Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I spent $1,200 building a modern deck only to have the center piece card banned a month into the format, making those 4 cards worthless and the rest of the deck worth much less. Yes, you can play magic for $20. You cannot play it at a competitive level in any format at that price. Have you priced dual lands lately, which are necessary for almost all formats? I could build a 1,000+ point army for what I spent on dual lands for 1 deck. MTG is cheaper to get into but far more expensive to play competitively.

I know people love to compare MTG to 40k... I don't really see the point in comparing a wargame to a card game.

I guess it's better than comparing a wargame to cars though

Inaccurate comparisons are the only ones that can possibly make GW look good, duh.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I know people love to compare MTG to 40k... I don't really see the point in comparing a wargame to a card game.

I guess it's better than comparing a wargame to cars though

All games of this type are mathematical systems that in theory can be perfected for balance within the limitations of any random number generator system used and the Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

As a MTG player of 10+ years, this is total crap. I can buy a $10 theme deck, grab some boosters, and have a reasonable deck. yes, some cards are WAY better than others, but MTG still has a reasonable price list compared to 40k. I've had decks last me several years with minor retooling. Can anything be said the same of 40k armies? Add that I don't haave to buy a $50 codex and a $50 rulebook every 2 years.

You only had to buy the BRB after 2 years once, so that isnt really enough data points to go on to say you always will have to. How many armies got a new codex after two years? I cant currently think of any?

Fantasy had some short releases ,for daemons, vampires, but not even sure they were as short as 2 years.

Toofast wrote:
I spent $1,200 building a modern deck only to have the center piece card banned a month into the format, making those 4 cards worthless and the rest of the deck worth much less. Yes, you can play magic for $20. You cannot play it at a competitive level in any format at that price. Have you priced dual lands lately, which are necessary for almost all formats? I could build a 1,000+ point army for what I spent on dual lands for 1 deck. MTG is cheaper to get into but far more expensive to play competitively.

I'll bite.

I assume the card you are referring to is probably Deathrite Shaman, which at most cost $16. The card was banned in modern and is now down to $9. At most, you lost $28 on those individual cards. In the meantime, the Verdant Catacombs fetchland has gone from $38 to $45, an increase of $7 per card, thus offsetting your loss from Deathrite Shaman. Yes, you lost money on one card, but the other cards in the deck have gone up. If you chose to leave MtG, you could recoup most of your $1200 investment.

On the flip side, when CSM and Chaos Demons were split, I was left with about $200 worth of models that could not be played under it's current configuration. In addition, GW release a set of trash rules for fantasy, which has tanked that market, making most of those models worth about 20% of their MSRP. The only thing GW has going for it on the secondary market is that GW keeps jacking up the prices.

From an economic standpoint, MtG is a better investment than GW products by a good margin. Neither should be used as retirement funds.

 Xerics wrote:


Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

The retiring of Heroclix figures is for sanctioned tournaments only. Even then it is only for tournaments that are listed as restricted. I suggest you have read of the tournament rules to see how incorrect you are.

Toofast wrote:
I spent $1,200 building a modern deck only to have the center piece card banned a month into the format, making those 4 cards worthless and the rest of the deck worth much less. Yes, you can play magic for $20. You cannot play it at a competitive level in any format at that price. Have you priced dual lands lately, which are necessary for almost all formats? I could build a 1,000+ point army for what I spent on dual lands for 1 deck. MTG is cheaper to get into but far more expensive to play competitively.

Absolute crap. I spent an entire block playing with a $25 Magic Online deck because I wasn't willing to rebuy digital representations of the cards I owned irl, and maintained a 2/3 win ratio. And this is on MTGO where there is much less casual players and every single deck has pain lands. I didn't follow any net list, I built a solid constructed deck with a price range in mind after I looked at the set and decided what worked. I can share the list if the need be.

In real life this would have been even cheaper as I would have just traded a few old cards for the rares I needed. NEED is such a strong word in fact, I'm sure I would have found a way to compete even with a $5 budget.

If you restrict yourself to the very top tier highly optimised pro decks it will be very expensive. If you are capable of thinking for yourself, there will always be a way to compete for less.

Look up $5 infect. It's a modern deck that literally beats some top tier decks hands down and can potentially trade games with almost any of them.

Your statement is absolute crap and you are merely pricing the cost to build the absolute STRONGEST possible decks. You don't need pain lands just to play lol it's this ridiculous lack of comprehension of the game that allows people like me with <$50 decks to CONSISTENTLY beat Moneydecks with 12 pain lands.

All that being said, my actual RL deck is ~$800. But this I'm aware this strictly by choice and decision to spend more to take my game to it's highest level. Not a necessity to play or even compete by any means necessary.

Toofast wrote:
I spent $1,200 building a modern deck only to have the center piece card banned a month into the format, making those 4 cards worthless and the rest of the deck worth much less. Yes, you can play magic for $20. You cannot play it at a competitive level in any format at that price. Have you priced dual lands lately, which are necessary for almost all formats? I could build a 1,000+ point army for what I spent on dual lands for 1 deck. MTG is cheaper to get into but far more expensive to play competitively.

Price the most competitive Eldar build, Codex and BRB included. I challenge you several competitive decks can be built for $300, and even several others for less than that. MtG is completely more flexible and balanced than 40k.

A well built rules system should never make the players "dice off" or roll a 4+ for disputes. There shouldn't be any disputes in the first place. And if there is, then a competent tournament organizer or "That Guy" that does nothing but reads rules should be able to answer the question.

The MWB (Medium White Book) is only available in a three book set for $85 or a now out of print box set with a mini rulebook for $100 (?). You then have to purchase a codex for your army for another $50. That's $135 for rules (not counting any dataslates, White Dwarf supplements, ancillary Codex) just to play the game, and when there is a rules dispute, I either need to roll off, or house rule it? Then why did I just pay $$ for all those rules?

It is possible, and there are examples all over the table top genre, of creating tight, well thought out rules that make a game both fun and competitive at the same time. GW has the resources and the talent to do so, but chooses not to. And it's baffling.

Comparing Warhammer 40K, a table top miniatures game where you have to assemble and paint all your models to Magic: the Gathering, a collectable card game is just dumb. It goes beyond apples to oranges. The only thing the two have in common is that they cost a lot of money to play and they are both "games". Oh, and you need some table space to play on. Though both can be played pretty much on any open space, with 40K requiring a larger space of course. How, or why Card Floppers think they know everything about gaming just because they tap a card is beyond me. If they played more than just one game, they would have some legitimacy with me, but the vast bulk I have ever encountered don't even know about table top gaming. And OMG! The first time they play a game that uses cards for a game mechanic, the inevitable but pointless comparisons come out about M:tG. Trying to teach a card flopper how to play a table top game comes down to having extreme patience and breaking them of the deck building, shuffle tap mentality.

Yes, I'm biased against card floppers, but if they want to really learn to play a different game and willing to put forth the effort, I'll teach them. And I'll hope it expands their experience beyond shuffle/tap.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Comparing Warhammer 40K, a table top miniatures game where you have to assemble and paint all your models to Magic: the Gathering, a collectable card game is just dumb. It goes beyond apples to oranges. The only thing the two have in common is that they cost a lot of money to play and they are both "games". Oh, and you need some table space to play on. Though both can be played pretty much on any open space, with 40K requiring a larger space of course. How, or why Card Floppers think they know everything about gaming just because they tap a card is beyond me. If they played more than just one game, they would have some legitimacy with me, but the vast bulk I have ever encountered don't even know about table top gaming. And OMG! The first time they play a game that uses cards for a game mechanic, the inevitable but pointless comparisons come out about M:tG. Trying to teach a card flopper how to play a table top game comes down to having extreme patience and breaking them of the deck building, shuffle tap mentality.

Yes and no. I'm all for "Card Floppers" expanding their gaming repitoire, but to say they have nothing in common is ridiculous. Yes, they are largely different, but are still both strategy games, "list building" is vitally important to both, and are just as much luck/skill-based games. I agree they're not extremely similar games, but to say that they no place being compared in this discussion is ludicrous.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Absolute crap. I spent an entire block playing with a $25 Magic Online deck because I wasn't willing to rebuy digital representations of the cards I owned irl, and maintained a 2/3 win ratio.

Win a lot of tourneys losing 1 game in 3?

All that being said, my actual RL deck is ~$800. But this I'm aware this strictly by choice and decision to spend more to take my game to it's highest level. Not a necessity to play or even compete by any means necessary.

So $25 for a deck you can't compete at the top tier with and $800 for you to be happy with your physical deck, that's not cheaper than a 40k tourney netlist especially if you hit up ebay.

Sounds like when Toofast said:
"MTG is cheaper to get into but far more expensive to play competitively."
You actually agree with him.

Once you've thrown down $800 on a deck of cards trying to suggest 40k is expensive is always gonna sound a bit off.

Well, beating 2/3 competitive decks is probably what I would call the definition of competing at any level, or does it have to win every tournament and put me in the running for an international prize pool to be considered.competing?

FACT is I can play magic at a very similar level to money decks for a fraction of the price. It's either an oppressive bias or incapability to comprehend competitive level MTG beyond "oh this is the deck winning on an international level, guess I need $1200 to play hurr durr".

If I wanted to play magic at my very highest level, the price rises. Fact is, I can have and will still be able to beat money decks with a cheap deck, for a much cheaper price. No it won't be as well rounded overall, and no you can't do it with any random cards or theme there might be 4 or 5 sendible cheap ways per set, but it's still very doable.

I remember back in Mirrodin (the original Mirrodin) when I just missed top 8 regionals (13th) off a WR common+uncommon deck. I might have made the top 8 if I had brought my Ravager affinity, it is all in all the better deck. But meh it was fun and it proved beyond a doubt that I can compete, even if winning wasn't necessarily at all likely.