Dig Through Time?
Economics forum
Posted on April 23, 2015, 7:03 p.m. by saj0219
I have two unrelated questions on the pricing of Dig Through Time for people who have payed attention to the economics side of MtG far longer than I have:
When this rotates out, how much will it drop (if at all)? I believe it sees reasonable use in legacy, even though it's banned in modern. Does it see enough use to keep it at ~$5-6?
IF , down the line (say a year or two from now) it was unbanned in modern, how much might that impact it's price? Note: I'm not saying it will be, nor am I asking people to debate if that's even a possibility, but I am curious about the economic impact of a future unbanning if it were to happen.
Thanks for your time and your thoughts!
1) I'm fairly sure it will drop a bit after it rotates. It will probably hold around a couple dollars ($2-$4) due to slight Legacy and EDH play.
2) Depending on how long after it's print date it's unbanned in Modern impacts the price increase. It would of course go up if unbanned, however if it were to be unbanned soon, the price increase would be less substantial than if it were to be unbanned several years after the print date.
April 23, 2015 7:21 p.m.
It probably will slowly rise over time once it rotates out, but not too much.
If it got unbanned, especially if it is after it rotates, it will spike instantly, probably up to $20 to $30 then either stay around that price or go down slightly.
April 23, 2015 7:27 p.m.
It wont go past 10 basically ever it was opened alot and it wouldnt see enough play like treasure cruise did
April 23, 2015 8:08 p.m.
EmblemMan, I have to completely disagree. Deathrite and Dig are very comparable: Legacy staples not worth much but would explode in price if unbanned in modern.
April 23, 2015 8:55 p.m.
Deathrite wasnt even alot when he was legal so i still keep my statement
April 23, 2015 9:02 p.m.
Unforgivn_II says... #8
To assume Deathrite would not be expensive is foolish. They both are in similar circumstances, as they were both banned while in standard. Cards that are good outside of standard but are underwhelming in standard don't fetch high prices until a few years down the road.
I don't believe Dig is nearly as good as DRS however, so I don't think it'll be an amazing spec unless you can get them in bulk at 2 or 3 dollars a piece
April 23, 2015 9:54 p.m.
I dont really agree they both come from sets where the market is ridiculously flooded with them yeah he would go up but not even to 20 to assume dig would go to even 15 is foolish in my opinion.
April 23, 2015 10:06 p.m.
Unforgivn_II says... #10
Have you ever played with DRS outside of standard? The card is ridiculous. I don't think Dig will even go above 10 if it isn't reinstated, simply because its pigeonholed into combo decks, and that's about it. But DRS can be used in every deck that's either black or green, and successfully. When every deck splashes for DRS because it should, you know you have an amazing card. You know the other stupid powerful card that gets splashed randomly? Tarmogoyf. I'd say that DRS is on the same level of power as Snapcaster Mage, and that guy was opened heavily, and is still 50 dollars now
April 23, 2015 10:16 p.m.
But to be fair snaps cost just shot up and for no reason since hes not even seeing more play and yeah i know he is very powrful but everyone has him and is holding on to him he might jump a bit but he would not exceed 15-20 dollars and tarmogoyf is not a comparison hes much more powerful and more rare
April 23, 2015 10:25 p.m.
Unforgivn_II says... #12
Things don't happen for no reason. Its just economics.
You know why Snapcaster shot up? Because he's good, and there is a high amount of demand. Seeing more play in tournaments doesn't specifically represent the meta. It represents what's good, but everyone is entitled to play what they desire. So if Snapcaster decks happen to be more popular among the people, it will create more demand, allowing stores to charge more. If he weren't worth the cost, he wouldn't maintain his price.
The only cards that will have that ratchet effect are old cards that are on the reserve list.
April 23, 2015 11:37 p.m.
If snapcaster just shot up because hes good then he wouldve shot up in standard (more demand) or even a month ago because nothing changed other than maybe tiny leaders yeah nothing shoots up for no reason but snapcastwr shot up for no relevant reason to the conversation also those that would buy snapcasters are people that would care about whether its played in tournaments so yes that does matter and snapcaster did not go up for the most plausible reason that it should go up
April 23, 2015 11:40 p.m.
Unforgivn_II says... #14
You don't understand what I said about tournaments. Obviously people who buy Snapcasters are looking to win. But the professional meta is not indicative of each local meta. The professional meta is a good example of what's strong, and what each person plays at their FNMs and GPTs and PTQs depends on their personal preferences, yet these results arent made public. The closest thing would be too look at the results of modern dailies on MTGO, as those tournaments include both pros and regular spikes (finding MTGO players who aren't spikes is very rare).
I don't argue because I enjoy it, I argue because I intend to help you understand where you're wrong. Clearly you aren't interested in understanding, so here is where I unsubscribe.
April 23, 2015 11:55 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #15
Mass exodus to Splinter Twin in Modern post Delve and Pod bannings combined with Twin winning the PT.
April 24, 2015 7:42 a.m.
fluffybunnypants I could see that but that was a long time ago and I feel like I wouldve seen the increase earlier but maybe I missed it. And I wont tag unforgiven but to you I say thats fine I dont argue to argue either we both argue because we think we are right and we will just have to agree to disagree.
April 24, 2015 8:01 a.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #17
EmblemMan regardless of any change in demand, the supply of Snapcasters is decreasing and will continue to do so until a reprint/banning.
April 24, 2015 10:47 a.m.
Rasta_Viking29 how exactly can supply affect price if demand does not change snap has always had the same supply instantly as soon as the last box of innistrad was finished being printed the only way there would be less and less is if there was a mass destruction of the cards which I doubt so to say that the price went up to do lower supply when it really hasnt changed doesnt make sense. Also I apologize if this specific message was typed weird or bad or doesnt make sense I am very tired lol.
April 24, 2015 10:53 a.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #19
EmblemMan cards sit in binders, closets, and shoe boxes forgotten about all the time. People go off to college or have a new kid and just store them away. There are many players who have already acquired their set and have no intention of parting with them. All of this decreases supply overtime as WotC is not printing more to replace them. New players join the game and some of them will eventually be looking to pick up Snapcasters. While there might not be a noticable difference in the amount of people trying to acquire Snapcaster at any particular moment, the amount of Snapcasters available to acuire is decreasing.
April 24, 2015 11:13 a.m.
Rasta_Viking29 Yeah that actually makes sense and I can understand that but if that was the case in only a year after being printed it went up 20 dollars from that? Seems a bit harsh but I will agree that is possibly a big factor in the increase.
April 24, 2015 11:16 a.m.
FreddyFlash311 says... #21
Dig was present mainboard in 6 out of 8 of the top 8 decks at GP Kyoto. It doesn't have the raw power Cruise has but it's still a pretty absurd card.
While it's probably not going to skyrocket in price any time soon, baring a Modern unbanning, I'm certainly planning on holding onto my copies post rotation. It's going to take something pretty serious to displace it in Legacy
ChiefBell says... #2
1) Unsure
2) It would certainly go up. Its an extremely powerful card that would see play. Extra demand would drive up the price.
April 23, 2015 7:09 p.m.