Also, SCG tends to set their prices a LITTLE high, but they respond to supply and demand. If the butcher sits at $20, it is not because they're pricing him $10+ too high, it is because people are buying him at $20. That is people's fault, not SCGs. Man, the irritation with a capitalist company that does go out of their way now and again to help MTG is just odd.
Karakas is 50$ now, and I thought it was already crazily expensive when I bought them for 20$ at GP Madrid. I think I should be happy, but I'm not. It's outrageous how pricy my cards have become in such a short period of time.
Where are you getting your prices? They're $30 on SCG for English, $25 for Italian.Originally Posted by DrJones
Maybe you have a more vivd imagination than I do, but I don't see how it's possible to use warren instigator effectively outside of a goblins deck.
So it seems I've picked a bad time to get into Legacy. I'll wait to see if the cards go back to their previous sane prices before spending any cash, and if they don't and continue to rise? then I peace out, I still haven't bought anything.
I will never pay $200 for a playset of an uncommon - FoW.
Define uncommon, because I think it's been almost a decade that FoW is not uncommon.
"Want all, lose all."
It was printed as an "Uncommon".
Theoretically it is an uncommon, but you can't expect to pay the same that you pay for Bestial Menace. It was printed as an uncommon when? 1994? 1995? In a very small print run comparing to today...
Sinkhole was COMMON and nobody ever complained about having to pay US$20,00 for it during the last 10 years.
It doesn't matter if it was uncommon, common or rare when it was printed. The problem is to have to pay US$200,00 in whatever playset you want to play. It is rare now, but no matter how rare, it shouldn't be costing so much.
"Want all, lose all."
According to your logic, all of these cards suck:
Ad Nauseum (ineffective if your deck contains many 3+ cc cards)
Goblin Lackey (also ineffective outside of Goblins)
Force of Will (ineffective if you run 10 blue cards)
Progenitus (ineffective if you can't cheat it into play)
Squire (ineffective if you have no white mana sources in your deck)
etc.
But the cards you listed are actually used in the decks you listed where Warren Instigator is not. If you look at the last 40 lists on deckcheck Goblin Lackey averages 4 per deck where instigator is at .8 per deck.
A founding member of Team Bluff the Lotus - Bringing the crazy from Bob's Baseball Dugout
True. WotC should admit to this as a flaw in their current design path and work to avert disaster. As of right now MtG has an increasingly high buy-in point, especially in regards to the Eternal formats, and instead of addressing the issue they've chosen to knowingly turn a blind eye to the subject matter as if it's inconsequential to the long-term longevity of the game.
WotC is a business and can conduct itself in a manner that is both profitable and provide it's player base with what they need in order to play the game. Their first and primary market are the gamers, not the collectors. Now that's not to say that they should screw over any collectors but they can reach a reasonable compromise between the two if they muster up the initiative and courage to do so.
That doesn't mean it's not good, it's just not always good.
The first question that springs to mind is are those figures only since Instigator was created? There must be plenty of decks on deckcheck from before Warren Instigator was even created.
Who says the Internet isn't full of <3?
Wow, so you assume I'm using that retarded logic? I was assuming something so blatantly obvious I didn't think it worth mentioning: Goblins is no longer a top deck.
But yeah, I should also mention "according to that logic" arguments are retarded. You have no reason to expect my logic can be extrapolated as linearly as you please. I see this sort of argument all the time on here, but I simply let it slide usually. But this time I thought I'd point it out. I only made a comment about warren instigator. How were you able to deduce what "my logic" is?
As if it weren't enough that you assume I'm making a retarded argument, and then assume I'll fall for your straw man argument, (which only even seems narrowly related) you make it clear that you believe I'm wrong about the viability of Goblins by attempting to refute my point. This means either you think I'm mistaken about how legacy works, or that I'm flat out lying. Obviously, the latter is a rather uncivil point of view to hold about what my goal is in posting here. The former isn't entirely uncivil, but I think it's pretty lopsided to say that I don't know what I'm doing. In fact, one thing is for certain: I wouldn't be making claims if I didn't know at least a moderate amount about how this game works currently.
But I don't get it, I'm assuming you're smart enough to realize there was a nonretarded way to interpret my argument. I also don't think you were literally convinced I would fall for your strawman extrapolation "argument." But I am putting you below the threshold of what it takes to not make the post you did, because empirical evidence is pretty overriding in this respect. But what's the deal? Was this a hail Mary move because you knew warren instigator was actually bad but didn't feel like admitting it? (And it doesn't even make every Goblins list, when Goblins is already a not so great archetype.)
What does that have to do with anything? That doesn't impact how good he is.
What ridiculous definition of good are you using? If X is good in a bad deck, who the fuck cares? And who would call X good?
No, if a card doesn't even average a one of in the only deck it could see play in it is not good. (Based on a definition of good, where a card sees play in this format, not some magical fairy land where cards are good based on potential.)
The last forty lists were all after Instigator was printed.
Last edited by TooCloseToTheSun; 04-09-2010 at 05:54 PM.
A founding member of Team Bluff the Lotus - Bringing the crazy from Bob's Baseball Dugout
What does Warren Instigator have to do with rising cardboard prices?
Go read the Goblins thread. Goblins is not a bad deck. It won a 5K and is still a DTW.
Instigator is not good in every matchup, which is why it's not in every deck. It sucks against Zoo, which hurts it.
So maybe I should have said, "Warren Instigator is conditionally good, and certainly not bad, there are sometimes better options."
OMG anyone've seen Sylvan Librayi's price??
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote