MTG Salvation

Quote from user_938036 »

Quote from Melkor »

Quote from Perodequeso »

Quote from WarMachinePrime »

Where does burden of proof lie?

I have my own anecdotal evidence over the course of years and hundreds if not thousands of packs purchased. I have seen visual evidence online. I have read large sellers cracking hundreds of CASES corroborating what I have encountered. Is it incontrovertible evidence proof? No. Is it probable? Most definitely.

They have done it in the past and are most likely doing it now. Evidence of seeing an uncut sheet means almost less than nothing. They could print that sheet in greater or lesser amounts than other sheets. Without numbers from WotC we cant definitively prove it. They aren't going to show them without government intervention in the form of gambling laws. The video was spot on.

Prove me wrong.

In science burden of proof is on those trying to prove a thing. In the US legal system burden of proof lies on those trying to prove guilt.
By that logic, anyone claiming track printing is happening has the burden of proof.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”
Hatcher’s video provides zero evidence to back up his claim. At the moment all any of us have is anecdotal evidence. Until anyone provides empirical evidence all the hot air we can blow amounts to squat. Just opinions and nothing more.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

I would think that the anecdotal evidence along with the established fact that it has been done in the past would be sufficient to put the ball in your court. If Wizards has ever explicitly stated that they actually stopped doing what they used to do that was exactly this, that would be a different story. and with the commonly accepted statement that prerelease packs are intentionally better than average, it would indicate that it is something they are actively doing. it would not be sufficient to meet burden of proof for a verdict, but it would be more than enough to justify a warrant if this were a crime being investigated. when UMA came out, I got 2 boxes. Not one copy of any of the 7 most valuable most valuable cards, but I got two Lord of Extinction and FOUR copies of Stirring Wildwood (and a 5th as the box topper, that stung more than a bit)

Wizards has said they stopped doing this. They admit there used to be U1 U2 and U3 for uncommons and a similar sorting for rares. They say they stopped doing this. The only thing we have the comes close to actual evidence of either option is uncut sheets stolen from printers that support there not being track printing. On the other hand is lots of anecdotal evidence that tracy printing is a thing. People have claimed there are people who have 'run the numbers' but these people are apparently being just as hush hush as wizards about the numbers they have so it amounts to evidence of a conspiracy in the opposite direction rather than evidence supporting their claim.

I just have two points: I’ve seen or heard just as much anecdotal evidence on one side as I have the other, so I feel no need to provide evidence.
Two, I’m not claiming it absolutely doesn’t happen, I’m just saying I’m not convinced it is, and thusly need to be convinced by more than anecdotes. I also have anecdotal evidence based upon my own observations and conversations with others. To change my mind I’d need to see something physically substantial.

Quote from JaceBluesMaster »

WotC totally short prints some of their cards. I bought a box of Ravnica Allegiance and I only pulled one copy of Pteramander!

Let’s break it down. In your box you opened you received 108 uncommons. Ravnica Allegiance there are 87 different uncommons. After you divide that up you should see 1.24 copies of any given uncommon, so between 1 and 2. One box is far too small a sample to detect any patterns or anomalies.
In any single given box on average, you can get anywhere between 0 and 3 copies of an uncommon with a higher chance of it being 1 to 2.
Why would WOTC short run this particular card? If it’s that amazing why not just make it a rare or mythic?

Quote from WarMachinePrime »

Where does burden of proof lie?

I have my own anecdotal evidence over the course of years and hundreds if not thousands of packs purchased. I have seen visual evidence online. I have read large sellers cracking hundreds of CASES corroborating what I have encountered. Is it incontrovertible evidence proof? No. Is it probable? Most definitely.

They have done it in the past and are most likely doing it now. Evidence of seeing an uncut sheet means almost less than nothing. They could print that sheet in greater or lesser amounts than other sheets. Without numbers from WotC we cant definitively prove it. They aren't going to show them without government intervention in the form of gambling laws. The video was spot on.

Prove me wrong.

In science burden of proof is on those trying to prove a thing. In the US legal system burden of proof lies on those trying to prove guilt.
By that logic, anyone claiming track printing is happening has the burden of proof.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”
Hatcher’s video provides zero evidence to back up his claim. At the moment all any of us have is anecdotal evidence. Until anyone provides empirical evidence all the hot air we can blow amounts to squat. Just opinions and nothing more.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Quote from Tiro of Meletis »

I'm happy it comes in non-foil if I decide to pursue it. Not sure right now if I will. Perhaps if it's reasonable?

Exactly my feelings about it.

I'm not sold on this idea. For a number of years now I've been cracking and organizing cases at my LGS. For Core 2020 the breakdown went like this(two cases);
opened 3 to 4 of any given Mythic with one having 5 copies, 5 to 9 of any given Rare with 7 being the average, the distribution levels seemed random not like there were 5 of the chase Rares and 9 of the crap Rares. There were 10 to 14 copies of any given Uncommon with 13 being the average.
The distribution between the cases was very random, with on or two copies of a Rare or Mythic in one case but far more in the other and vice versa. In talking with people that open larger volumes (6+ cases), they've expressed that at those numbers it pretty much balances out.
I do know that any given box or case can seem to have a wide range of random, with some seeming pattern. But at a high enough volume that pattern vanishes, in my anecdotal experience. That volume being 3+ cases.
During RTR I bought 3 boxes looking for Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius only to open zero. Bought a friend a box for his birthday and he pulled it. That's how those small numbers roll.
This is just my observation from my personal experience, I've seen very little evidence of track printing like other are insinuating. That's not to say it doesn't happen, I just am not convinced by the number I've witnessed.

Red has a great way to deal with white enchantments, Anarchy.

I’m sure Sensei’s Divining Top wouldn’t be a problem, LOL!

After reading through this thread I have a few observations:

Since there are 25 years of combat design without this in mind so many mechanics would need a retrofitting. On top more layers of combat rules complexity, all in the name of flavor.

Imagine trying to represent a complex board state visually. Which creatures are attacking which. Which attacked creatures are blocking what other creatures. It’s bad enough as it is to properly keep a complex board state figured out during combat.

Mechanically, what you get out adding all this is net neutral at best if not net negative.
You attack my creature, I choose my self to block. I still get the same choice, just in a different way.
Currently, you attack me, I choose to block or not. The end result doesn’t vary.

Now had this kind of mechanic been part of original design, that would be a whole another thing to ponder about.

Sweet! Thanks!

Say I have out Manabond and end up with twenty lands in my hand. When Manabond's trigger resolves(and I put all the land onto the battlefield), one of the lands in my hand is Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and the rest are Mountains, will I get Valakut's trigger as well?

In all honesty I’ll probably check out both sites. I’ll definitely come back here for archival info and to see how it precedes. At the same time the content creators that are leaving should be worth following.
It’s not like you cannot visit multiple sites. And if one place lags I’ll drop it. I used to frequent NGA, but don’t spend any time there currently.
I hate to see this site break up, but c’est la vie. I still miss the official WOTC forums, but life goes on.

Yeah, after carefully reading it again that was kind of the conclusion I came to.

Thanks for the clarification though.

Is my inquiry even able to be answered here?

So I was participating in an Old School tournament and ran into an issue. My opponent activates his Chaos Orb and chooses my only basic land, so in response I tap it for mana. He claims that once he's chosen the target that it's too late for me to respond.
In reading the oracle text and rulings I find nothing to corroborate his call. We were playing Eternal Central rules, here's their errata:
"Chaos Orb
2
Artifact
1, Tap: Choose a nontoken permanent on the battlefield. If Chaos Orb is on the battlefield, flip Chaos Orb onto the battlefield from a height of at least one foot. If Chaos Orb turns over completely at least 360 degrees during the flip, and lands resting on the chosen permanent, destroy that permanent. Then destroy Chaos Orb.
(Note: because of how Chaos Orb is worded, with it being destroyed after a flip, it can still be Disenchanted or Shattered in response to the activation, which will nullify the ability to flip, since it is no longer on the battlefield. This is consistent with the wording of Chaos Orb not being sacrificed upon activation, as it probably would with modern templating. Also note that Chaos Orb chooses, but does not target.)"

So was my opponent correct, or was he just misinformed?

That’s what I was thinking, thanks.