Soul scar mage
Economics forum
Posted on April 12, 2017, 8:27 p.m. by Swamy
So I just found [soul-scar mage] from the new set and he's sitting at 3.75. I'm thinking a one drop with prowess and gives spells wither (essentially) is something toof good to pass up on. Anyone else have opinions on its use ability?
Well, I wouldn't pay 3.75 unless a deck I desperately wanted to play needed the Soul-Scar Mages. I'd wait until a week or so after Amonkhet releases when it'll be in the $1-2 range.
April 12, 2017 8:42 p.m. Edited.
I wouldn't be suprised to see it lower, @Ryjo. I'd expect the Monastery Slowspear to be $0.45 by then, it's already on a downward trend.
April 12, 2017 10:45 p.m.
GeminiSpartanX says... #5
It will be a $.50 rare a few weeks after the set releases. The fact that a strictly-better version of the card exists means that it won't have the Modern/Legacy demand to drive up prices.
April 13, 2017 6:09 a.m.
Can we stop calling it a card it isn't??? Soul-Scar Mage is NOT Monastery Swiftspear, They aren't they same cards, they have completely different effects and go in completely different decks. Soul-Scar Mage turns damage spells into wither damage. Monastery Swiftspear is an aggro creature. Soul-Scar Mage IS NOT AN AGGRESSIVE CREATURE. Calling it Monastery Slowspear is not an apt comparison. ONE BELONGS IN AN AGGRO DECK AND THE OTHER BELONGS IN A CONTROL/MIDRANGEY DECK. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CARDS. ONE IS NOT STRICTLY BETTER THAN THE OTHER AS THEY GO IN DIFFERENT STRATEGIES. Rant over.
As for the OP, I don't see it ever being worth money, it may see some sideboard tech in Burn but that would probably be the extent of it. It will most likely forever stay under $5.
April 13, 2017 12:28 p.m.
the.beanpole says... #7
I agree that it is not "strictly better" than Monastery Swiftspear, except at being a Monastery Swiftspear.
This guy is bonkers with Pyroclasm though. Hoses Lingering Souls and other weenie strategies just by being Pyroclasm, but it also shrinks Siege Rhinos and Tarmogoyfs and stompy creatures, and turns off Persist where that is relevant. I could see it in the R/W prison deck or something.
Not a Format heavy hitter though, as everyone seems to agree.
April 13, 2017 12:54 p.m.
GeminiSpartanX says... #8
Zaueski- Traditionally cards that rely on other cards in order to be effective aren't played competitively, unless those card combinations win the game on the spot. Take a pet card of mine for example, Satyr Firedancer. It seems like everything a burn-heavy red deck would want, turning every burn spell into Searing Blaze. However, it never saw play because it's not worth a slot in burn decks since it makes the deck less consistent, and controlling decks in other formats normally have additional colors giving them access to Terminate or other unconditional removal spells that kill creatures regardless of their size anyway. The 2nd ability of Soul-Scar Mage is pretty specific and relies on other spells (much like Satyr Firedancer's ability) to be in hand in order to work. Both are only really applicable in a red deck that doesn't have access to unconditional removal in white or black, which limits the type of decks it will see play in. So all that's left to evaluate on the card is the fact that it costs 1 mana and has prowess. Those characteristics lead one to believe that it will more likely be played in an aggressive spell-heavy deck. In that case, swiftspear is the preferred option in non-standard formats for those specific traits.
I'm not saying that this card won't see play in standard, but the best that this card can hope for is some sort of synergistic standard deck that looks to abuse -1/-1 counters in some way.
April 13, 2017 2:24 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #9
Itll be 4 of in standard burn. How relevant that is remains to be seen. Im playing him for sure. If you want financial speculation, turn your attention to Harsh Mentor where he does hard work against literal everything in modern/legacy. Crack a fetch? Zap
Swamy says... #2
http://shop.tcgplayer.com/magic/amonkhet/soul-scar-mage
April 12, 2017 8:34 p.m.