Note the differences.
One looks like a wall made of organic stuff and the other looks like a crypt?
Less words on the newer one because a lot of them are implied instead of explicitly stated (ex:interrupt).
>>47407841
One of the few positive changes.
>>47407740
It's a reprint. The point is that there are no differences.
Is everyone ignoring the eldrazi colourless mana symbol a hot new meme?
>>47407964
That's just "two colourless". The only thing it had to do with the Eldrazi were that Kozilek utilized it.
>went from common to mythic
Richard "Never Trust Rosewater With My Game" Garfunkel must be spinning in his grave.
>>47407999
>his grave.
>>47407999
It was not common, the old sets used black set symbol on all the cards, it was not differentiated by color to note rarity. that started with... maybe Tempest?
>>47407740
Are people seriously upset about the new art, or something? I genuinely don't see how. A bit generic maybe, but not awful, and at least it looks like a crypt.
What's with all the Dutch angles?
All the newly-revealed reprints seem to be afflicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_angle
>>47408092
>that started with... maybe Tempest?
Exodus, third set of Tempest block.
>>47408124
>A bit generic maybe, but not awful, and at least it looks like a crypt.
For many, unrelenting genericism is far worse. At least awful things are interesting.
>>47408092
Mana Crypt never had a "rarity" in the real sense to begin with, since it was not released in a set. It was a promo card that you got by buying some shitty novel.
>>47407740
Anus mana symbol still looks fucking horrible and should be removed from the game.
Sorry, exiled.
>>47408215
>Anus mana symbol still looks fucking horrible and should be removed from the game.
just wait for Phyrexian True Colorless mana<|>
>>47408143
Dutch Angles promote a sense of motion.
Dutch Angles are artist cheating the rule of thirds.
>>47408143
I read that as Dutch angels and wanted to post a picture of one but all I got was furry shit.
>>47407998
Right, is that commonly used now and people aren't bothered?
![281a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LrYgNp2.jpg "281a[1].jpg")
>>47408580
Only people looking for something to be mad about are overly bothered by it. It's on any land/creature/artifact that makes colorless mana, like they said it'd be, and just like any change they've made it's something to get used to, and different people have different tastes in the matter.
They haven't had anything else use C as a cost since Oath - and they said that such things would be incredibly rare to show up.
>>47408580
>people aren't bothered?
some people are bothered, but they are bothered at literally everything, so who cares about their opinion, they just want to be mad at something.
It's not a big deal and has some cool uses, so what's to be bothered about?
>>47408031
Mark "Richard is going to be six feet under if I find him" Rosewater will make sure of it.
>>47408719
>Mark killed Garfield, that's why he banned dread return
Who is ready for for Garfield to be risen by an evil dredge player super nazi science project, hence announcing the dread return unban from modern?
On the left is the current Gatherer wording for Tawnos' coffin. On the right is what it should be, and was for a brief time. But y'all are babies so it isn't anymore.
Phasing is elegant.
>>47408762
It's also so simple that its entire rules can fit onto a single sheet of paper (try doing the same with Trample), but, again, MtG players are babies.
>>47408762
They would just print that as a Banisher Priest-esque "exile until" effect nowadays.
>>47408810
>just turn the card upside down to denote it phased
What now motherfucker?
>>47408934
>He doesn't live in a 5 dimensional space
>>47408580
Nobody but assblasted retards on the Internet who don't even play MtG was bothered in the first place
>>47408762
Wait I forgot, does phasing actually make them etb when they phase back in?
>>47408810
They can fit the trample reminder text in a card rules box with space left over. What are you smoking?
>>47408954
No.
>>47408810
Phasing is complicated on the same theory dredge is.
It's not "normal". They're a set of rules extra for something people asume is another thing (phasing works like exile lol/dredge is a triggered ability lol).
>>47408143
Man, Power creep is real. A 3/3 shroud for G at common rarity late game.
>>47408143
Oh baby, goose is now pauper legal.
>>47408762
It doesn't use phasing because the printed card doesn't use phasing and DOES trigger ETB/leaves play effects as originally written, while phasing does not. It was changed to not have phasing because they wanted it to play as close to as written as possible.
>>47409300
That card is fifteen years old, moron.
>>47408697
>Only people looking for something to be mad about are overly bothered by it.
Dude, it looks like shit. It's ugly. There was no problem with simply using the generic mana symbol for colorless mana, since there is no way to produce generic mana in the game anyway.
>>47408952
This is true. See >>47409499
>>47409499
You just admitted that there's ambiguity with the generic numbered symbols, and that colorless mana fixed it.
Having one symbol that can contextually represent two different things is poor design.
>>47410026
well no
the only ambiguity is for spells that specifically require colorless mana to cost (which were introduced WITH the symbol), before they came about there was never anything that specifically required colorless mana to cost, so the generic mana symbol worked perfectly fine.
in fact, there's only been a step back if you're going to be that anal about ambiguity
>these two different symbols act exactly the same way except in cases where they don't
fantastic
anyway i personally don't give much more of a fuck about that, i don't really like the look of the symbol and it doesn't feel like it ever belongs on a card, but on the other hand i suppose there aren't exactly many choices for representing colorless mana
maybe a plain dot or siphon-y looking symbol might've worked better. who knows?
>>47411656
>muh diamond is not the right shape
holy shit kill yourself asap
>>47411811
>you're not allowed to dislike something's aesthetics
autism
>ambiguity
i dunno i'm looking at the card and it seems pretty obvious how it works
>>47411865
in this case no, youre not, its a fucking tiny grey diamond, what could possibly be "unaesthetic" about it?
your stupid alternatives prove that you dont actually have a real problem with the aesthetics you just WANT to have a problem because youre a shit-eating double nigger
>>47411656
That sounds like more of just a "I'm not used to this new thing so I don't like it" issue.
It cleared up some ambiguity. Generic symbols used to mean different things in a mana ability vs. a cost. Now there are separate symbols. It was way more ambiguous than counters vs. counters, although personally I could stand to see that changed too.
>>47408762
>Phasing is elegant.
It's also not the same thing as what Tawnos's Coffin does.
>>47407740
>ITT: OP is a fagot
>>47411971
does somebody not liking a symbol really tickle your butthole that hard?
top fucking kek
>>47409345
Pauper Bogle top tier!
>>47407740
Hmm . .. yeah indeed, I think that the second one might be a forgery. You should try to get your money back.
>>47408143
Dutch angles are cool, man.
Personally, I think that's some great Goose art.
>>47413118
shroud is kind of different from hexproof
>>47408143
>shroud
Huh, I though that they killed it in favor of hexproof ?
Well, maybe in the end commander is not that awfull.
I stopped caring about the new symbol for colorless mana when I realized that they only started using generic to represent it around Onslaught, before then it always spelled out "colorless mana".
It isn't really all that groundshaking.
http://magiccards.info/query?q=%28e%3Aod%2Fen%29+o%3A%7BC%7D&v=card&s=cname
Also, what the fuck, check out Nantuko Elder.
>>47413321
You don't know what a reprint is, do you?
>>47413321
>Well, maybe in the end commander is not that awfull.
>>47413387
>You don't know what a reprint is, do you?
>>47413369
Nantuko Elder is the entire reason WHY they started using the generic mana cost symbols for colorless mana generation, actually.
>>47411871
it's not hard for me to follow either
simply
>when X or Y happens, do 1 or 2
>>47407770
It could just be inside/outside.
>>47408762
Like others had said, I think they went back to the first wording because phasing does not trigger EtB or LtB triggers, and the original card DID trigger those. So if you made it phase, that would be a functional change.
Also, the second does not return the permanent(s) immediately upon the destruction/untap of the artifact like the first one, which is ANOTHER functional change.
So yes, the later is more elegant. But it is also a different card.
>>47408810
Problem with phasing is that its complicated and cards that have it suck. Same with banding.
No, its not hard to learn what it does, but its really not worth it.
>>47415578
To be fair, there's another problem with Banding.
Here's the reminder text for Banding.
>>47407740
Original
>an opponent calls the flip in the air, if you lose take 3
Reprint
>no party is specified to call the flip, or when.
looks like you can just always win the flip by calling it after it lands because the rules text doesn't explicitly state otherwise.
>>47408215
>anus mana
Is your anus a fucking rhombus?
>>47408934
It's not like it's any easier to deal with that card being tapped: a person who can't remember it's phased probably can't remember it's tapped, either. It's a niche situation.
>>47408980
Current rules text for Phasing:
>Phasing (This phases in or out before you untap during each of your untap steps. While it's phased out, it's treated as though it doesn't exist.)
Properly speaking it should probably have "this and all cards and counters attached to it" instead, but that's hardly longer.
>>47415578
>Problem with phasing is that its complicated
It really, really isn't. It is, in fact, exactly as complicated as Exile.
>and cards that have it suck.
That's because they were all printed in 1995 (except for Old Fogey, an Unhinged card). A lot of 1995 cards suck. Also not every card with Phasing sucks; Dream Fighter and Rainbow Efreet, for example. You can also do some really neat stuff with Time and Tide, and playing two Teferi's Isles is arguably better than playing two Islands.
Plus the combo in pic is really fun. And mean. And fun.
>>47407999
It was never printed in a set. It had no rarity.
>>47409481
good job
>>47408580
>muh game
> y can't we have x from when i was a wee child
>>47416853
You should try that at your FLGS!
>>47416853
I'm pretty sure it actually says in the comprehensive rules when you call a coin flip.
>>47412013
The issue I took was that although there was "ambiguity", it never mattered. I still Say that my Phyrexian Revokers cost 2 colorless mana. Everyone knows what I mean
>>47424538
705.1. To flip a coin for an object that cares whether a player wins or loses the flip, the affected player flips the coin and calls "heads" or "tails." If the call matches the result, that player wins the flip. Otherwise, the player loses the flip. Only the player who flips the coin wins or loses the flip; no other players are involved.
>>47425175
Why, though?
Everyone I know says that Phyrexian Revoker costs 2. Just...2. They don't say 2 colorless or 2 generic, just 2.
>>47425470
Because if someone asks me what any given card costs, Ill tell them the mana costs and generally the colors. "It costs 2 and a green". "It costs 2 colorless mana"
>>47425175
The ambiguity never mattered because there were never any cards that had colorless mana in their cost. When Wizards decided that they wanted cards that required colorless mana to cast they needed a way to resolve the ambiguity and a new mana symbol was the best way to do it. The symbol may look a bit weird but it opens up new design space which is good and they've said they plan on using it sparingly going forward so it won't be shoved in every set. And it makes things clearer and easier to explain to new players by removing a wierd bit of rules that pretty much every new player I've seen gets confused on. I can't see any real arguments against it aside from just not liking the design.
>>47425884
It looks ugly is the main reason I don't like it. Colorless mana matters is also pretty stupid, because as we saw with the OGW Eldrazi costing exlusively colorless mana is not a drawback.
I've also never experienced the fabled "New player who was confused by colorless/generic mana". I know when I was 12 and getting into magic, it was extremely straightforward.
>>47425175
Thats a cyclical problem, though. There was no ambiguity before because WOTC knew in advance they could never print such cards without creating a problem because there was no good way to handle it. So because there was no good way to handle it, they never made those cards, so there was no ambiguity.
Its card to cite the cards that were never made.
>>47428493
There was no good way to handle the "problem".
Colorless matters was a really stupid mechanic. Its not a "drawback" to only cost colorless, you can just jam all the sweet utility lands or sol lands.
Again, the ambiguity was never a problem until it was made to be one.
>>47408580
It's kind of a moot point when it will only ever show up on the bad borders anyway.
>baleful strix as rare
>Shaman of the Pact even being there when Origins is still being printed
What the fuck?
>>47428930
Uncommon Strix would kind of ruin limited
>>47413321
They did, because babies cry when they can't target their own shroud dudes.
Goose is from a better time.
>>47428930
I'm not sure why they're so worried about strix being in modern. he might actually make u/b decks not suck so bad.
>>47428985
most people I knew back in the day played like shroud was hexproof and they would get extremely buthurt if you pointed it out.
>>47428930
Both for limited reasons. This is still a set built to be drafted, at the end of the day. And Shaman is a nice complement to an elf archetype.
>>47429019
Those people should have been real men and played Plated Slagwurm.
>>47428930
>baleful strix at rare
Are you shitting me. Imagine pulling that shit as your rare.
>>47429122
>Imagine pulling a 5 dollar card playable in multiple archetypes as a rare
What were you expecting?
>>47429137
>in a pack that costs $10
>>47429160
So you would like every pack to contain a guaranteed $10 rare + the rest of the pack? Jesus Christ.
>>47429122
I'd be happy. Baleful strictly is a good fucking card
>>47429160
You'd be lucky if you got something even near half of your money back in a pack pal.
>>47429122
Imagine pulling this as your foil.
> instant $80 card
>>47429160
im not sure where everybody got this idea that you're supposed to be able to buy a children's toy and then somehow end up with the same amount of money after you bought it
>>47430466
If you don't open it, then it will only increase in value.
>>47430490
what does that have to do with what that poster said?
>>47430527
> able to buy a children's toy and then somehow end up with the same amount of money after you bought it
That's where my response comes from.
>>47430559
pretty obvious he meant actually opening and using the toy you buy, you can buy anything and then sell it back without using it and have the same amount of money, thats irrelevant
>>47430652
Irrelevant or not. I just wanted to toss that in as a fun fact.
Also, if you bought Tickle Me Elmo when it was new, opened it, let your kid play with it, then put it on eBay, you could still get double what you paid for it.
Just saying.
Also, a lot of precon decks and premium sets could be broke apart and sold individually to get more than what you paid for.
But, I get where you are coming from and you are absolutely right. You can't open a pack and expect that every pack gets you your money back or more.
>>47408262
>just wait for Phyrexian True Colorless mana <|>
That, or Timeshifted get-mana-on-untap))<>((
>>47408215
Anus mana symbol was something they should have done ten years ago, but the idea itself is a good idea
>>47430719
actually i chnaged my mind, what you said wanst irrelevant, tickle me elmo is a good point
>>47431375
lol, Funny as fuck, huh?
>>47431216
Yeah, whenever someone said "Im paying for the colorless cost on my Sulfur Elemental" I would be so confused and have no idea what was going on.
>>47432079
It makes sense though that if the symbol means two different things on where it is, to make two different symbols.
>>47407740
>Abusing coin-flipping techniques due to new errata
You're disgraceful, anon.
>>47425390
It actually says nothing about calling the flip before the coin lands.
I'm tempted to try this out
>>47432349
You can, but everyone knows hot coin flips work and you're just going to make an autistic ass of yourself.
>>47432266
But the thing is they dont mean two different things. The only thing you could use colorless mana for was paying for generic costs. They were inherently linked.
>>47432803
Even if there was only one use for colourless mana, colourless mana and generic cost are not the same thing. They meant different things even if that didn't change the actual way it worked.
>>47432835
Yes, semantically they were two different things. In practice, they were so closely linked that no one bothered/needed to say "generic" since they started using (1). That symbology was able to remove the need for distinction for the purpose of clarity.
>>47432921
And now there's a need for them to be distinct. But that doesn't change the fact that it is weird they never made the symbol ages ago, with how much of the rules they try to keep logical and from contradicting themselves.
>>47432968
The need was created, and pushed an archetype that no one really wanted extremely hard. Hooray. And now, until they come up with a better way, we have to deal with a stupid looking symbol that requires more explanation than the original.
>>47433048
I'm not saying they didn't create the need. They did just create it recently. But it still makes no sense to have a symbol that can apply to multiple different mechanics.
It wasn't needed, but the distinction makes sense.
Personally though I see no issue with the symbol, and find it gets explained to new players same time as any basic land.
>>47433048
>There are 6 types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
>Mana cost are paid with the corresponding mana, and the numbered mana 'generic costs' can be paid with any type of mana.
Holy shit, your right anon!
It so strigtforward and intuituve. What will players do!?
>>47433720
Not sure where you're having issue with things.
The part you greentexted is what I referenced, I wasn't saying it isn't true?
>>47433720
ignore this
>>47433754
I thought you posted in response to me, not him. I'm retarded.
>>47433720
>>There are 6 types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
>
>>Mana cost are paid with the corresponding mana, and the numbered mana 'colorless' can be paid with any type of mana.
Whats the problem here?
>>47433835
The problem would be the 'numbered' mana is not 'colorless' it's generic.
The new mana symbol makes the distinction more clear and adds design space. That is to say, makes the existing rules we already used more clear
>>47433946
You are arguing semantics. I am arguing that you don't need to clearly distinguish between colorless and generic: They are largely used interchangeably
But you aren't making it more clear. By adding extra symbols, you make it less clear. One more thing to learn. The worlds ugliest Sol Ring/Mana Crypt is the only thing that comes out of it. I played magic for 15 years never knowing about "Generic" mana, and it never once mattered.
>>47407740
So who decides how you win the flip now?
>>47434014
Used interchangeable though is incorrect as they don't mean the same thing.
And I think most here are not arguing it was needing to be changed, we're just arguing the change isn't "incorrect"
That said, I have far far more of an issue with making the "fight" keyword than the colourless mana symbol.
>>47434029
>now
This has been the wording since Vintage Masters
>>47434014
>you don't need to clearly distinguish between colorless and generic
>what is Converge
>>47408124
The mtg community can and will bitch about anything
See
>>47408215
>Anus mana
How do you even see an anus in that fucking square. And are people seriously just going to call things buttholes in an attempt to make fun of it? What are you, 12?
>>47434257
Is colorless a color? Is this a question you really need to ask?
>>47434064
All I'd like to say is that if everyone can ignore a rule for 20 years, maybe rather than point out "no thats technically wrong!", maybe you question what the rule does in the first place.
>>47434324
If colorless and generic were used interchangeably, generic costs would add nothing to converge. Because the mana wouldn't have a fucking color.
>>47434324
>All I'd like to say is that if everyone can ignore a rule for 20 years, maybe rather than point out "no thats technically wrong!", maybe you question what the rule does in the first place.
Card text originally spelled out "colorless mana."
>>47434443
And we called generic mana colorless mana. Your point?
>>47434416
Im not following. They dont. Are you trying to say that the mana used to pay for the colorless part of the mana cost wouldnt count? Read the wording of converge again.
>>47434483
My point is just because you used the wrong terminology, it doesn't mean these things are actually interchangeable.
You can call creatures "monsters" all day too if you like, but you're wrong, and trying to pretend that your wrong terminology is right would actually fuck up parts of the game.
>>47434483
>we called generic mana colorless mana
You were wrong because it wasn't inherently colorless. You're trying to argue that you and your friends are somehow equal in authority to literally the card text itself?
>>47434483
>Are you trying to say that the mana used to pay for the colorless part of the mana cost wouldnt count?
The mana spent for the generic part of the cost does count, if it is coloured mana. If it had a colourless cost on converge, the mana spent could only be colourless.
>>47434483
>the colorless part of the mana cost
There isn't a colorless part of the mana cost
>>47434525
If everyone called creatures monsters, who cares because everyone knows what you're talking about.
>>47434532
Im trying to argue that if everyone that plays a game makes the same mistake, and the game is unaffected by this mistake and can be played exactly the same, then maybe the rule was not necessary.
>>47434533
>>47434548
I think you missed the point
>>47434579
The point that generic cost is different from colourless? (which implies it should be denoted with different icons) The point that we made?
Or please, explain your point in mixing up the terms.
>>47434612
I said that you could have just solved this "problem" by combining generic and colorless, and nothing would change.
You seem to be arguing that my points are invalid under the current system: This is true. Thats why I suggest a different system would have been a better solution to this "problem".
>>47407740
The new one uses the Oracle wording that's been in effect for years even if the original printing couldn't be retroactively updated.
>>47434647
>combining generic and colorless
So, mana used to pay generic costs becomes colorless? What are you even talking about.
There's literally no way for you to argue that having a colorless symbol isn't a positive change. It does nothing but clarify. The only reason you have something against it is your own nostalgia goggles.
>>47408887
Wouldn't work, any counters would fall off.
>>47434647
so you're arguing in a magic fairyland where anything can be changed. gotcha.
I thought we were discussing the game as it exists/existed, in the real world.
>>47430719
>Also, if you bought Tickle Me Elmo when it was new, opened it, let your kid play with it, then put it on eBay, you could still get double what you paid for it.
What? How would that work?
>>47434951
Extremely high demand and limited supply, stores were sold out instantly of the little shit's
>>47435141
>>47434951
>>47430719
It wasn't double, it was 10x if you were an asshole.
People were willing to pay it and some nasty things happened.
>>47407740
One is a puffy vagina. The other is a light house for LGBT sex.
>>47429027
>built to be drafted
dropped
>>47429027
>buying into the "made to be drafted" meme
>built to be drafted with an extremely limited print run and a $45+ price tag per draft
>>47435354
Yeah, I was underplaying it when I said double. These things were so ridiculous when they first came out that you could literally sell it for what ever price you wanted and someone would have bought it.
>>47437057
$45 for 6 packs of Eternal and a chance to win more packs? I'm sold.
>>47437057
Shit. A buddy and me signed up for a 2HG SOI draft where you drafted with an entire box between the two of you. $50 buy in. Got 2 Nahiri's, a Sorin, an Arlinn, a Declaration in Stone, 2 Abbey's, a foil Gitgud Monster and a non-foil Gitgud Monster.
And we won the tournament undefeated.
>>47437461
Thread is going to die.
>>47437461
yes, now tell me about your mother.
>>47407740
I am looking forward to paying $20 and cracking a $300 Foil Jace in my first pack.
>The luck sack is real.
>>47438608
She lives in a rinky dink house. Does something with business loans. And calls me all the time asking about stupid shit she can't figure out about the computer.
Does that suffice?
>>47438677
> $300
> more like $90
>>47429122
An answer to your opponent's biggest bomb that cantrips and sees Legacy play is bad how?
>>47409481
>the joke
>your head
Why does limited have to ruin everything?
>>47442677
> Why does commander have to ruin everything?
ftfy
>>47442794
>Why do players have to ruin everything?
ftfy
>>47437439
>six packs
You mean three, friendo?
>>47442902
How do you draft with only three packs?
>>47442969
What the fuck? Are you retarded or something? Have you ever drafted before?
>>47442995
Every draft I've ever been in drafts with six packs.
This is why prereleases come with six packs. (And before five packs and a bonus precon pack)
>>47443040prereleases are generally sealed deck, not draft.
>>47443052
You don't know what the hell yours talking about. If you build a deck with booster packs, it's a draft. And newer prerelease packs now come with six packs and a promo card. And that's it.
How is that NOT the definition of a draft?
>>47443040
That's sealed you tard. EMA sealed will probably be $100+
>>47443084
>>47443103
Sealed and Draft are basically the same thing. That's why they are both labelled as Limited.
>>47443084
if you buld a deck out of booster packs it's a limted format. there are two types of limited format: sealed deck and draft. sealed tou have a pool of cards (6 boosters) from which you build your deck. though there are many types of draft format, most have you select one card at a time. in a booster draft, the most common kind, you select your card from a pack you open then each player passes the unselected cards to the next player in rotation until all packs are depleted, then repeat in the opposite rotation for three packs.
>>47443160
>>47443160
>Sealed and Draft are basically the same thing.
No. Just no.
>>47443103
How the fuck would Six $10 packs cost $100?
I've never been in a limited tournament that costs more than the packs. In fact, most of the time it's slightly cheaper than buying those packs.
>>47443164
I know what a booster draft is. But, Sealed is also a draft format. That's why they Both fall under the Limited format.
>>47443186
do you not play with prizes? do you not pay for the prizes? where do you play, this sounds like a magical christmas land.
Why is Chain Lightning at uncommon?
Does this seriously mean they're going to print Bolt at uncommon, too, and leave Counterspell at common?
It's not like they can justify not printing Lightning Bolt. Right?
Right?
>>47443181
There are a multitude of draft variants. Booster Draft isn't the only draft type there is. Sealed is also a draft variant.
>>47443212
no, it's not. that's the difference between sealed and draft. in sealed you have a predetermined pool and in draft you select your cardpool incrementally. this isn't an opinion, this is the definition of a draft.
>>47443225
>There are a multitude of draft variants.
true
> Booster Draft isn't the only draft type there is.
also true
> Sealed is also a draft variant.
not remotely true, because you don't do any sort of drafting in sealed.
Drafting refers to picking one or more cards, then giving the other players a chance to pick one or more cards.
>>47443220
Most shops (who don't cheat the shit out of you) will not make a limited tournament above the price of MSRP because they don't pay those prices from WOTC/distributors. So, a limited tournament still gains them a profit even with prizes.
Like I said in a previous post, my shop had a 2HG sealed tournament that drafted with a SOI booster box per team. And it cost $50 per player to enter.
Now, if enough people entered, they were going to give a box to the winner and trickle less packs to finalists. However, there ended up being only ten teams and we got 16 packs. Which, myself and my friend won this tournament undefeated.
>>47443295
many shops do still charge you more, because they want to make a profit, the excess and some portion of their profit off the packs into the pool.
Shops don't make that much profit per pack, not enough to make a decent prize pool at the end if that's all that goes into the pool, and that would kill all the shops profit.
>>47443262
>>47443283
>>47443295
Fine. Then it's not drafting. It's still limited though.
>>47443331
They make a profit no matter what. They don't pay msrp for the product. If a shop. Charges you more than MSRP for a limited tournament just for the reason (you can get prizes), then they are cheating the shit out of you. And just trying to get as much money out of people as they can squander. Which is sad.
>>47443338
correct. Limited and drafting are not the same thing.
Which is what we've been trying to tell you from the start.
>>47443331
Also, they make a hefty profit when they get 50+ (and in my shop's case 100+) participants. It makes them a smaller profit at a greater quantity than what they would have made without the tournament. So, they are still making a massive amount of money in a single night. Think of it like when a store has a sale. They sale something below MSRP to rake in a bang load of customers. And still make their money.
Let me put it this way... Did you participate in your shop's SOI Prerelease? And if so, how much was your entry fee for the prerelease pack?
>>47443371
All draft is limited. Not all limited is draft.
>>47443364
way to miss the point. If the only source of the prize pool was from the difference between MSRP and standard prices, ie they make zero profit, the prize pool would be very small.
So if they want to have a decent prize pool they need to charge above the standard cost of the packs. Most shops actually make LESS profit off the packs used in draft tournaments then they do just selling the packs, because they add part of their profit to the extra they charge when making the prize pool.
How can shops letting you use their space, and taking a cut to their profits, count as cheating you?
>>47443410
I didn't, because I work weekends now, so I don't get to go to prereleases.
I do know that WotC does sometimes though shops extra product to make a bigger price pool for events like prereleases. But stuff like FNM the only extra product the shop gets is the promo card. The shit shop charged 3 bucks extra per player, and that was the only thing that went into the price pool. The non-shit shop in the neighboring city also charged 3 bucks extra per player, but they throw 4 bucks into the prize pool per player. And ten percent discount on magic packs you buy with cash on tournament day.
Shop one was being a dick, shop 2 was not, even though they were still making a profit.
>>47443431
Again, they can still charge MSRP of the packs, and even less so, have a decent prize pool, and still make a profit. Remember, the tournament is not the only thing they make money off of. Who ever goes to a tournament and pays for only the tournament? Not many. Usually people will buy singles, sleeves, deck boxes, and other miscellaneous products as well.
But, that being besides the point, if they charge MSRP, have a decent prize pool, they will still make a lot of money. Sure, if they aren't absolutely cheating you, they can up the prize pool to account for the the upcharges of the tournament. However, that sounds unlikely. Otherwise, they are just making it a rip off for people who aren't good at tournaments and will ultimately not get a single pack in prize. This, more than likely they aren't the kind of store to give you an adequate prize pool for what extra they are charging you. So, again... My card shop charges less than MSRP for a limited tournament. And still has a decent amount of prizes. This way everyone gets their money worth and the shop still makes a profit from the extra amount of customers. It's basic business.
>>47443491
This exactly. And the deal is, you don't have to be a big time shop to be able to run tournaments the same as one. True, more players equal more prizes. But, it's more of a percentage game. A small shop can still give winnings based off that percentage equation and have a good tournament that isn't up charging the price of the packs you are buying just to play in a tournament. But, some shops just want to make that money and don't care about their customer base.
>>47443542
yeah, but your shop brings in 50+ people right?
a lot of shops don't. Outside of big events like prereleases (which have set product, prize support from WotC etc).
Most FNMs around here are lucky to get two full draft groups. Many only spend $2 more, and the shop is giving up table space and staying open late to allow for the tournament.
They would be losing money every FMN if they gave up all their profit from the packs for the draft to make the prize pool.
It sounds like your store is big enough it probably has deal with WotC to be getting prize support. Because otherwise they are at a net lose from the tournament, and have to make it up by getting sales outside of the tournament from the players.
>>47443597
dude, missing the point AGAIN.
both shops ARE charging more than the price of the packs to enter the tournament. In both cases all the extra goes back into the prize pool. NOTE: they keep none of that extra money.
But in one case, the shop cuts into it's own profits to bump up the prize pool higher.
A small shop can't be losing money on the packs it sells for the tournament. And if they aren't losing money, the prize pool is either small, or they have to charge more than just the cost of the packs.
>>47443491
Also, I'm sorry to hear that you can't participate in Prereleases. They are definitely well worth it now that the promo is a random foil rare from any rare/mythic in the set and not just random from a pool of five cards or what ever. So, you can get a foil Archangel Avacyn, or Nahiri, or Arlinn Kord. Shit is so cash.
Anywho, most Prerelease tournaments costs somewhere around $30. My shop charges $25. And some places charge $35 or more. Which is sad, but true.
>>47443618
All the profit, yes. But, as I have said, it's a percentage equation. They can still charge MSRP of the packs, jave a decent prize pool, and still make a good profit. And table space doesn't cost anything. Staying open late costs very little in comparison to how much they make from the tournament.
No tournament will ever lost money by being charged the MSRP of the packs outside of the prize pool.
My shop is pretty big and does well. However, like I said before, tournaments from all shops can be profitable at MSRP of the packs. The only way this would be untrue, is if you got like, five people in the tournament only. Then it might not be worth doing it. And still, the profit loss would be that the shop is paying their employees to keep the shop open. Not even a loss from the product itself.
>>47434951
For one brief shining moment normal people knew what it was to be a new Legacy player.
Other people bought them new for thirty odd quid, but the supply was hugely insufficient for demand and people went into maximum overjew, selling them for many times their initial cost
>>47443750
I think I should reiterate the first sentence.
> All the profit, yes.
If a shop puts 100% of their own profit margin into the prize pool, then yes they will make nothing. But, if the tournament costs MSRP for the packs outside of the prize pool, then they can do a percentage of what they make versus how many participants there are and set the prize pool accordingly. They will still make a hefty amount of money.
>>47443220
>>47443618
Also, sometime I'll take pics of my card shop during an FNM and post them to let people see.
>>47443750
>They can still charge MSRP of the packs, jave a decent prize pool, and still make a good profit.
how much profit do you think a shop makes per pack?
> The only way this would be untrue, is if you got like, five people in the tournament only. Then it might not be worth doing it.
and not much more if you only have 12.
>Staying open late costs very little in comparison to how much they make from the tournament.
how much do you think 12 people spend outside the tournament, because if you think the shop is making more than $20 profit on that, you're fucking high.
>And still, the profit loss would be that the shop is paying their employees to keep the shop open. Not even a loss from the product itself.
and what's the point of that?
I'm talking about the net profit of running the tournament. Which is what the shop will care about.
>>47443843
A shop should pay $2-$2.50 per pack. So, if a shop sells a pack at $4, then that is $1.50 at minimal. Account for a lowball of 25 participants? $37.50? They could have the prize pool be 10 packs and still make a good profit. And that's for a low number of people.
If you have ten the. It's still worth running the tournament.
$20 for 12 people is about right.
The point is, the only time it's not profitable to run a tournament is if there are so few participants that a shop is paying their employees more than the shop will profit.
>>47443979
>Account for a lowball of 25 participants?
okay, remember how I've been repeatedly telling you that's a high turnout at some shops.
Again, FNM, prereleases follow a different prize structure, because the product is sold to the shops specifically for the event.
>>47444122
And I'm going by the numbers of regular limited tournaments and not special events that WOTC accommodate for.
>>47444210
yeah, well your expectations are way off for many shops. Which could explain why your so surprised at a practice many others find common.
8-20 is a common number for those shops, so that's down to price pool of closer to $20, and the profit from other sales lower, while the cost to the shop staying close to as high.
>>47444279
If your shop only has a turn out of around 10 participants, then never expect a high prize pool. But, they still shouldn't be charging more than MSRP. It's price gouging even if they add to the prize pool. Because not everyone will get a prize and certain people will never get a prize due to lack of skill. So, overall it's still unfair to those players.
>>47444356
>. But, they still shouldn't be charging more than MSRP. It's price gouging even if they add to the prize pool. Because not everyone will get a prize and certain people will never get a prize due to lack of skill.
that's not what price gouging means.
and people who are you to decide what people you don't know want for their prize pool?
Also, it's a pretty expected model in most places. You are the exception in terms of store size, and getting on a high horse over something that you have no bases for being on a high horse about.
>>47444482
Price gouging is raising the price of something for profit only just because you know people will pay for it.
And I don't know anyone who is happy getting less than what they paid for.
And don't say most places. Just because it might be the practice at your shop, doesn't mean it's the practice at most shops.
Even Derium's, who is possibly the smallest shop possible, does the same practices as my shop. So, if they can do it as I have specified it, then any shop can do it.
>>47444612
But they aren't raising the price for profit because the extra money is all going back to the customers as prizes
SPEAKING OF ETERNAL
My local shop got in 4 black-border Taigas, one in German. They are $450 each. Is that good? They look flawless.
>>47444835
> extra money is all going back
Doubtful. And if they are raising the prices, then they are definitely getting more profit out of it. Don't be so certain that a shop willing to charge more won't be in it for as much profit as possible.
>>47445334
We know the price of the packs, the price of the tournament entry and the prize pool. There is no doubt to be had.
>>47446151
Numbers then?
Pack $
Tournament $
Participants #
Prize pool #
>>47446208
Last I checked $4 per pack pre take. Been a few months.
Draft is 15 per player. Prize pool is store credit of $4 store credit per player divided between the top three of each table.
So the extra cost plus $1 off their profit.
>>47446904
I think this needs to be reworded. It's a little Bit of a mess.
Packs $4
Tourny $15
Prize pool is basically pack per person
Now, how many packs are usually in circulation in your shop's draft? Because it sounds like it should be 5 packs per person. But, more than likely it's going to be 3-4 packs per person at your shop.
>>47447064
No prize pool is in store credit. It could be in packs but ties off number drafts etc made it awkward to divide properly so store credit is used insteas.
3 packs per person are used in the draft as per usual
>>47447999
I meant it'd basically a pack per participant in cost value.
See, that's the thing. 3 packs per person at $15 per person means they are making as much money off your ass as possible. And to top it off, they are making even more money because their prize pool is also a profit in addition to making money off your ass.
Their cost:
$2.50 per pack @ 4 packs
- $10
Your Costs:
$15 for 3 packs @ 1 pack value to winners.
Their profit:
Literally 50% back. And on top of that, they aren't even giving you straight up packs. Most likely the winners will dump money into singles which the store sells at market and gave some guy half market value for. Thus, making an even bigger profit.
They are straight up janking you guys.
If they did 5 packs per person. With a prize pool of 1/2 a pack per person. They would still make a killing.
You have only 12 people? Winner takes 4 packs and Runner up takes 2 packs. Or 3 tables of 4 people and 3 winners take 2 packs each.
They are janking you badly.
>>47448159
Wtf. Their making less profit than if we just bought the packs and did our own draft. Why are you upset that a store is making money selling product. Why do you insist that they must give up more off the money they would get just selling us the packs for the privilege of having us use their store. The extra cost goes to us. They cut the price then the prizes get cut too.
I don't fucking get you.
And store credit gives more options than just packs. Several drafters don't play constructed so we prefer to spend our winnings on non MTG stuff or towards the next draft.
>>47448307
1) I'm not upset at all, don't add your mindset to my words. You aren't me. So, don't act like everyone feels or reacts the same as you do.
2) During a tournament, they are drawing a bigger customer base for that day. It's the same marketing tactic as sales. Especially the renown Black Friday sales. Sure, they are making "less money" per product. But, their revenue sky rockets based off sales increasing per customer. More people come in. More people buy shit. It's been done forever. They still make more money than if you and a couple friends came in and bought 6 packs each and did your own draft.
3) The reason you don't understand, is because you don't know how marketing works. You don't know how to run a business. You don't know why sales are a gimmick that makes you more money in the long run. Tournaments are sales.
4) Any store would gladly take the packs back for trade towards other product. The point is, when people get store credit, they are giving someone a means to spend more than they are given. You get credit and want two cards for a deck that costs $4 more than your credit? You'll pay that extra $4. I'm not saying store credit is bad. But, it's just a way to make even more of a profit. It's exactly like gift cards.
>>47448428
Dude you fail at basic accounting. Store credit is a liability, and in the case of tournament rewards is balanced by an expense.
The profit margin is sales - cost of goods sold- expenses. Which includes the store credit. They don't get that profit back till it's spent but that sale doesn't add to cash
When someone buys using it you do get profit again. But you credit the liability not cash assets.
And you're still wrong about the stupid more people buying shit argument. The salary expense of the clerk starting around an extra our is likely more than the ten bucks of profit they make from use buying soda. Your asking the store to lose money and us to get a smaller prize pool because you don't like the idea of extra money going into a tournament
>>47448554
Alright. Now I know that you literally have no idea what you're talking about. I actually work in sale for a distributor to stores. I deal with this crap literally on a daily basis.
1) Credit is never a liability. You either a) Give product that you were already sitting on to the credit's equivalent b) Give product that is a lesser amount and the recipient doesn't use the pennies difference and the store keeps it c) The recipient wants something worth more than the credit and you get them to give you the difference in money/trades. There is no liability there.
2) The cash was already given to them up front from the entry to the tournament. They made their money upfront. Store credit given out is exactly the same as gift cards. You almost always spend more than the credit given. Thus, the store still makes even more money off you.
3) Again as 2) They aren't giving you credit before making their money. They made their money. Credit doesn't need to equal cash value when you spend it. It was already cash value when you entered the tournament.
4) You obviously don't understand how marketing works. Why do you think sales exist in the first place? A tournament moves more product a day than any other day. Same as store sales. It gets product off the shelves to make more room for newer stock. You literally sale more things that was previously just sitting there and would have taken a longer period to move. This is why all stores in existence have special events and sales. To get more people in and move more product. Even at a discounted price, they end up making more money over all.
5) Doubtful that a clerk in a card shop makes $10/hr unless your minimum wage is around that. Probably around $8.50-$10 I'd assume.
6) Card shops make profit other than soda, you know that right?
> continued
>>47448554
>>47448843
> continued
7) Again, you are assuming what I like or dislike, or how I feel about a topic when you have no idea. I have already said, that a card shop 'shouldn't' make a tournament's entry fee above the MSRP of packs used in the tournament. And that if a shop does, that the prize pool should be raised accordingly. Only that if a shop charges more than MSRP of packs they are actually getting up front, than most likely that shop won't make the prize pool equally increased. Which you just proved your shop doesn't. They are making a higher profit then they should be just because they 'can' make that money off you. And it's a shame. Because they are getting significantly more out of you than they should be.
They are making above a 50% profit off you in a tournament. And really, they should be making around a 30% profit.
>>47448159
I'm going to ask a few other questions I've got about this post.
5 packs? Why when you only need 3 to draft? To make it more of a sale? Which the store already has on tournament days. You just don't have to buy more packs if you don't want to.
And the prize pool is smaller. Why do you assume that we'd want packs up front rather than a bigger possible payout? Contests and chance is fun. It's why people gamble even when they know that there is no net profit for the group. The bigger pool makes the games more exciting.
>>47448428
Why would I want packs over store credit I could buy the packs with. While I might buy something that nets the store more profit. That thing is what I wanted, not the packs. All giving packs dies is remove my ability to choose
>>47429013
This doesn't make it modern legal.
>>47448929
1) Six packs is what should be drafted for limited and is the recommended number of packs to use in any limited format. And the reason I gave 5 packs is the amount you should get, for a $15 buy in, and still have the store make a good profit.
2) It's not about getting packs up front. It's about getting those packs added to the number of packs being drafted. Also, it has to be somewhat worth it for the non-winners otherwise you are making it severely unbalanced. I bet the same 5 people win your tournaments all around.
3) Getting packs is like getting cash. Getting credit is like getting gift cards. However, with that being said, I also stated that store credit 'isn't' a bad thing. It's just a method to make even more money.
>>47449028
I'm this guy right here. Alright, I'm going to bed. If you want to post a response, make it quick or I won't get to replying until tomorrow.
>>47449028
>Six packs is what should be drafted for limited and is the recommended number of packs to use in any limited format.
I'm assuming you're counting prize pool, because you draft 3 packs.
Unless you are confusing sealed and draft.
>getting packs is like getting cash
What the actual fuck.
I could spend the credit on packs, but I can't spend the packs on credit much less their sale value in cash. Packs are not cash. It's credit already spent on a thing I might or might not want.
>>47448897
okay to this, lets start with MSRP is 4 bucks a pack now. You can get less at some online stores, but that's what it is.
Second why shouldn't the entry fee be above the MSRP if it's going into the prices? What is morally wrong with this? You have never fucking justified this.
Third:
>e than MSRP of packs they are actually getting up front, than most likely that shop won't make the prize pool equally increased. Which you just proved your shop doesn't.
No I proved the opposite, that the shop puts all the cost above MSRP into the price pool AND MORE. cutting into the profit they would have made selling at MSRP.
>>47448843
1) Credit is a liablity in terms of how it is put into an accounting ledger. More technically it can be entered as a contra-asset. But it's still a thing subtracted from your assets when calcualting your equity.
Liability doesn't mean risk, it means thing you have to count against your assets.
2 and 3: Their is a difference difference between assets and revenue when determining profits. Cash is an asset, Sales can be in cash or credit.
If you sell a gift card for the value of the card, you made no profit. you don't get profit until the card is redeemed. You might have the cash asset, but your equity is neutral.
4) I do understand how marketing works. That's why the store also has a sale on the product they are holding the tournament for. Because that drives sales and earns them money.
Which works out well on big magic days, and table top tournaments (where they charge an entry fee, but give credit equal to the fee +25-50% so again, losing money).
FNM. People buy their drinks and packs for the draft. A few buy other product that day, but rarely more than their store credit.
But it's still good marketing, because it does the other shit you want. Build up a loyal customer base and generate customer good will. It's why people come back there to make their bigger purchases.
They don't buy it because their there to get that sweet deal on the draft cost. Again, they could do that cheaper at home. They draft because the store gives enough incentive (draw of the price, good atmosphere) and have a good time there. They like it there, so when they do want to spend their money they do it there.
Or to throw out an example that should have been obvious to you.
Magic Online. You provide the packs for the draft, and also have to pay more (tickets are basically cash). But you get prizes at the end. The value of the prizes is more than that of the tickets, but not everyone gets them.
And MTGO isn't paying the overhead a shop is to run a tournament.
>>47449426
Not him, but one thing.
You said
>Second why shouldn't the entry fee be above the MSRP if it's going into the prices?
He said
>if a shop does (raise entry above the MSRP of packs used), that the prize pool should be raised accordingly.
You seem to have missed that or misread it I think.
That said, I think he's off the rocker on half his comments.
>>47450238
no he full on stated
> I have already said, that a card shop 'shouldn't' make a tournament's entry fee above the MSRP of packs used in the tournament.
and somewhat backed down that maybe it might be okay if the extra money all went into the prize pool.
But this started with people explaining that drafts cost more than just the packs because of the prize pool, and him beings surprised and maybe upset by the prospect.
see
>>47443542
>>47443295
>>47443186
>>47450294
Fair enough, I came in late and just noticed that appearance of a mixup. What I did see of his comments though seemed to be mostly shitty.
