hamtastic's picture
By: hamtastic, Erik Friborg
Nov 12 2010 10:40am
Login to post comments

Editorial Section:

I'll get to the play by play section of the article, but first I feel like getting a little something something out of the way:


Yeah.  Just a Sinkhole... No big deal.

Oh wait, I lie, that's a big deal!!!  Thoughts?  Okay.   First... Sinkhole is in MED4.  Great destroy land effect, for sure.  Secondly, Sinkhole is Rare.  Ouch.  I never expected it to be a common, but thought that an Uncommon wouldn't be too crazy.  However, seeing it as a rare... a rare with a less than one percent chance of being opened in a pack.  I can certainly see this guy being a 'chase' rare from Master's Edition 4.  Sinkhole has been seen in many decks in the history of Legacy... like Eva green decks or multi-color control decks like this one.  Suffice it to say, this is the speed that land destruction needs to be to see serious play in Legacy.  This card adds some additional weapons for decks like Eva Green, and Pox/x decks that will show their faces from time to time, depending on the meta and what the 'big bad' needs to be for the time.

As I mentioned last week, the new MTGO Deck Series - Legacy decks were released this week.  Instead of buying them outright I assembled the missing pieces to my collection to build each one.  To start this little adventure, we'll leave the decks as is, and just run them through some games in the Tournament Practice room on MTGO.

I'll kick off with Exiler, since it's a solid deck and a little more strategy intensive.  There are many, many paths to victory and many ways to mix up the plays to get to victory. The game starts off with a Karakas into Aether Vial, with the expectation of hitting the "Exiler" lock on turn four.  I have enough other pieces to really put some pressure on and have options to handle strange circumstances.  My opponent starts with a plains into nothing... he end of turns an Enlightened Tutor into Sensei's Divining Top.  I start to charge up my aether vial and keep swinging.  After that, he drops a Wheel of Sun and Moon on himself to keep his graveyard empty and recycling things into his library.  I punch through for a few more damage, and his next play is Energy Field... nice combo actually.  Those two together should be insane and insta-win against RDW and any other aggro decks... unfortunately, it's not really going to hold up to the exiler combo... I attempt to exile the Field and he goes to boomerang... and in response I vial out a Flickerwisp and get rid of it for the turn anyway.  My opponent sees the writing on the wall and scoops.  Thoughts about the deck: solid and thought intensive at times.  A decent out of the box deck for anyone to play, and it is certainly fun!  I would recommend a few test games to figure out the main interactions of the deck.  Interactions like multiple Flickerwisps and Oblivion Rings, for example.  There are a lot of crazy interactions, and lots of ways to make a mistake.  This deck is not the option for those who just want to grab a deck and hop into the queue... that would be better suited for the next deck... Boltslinger!


Next up, is the Boltslinger.  Long time readers will presume that I'm much more comfortable with this deck... and they'd be right!  I grabbed and piloted this deck first even though I'm showing it last.  Of the two decks, this one is by far the more straightforward one.  My opponent wins the roll and explodes with Chrome Mox, imprinting Muddle the Mixture and drops a (Sensei's Diving Top), fetches up a Watery Grave... which immediately makes me think that he's a budget deck.  


Discussion Items:
Standard "Gold" and "Silver" queues:
These are a pretty neat risk/reward queue for MTGO.  Granted, the 10 ticket entry is pretty hefty, but the pack payout is awesome for winning.  I worry that these might be a bit too steep on the risk/reward side but it's worth going for the gusto I guess!

MTGO Autumn Celebrations:
While the queue changes above are technically part of the celebration announcement there are a lot of other goodies on the way for the end of November.  Check them out and plan accordingly!

Card Price Discussion:
A lot of interesting increases this week, namely the vampire deck guys like Kalastria, Bloodghast, and Blade of the Bloodchief... very likely increasing in the wake of the StarCityGames 5k tournament results of the past couple of weeks.  Other hot cards are Survival (obviously a Legacy powerhouse) and Gaea's Cradle (a solid all around card in many formats).  The weirdest card, by far, is Demon of Death's Gate.  Granted, he had no where to go but up... but still... he shouldn't be going up at all.

On the decreasing side, Koth, Price of Progress and Tarmogoyf were among the top falling cards of the week.  Being as we're just barely getting out of the release events, I don't expect a all the Mythics to stay so low.  In fact, Elspeth finally climbed back above 10 tickets this week!  

Card Price Tables:

Card This Week Last Week Value Change Percentage Change
Kalastria Highborn 6.25 2.5 3.75 150.00%
Abyssal Persecutor 19.95 17.95 2 11.14%
Survival of the Fittest 62 60 2 3.33%
Elspeth Tirel 10.95 9 1.95 21.67%
Gaea's Cradle 11.75 10.5 1.25 11.90%
Kargan Dragonlord 18.95 17.95 1 5.57%
Demon of Death's Gate 2.5 1.5 1 66.67%
Bloodghast 3.95 2.95 1 33.90%
Lion's Eye Diamond 58 57 1 1.75%
Sarkhan the Mad 4.75 3.75 1 26.67%
Card This Week Last Week Value Change Percentage Change
Kalastria Highborn 6.25 2.5 3.75 150.00%
Blade of the Bloodchief 1.75 1 0.75 75.00%
Mindslaver 1.75 1 0.75 75.00%
Demon of Death's Gate 2.5 1.5 1 66.67%
Grand Architect 1.5 1 0.5 50.00%
Coralhelm Commander 1.3 0.9 0.4 44.44%
Captivating Vampire 1 0.7 0.3 42.86%
Lavaclaw Reaches 2.75 2 0.75 37.50%
Bloodghast 3.95 2.95 1 33.90%
Dark Ritual 0.8 0.6 0.2 33.33%
Card This Week Last Week Value Change Percentage Change
Orim's Chant 15.79 18.81 -3.02 -16.06%
Koth of the Hammer 21.95 24 -2.05 -8.54%
Grim Monolith 18 20 -2 -10.00%
Tarmogoyf 13.75 15.75 -2 -12.70%
Stoneforge Mystic 7.75 9.5 -1.75 -18.42%
Price of Progress 3.95 5.5 -1.55 -28.18%
Vendilion Clique 7 8 -1 -12.50%
Avatar _ Frenetic Efreet 6 7 -1 -14.29%
Avatar _ Morinfen 6 7 -1 -14.29%
Avatar _ Serra Angel (Alt.) 4 5 -1 -20.00%
Card This Week Last Week Value Change Percentage Change
Underground River 0.8 1.3 -0.5 -38.46%
Contagion Engine 0.5 0.8 -0.3 -37.50%
Coat of Arms 1 1.5 -0.5 -33.33%
Memoricide 1.5 2.25 -0.75 -33.33%
Argentum Armor 0.7 1 -0.3 -30.00%
Wolfbriar Elemental 0.5 0.7 -0.2 -28.57%
Traumatize 0.5 0.7 -0.2 -28.57%
Price of Progress 3.95 5.5 -1.55 -28.18%
Haunting Echoes 2 2.75 -0.75 -27.27%
Platinum Angel 1.3 1.75 -0.45 -25.71%

Card Price Charts:
kalastria highborn chart
abyssal persecutor chart
survival of the fittest chart
elspeth tirel chart
gaea's cradle chart
kargan dragonlord chart
demon of death's gate chart
bloodghast chart
lion's eye diamond chart
sarkhan the mad chart
kalastria highborn chart
blade of the bloodchief chart
mindslaver chart
demon of death's gate chart
grand architect chart
coralhelm commander chart
captivating vampire chart
lavaclaw reaches chart
bloodghast chart
dark ritual chart
orim's chant chart
koth of the hammer chart
grim monolith chart
tarmogoyf chart
stoneforge mystic chart
price of progress chart
vendilion clique chart
avatar _ frenetic efreet chart
avatar _ morinfen chart
avatar _ serra angel (alt.) chart
underground river chart
contagion engine chart
coat of arms chart
memoricide chart
argentum armor chart
wolfbriar elemental chart
traumatize chart
price of progress chart
haunting echoes chart
platinum angel chart



If I had to take a guess at by ArchGenius at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:33
ArchGenius's picture

If I had to take a guess at WotC intentions with the Gold and Silver queues, I would guess that they are meant as a way to separate the competitiveness of the 2-man queues. The top tier pro tour players would want to play higher stakes games while the newer players and players just trying to get experience with a new deck would choose the standard 2-man queues.

It's an interesting idea. I'm still on the fence on whether or not it will be successful. I personally don't want to risk that many tickets on a single constructed match. But then again, I usually avoid standard in favor of the less heavily explored constructed formats.

Actually, I'm pretty happy to by Westane at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:21
Westane's picture

Actually, I'm pretty happy to see Sinkhole! Evagreen here I come!

Hi,Library of Alexandria and by Nagarjuna at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:42
Nagarjuna's picture


Library of Alexandria and Mana Vault are previewed here:


Sinkhole! A little bummed by greyes3 at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 13:44
greyes3's picture


A little bummed it's not an uncommon, but exciting to see nonetheless.
The gold and silver queues are really a great idea. I just had a conversation the other day with a friend about how MTGO needs to have some higher risk/reward events, and this certainly seems like a step in the right direction.

As a budget player I have to by Scartore at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 14:09
Scartore's picture

As a budget player I have to say the Exiler deck at least is a fantastic value. I tried to put the parts together with my paltry collection and mtgotradersbot#4 (a welcome addition btw) and it came to close to 60 tix. About half of that is the currently $7 stoneforge mystics. Heck the 3 mystics were almost worth the 30 bucks just last week. I'll want to play some more with it before I bet 2 bucks on it in a queue, but it certainly has piqued my interest in Legacy.

Stoneforge Mystic is already by Thisismich at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 14:21
Thisismich's picture

Stoneforge Mystic is already starting to lower its price... veeeery nice eheheh.

Sinkhole at rare sucks, by MMogg at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 14:37
MMogg's picture

Sinkhole at rare sucks, period. It's not a surprise it's in the set because one of their obvious goals is to get online and paper Legacy with the same card pools. I think if it were a paper product, I could almost accept them printing it at rare because they need to see a return on the printing of the product. JPGs, on the other hand, have substantially less overhead, so at that point it's no longer about recouping expenses as much as maximizing gouging. "Hey, we know the kiddies will love this, let's put it at rare!" [/cynicism]

I'm excited about the CQ spoiled Library of Alexandria! =D

Sooooo . . . by TwoHands at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 15:30
TwoHands's picture

So now "Profit" = "Gouging"?

They're maximizing profit - that's what corporations do. In fact, since they have shareholders, they would be negligent to NOT maximize profit.

That's beside the fact that printing costs likely aren't the largest source of overhead, anyway . . . guys, of course Sinkhole is a rare. It's priced as one on the secondary market, it's a chase card, etc.

I disagree with your by MMogg at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 16:19
MMogg's picture

I disagree with your positions on a couple levels: 1) that capitalism and profit-driven actions are an acceptable economic basis for organizations; 2) that profits on one product can be quantified against long-term growth.

1) Just because something is law doesn't mean it is right. Neo-liberal ideas seem to dominate the discourse and it seems like an accepted and agreed upon assumption that being for profit first and foremost is healthy and a duty. I completely disagree, but I'm really not looking for a prolonged debate on economics.

2) Maximizing profits can be murky. Jace, for example, may be a great profit bringer in the short term, but it may drive people away from the game like Affinity did. Note the "may"s. My point is that it isn't always clear what is in the long-term interests of a company.

I don't mind profits, and by saying "profits = gouging" you clearly missed my point that there are limits to chasing profits (which you may disagree with). I also never said printing is the largest overhead, but with paper they need to print the product in advance. If it doesn't sell, it sits there. JPGs are computer generated, and that kind of initial investment isn't really needed.

What secondary market? The paper one? Isn't that a bit odd to use that as a measure for the online world? So why not make Tabernacle super secret rare to reflect its paper value? If a two hundred dollar paper card can sell online for 4 bucks, I don't see why a $40 paper card can't sell at $3 uncommon (like Hymn to Tourach's online value). I don't think the two secondary markets have much of a relationship. Also, if a card is highly playable and sought after, it will reach those values anyway (see Wasteland at uncommon).

Edit: semi-ninjaed by greyes3 =)

Point 1 isn't fit for the by TwoHands at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 00:36
TwoHands's picture

Point 1 isn't fit for the topic - whether you support it or not, Hasbro operates under a capitalist model, and has a duty (and we can stick strictly to the legal duty if you prefer) to its shareholders whether or not we agree with the basis for that duty.

As for Point 2, I agree that it's murky - Jace is a wonderful example of something that rides the line, because there is an immense amount of player distaste for its price.

It also serves as a counterexample for the rest of your argument - since sales have not dropped (and seem to have, in fact, increased) as a result of one of the more borderline cases, and Sinkhole doesn't rise to anything resembling that level (both based on projected play, and past ME pricing), it's clear WOTC hasn't reached anything nearing the negative downslope of the profit/risk model you're proposing.

Since you're the one referring to it as "gouging" it would seem the onus is on you to show why Sinkhole at rare is somehow worse than Jace by a significant enough margin that we can't use Jace as instructive (to wit: Jace hasn't reached the level you seem to fear).

We're in no position to speculate on the long-term interests of the company, I don't believe (perhaps you have prospectus access I don't), and I didn't find anything in your original post that indicated you feared for the long-term viability of Magic. Instead, you referred to "gouging" based on selling more packs.

If point 1 isn't fit for the by MMogg at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 02:20
MMogg's picture

If point 1 isn't fit for the topic then there is no topic to discuss. If all is fair in pursuit of maximum profits there is no such thing as overcharging. You're right, there is no position to speculate about anything, including the game's popularity since they keep such statistics a secret. So, in short, nothing to discuss.

There are standards by which by Paul Leicht at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 03:10
Paul Leicht's picture

There are standards by which corporations are held legally within our capitalistic free market. Those standards/regulations/bilaws and laws are what prevent insane price gouging. Not all all items are subject to such rules but the fact that such rules have been applied in the past does give some pause to those who would seek to maximize profits. In addition the "free" market works as such if the buyers exercise their rights of choice.

You can say because WotC has a monopoly on M:TG that they could just print money but actually that isn't true as has been seen from past mistakes. They lose customers when they behave badly. So there is incentive within THEIR scope of discussing maxim profits for having enlightened self-interested business models for their various products. How much depends on the product.

Imho 4th edition D&D just from the cursory glance Ive given it is not worth the fine parchement it is printed on and is a complete money grab offering little new of value. But I say that as a 30 year veteran of the game so I may be a little biased. That said I haven't purchased said game pieces (books, modules, dice, etc) since 3rd ed. 3rd Ed to me did give value and I was glad of it. Apparently though I am in a minority. Many players of D&D hated 3rd ed and enough like 4th that it is still in print.

My point is it is not so cut and dried with regards to how far they can go before players assume they are gouging and stop paying them for the service. I expect we will know soon enough.

I do think even if you are socialist in bent that you have to accept that we live in a capitalist society and that WotC being in existence because of that very fact (in order to make profits for its mother company) will continue to make decisions that impact it's bottom line rather than the happiness of it's clientele (us). Hopefully at some point when making those decisions the two coincide and we end up with a superior game but that isn't guaranteed.

Yeah, I very much am a by MMogg at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 07:11
MMogg's picture

Yeah, I very much am a democratic socialist, as you could probably tell by my use of "neoliberal" as a near pejorative. =) I also don't feel that we as people need to accept certain realities as givens. The world and the organizations in it are changing (evolving?) in a way that does not separate profitability from ethics as if the two are mutually exclusive. Kind of like what you said, finding that intersection of profitability and what the people want. All companies want sustainability over raw profitability (keep in mind some CEOs operate contrary to the company's best interest).

Laws and regulations are horrible guides for right and wrong as the people in positions in power often create those laws that sustain the inequities over those in a disadvantaged position. For example, if your company makes leather purses and you import the leather from a company who gets their leather tanned from another company that is heavily polluting local water supplies... is your company at all ethically responsible for facilitating the [legal] destruction of the local people's environment by that tanning factory? I know, obviously, this is an extreme example with little relevance for a card game, but that example is a real one from the world of business, and I only offer it as a clear example of ethical problems where clearly "legal" human rights infringements occur.

In this case [Sinkhole], the transition common to rare seems excessive and excessive to me equals gouging. Is it egregious? No. But it sets a bad precedent, as does big Jace. The initial response that my dislike for excessive profits means I want Wizards to make no profits is simply untrue.

One of the biggest problems discussing anything Wizards related is their utter secrecy regarding figures. Print runs, tournament participation online, etc., are all secret. That makes it all speculative, which makes true discussion really impossible to formulate any kind of objective arguments. Someone offered a very good notion that Sinkhole creates a chase rare which in turn creates demand which in turn drives down prices. That's probably true, but without any stats we are left guessing.

Well you certainly covered a by Paul Leicht at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 07:38
Paul Leicht's picture

Well you certainly covered a whole spectrum of topics each worthy of discussion on their own merit. I have no idea what NeoLiberalism is though I assume it relates some how to NeoCon(servativism). I am a liberal independent if that makes any sense. When I was younger I might have identified myself as a Radical Liberal (expecting serious changes NOW in the way certain things are done.) Thankfully Ive grown out of that. But politics aside (I think you have to allow that as politics is a stickywicket that no one escapes unscathed from.)

I agree that discussing WotC's finances is tough without any ability to see their figures or even have any idea what ballpark or galaxy even they may be in. But I have to point out: This is not a company that is cutting virgin woods down to make nuclear reactors for smelting new cards out of highly poisonous hydrocarbon-based inks and using starving children in over-exploited third-world countries to make the art. (Though some of you may disagree on this point.) At least I think not.

The most unethical thing they may do is go back on their stated positions in regards to reprinting old cards. Other than that I hardly see much room for them to really wear the Dastard's Outfit to full effect. Now if they were being run by "Watch Out He's Got a gun!!" Cheney I might feel differently as some of the above wrongs would be inherently involved if he was running things.

You may not like Sinkhole as a Rare (in fact I think it stinks from a casual players point of view since it will be that much harder to obtain.) But it is one card in a set with 105 rares. I would wait before bitching too much about it. Perhaps there are more egregious things to get mad about.

LOL Yeah, I know they're not by MMogg at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 08:06
MMogg's picture

LOL Yeah, I know they're not unethical, and I did say that the example was an extreme one. I was just showing how legality (which is often the crutch people defer to when discussing the obligation to seek maximum profits) is not a clearcut or always ethically right position. Nothing more. =) Extremes just highlight that point much more clearly.

Yeah, I'm not trying to bitch all too much about Sinkhole. I basically feel like you described, it stinks. My feelings are more rooted in frustration and disappointment. Instead of being cards I will automatically pick up (i.e. if they were UC), I will now have to consider the price and whether to get them or not. =/

I've noticed a lot of times conversations become way over blown on Pure as the conversation delves deeper and deeper into layers not originally intended to be explored by the OP. LOL This is one of those cases.

P.S.: radical anything is pretty bad. Glad you grew out of that. ;)

I am not entirely convinced by Paul Leicht at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 08:17
Paul Leicht's picture

I am not entirely convinced that Radicalism is itself bad. But being radical should not be an excuse to be irresponsible or criminal. I think those are often confused. Some very important and even crucial historical figures were radicals (Both famous Luthers (MLKjr and ML), as Well as Ghandi and Abe Lincoln. One of my all time idols is a peace loving radical if I ever met one: Pete Seeger. He knows how to chop wood, haul it, make fence posts, build a cabin, write a song that everyone can sing, rap with spoons, make people have a good time, etc.

I was a radical liberal 25 years or so ago when it looked to me like a radical response to the ultra conservative government was needed. Now I see things from a different perspective. But I still respect the same ideals I stood for then. And yeah I was a little confused about some aspects of being a radical. Luckily I stayed out of trouble despite myself. :)

Anyway tangential conversations happen. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I'm certainly not using the by TwoHands at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:30
TwoHands's picture

I'm certainly not using the legal basis for profitability as a "crutch" - I'm using it as an example of the forces under which WOTC/Hasbro has to operate. They are accountable to both "higher" and "lower" authorities (both rich and poor, depending how you view shareholders), which seems to contradict some of your assertions about WOTC's "role" in the matter.

Trust me, I fully understand your points from an economic standpoint - and while I don't share DemSoc beliefs entirely, I can at least relate on some levels. I just don't think the application here is entirely consistent, which may well be me not understanding, haha.

1 - There is no ethics-vs.-profit dichotomy and I never presented one. In fact, you're the one who seems to claim it is somehow unethical to move Sinkhole to rare . . . was it similarly unethical to move Leonin Warhammer to rare? Or Platinum Angel to mythic? Both were moved for similar reasons to Sinkhole (gameplay in the former, "mythic feeling" in the latter - and Sinkhole certainly feels rare in hindsight, as I pointed out using the secondary market as an example). There are valid reasons in addition to increasing profit.

2 - Additionally, while you claim to not demonize profitability (only "hyper-profitability" beyond a certain undefined ethical threshold), you haven't really presented a single reason that Sinkhole crosses that threshold - instead, it almost seems that your personal frustration ("It will be more expensive for me") drives the train, and you're trying to use some bizarre global justification or anti-capitalist screed to justify your disappointment. In that regard, aren't you being just as greedy?

It's actually been a very interesting discussion, so thanks for that - it's always interesting to see other viewpoints, even if some might be "radical". I'm pretty sure "radical" has resulted in a majority of positive change in the world, even if it's low-yield, haha.

Best regards.

"Gouging" really applies only by Amar at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:03
Amar's picture

"Gouging" really applies only when there are no alternatives. We all know that we could choose not to play Magic. But unless players are willing to change their behavior it's unreasonable to expect Wizards to change.

(I myself have been playing Richard Garfield's Spectromancer lately. A whole game for the price of a draft. So there. :P )

Lots of Alternatives by Felorin at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 13:56
Felorin's picture

Ok, not playing is one alternative to buying Sinkholes.

But so is "continuing to play with my other 23,000 cards and not buying Sinkhole". Seems fine to me.

People who're focused on standard, extended, and/or drafting the latest sets might not even notice what Sinkhole costs, 'cause it isn't even relevant to them.

I only play classic in the casual room, mostly with my decks that were extended-legal until the last rotation, so I don't have to stop enjoying them. So not owning most of the top staples for classic/vintage/legacy doesn't bother me at all.

If Wizards had a monopoly on bread and eggs, and was charging $500 for a loaf or a dozen cacklefruit, that'd be gouging.

It's particularly ironic that people would think making a card expensive on the secondary market is "gouging" by wizards, when the high profit margin on that card only goes to dealers/bots. Wizards themselves just gets the same four bucks for each pack with (or without) a sinkhole, and maybe they sell 5% or 10% more four dollar packs because of having Sinkhole as 1 more chase card. I can't feel as "gouged" from buying a few extra four dollar boosters (each of which had other cards in it besides the rare, yay) as I might from buying a $$$ Jace the Mindsculptor - and the $$$ goes to a dealer, not to Wizards who made 4 bucks off the pack that Jace was originally ripped in.

Should I feel gouged by the dealer though? If instead of selling 100 Mindsculptors at 20 bucks, the smaller supply makes him sell 20 copies at 100 bucks, for all I know he might be making around the same total amount of cash each month, and he's just adjusting to the supply and demand issues rather than making more money because mythics now exist. So why should I be mad at him? It's not only not his fault, but he's not gouging the customer base, he's just making the same amount of profit a different way.

The other alternative to feeling gouged is to say "Meh, it's just a hobby, prices fluctuate, I get the stuff that feels worth its cost to me and don't get the cards that don't, and I have fun playing. No big deal."

I wish some cards were cheaper, but I wish steak dinners were cheaper too. And while I sometimes get crushed by $1000 decks (but I beat them sometimes too with my cheap home-brews, woo!)... I also get to have the experience of using my $50 to $80 decks to crush the decks of guys who have no extra spending money, kids, widows and orphans. So what've I got to complain about really? I get in on that phenomenon too!

If WoTC made all their by greyes3 at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 16:15
greyes3's picture

If WoTC made all their financial decisions strictly on the basis of maximizing profits, then they wouldn't have the players/support/following that they have now. Too many players would just throw in the towel and be done with the game.
Sometimes maximizing profits means printing cards like Sinkhole at uncommon, so more players become inclined to build decks and play in events that they otherwise may not have.

Because it's "priced as a rare" and "is a chase card" on the paper secondary market doesn't mean anything. How many rares are priced under a ticket? How many chase cards are uncommon/common? The supply and demand ratios between paper and mtgo are so completely different you can't even realistically compare the two.

I'll just echo whats been by JustSin at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 16:59
JustSin's picture

I'll just echo whats been said, I saw this card coming for ME4, im glad I was right it was coming, and yet disappointed in rarity and even more disappointed I sold off my eva green deck :\

On one hand I hate that by rpitcher at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 17:47
rpitcher's picture

On one hand I hate that Sinkhole will be a chase rare, but on the other hand, I recognize how such chase rares promote the sale of the expansion. That in turn, of course, allows for many other cards in the expansion to become available.

Without the chase rares pushing sales, many more cards from the expansion become harder to find, and more expensive.

It would be intereting to study the impact of chase rares on the overall "expense" of cards in any expansion.

It seems to me Sinkhole IS by Paul Leicht at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 17:48
Paul Leicht's picture

It seems to me Sinkhole IS rare in paper. It was printed at common in sets that did not see a huge distribution (Alpha, Beta, Unlimited.) Last time I traded one away (10 years ago or so) I got $10 worth of cards for it. Seems rare enough if not ultra rare like many of the old paper rares are. Keep in mind demand vs supply. I believe that is one justification for making it "Rare" online. That and MTGO is an entirely separate entity and has diverged mostly greatly from paper in the master's edition series which is exclusive to MTGO.

point well made by JustSin at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 19:32
JustSin's picture

point well made

Maybe they put sinkhole in a by Scartore at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 20:01
Scartore's picture

Maybe they put sinkhole in a rare slot because it messed up the draft environment at common or uncommon? It just occurred to me. They really put more thought into how ME3 drafted, and a good draft environment will get more of these into circulation. Even then, its not like its a mythic, it will be pricey but I doubt it will break the bank like Jace 2.0 or the Titan cycle, or even the dual lands.

They're also not too keen on by GainsBanding at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 20:44
GainsBanding's picture

They're also not too keen on land destruction these days, I'm sure that led to the change in rarity. Sinkhole is pretty strong in a vacuum, and then when you remember it's in a color that also contains Dark Ritual, it starts to feel like a rare.
At least that's what I imagine they were thinking.

i agree due to the fact that by ShardFenix at Fri, 11/12/2010 - 22:57
ShardFenix's picture

i agree due to the fact that wizards has basically said 4 mana is the acceptable cost for ld having a 2 mana one seems like rare. not too mention too many of those in draft would be bad i think

Don't overhype sinkhole by Jyalt at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 09:54
Jyalt's picture

When they made sinkhole, drafting hadn't been invented. Putting Sinkhole at common would 'break' the environment as much as putting Raze, Evil Presence, or Stone Rain at common (i.e. not at all). All that said, it's a niche card. Three weeks after MED4 is released, I'd expect a price of around 1 tix each (or even less!). For a contrast, look at the price of Old Man of the Sea from MED3, a card which is played in old formats nearly as much as sinkhole is.

I second that. by GrandAdmiral at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 19:30
GrandAdmiral's picture

I loved playing Sinkhole in Suicide Black (Vintage long, long ago), but it is a niche card. There are 290 decks in Star City Games's deck database for the 2010 Legacy Open Series. Of those 290 decks, four of them ran Sinkhole. Only two of those decks ran the full playset (one ran 3x and the other ran 2x). Sinkhole is going to be popular for some players, but I doubt it's going to be the chase rare.

I'm certainly not using the by TwoHands at Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:29
TwoHands's picture

(Screwed up, disregard!)

Sinkhole will be popular in by Rerepete at Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:51
Rerepete's picture

Sinkhole will be popular in Peasant where rarities are based on lowest in paper or online....

...but cards over 10,00 are by Nagarjuna at Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:55
Nagarjuna's picture

...but cards over 10,00 are baNNED I GUESS: maybe it will reach that value?

Probably by Amar at Sun, 11/14/2010 - 18:06
Amar's picture

Yeah, I'm assuming it will be automatically banned due to price. Which is probably fine. Black Disruption is a pretty Tier 1 deck in Peasant right now anyway.

I picked up the exiler deck by gimlicolby at Sun, 11/14/2010 - 20:52
gimlicolby's picture

I picked up the exiler deck because of your article. And I have to admit, it is a blast to play. I even went up against a boltslinger deck and won 2-1 (He took game one, then kor firewalker won games 2 and 3). Thanks for another great article.

Did you try tweaking it with by Paul Leicht at Sun, 11/14/2010 - 20:55
Paul Leicht's picture

Did you try tweaking it with Legacy staples? Was there anything in it you disliked drawing?

I cn answer for myself, I by Scartore at Mon, 11/15/2010 - 18:27
Scartore's picture

I cn answer for myself, I hate drawing the Canonist. I know its a powerful ability, but it so often hurts me as much as it does my opponent. And The Karakas/Mangara combo is sweet, but i've run into times when I've needed another land and I've had a karakas stuck in my hand.
Also, I find it odd to run 3 Kor Spiritdancers but only 2 pieces of equipment. I swapped the Bonesplitter for a Sword of B&M, I'd use a different sword if I owned one.

Oddly, I've been playing online since Mirrodin and this deck is the first time I've ever owned or played with athe dreaded Jitte.

2 new MED4 cards are by Nagarjuna at Mon, 11/15/2010 - 04:07
Nagarjuna's picture

2 new MED4 cards are previewed here: http://www.mtgoacademy.com/exclusive-previews-masters-edition-iv/

Candelabra of Tawnos and Wheel of Fortune. Wheel was first designed to be Mythic!!!!