Do you think Wizards will ever again print dual lands that are better than shocks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark Kant

The vast majority of decks are designed to win based on life. Most decks win the game by either bringing their opponents life total from 20 to 0 before their opponents do the same, or by preventing their opponents from bringing their own life total down to 0 by the time they manage to stabilize.

Everytime someone casts an Watery Grave untapped, they are giving up 10% of their starting life total. A deck with 3 Watery Graves is going to lose a lot more life every single game than an identical deck with 3 Underground Sea. Every single Grave that etbs is one less storm your opponent needs, or one less bolt, or one less swing with a creature etc. Now extrapolate the impact of this life loss over 7 rounds and yes absolutely you are atleast 10% less likely to win a tournament for each Watery Grave in your decklist, all because of the lands you could afford.

If you want to win a tournament, you're going to want those Underground Seas or a similar fetchable dual that has a much less significant drawback than causing you to lose 10% of your starting life total every time.

A deck packing 3 Dimir Garden Once upon a time thus only showing a card at random from your hand to your opponent if it is the first land you have played in the whole game, is far far less likely to cause you to lose a tournament than Watery Grave is...

Dimir Garden Once upon a time
Swamp Island
When ~ etb, if it is the first land you have played this game, it enters tapped unless you reveal a card at random from your hand to everyone (I'm sure that could be worded better)

---

These numbers are made up and bad (seriously, are you telling me one out of every ten games is decided by weather or not you paid two life to have a singular land in your deck, which you could have fetched around, enter untapped?) but even if they're true and it's 10%. That makes Watery Grave 90% of an underground sea. so I expect Underground Seas to cost 22 bucks right? 111% the price of a Watery Grave?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

I think this is simply an example of the popularity / success of MTG in general increasing over time rather than "the maximum price of tarmogoyf that the market will tolerate is controlled directly by the price of black lotus through a kind of scaling function"

Like if this assertion was true you would expect to see the price of standard mythics trending upwards over time in the same way that RL cards have but instead (as you might expect) they remain relatively pegged to the price of boosters

Ragavan debut at $70 because it is a highly playable mythic rare in a set where the packs cost $8. You didn't have any sensible comparison to that in 2005 or whatever.
You can argue that WotC have only become comfortable printing $8 packs because they see that lotus is $20000 but that seems like a bit of a reach to me


Because MTG has grown a lot since then (more players/demand) but the supply of these cards have not increased. I think it's much less of a 'beanie babies' type situation than you are implying

---

I'm not saying it is the reason, I'm saying a claim that it is zero influence on the current pricing of new cards might not be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit

There's so many stupid teams here I don't even know which one you're on.
Wait are you in favor of printing RL cards because I thought you were on the opposite team.

---

My position on this has been consistent through the whole thread (and basically forever, definitely at least for the last several years)

- I think it would be a good thing from player perspective and wotc business perspective for wotc to print reserved list cards. I have not seen any strong argument that it would be bad business for wotc to reprint reserved list cards.
- I am not insisting that wotc should e.g. reprint so many copies of the card until it costs some arbitrarily cheap amount on the secondary market, because this would require some kind of additional anti-capitalist framing. Rather, that they simply bring RL cards into the pool of "luxury reprints" that they treat similarly to other cards in this position such as fetchlands, JTMS, whatever (likely with even more selective reprints than these currently non-RL cards, due to the higher price/scarcity, but it would be up to wotc discretion).
- Controlled reprints like this that are only eternal-format legal are already a clear part of wotc business strategy (with secretlairs and sets like eternal masters / modern horizons).

Conclusion: the only compelling reason for wotc to not print reserved list cards is because to the best of wotc knowledge the reserved list is 'legally binding' and breaking it would expose them to litigation (edit: or that the potential risk thereof is too great, etc as explained in the subsequent post below by 'H')

If anyone supports a different conclusion for why wotc isn't printing RL cards then they have to argue both of the following:
1. The reserved list is legally irrelevant. (I don't think a layperson [such as myself] has a good ability to assess this because it requires too much domain-specific legal knowledge which is why I am simply not interested in hearing about it unless you state your legal authority, and if you have such authority I recommend offering your consulting services to Hasbro)
2. WotC printing RL cards would not be profitable. (None of the arguments for this point have been convincing)

Well, I been doing my best to stay out of this, but I want to just point out that there are nonmarket based (to some degree) considerations that could, possibly, hypothetically, contribute to them not wanting to face even possible litigation over the Reserve List.

That hypothetically, speculatively, could include some worry over the specter of possible discovery, disclosure and/or deposition in a given suit.

Now, before anyone wants to jump in and say that this is not possible, or exteremely unlikely, or that I am not qualified to make such speculation given that I am not a lawyer, I want to clarify I am not saying this is the case, or is the most likely reasoning. All I want to point out is that there could be more factors in play than just how much money they could hypothetically make, or if litigation could/would/should be successful. A case doesn't need to be won by the litigant, per se, to be potentially damaging. It is also possible (although unknowable how probable) that just the discovery/disclosure would be much more damaging than any financial compensation they could ever be made to give litigants. Finally, there is the possibility that these are simply quantities that are sufficiently unknown/unknowable that Hasbro simply is not willing to broach them unless they absolutely have no choice (and they do, seemingly, right now). Hasbro is generally pretty risk-averse, because WotC is one of the few divisions (IIRC) it has that really makes them a good bit of money.

Again, when I say possible, I mean logically possible, which is not a rating of it's probability in any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit

That makes Watery Grave 90% of an underground sea. so I expect Underground Seas to cost 22 bucks right? 111% the price of a Watery Grave?

---

Lol, that's not how any of this works. It's basic supply and demand. If lighting bolt was a reserve list card only ever printed as a rare and never reprinted after ABUR, Lighting Bolt would be a $1000+ card and Shock would not be worth 66% as much as lightning bolt.

Your own manabase shocking you is a huge drawback that makes it easier for your opponents to kill you, makes you have to play more defensively with your life total and both of these will cost you plenty of games. That's just basic Magic 101.

If one player starts each game at 16-18 life while everyone else starts at 20 life, the 16-18 life player is going to have a much harder time winning a tournament than the players that start at 20 life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark Kant

Lol, that's not how any of this works. It's basic supply and demand. If lighting bolt was a reserve list card only ever printed as a rare and never reprinted after ABUR, Lighting Bolt would be a $1000+ card and Shock would not be worth 66% as much as lightning bolt.

---

You are conflating two things. There is what the card should cost, which is indeed supply and demand. Commander players, money launderers and nostalgic millennials can make anything cost way too much.

But there is a second question: if a legacy player in a monthly 1k should feel like they need to buy the card. The answer is profoundly no. Just like saying an amateur bicyclist shouldn’t bike if they only have aluminum wheels instead of carbon fibre is silly. Or that the average beer league hockey player shouldn’t even get on the ice with a budget composite stick.

The 4% I assumed is a large difference: it’s the difference between even and quite unfavoured, and tier 1 vs tier 0. If you think 2-4 points of life determines 10% or more of games in this format that is a very bold claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reeplcheep

Semi-pro bicyclists don’t always spend 10 000$ getting the 2 gram lighter wheels. Not every team in formula 1 is Ferrari. At some point small optimization don’t make sense; which is why everyone doesn’t go out and buy a tabernacle when lands is 0.2% better than the rest of the field.

There are definitely intangibles, otherwise no one would play legacy in the first place. But most people don’t value the intangibles at >100 000$.

---

Lots of people pay double the price for dura ace over ultegra man. LOTS

So the intangibles and the marginal value that may increase is worth it to MANY. Sometimes that 1 ounce would help you cross that finish line. You never want to be that guy where "if only I had this, i could have won"

This issue only matters to people who play sanctioned paper legacy/ vintage magic, and people who play paper, no proxy competitive edh, no other players really care about duals since they wont ever play them, and WOTC only cares about the demographic that spends money on actual magic product and not secondary market singles. What percentage of the magic playing population do you think that overlapping niche is, and do you think that such a niche is worth specifically marketing towards (on top of whatever costs are associated with breaking their reserve list promise)? Any rationalization as to whether or not it is good for the game isn't really relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonics

This issue only matters to people who play sanctioned paper legacy/ vintage magic, and people who play paper, no proxy competitive edh, no other players really care about duals since they wont ever play them, and WOTC only cares about the demographic that spends money on actual magic product and not secondary market singles. What percentage of the magic playing population do you think that overlapping niche is, and do you think that such a niche is worth specifically marketing towards (on top of whatever costs are associated with breaking their reserve list promise)? Any rationalization as to whether or not it is good for the game isn't really relevant.

---

If WotC starts printing RL cards then RL cards become "actual magic product"
Do you not think WotC is already marketing towards non-proxy edh players

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark Kant

Lol, that's not how any of this works. It's basic supply and demand. If lighting bolt was a reserve list card only ever printed as a rare and never reprinted after ABUR, Lighting Bolt would be a $1000+ card and Shock would not be worth 66% as much as lightning bolt.

Your own manabase shocking you is a huge drawback that makes it easier for your opponents to kill you, makes you have to play more defensively with your life total and both of these will cost you plenty of games. That's just basic Magic 101.

If one player starts each game at 16-18 life while everyone else starts at 20 life, the 16-18 life player is going to have a much harder time winning a tournament than the players that start at 20 life.

---

My guess is the people that are arguing with you have never attempted to play a real Legacy deck with shocks instead of duals.

I have "fond" memories from like a decade ago of being out-aggroed while playing Naya Zoo with shocks and fetches, by control decks. It's actually kind of a big deal if you're Bolting yourself every turn because you're just trying to curve out, you're at 11 by turn 3. I know we like to think the only point of life that matters is the last one, but try having one player start the game at 11 and then see WhO's ThE bEaTdOwN. Shocks just cannot replace duals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

My guess is the people that are arguing with you have never attempted to play a real Legacy deck with shocks instead of duals.

I have "fond" memories from like a decade ago of being out-aggroed while playing Naya Zoo with shocks and fetches, by control decks. It's actually kind of a big deal if you're Bolting yourself every turn because you're just trying to curve out, you're at 11 by turn 3. I know we like to think the only point of life that matters is the last one, but try having one player start the game at 11 and then see WhO's ThE bEaTdOwN. Shocks just cannot replace duals.

---

Very well said. The idea that replacing duals with shocks makes little difference to your win percentage is laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Hammer

Very well said. The idea that replacing duals with shocks makes little difference to your win percentage is laughable.

---

Taking the example of a wild nacatl deck is wrong. There are not that many cards that interact with land types in legacy: daze, by far the most important (and yes, a non-shadow daze deck with shocklands is not on par with original duals), quirion ranger (a feel bad with anything else than basic Forest and original duals), KotR, choke (against which fastlands are better than duals)... And some time ago, there was nacatl, which required that you had three different land types by T2.
Definitely not a good, generic argument to use nacatl to compare shock and duals.

There are other decks that cannot replace duals by shocklands, like storm decks. That doesn't mean that shocks cannot be used and tournaments won with them.

I think if UR delver replaced two of its three duals with shocks you would lose less than 3% of games because of it
The only decks that are going to lose significant percentage points are the ones that would need to fetch shock every turn and unlike Naya zoo that just isn't most decks in legacy.
What does hogaak even care about starting at 14 life if both it's badlands and byou shock into play. You're already dead.
Or you're playing against storm. All your lands could be ancient tombs for all it matters, that's not how you're losing the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

Taking the example of a wild nacatl deck is wrong. There are not that many cards that interact with land types in legacy: daze, by far the most important (and yes, a non-shadow daze deck with shocklands is not on par with original duals), quirion ranger (a feel bad with anything else than basic Forest and original duals), KotR, choke (against which fastlands are better than duals)... And some time ago, there was nacatl, which required that you had three different land types by T2.
Definitely not a good, generic argument to use nacatl to compare shock and duals.

There are other decks that cannot replace duals by shocklands, like storm decks. That doesn't mean that shocks cannot be used and tournaments won with them.

---

Saying he could've picked a stronger example isn't the same as saying that his argument is invalid, though. And it sounds like he was speaking from experience.

That said, I'm avoiding this argument like the plague. I find it hard to believe that people are really arguing that the difference between nine and ten 'Drils is trivial, or that because it's possible to win with worse cards, the difference between those cards and better cards is negligible. Or that you can assign a percentage to something this nebulous without plotting every win or loss and every turn a person would've survived but didn't because Temple Garden across the world Legacy scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kombatkiwi

I have not seen any strong argument that it would be bad business for wotc to reprint reserved list cards.

---

It would probably make them money, but by not doing it they clearly looked at their options and see that expected time and cost of settling nuisance level law suits outweighs or cuts into the profit that they could generate above and beyond just printing other stuff.

Even in a three color deck, if you have one proper dual of each color pair, it feels like you’re not actually going to lose many games if the rest are shocklands. I don’t really know where that falls in the argument because tbh I don’t really see the point of the argument. A more relevant thing you could do if you don’t want to spend used car prices (or more) on a Magic deck is just not play Legacy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cire

It would probably make them money, but by not doing it they clearly looked at their options and see that expected time and cost of settling nuisance level law suits outweighs or cuts into the profit that they could generate above and beyond just printing other stuff.

---

I wouldn't conclude anything so strong (especially since the prospect of a successful lawsuit on the subject is vanishingly dim). As I see it, it's something they have in their back pocket, for a rainy day. Remember Time Spiral?

Yeah I made this point repeatedly and I feel it's been overlooked but Wizards doesn't just have to analyze the risk v reward of breaking the RL at all vs. never, but of breaking it now vs later.

It's not clear why now would be a good time to reprint duals but it's easy to imagine a future scenario where you break open that piggy bank. Like, when sales are declining instead of growing enormously for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

Taking the example of a wild nacatl deck is wrong. There are not that many cards that interact with land types in legacy: daze, by far the most important (and yes, a non-shadow daze deck with shocklands is not on par with original duals), quirion ranger (a feel bad with anything else than basic Forest and original duals), KotR, choke (against which fastlands are better than duals)... And some time ago, there was nacatl, which required that you had three different land types by T2.
Definitely not a good, generic argument to use nacatl to compare shock and duals.

There are other decks that cannot replace duals by shocklands, like storm decks. That doesn't mean that shocks cannot be used and tournaments won with them.

---

I mean if we're concerned with making generic arguments, you can make the "you can with with X" argument about a lot of things. You can win games with Suntail Hawk. You can win games with a 62 card deck. But we don't give those options serious thought because there are more optimal choices to be made. Shocks versus duals is a no-brainer before "games you can win" even enters the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

I mean if we're concerned with making generic arguments, you can make the "you can with with X" argument about a lot of things. You can win games with Suntail Hawk. You can win games with a 62 card deck. But we don't give those options serious thought because there are more optimal choices to be made. Shocks versus duals is a no-brainer before "games you can win" even enters the discussion.

---

If the difference between a 60 card deck and a 62 one was a thousand bucks I'd run 62 every time.