No, Valarin, we established a long time ago that the RL satisfies the elements of promissory estoppel. You poo-poo'd that with arguments about how PE works. You didn't "clearly establish" that as far-fetched. You just said it over and over again until you believed it. And unlike every other time they've added new product to a market, here they affirmatively represented to everybody that they would not print certain cards in a tournament-legal form ever again. You won't even respond by apologizing for making exaggerated claims: when I explained, again, that the argument for legal caution on Hasbro's part wasn't "absolute" or anything, you just pivoted to making outsized claims about the weakness of the legal theories. Like, bro, for real, act like a person. Frankly, your unreasonable posts here make me regret raising a stink when you-know-what happened.
No, Valarin, we established a long time ago that the RL satisfies the elements of promissory estoppel. You poo-poo'd that with arguments about how PE works. You didn't "clearly establish" that as far-fetched. You just said it over and over again until you believed it. And unlike every other time they've added new product to a market, here they affirmatively represented to everybody that they would not print certain cards in a tournament-legal form ever again. You won't even respond by apologizing for making exaggerated claims: when I explained, again, that the argument for legal caution on Hasbro's part wasn't "absolute" or anything, you just pivoted to making outsized claims about the weakness of the legal theories. Like, bro, for real, act like a person. Frankly, your unreasonable posts here make me regret raising a stink when you-know-what happened.
But why would they do that?
Why bother "closing the loophole" when they can use the loophole without opening themselves up for a damages claim? We know from historical events that it is perfectly possible for cards to be reprinted and not have their value drop. This is especially true of limited print runs of promo cards. If they printed promotional Underground Sea and the value of Underground Sea did not completely tank.... there would be no way to prove that a small fluctuation in value is because of the printing... and even if they could why would someone bother suing over something like $10? Similarly there are cards on that list that have almost no value. Reprinting them as part of a set would actually increase their value because they would become legal in modern formats.
I have a hard time believing that this has anything to do with trying to maintain value of cards to reduce risk of litigation due to unhappy collectors.
Why bother "closing the loophole" when they can use the loophole without opening themselves up for a damages claim? We know from historical events that it is perfectly possible for cards to be reprinted and not have their value drop. This is especially true of limited print runs of promo cards. If they printed promotional Underground Sea and the value of Underground Sea did not completely tank.... there would be no way to prove that a small fluctuation in value is because of the printing... and even if they could why would someone bother suing over something like $10? Similarly there are cards on that list that have almost no value. Reprinting them as part of a set would actually increase their value because they would become legal in modern formats.
I have a hard time believing that this has anything to do with trying to maintain value of cards to reduce risk of litigation due to unhappy collectors.
Yeah, maybe. It's certainly likely that if they did a small enough print run it would be difficult prove damages. But before getting there, they'd have to pay their attorneys substantial amounts through discovery. And there's always the possibility of an injunction of some kind. Note that it only takes one collector to bring a suit to create a headache.
I dedicated a little more time to delve a little deeper and indeed I've found some new insights that you might already know of:
Aaron Forsythe:
"There are cards that we can't reprint, we just can't do it. We tried, we went through a due process to see if we can pull it off and, you know, the powers that be disagreed with our methodology... We can't do it so I accept we can't do it, gotta move on, come up with something else..."
A) How does Wizard plan on keeping Legacy & Vintage from becoming extinct in the future?
B) Does the policy not lead to a future a secondary market full of high quality counterfeit cards?
C) It is known that upper-management made the final decision to keep the reserved list and close the loophole. What can the player base do to get this decision reversed and the list abolished. We saw a change after the player base revolted to ratings can we do the same for the reserved list?
Answers:
A) Two ways, most likely. One, we'll keep supporting them at the level we do now. At the very least, the sizes of those communities will stay the same as they are now, and as more sets are released, more decks made up mostly of newer cards (like Affinity) will let more people in. Two, I imagine Magic Online will someday have vibrant Vintage and Legacy communities. We can "print" whatever we want on there.
B) I hope not.
C) Nothing, really. It's not like it was decided merely as a matter of opinion. Someone made a promise a long time ago, and as much as I personally wish it wasn't so, we have to stick with it. I understand the demand is there, but we're not going to open ourselves up to ill will or worse by reneging.
Taking all the above quotes at the face value, it must have been the WotC upper management :). (my latest theory)
We have a disagreement in this thread regarding the real danger of some legal action against WotC, were the RL abolished.
After looking at these new (for me, anyway) sources, I don't think it matters at all. Instead, what matters is what the upper manager with the power to overrule the matter _thinks_ about the risk - whether it's a single person or a panel of sorts.
An argument that probably played a role too was that the company made the promise long before many of the people working there now even got there - including the management that was able to overrule the matter in 2010, I'd imagine.
So I'm arguing the easiest explanation boils down to this:
The management simply didn't have the balls to risk abolishing the RL - maybe he/she/they feared some legal ramifications, however unjustified; maybe he/she/they overplayed the role of super-rich hoarders; or maybe they just didn't feel like meddling with decisions made long before they got the job. Oh, and there is the question of teh monies of course
For the management, the only real obligation is to take care of the company reputation and profits, and cater to the shareholders. The actual employees and/or customers might, ironically, be an afterthought. I believe that the upper management couldn't care less about some cardboard with funny pictures - for them, it is more important what Forbes writes about the company...
Again, we have a disagreement here as to what approach would have been more profitable to WotC. But it does not matter because we are not the ones calling the shots. Meaning, that whoever was calling them, could have a different set of biases and convictions and could simply made a bad call, relatively speaking. Expectation that managerial decisions are strictly based in reality and rationality often turns out to be misguided.
All that spook talk about that there's more to it than just an opinion and no one can know the real reasons creates an impression of something really serious and relevant, and people are reading too much into it. I'm not buying it anymore (until new evidence emerges). In reaction to the foil Negator and Masticore, someone stirred the pot, resulting in a series of meetings at WotC, with both R&D and SCG people being on the same side. Then the matter got pushed upwards in the hierarchy and some higher-up called "End of this" on it...
So, I think a plausible scenario could be a big cheese at the top saying something like this (satire intended):
"I'm sick and tired of this RL business. It goes on forever and by changing things all the time, we are only digging the hole deeper. I want this thing to go away for good and everyone to forget about it already. Therefore, seal the list and move on. We have profits to be made and this bad publicity costs us money. You, R&D, deal with the player base - distract them with Planeswalker Points, Commander's Arsenal, some shiny FTVs, even create this Modern thing if you have to. Or make slivers look like humans and change the legend rule yet again - that should keep them busy arguing about things that are under our control. But you will NOT tell them who we are and you will NOT tell them why are we sealing the RL or you'll be heavily fined and fired. Sign here. Dismissed."
Occam's razor. The power principle, guys
Me personally, I can live with the RL and I don't care about Legacy/Vintage. If someone hoards the cards and speculates with them, I'll just laugh and print out some nice proxies for my EDH decks; or better yet, I'll just build on budget, it's more fun anyway. What rubs me the wrong way though is the hypocrisy behind the matter:
Whoever is at fault, the RL was tweaked, adjusted, updated, i.e. changed several times. They have *broken the promise* more than once already.
Abolishing the list would by itself do absolutely nothing. Some people would be hyped and psyched about it, expectations would rise for a while to get FTV:Power or something, but in effect, we would still be NOT getting dualland reprints or anything of the sort anytime soon, IMHO. R&D do a blunder occasionally but they are not crazy.
Not disclosing the reasons behind the decision and banning all discussion about it is simply disgusting. That alone costs WotC money, on my part at least
No, Valarin, we established a long time ago that the RL satisfies the elements of promissory estoppel.
No, euknemarchon, you didn't. You claimed it did, without providing any evidence to support the claim.
From the legal definition of P.E.
"A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise."
The RL was not made to induce people to buy MTG cards on the RL. So it likely fails there.
People don't buy MTG cards just because they are on the RL, so it likely fails there.
As for "substantially detrimental economic cost", 80% of the cards on the RL are worth less than $5, and even if reprinted ABUR duals would barely nudge in value, as evidence by other ABUR cards that have be reprinted numerous times, like BoP. So it likely fails there
RL card values have been tanked before thorough banning, and no one ever sued under P.E.
It also ignores every other problem with the legal argument, namely that the individuals and stores who would be most impacted by the RL going away WANT it to go away, no one ever sued Hasbro for tanking card values on the RL when they were banned, no one sued Hasbro when the changed the RL policy, and Hasbro would have likely been indemnified against anything WoTC did as a free standing company anyway.
And you still have yet to show me a single legal case or brief that establishes any precedence for a collector taking action against a collectible manufacturer. You can read numerous examples of Promisorry Estoppel cases online, I have yet to find a single one that is even remotely relevant to the RL or collectibles.
Your entire argument rests on pure conjecture. You assume P.E. would apply (without saying how it would), you assume people would sue (without identifying anyone who would), you assume people have a right to sue (even though they never sued when RL card values or the RL itself changed), you assume it would cause a headache for Hasbro (without showing any case that established legal precedent).
And the final nail in the coffin seems to be what charmer posted: AF tweeting that the RL has nothing to do with Hasbro means that there's no way it could be a legal threat, since any legal threat would be against Hasbro. So hopefully that's the last word on the legal theory.
Frankly, your unreasonable posts here make me regret raising a stink when you-know-what happened.
I'm sorry man, but if you consider quoting exact definitions, giving point by point examples of my arguments, and explaining my reasoning behind each one of them in clear detail to be "unreasonable", then I don't know what you are looking for. Don't get mad at me because I disagree with you, if you want to support your argument, then support your argument.
Taking all the above quotes at the face value, it must have been the WotC upper management . (my latest theory)
Which fits with the RL being around because getting rid of it would hurt their stated goals of growing Standard. Upper management wants the game to grow, and you don't grow MTG by reprinting Legacy cards. You grow it by forcing a rotating format to be your top format so sales continue with every set.
Or charmer could be on to something with the "It's not worth the hassle/potential player backlash, so just forget about it"
Which fits with the RL being around because getting rid of it would hurt their stated goals of growing Standard. Upper management wants the game to grow, and you don't grow MTG by reprinting Legacy cards. You grow it by forcing a rotating format to be your top format so sales continue with every set.
Or charmer could be on to something with the "It's not worth the hassle/potential player backlash, so just forget about it"
This could be a good part of it. But also with casual players as well as standard players. There could have been a savvy guy in management that asked the question: "if casual players get their hands on dual lands what reason will they have to buy new packs with different rare lands?" Back when EDH was an infant and my LGS was playing it all the time Rav was still only a couple years old and those rav duals were gold because they helped people run their 3-5 color decks. It's pretty well established that there will not be lands more efficient than the old duals. If every EDH and cube player could get their hands on a playset they would have no reason to go after Rav duals or whatever else comes out. Casual players represent a lot of the packs bought. Since it isnt known what would happen if every EDH player had a set of dual lands to play with, I could see that being a road that management wouldnt want to explore.
Valarin, many pages ago I quoted the RSC and went through the PE definition. I didn't just "provide no evidence." I did exactly what you just did, but you ignored it by arguing that PE only applies in cases such as where an employer promises a job but there hasn't been consideration yet. Of course, the "near-miss lacking consideration" construction of PE could win in certain courts, but it doesn't make the other argument nonfrivolous. Now you've changed your tune on the problem rather than admit any weakness in anything you've said. Concerning your points:
1. The RL was used to induce people to buy Magic cards from WotC/its distributors since some of those were on the RL since they would put cards on the RL as boxes came out iirc. Further, it's not at all clear there's a privity requirement on the transaction for PE; in that case, all later purchasers of the RL cards are buying in reliance on WotC's promise since the price includes that promise.
2. It doesn't matter whether people buy cards just because they're on the RL. If they buy at a certain price in reliance on that price not dropping because of reprints, they've relied. And that's the core of what the RL is all about: making people confident enough to buy singles at high prices.
3. Maybe the cards wouldn't tank on a reprint. I've already said that would make it difficult to succeed. But given that a plaintiff's attorney would only file a complaint about the cards he could show price drops for in the first place, getting to dismissal could still be expensive.
4. RL card values tanking because of bannings don't have anything to do with PE or the promise.
5. It only takes one person to sue to make a headache. SCG and a few other major sites saying they hate the RL doesn't mean there would never be legal liability ever. Further, we haven't been "ignoring" this point. We've said it over and over that only a few people suing can still make a headache.
6. Finding authorities handling collectibles isn't something I have to do to say that legal issues might relevant. We're not having a legal debate about whether there would be ultimate liability. We're having a conversation about whether there are nonfrivolous arguments that could be bringing caution to a corporate legal department.
7. A tweet that Hasbro has nothing to do with it make legal concerns less likely, yes. But your attitude is still the problem—you're almost personally concerned with getting rid of the "legal theory" as a possibility to keep from having to admit you've made outsized claims. It was a plausible theory before he mentioned the tweet, and you refuse to back down out of obstinance. Any respect I've had for you I have lost.
8. Valarin, I didn't call your arguments about whether the legal theory was bad or not "unreasonable." I said your exaggerated claims about the legal theory basically not existing were unreasonable. Your unwillingness to admit that we never made "absolute claims" was unreasonable. It's not about your legal arguments; I've told you they were nonfrivolous and would go in a fine brief about ultimate liability in court. My problem is with your attitude. You're not having a conversation here about theories explaining the RL; you're in court arguing against liability. That's plain silly. Finally, if you expect me to respond to you with small quotes with line-by-line arguments with you, no thanks. That's ridiculous. Grow up. Myself, I'm done having this discussion.
6. Finding authorities handling collectibles isn't something I have to do to say that legal issues might relevant. We're not having a legal debate about whether there would be ultimate liability. We're having a conversation about whether there are nonfrivolous arguments that could be bringing caution to a corporate legal department.
If ever there was a time for hobbyists to sue a company it was the bust of the comic book speculator bubble in 1993. Surprisingly, no one blamed the comic book companies for their own risk taking. I think some of those guys are the reason the RL exists at all.
The whole PE argument seems to imply that WoTC has direct control of the secondary market. They release the product but its ultimately big stores and important speculators who decide what something is worth.
Something that I think has gotten lost in this whole debate is the difference between a card's price and collectibility. A card's price is tied to its overall impact on the game(unless its part of a limited print run or an oddity) while a card's collectibility is more about the card's esoteric qualities. So the RL is more for the guy with his singleton Chains of Mephistopheles than the guy with a full playset of P9, duals, etc, whose benefit is really an unfortunate side effect of the RL and something I think WoTC never intended.
One interesting blurb is that Modern Masters is the first all reprint set since 1995. Chronicles reprinted some of the more popular and powerful cards of the time and not surprisingly the game got better because of it. I want the RL gone so I could(in theory!) have some of the really old stuff I like for my own collection but if you really look at the list you can see the truth. Almost nothing of value was lost...
Valarin, many pages ago I quoted the RSC and went through the PE definition. I didn't just "provide no evidence." I did exactly what you just did, but you ignored it by arguing that PE only applies in cases such as where an employer promises a job but there hasn't been consideration yet. Of course, the "near-miss lacking consideration" construction of PE could win in certain courts, but it doesn't make the other argument nonfrivolous. Now you've changed your tune on the problem rather than admit any weakness in anything you've said.
I'm not going to bother reiterating the same thing I've said a half dozen times by now. At this point, I'll just say show me a case/brief where Promissory Estoppel has ever been used against the maker of a collectible. If you have this legal training you speak of, then you surely have a LexisNexis subscription. You can search millions of cases and court briefs right at your fingertips. Provide some evidence that Promissory Estoppel applies. Show me the evidence to support your claim.
It only takes one person to sue to make a headache. SCG and a few other major sites saying they hate the RL doesn't mean there would never be legal liability ever. Further, we haven't been "ignoring" this point. We've said it over and over that only a few people suing can still make a headache.
You keep harping on this point, again with no evidence. Do you work for Hasbro? Do you know how much "hassle" it would be for someone to file an unsubstantiated lawsuit against them? Or is this just another hunch/assumption?
Finding authorities handling collectibles isn't something I have to do to say that legal issues might relevant. We're not having a legal debate about whether there would be ultimate liability. We're having a conversation about whether there are nonfrivolous arguments that could be bringing caution to a corporate legal department.
That's how the law works. Precedent. Show me precedent.
A tweet that Hasbro has nothing to do with it make legal concerns less likely, yes. But your attitude is still the problem—you're almost personally concerned with getting rid of the "legal theory" as a possibility to keep from having to admit you've made outsized claims.
I didn't make outsized claims. There is no evidence you (or anyone else) has provided to support the legal theory. Assumptions are not evidence.
Your guess that P.E. "might" apply is not evidence. Showing a P.E. case that establishes precedence would be evidence
Your guess that Hasbro is shivering in fear over a single person suing is not evidence. Providing a statement from Hasbro, or working for Hasbro and seeing their legal teams corporate policies, would be evidence
You have hunches and guesses, but zero evidence to support them. Just more hunches and guesses you use to try and support your hunches and guesses. That's not evidence.
On the other hand, I've provided actual evidence to support my claim
No PE cases involving collectibles that anyone (so far) can find
Declarations from the most impacted organizations that they want the RL gone
Actual examples of RL cards losing value and no one suing
Actual tweets from AF saying it has nothing to do with Hasbro
Those are all factual statements what can be proven to be true (the first bullet point would go away if someone provided evidence to the contrary).
I have no agenda against the legal theory, I have an agenda against people trying to draw conclusions from zero evidence. And that's what the legal theory is, a conclusion drawn from zero evidence. Just hunches and conjecture.
(Also, you seem to be taking this AWFULLY personally. We're talking about theories around a card games reprint policy. Don't get so bent out of shape over it. You want to believe in our theory, if someone points out the lack of evidence supporting it, it's not an attack on you.)
One thing that occurred to me is that one reason the Reserved list is still around is because format management issues. By creating Modern Wizards has told us that they will not be blatantly supporting other eternal formats. Sure the summer special set and the FtV are eternal but I doubt many of the cards are tournament staples besides Islands. Star City Games essentially owns Legacy and they would stand to benefit the most from the Reserved list going away. You better believe that Legacy players would be demanding a Masters set and Wizards would print one because they don't like to alienate potential customers.
But alas...Legacy players have dug themselves into a hole and its slowly starting to fill in. They have built up the format to be what they wanted it to be and without the amount of support that the flagship formats(Standard, Modern, and Limited) get. But that same lack of official support is its downfall. My own personal theory is that Wizards created Modern because its outside the "speculator bubble" of the Reserved list and Legacy, the format most commonly associated with it, and thus sellable to a new generation of players. Not necessarily the new guys who joined us during the age of acquisition(2008-present) but more like the people who started playing at the beginning of the Modern era. Its hard to create products that are relevant to Legacy players when the more important cards are prohibited from ever being reprinted.
TL;DR
One reason the RL is still around is because Wizards is not really in control of Legacy and Modern is their chance to have an eternal format that's outside of the speculator bubble that will one day price Legacy out of existence.
I was asking for a source on the claim that Hasbro's legal department forced them to change the RL after FTV: Exiled. I've never seen that stated by Hasbro or WoTC anywhere.
This is as close as it'll get: it isn't official but MaRo does confirm that they intentionally used a loophole and it didn't go well.
"It was our legal department" is a pretty far leap from "went badly".
If I had to venture a guess as to what "went badly" means, I would point to the outrageous price gouging that went on with FTV: Relics partly because it contained cards from the RL, and WoTC isn't a huge fan of price gouging keeping the cards out of peoples hands. Stores were either jacking up the price of the set by 3-4 times MSRP or cracking them and selling the Mox Diamonds out of them as singles
Any FTV that contained a desirable RL card would instantly drive the price to crazy levels or result in stores just cracking them and selling the singles, and that's not what I think WoTC want's FTV sets to be.
A lot of people seem to think that Wizards wants cards to get in the hands of players, yet there's absolutely no proof that they do. Instead, it seems more that Wizards wants stores to make profits because of the symbiotic relationship they have with them.
Would 'legacy masters' make as much money for stores as say 'Theros'? I don't know, but it would mean a lot of stores losing money.
A lot of people seem to think that Wizards wants cards to get in the hands of players, yet there's absolutely no proof that they do. Instead, it seems more that Wizards wants stores to make profits because of the symbiotic relationship they have with them.
Would 'legacy masters' make as much money for stores as say 'Theros'? I don't know, but it would mean a lot of stores losing money.
Realistically what would happen with a Legacy Masters set is that they would announce it to be having a limited print run which would do a few things. First people would look at WOTC now suddenly supporting legacy and so legacy staples would probably actually go up in price with the announcement. Then because the limited print run would cause a huge product rush like Modern Masters did the price of product would spike up far above the suggested retail price that stores would make a ton of money off of the markup and it wouldn't logically effect the card prices for the most part.
All to help make Legacy more accessible, which is something WoTC really doesn't have an interest in as evidenced by the tightening of the RL, the reduction of Legacy PT events, the invention of Modern, and the printing of Modern Masters.
WoTC has done everything short of just flat out saying "We don't really care about Legacy anymore".
Realistically what would happen with a Legacy Masters set is that they would announce it to be having a limited print run which would do a few things. First people would look at WOTC now suddenly supporting legacy and so legacy staples would probably actually go up in price with the announcement. Then because the limited print run would cause a huge product rush like Modern Masters did the price of product would spike up far above the suggested retail price that stores would make a ton of money off of the markup and it wouldn't logically effect the card prices for the most part.
Why would WotC want to support a format that has a very slow turnover time for decks/cards? I built UGR threshold back when it still played Werebear you know how much that deck had to change over the years? Put in some ponders, maybe Spell Snare and replace Werebear with Tarmogoyf.
That deck is still around more than 5 years after I got the cards for it. Legacy doesnt drive sales of new packs. Nobody is going to go buy a booster box of newest set to get a playset of the one new uncommon they need for Legacy... They are going to wait for the Standard and casual players to open the packs and then go buy the card.
Players can only play in so many supported formats. A lot of players cannot afford to reasonably maintain decks in Standard, Modern, Legacy, EDH, and whatever else they play and play in limited events. Heck most people dont have enough free time to play in all of those formats with any kind of frequency. Because of this WotC would much rather have players dedicate their time and dollars to the market which directly impacts the sales of their new product. Modern is their version of a compromise to let players keep playing with those cards they spent a year acquiring and playing with on a less frequent basis. In a sense Modern adds value to Standard by being a net for good cards to keep being relevant after rotation.
I think you are all missing the point of what I was saying. Based on looking at how Modern Masters ended up working breaking the reserve list and printing such a set would most likely do nothing but increase the supply of staples and do nothing to the price. In fact I would guess the price would go up on all of them.
Even if Legacy did end up being played more often because of it I doubt it would actually hunt standard or modern attendance. Legacy is just such a different beast and is filled with things that the regular current player base hates. Stuff like fast combos, actual land destruction, good counterspells. I mean your average Standard player won't want to play a format like that. It's just too "unfun."
Stuff like fast combos, actual land destruction, good counterspells. I mean your average Standard player won't want to play a format like that. It's just too "unfun."
You mean the stuff that people who have been playing for more than 5 years love? Sure the average FNM attendant hates Counterspell but anyone that has been playing for a length of time and is competitive enough to do well at PTQs would love to see diversity come back.
Hey, I'm not saying that everyone hates those things, I"m just saying that wizards are trying to appeal to the people that do. I even know long time players who prefer the Midrange formats that it seems they are trying to push. I mean I know long time players who love this direction so I won't say that this is something for only newish players or stupid players or anything like that.
I personally love all the "unfun" things that it seems that the general target audience for the game has become hates. I like playing against fast combo, prison decks, land destruction, etc. I don't even like playing with them for the most part, but I love playing against them far more than I do any of the midrange decks out there.
Hey, I'm not saying that everyone hates those things, I"m just saying that wizards are trying to appeal to the people that do. I even know long time players who prefer the Midrange formats that it seems they are trying to push. I mean I know long time players who love this direction so I won't say that this is something for only newish players or stupid players or anything like that.
I personally love all the "unfun" things that it seems that the general target audience for the game has become hates. I like playing against fast combo, prison decks, land destruction, etc. I don't even like playing with them for the most part, but I love playing against them far more than I do any of the midrange decks out there.
I think there is an interesting dilemma there for WotC to figure out. While even I think it is unfun to lose to Land D, and prison decks beating those kinds of decks is some of the most fun games I have ever had. Playing counterspells against counterspells makes for an incredibly intense match. Knowing you have 5 draws left to find 1 of the 3 cards in your deck that lets you break out of a lock is so intense. The problem is... if you are playing 40 guys that swing.dec every single one of those other decks is annoying to play against because you dont have any interactions and it's incredibly hard to have a deck based around attacking life totals that can respond correctly to an attack on lands, playing spells, cards in hand, and that combos.
So do they continue to dumb down the game into mainly a battle of guys on the battle field with limited interactions or do they find new ways for those kinds of decks to respond to disruption and combo so those other deck types can come back.
So, basically if Wizards isn't supporting legacy, and even if they did do a reprint, it would seem that it might only be to raise the prices of certain reserved list staples, does it really seem like the reserved list is in any danger?
So, basically if Wizards isn't supporting legacy, and even if they did do a reprint, it would seem that it might only be to raise the prices of certain reserved list staples, does it really seem like the reserved list is in any danger?
Well that's my theory anyways from my observations of Modern Masters and the whole Magic market. I'm not a analyst of anything so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
Interesting discussion on Twitter last night from pro player Patrick Sullivan (@basicmountain), which came around to touch upon the RL and WotC's approach to reprints in general. He is definitely in the camp of people who think the RL continues to serve a valid purpose.
He started by posting:
Quote from PatrickSullivan »
Seeing Mutavault at rare in M14 is causing me to question owning a large, valuable Magic collection, for whatever that's worth.
When somebody replied with "WotC has no obligation to protect value of anything not on the RL", he smartly replied:
Sure. Never said "obligation" or anything like it. Just a comment that this will likely alter my behavior.
I can't find the tweet conversation, but somebody asked him if he'd sell his collection were the RL to be axed, and he said he absolutely would. He remarked that people who bought into legacy were only willing to do that because they could rely on the RL to safeguard them.
He did however say that he thought MMA did a good job of protecting collection value by putting high-priced cards at mythic.
He was afraid of the Muta reprint at rare possibly marking a new way of thinking about reprints. In regard to Muta being reprinted at rare rather than mythic, he criticized the frequent appeals to MaRo's article about mythic rarity on the basis that MaRo was clearly just wrong about what mythic rarity would be used for, and that the article can't be viewed as the foundational document of WotC's philosophy on that point now, if ever it could have been.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But why would they do that?
Why bother "closing the loophole" when they can use the loophole without opening themselves up for a damages claim? We know from historical events that it is perfectly possible for cards to be reprinted and not have their value drop. This is especially true of limited print runs of promo cards. If they printed promotional Underground Sea and the value of Underground Sea did not completely tank.... there would be no way to prove that a small fluctuation in value is because of the printing... and even if they could why would someone bother suing over something like $10? Similarly there are cards on that list that have almost no value. Reprinting them as part of a set would actually increase their value because they would become legal in modern formats.
I have a hard time believing that this has anything to do with trying to maintain value of cards to reduce risk of litigation due to unhappy collectors.
Yeah, maybe. It's certainly likely that if they did a small enough print run it would be difficult prove damages. But before getting there, they'd have to pay their attorneys substantial amounts through discovery. And there's always the possibility of an injunction of some kind. Note that it only takes one collector to bring a suit to create a headache.
Aaron Forsythe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-r-wfodlro 8:20
Reddit AMA
http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/qlrhn/ama_with_aaron_forsythe_of_wizards_of_the_coast/
MaRo:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/42
So we have some direct quotes pointing to the fact that RL was disliked in R&D.
About the meeting prior to closing all loopholes:
Ben Bleiweiss, Steve Menendian and Eric Reasoner seem to have been the only people invited from outside WotC to the meeting:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/18824_Insider_Trading_The_Cost_of_Cards_Mr_Bleiweiss_goes_to_Washington_Part_2_of_3.html
Two out of three are on the record opposing the RL vehemently. See the link above plus this one:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/18888_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Visiting_Wizards_Reprints_and_the_Reserved_List.html
So where does that leave us? I think, all of the above have simply been overruled by those "powers that be".
Aaron also tweeted that Hasbro had nothing to do with it:
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/10660373048
https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/10656906946
Taking all the above quotes at the face value, it must have been the WotC upper management :). (my latest theory)
We have a disagreement in this thread regarding the real danger of some legal action against WotC, were the RL abolished.
After looking at these new (for me, anyway) sources, I don't think it matters at all. Instead, what matters is what the upper manager with the power to overrule the matter _thinks_ about the risk - whether it's a single person or a panel of sorts.
An argument that probably played a role too was that the company made the promise long before many of the people working there now even got there - including the management that was able to overrule the matter in 2010, I'd imagine.
So I'm arguing the easiest explanation boils down to this:
The management simply didn't have the balls to risk abolishing the RL - maybe he/she/they feared some legal ramifications, however unjustified; maybe he/she/they overplayed the role of super-rich hoarders; or maybe they just didn't feel like meddling with decisions made long before they got the job. Oh, and there is the question of teh monies of course
For the management, the only real obligation is to take care of the company reputation and profits, and cater to the shareholders. The actual employees and/or customers might, ironically, be an afterthought. I believe that the upper management couldn't care less about some cardboard with funny pictures - for them, it is more important what Forbes writes about the company...
Again, we have a disagreement here as to what approach would have been more profitable to WotC. But it does not matter because we are not the ones calling the shots. Meaning, that whoever was calling them, could have a different set of biases and convictions and could simply made a bad call, relatively speaking. Expectation that managerial decisions are strictly based in reality and rationality often turns out to be misguided.
All that spook talk about that there's more to it than just an opinion and no one can know the real reasons creates an impression of something really serious and relevant, and people are reading too much into it. I'm not buying it anymore (until new evidence emerges). In reaction to the foil Negator and Masticore, someone stirred the pot, resulting in a series of meetings at WotC, with both R&D and SCG people being on the same side. Then the matter got pushed upwards in the hierarchy and some higher-up called "End of this" on it...
So, I think a plausible scenario could be a big cheese at the top saying something like this (satire intended):
Occam's razor. The power principle, guys
Me personally, I can live with the RL and I don't care about Legacy/Vintage. If someone hoards the cards and speculates with them, I'll just laugh and print out some nice proxies for my EDH decks; or better yet, I'll just build on budget, it's more fun anyway. What rubs me the wrong way though is the hypocrisy behind the matter:
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Please just thank posts if you need to do this. Infraction issued for spamming. -Xen
No, euknemarchon, you didn't. You claimed it did, without providing any evidence to support the claim.
From the legal definition of P.E.
"A promisor—one who makes a promise—makes a gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee—one to whom a promise has been made. The promisee justifiably relies on the promise. A substantial detriment—that is, an economic loss—ensues to the promisee from action or forbearance. Injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise."
It also ignores every other problem with the legal argument, namely that the individuals and stores who would be most impacted by the RL going away WANT it to go away, no one ever sued Hasbro for tanking card values on the RL when they were banned, no one sued Hasbro when the changed the RL policy, and Hasbro would have likely been indemnified against anything WoTC did as a free standing company anyway.
And you still have yet to show me a single legal case or brief that establishes any precedence for a collector taking action against a collectible manufacturer. You can read numerous examples of Promisorry Estoppel cases online, I have yet to find a single one that is even remotely relevant to the RL or collectibles.
Your entire argument rests on pure conjecture. You assume P.E. would apply (without saying how it would), you assume people would sue (without identifying anyone who would), you assume people have a right to sue (even though they never sued when RL card values or the RL itself changed), you assume it would cause a headache for Hasbro (without showing any case that established legal precedent).
And the final nail in the coffin seems to be what charmer posted: AF tweeting that the RL has nothing to do with Hasbro means that there's no way it could be a legal threat, since any legal threat would be against Hasbro. So hopefully that's the last word on the legal theory.
I'm sorry man, but if you consider quoting exact definitions, giving point by point examples of my arguments, and explaining my reasoning behind each one of them in clear detail to be "unreasonable", then I don't know what you are looking for. Don't get mad at me because I disagree with you, if you want to support your argument, then support your argument.
Which fits with the RL being around because getting rid of it would hurt their stated goals of growing Standard. Upper management wants the game to grow, and you don't grow MTG by reprinting Legacy cards. You grow it by forcing a rotating format to be your top format so sales continue with every set.
Or charmer could be on to something with the "It's not worth the hassle/potential player backlash, so just forget about it"
This could be a good part of it. But also with casual players as well as standard players. There could have been a savvy guy in management that asked the question: "if casual players get their hands on dual lands what reason will they have to buy new packs with different rare lands?" Back when EDH was an infant and my LGS was playing it all the time Rav was still only a couple years old and those rav duals were gold because they helped people run their 3-5 color decks. It's pretty well established that there will not be lands more efficient than the old duals. If every EDH and cube player could get their hands on a playset they would have no reason to go after Rav duals or whatever else comes out. Casual players represent a lot of the packs bought. Since it isnt known what would happen if every EDH player had a set of dual lands to play with, I could see that being a road that management wouldnt want to explore.
If I could get some true duals for cheap I wouldn't bother with other kinds of rare lands whatsoever
1. The RL was used to induce people to buy Magic cards from WotC/its distributors since some of those were on the RL since they would put cards on the RL as boxes came out iirc. Further, it's not at all clear there's a privity requirement on the transaction for PE; in that case, all later purchasers of the RL cards are buying in reliance on WotC's promise since the price includes that promise.
2. It doesn't matter whether people buy cards just because they're on the RL. If they buy at a certain price in reliance on that price not dropping because of reprints, they've relied. And that's the core of what the RL is all about: making people confident enough to buy singles at high prices.
3. Maybe the cards wouldn't tank on a reprint. I've already said that would make it difficult to succeed. But given that a plaintiff's attorney would only file a complaint about the cards he could show price drops for in the first place, getting to dismissal could still be expensive.
4. RL card values tanking because of bannings don't have anything to do with PE or the promise.
5. It only takes one person to sue to make a headache. SCG and a few other major sites saying they hate the RL doesn't mean there would never be legal liability ever. Further, we haven't been "ignoring" this point. We've said it over and over that only a few people suing can still make a headache.
6. Finding authorities handling collectibles isn't something I have to do to say that legal issues might relevant. We're not having a legal debate about whether there would be ultimate liability. We're having a conversation about whether there are nonfrivolous arguments that could be bringing caution to a corporate legal department.
7. A tweet that Hasbro has nothing to do with it make legal concerns less likely, yes. But your attitude is still the problem—you're almost personally concerned with getting rid of the "legal theory" as a possibility to keep from having to admit you've made outsized claims. It was a plausible theory before he mentioned the tweet, and you refuse to back down out of obstinance. Any respect I've had for you I have lost.
8. Valarin, I didn't call your arguments about whether the legal theory was bad or not "unreasonable." I said your exaggerated claims about the legal theory basically not existing were unreasonable. Your unwillingness to admit that we never made "absolute claims" was unreasonable. It's not about your legal arguments; I've told you they were nonfrivolous and would go in a fine brief about ultimate liability in court. My problem is with your attitude. You're not having a conversation here about theories explaining the RL; you're in court arguing against liability. That's plain silly. Finally, if you expect me to respond to you with small quotes with line-by-line arguments with you, no thanks. That's ridiculous. Grow up. Myself, I'm done having this discussion.
If ever there was a time for hobbyists to sue a company it was the bust of the comic book speculator bubble in 1993. Surprisingly, no one blamed the comic book companies for their own risk taking. I think some of those guys are the reason the RL exists at all.
The whole PE argument seems to imply that WoTC has direct control of the secondary market. They release the product but its ultimately big stores and important speculators who decide what something is worth.
Something that I think has gotten lost in this whole debate is the difference between a card's price and collectibility. A card's price is tied to its overall impact on the game(unless its part of a limited print run or an oddity) while a card's collectibility is more about the card's esoteric qualities. So the RL is more for the guy with his singleton Chains of Mephistopheles than the guy with a full playset of P9, duals, etc, whose benefit is really an unfortunate side effect of the RL and something I think WoTC never intended.
One interesting blurb is that Modern Masters is the first all reprint set since 1995. Chronicles reprinted some of the more popular and powerful cards of the time and not surprisingly the game got better because of it. I want the RL gone so I could(in theory!) have some of the really old stuff I like for my own collection but if you really look at the list you can see the truth. Almost nothing of value was lost...
I'm not going to bother reiterating the same thing I've said a half dozen times by now. At this point, I'll just say show me a case/brief where Promissory Estoppel has ever been used against the maker of a collectible. If you have this legal training you speak of, then you surely have a LexisNexis subscription. You can search millions of cases and court briefs right at your fingertips. Provide some evidence that Promissory Estoppel applies. Show me the evidence to support your claim.
You keep harping on this point, again with no evidence. Do you work for Hasbro? Do you know how much "hassle" it would be for someone to file an unsubstantiated lawsuit against them? Or is this just another hunch/assumption?
That's how the law works. Precedent. Show me precedent.
I didn't make outsized claims. There is no evidence you (or anyone else) has provided to support the legal theory. Assumptions are not evidence.
You have hunches and guesses, but zero evidence to support them. Just more hunches and guesses you use to try and support your hunches and guesses. That's not evidence.
On the other hand, I've provided actual evidence to support my claim
I have no agenda against the legal theory, I have an agenda against people trying to draw conclusions from zero evidence. And that's what the legal theory is, a conclusion drawn from zero evidence. Just hunches and conjecture.
(Also, you seem to be taking this AWFULLY personally. We're talking about theories around a card games reprint policy. Don't get so bent out of shape over it. You want to believe in our theory, if someone points out the lack of evidence supporting it, it's not an attack on you.)
But alas...Legacy players have dug themselves into a hole and its slowly starting to fill in. They have built up the format to be what they wanted it to be and without the amount of support that the flagship formats(Standard, Modern, and Limited) get. But that same lack of official support is its downfall. My own personal theory is that Wizards created Modern because its outside the "speculator bubble" of the Reserved list and Legacy, the format most commonly associated with it, and thus sellable to a new generation of players. Not necessarily the new guys who joined us during the age of acquisition(2008-present) but more like the people who started playing at the beginning of the Modern era. Its hard to create products that are relevant to Legacy players when the more important cards are prohibited from ever being reprinted.
TL;DR
One reason the RL is still around is because Wizards is not really in control of Legacy and Modern is their chance to have an eternal format that's outside of the speculator bubble that will one day price Legacy out of existence.
I was going over Blogatog and found this
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/8784118216/why-the-reserved-list-is-off-limits-for-ftv-legends-but
This is as close as it'll get: it isn't official but MaRo does confirm that they intentionally used a loophole and it didn't go well.
"It was our legal department" is a pretty far leap from "went badly".
If I had to venture a guess as to what "went badly" means, I would point to the outrageous price gouging that went on with FTV: Relics partly because it contained cards from the RL, and WoTC isn't a huge fan of price gouging keeping the cards out of peoples hands. Stores were either jacking up the price of the set by 3-4 times MSRP or cracking them and selling the Mox Diamonds out of them as singles
Any FTV that contained a desirable RL card would instantly drive the price to crazy levels or result in stores just cracking them and selling the singles, and that's not what I think WoTC want's FTV sets to be.
Would 'legacy masters' make as much money for stores as say 'Theros'? I don't know, but it would mean a lot of stores losing money.
Realistically what would happen with a Legacy Masters set is that they would announce it to be having a limited print run which would do a few things. First people would look at WOTC now suddenly supporting legacy and so legacy staples would probably actually go up in price with the announcement. Then because the limited print run would cause a huge product rush like Modern Masters did the price of product would spike up far above the suggested retail price that stores would make a ton of money off of the markup and it wouldn't logically effect the card prices for the most part.
WoTC has done everything short of just flat out saying "We don't really care about Legacy anymore".
Why would WotC want to support a format that has a very slow turnover time for decks/cards? I built UGR threshold back when it still played Werebear you know how much that deck had to change over the years? Put in some ponders, maybe Spell Snare and replace Werebear with Tarmogoyf.
That deck is still around more than 5 years after I got the cards for it. Legacy doesnt drive sales of new packs. Nobody is going to go buy a booster box of newest set to get a playset of the one new uncommon they need for Legacy... They are going to wait for the Standard and casual players to open the packs and then go buy the card.
Players can only play in so many supported formats. A lot of players cannot afford to reasonably maintain decks in Standard, Modern, Legacy, EDH, and whatever else they play and play in limited events. Heck most people dont have enough free time to play in all of those formats with any kind of frequency. Because of this WotC would much rather have players dedicate their time and dollars to the market which directly impacts the sales of their new product. Modern is their version of a compromise to let players keep playing with those cards they spent a year acquiring and playing with on a less frequent basis. In a sense Modern adds value to Standard by being a net for good cards to keep being relevant after rotation.
Even if Legacy did end up being played more often because of it I doubt it would actually hunt standard or modern attendance. Legacy is just such a different beast and is filled with things that the regular current player base hates. Stuff like fast combos, actual land destruction, good counterspells. I mean your average Standard player won't want to play a format like that. It's just too "unfun."
You mean the stuff that people who have been playing for more than 5 years love? Sure the average FNM attendant hates Counterspell but anyone that has been playing for a length of time and is competitive enough to do well at PTQs would love to see diversity come back.
I personally love all the "unfun" things that it seems that the general target audience for the game has become hates. I like playing against fast combo, prison decks, land destruction, etc. I don't even like playing with them for the most part, but I love playing against them far more than I do any of the midrange decks out there.
I think there is an interesting dilemma there for WotC to figure out. While even I think it is unfun to lose to Land D, and prison decks beating those kinds of decks is some of the most fun games I have ever had. Playing counterspells against counterspells makes for an incredibly intense match. Knowing you have 5 draws left to find 1 of the 3 cards in your deck that lets you break out of a lock is so intense. The problem is... if you are playing 40 guys that swing.dec every single one of those other decks is annoying to play against because you dont have any interactions and it's incredibly hard to have a deck based around attacking life totals that can respond correctly to an attack on lands, playing spells, cards in hand, and that combos.
So do they continue to dumb down the game into mainly a battle of guys on the battle field with limited interactions or do they find new ways for those kinds of decks to respond to disruption and combo so those other deck types can come back.
Well that's my theory anyways from my observations of Modern Masters and the whole Magic market. I'm not a analyst of anything so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.
He started by posting:
You can read most of the exchange here: https://mobile.twitter.com/BasicMountain/status/347113520174886912?p=v
When somebody replied with "WotC has no obligation to protect value of anything not on the RL", he smartly replied:
I can't find the tweet conversation, but somebody asked him if he'd sell his collection were the RL to be axed, and he said he absolutely would. He remarked that people who bought into legacy were only willing to do that because they could rely on the RL to safeguard them.
He did however say that he thought MMA did a good job of protecting collection value by putting high-priced cards at mythic.
He was afraid of the Muta reprint at rare possibly marking a new way of thinking about reprints. In regard to Muta being reprinted at rare rather than mythic, he criticized the frequent appeals to MaRo's article about mythic rarity on the basis that MaRo was clearly just wrong about what mythic rarity would be used for, and that the article can't be viewed as the foundational document of WotC's philosophy on that point now, if ever it could have been.