Do we really find that rarity is a fair way for
: cards to be doled out so that they can recoup their costs? Or, are
: rarities simply interfering with the enjoyment and the growth of the
: game?"
: attaining certain cards so that you can try to compete with the world's
: best. That's not really a genuine worry, newbies rarely have a voice,
: even though Wizards might consider it carefully. To players like
: ourselves who are trying to improve our play through these groups rarity
: often proves to be a significant worry.
: pressure on Wizards to seriously reconsider the rarity system. What's
: the answer? I don't know yet but there are plenty of options. Rares
: could be abandoned and there would only be commons and un-. All the
: cards could be the same rarity, although I doubt thast this is
: realistic.
: discussion.
I am 100% with you. Abandon the rarity scheme and I will return to Magic,
and since everything will cost the same, the total number of playing will
jump hundred fold.
Ilya
: I've got a sneaky feeling that cards are made rare so WOTC can sell more packs.
Jesus Christ. You finally got it. :)
: I do wholeheartedly agree about rarity. I also believe that all the
: superpowerful old cards should be reprinted. Keeping cards like black lotus
: out of the hands of new players doesn't make it fair for anyone, and only
: creates the ridiculous second market for singles ($300 for a piece of
: cardboard?)that WOTC doesn't profit from at all anyway.
Absolutely.
: Things would be better if we could all just make decks out of whatever cards we
: wanted to (don't bother telling me about the computer game-it ain't the same)
: without having to spend the big money. Then again, that would spoil the fun
: for the hardcore collecters.
Yeah.
Ilya
james
Rarity is neccessary for the game, to use an example, who would buy
baseball cards if you got two (insert name of rare baseball card) here
in every pack, or got a Man Utd badge in every pack of football stickers
(UK only ref), or Mulder in every X-Files pack, or even Vader in every
SWCCG pack. Need i go on ? you must have rarity or ppl will not buy the game/cards
james
Schlotman
would want to carry it?
we sure wouldn't need a scrye or inquest nearly as bad, they would probably
stop publication, thousands of shops would stop carrying magic, because they
would see no future for it.you could buy like 2 boxes and have every card
you need.prices would have to go way down for the packs, because you
couldn't go " well I need just 2 cards out of the set..... I'll buy some
packs, it doesn't matter what I get I can still sell/trade it. Because you
couldn't sell or trade them!!!
you would have your cards, you would go to a tournament, and you would play,
you wouldn't talk about trading, because anybody serious enough about it to
play a tournament has probably bought the 2 boxes he needs to have
everything.I don't just think this would happan I know this would happen,
how could it not. its not like there are a billion more people out there
that are just waiting to play magic but could never afford it,most people
who want to play have found a way.and people who play magic are specific
type of people, generally people that have some kind of intellegence and who
want an intellectual challenge, not everybody who plays is like this, and
definitly everybody who doesn't isn't neccesarily the opposite to this. but
magic is not for everyone, and most people don't like it. most think its
stupid.
basically heres what Im saying:
DESTROYING SECOND. MARKET + NO NEW PEOPLE BUYING MAGIC (PROBABLY LESS OLD
PEOPLE TOO) = BAD.
Schlotman
Miles Gilbert wrote:
Miles Gilbert
there are enough tournaments where it is illegal so that it doesn;t impact players
who don't like it. However, the paucity of copies of cards like tradewind rider is
simply a hinderance to the game.Once again for economic factors I would be willing
to pay a higher price for packs if they contained more rares, if abandoning rare was
impossible. I think that it's at least something that Wizards should consider
seriously. They should send out a questionaire to registered convocation members, or
send it with the duelist the way they used to, or put it on their website or
something.I realize that its a business and meant to make money, but this ought not
be a poor business descision.As is, when I need a rare card, or a number of rares
for that reason, I go to the secondary market not buying packs with on;ly one rare
per pack
Robert Klemic wrote:
> On 19 Jul 1998 03:31:35 GMT, t3...@aol.com (T3Dy) wrote:
>
> >
> >Things would be better if we could all just make decks out of whatever cards we
> >wanted to (don't bother telling me about the computer game-it ain't the same)
> >without having to spend the big money. Then again, that would spoil the fun
> >for the hardcore collecters.
> >
JASONALTUK
is rare uncommon or common. which makes ti hard to rip off scrubs.
but i think it is stupid. rarity is just more and more a part of the
game. if rarity was sooo important in 1995,would you trade a hyppie for an
alladin's lamp(courtesy mark rosewater)?
you would. but back then when rarity didn't matter as much, no one would trade
an uncommon hyppie for rosewater's lamp, so he just said fuck it and tore it
up. would you do that today with an erratic portal or something like that?
NO.
you would not tear up a precious rare,even if you would rather wipe your arse
with it than put it in a deck.
rarity just basically lines the wotc corporations' pockets,or something to
that effect. would you spend 30 bucks on like 11 packs trying to get a spanking
mind over matter if you got like one in every 3 packs. that's why they have
rarity. so the overpowered cards are less accessable.
if not there would be lotus,channel,fireball,four of each in every deck
David Linder
> I am 100% with you. Abandon the rarity scheme and I will return to Magic,
> and since everything will cost the same, the total number of playing will
> jump hundred fold.
Um... Ilya. Everything will *not* cost the same. There is a reason
that Cursed Scroll costs more than a Lace.
But, it will become cheaper to play, that's for sure. At least cheaper
to play serious (when you need all cards available).
Hundredfold, well, you know that's not true. Maybe double, at best.
The initial investment is still the same.
Oh, and another thing: didn't you resent paying 3$ for 15 pices of
cardboard? You'll still be doing that.
Lastly, as far as I remembered, when I suggestet dropping the rares
you didn't even agree, but said you'd boycott WotC. What made you
change your mind?
/David Linder
Mary Rurup
there that you can buy the basic set, and every one will have the same
exact cards. Or only runs of 90-something cards, etc.
The idea of the game is to come up with the best deck you can. The rare
cards do not a deck make. Think of them as splash. If you think that
people are going to make decks to take out "x" card, because it is a
rare, then make a deck with all commons and uncommons that runs around
that. Or do a combo of cards that makes that "x" card.
Mary
james wrote:
> > I am 100% with you. Abandon the rarity scheme and I will return to Magic,
> > and since everything will cost the same, the total number of playing will
> > jump hundred fold.
> >
> >
>
ANT Gehn
part, you have a better chance of getting a card that is good, such as that
Cursed Scroll. However, thats also a bad part. In tournaments, you would see
a bunch of decks with 4 Cursed Scrolls, 4 Mox Diamonds, 4 of everything really
good. And then the game just becomes dependent on luck since the decks are
pretty much the same.
It would ruin the collectability of the game if rarity were removed. The
number of certain cards printed in the same set would be equal, and that would
classify them all as common, which we can see where that leads to with pricing.
In some cases, it might be annoying also. There are some darned good common
cards that are practically required for a good deck of a certain type, but
every card is common, rather than a select number are common. This greatly
reduces the chances of getting the cards you need. Lets take Tempest here for
an example. The chances of getting the card card you need in a booster if
there was no rarity is about 15/350, unless you are searching for a basic land,
in which case, its 1/(infinity). Under the current conditions, the equation
would be 15/(350(11/15)), and let me explain. There are 15 cards in a booster
pack, 11 common, 3 uncommon, and 1 rare. That means the average number of
common cards in Tempest is 11/15 of the 350 set, uncommon is 3/15 (or 1/5) of
the set, and rares are 1/15 of the set. You can figure it out from here.
The final reason is that WotC wouldn't be as rich. This may not be so visible
as you think. The more money WotC has, the faster it can make the expansions
ready for buyers, the better the artists they can hire to improve the artwork
(I hear Murk Dwelers calling here...), and basically improve the quality of the
game.
Well, thats my 2 cents worth.
Essence
JASONALTUK wrote:
> now that they started this gay expansion symbol thing,you can tell if a
card
> is rare uncommon or common. which makes ti hard to rip off scrubs.
Not at all. Never before would I have been able to trade a Kudzu for a
Hypnotic Specter. <grin>
Essence
Ilya
Miles, you are asking the right questions -- questions that need to be
asked, and I appreciate the fact that you question status quo and don't
necessarily accept the current situation.
Ilya
RaeMowse
>yes, it is. it would destroy the secondary market otherwise, and then who
>would want to carry it?
Okay, it would destroy the second market, which would be a blessing to every
Magic Player in the world, because, like the old saying goes: "Cheaper is
better." If cards were printed the same way as they do now and they were only
half the cost, that would be a very good thing, no matter who you are.
Besides, exactly how many players (not Speculators or Collectors) could live
without secondary markets?
>we sure wouldn't need a scrye or inquest nearly as bad,
Whoever said we needed InQuest in the first place? Pretty much, the only good
thing about InQuest is that they have a list of every card ever made with a
general reading of what it does and such for those unfortunate enough to not
have access to a computer or something that will give them internet access.
Now, if they could knock off the little jokes they play within that area (When
Sengir Autocrat comes into play, put into play three Smurf tokens. These count
as 0/1 black creatures. When Sengir Autocrat leaves play, snuff the Smurfs),
then InQuest would be more useful that for kindling.
>they would probably
>stop publication, thousands of shops would stop carrying magic, because they
>would see no future for it.you could buy like 2 boxes and have every card
>you need.prices would have to go way down for the packs, because you
>couldn't go " well I need just 2 cards out of the set..... I'll buy some
>packs, it doesn't matter what I get I can still sell/trade it. Because you
>couldn't sell or trade them!!!
>you would have your cards, you would go to a tournament, and you would play,
>you wouldn't talk about trading, because anybody serious enough about it to
>play a tournament has probably bought the 2 boxes he needs to have
>everything.I don't just think this would happan I know this would happen,
>how could it not.
That's assuming they print up sets in the same way they do now. Logically, if
there were no rarity scheme, there would more than likely be more cards put
into the set, a lot more decent cards (that'll be the day) that would be
playable, whether in tournament setting, or sealed, or casual.
> its not like there are a billion more people out there
>that are just waiting to play magic but could never afford it,most people
>who want to play have found a way.
Actually, I have showed some friends around the local card shop, and they liked
the cards, but the tags they carried frightened them some, plus after a showing
of a deck I used (with some of those frightening cards), they were not so sure
about playing the game after all.
>and people who play magic are specific
>type of people, generally people that have some kind of intellegence and who
>want an intellectual challenge, not everybody who plays is like this, and
>definitly everybody who doesn't isn't neccesarily the opposite to this. but
>magic is not for everyone, and most people don't like it. most think its
>stupid.
Especially when you watch someone buy a Revised Regrowth for five bucks out of
the glass case in the same store where you bought the same Revised Regrowth for
fifty cents, both cards being in the same condition (yes, I have personally
seen this, and there was no haggling over the prices).
>basically heres what Im saying:
>
>DESTROYING SECOND. MARKET + NO NEW PEOPLE BUYING MAGIC (PROBABLY LESS OLD
>PEOPLE TOO) = BAD.
It should read more like:
No Secondary Market+No New Buyers=Bad
But of course, that's making an assumption. The way I see it, if they were
putting in better and more cards without the rarity scheme, it would be more
like:
No Secondary Market To Fudge Things Up Pricewise=More Players Not Being Shied
Away By High Prices=More Players Coming Into The Game=More Competition=Good
Of course that's an assumption, too, but where something bad can happen,
something equally good can happen, too.
Rainman
Wise men are only enlightened fools.
RaeMowse
>i would really push for abolishing rares. i think Arabian Nights was
>the best distribution scheme they ever had. two sheets, and no U1s.
Well, abolishing the scheme doesn't seem very likely to happen anytime in the
near future, so why not increase the number of rares you'd pull from packs as
an alternate? In boosters, a 1:1:1 ratio (five commons, five uncommons, five
rares), or three rares, five uncommons, and eight commons, since the first is
unfeasible to most. Better card mixing is good for everyone. In starter
boxes, eight rares, thirteen uncommons, eighteen commons, twenty-four basic
lands (more feasible that 13 Rare, 13 Uncommon, 13 Common, 24 basic land).
>the absence of rares doesnt seem to have much of an impact on the
>secondary market, however. then again, there is the issue of card
>quality and the rarity of the set itself...
True, but, hey, nothing is meant to last forever, save (what suppose to,
anyway) love and marriage. Rarity is only good to whoever wants it the most
(watch Operation: Condor. The two fanatics who were willing to kill for the
gold, when they stumbled upon Jackie Chan and his "crew" and was freely given
what gold they had, they threw it away, rather having the water one of the
ladies had around her neck).
Josh Gilbert
Ilya wrote:
well thank you I appreciate that, however my real question is : can we
get people to realize it and cause change?
Ilya
: Okay, it would destroy the second market, which would be a blessing to every
: Magic Player in the world, because, like the old saying goes: "Cheaper is
: better." If cards were printed the same way as they do now and they were only
: half the cost, that would be a very good thing, no matter who you are.
You got it, man.
Ilya
Ilya
: Ilya wrote:
In general? I doubt it. I already told you what my personal solution is.
Ilya
David Linder
> In general? I doubt it. I already told you what my personal solution is.
>
> Ilya
Chickening out and just ignoring the problem is not a solution, sorry.
David Linder
Chen
>Well, abolishing the scheme doesn't seem very likely to happen anytime in the
>near future, so why not increase the number of rares you'd pull from packs as
>an alternate? In boosters, a 1:1:1 ratio (five commons, five uncommons, five
>rares), or three rares, five uncommons, and eight commons, since the first is
>unfeasible to most. Better card mixing is good for everyone. In starter
>boxes, eight rares, thirteen uncommons, eighteen commons, twenty-four basic
>lands (more feasible that 13 Rare, 13 Uncommon, 13 Common, 24 basic land).
well, if you distribute them equally it would make the whole "rarity"
issue pointless. not that i wouldnt like a "3 common sheets" scheme,
but that would just make the set so much easier to collect (easier
than traditional trading cards, even) that its impossible. unless WotC
prints 500 rares per set, anyway. yikes. the most realistic hope i had
was a return to the AN scheme ("realistic" since they did it once
before) but failing that, i think your second suggestion would work
pretty well for everyone. bottom line, 1 rare and 11 commons is just
not right. not for $3.
>True, but, hey, nothing is meant to last forever, save (what suppose to,
>anyway) love and marriage. Rarity is only good to whoever wants it the most
>(watch Operation: Condor. The two fanatics who were willing to kill for the
>gold, when they stumbled upon Jackie Chan and his "crew" and was freely given
>what gold they had, they threw it away, rather having the water one of the
>ladies had around her neck).
>
>Rainman
>Wise men are only enlightened fools.
um...i dont know how to respond to that one. =]
Pup501
>rarity. so the overpowered cards are less accessable.
>if not there would be lotus,channel,fireball,four of each in every deck
I was with you until here. Let's see here, rares aren't too hard to get. They
cost money, sure, but call some national shop. Then tell them you would like
to order 4 of this and 4 of that. Then give them a credit card number. In a
few days, your cards shall arrive.
From what you're saying, making Cursed Scroll rare means every deck isn't
sporting 4. Well, every deck that can does. Unless you don't own four. Then
you buy a lot of Tempest or pay $15 for one.
All views expressed here are probably looking at things in the light of
Extended.
Pup501
Schlotman
RaeMowse wrote:
> Schlotman <sclot@idir,net> wrote:
>
> >yes, it is. it would destroy the secondary market otherwise, and then who
> >would want to carry it?
>
> Okay, it would destroy the second market, which would be a blessing to every
> Magic Player in the world, because, like the old saying goes: "Cheaper is
> better." If cards were printed the same way as they do now and they were only
> half the cost, that would be a very good thing, no matter who you are.
> Besides, exactly how many players (not Speculators or Collectors) could live
> without secondary markets?
>
alot of people make a living selling cards, now they don't have cards to sell,
except a few old ones, that are only type 1 legal after about 2 years of
instituting a no rare policy. they would probably go out of business. also, there
wouldn't be very many people collecting anymore,it wouldn't be worth it.
> >we sure wouldn't need a scrye or inquest nearly as bad,
>
> Whoever said we needed InQuest in the first place? Pretty much, the only good
> thing about InQuest is that they have a list of every card ever made with a
> general reading of what it does and such for those unfortunate enough to not
> have access to a computer or something that will give them internet access.
> Now, if they could knock off the little jokes they play within that area (When
> Sengir Autocrat comes into play, put into play three Smurf tokens. These count
> as 0/1 black creatures. When Sengir Autocrat leaves play, snuff the Smurfs),
> then InQuest would be more useful that for kindling.
>
> hey I think inquest is funny!
> plus all those people lose there job.
> >they would probably
> >stop publication, thousands of shops would stop carrying magic, because they
> >would see no future for it.you could buy like 2 boxes and have every card
> >you need.prices would have to go way down for the packs, because you
> >couldn't go " well I need just 2 cards out of the set..... I'll buy some
> >packs, it doesn't matter what I get I can still sell/trade it. Because you
> >couldn't sell or trade them!!!
> >you would have your cards, you would go to a tournament, and you would play,
> >you wouldn't talk about trading, because anybody serious enough about it to
> >play a tournament has probably bought the 2 boxes he needs to have
> >everything.I don't just think this would happan I know this would happen,
> >how could it not.
>
> That's assuming they print up sets in the same way they do now. Logically, if
> there were no rarity scheme, there would more than likely be more cards put
> into the set, a lot more decent cards (that'll be the day) that would be
> playable, whether in tournament setting, or sealed, or casual.
>
why would there be more cards in the set?why would they be any better?
because everybody could get them and it would be fair?
if that were the case, all the good cards would be commons in our current system.
>
>
> > its not like there are a billion more people out there
> >that are just waiting to play magic but could never afford it,most people
> >who want to play have found a way.
>
> Actually, I have showed some friends around the local card shop, and they liked
> the cards, but the tags they carried frightened them some, plus after a showing
> of a deck I used (with some of those frightening cards), they were not so sure
> about playing the game after all.
>
> true story:
I took a type 1 tournament just last week with a deck with, kird apes, grizzly
bears, blood lusts giant growths lightning bolts incinerates etc.in type 2 you
could have a great deck for around a hundred bucks.
thats not too bad... I don't think.
> >and people who play magic are specific
> >type of people, generally people that have some kind of intellegence and who
> >want an intellectual challenge, not everybody who plays is like this, and
> >definitly everybody who doesn't isn't neccesarily the opposite to this. but
> >magic is not for everyone, and most people don't like it. most think its
> >stupid.
>
> Especially when you watch someone buy a Revised Regrowth for five bucks out of
> the glass case in the same store where you bought the same Revised Regrowth for
> fifty cents, both cards being in the same condition (yes, I have personally
> seen this, and there was no haggling over the prices).
>
> $5 for a regrowth!!!?!!?!!?!!
wow, I can that person an unlimited one for like $3..... tell him that for me
please.:-)
> >basically heres what Im saying:
> >
> >DESTROYING SECOND. MARKET + NO NEW PEOPLE BUYING MAGIC (PROBABLY LESS OLD
> >PEOPLE TOO) = BAD.
>
> It should read more like:
> No Secondary Market+No New Buyers=Bad
>
> But of course, that's making an assumption. The way I see it, if they were
> putting in better and more cards without the rarity scheme, it would be more
> like:
> No Secondary Market To Fudge Things Up Pricewise=More Players Not Being Shied
> Away By High Prices=More Players Coming Into The Game=More Competition=Good
>
but alot of people play and collect alot alot alot alot alot,I also think that with
easy access to the cards there would be alot of similar decks. I don't think that
would be very enjoyable.
As you can see Im not making very good points tonight, but don't hold that against
me, it's late, and my eye won't stop fluttering!
Schlotman
> Of course that's an assumption, too, but where something bad can happen,
> something equally good can happen, too.
>
Micheal Keane
>yes, it is. it would destroy the secondary market otherwise, and then who
>would want to carry it?
>stop publication, thousands of shops would stop carrying magic, because they
>would see no future for it.you could buy like 2 boxes and have every card
>you need.prices would have to go way down for the packs, because you
>couldn't go " well I need just 2 cards out of the set..... I'll buy some
>packs, it doesn't matter what I get I can still sell/trade it. Because you
>couldn't sell or trade them!!!
I'm all for killing the secondary market. I think WotC would make more
money if everyone knew they could buy a box and get all the cards they
need. And you could still sell and trade cards, they just wouldn't be at
the rediculously high prices they're at now.
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane, Political Science, University of Washington
Associate Professor of Psychogravitational Analysis, University of Ediacara
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve!
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
Micheal Keane
>That is why it is called a "Collectible" card game. There are games out
>there that you can buy the basic set, and every one will have the same
>exact cards. Or only runs of 90-something cards, etc.
>
>The idea of the game is to come up with the best deck you can.
Correct. Now, how do I make a deck if I don't have 33% of the cards in it
and I don't want to spend a fortune to buy them?
> The rare
>cards do not a deck make. Think of them as splash. If you think that
>people are going to make decks to take out "x" card, because it is a
>rare, then make a deck with all commons and uncommons that runs around
>that. Or do a combo of cards that makes that "x" card.
What the hell are you talking about? Your solution is "Don't play with
rares"? Okay I'll play with no rares and then get spanked by everyone else
who does have 4 cursed scrolls or 4 tradwinds or 4 (insert highpriced
rare).
You don't play much Magic do you?
Tolun
>In article <35B246E2...@idir.net>, Schlotman <sch...@idir.net> wrote:
>>yes, it is. it would destroy the secondary market otherwise, and then who
>>would want to carry it?
>>we sure wouldn't need a scrye or inquest nearly as bad, they would probably
>>stop publication, thousands of shops would stop carrying magic, because they
>>would see no future for it.you could buy like 2 boxes and have every card
>>you need.prices would have to go way down for the packs, because you
>>couldn't go " well I need just 2 cards out of the set..... I'll buy some
>>packs, it doesn't matter what I get I can still sell/trade it. Because you
>>couldn't sell or trade them!!!
>I'm all for killing the secondary market. I think WotC would make more
>money if everyone knew they could buy a box and get all the cards they
>need. And you could still sell and trade cards, they just wouldn't be at
>the rediculously high prices they're at now.
Are you for real?
Now: A new set comes out, and John buys six boxes, two serve to round
out his collection for play and the rest is trading/selling fodder.
WotC makes lots of money and is happy.
After "killing the secondary market": A new set is released and John
buys two boxes, which serve to round out his collection for play. Why
buy more, because everyone else bought two boxes and have more than
enough cards? WotC makes substantially less money and is not happy.
And just how can you "still trade and sell cards," if there is no
secondary market? THAT IS THE SECONDARY MARKET!!!
Geez,
Tolun
Tolun
>In article <35B26AFE...@jps.net>, Mary Rurup <meij...@jps.net> wrote:
>>That is why it is called a "Collectible" card game. There are games out
>>there that you can buy the basic set, and every one will have the same
>>exact cards. Or only runs of 90-something cards, etc.
>>
>>The idea of the game is to come up with the best deck you can.
>Correct. Now, how do I make a deck if I don't have 33% of the cards in it
>and I don't want to spend a fortune to buy them?
Huh? He said "build the best deck you can," You agreed with him. Now,
how does the next statement follow? If you don't have the cards for
that deck, of course you CANNOT build that deck. So you build the best
deck YOU CAN. Just as he said, and just as you agreed.
>> The rare
>>cards do not a deck make. Think of them as splash. If you think that
>>people are going to make decks to take out "x" card, because it is a
>>rare, then make a deck with all commons and uncommons that runs around
>>that. Or do a combo of cards that makes that "x" card.
>What the hell are you talking about? Your solution is "Don't play with
>rares"? Okay I'll play with no rares and then get spanked by everyone else
>who does have 4 cursed scrolls or 4 tradwinds or 4 (insert highpriced
>rare).
I guess you've never heard of Disenchant, then. Or Dark Banishing. Or
Thunderbolt, or Fireblast, or any of the other COMMONS that destroy
those rares. And it's perfectly possible to build good decks for
casual play without putting in a single rare. I've done it, I've seen
other people do it, and I've seen them win. Now, I wouldn't expect to
ride that deck to the top of the Pro Tour or anything, but that's an
entirely different situation. You buy into the tournaments, especially
the big ones, and you're buying into a certain situation. A friendly
game on Sunday afternoon between friends is an entirely different
situation.
So the question to ask is, "do I want to play a game, or do I want to
pursue a career as a Magic Pro?"
>You don't play much Magic do you?
Do you? Or do you just copy the latest netdeck and get your ass
whupped?
Tolun
Glenn Olson
wrote:
>In article <35B26AFE...@jps.net>, Mary Rurup <meij...@jps.net> wrote:
>>That is why it is called a "Collectible" card game. There are games out
>>there that you can buy the basic set, and every one will have the same
>>exact cards. Or only runs of 90-something cards, etc.
>>
>>The idea of the game is to come up with the best deck you can.
>
>Correct. Now, how do I make a deck if I don't have 33% of the cards in it
>and I don't want to spend a fortune to buy them?
Proxy the deck, or play it over Apprentice.
Decide if you like the deck.
Trade off some of the cards you've got that aren't in the deck, to get
the ones that would be. Maybe find some friends and borrow some of
the cards. (Reminds me... I have to return one...)
>What the hell are you talking about? Your solution is "Don't play with
>rares"? Okay I'll play with no rares and then get spanked by everyone else
>who does have 4 cursed scrolls or 4 tradwinds or 4 (insert highpriced
>rare).
A funny thing... I find that if I *need* <insert card here> to win,
then the deck is no good. (Or, I've got to build the entire deck
around getting and protecting that card.)
I've beat many decks running Cursed Scrolls or Tradewinds, without
resorting to them myself.
--
9 Days till I'm out of hell...
(Got sucked into another week...)
Glenn Olson
(Snip)
>It would ruin the collectability of the game if rarity were removed. The
>number of certain cards printed in the same set would be equal, and that would
>classify them all as common, which we can see where that leads to with pricing.
I disagree, in part.
Cards will instead be defined solely by power; Good cards will
effectively all be uncommon, God cards will effectively be rare. Why?
Cause you've got to pick through the mediocre and crap cards to find
them. Instead of opening a pack, getting disapointed with the Rare
but picking up a few quality uncommons - you'll open up the pack, even
getting the good cards that would have otherwise been common would be
like hoping for some good uncommons. You might even wind up with
utter-crap packs: *nothing* good in it, effectively the same as
finding out your rare had been replaced with an Island.
>In some cases, it might be annoying also. There are some darned good common
>cards that are practically required for a good deck of a certain type, but
>every card is common, rather than a select number are common. This greatly
>reduces the chances of getting the cards you need.
Precisely what I just said, actually... Good cards will, effectively,
be uncommon, instead of being spread out amongst the commons,
uncommons and rares.
God cards will effectively be rare (or pretty close to that.)
>The final reason is that WotC wouldn't be as rich. This may not be so visible
>as you think.
Er... I hope you mean that the problem with that isn't as visible as
some would think. That factor is the one thing that everyone claims
to know; the argument is about whether it's a good, bad or neutral
thing.
Glenn Olson
(Snip)
>So the question to ask is, "do I want to play a game, or do I want to
>pursue a career as a Magic Pro?"
And if you answer "I want to pursue that career," and still feel like
whining: ask yourself how many pro-golfers complain about the green
fees. Or the price of their clubs.
Michelle Bottorff
> However when I stopped playing there were a few cards that were
> inordinantly expensive and demanded by virtually everyone. Since then I
> find that it has only gotten worse with cursed scroll.
<snip>
> It's imposing to enter a game like this with such problems with
> attaining certain cards so that you can try to compete with the world's
> best.
First off, if you're going to play high-level competitive magic, it's
going to cost. I'm not sorry for that fact.
I do think that a gradiant rarity level is important. Most of us who
play "friendly" magic have many decks made up at any given time. And
there are some cards that you simply need more than others. Most blue
decks use counterspells. Few blue decks need stasis. If the rares were
as common as commons, then people would be screaming about all the junk
found in the packs.
What I will complain about is how some of the cards are graded. I think
there are too many rares and not enough commons in any given set.
Steve Klein
i disagree with all of this. . .
if you change the rarity system up a lot, then magic becomes dull. . .
I like the thrill of opeing up a SH booster and seeing what i got.
I don't want to open up a pack of Tp and pull a tradewind and scroll (ok, maybe i do,
but then they wouldnt be valuable so who gives a damn)
and i also look at it like this:
Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity, buy 2
display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3 pools, 3 vinyards, 3
scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3 living death, 3
booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now. suddenly every
card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like scroll, pool,
tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
that would be horrible. singles would no longer be sold because it would just be "I
need a 4 Tradewinds" "Oh we quit selling singles. Grabe 7 or 8 packs and you'll pull at
least 2 and if you don't, youll pull reflecting pools, vinyards t warps etc
The opening of bossters is half the fun of the game for me !
Micheal Keane
Michelle Bottorff <mbot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I do think that a gradiant rarity level is important. Most of us who
>play "friendly" magic have many decks made up at any given time. And
>there are some cards that you simply need more than others. Most blue
>decks use counterspells. Few blue decks need stasis. If the rares were
>as common as commons, then people would be screaming about all the junk
>found in the packs.
I'd rather have some stasises than a bazillion copies of the commons. And
if you haven't noticed, people ARE complaining about alll the junk found
in packs. I'd take *any* rare over my 30th copy of Haunting Misery... or
my 5th-29th copy for that matter.
Micheal Keane
Tolun <to...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:
>Now: A new set comes out, and John buys six boxes, two serve to round
>out his collection for play and the rest is trading/selling fodder.
>WotC makes lots of money and is happy.
I doubt there are many people who buy four boxes of a set just for trading
fodder.
How about this? Johnny wants to play tournament Magic but sees that all
the decks are packed with expensive rares and decides to try something
else instead. my scenario's just as likely as your's.
>After "killing the secondary market": A new set is released and John
>buys two boxes, which serve to round out his collection for play. Why
>buy more, because everyone else bought two boxes and have more than
>enough cards? WotC makes substantially less money and is not happy.
But more people will buy boxes if they know they are guaranteed of getting
a playable set.
>And just how can you "still trade and sell cards," if there is no
>secondary market? THAT IS THE SECONDARY MARKET!!!
Okay, I was exaggerating about killing the secondary market. It'll always
exist in some form. It just won't cost 10-20 bucks for a single copy of a
particular sets' Cursed Scroll.
Micheal Keane
Tolun <to...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:
>>Correct. Now, how do I make a deck if I don't have 33% of the cards in it
>>and I don't want to spend a fortune to buy them?
>
>how does the next statement follow? If you don't have the cards for
>that deck, of course you CANNOT build that deck. So you build the best
>deck YOU CAN. Just as he said, and just as you agreed.
Which is the entire point, moron. People's creativity is being restrained
because they don't have access to a large portion of the available deck
pool. Try building a decent multicolor deck without any rainbow
lands(except gemstone mine). I get sick of building mono-colour decks
after a while.
>I guess you've never heard of Disenchant, then. Or Dark Banishing. Or
>Thunderbolt, or Fireblast, or any of the other COMMONS that destroy
>those rares. And it's perfectly possible to build good decks for
Hands up everyone? Would you rather have a tradewind rider or a
thunderbolt in your hand(assuming you can cast both)?
>casual play without putting in a single rare. I've done it, I've seen
>other people do it, and I've seen them win. Now, I wouldn't expect to
>ride that deck to the top of the Pro Tour or anything, but that's an
>entirely different situation. You buy into the tournaments, especially
>the big ones, and you're buying into a certain situation. A friendly
>game on Sunday afternoon between friends is an entirely different
>situation.
Of course. It's entirely feasible that a deck made of nothing but basic
land will win games on a Sunday afternoon between friends. It's still a
crap deck that I can never take to a tournament.
>So the question to ask is, "do I want to play a game, or do I want to
>pursue a career as a Magic Pro?"
>>You don't play much Magic do you?
>
>Do you? Or do you just copy the latest netdeck and get your ass
>whupped?
So you think that Tournament Magic should be limited to those loaded with
cash?
Micheal Keane
Steve Klein <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>if you change the rarity system up a lot, then magic becomes dull. . .
>I like the thrill of opeing up a SH booster and seeing what i got.
>I don't want to open up a pack of Tp and pull a tradewind and scroll (ok, maybe i do,
>but then they wouldnt be valuable so who gives a damn)
Of course they'd be valuable. They'd still be good cards.
>and i also look at it like this:
>Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity, buy 2
>display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3 pools, 3 vinyards, 3
>scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3 living death, 3
>booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now. suddenly every
>card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like scroll, pool,
>tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
And this is bad, how?
>that would be horrible.
How so?
> singles would no longer be sold because it would just be "I
>need a 4 Tradewinds" "Oh we quit selling singles. Grabe 7 or 8 packs and you'll pull at
>least 2 and if you don't, youll pull reflecting pools, vinyards t warps etc
You've neglected to say what exactly is bad about this scenario.
>The opening of bossters is half the fun of the game for me !
Wait. Why don't we make the boosters 30 cards large, and only have 1 rare,
3 uncommons and 26 commons!? That way the thrill of opening a booster pack
will be even better for you.
Ilya
: and i also look at it like this:
: Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity, buy 2
: display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3 pools, 3 vinyards, 3
: scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3 living death, 3
: booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now. suddenly every
: card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like scroll, pool,
: tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
Actually, that would be pretty good. Imagine, you get a box and every
card in there is a Tradewind or an Armageddon or a Wrath of God or a Time
walk. Imagine that, instead of getting a booster and finding that you
already have nearly everything they got. And find out you got your 20th
Mana Leak.
Ilya
Tolun
>In article <JL9t1.106$VB3.3...@nnrp2.ptd.net>,
>Tolun <to...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:
>>>Correct. Now, how do I make a deck if I don't have 33% of the cards in it
>>>and I don't want to spend a fortune to buy them?
>>
>>Huh? He said "build the best deck you can," You agreed with him. Now,
>>how does the next statement follow? If you don't have the cards for
>>that deck, of course you CANNOT build that deck. So you build the best
>>deck YOU CAN. Just as he said, and just as you agreed.
>Which is the entire point, moron.
Um, yeah. You post this short-sighted, confused crap, I point out the
inconsistencies, and I'm the moron. Sure.
> People's creativity is being restrained
>because they don't have access to a large portion of the available deck
>pool. Try building a decent multicolor deck without any rainbow
>lands(except gemstone mine). I get sick of building mono-colour decks
>after a while.
Then try using some imagination once in a while. You don't need City
of Brass to build three color decks, and Cinder Marsh, Rootwater
Depths, etc. do just fine for providing splashes of mana without
ruining the main-color strategy. If you don't have access to the
expensive rares, use what's available. Simple as that.
>>I guess you've never heard of Disenchant, then. Or Dark Banishing. Or
>>Thunderbolt, or Fireblast, or any of the other COMMONS that destroy
>>those rares. And it's perfectly possible to build good decks for
>Hands up everyone? Would you rather have a tradewind rider or a
>thunderbolt in your hand(assuming you can cast both)?
Oh, give me a break! It's entirely situational: one card is useless in
a certain situation, while another isn't. If my opponent has a
Tradewind Rider in play, what's going to happen to my TR? It's going
to be bounced back to my hand, so casting it is useless. With a
Thunderbolt, at least I have a chance to get rid of his TR. If you're
going to do nothing but salivate over rares, go ahead. But all-rare
decks will lose more often than all-common decks.
>>casual play without putting in a single rare. I've done it, I've seen
>>other people do it, and I've seen them win. Now, I wouldn't expect to
>>ride that deck to the top of the Pro Tour or anything, but that's an
>>entirely different situation. You buy into the tournaments, especially
>>the big ones, and you're buying into a certain situation. A friendly
>>game on Sunday afternoon between friends is an entirely different
>>situation.
>Of course. It's entirely feasible that a deck made of nothing but basic
>land will win games on a Sunday afternoon between friends. It's still a
>crap deck that I can never take to a tournament.
Okay, that answers the question. You care nothing for casual play, and
all you're concerned with is becoming the next Pro Tour champion. Good
luck.
>>So the question to ask is, "do I want to play a game, or do I want to
>>pursue a career as a Magic Pro?"
>>>You don't play much Magic do you?
>>
>>Do you? Or do you just copy the latest netdeck and get your ass
>>whupped?
>So you think that Tournament Magic should be limited to those loaded with
>cash?
No, but it's an entirely different situation, and going into that
situation uprepared is stupid. Whether or not you have access to all
the good rares, you must be aware that other players do. In fact, it's
because of the Tour that these cards are so highly priced in the first
place: everyone wanting to play in the tournaments wants four copies
of these cards, so the demand is much higher than the supply,
therefore the price goes up.
I could argue that we should, instead, abolish the Pro Tour and close
down all but the smallest of local tournaments. No metagame, no demand
for rares, prices are slashed. Would you pay $20 for a Mox Diamond so
you can sit in your friend's living room on Saturday afternoons and
kick his ass with it? Would you pay $150 for a "real" Mox to do the
same thing? I sure wouldn't. Eliminating the demand for such cards
will bring the prices back where you want 'em.
Of course, I'm not an idiot, and so I realize that calling for these
kinds of changes is a waste of time, and just makes me look stupid. So
I don't. Take the hint.
Tolun
Ilya
: In article <JL9t1.106$VB3.3...@nnrp2.ptd.net>,
: Tolun <to...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:
:>>Correct. Now, how do I make a deck if I don't have 33% of the cards in it
:>>and I don't want to spend a fortune to buy them?
:>
:>Huh? He said "build the best deck you can," You agreed with him. Now,
:>how does the next statement follow? If you don't have the cards for
:>that deck, of course you CANNOT build that deck. So you build the best
:>deck YOU CAN. Just as he said, and just as you agreed.
: Which is the entire point, moron. People's creativity is being restrained
: because they don't have access to a large portion of the available deck
: pool. Try building a decent multicolor deck without any rainbow
: lands(except gemstone mine). I get sick of building mono-colour decks
: after a while.
That is a darn good point. Thanks, Micheal.
: Hands up everyone? Would you rather have a tradewind rider or a
: thunderbolt in your hand(assuming you can cast both)?
*smile*
: Of course. It's entirely feasible that a deck made of nothing but basic
: land will win games on a Sunday afternoon between friends. It's still a
: crap deck that I can never take to a tournament.
*laugh*
Ilya
RaeMowse
goes like this:
Common-fits in almost all decks.
Uncommon-fits in a good sized number of decks.
Rare-Fits in a few decks, usually the deck revolves around the card.
Most of the good stuff are in the common range, ie. Counterspell, Disenchant,
etc. For what it's worth, Air Elemental should have been common. The uncommon
range has the cards that are good depending on the circumstances. Propaganda
is great at slowing the creature rush, especially WW since they usually don't
have that much mana in play anyway, but if you only have one or playing against
a deck that spews out mana, it's merely a stalling tactic. If Tradewind Rider
required you to pay out X mana and tap, I think it would be an uncommon,
following the Puppet Strings/Jandor's Saddlebags comparision. Now the rare
range does from time to time have some powerful stuff, but most of it is not
very wonderful to even comprehend its position of rare (Thoughtlace anyone?)
Necropotence is a rare, for it requires a decent deck to be built around it,
Monstrous Hounds is a rare for the same reason. Exalted Dragon is a rare only
because of its limitation; otherwise, it would be an uncommon. Archangel
should have been uncommon.
To some extend I agree with the current rarity scheme, but when we get stuff
like Flowstone Mauler and Deathlace, there needs to be some changes made.
Steve Klein
> >I like the thrill of opeing up a SH booster and seeing what i got.
> >I don't want to open up a pack of Tp and pull a tradewind and scroll (ok, maybe i do,
> >but then they wouldnt be valuable so who gives a damn)
>
> Of course they'd be valuable. They'd still be good cards.
so youd think theyd be valuable? Ever heard of supply and demand ??? If people could go get
a box and get 3 mox diamonds think they'd be worth $15, I think not. . $5 most likely not,
$2, maybe . . .
>
>
>
>
> >and i also look at it like this:
> >Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity, buy 2
> >display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3 pools, 3 vinyards, 3
> >scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3 living death, 3
> >booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now. suddenly every
> >card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like scroll, pool,
> >tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
>
> And this is bad, how?
It is bad because Magic cards have little or no value anymore. You wouldn't be excited if
you got a good deal, because if you did it would be "Wow, I saved 5 cents, lucky me!" Maybe
if they cut the printing to about half or less of what the current is, then maybe, just
maybe we would see a $5 card. . .
>
>
>
>
> >that would be horrible.
>
> How so?
see above
>
>
>
>
> > singles would no longer be sold because it would just be "I
> >need a 4 Tradewinds" "Oh we quit selling singles. Grabe 7 or 8 packs and you'll pull at
> >least 2 and if you don't, youll pull reflecting pools, vinyards t warps etc
>
> You've neglected to say what exactly is bad about this scenario.
it is bad because anyonce can go buy a pack and get what they need. . . this is what
happens:
Decks would become far to similar. . . sligh red burn already has because most of the cards
in those decks are commons and are easy to get, which is one reason lots of people don't
like it. maybe if incinerate and fireblast were uncommons/rare and lightning bolt was rare,
then maybe people couldn't just run out and get 4 incinerates/fireblasts for .25 but maybe
have to stick some cash into there decks. . .
>
>
>
>
> >The opening of bossters is half the fun of the game for me !
>
> Wait. Why don't we make the boosters 30 cards large, and only have 1 rare,
> 3 uncommons and 26 commons!? That way the thrill of opening a booster pack
> will be even better for you.
i would not mind that, really. . . if that was the case scroll would be valued at $40,
tradewinds/pools at $20, vinayrds at $15, medallions $10-$15, etc etc, anda the uncommons
would be sky high. . . as high as $5 for a gemstone mine or $3 for propaganda.
and the commons would become even trashier pulling 5 or 6 dups in 5 or 6 packs.
Chen
>ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) wrote:
>>I'm all for killing the secondary market. I think WotC would make more
>>money if everyone knew they could buy a box and get all the cards they
>>need. And you could still sell and trade cards, they just wouldn't be at
>>the rediculously high prices they're at now.
>
>Are you for real?
>
>Now: A new set comes out, and John buys six boxes, two serve to round
>out his collection for play and the rest is trading/selling fodder.
>WotC makes lots of money and is happy.
it really depends on the size of the set. right now you have to buy
tons of packs because you only get one rare. assuming that a larger
set would be desired, it would be just as profitable for them to print
300 card expansions, all commons. if they are all the same rarity then
it will still be difficult to get 4 of each card. on our side, we dont
wind up with ridiculous ratios (buy a box, get 2 necros and 10 stone
rains? how about 6 and 6?)
>After "killing the secondary market": A new set is released and John
>buys two boxes, which serve to round out his collection for play. Why
>buy more, because everyone else bought two boxes and have more than
>enough cards? WotC makes substantially less money and is not happy.
not exactly. if there is no variance in rarity, then the value of
"common" cards will go up, so people will (eventually) pay good money
for basic utility cards like Disenchant, since they will no longer
receive one in every ~12 packs.
>And just how can you "still trade and sell cards," if there is no
>secondary market? THAT IS THE SECONDARY MARKET!!!
he probably meant "secondary market" in regard to dealers and others
who have no real place in the game and just drive up the cost
arbitrarily.
>
>Geez,
>
>Tolun
you're BOTH leaving out some thoughts and details. i'm pretty sure the
rarity scheme was put into place as a method of controlling the power
of certain cards. but since that obviously didnt work, and it would be
equally profitable and more customer-friendly to print large sets with
no rarity scheme, we're left with the thread title question. is rarity
still necessary? for small expansions, yes. but to a smaller degree
than WotC is currently implementing. for large sets like the basic
editions and standalones? no, we dont need it.
Chen
wrote:
>i disagree with all of this. . .
no problem there...
>if you change the rarity system up a lot, then magic becomes dull. . .
how?
>I like the thrill of opeing up a SH booster and seeing what i got.
if its thrilling for you to try getting one card out of 44, then it
should be much more fun for you to try getting one card out of 143.
>I don't want to open up a pack of Tp and pull a tradewind and scroll (ok, maybe i do,
>but then they wouldnt be valuable so who gives a damn)
they wouldnt be overpriced, but they would still carry value.
>and i also look at it like this:
>Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity, buy 2
>display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3 pools, 3 vinyards, 3
>scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3 living death, 3
>booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now. suddenly every
>card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like scroll, pool,
>tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
your words, with emphasis added: "suddenly, EVERY card is worth a
quarter..."
that means no more commons that can only be sold in bulk for roughly a
penny each. Dark Banishing, Disenchant, Llanowar Elves are now $1
cards.
>that would be horrible. singles would no longer be sold because it would just be "I
>need a 4 Tradewinds" "Oh we quit selling singles. Grabe 7 or 8 packs and you'll pull at
>least 2 and if you don't, youll pull reflecting pools, vinyards t warps etc
your problem (and indeed, everyone who is on your side) is that you
forgot that "commons" will become drastically rarer than they are now.
using rare cards to show the degradation of the secondary market is a
one-sided argument. the value of some cards WILL go down. the value of
others WILL go up. the difference being, instead of having a bunch of
cards that are worth a nickel and a couple that are worth fifteen
dollars, all cards are worth .25 to 5.00 depending on their
usefulness, not rarity.
>The opening of bossters is half the fun of the game for me !
oops. god forbid that playing the game should take up more than 50% of
the fun.
Ritz
Michelle Bottorff heeft geschreven in bericht
<199807220...@sdn-ts-001mojcitp16.dialsprint.net>...
>I do think that a gradiant rarity level is important. Most of us who
>play "friendly" magic have many decks made up at any given time. And
>there are some cards that you simply need more than others. Most blue
>decks use counterspells. Few blue decks need stasis. If the rares were
>as common as commons, then people would be screaming about all the junk
>found in the packs.
No , then there would be more people playing stasis decks, because
its just as easy to assemble one, as a sligh (or SRB) deck...
and there would also be more wierd rogue decks, because all the cards
with strange effects would not be rares, so you won't have to spend a lot of
money
to get them. (after which you *might* find out that the card is not as cool
as you thought
it was... like hesitation ;) )
-Ritz
Ritz
Tolun heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>If you don't have access to the
>expensive rares, use what's available. Simple as that.
so do you THINK that people who have *less* money available
should have *less* fun in playing magic against people who have?!?!?!?!
because that's what you're saying.
of course this discussion is getting a bit political, but I think when a
game
is at a stage where people with lots of money win a *lot* more over people
with less, it is a REALLY BAD THING!!
>But all-rare
>decks will lose more often than all-common decks.
and 1+1 = 2
>>>casual play without putting in a single rare. I've done it, I've seen
>>>other people do it, and I've seen them win. Now, I wouldn't expect to
>>>ride that deck to the top of the Pro Tour or anything, but that's an
>>>entirely different situation. You buy into the tournaments, especially
>>>the big ones, and you're buying into a certain situation. A friendly
>>>game on Sunday afternoon between friends is an entirely different
>>>situation.
>>Of course. It's entirely feasible that a deck made of nothing but basic
>>land will win games on a Sunday afternoon between friends. It's still a
>>crap deck that I can never take to a tournament.
>Okay, that answers the question. You care nothing for casual play, and
>all you're concerned with is becoming the next Pro Tour champion. Good
>luck.
it's not what he meant. he meant that any deck can win against any other
deck
with the proper amount of luck.
>
>>So you think that Tournament Magic should be limited to those loaded with
>>cash?
>
>No, but it's an entirely different situation, and going into that
>situation uprepared is stupid. Whether or not you have access to all
>the good rares, you must be aware that other players do. In fact, it's
>because of the Tour that these cards are so highly priced in the first
>place: everyone wanting to play in the tournaments wants four copies
>of these cards, so the demand is much higher than the supply,
>therefore the price goes up.
don't you think that anyone has to have access to all the 'good' cards?
>Of course, I'm not an idiot, and so I realize that calling for these
>kinds of changes is a waste of time, and just makes me look stupid. So
>I don't. Take the hint.
pleaaaaaase, we're just *discussing* something here, man!
don't piss of anyone while your at it ;)
-Ritz
Tolun
wrote:
>Tolun heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>>If you don't have access to the
>>expensive rares, use what's available. Simple as that.
>Ooohhhh... NO!!!
>so do you THINK that people who have *less* money available
>should have *less* fun in playing magic against people who have?!?!?!?!
>because that's what you're saying.
>of course this discussion is getting a bit political, but I think when a
>game
>is at a stage where people with lots of money win a *lot* more over people
>with less, it is a REALLY BAD THING!!
I'd have a lot more fun driving a Ferrari than a Blazer. In fact, I'd
have a lot more fun piloting my own plane. Therefore, the prices of
these items should be slashed until I can afford them. Right.
Everyone can do what I do: spend what they're willing to spend and do
the best they can with what they have. Ranting about the fact that
someone has four Scrolls when you don't, therefore WotC should print
20x more Scrolls so you can have some is about as productive as me
saying that cars and planes should be given out to whoever wants them.
>>But all-rare
>>decks will lose more often than all-common decks.
>and 1+1 = 2
Wow, someone else in here can think logically. Congratulations, you're
in the minority. The prevailing "wisdom" here is that more rares =
more wins, so I thought I'd point out that this is not so.
>>>>casual play without putting in a single rare. I've done it, I've seen
>>>>other people do it, and I've seen them win. Now, I wouldn't expect to
>>>>ride that deck to the top of the Pro Tour or anything, but that's an
>>>>entirely different situation. You buy into the tournaments, especially
>>>>the big ones, and you're buying into a certain situation. A friendly
>>>>game on Sunday afternoon between friends is an entirely different
>>>>situation.
>>>Of course. It's entirely feasible that a deck made of nothing but basic
>>>land will win games on a Sunday afternoon between friends. It's still a
>>>crap deck that I can never take to a tournament.
>>Okay, that answers the question. You care nothing for casual play, and
>>all you're concerned with is becoming the next Pro Tour champion. Good
>>luck.
>it's not what he meant. he meant that any deck can win against any other
>deck
>with the proper amount of luck.
You can read minds, too? Relying simply on luck won't produce reliable
results. Nor will packing the deck with more expensive cards. If that
were the case, I'd just sit down with my adding machine and show my
opponent that I spent more than $50 over the amount he spent on his
deck, and he'd give up in despair and concede the game.
>>>So you think that Tournament Magic should be limited to those loaded with
>>>cash?
>>
>>No, but it's an entirely different situation, and going into that
>>situation uprepared is stupid. Whether or not you have access to all
>>the good rares, you must be aware that other players do. In fact, it's
>>because of the Tour that these cards are so highly priced in the first
>>place: everyone wanting to play in the tournaments wants four copies
>>of these cards, so the demand is much higher than the supply,
>>therefore the price goes up.
>don't you think that anyone has to have access to all the 'good' cards?
No. "Good" is relative. There are cards that are fantastic in
constructed, but suck in sealed. And vice-versa. There are cards that
are fine for "friendly" games, cards that work better than others in
multiplayer, etc. To have access to all the "good" cards requires a
person to have four of every card ever made (okay, maybe only one of
the restricted ones, but even the banned ones are good or they
wouldn't be banned), because every card is good in some situation. If
you want to do that, I have two words: play proxies. Chances are the
average player isn't going to have access to all these good cards in
their official, cardboard-with-a-picture form. Deal with it. I won't
be piloting my own plane any time soon, and I don't let that bother
me.
>>Of course, I'm not an idiot, and so I realize that calling for these
>>kinds of changes is a waste of time, and just makes me look stupid. So
>>I don't. Take the hint.
>pleaaaaaase, we're just *discussing* something here, man!
>don't piss of anyone while your at it ;)
You new here? :)
Tolun
Frederick Scott
raem...@aol.com (RaeMowse) writes:
When we get stuff like Flowstone Mauler and Deathlace, there needs to be some
changes made...but not to the rarity scheme. To the playtesting scheme (or
possibly to the people who are supposed to be _listening_ to what the play-
testers are saying.) The problem with totally weak cards being rares isn't
that people get lame rare cards. It's that people are getting lame cards,
period. (Fortuately, Deathlace _is_ gone, finally.)
Fred
Frederick Scott
Steve Klein <s...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>> >if you change the rarity system up a lot, then magic becomes dull. . .
>> >I like the thrill of opeing up a SH booster and seeing what i got.
>> >I don't want to open up a pack of Tp and pull a tradewind and scroll (ok,
>> >maybe i do, but then they wouldnt be valuable so who gives a damn)
>>
>> Of course they'd be valuable. They'd still be good cards.
>
>so youd think theyd be valuable? Ever heard of supply and demand ??? If
>people could go get a box and get 3 mox diamonds think they'd be worth $15,
>I think not. . $5 most likely not, $2, maybe . . .
I think he meant they'd be valuable _game_ cards. If what you want are
pieces of paper that may or may not valuable in terms of shear monetary
value and based on chance, buy lottery tickets.
>> >and i also look at it like this:
>> >Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity,
>> >buy 2 display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3
>> >pools, 3 vinyards, 3 scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3
>> >verdant forces, 3 living death, 3 booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander
>> >greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now. suddenly every card is worth a
>> >wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like scroll, pool,
>> >tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
>>
>> And this is bad, how?
>
>It is bad because Magic cards have little or no value anymore.
So what? You actually want to play with the cards or just sell them? Maybe
what you want to be doing is dealing in commodoties, not collecting cards.
>> > singles would no longer be sold because it would just be "I
>> >need a 4 Tradewinds" "Oh we quit selling singles. Grabe 7 or 8 packs and
>> >you'll pull at least 2 and if you don't, youll pull reflecting pools,
>> >vinyards t warps etc
>>
>> You've neglected to say what exactly is bad about this scenario.
>
>it is bad because anyonce can go buy a pack and get what they need. . .
Yes, and...
This would be bad why? Again, you've neglected to point at something that's
actually _bad_ in some sense.
>this is what happens: Decks would become far to similar. . .
Nonsense. Decks aren't different because people can't get want they want.
Decks in Magic are different because people don't agree exactly what the best
strategy in the game is.
Fred
RaeMowse
>> >if you change the rarity system up a lot, then magic becomes dull. . .
>> >I like the thrill of opeing up a SH booster and seeing what i got.
>> >I don't want to open up a pack of Tp and pull a tradewind and scroll (ok,
>maybe i do,
>> >but then they wouldnt be valuable so who gives a damn)
>>
>> Of course they'd be valuable. They'd still be good cards.
>
>so youd think theyd be valuable? Ever heard of supply and demand ???
What exactly does that have to do with getting good, playable,
tournament-worthy cards at good deals?
>If people could go get
>a box and get 3 mox diamonds think they'd be worth $15, I think not. . $5
>most likely not,
>$2, maybe . . .
I see you were taught that any and everything worth collecting should have some
form of monetary value in the future. Value doesn't always mean money. I know
some people who will raise hell if they can't find that old, dilapidated rag
doll their mother made for them when they were little children, or their first
baseball they caught at a major league game, or whatever. To you, it may be
junk, but to them, it's priceless.
I'd much value a Counterspell than Tradewind Rider any day of the week.
>> >and i also look at it like this:
>> >Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity,
>buy 2
>> >display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3 pools,
>3 vinyards, 3
>> >scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3 living
>death, 3
>> >booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now.
>suddenly every
>> >card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like
>scroll, pool,
>> >tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
>>
>> And this is bad, how?
>
>It is bad because Magic cards have little or no value anymore. You wouldn't
>be excited if
>you got a good deal, because if you did it would be "Wow, I saved 5 cents,
>lucky me!" Maybe
>if they cut the printing to about half or less of what the current is, then
>maybe, just
>maybe we would see a $5 card. . .
Outside of the Magic community, Magic cards are worth exactly $0.00. If you
gave some bystander a Black Lotus and told him to rip it into confetti, he
would do it without a second thought. Do the same thing with a Magic player,
and you'd end up getting offers upwards of a hundred dollars or more.
>> >that would be horrible.
>>
>> How so?
>
>see above
Ditto.
>
>> > singles would no longer be sold because it would just be "I
>> >need a 4 Tradewinds" "Oh we quit selling singles. Grabe 7 or 8 packs and
>you'll pull at
>> >least 2 and if you don't, youll pull reflecting pools, vinyards t warps
>etc
>>
>> You've neglected to say what exactly is bad about this scenario.
>
>it is bad because anyonce can go buy a pack and get what they need. . .
Which is the point. There's absolutely nothing wrong with buying packs and
standing a fair chance of getting what you need.
> this is what happens:
>Decks would become far to similar. . . sligh red burn already has because
>most of the cards
>in those decks are commons and are easy to get, which is one reason lots of
>people don't
>like it. maybe if incinerate and fireblast were uncommons/rare and lightning
>bolt was rare,
>then maybe people couldn't just run out and get 4 incinerates/fireblasts for
>.25 but maybe
>have to stick some cash into there decks. . .
And controls decks are also bad because most of the cards in their decks are
common, too? I don't think so. People hate burn because it's a cheap way to
win by way of direct damage. People hate burn because it seemingly throws out
all the rules of strategy and turns the game into a "luck of the draw" match
up. People hate control decks because of just that--control. No one likes to
be controlled, forced to play their game the way one indivisual wants it to be
played.
>> >The opening of bossters is half the fun of the game for me !
>>
>> Wait. Why don't we make the boosters 30 cards large, and only have 1 rare,
>> 3 uncommons and 26 commons!? That way the thrill of opening a booster pack
>> will be even better for you.
>
>i would not mind that, really. . . if that was the case scroll would be
>valued at $40,
>tradewinds/pools at $20, vinayrds at $15, medallions $10-$15, etc etc, anda
>the uncommons
>would be sky high. . . as high as $5 for a gemstone mine or $3 for
>propaganda.
>
>and the commons would become even trashier pulling 5 or 6 dups in 5 or 6
>packs.
I suggest you wake up and think about what you've just said. It should sound
like a joke, but I think you are serious. Such a scheme like that would drive
off literally thousands and thousands of players, which would really hurt WotC
in profits, and force the foreclosure of a number of card shops that solely
rely on Magic to boost their sales. After the smoke clears, the only ones who
really want to and can play Magic are people who a) have money to throw around,
b) have no life of any sort outside of Magic, and c) sells the cards at their
ridiculous prices. Once you get down to it, being greedy like that is a
surefire way to destruction of yourself.
David Linder
>ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) wrote:
>>What the hell are you talking about? Your solution is "Don't play with
>>rares"? Okay I'll play with no rares and then get spanked by everyone else
>>who does have 4 cursed scrolls or 4 tradwinds or 4 (insert highpriced
>>rare).
>
>I guess you've never heard of Disenchant, then. Or Dark Banishing. Or
>Thunderbolt, or Fireblast, or any of the other COMMONS that destroy
>those rares.
Oh, here we go again... it's like those people saying Ancestral isn't
broken because you can pyro it.
Well, here's logic for you:
Thunderbolt is *not* as good as Tradewind, even though it destroys it
for a lesser cost. This is because Tradewind is good when you don't
have T-Bolt, but T-Bolt sucks without a Tradewind to kill.
>And it's perfectly possible to build good decks for
>casual play without putting in a single rare. I've done it, I've seen
>other people do it, and I've seen them win. Now, I wouldn't expect to
>ride that deck to the top of the Pro Tour or anything, but that's an
>entirely different situation. You buy into the tournaments, especially
>the big ones, and you're buying into a certain situation. A friendly
>game on Sunday afternoon between friends is an entirely different
>situation.
Yeah, but if all card were common (or at least common or uncommon),
both the tourney-players and the casual would be happy. Your solution
"don't play in tourneys" is sort of a cop-out answer.
>So the question to ask is, "do I want to play a game, or do I want to
>pursue a career as a Magic Pro?"
Or, "do I want to compete at the same level as others without spending
to much money?"
David Linder
Pete Thompson
>>Tempest is a 350+ card set I think. If all the cards were the same rarity, buy 2
>>display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3 pools, 3 vinyards, 3
>>scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3 living death, 3
>>booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now. suddenly every
>>card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like scroll, pool,
>>tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
>
>And this is bad, how?
You have no business sense do you? Look at it from WotC's point of
view. Why should they do this? Why kill themselves just to please
people who wants to spend _LESS_ money? Like it or not, they're
a business. They're in it to make money, and doing the above is NOT
a good way to make money for them.
Sure, you might be happy with getting a geddon or wrath in every other
booster, but then that'd mean you'd stop buying cards after several
boosters. This is A Bad Thing for WotC.
I'd sure like to be able to buy a Ferrari for $5000, but I can't.
Live with it.
>>The opening of bossters is half the fun of the game for me !
>
>Wait. Why don't we make the boosters 30 cards large, and only have 1 rare,
>3 uncommons and 26 commons!? That way the thrill of opening a booster pack
>will be even better for you.
Yet another aspect of business that you don't understand.
Put yourself in WotC's position. You want to make money.
How do you go about making money? Making cards all
of the same rarity so people need only buy them once
then never buy them again. Or find an incentive for the
customer to keep buying cards? That incentive is rarity.
But wait, there's more. They still have to figure out the
price point where people are willing to spend, but anything
higher than that, they won't pay. From the $2.99 marked
on booster packs, it seems like they've found a sweet
spot that people are willing to pay. I know that I sure
as hell wouldn't spend more than $3 per pack, but
$3 per pack is affordable enough for me.
They also have to figure out a way to balance the cards.
1 rare out of 30 cards and people won't buy them. 1
rare out of 5 cards, and the market will be flooded
with that rare, causing people to buy less cards,
which means less money for WotC. *AND* they
have to make sure the cards are interesting enough
for people to buy them. A daunting task indeed.
Examples? Sol Ring. One of the best mana
regenerators out there, and yet you can get them
dirt cheap. Why? Because the were printed
so much that they were everywhere. Supply exceeded
demand.
Another example? Fallen Empires. Even at
such a low price, noone is buying them.
Inferior product means no money. I'm sure THIS
you can agree on. If not, then why aren't you
buying Fallen Empires? They're cheap!
Dirt cheap!
By using a rarity system, they keep demand
up high. As long as there is demand, they're
making money, and that makes them happy.
And you should be happy if they make money.
Would you rather that they go bankrupt and
stopped printing cards?
David Linder
[snip]
>I'd have a lot more fun driving a Ferrari than a Blazer. In fact, I'd
>have a lot more fun piloting my own plane. Therefore, the prices of
>these items should be slashed until I can afford them. Right.
We're not talking of slahing any store-prices here, but trashing the
rarity-system. By doing that, the secondary prices would go down, yes.
>Everyone can do what I do: spend what they're willing to spend and do
>the best they can with what they have. Ranting about the fact that
>someone has four Scrolls when you don't, therefore WotC should print
>20x more Scrolls so you can have some is about as productive as me
>saying that cars and planes should be given out to whoever wants them.
You're just making a fool of yourself here by comparing the making of
all cards common to giving away free planes. Try keep the arguments
logic.
Look at it this way: give me *one* good reason not to drop the
rarity-system? Anyone?
And no, "people would get the cards they want" does not qualify as a
bad thing. That's a *good* thing.
>>>But all-rare
>>>decks will lose more often than all-common decks.
[snip]
This has nothing to do with the discussion. Wether rares or commons
are better doesn't matter, I want to be able to play with all cards
available.
[snip]
>You can read minds, too? Relying simply on luck won't produce reliable
>results. Nor will packing the deck with more expensive cards. If that
>were the case, I'd just sit down with my adding machine and show my
>opponent that I spent more than $50 over the amount he spent on his
>deck, and he'd give up in despair and concede the game.
*This does not matter.*
Some rare cards are good, and some common cards are. Some expensive
cards are good, and some cheap are. If they all were common we could
play with those we want to.
[snip]
>No. "Good" is relative. There are cards that are fantastic in
>constructed, but suck in sealed. And vice-versa. There are cards that
>are fine for "friendly" games, cards that work better than others in
>multiplayer, etc. To have access to all the "good" cards requires a
>person to have four of every card ever made (okay, maybe only one of
>the restricted ones, but even the banned ones are good or they
>wouldn't be banned), because every card is good in some situation. If
>you want to do that, I have two words: play proxies.
You obviously don't want to play in tourneys, and that's fine. But
please think of other persons than yourself, those who want to play in
tourneys for example.
>Chances are the
>average player isn't going to have access to all these good cards in
>their official, cardboard-with-a-picture form. Deal with it. I won't
>be piloting my own plane any time soon, and I don't let that bother
>me.
Yeah.
"Deal with it."
That's the best solution ever.
Tolun, are you on AOL? (Just kidding, everyone)
*Why* should we deal with it we could change the situation?
One last thing: from now on, please don't crosspost into the strategy
group, everyone (I'm doing it one last time just to get this message
through). Thanks.
David Linder
Tolun
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:27:04 GMT, to...@ptdprolog.net (Tolun) wrote:
>[snip]
>
>>Everyone can do what I do: spend what they're willing to spend and do
>>the best they can with what they have. Ranting about the fact that
>>someone has four Scrolls when you don't, therefore WotC should print
>>20x more Scrolls so you can have some is about as productive as me
>>saying that cars and planes should be given out to whoever wants them.
>You're just making a fool of yourself here by comparing the making of
>all cards common to giving away free planes. Try keep the arguments
>logic.
Making a fool of myself? How? I used that as an example because it put
forth the idea that I wanted to put forth. If you can't see it, I'm
not the fool...
I DO NOT seriously expect anyone to say "here's a plane, just because
you want it," nor would I demand such a thing. It's stupid, and
selfish, and if I were to say that to someone, he'd laugh in my face.
Well, guess what! THAT is what I think of the argument to "abolish the
rarities." It's JUST as stupid and selfish, and thus there's no
difference, so far as I'm concerned. And I'm laughing in the faces of
those who think this is actually a reasonable demand.
And you want to speak of LOGIC? The logical conclusion is that WotC
will never slit their own throats by doing this, and even should they
experiment with common/uncommon distribution, they'd come up with some
little twist to sell more cards anyway. Take the L5R expansion,
"Scorpion Clan Coup," for example. Even though there are no rares,
those who buy "by the box" need at least three boxes to complete a
set. Why? Because the set was released in three sections (Scrolls) and
cards from one Scroll do not carry over into the others (there are
some exeptions, but not enough to build a set from one box or even
two).
>Look at it this way: give me *one* good reason not to drop the
>rarity-system? Anyone?
People have tossed around plenty of good reasons. WotC going out of
bunsiness is probably the best one. Card shops that sell on the
secondary market going out of business would be another. Like it or
not, we live in a Capitalist society, and WotC is not a non-profit
organization dedicated to bringing pieces of cardboard to all the
deserving children of the world. They want to make money, and they've
found a way to rake it in pretty well, well enough that an unknown
company rose high enough after only a handful of years to bail out the
ailing TSR and buy out their competition. That's called being
successful, and you don't mess with success.
Whether or not you like to deal with this idea is beside the point.
Why should I bend over backwards looking for a reason that you like,
when you obviously ignore everything but your own desires, and thus
will be satisfied with nothing less than "you're right, dude, they
SHOULD abolish the rarities, because David Linder doesn't want to pay
a lot for his Magic cards, there's absolutely no reason in the world
why he wouldn't." And when the abolish the rarities, I'll fly over in
my Lear Jet and I'll host the first airborne tournament.
D>[snip]
>>No. "Good" is relative. There are cards that are fantastic in
>>constructed, but suck in sealed. And vice-versa. There are cards that
>>are fine for "friendly" games, cards that work better than others in
>>multiplayer, etc. To have access to all the "good" cards requires a
>>person to have four of every card ever made (okay, maybe only one of
>>the restricted ones, but even the banned ones are good or they
>>wouldn't be banned), because every card is good in some situation. If
>>you want to do that, I have two words: play proxies.
>You obviously don't want to play in tourneys, and that's fine. But
>please think of other persons than yourself, those who want to play in
>tourneys for example.
Telliing me not to be selfish. That's rich. Try thinking of the poor
grunt workers of the company, who have to rely on a weekly paycheck to
put food on the table.
>"Deal with it."
>That's the best solution ever.
>Tolun, are you on AOL? (Just kidding, everyone)
>*Why* should we deal with it we could change the situation?
Uhhhhh... because you can't? Of did you just buy enough stock in WotC
to give you 51% of the vote?
"Lord grant me the courage to change the things I can change, the
serenity to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the
difference." Courage you may have, but you seem to be low on serenity,
and wisdom hasn't even made an appearance yet.
>One last thing: from now on, please don't crosspost into the strategy
>group, everyone (I'm doing it one last time just to get this message
>through). Thanks.
I'm posting this IN strategy. I don't read .misc very often.
Tolun
David Linder
>you want it," nor would I demand such a thing. It's stupid, and
>selfish, and if I were to say that to someone, he'd laugh in my face.
>Well, guess what! THAT is what I think of the argument to "abolish the
>rarities." It's JUST as stupid and selfish,
Is it.
Well, I'm not asking them to give anything away, so how could it be
JUST as selfish as doing just that?
>and thus there's no
>difference, so far as I'm concerned. And I'm laughing in the faces of
>those who think this is actually a reasonable demand.
All I'm asking is that they cut their profits a little. They are
making so much money on this, so they would still make it with a great
marginal.
>And you want to speak of LOGIC? The logical conclusion is that WotC
>will never slit their own throats by doing this,
You make them sound like a small, local company. Where have you been
the latest year? Notice how they've grown, and *eaten* many other game
companies (like the not-so-small TSR)?
They would be able to make it with a little lesser income.
>and even should they
>experiment with common/uncommon distribution, they'd come up with some
>little twist to sell more cards anyway. Take the L5R expansion,
>"Scorpion Clan Coup," for example. Even though there are no rares,
>those who buy "by the box" need at least three boxes to complete a
>set. Why? Because the set was released in three sections (Scrolls) and
>cards from one Scroll do not carry over into the others (there are
>some exeptions, but not enough to build a set from one box or even
>two).
(Hmm, L5R, isn't that another game they *bought* lately?)
>>Look at it this way: give me *one* good reason not to drop the
>>rarity-system? Anyone?
>
>People have tossed around plenty of good reasons. WotC going out of
>bunsiness is probably the best one.
Yeah, yeah.
Like they would.
What about companies that produce normal playing cards, for example?
How *do* they manage, without a rarity-system? Or any other
game-seller?
The rarity-system isn't necessary, but it made the game the
money-producing monster it is now.
> Card shops that sell on the
>secondary market going out of business would be another.
They would not!
Have you looked at a budget for one of these stores? I can assure you
that the secondary market do not make up much of their profits.
Besides, they would still be able to buy and sell cards (albeit with
not as high prices). This is because the price of the average common
would rise if there were no rares or uncommons.
>Like it or
>not, we live in a Capitalist society, and WotC is not a non-profit
>organization dedicated to bringing pieces of cardboard to all the
>deserving children of the world. They want to make money, and they've
>found a way to rake it in pretty well, well enough that an unknown
>company rose high enough after only a handful of years to bail out the
>ailing TSR and buy out their competition. That's called being
>successful, and you don't mess with success.
"Don't mess with success"
What an attitude.
The only reason they can keep the prices they have is because they
have monopoly on Magic. Even so, they are dependant on us, the
customers. So I do think we can mess with them.
>Whether or not you like to deal with this idea is beside the point.
>Why should I bend over backwards looking for a reason that you like,
>when you obviously ignore everything but your own desires,
This is a little harsh, isn't it?
I do think it's in most players interest to be able to get all cards.
Except yours, as it seems.
>and thus
>will be satisfied with nothing less than "you're right, dude, they
>SHOULD abolish the rarities, because David Linder doesn't want to pay
>a lot for his Magic cards, there's absolutely no reason in the world
>why he wouldn't." And when the abolish the rarities, I'll fly over in
>my Lear Jet and I'll host the first airborne tournament.
Back to the childish "free airplane" arguments, I see. Oh well.
Let's make a thought-experiment:
What if WotC made "Chase-cards", ultra rares, one in each box. They
would sell much more (at first), and prices would rocket.
So why don't they?
Well, customers wouldn't be happy.
You see, that's what it's all about. They take as much money they can
from the sheep (that's those who don't complain when prices get too
high) without causing any players to quit.
If we show them that we don't like the current system, maybe they'll
listen. I really think they would. But as long as we shut up, how can
we expect things to get better?
>Telliing me not to be selfish. That's rich. Try thinking of the poor
>grunt workers of the company, who have to rely on a weekly paycheck to
>put food on the table.
[sob]
Yeah, well, if WotC has the money to buy companies, don't you think
they could lower prices somewhat without having to cut into their
workers paychecks?
>>*Why* should we deal with it we could change the situation?
>
>Uhhhhh... because you can't? Of did you just buy enough stock in WotC
>to give you 51% of the vote?
Acually, WotC has taken heed in many matters before, and listened to
the players (that's us). You don't need to be 51% to make a
difference.
>"Lord grant me the courage to change the things I can change, the
>serenity to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the
>difference." Courage you may have, but you seem to be low on serenity,
>and wisdom hasn't even made an appearance yet.
And that's said by someone who doesn't understand to post in the
relevant group, just because you don't wish to read it. Sigh.
>I'm posting this IN strategy. I don't read .misc very often.
Oh, I'm sorry, my lord. I suppose you do as you wish. Why don't you go
post it in the trade-group as well. Or maybe this *is* strategy, but I
guess I'm too stupid to understand.
(Note: I'm posting this answer to Tolun in strategy too, for him to
read it)
David Linder
shankman
and that it would be a very stupid move on the part of WotC to abolish
it. First, although most people who have responded to this would be
described as mostly players, you have to remember that there are also
collectors. There are a lot of collectors, even if there aren't so many
as there are players. Collectors spend at least as much on the game as
players do (maybe more), and getting rid of rarity would alienate them.
That equals almost half of the customers either not even buying the
product or buying much less of it that they did before. WotC might still
make money (a lot of money, even) but it wouldn't make as much as they
did before and that is a bad business move.
Second, even though it sucks to open an entire box and not get the one
card you need to complete your deck and then having to shell out an
additional 20$ if the card happens to be a Cursed Scroll, most people
enjoy the feeling of opening a pack and pulling a great card (Tradewind,
Scroll, Diamond).
Third, if Wizards did this, how many people would say that they would
still buy as many packs as they did before if they could get 3 or 4 of
every card in a set from one box. As it is, people have to buy 3-4
boxes or more to complete a set and WotC couldn't be happier.
There are much better things WotC could do than getting rid of rarity.
Get rid of crappy commons that no one uses (Grollub). For that matter,
get rid of the rares that suck, Uncommons too. Make every card useful
Release an additional kind of booster pack that contains 3 rares and
nothing else. Cut down on the sizes of newer sets. My dream would be a
set that had maybe 100 cards or less. Every card would be viable for
tournament use. Give it a Cured Scroll-ish card, as long as the card
was in the Preconstructed deck. It would be available in
Preconstructeds, boosters, and a special lite booster that contained
only rares. With a set like that, there would be no need to get rid of
rarity. Oh, and maybe they could make the cards right the first time so
that there was no need to give it errata, but I guess that's asking too
much.
Jim Shankman
B. Grasher
drake was about the stupidest card i had seen until i made a deck with
pandemonium, or ball lightning(timid drake=power card?). oath of
mages/ali from cairo, aftershock/quake/cop red, apocalypse/veil, grollub
could be a great blocker/kill card in b/U counter, 4xmogg squad... doh.
anyway, the point of wierd cards like shreiking drake and the like is to
make people think and get some interesting decks going and some powerful
combinations think phryxian dreadnaut when mirage came out. you just
have to think about it. it's a no brainer to say ophidian wall of
blossoms or impulse, but they're not always the best choice.
i agree with alot of the stuff you say(capitalism rules), but not every
card can be a 'power card'
ben the ben-edictory
Chen
>"Ritz" <pasma...@consunet.noidontwantaonetimeofferthankyou.nl>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Tolun heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>>>If you don't have access to the
>>>expensive rares, use what's available. Simple as that.
>>Ooohhhh... NO!!!
>>so do you THINK that people who have *less* money available
>>should have *less* fun in playing magic against people who have?!?!?!?!
>>because that's what you're saying.
>>of course this discussion is getting a bit political, but I think when a
>>game
>>is at a stage where people with lots of money win a *lot* more over people
>>with less, it is a REALLY BAD THING!!
>
>I'd have a lot more fun driving a Ferrari than a Blazer. In fact, I'd
>have a lot more fun piloting my own plane. Therefore, the prices of
>these items should be slashed until I can afford them. Right.
i dont think it has to be said, but vehicles dont have damn thing in
common with card games. lets not resort to grossly oversimplified
analgoies, ok?
>Everyone can do what I do: spend what they're willing to spend and do
>the best they can with what they have. Ranting about the fact that
>someone has four Scrolls when you don't, therefore WotC should print
>20x more Scrolls so you can have some is about as productive as me
>saying that cars and planes should be given out to whoever wants them.
here we go again. cars and planes ARE given out to whoever can pay for
their production. by your logic, we should all be able to buy any card
we want for approximately .25 each.
>>and 1+1 = 2
>
>Wow, someone else in here can think logically. Congratulations, you're
>in the minority. The prevailing "wisdom" here is that more rares =
>more wins, so I thought I'd point out that this is not so.
someone "else"? i fail to see any real logic in your arguments thus
far. if by "here" you mean "this newsgroup" i think you're dead wrong.
most people "here" are well aware of what rares are for.
>>>>Of course. It's entirely feasible that a deck made of nothing but basic
>>>>land will win games on a Sunday afternoon between friends. It's still a
>>>>crap deck that I can never take to a tournament.
>>>Okay, that answers the question. You care nothing for casual play, and
>>>all you're concerned with is becoming the next Pro Tour champion. Good
>>>luck.
>
>>it's not what he meant. he meant that any deck can win against any other
>>deck
>>with the proper amount of luck.
>
>You can read minds, too?
why dont you read the paragraph he was referring to? it doesnt take
rocket science to see that he's talking about luck. unless, of course,
you know of some basic land decks.
>Relying simply on luck won't produce reliable
>results.
um, duh? that what LUCK is all about, last time i checked.
>Nor will packing the deck with more expensive cards. If that
>were the case, I'd just sit down with my adding machine and show my
>opponent that I spent more than $50 over the amount he spent on his
>deck, and he'd give up in despair and concede the game.
packing MORE expensive cards isnt the issue. the fact that there ARE
expensive cards, and that packing SOME expensive cards DOES make for a
better deck, is the issue.
>>don't you think that anyone has to have access to all the 'good' cards?
>
>No. "Good" is relative. There are cards that are fantastic in
>constructed, but suck in sealed. And vice-versa.
wake up...if its only good in SEALED, then it still has no value since
you cant BUY singles to be used in SEALED play! DUH!
>There are cards that
>are fine for "friendly" games, cards that work better than others in
>multiplayer, etc. To have access to all the "good" cards requires a
>person to have four of every card ever made
like you said, "good" is relative. but not for environments, for
decks. some people have no use for Necros, Blooms, Orbs, or Geddons.
nobody needs 4 of EVERY card. they just need 4 of the cards they want.
>(okay, maybe only one of
>the restricted ones, but even the banned ones are good or they
>wouldn't be banned), because every card is good in some situation.
dont overgeneralize. every card is good in some manufactured,
contrived situation. but if your "every card is good somewhere" line
was true, then every card would be worth at least .50.
>If
>you want to do that, I have two words: play proxies. Chances are the
>average player isn't going to have access to all these good cards in
>their official, cardboard-with-a-picture form. Deal with it. I won't
>be piloting my own plane any time soon, and I don't let that bother
>me.
well for that matter, you can throw all your cards away and just play
with pieces of paper. solution? i think not.
>You new here? :)
>
>Tolun
-----
Ritz
>> >and i also look at it like this:
rarity, buy 2
>> >display boxes and youve got 3 complete sets. thats 3 tradewinds, 3
pools, 3 vinyards, 3
>> >scrolls, 3 of every medallion, 3 corpse dance, 3 verdant forces, 3
living death, 3
>> >booby trap, 3 aluren, 3 commander greven, 3 time warp. . ill stop now.
suddenly every
>> >card is worth a wuarter with maybe the best cards peaking at $1 (like
scroll, pool,
>> >tradewind) and other good cards topping out at .50 (medallions, vinyard)
>>
>> And this is bad, how?
>
be excited if
>you got a good deal, because if you did it would be "Wow, I saved 5 cents,
lucky me!" Maybe
>if they cut the printing to about half or less of what the current is, then
maybe, just
>maybe we would see a $5 card. . .
playing with it...
The only problem I would have with equal rarities, is that I have no
criteria to put a card in my
commons-box(es) or in ... eh.. those sleeve thingies (dont know how they're
called in english?)
I think it's the same for people like me who don't give much about
collecting cards.
>it is bad because anyonce can go buy a pack and get what they need. . .
this is what
>happens:
>Decks would become far to similar. . . sligh red burn already has because
most of the cards
>in those decks are commons and are easy to get, which is one reason lots of
people don't
>like it. maybe if incinerate and fireblast were uncommons/rare and
lightning bolt was rare,
>then maybe people couldn't just run out and get 4 incinerates/fireblasts
for .25 but maybe
>have to stick some cash into there decks. . .
But why would you WANT to stick cash in your decks?!?!
When I have access to all the cards I want, I would experiment a *lot* with
different deck-styles.
But since every 'interesting' card is rare or uncommon, you have to know for
sure that you can
make a good deck with it, before you start trading for them (or you can use
proxies, but that
can start to annoy people, and yourself too ;) )
For example, when Tempest came out, I thought that Hesitation was a really
neat card, so I traded
for 4 of them... But they suck.
I still want to build a strange deck using natures revolt, but since it's a
rare, I only got one.
I wouldn't have those problems if the cards were all the same rarity.
Piter Pasma
Frederick Scott
mbot...@sprintmail.com (Michelle Bottorff) writes:
>David Linder <mali...@algonet.se> wrote:
>
>> Look at it this way: give me *one* good reason not to drop the
>> rarity-system? Anyone?
>
>Because there are some cards-- good cards-- that you just don't want to
>have as many of as others.
>
>Consider Stasis, or Sands of Time, or Ensnaring Bridge. They're all
>good cards... but you don't need a lot of them. If I have a two dozen
>decks set up, I'm still not likely to need more than 1-4 of each
>(quantity depending on the actual deck).
>
>Now take Counterspell, or Dark Banishing, or Fireball... if I have two
>dozen decks, I can expect to be using about a dozen of each. I *need*
>more counterspells than stasises.
You're right. But I do sort of question whether the designers can
accurately predict which cards can/should be rarer than which others.
It would be great if the could but they just can't ahead of time. Too
many situations like Cursed Scroll, which I bet they thought would rarely
get used when they released it and it turned into such a monster once the
player population at large got hold of it for a couple months.
And even if they could, there's the question of whether most cards would
really fit perfectly into the 15-times-more-rare-than-the-commons slot.
Most rare cards really don't need to be _that_ rare. And many common cards
don't need to be that common. (Not to get reinvolved with the debate over
whether eliminating rarity levels is feasible or desirable for other reasons,
but...) I'd say they'd usually be closer to the "needed rarity level" for
most cards if they printed all cards in equal quanitites than if they
continued to print to the rarity levels they use now.
>I do think, though, that Wizards often bases rarity on anticipated
>consumer demand (the most sought-after cards become rarest) rather than
>actual deck-need demand.
Actually, I disagree. Mox Diamond is kind of an example of what you're
talking and I'm sure when they created it, they couldn't resist the
temptation to make it a rare. But I really think most of the really
useful general purpose cards do wind up being commons, albeit with a few
mistakes. One thing that seems to happen a lot, though, is that certain
cards that were no doubt perceived as "specialized cards" by the designers,
suitable for printing as rares, turn out to yield really kick-ass decks.
So they wind up being high-demand cards anyway.
Fred
Nathan Dunning
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:27:04 GMT, to...@ptdprolog.net (Tolun) wrote:
>[snip]
>>I'd have a lot more fun driving a Ferrari than a Blazer. In fact, I'd
>>have a lot more fun piloting my own plane. Therefore, the prices of
>>these items should be slashed until I can afford them. Right.
>
>We're not talking of slahing any store-prices here, but trashing the
>rarity-system. By doing that, the secondary prices would go down, yes.
>
>>Everyone can do what I do: spend what they're willing to spend and do
>>the best they can with what they have. Ranting about the fact that
>>someone has four Scrolls when you don't, therefore WotC should print
>>20x more Scrolls so you can have some is about as productive as me
>>saying that cars and planes should be given out to whoever wants them.
>
>You're just making a fool of yourself here by comparing the making of
>all cards common to giving away free planes. Try keep the arguments
>logic.
>
>Look at it this way: give me *one* good reason not to drop the
>rarity-system? Anyone?
>
How about four? ;)
1) I'm a collector. I like rarity - it adds a little challenge to
the collecting game. I probably would have stopped playing at least
one time if not for the rarity system. I know a lot (20+) people for
whom this is true, and they tend to be the people who make large
purchases (a box or 2 or 4 of every new expansion).
2) Little kids (10-12) or so love rarity. It lets them have "good"
cards like Baron Sengir and lord it over their friends who don't have
one. Thus maintaining their interest in the game and preparing them
for a life of yuppiedom.
3) WOTC would sell significantly fewer cards to the current fan base
(5 times as many rares = maybe 1/3 of the current sales) (just a
guess, but a pretty good one, I think). I don't think new players
would make up the huge difference in sales.
4) WOTC doesn't want to change anything about their cash cow.
Nathan
>And no, "people would get the cards they want" does not qualify as a
>bad thing. That's a *good* thing.
>
>>>>But all-rare
>>>>decks will lose more often than all-common decks.
>[snip]
>
>This has nothing to do with the discussion. Wether rares or commons
>are better doesn't matter, I want to be able to play with all cards
>available.
>
>[snip]
>>You can read minds, too? Relying simply on luck won't produce reliable
>>results. Nor will packing the deck with more expensive cards. If that
>>were the case, I'd just sit down with my adding machine and show my
>>opponent that I spent more than $50 over the amount he spent on his
>>deck, and he'd give up in despair and concede the game.
>
>*This does not matter.*
>Some rare cards are good, and some common cards are. Some expensive
>cards are good, and some cheap are. If they all were common we could
>play with those we want to.
>
>[snip]
>>No. "Good" is relative. There are cards that are fantastic in
>>constructed, but suck in sealed. And vice-versa. There are cards that
>>are fine for "friendly" games, cards that work better than others in
>>multiplayer, etc. To have access to all the "good" cards requires a
>>person to have four of every card ever made (okay, maybe only one of
>>the restricted ones, but even the banned ones are good or they
>>wouldn't be banned), because every card is good in some situation. If
>>you want to do that, I have two words: play proxies.
>
>You obviously don't want to play in tourneys, and that's fine. But
>please think of other persons than yourself, those who want to play in
>tourneys for example.
>
>
>>Chances are the
>>average player isn't going to have access to all these good cards in
>>their official, cardboard-with-a-picture form. Deal with it. I won't
>>be piloting my own plane any time soon, and I don't let that bother
>>me.
>
>Yeah.
>
>"Deal with it."
>That's the best solution ever.
>Tolun, are you on AOL? (Just kidding, everyone)
>
>*Why* should we deal with it we could change the situation?
>
>
>One last thing: from now on, please don't crosspost into the strategy
>group, everyone (I'm doing it one last time just to get this message
>through). Thanks.
>
>David Linder
Nathan Dunning
wrote:
>In article <9G9t1.104$VB3.3...@nnrp2.ptd.net>,
>Tolun <to...@ptdprolog.net> wrote:
>>Now: A new set comes out, and John buys six boxes, two serve to round
>>out his collection for play and the rest is trading/selling fodder.
>>WotC makes lots of money and is happy.
>
>I doubt there are many people who buy four boxes of a set just for trading
>fodder.
>
It doesn't take many of us to add up to a large chunk of cards.
Btw, as an aside, the bulk purchasers are the people who help keep the
local stores in business/carrying magic, in my experience.
Support your local store - buy 2 boxes today!
>How about this? Johnny wants to play tournament Magic but sees that all
>the decks are packed with expensive rares and decides to try something
>else instead. my scenario's just as likely as your's.
>
>>After "killing the secondary market": A new set is released and John
>>buys two boxes, which serve to round out his collection for play. Why
>>buy more, because everyone else bought two boxes and have more than
>>enough cards? WotC makes substantially less money and is not happy.
>
Actually, if 2 boxes got him a set with rares, something less than 1
box should get him a set without rares. So he's down to maybe 1 box.
>But more people will buy boxes if they know they are guaranteed of getting
>a playable set.
>
Uhh - maybe. The people who don't buy boxes now probably wouldn't
start - they just like to buy the occasional pack. And the people who
buy boxes now would either buy the same or fewer boxes. And the big
buyers (3+ boxes) are almost definitely going to decrease their
purchases.
Nathan
>>And just how can you "still trade and sell cards," if there is no
>>secondary market? THAT IS THE SECONDARY MARKET!!!
>
>Okay, I was exaggerating about killing the secondary market. It'll always
>exist in some form. It just won't cost 10-20 bucks for a single copy of a
>particular sets' Cursed Scroll.
Chen
Thompson) wrote:
>You have no business sense do you? Look at it from WotC's point of
>view. Why should they do this? Why kill themselves just to please
>people who wants to spend _LESS_ money? Like it or not, they're
>a business. They're in it to make money, and doing the above is NOT
>a good way to make money for them.
please explain how WotC makes less money.
>Sure, you might be happy with getting a geddon or wrath in every other
>booster, but then that'd mean you'd stop buying cards after several
>boosters. This is A Bad Thing for WotC.
do you get a Disenchant in every other booster just because its
common? hello...
>I'd sure like to be able to buy a Ferrari for $5000, but I can't.
>Live with it.
here we go again.
>Yet another aspect of business that you don't understand.
>Put yourself in WotC's position. You want to make money.
>How do you go about making money? Making cards all
>of the same rarity so people need only buy them once
>then never buy them again. Or find an incentive for the
>customer to keep buying cards? That incentive is rarity.
>But wait, there's more. They still have to figure out the
>price point where people are willing to spend, but anything
>higher than that, they won't pay. From the $2.99 marked
>on booster packs, it seems like they've found a sweet
>spot that people are willing to pay. I know that I sure
>as hell wouldn't spend more than $3 per pack, but
>$3 per pack is affordable enough for me.
tell me, what aspect of MATHEMATICS do you understand? we've already
discussed how this would affect WotC's economic status. now, if you
had any mathematical sense, then you wouldnt be using it as an
argument. maybe you wouldnt spend more than $3 a pack because thats
whats MARKED ON THE DAMN BOX! i wouldnt spend more than $1.50 myself,
because thats how much the locals are selling it for. in other words,
your "limit" is just as artificial as the rarity system. you "refuse"
to pay anything more than a highly inflated MSRP. wow. and i bet you
"refuse" to pay anything more than the sticker price for your Ferrari,
eh? ok, here's a quick rundown for 143-card expansions:
Chance of pulling a *specific* rare, uncommon, and common is 2.3%,
6.7%, and 18.3%, respectively, under the current distribution scheme
for expansion sets. under the non-rarity scheme, the chance of pulling
any specific card is 9.9%. for 5th edition, the figures are 0.7%,
2.3%, and 6.4%. now take a closer look. getting a certain Uncommon in
5E is just as hard as getting a Rare in an expansion set! now is that
ridiculous or what? like i said earlier, with small expansion sets the
rarity scheme needs to be in place in order to force people to buy
more packs. but in large sets like the basic and standalone editions,
the rarity system is just screwing people over. and you just have to
love your 0.7% chance of pulling a Necro from a 5E booster, huh? on
the other hand, we could make these sets all-common, in which case the
chance of getting any specific card is 3.2%. a very decent figure for
"rares" and "uncommons", and somewhat strained for "commons". it works
out better this way. of course, there's also the need to calculate
your chances of pulling a complete set (for the collectors out there)
- anyone have the figures for that? now, if they used the two-sheet
no-rare system as they did with Arabian Nights, the way i hoped it
could be, well, lets take a look at AN:
Chance of pulling a Juzam: 3.2%. yup. its easier to get a Juzam from
an AN pack than it is to get a Steal Artifact from 5th. and what a
coincidence - the percentage is exactly the same as the all-common 5th
edition scheme. just goes to show how bloated the large sets have
become. the only fair way to handle it is to make the rares less rare.
whether they abolish rarity altogether or just distribute more rares
in the packs - something has to be done.
>They also have to figure out a way to balance the cards.
>1 rare out of 30 cards and people won't buy them. 1
>rare out of 5 cards, and the market will be flooded
>with that rare, causing people to buy less cards,
>which means less money for WotC. *AND* they
>have to make sure the cards are interesting enough
>for people to buy them. A daunting task indeed.
huh? switch a common with a rare. done.
>Examples? Sol Ring. One of the best mana
>regenerators out there, and yet you can get them
>dirt cheap. Why? Because the were printed
>so much that they were everywhere. Supply exceeded
>demand.
what a load. supply EXCEEDED demand? yeah, they're just sitting around
in boxes of commons waiting for some newbie who needs a bunch of crap.
i still need 3 of them. have extras? send em over.
>Another example? Fallen Empires. Even at
>such a low price, noone is buying them.
>Inferior product means no money. I'm sure THIS
>you can agree on. If not, then why aren't you
>buying Fallen Empires? They're cheap!
>Dirt cheap!
i do buy them, and in fact plenty of people do (just check ebay) so i
dont know who you're talking to. you're making it quite clear to me
that you are not even closely familiar with the market. even if what
you said was true, then its entirely the fault of bad cards and has
nothing to do with rarity, which is what we were discussing.
>By using a rarity system, they keep demand
>up high. As long as there is demand, they're
>making money, and that makes them happy.
>And you should be happy if they make money.
>Would you rather that they go bankrupt and
>stopped printing cards?
ok. one last time. WotC makes NO MONEY from the secondary market.
demand for singles is (more or less) MEANINGLESS to them. as long as
they print quality sets (meaning a good ratio of useful cards) then
there will be demand for sealed packs, and THAT is how they make
money.
Chen
>mali...@algonet.se (David Linder) wrote:
>>You're just making a fool of yourself here by comparing the making of
>>all cards common to giving away free planes. Try keep the arguments
>>logic.
>
>Making a fool of myself? How? I used that as an example because it put
>forth the idea that I wanted to put forth. If you can't see it, I'm
>not the fool...
KLDFJIENOWJQOPHDFDFENOHEDFOIEHOWHOJHK!
can you see my argument? if not, does that make you a fool? no, the
fact that i used something that has nothing to do with the topic at
hand is what makes ME the fool, and thus, you're the fool for using
vehicles to make comparisons to Magic.
>I DO NOT seriously expect anyone to say "here's a plane, just because
>you want it," nor would I demand such a thing. It's stupid, and
>selfish, and if I were to say that to someone, he'd laugh in my face.
>Well, guess what! THAT is what I think of the argument to "abolish the
>rarities." It's JUST as stupid and selfish, and thus there's no
>difference, so far as I'm concerned. And I'm laughing in the faces of
>those who think this is actually a reasonable demand.
why is it selfish, may i ask? who loses?
>And you want to speak of LOGIC? The logical conclusion is that WotC
>will never slit their own throats by doing this, and even should they
>experiment with common/uncommon distribution, they'd come up with some
>little twist to sell more cards anyway. Take the L5R expansion,
>"Scorpion Clan Coup," for example. Even though there are no rares,
>those who buy "by the box" need at least three boxes to complete a
>set. Why? Because the set was released in three sections (Scrolls) and
>cards from one Scroll do not carry over into the others (there are
>some exeptions, but not enough to build a set from one box or even
>two).
please explain how WotC would be slitting their own throats by
encouraging the purchase of sealed packs. and, um, the Scrolls each
have a small number of cards, 50-80 apiece, which makes it damned easy
to collect all of them, and there's hardly a need to actually purchase
a whole box of each Scroll. and even if a box buyer is forced to
purchase at least 3 boxes, thats 9 boxes per year, as opposed to
Magic, which forces you to buy 2 boxes for each small expansion, and
4 of the standalones for a total of 8 boxes a year. not much of a
difference.
>>Look at it this way: give me *one* good reason not to drop the
>>rarity-system? Anyone?
>
>People have tossed around plenty of good reasons. WotC going out of
>bunsiness is probably the best one. Card shops that sell on the
>secondary market going out of business would be another. Like it or
>not, we live in a Capitalist society, and WotC is not a non-profit
>organization dedicated to bringing pieces of cardboard to all the
>deserving children of the world. They want to make money, and they've
>found a way to rake it in pretty well, well enough that an unknown
>company rose high enough after only a handful of years to bail out the
>ailing TSR and buy out their competition. That's called being
>successful, and you don't mess with success.
WotC going out of business, HOW?
Secondary market leeches going out of business, GOOD.
>Whether or not you like to deal with this idea is beside the point.
>Why should I bend over backwards looking for a reason that you like,
>when you obviously ignore everything but your own desires, and thus
>will be satisfied with nothing less than "you're right, dude, they
>SHOULD abolish the rarities, because David Linder doesn't want to pay
>a lot for his Magic cards, there's absolutely no reason in the world
>why he wouldn't." And when the abolish the rarities, I'll fly over in
>my Lear Jet and I'll host the first airborne tournament.
whether we like it or not is very much to the point. if people dislike
it enough, they'll stop buying cards, and thats bad for WotC. you have
yet to explain why you believe the things you say, for instance how
WotC will go out of business.
>>You obviously don't want to play in tourneys, and that's fine. But
>>please think of other persons than yourself, those who want to play in
>>tourneys for example.
>
>Telliing me not to be selfish. That's rich. Try thinking of the poor
>grunt workers of the company, who have to rely on a weekly paycheck to
>put food on the table.
oh please, like you really give a damn about them. when you're off
buying pieces of cardboard for $3 a pack the main thought in your head
isnt "maybe i'll get a mox diamond" its "i'm supporting the workers of
WotC." what a self-indulgent load of crap. btw, grunt workers will
always receive fixed grunt paychecks. if you lower the MSRP to $2,
that lost buck doesnt come out of the grunts' paychecks, it comes out
of Adkinson's paycheck. similarly if you raise the MSRP to $4, the
extra buck doesnt go into the grunts' pockets, it goes into Adkinson's
pockets.
>>*Why* should we deal with it we could change the situation?
>
>Uhhhhh... because you can't? Of did you just buy enough stock in WotC
>to give you 51% of the vote?
hello...the best business is repeat business. it is entirely in WotC's
interest to listen to the players.
>"Lord grant me the courage to change the things I can change, the
>serenity to accept the things I can't, and the wisdom to know the
>difference." Courage you may have, but you seem to be low on serenity,
>and wisdom hasn't even made an appearance yet.
oh, the irony...
>>One last thing: from now on, please don't crosspost into the strategy
>>group, everyone (I'm doing it one last time just to get this message
>>through). Thanks.
>
>I'm posting this IN strategy. I don't read .misc very often.
and you talk about others being selfish? well, i guess i have to post
this last one in .strategy as well so you get the message. everyone
should bend to your needs, right?
>Tolun
Chen
>I think that rarity is one of the things that makes Magic what it is,
>and that it would be a very stupid move on the part of WotC to abolish
>it.
thats fine. the hard part is to prove what you present as fact and to
explain what you present as your opinion.
>First, although most people who have responded to this would be
>described as mostly players, you have to remember that there are also
>collectors. There are a lot of collectors, even if there aren't so many
>as there are players. Collectors spend at least as much on the game as
>players do (maybe more), and getting rid of rarity would alienate them.
mm, no. the average player spends about 4x as much as a collector. a
collector needs 1 of each card, period, whereas a player needs 4 of
each card that he finds useful. and of course, its the useful cards
that cost $15 each, so the player invariably ends up spending more.
also, how would this alienate collectors? they can still collect just
fine. if you mean "alienate people who want to hold onto reserved
cards so they can sell them a year later for X amount of dollars"
those are scalpers, not collectors.
>That equals almost half of the customers either not even buying the
>product or buying much less of it that they did before. WotC might still
>make money (a lot of money, even) but it wouldn't make as much as they
>did before and that is a bad business move.
what about the customers that they gain? do you realize how many
people out there are holding back from MTG because of the things
they've heard about the rapid production of expansions, the cost it
requires to stay in T2, the difficulty of collecting a set, etc, etc.
> Second, even though it sucks to open an entire box and not get the one
>card you need to complete your deck and then having to shell out an
>additional 20$ if the card happens to be a Cursed Scroll, most people
>enjoy the feeling of opening a pack and pulling a great card (Tradewind,
>Scroll, Diamond).
does making them common make them less great? again, they're still
great cards, and more people can pull them out of a pack more of the
time. this is hardly an argument for keeping the rarity system.
> Third, if Wizards did this, how many people would say that they would
>still buy as many packs as they did before if they could get 3 or 4 of
>every card in a set from one box. As it is, people have to buy 3-4
>boxes or more to complete a set and WotC couldn't be happier.
how many people...why dont you just count the number of players? most
of them dont give a damn about the set and just buy the singles they
need for their decks because chances are its cheaper for them to do so
(its a 0.9% chance of pulling a scroll). on the other hand, if they
were given the choice of buying 4 scrolls for $60 or buying a whole
box of cards with the probability of getting 3 or 4 scrolls for the
same price, i think they would be much more inclined to buy the packs.
dont you? as you say, only collectors would buy less since a set is
easier to collect.
> There are much better things WotC could do than getting rid of rarity.
>Get rid of crappy commons that no one uses (Grollub). For that matter,
>get rid of the rares that suck, Uncommons too. Make every card useful
>Release an additional kind of booster pack that contains 3 rares and
>nothing else. Cut down on the sizes of newer sets. My dream would be a
>set that had maybe 100 cards or less. Every card would be viable for
>tournament use.
in other words, make a set like Arabian Nights. thats what i said.
>Give it a Cured Scroll-ish card, as long as the card
>was in the Preconstructed deck. It would be available in
>Preconstructeds, boosters, and a special lite booster that contained
>only rares. With a set like that, there would be no need to get rid of
>rarity. Oh, and maybe they could make the cards right the first time so
>that there was no need to give it errata, but I guess that's asking too
>much.
>
>Jim Shankman
ok, but you seem to missing a point here. the reason why "rares" are
rare is because you only get one out of fifteen per pack. if you
suggest that a special kind of pack be made that contains ONLY rares,
guess what? you just abolished the rarity system. not a good day for
arguing, is it?
Rene Polman
Ch> KLDFJIENOWJQOPHDFDFENOHEDFOIEHOWHOJHK!
Dear Chen thank you for the figures that proove why 5th flops and why
Tempest is to hard to collect, for play I mean.
As the whole rarity system was part of the bases of the game I would
think and prefer rarity to be changed and not neccesarily abandonned.
The collectors , as investors or just for full maps are due to this to.
As primarly a player I have no feel with rarity whatsoever.
I would like to see the game grow into a ways of fairplay. Right now
it sometimes reminds of a criminal experience.
Part of the market would buy more cards when the rarity was more equal.
eg. I bought 1 box of 5th. after opening it I only bought one booster
of it ever. And tho I bought a little more Mirage I don't buy any lot
of tempest. I know I will have mainly rares I (really) don't want,
so I buy expansions the most. Would there be a solid chance to have
a set playable at a lower cost , I would buy more cards.
I suppose that's strictly personal.
What I hate most on Magic is not by far the trading even. It's the stealing
and cheating that goes with it.
That has a lot to do with rarity to.
I like your thoughts a lot but you do use a lot of words. Your reasonings are
well enough to not always need them.
Onyx
Michelle Bottorff
> >I do think that a gradiant rarity level is important. Most of us who
> >play "friendly" magic have many decks made up at any given time. And
> >there are some cards that you simply need more than others. Most blue
> >decks use counterspells. Few blue decks need stasis. If the rares were
> >as common as commons, then people would be screaming about all the junk
> >found in the packs.
>
> I'd rather have some stasises than a bazillion copies of the commons. And
> if you haven't noticed, people ARE complaining about alll the junk found
> in packs. I'd take *any* rare over my 30th copy of Haunting Misery... or
> my 5th-29th copy for that matter.
I'll agree with you there. Though I think rarity is important, I
wouldn't mind the proportions being less steep.
Micheal Keane
Steve Klein <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Of course they'd be valuable. They'd still be good cards.
>
>a box and get 3 mox diamonds think they'd be worth $15, I think not. . $5 most likely not,
>$2, maybe . . .
They'd be a tad more valuable because they were good cards, not because
they are rare. Right now, even the most crappiest rares sell for more than
the best uncommons on the single market. Besides, how would Mox Dimonds
selling for 2 bucks be bad?
>> And this is bad, how?
>
>It is bad because Magic cards have little or no value anymore. You wouldn't be excited if
>you got a good deal, because if you did it would be "Wow, I saved 5 cents, lucky me!" Maybe
>if they cut the printing to about half or less of what the current is, then maybe, just
>maybe we would see a $5 card. . .
"Magic cards have little or no value." This is bad, how?
>> > singles would no longer be sold because it would just be "I
>> >need a 4 Tradewinds" "Oh we quit selling singles. Grabe 7 or 8 packs and you'll pull at
>> >least 2 and if you don't, youll pull reflecting pools, vinyards t warps etc
>>
>> You've neglected to say what exactly is bad about this scenario.
>
>it is bad because anyonce can go buy a pack and get what they need. . . this is what
Are you on crack? What exactly is bad about being able to easily get any
card you want?
>happens:
>Decks would become far to similar. . . sligh red burn already has because most of the cards
>in those decks are commons and are easy to get, which is one reason lots of people don't
>like it. maybe if incinerate and fireblast were uncommons/rare and lightning bolt was rare,
>then maybe people couldn't just run out and get 4 incinerates/fireblasts for .25 but maybe
>have to stick some cash into there decks. . .
So, you think that the seconardy market should be able to gouge players
even more with high prices? You think that Magic should be a sport of
who's got the most cash to buy a deck?
>> Wait. Why don't we make the boosters 30 cards large, and only have 1 rare,
>> 3 uncommons and 26 commons!? That way the thrill of opening a booster pack
>> will be even better for you.
>
>i would not mind that, really. . . if that was the case scroll would be valued at $40,
>tradewinds/pools at $20, vinayrds at $15, medallions $10-$15, etc etc, anda the uncommons
>would be sky high. . . as high as $5 for a gemstone mine or $3 for propaganda.
>
>and the commons would become even trashier pulling 5 or 6 dups in 5 or 6 packs.
I can't even respond to this kind of stupidity.
Dane Busse
the games selling point. However, most rare cards are no good to me.
For example who is going to use black locust in a tournement game. Do
you people have any idea how much people are paying for that stupid
card, I almost gave mine away but decided it unwise.
Glenn Olson
>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:23:59 GMT, Steve Klein <s...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
(Snip)
>>I don't want to open up a pack of Tp and pull a tradewind and scroll (ok, maybe i do,
>>but then they wouldnt be valuable so who gives a damn)
>
>they wouldnt be overpriced, but they would still carry value.
"Overpriced" is too subjective to be throwing in here.
>your problem (and indeed, everyone who is on your side) is that you
>forgot that "commons" will become drastically rarer than they are now.
Actually, I've taken that as part of my argument against this idea.
Decks won't devalue to any great extent, because of this. The 'cost
of competitiveness' will remain pretty close to where it is now, save
that it's spread around a bit more.
No-rarity is a system that would *really* benefit anyone who's been
around for a while - all the newbies are suddenly struggling for the
stuff you've got tonnes of and never think about.
It does very little for the newbies, though; in fact, it removes any
'luck factor' that a relative newbie (with some experience in trading
other things, say sports cards) has, of opening a pack/box and getting
that god-rare he can use to finance the rest of his set.
OTOH, he can take a look at singles prices and get a fairly clear
picture of what are 'hot' - and thus probably good - cards for the
entire set, as opposed to figuring out the rares and some of the
uncommons, then guessing or experimenting for the rest.
>using rare cards to show the degradation of the secondary market is a
>one-sided argument. the value of some cards WILL go down. the value of
>others WILL go up. the difference being, instead of having a bunch of
>cards that are worth a nickel and a couple that are worth fifteen
>dollars, all cards are worth .25 to 5.00 depending on their
>usefulness, not rarity.
Which, in the end, means the cost of competitiveness doesn't shift at
all.
--
Chimera Project's token Blue mage
Glenn Olson
>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:26:32 GMT, to...@ptdprolog.net (Tolun) wrote:
>
(Snip)
>>Making a fool of myself? How? I used that as an example because it put
>>forth the idea that I wanted to put forth. If you can't see it, I'm
>>not the fool...
>
>KLDFJIENOWJQOPHDFDFENOHEDFOIEHOWHOJHK!
>
>can you see my argument?
Yes. It's blatantly obvious; and the context you give it later makes
it even more so.
>fact that i used something that has nothing to do with the topic at
>hand is what makes ME the fool, and thus, you're the fool for using
>vehicles to make comparisons to Magic.
Both are commodities, that are valued roughly by how good they are.
If you were a better debater, you'd point out plainly (instead of
vaguely alluding to) the fact that vehicular costs are directly
affected by production costs, while magic rares prices are not
affected by production costs.
Instead, you merely say "They're not the same thing" without really
giving more than a flippant response as to why they're not.
>>Well, guess what! THAT is what I think of the argument to "abolish the
>>rarities." It's JUST as stupid and selfish, and thus there's no
>>difference, so far as I'm concerned. And I'm laughing in the faces of
>>those who think this is actually a reasonable demand.
>
>why is it selfish, may i ask? who loses?
WotC, to some extent.
Newbies trying to break into the upper levels of the game, to another;
because they can't build all-commons decks anymore (cheap, and can be
competitive) they have to wait that much longer to get the
tourney-worthy cards instead of being able to make do with the
tourney-worthy commons until they can pick up the hot rares.
Because, by your own admission in another post, there won't be any
cheap tournament-worthy cards; the good cards will take the place of
the mediocre rares and big uncommons. *Any* good card will be
effectively _at least_ uncommon-valued.
>please explain how WotC would be slitting their own throats by
>encouraging the purchase of sealed packs.
I'll ignore the standard 'retailer backlash' argument, and refer you
again to what I just said above.
>WotC going out of business, HOW?
>Secondary market leeches going out of business, GOOD.
You mean like the store that holds your weekly tournaments?
Sure, that's good for the casual player; but that type of player
complains more about having his fun deck trounced because of the
over-competitive tournament player jumping in. Me, I like to play in
tournaments every once in a while; and having the store that holds
them decide that the loss of their secondary market makes it not worth
the hassle anymore would kinda annoy me.
>>>You obviously don't want to play in tourneys, and that's fine. But
>>>please think of other persons than yourself, those who want to play in
>>>tourneys for example.
I *do* want to play tourneys, actually.
Watching the secondary market bottom out puts that at risk, as I
explained above.
>WotC." what a self-indulgent load of crap. btw, grunt workers will
>always receive fixed grunt paychecks. if you lower the MSRP to $2,
>that lost buck doesnt come out of the grunts' paychecks, it comes out
>of Adkinson's paycheck.
Unless he decides he's not happy with that, and tries to institute
wage roll-backs...
Happens more often than you'd think.
>hello...the best business is repeat business. it is entirely in WotC's
>interest to listen to the players.
Yep. And right about now, they seem fairly evenly divided on this
particular issue.
I've tried to remove all the cheap shots tossed about by both sides
here. I hope I can be forgiven for missing a few.
arcane
> > Rarity is neccessary for the game, to use an example, who would buy
> > baseball cards if you got two (insert name of rare baseball card) here
> > in every pack, or got a Man Utd badge in every pack of football
stickers
> > (UK only ref), or Mulder in every X-Files pack, or even Vader in every
> > SWCCG pack. Need i go on ? you must have rarity or ppl will not buy the
game/cards
> >
> > james
>
I agree about the part where people won't buy as much if they dropped the
rarity system, however a compromise might be to play with the no. of rares
in a pack..... still not a good idea I guess... just makes the price of
the box go up :)
sorry for ranting
Ed
--
--Reality is but a perception of your being--
Ritz
Chen heeft geschreven in bericht <35b6c582...@news.pcmagic.net>...
>why dont you read the paragraph he was referring to? it doesnt take
>rocket science to see that he's talking about luck. unless, of course,
>you know of some basic land decks.
they're so easily splashable. as proposed to swamps.)
It almost wins 100% with against my drainlifeless prosbloom deck.
-Ritz
Chen
>> > (UK only ref), or Mulder in every X-Files pack, or even Vader in every
>> > SWCCG pack. Need i go on ? you must have rarity or ppl will not buy the
>game/cards
>> >
>> > james
just a note - there is a Mulder in every X-Files pack, or at least its
close enough. or did my sister just get really lucky? she has about 15
of them. i have no idea why people are paying $25 for them. is it
because no one really plays X-Files and has no idea how common they
really are? thats pretty funny. but dont overgeneralize - people will
buy the game/cards - they just wont buy as much as the company wants
them to.
>I agree about the part where people won't buy as much if they dropped the
>rarity system, however a compromise might be to play with the no. of rares
>in a pack..... still not a good idea I guess... just makes the price of
>the box go up :)
actually that would be a pretty decent compromise if they doubled the
distribution of rares (2 in a pack, for the *same* price). its
certainly a step for the little guy. and who knows, if they replace a
common it just might make the commons that much less worthless. =]
>sorry for ranting
no need to apologize for that on this group...
>Ed
Michelle Bottorff
> >Consider Stasis, or Sands of Time, or Ensnaring Bridge. They're all
> >good cards... but you don't need a lot of them. If I have a two dozen
> >decks set up, I'm still not likely to need more than 1-4 of each
> >(quantity depending on the actual deck).
> >
> >Now take Counterspell, or Dark Banishing, or Fireball... if I have two
> >dozen decks, I can expect to be using about a dozen of each. I *need*
> >more counterspells than stasises.
>
> You're right. But I do sort of question whether the designers can
> accurately predict which cards can/should be rarer than which others.
> It would be great if the could but they just can't ahead of time. Too
> many situations like Cursed Scroll, which I bet they thought would rarely
> get used when they released it and it turned into such a monster once the
> player population at large got hold of it for a couple months.
They should base the rarity on how many deck types can use the card in
question. Cursed Scroll should have been U3 or U2: it's a
damaging-type card that can fit into a large number of decks.
> And even if they could, there's the question of whether most cards would
> really fit perfectly into the 15-times-more-rare-than-the-commons slot.
> Most rare cards really don't need to be _that_ rare. And many common cards
> don't need to be that common.
I will agree there.
> >I do think, though, that Wizards often bases rarity on anticipated
> >consumer demand (the most sought-after cards become rarest) rather than
> >actual deck-need demand.
>
> Actually, I disagree. Mox Diamond is kind of an example of what you're
> talking and I'm sure when they created it, they couldn't resist the
> temptation to make it a rare.
That's actually what I'm talking about and the example I would use. The
diamond is useful in a large number of decks: any multi-color can use
it, and most three-color decks will distinctly benifit from it. It
should have been uncommon, probably U1 or U2 (it's disadvantage would
prevent it from becomming common or even U3, as it won't fit into all
multi-color decks.)
Chris Byler
>ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane) wrote:
>>In article <35B246E2...@idir.net>, Schlotman <sch...@idir.net> wrote:
>>>yes, it is. it would destroy the secondary market otherwise, and then who
>>>would want to carry it?
>>>we sure wouldn't need a scrye or inquest nearly as bad, they would probably
>>>stop publication, thousands of shops would stop carrying magic, because they
>>>would see no future for it.you could buy like 2 boxes and have every card
>>>you need.
Okay, that's $200 per set per player. And more people would actually
_do_ this because they could get the cards they need. I probably will
never buy more than 1 box of any set again, because buying boxes is a
lousy way to get rares, and after the first box you already have all
the commons you need and a good selection of uncommons.
In other words, with a change in the rarity system like a 2/5/8 card
distribution, I would buy more boxes, and people I know would buy more
boxes.
>>>prices would have to go way down for the packs, because you
>>>couldn't go " well I need just 2 cards out of the set..... I'll buy some
>>>packs, it doesn't matter what I get I can still sell/trade it. Because you
>>>couldn't sell or trade them!!!
Prices for packs would go way _up_ because they would now contain more
good cards, and a greater variety of cards. I'd willingly pay $5 for
a 2/5/8 pack rather than $3 for a 1/3/11 pack - I'm gettin almost
twice as many cards I probably don't already have (or don't already
have 12 of).
>>I'm all for killing the secondary market. I think WotC would make more
>>money if everyone knew they could buy a box and get all the cards they
>>need. And you could still sell and trade cards, they just wouldn't be at
>>the rediculously high prices they're at now.
Agreed.
>Are you for real?
>Now: A new set comes out, and John buys six boxes, two serve to round
>out his collection for play and the rest is trading/selling fodder.
>WotC makes lots of money and is happy.
None of John's friends buy any boxes, or buy only 1, because they can
trade with John and because they won't get good rares with only 1 per
pack. Two of John's friends get tired overpowered,
environment-dominating, unavailable rares like cursed scroll and stop
playing Magic altogether.
>After "killing the secondary market": A new set is released and John
>buys two boxes, which serve to round out his collection for play. Why
>buy more, because everyone else bought two boxes and have more than
>enough cards? WotC makes substantially less money and is not happy.
Nope. You said it yourself: _everyone else_ bought two boxes too.
When packs/boxes contain better cards, more players will buy them.
Also, John and his friends are now more evenly matched, so the game is
more fun for everyone and they all keep playing Magic, and more
players start playing because it doesn't cost $1000 a year anymore.
>And just how can you "still trade and sell cards," if there is no
>secondary market? THAT IS THE SECONDARY MARKET!!!
Changing the rarity system (or even eliminating it altogether)
wouldn't destroy the secondary market. It probably _would_ prevent
"chase rares" from selling for upwards of $10. Does a secondary
dealer really care if his box has one $10 scroll or two $5 scrolls?
Remember that people who buy boxes for resale will get more rares (or
otherwise valuable cards), too. What they lose in $10 chase rares,
they can make up on volume by getting twice as many rares/uncommons
per box.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"Was that _it_?" -- Ertai, Wizard Adept
Glenn Olson
(Snip)
>>After "killing the secondary market": A new set is released and John
>>buys two boxes, which serve to round out his collection for play. Why
>>buy more, because everyone else bought two boxes and have more than
>>enough cards? WotC makes substantially less money and is not happy.
>
>not exactly. if there is no variance in rarity, then the value of
>"common" cards will go up, so people will (eventually) pay good money
>for basic utility cards like Disenchant, since they will no longer
>receive one in every ~12 packs.
Which is the crux of my argument against removing the rarity levels.
The basic 'price to play' doesn't go down. It spreads out.
In a way, this does at least hurt the secondary market; retailers
don't get the same profit margin off singles, so why bother with
singles?
So in order to make the same amount of money off magic sales, they
have to take a bigger profit off packs; upping the price of those,
possibly. Or, perhaps they decide there's no money to be made by
retailers in magic anymore, and they just quit.
(Please note, the last one there is just a maybe; not a conclusive
statement.)
>>And just how can you "still trade and sell cards," if there is no
>>secondary market? THAT IS THE SECONDARY MARKET!!!
>
>he probably meant "secondary market" in regard to dealers and others
>who have no real place in the game and just drive up the cost
>arbitrarily.
99% of the tournaments I go to are held by the dealers.
They hold the tournaments at least in part because it helps support
their secondary market.
If that aspect of the secondary died, why would they bother to hold
tournaments anymore?
(Snip)
>and it would be
>equally profitable and more customer-friendly to print large sets with
>no rarity scheme,
We're still debating that one. And since neither side has been
convinced, I think it's still a little early to state that as fact
(unless your intent is to start a flamewar.)
Glenn Olson
wrote:
>In article <35B63769...@bellsouth.net>,
>Steve Klein <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Of course they'd be valuable. They'd still be good cards.
>>
>>so youd think theyd be valuable? Ever heard of supply and demand ??? If people could go get
>>a box and get 3 mox diamonds think they'd be worth $15, I think not. . $5 most likely not,
>>$2, maybe . . .
>
>They'd be a tad more valuable because they were good cards, not because
>they are rare. Right now, even the most crappiest rares sell for more than
>the best uncommons on the single market. Besides, how would Mox Dimonds
>selling for 2 bucks be bad?
Well... if I was trying to unload a couple so I could get some other
cards, I'd consider it bad.
If, OTOH, I were trying to pick up a couple for a deck, I'd consider
it good.
So, on it's own it's a neutral situation; either is equally in my
interests, just depending on the situation.
>"Magic cards have little or no value." This is bad, how?
Should I ever decide to get out of the game, I can't recoup my
expenditures as easily.
That's not exactly a good thing...
(OTOH, it's in WotC's interests - it discourages people from quitting,
sort of... which brings to mind something I saw in a similar argument
about Games Workshop: "Every junkie hates his dealer.")
>>it is bad because anyonce can go buy a pack and get what they need. . . this is what
>
>Are you on crack? What exactly is bad about being able to easily get any
>card you want?
He's on crack. It's bad, because you no longer have a guaranteed way
to get that card you need. You can buy a pack, and maybe have
slightly better odds at pulling it - but it's still dependant on luck.
OTOH, that *might* be enough to keep the singles market open. Maybe.
>>like it. maybe if incinerate and fireblast were uncommons/rare and lightning bolt was rare,
>>then maybe people couldn't just run out and get 4 incinerates/fireblasts for .25 but maybe
>>have to stick some cash into there decks. . .
Which is both something I don't like, and would be an argument in
favor of dropping the rarity levels if I did like it.
Drop the rarity levels, and cards like Incinerate and Fireblast
*would* be (relatively speaking) cash-cards.
>>i would not mind that, really. . . if that was the case scroll would be valued at $40,
>>tradewinds/pools at $20, vinayrds at $15, medallions $10-$15, etc etc, anda the uncommons
>>would be sky high. . . as high as $5 for a gemstone mine or $3 for propaganda.
No offence, but shut the hell up.
You're doing a better job at convincing us that rarity levels should
be dropped than those who are actually *trying* to convince us.
>>and the commons would become even trashier pulling 5 or 6 dups in 5 or 6 packs.
>
>I can't even respond to this kind of stupidity.
Agreed.
Glenn Olson
>On 26 Jul 1998 10:07:08 GMT, "arcane" <ce...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
>>> > (UK only ref), or Mulder in every X-Files pack, or even Vader in every
>>> > SWCCG pack. Need i go on ? you must have rarity or ppl will not buy the
>>game/cards
>>> >
>>> > james
>
>just a note - there is a Mulder in every X-Files pack, or at least its
>close enough. or did my sister just get really lucky? she has about 15
>of them. i have no idea why people are paying $25 for them.
I believe there's a regular version, and a chase-rare version.
Done that way, because (I'm guessing) they figured characters make
good chase-rares for the collectors, but they're also needed too much
for the game itself.
I suspect the rare version is 'better' in some way as well.
>is it
>because no one really plays X-Files and has no idea how common they
>really are? thats pretty funny. but dont overgeneralize - people will
>buy the game/cards - they just wont buy as much as the company wants
>them to.
Then the question is: will they buy *enough*? (To keep the company
satisfied with the profit they're making, so they don't dump it and
move on to 'greener pastures.')
Kevin Mendel
> The question is, "Do we really find that rarity is a fair way for
> cards to be doled out so that they can recoup their costs? Or, are
> rarities simply interfering with the enjoyment and the growth of the
> game?"
Rarity serves three purposes:
1. It increases sales. The price per pack goes
way up because people want that rare - who'd
pay $3 for 15 commons? Also, each person buys
more cards - people will shell out for 2, 3,
even 4 boxes even though they end up with
more extra commons and uncommons than they
could ever use.
2. It separates the men from the boys. No one is
shocked when someone plays a "rare" Cursed
Scroll at a qualifier - the people who play
seriously have as many of the rare cards as
they want. By making the KEY cards RARE,
WotC makes sure that anyone who wants to
contend is investing heavilly. WotC links
the pros' success to their own.
3. It creates singles sales. Don't believe WotC
when they say they get no profit from singles
sales. There'd be no stores buying boxes
and boxes just to pull out the rares and put
them behind glass. There'd be no stores
dedicating major square footage to Magic.
In case you noticed, ALL of these reasons have to
do with WotC making money, and you parting with
yours. None of them are for your benefit.
Kevin
Nicol Bolas
for the secondary market, but....here it goes....)
Chris Byler wrote in message <359f564f...@news.virginia.edu>...
>In other words, with a change in the rarity system like a 2/5/8 card
>distribution, I would buy more boxes, and people I know would buy more
>boxes.
Many people I know buy one box when the set first comes out, then
miscelaneous packs until the release of the next set. Usually, this extra
buying totals AT LEAST another box. If they could get 4 (or very close to
4) of every card they need off of their opening box, what would be the
purpose of them buying the miscelaneous packs? Nothing, and therefore they
wouldn't do it. Less sales/profits for the retail store, AND wotc. Less
profits = retail stores can't keep up w/bills, close up shop. See what I'm
getting at?
>>>>couldn't go " well I need just 2 cards out of the set..... I'll buy some
>>>>packs, it doesn't matter what I get I can still sell/trade it. Because
you
>>>>couldn't sell or trade them!!!
>
>Prices for packs would go way _up_ because they would now contain more
>good cards, and a greater variety of cards. I'd willingly pay $5 for
>a 2/5/8 pack rather than $3 for a 1/3/11 pack - I'm gettin almost
>twice as many cards I probably don't already have (or don't already
>have 12 of).
Right. Let's look at fallen empires, shall we? The set was rareless, and
the uncommons (even the U1's or whatever the "rarest" uncommon was) weren't
worth crap. The COMMONS are what made the set: Hymns, Pump Knights,
thallids, goblin grenade, the list goes on. This set alone was proof that,
if you over commonize a set, nobody's going to buy it. Period. (Show me
ONE place that's selling Fallen empires for $5/pack....and then let me know
how thick the dust on the box is.)
>None of John's friends buy any boxes, or buy only 1, because they can
>trade with John and because they won't get good rares with only 1 per
>pack. Two of John's friends get tired overpowered,
>environment-dominating, unavailable rares like cursed scroll and stop
>playing Magic altogether.
So, what you're trying to say is to give everybody crap rares like Sword of
the chosen to keep them HAPPY? Everybody: How many times have you pulled a
scroll, twr, or diamond out of a pack and said to yourself "Shit, another
one of these environment-dominating cards that are just way too good. Why
can't I EVER pull out a Duplicity?" I've NEVER seen ANYBODY drop from the
game because they, or a friend of theirs owned good cards.
>>After "killing the secondary market": A new set is released and John
>>buys two boxes, which serve to round out his collection for play. Why
>>buy more, because everyone else bought two boxes and have more than
>>enough cards? WotC makes substantially less money and is not happy.
>
>Nope. You said it yourself: _everyone else_ bought two boxes too.
>When packs/boxes contain better cards, more players will buy them.
>Also, John and his friends are now more evenly matched, so the game is
>more fun for everyone and they all keep playing Magic, and more
>players start playing because it doesn't cost $1000 a year anymore.
NO!!! You're both wrong. Not everybody would buy 2 boxes, and I'll explain
why. As it stands, a typical box has 36 rares, 108 uncommons, and 396
commons. Total: 540 cards. For a 150+/- card set, this isn't bad for
WotC, as people typically have to buy much more than only one box to
complete a set and get 4 of all the cards they want (Mostly, due to the
uncommons and rares. You get those "not-so-common commons, too.) If this
were to change into an "all commons" system, a person could typically pull
3-4 of every card in the set out of only one box (540/150=3.6). Therefore,
they wouldn't need to buy any more, as they can go and buy the 4th card they
need off a commons box for only a quarter or so.
To make up for the lack of box/pack sales, WotC would have to increase the
size of the set to 300 cards or so, forcing people who want 4 of every card
to buy 2 boxes. How much of a 150 card set is crap? 50+% of it, and I'm
giving a lot of leeway here. Think of how much crap would be in a 300 card
set? Look at Ice age. 300+ cards, 90% crap. Legends. 300+ cards. 90%
crap. A set or two of this, and people would stop buying due to the crap
ratio alone (Fallen/Ice/Homelands era proved this one.).
>And just how can you "still trade and sell cards," if there is no
>>secondary market? THAT IS THE SECONDARY MARKET!!!
Trading would virtually go out the window, as people wouldn't go around and
ask everyone "Do you have any scrolls to trade"? This question would be
reworded "Hey, <insert friend's name here>, can I borrow your extra
scrolls?"
>Changing the rarity system (or even eliminating it altogether)
>wouldn't destroy the secondary market. It probably _would_ prevent
>"chase rares" from selling for upwards of $10. Does a secondary
>dealer really care if his box has one $10 scroll or two $5 scrolls?
Yes, very much so. What is one of the major factors that determines a
card's price on the secondary market? Rarity. Look at, say, Disenchant.
Is that worth 10 dollars? 5 dollars? ONE dollar? NO! Why? It's a
common. It's used in a heck of a lot more decks than the scroll is. If a
Scroll were only a common, it would be a quarter. An uncommon, 1-3 dollars.
If a disenchant were a rare, we'd see a much higher price tag on it. If
scrolls were more common, they'd be easier to get a hold of, and people
wouldn't be paying 5 bucks a whack for one, I guarantee it. The Card to
Price ratio is not as cut and dry as you're making it to be. Slight
increases in availability have a much greater impact on its price on the
secondary market.
>Remember that people who buy boxes for resale will get more rares (or
>otherwise valuable cards), too. What they lose in $10 chase rares,
>they can make up on volume by getting twice as many rares/uncommons
>per box.
Which would be substantially less valuable. You can't guarantee yourself a
scroll in a box of tempest, which is one of the reasons it's worth 10-15
dollars. If you could guarantee yourself not one, but TWO scrolls in a box,
the damn thing would be worth about 3 bucks. (3 X 2 is 6. 6 is much less
than 10. Do the math.)
Well, enough of my rambling......
-
Nicol
NICOL...@prodigy.net
-
"As I walk in the shadows through the valley of death,
I fear no evil, because I have THE biggest b***s in
the valley!"
Nicol Bolas
>On 25 Jul 1998 22:23:49 GMT, ae...@u.washington.edu (Micheal Keane)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <35B63769...@bellsouth.net>,
>>Steve Klein <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> Of course they'd be valuable. They'd still be good cards.
>>>
>>>so youd think theyd be valuable? Ever heard of supply and demand ??? If
people could go get
>>>a box and get 3 mox diamonds think they'd be worth $15, I think not. . $5
most likely not,
>>>$2, maybe . . .
>>
>>They'd be a tad more valuable because they were good cards, not because
>>they are rare. Right now, even the most crappiest rares sell for more than
>>the best uncommons on the single market. Besides, how would Mox Dimonds
>>selling for 2 bucks be bad?
Two things I'd like to say to this one. First, I'm not in this game for the
money. I've probably spent 3 times as much money on this game as I'll ever
see returned to me. However, when the bills are due, or I get a little
hungry and am flat broke, or want to go have a beer, or whatever, I'm sure
glad that I can sell off that extra Diamond for 15 bucks, or that set of
scrolls for 50. What other (legal) hobby can, in times of desparation, net
you enough money to pay the rent?
Second. Let's say you open a Stronghold pack and pull out a Diamond....$15
dollar card. However, let's say you need Living Deaths (For sake of this
example, let's say it's worth 5 bucks.). As it stands, you probably could
trade the diamond for the 3 living deaths you actually need, and don't have
to worry about it anymore. However, if all the cards were of similar/equal
value, that diamond would net you only one living death, instead of 3.
I already know the rebuttal to this one: "Well, you could buy more packs
and get the Deaths you need easily". However, that's more $$$ spent by you,
instead of trading for the cards you need. 3 dollars for one 15 dollar card
you can break down into smaller, more useful (to you) cards, or X dollars
on X packs until you pull the cards you need? You be the judge. I know
it's a gamble, but, hey, people have been doing it for 5 or so years
now.....
>>"Magic cards have little or no value." This is bad, how?
First thing, trading would be dead. This is one aspect of the game most
people really enjoy. Second thing, smaller tournaments would be dead
because they wouldn't want to give up the packs as prizes (they can make
money on those WITHOUT the tournaments), and the lack of singles as prizes
would mean no/worthless prizes for the winner. Lack of tournaments=less
players=less people buying packs=......you get the idea.
>Should I ever decide to get out of the game, I can't recoup my
>expenditures as easily.
>That's not exactly a good thing...
>(OTOH, it's in WotC's interests - it discourages people from quitting,
>sort of... which brings to mind something I saw in a similar argument
>about Games Workshop: "Every junkie hates his dealer.")
Contrary to some beliefs, 99% of players aren't going to make their money
back when they jump out. However, when I jump out (assuming the card value
remains the same), I'll have a nice $3000 nest egg waiting for me (I've
spent MUCH more than that in my years of playing, but that's not the
point.). I like that. If an emergency situation were to happen right now,
and I needed large sums of cash, I know I could get it. The money that some
players *could* get (assuming card values remain the same) upon selling
their collection could be a nice down payment on a car, security deposit,
first/last month's rent on an apartment, stuff for a baby on the way, or
what have you. I think that's another reason some people play. It gives
them something to fall back on if they need cash quick.
>He's on crack. It's bad, because you no longer have a guaranteed way
>to get that card you need. You can buy a pack, and maybe have
>slightly better odds at pulling it - but it's still dependant on luck.
>OTOH, that *might* be enough to keep the singles market open. Maybe.
Nope. The odds of pulling card X out of a pack will greatly increase in the
player's favor. This kills the singles market.
Michelle Bottorff
> I believe there's a regular version, and a chase-rare version.
> Done that way, because (I'm guessing) they figured characters make
> good chase-rares for the collectors, but they're also needed too much
> for the game itself.
The positioning of name characters as ultra-rares was one of the reasons
I was less-than-impressed with Star Wars CCG. Why was Luke Skywalker
fourty times less likely to come in a pack than Aunt Beru?
Chen
Olson) wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:36:49 GMT, kc...@pcmagic.com (Chen) wrote:
>>not exactly. if there is no variance in rarity, then the value of
>>"common" cards will go up, so people will (eventually) pay good money
>>for basic utility cards like Disenchant, since they will no longer
>>receive one in every ~12 packs.
>
>Which is the crux of my argument against removing the rarity levels.
>The basic 'price to play' doesn't go down. It spreads out.
"good money" being maybe .75, as opposed to the current .10.
proportionally, you may be cranking out much more for commons, but the
hard numbers in terms of $ value is much less overall.
>In a way, this does at least hurt the secondary market; retailers
>don't get the same profit margin off singles, so why bother with
>singles?
it hurts the secondary market in terms of the single-rare-based
secondary market we have now, since no single will be worth $5 on its
own. however, it does not damage the average dollar amount for the
entire set significantly.
>So in order to make the same amount of money off magic sales, they
>have to take a bigger profit off packs; upping the price of those,
>possibly. Or, perhaps they decide there's no money to be made by
>retailers in magic anymore, and they just quit.
>(Please note, the last one there is just a maybe; not a conclusive
>statement.)
possible, but only likely if it were true that they would lose profits
from singles. if anything, i think they stand to lose profits from
pack sales.
>99% of the tournaments I go to are held by the dealers.
>They hold the tournaments at least in part because it helps support
>their secondary market.
>If that aspect of the secondary died, why would they bother to hold
>tournaments anymore?
huh? you're saying that dealers hold tourneys basically as a way to
advertise their singles? that wouldnt change, and no dealer that i
have ever visited has run a tourney without an entry fee. i think its
another way to make money, in addition to advertising their singles.
>
>(Snip)
>>and it would be
>>equally profitable and more customer-friendly to print large sets with
>>no rarity scheme,
>
>We're still debating that one. And since neither side has been
>convinced, I think it's still a little early to state that as fact
>(unless your intent is to start a flamewar.)
you're right. everything i say that isnt a known fact or eyewitness
account is my opinion or my speculation. but i also dont think it
would be healthy for my fingers to type "IMO" in front of every
sentence. and English teachers have always told us never to say "i
think" or "in my opinion" because its obvious when you are the writer.
whether you agree with the author or not depends on the arguments they
made to support the claim. if you dont think i did a good enough job,
thats fine. but i am not trying to pass this off as cold, hard fact.
even if i were, i can be capable of error. this particular post is
quite old, and since then i've already been convinced that it would
not be equally profitable. but the loss is something i think the
dealers and WotC can take without flinching.
Michael Bahr
> >99% of the tournaments I go to are held by the dealers.
> >They hold the tournaments at least in part because it helps support
> >their secondary market.
> >If that aspect of the secondary died, why would they bother to hold
> >tournaments anymore?
>
> huh? you're saying that dealers hold tourneys basically as a way to
> advertise their singles? that wouldnt change, and no dealer that i
> have ever visited has run a tourney without an entry fee. i think its
> another way to make money, in addition to advertising their singles.
As a dealer, I can tell you that I mainly hold tournaments just to
promote Magic in general. Keeps the interest level high, and it keeps
the market fluid... whether the players prefer packs or singles is not
an issue for me, as long as they're not giving up Magic to get into
non-gaming pursuits. :) I hold Battletech sanctioned and such to do the
same thing for B-tech. I'd love to hold Star Wars sanctioned... working
on that now. I've been a dealer for a while, and just am now finally
getting my store off the ground instead of working out of an established
store. My goal is to run the kind of store that I as a gamer would
always have wanted to hang out at. What do you players think of that
perspective?
--
- Mike Bahr - Prism Records - remove ANTISPAM in my address to reply
- Owner, The Wizard's Tower Gaming Store in Mesa, AZ (Opens August 8th)
- Hardcore fan of Dream Theater, King's X, Rush (the band), and more!!!
- Hardcore player of Magic: The Gathering, AD&D, Axis & Allies, & more!
- Magic: the Gathering "Duelists' Convocation Level 2 Certified Judge"
- d u r n i k @ g o o d n e t . c o m - http://www.goodnet.com/~durnik/
DogByteDev
>both the tourney-players and the casual would be happy.
Except that retailers would be reeling from the loss of most of the
secondary market...not that I care, but I'm sure they do.