http://fortressat.com/ Wed, 22 May 2013 03:34:36 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7153 Okay: if you didn't want Magic to be collectible, how WOULD you market it? First of all, you'd pretty much lose the entire, very popular draft and sealed deck formats, many people's favorite ways to play Magic. Then, how do you sell the cards? In complete sets? They'd be probably more expensive than they are now to buy on eBay, and since you'd pretty much need four of any card you were putting in your deck, you'd have to buy four complete sets, getting tons of useless cards just like if you were buying packs. Not to mention that I honestly get bored when I have complete sets of Magic cards; I think Magic is way more fun when you're just constructing out of whatever random cards you've got, looking for a way to make some rare useful that made you groan when you opened it. Since last summer, I set up a group of 16 people that meets every week to play Magic; we each buy a box (or half-box in the case of small sets) of whatever new set that comes out, draft the hell out of it for the couple months after the release, build decks RESTRICTED ONLY TO OUR OWN POOLS (i.e. no trading or buying outside the group) so that we all have *exactly* equal amounts of cards, play different constructed formats against each other for a couple months, wash rinse repeat. I know that sounds expensive to board gamers, but when you add it up, what does that mean we're projected to be spending on Magic over the course of the next 12 months? $170. That's all, and you better believe we're all getting TONS of play out of that. dragonstout Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:08:37 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7152 [i]Basicly, any argument that Magic is too expensive is just a strawman.[/i] That's exactly true, particularly when boardgamers who drop $200-$300 A FUCKING MONTH ($2400-$3600 annually) on board games complain about how expensive it is to get into it. Plus, nobody says you have to buy all the cards. You can go on Ebay and get a lot of hundreds of commons for less than a penny per card and have a great time with the game. If you want to play in the pro tour or competitively, then yes, you need to study the net decks, keep up with what's going on in the metagame, and have the cards you need to make the deck you want to run. Anybody that just wants to play magic is under no duress to ever spend any more than they would for any given board game. A couple of theme decks alone will give you a lot of games' worth of fun and a higher ROI than a $20-$25 2 player board game. I don't think collectibility hurts the game the game at all. The game is what it is, the distribution is another thing. Michael Barnes Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:31:00 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7151 You are rigth Ken, Magic tends to be an expensive hobby. However, my collection of 20 or 30 boardgames (which, while impressive to most is seemingly modest by some standards) tends to sit on a shelf and collect dust becuase there just aren't enough people around who want to play them. Magic, however, I know I can play two or three times a week if I have the time (which I don't, but I usually get to play one tournament on the weekends). And I don't even have to go to the effort of getting players together, I know that there will always be a few people at the FLGS to play Magic with during the regularly scheduled tournament times. So, instead of throwing hundreds of dollars (if not more) into getting new board games every year, I happily play the ones I already have (maybe adding one a year--BSG is looking like a good Christmas splurge) and spend that money on Magic instead. Basicly, any argument that Magic is too expensive is just a strawman. The fact is that when any hobby grows to the point that you identify yourself by it (i.e "I'm a gamer" or "I'm a hunter" or "I'm a golfer"), that hobby is going to start eating up a lot of your money. At least I know that if I invest the $100 or $200 that I usually end up spending making a good competitive deck that I will likely get more plays out of it than I (or most compulsive boardgame purchasers) will ever have a prayer of getting out of that amount spent on a few boardgames. And that's a pitiance compared to the thousands that my dad spends every year for the privlage of getting up before dawn and sitting outside in freezing temperatures waiting for the chance to maybe get a shot at a deer with his bow. turambur Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:18:40 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7150 I have no problem with collectibility. What I don't like is that there have been so many iterations, each with new powers and rules that its hard to keep up with. I think the game is brilliant and tons of fun but i stick to my stack of 500 cards and only pull it out every blue moon. Personally I'm dying to try MONSTERPOCOLYPSE but I feel its totally overpriced. I'll wait till commons flood the market and pick up a set then. Steve"Eagerly_Waiting"Avery Stephen Avery Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:02:08 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7149 Magic IS a great game, but the collectible part of it really kills it. That's not an "FAT line", that's been something I've believed since before there was a Fortress: Ameritrash. Brilliant game design. Avalanching money pit. Ken B. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:52:29 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7148 I'm actually really looking forward to this article. As unrepentant MtG [s]fan[/s] addict, I am interested to see if Mike stepped away from the usual FAT line of "Magic is a great game, but the collectible part of it really kills it" and says something new and interesting. And I know that I was challenged to write a blog to properly articulate my defense of the game a week or so back, but between working two jobs, my family (wife and toddler), and actually playing Magic every chance I get; I really haven't had the time to sit down and work up something that would be worth your effor to read. Maybe if Mike manages to rile me up enough (and if his article manages to get posted before I leave town for vaction next week), I'll take some time while I'm off to present a counter argument. But don't hold your breath. turambur Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:26:36 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7147 Probably not good...it's mentioned, but not recommended. Michael Barnes Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:13:02 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7146 I wonder what the odds are he'll recommend Dominion in this article. Mad Dog Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:47:00 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7145 Actually it's either Santa Clause or Burl Ives...whichever you prefer.... mikoyan Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:16:48 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7144 Speaking of collectible games, I'm surprised no one on here has reviewed or even mentioned playing Monsterpocalypse, which has just about the Ameritrashiest theme ever, looks like it might be another surprisingly deep game like Dreamblade, and bucks a lot of collectible cliches by having all the monsters be the same rarity and practically guaranteeing a full set in every case. Has no one played it? Everyone too scared of collectible games? dragonstout Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:30:21 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7142 Magic: The Gathering??? Is it that new card game I've seen the kids playing with at school? Aarontu Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:40:22 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7141 Magic the gathering? But that's not a Euro! Mr Skeletor Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:38:23 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796#josc7140 HIS NAME IS SIO BIBBLE, MOTHERFUCKER~! Actually, you know, a communications disruption can mean much more than one thing. Perhaps Panaka forgot to pay the communications bill. Perhaps there is a particularly strong batch of clouds obscuring the signal. Perhaps Jar Jar jerked his electropole all over the relay and now it is covered with orange goo. The moral of the story: do not jump to conclusions, Mr. Sio Bibble. It could be the work of masturbating Gungans. Ken B. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:35:53 +0100