[Official] Modern Prices Discussion

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

If you are on the fence about Urza's Saga, as of this writing it's price is $29 in paper. It's cost in MTGO is $68. I'm no expert but I think it's a good time to buy into them. If it survives the next ban announcement, which I am 99% sure it will, the paper price will probably go up.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 172
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 2 months ago

I honestly dont get why saga is the price it is atm. In traditional affinity it works kinda but not enough to really play, in post Signal Pest infinity it works kinda but causes mana issues there as well. I really can see it in titan amulet. Otherwise the verse 2 and three seem to be a waste unless your mishra baubling just for that and the construct needs 3 lands to get so early isnt good to drop this land. Other than people trying and slotting this into everything they can I just dont see the value.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

EonAon wrote:
2 months ago
I honestly dont get why saga is the price it is atm. In traditional affinity it works kinda but not enough to really play, in post Signal Pest infinity it works kinda but causes mana issues there as well. I really can see it in titan amulet. Otherwise the verse 2 and three seem to be a waste unless your mishra baubling just for that and the construct needs 3 lands to get so early isnt good to drop this land. Other than people trying and slotting this into everything they can I just dont see the value.
Your opinion of the card is why it has an artificially deflated price in paper. Saga puts uncoutnerable threats into play. Unchecked, it creates a board out of nothing and wins. It has plenty of downsides and interaction points to prevent anything unfair from happening. It's merely a great card with a small deck footprint.

I think that small footprint is the hidden reason for the price gap in MTGO and paper. Paper players have very little chance to actually play this card so its power isnt super obvious to them.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 172
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 2 months ago

robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
EonAon wrote:
2 months ago
I honestly dont get why saga is the price it is atm. In traditional affinity it works kinda but not enough to really play, in post Signal Pest infinity it works kinda but causes mana issues there as well. I really can see it in titan amulet. Otherwise the verse 2 and three seem to be a waste unless your mishra baubling just for that and the construct needs 3 lands to get so early isnt good to drop this land. Other than people trying and slotting this into everything they can I just dont see the value.
Your opinion of the card is why it has an artificially deflated price in paper. Saga puts uncoutnerable threats into play. Unchecked, it creates a board out of nothing and wins. It has plenty of downsides and interaction points to prevent anything unfair from happening. It's merely a great card with a small deck footprint.

I think that small footprint is the hidden reason for the price gap in MTGO and paper. Paper players have very little chance to actually play this card so its power isnt super obvious to them.
Ok but what decks other than affinity have enough artifacts and or can manipulate the verse counters enough to consistently keep it on verse 2 long enough to benefit from the token production, rather than letting it cycle and may or may nor get another artifact. Im not saying your wrong I just cant see a deck that wants it enough or can manipulate it enough.

So far off goldfish it seems like amulet titan (which actually doesnt run much in artifacts and seems more a searching tool), urza's kitchen, the Skirge affinity version(which I don't get), Hardened scales, WUR, UBR (Which is a Urza high artificer deck), and a eldrazi tron. The affinity variant shown is also playing the small style of creatures which...other than thopter, brute, monitor, and skirge don't always connect. Nor did it have sojourner to search it out to get saga for non lean mana times or pre lean combo setup.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

If you have Goldfished the card then you can see for yourself...tons of decks are using it. You even mentioned quite a few yourself. Card's sick.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 2 months ago

robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
Your opinion of the card is why it has an artificially deflated price in paper. Saga puts uncoutnerable threats into play. Unchecked, it creates a board out of nothing and wins. It has plenty of downsides and interaction points to prevent anything unfair from happening. It's merely a great card with a small deck footprint.

I think that small footprint is the hidden reason for the price gap in MTGO and paper. Paper players have very little chance to actually play this card so its power isnt super obvious to them.
robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
If you have Goldfished the card then you can see for yourself...tons of decks are using it. You even mentioned quite a few yourself. Card's sick.
You know you can talk about the card without being condescending or outright dismissing others' claims about a card, especially when you have been proven wrong several times in the recent past.

First, no. the price difference between paper and MTGO is for many different reasons, one of them being completely different markets. Online has an active Legacy and Vintage scene, when paper does not. Secondly, MTGO is global, whereas paper isn't. EU prices are generally lower because the market spans the whole continent, when the US is spread out - roughly - over 3 sectors. If it was what you argued, we'd see a convergence of paper and online prices on EVERY card, but that's just not happening.

Also, again, it has no "small deck footprint" you're losing 4 lands to that, plus you have to have some number of smaller artifacts in order to even get some value of its third chapter. Then, no, online moves incredibly fast, and many people know about the card and what it does, it just isn't for every deck - as you keep claiming. Plus, I think you were saying it was gonna get banned because it'd be everywhere, not "merely" a great card.

Lastly, "tons" of decks being Artifact decks like Scales, Affinity (even there its value is debatable), Whirza (again, even there its value is debatable), Asmor (which switched to artifact versions), and decks like E-Tron, Hammertime and Titan? Because, that's like 3 relevant decks and a slew of T3 or less. So, those "tons" of decks are specific archetypes that NEED the card to stay relevant, it isn't for every deck.

So, the card's "sick" or "merely good"? Because, you can't have both, especially when you've consistently argued the point of "if it survives the next ban announcement".

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

@Tzoulis Tone does not always carry over. I wasn't dismissing his opinion, I was using it as a reason for deflated pricing. If it sounded like I was dismissing it, I apologize. Now, on to not agreeing completely with the rest of what you wrote.

Image

There is this morning's list of Urza's Saga 5-0. Those are 10 completely different decks, although Hell's Kitchen gets listed twice. The global market of MTGO is a factor sure, but only in that it exacerbates demand on cards that perform well in MTGO. So you have a high ceiling on in demand cards, and an absolutely rock bottom floor on cards that are not used. You cannot buy any card in paper for actual pennies. In mtgo most card are literally less than a nickel. All of this is just my opinion as well of course. It is in no way meant to belittle contrary opinions on card prices.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 172
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 2 months ago

10 decks is high demand or 9 as the case may be?

I mean mechanically Titan only uses it for the search for amulet, but since it has to wait three turns its kind of slow honestly and you still may luck into amulet in that time which means your argument about the construct token is kinda moot at 5 artifacts. The only reason the deck isnt floundering mana wise is that titan and its ramp package can smooth out the times where the land isnt creating mana. Remember it wins off the back of Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and beats to the face than through a artifact. But the deck actually performs decently well without it.

Kitchen is like Amulet in that its only using it for search, which isnt using the card to its full advantage.
Tron deck is only using the last part to search combo bits.....after 3 turns. Same for UBR color which may or may not be stalling them since you know it produces only colorless

Hammer, Scales and Wurza might get the actual most out of it because those have all modes relevant to their plays. The bigger issues with them are that the mana base that you slot saga into are extremely frail and they are slotting 4 lands that only produce mana once.

Affinity its dubious since both variants have VERY light mana bases and need to squeeze as much out of them that all three modes while relevant, screw up the timing of the deck. By that I mean your playing 5 to 8 taplands which need to come out first dependent on what's in hand, adding another 4 lands that only produce mana on one turn out of three is a net negative because you actually need mana from lands to back your plays regardless of version. Since both versions want to get done by turn 4 at the earliest/latest that makes MAJOR timing issues on what and when your going to play.

Also you know what those numbers on the left are correct? Only 2 of the decks are in the top 10 of the meta, 5 of them are in the top 20, three the top 50.

So 2% of the top tier decks want a full set of saga. Say about 6% out of the top 20. Thats not really great demand or usage statistics. Highish yes but we are still in new toys part of the metagame shakeout.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

I do not care about deck demographics or distribution when it comes to identifying the capabilities of a card. There are too many other factors that go into what decks are popular and why. Yes, any one specific card's power level affects any given deck's popularity, but that is not the only thing that affects popularity of those decks either.

My point in sharing the image is to show what a broad spectrum of strategies that are using it. The card is still in its infancy and we see a lot of completely different approaches using it in different ways. As time passes, more and more applications will arise. I feel like we are seeing low point on the card in paper costs. Do you guys honestly think this card is going to DROP in paper value any time soon / ever? If so please reply here and now so we can see which theory pans out in the long run.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 172
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 2 months ago

robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
I do not care about deck demographics or distribution when it comes to identifying the capabilities of a card. There are too many other factors that go into what decks are popular and why. Yes, any one specific card's power level affects any given deck's popularity, but that is not the only thing that affects popularity of those decks either.

My point in sharing the image is to show what a broad spectrum of strategies that are using it. The card is still in its infancy and we see a lot of completely different approaches using it in different ways. As time passes, more and more applications will arise. I feel like we are seeing low point on the card in paper costs. Do you guys honestly think this card is going to DROP in paper value any time soon / ever? If so please reply here and now so we can see which theory pans out in the long run.
I can very well see you dont care about actual percentages and usage statistics in the opinions you form. Card is good, not gonna argue that. But I backed my assertations with facts and relevant statistics, you just gutt checked that. Honestly this card could go either way but unless the win percentages using this card go MUCH higher from plays that are backed by this card, yes in 3 months this card will go down.

Dont know if it will go down dramatically considering the vintage legacy crowd need for paper, but also this set is print to demand and that means there is no set amount of product. Flip side is that yes this is a VERY expensive set to buy packs from, but it also has enemy fetches in it so people will be buying packs for all formats that desire those. So if saga cannot explode in popularity, the amount in the global card pool will be fairly large. The card has already dropped 3 dollars to $29 and thats in the last week. I could see this getting to 20 or 15 dollars in the next 4 months unless something really breaks it, or the decks that use it go really popular.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

Well I guess time will tell. Predicting the card to drop to half it's current value is bold, but anything is possible. I think we will see paper value start to catch up to MTGO, eventually. My theory is that paper is behind MTGO because no one can really use paper cards right now so ceiling for these cards is lower. Ragavan is also cheaper in paper for the same reason. There are no more big paper event to look forward to, and no info from WOTC about when or if pro play will ever resume.

MTGO doesn't suffer from that problem.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 2 months ago

robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
Well I guess time will tell. Predicting the card to drop to half it's current value is bold, but anything is possible. I think we will see paper value start to catch up to MTGO, eventually. My theory is that paper is behind MTGO because no one can really use paper cards right now so ceiling for these cards is lower. Ragavan is also cheaper in paper for the same reason. There are no more big paper event to look forward to, and no info from WOTC about when or if pro play will ever resume.

MTGO doesn't suffer from that problem.
I'm not going to bother with discussing the specifics of Urza's Saga, because we've been there before, but actually listen to what others tell you, because @EonAon ran into the same wall as I did at the beginning.

Now, on to the quoted part. Your premise (paper prices follow MTGO ones) requires that the markets for MTGO and Paper are the same but with some lag, when you yourself admitted that they aren't and the whole pandemic cycle manifestly proved that premise wrong, as well as the pre-pandemic years. Casual/Commander paper play NEVER stopped, and yes Ragavan and Saga are very good in Commander - also, please, Pirate friggin Monkey - as well as the MTGO market being more active in the Legacy/Vintage/cEDH aspect, because of RL prices. Legacy can drive prices hard on MTGO, but not as much in Paper. Modern is a different beast, but the existence of services like Magiccardmarket keeps prices low because ANYONE can sell to someone else in a pool of tens if not hundred of thousand of players.

That's the main reason for the lower price on paper (at least in Europe). Another example: Bauble is 10 euros vs 35-37 tix. Bauble almost reached 30 euros before its first reprint in Iconic Masters; it'll never reach that high again, and it's not because paper is behind MTGO, but because people already have their sets or because there is sufficient demand from 2 largely significant reprints.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

I mean, that's your theory. I personally don't buy it, but my theory is no more or less valid than yours. I think thats why it boggles your minds when I seem to ignore what you are saying. I hear you and add your opinion as a data point in the other direction. Rarely will a single data point be enough to change my mind. That's all any of us internet forum posters are anyway, data points one way or another. So there's really no reason to ever get bent out of shape regardless of how far apart our opinions may be.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 2 months ago

robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
I mean, that's your theory. I personally don't buy it, but my theory is no more or less valid than yours. I think thats why it boggles your minds when I seem to ignore what you are saying. I hear you and add your opinion as a data point in the other direction. Rarely will a single data point be enough to change my mind. That's all any of us internet forum posters are anyway, data points one way or another. So there's really no reason to ever get bent out of shape regardless of how far apart our opinions may be.
You have a funny way of dismissing (again and again mind you) logical arguments as "single data points". I didn't talk about PERSONAL, ANECDOTAL experiences; you'd - maybe - have a point then. I talked about observed trends during different periods, encompassing highly different stretches of Modern, volatile and stable, wherein in almost each and every one of those periods prices of cards were wildly different between MTGO and Paper - with paper being usually significantly more expensive than online.

Your theory contradicts years of data pre COVID when there was high level paper play, almost 2 years worth of data where there was no high level paper play - and no paper data in general, and recent data where there is no high level paper play, but paper play has resumed in most the US and EU. So, again, how does your theory reconcile the fact that by casually looking at the prices some of the decks on the first page of MTG Goldfish have paper markups between 40% to 400% (the mode seems to be around 50%) when compared to online prices? Why are online prices so far behind the curve?

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

Tzoulis wrote:
2 months ago
You have a funny way of dismissing (again and again mind you) logical arguments as "single data points". I didn't talk about PERSONAL, ANECDOTAL experiences; you'd - maybe - have a point then. I talked about observed trends during different periods, encompassing highly different stretches of Modern, volatile and stable, wherein in almost each and every one of those periods prices of cards were wildly different between MTGO and Paper - with paper being usually significantly more expensive than online.
This is just a flowery way of saying your opinion is "better" because you ran it through whatever critera you personally feel is enough to post it publically. But you are missing the really big picture: None of us posting here really have our finger on the pulse do we? I mean come on, posting in internet forums in 2021? Really? We may as well be a hundred years old gathered at the library shaking our fists at those dang youngins...

So yes, I take EVERYONE'S posts here with a grain of salt. Seems wise to me.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

Aazadan
Posts: 547
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Aazadan » 2 months ago

Tzoulis wrote:
2 months ago
robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
I mean, that's your theory. I personally don't buy it, but my theory is no more or less valid than yours. I think thats why it boggles your minds when I seem to ignore what you are saying. I hear you and add your opinion as a data point in the other direction. Rarely will a single data point be enough to change my mind. That's all any of us internet forum posters are anyway, data points one way or another. So there's really no reason to ever get bent out of shape regardless of how far apart our opinions may be.
You have a funny way of dismissing (again and again mind you) logical arguments as "single data points". I didn't talk about PERSONAL, ANECDOTAL experiences; you'd - maybe - have a point then. I talked about observed trends during different periods, encompassing highly different stretches of Modern, volatile and stable, wherein in almost each and every one of those periods prices of cards were wildly different between MTGO and Paper - with paper being usually significantly more expensive than online.

Your theory contradicts years of data pre COVID when there was high level paper play, almost 2 years worth of data where there was no high level paper play - and no paper data in general, and recent data where there is no high level paper play, but paper play has resumed in most the US and EU. So, again, how does your theory reconcile the fact that by casually looking at the prices some of the decks on the first page of MTG Goldfish have paper markups between 40% to 400% (the mode seems to be around 50%) when compared to online prices? Why are online prices so far behind the curve?
MTGO vs Paper will cover values of decks pretty well, at least in terms of relative differences between each other but keep in mind that there's a lot of market differences between the two. The desirable artworks are different, MTGO doesn't have to deal with the poor market state at the moment, new product enters MTGO much faster, there is no shipping time, and there's an effective hardcap on prices that doesn't exist in paper due to scarcity.

Another thing we need to consider, at least in regards to MH2, is it's my understanding that unlike most sets MH2 seems to not have most of it's cards entering through draft. In order to meet demand more quickly, people are just directly buying packs and opening them, or at least they were. When we had paper MH in the past, the limited amount of boxes resulted in them all entering the market through slow chunks in drafts. And this is the first time we've had a set like this in paper with all the different booster types I think. For example, I've got 3 sealed Set Booster boxes for MH2 right now. It's in my interest to hang onto these for a bit at this point, but if you're online it's in your interest to open up chests, sell cards, and so on.

As such, the set is still new enough that there's going to be substantial differences in supply versus demand. I think we're also seeing some weird effects online due to the effect of card rental services too, because that has resulted in fewer cards entering online and people renting only as needed. With the very high demand from MH2 this is really getting stress tested, and it pushes the most in demand cards far higher than normal.

User avatar
Tzoulis
Posts: 314
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Tzoulis » 2 months ago

robertleva wrote:
2 months ago
This is just a flowery way of saying your opinion is "better" because you ran it through whatever critera you personally feel is enough to post it publically. But you are missing the really big picture: None of us posting here really have our finger on the pulse do we? I mean come on, posting in internet forums in 2021? Really? We may as well be a hundred years old gathered at the library shaking our fists at those dang youngins...

So yes, I take EVERYONE'S posts here with a grain of salt. Seems wise to me.
You don't seem to graps the difference between personal opinion and arguments based on past trends. There's a qualitative difference between those two. One's anecdotal, the other is based on more than conjecture. What I'm referencing isn't "personal" criteria, rather actual price trends and differences between Online and Paper prices.

You've yet to reconcile the fact that online prices are almost exclusively cheaper than paper prices, with your earlier argument of "paper prices lagging behind online prices".
Aazadan wrote:
2 months ago
MTGO vs Paper will cover values of decks pretty well, at least in terms of relative differences between each other but keep in mind that there's a lot of market differences between the two. The desirable artworks are different, MTGO doesn't have to deal with the poor market state at the moment, new product enters MTGO much faster, there is no shipping time, and there's an effective hardcap on prices that doesn't exist in paper due to scarcity.

Another thing we need to consider, at least in regards to MH2, is it's my understanding that unlike most sets MH2 seems to not have most of it's cards entering through draft. In order to meet demand more quickly, people are just directly buying packs and opening them, or at least they were. When we had paper MH in the past, the limited amount of boxes resulted in them all entering the market through slow chunks in drafts. And this is the first time we've had a set like this in paper with all the different booster types I think. For example, I've got 3 sealed Set Booster boxes for MH2 right now. It's in my interest to hang onto these for a bit at this point, but if you're online it's in your interest to open up chests, sell cards, and so on.

As such, the set is still new enough that there's going to be substantial differences in supply versus demand. I think we're also seeing some weird effects online due to the effect of card rental services too, because that has resulted in fewer cards entering online and people renting only as needed. With the very high demand from MH2 this is really getting stress tested, and it pushes the most in demand cards far higher than norma
You seem to have misunderstood my last post. My whole point is that the differences between Paper and Online prices (and US vs EU ones as well) are far more complex than just "paper is behind online in terms of meta, so this affects prices", because price differences always existed, and at the moment online prices are 50% cheaper. If the original poster's assertion was correct, then the trend would be a convergence of prices (which historically hasn't happened, like ever) since the markets are completely different, even for the same formats.

As for specifically MH2 prices, everything in EU has been dropping steadily and chase cards like Ragavan has stabilized (still too expensive for my tastes). Only Murktide has recently seen a spike (which started the moment UR Murktide won its first challenge, thus it seems that paper isn't behind Online prices - trend wise - at all after all.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

Tzoulis wrote:
2 months ago
You've yet to reconcile the fact that online prices are almost exclusively cheaper than paper prices, with your earlier argument of "paper prices lagging behind online prices".
I already addressed this. 99% of cards in MTGO can be bought for a few pennies. There are no distribution or storage costs for digital goods, so vendors can keep gigantic inventories without cost. The same is not true of paper cards. This is the reason for the low floor in MTGO.

The higher ceiling cap on cards like Ragavan and Saga is due to the healthy state of MTGO as a medium to competitively play Magic. There is less confidence in paper magic as a viable format than there ever has been in the past. WOTC has yet to even address when or if pro play will return, so your average Joe isnt really motivated go drop a fortune on the latest and greatest toy that they cant even use. Again I feel like I am repeating myself. Perhaps we both share the same affliction of not appropriately valuing what the other is trying to communicate. This is all of course my theory. Hopefully it doesnt come across as me trying to make more of it than that.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 172
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 2 months ago

Huh on tcg player Saga is already down to $20 to $21 that was quicker than I thought it be.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

Honestly I think it's just a question of how low the paper market vendors will get due to perceived lack of viability before it catches up to MTGO. Saga is cost is at an all time high of $79 in MTGO and it's trending upwards.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 172
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 2 months ago

Considering that on goldfish its just about breaking 68/69$ for online play, I find that hard to believe. Now actually trending upwards, it could do that depending on factors still but it has not broken 70

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

EonAon wrote:
2 months ago
Considering that on goldfish its just about breaking 68/69$ for online play, I find that hard to believe. Now actually trending upwards, it could do that depending on factors still but it has not broken 70
I think where the data points eventually settle may change slightly. On my screen it now shows a cap of $71.5, but currently $64. If you look at the timing of my post it was right at that peak, which at the time was higher at 79$.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 172
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 2 months ago

I don't know what variant your looking at but I'm using the base version off goldfish with the filters of MGTO and the card itself has never capped on mtgo over $71 on 07/13/2021 and slid down to $63.9 on 07/15/2021 with the card hoarders and mgto traders both at 63.93 atm this second. Which is nowhere near the price of $79 you said.

The two high buy so far stands at 71.9/71.5 respectively on two occasions according to mtg goldfish.

User avatar
robertleva
Posts: 582
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by robertleva » 2 months ago

I was looking here:

https://www.mtggoldfish.com/price/Moder ... aga#online

It shows a cap of $71.5, currently $64.
Robert Leva
Creator of Modern's 8Rack Deck
Image

User avatar
The Fluff
is this so?
Posts: 2115
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Gradius Home World
Contact:

Post by The Fluff » 2 months ago

I have about 40+ khans fetch lands of various kinds. Saw that they had some price increase... what do people think, should I sell now, or wait for them to go higher?
Image
AnimEVO 2020 - EFZ Tournament (english commentary) // OE 2016 // POF 2018
want to play a uw control deck in modern, but don't have Jace or snapcaster? please come visit us at the Emeria thread

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Modern”