When we used to get yearly core sets, one of the biggest problems wizards had was justify sales. Later core sets tried to prompt sales by changing things up and printing pushed mythics. I'm not a fan of this strategy, as it ends up culling diversity in creatures and removing too many staples.
One of the interesting things they did when they began putting reminder text on cards was to remove the reminder text from foils. I hope the next core set will take this approach; such that your normal Ornithopter has flying reminder text, but your foil does not.
low Edit: To be clear, I am suggesting full art with text and withoutreminder text.
What I'd like to see is a few cycles of foils that go a step farther, with alternate art and/or full-art. Here I'm proposing two cycles that would have full-art foils: a 1CMC instant cycle, and a 1CC 3 keyword cycle. The latter will feel familiar, as I've seen a few people propose these in the past and I've had my fair share. The latter will consist mostly of iconic (U) reprints, but there may be a few newbies in there.
1CMC Instant Uncommon Cycle Lightning BoltR Bring DOWNB Instant (U) Target creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X equals the number of cards in your graveyard. CondemnW (This is a good Swords to Plowshares variant.) FeatherizeU Instant (U) Exile target creature. Its controller creates a 2/2 blue bird creature token with flying. (Pongify Variant that avoids "regeneration" text. Uses Swan Song Token)
1CMC instant Rare cycle: Worldly TutorG SilenceW Swan SongU One with NothingB (I feel cruel here, but there just isn't another iconic black rare instant at 1 mana, and the set needs some "bad" cards, right?) Ancestral PlagiarismR Instant (R) Target opponent exiles the top 3 cards of his or her library. Until end of turn, you may play non-land cards exiled in this way as if they were in your hand. (This feels iconic, represents a different part of red's color pie than the other 2 in the vertical cycle, and yet probably isn't too good. Still, if you're running 5 colors, this could be "draw 2 cards" for R; quite interesting)
Alternative: Dragon Burst R Instant (R) Search your library for a dragon card and put it into your graveyard. Dragon Burst deals damage equal to that dragon's power to target creature. (Finding a fair rare 1cmc instant for red is hard; so here I went with an entomb variant that got some damage in.)
I'm so annoyed they're bringing back core sets. I'm actually surprised that Hasbro allowed them to do it since it will really hurt sales, both in paper and on MTGO. This is especially shocking given that MTGO accounts for about 40% of Magic the Gathering's revenue. The only draft formats I've practically skipped since I started playing Magic were M15, Magic Origins, and BFZx3, and I know that less people online play the core set formats. They're boring and, as you mentioned, lead to some cards having insane prices because they weren't opened enough.
I just hope that they do flashback drafts online during the summer, and I hope that they don't actually print Constructed-worthy cards at rare and mythic in these core sets so that their low supplies don't punish Constructed players.
I hope, too, that they aren't using this as a means to normalize printing multiple Masters sets per year. If you only do 3 real Standard sets per year, that opens up room for 2 Masters sets per year instead of 1. They're using up all their reprint equity.
Regarding your post, I think that full art no-text cards don't belong in a core set for obvious reasons. How would a newer player know what the card does? Doing Masterpieces or special art of iconic cards would be cool, as you suggest. Masterpieces, in particular, would help keep prices lower, at least in paper.
I'm a huge fan of Faerie Guard. Surprised that card hasn't been printed yet!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
Most of the cards in these cycles are great. I don't think full art cards shouldn't be a problem as long as they still have text. Otherwise they should only be promos.
I think the 1 mana instant removal spell that is black (Bring Low) seems too weak, perhaps the weakest out of the 5, for the color that is supposed to be the best at removal. Featherize is cool design, although maybe too strong (arguably better than Rapid Hybridization/Pongify). Also, can green get Prey Upon at instant speed, or is that too obviously strong?
I couldn't imagine Wizards wanting Worldly Tutor in Standard because they tend to discourage tutoring at a competitive mana cost. Worldly Tutor would totally warp the format.
One with Nothing does seem really mean by the way. Yes the sets have to have bad cards, but you could always upshift an uncommon to rare.
Dragon Burst seems too powerful.
Faerie Guard seems much weaker than the other cards in the creature cycle. Instant common cycle looks good.
I mean full art w/ text (transparent text boxes, w/o reminder text).
I'm not sure about Bring Low largely because I think the core set should have Echoing Decay at common. It's actually quite strong, though, as you're outpacing most 1cmc removal spells provided you're running fetches.
Featherize would need some testing; I'm open to suggestions. However, I like the idea that it's popping out an existing token. Generally I think a 2/2 flyer will be comparable to a 3/3 in many situations... but, again, testing.
Instant Prey Upon would need to cost a lot; it 2 or 3 for 1s. I don't know if I want Fight in a core set; but if I do, Prey Upon seems right at common. I'd worry my set has too low a curve, but I want to include lots of mana sinks to balance this.
Re: Worldly Tutor - I could see Wizards nixing this; open to suggestions.
One with Nothing is quite bad. But it saw constructed play, is iconic, and would satisfy a "bad"/not limited bomb rare for black. Let's face facts - There are going to be cards like this in any set; but if they've seen constructed play I think it's much better than if they haven't. Plus, it's preemptive Owling Mine hate, which is good to have in a format.
Dragon Burst is kind of odd... but it only hits creatures. Still, tutor is tutor, so open to alternatives.
Faerie Guard has to be weaker than the rest; blue's terrible at creatures. However, it does block most of it's counterparts, and it plays well with draw-go. I could see it seeing a lot of play.
I'm so annoyed they're bringing back core sets. I'm actually surprised that Hasbro allowed them to do it since it will really hurt sales, both in paper and on MTGO.
I'm in favor of a "core set box set" of preconstructed decks w/ "eternal staples" in addition to this, but we need a set with easy to understand cards. As this list shows, however, I don't mean "boring" or "underpowered" cards.
I trust you're familiar with the analysis that if pithing needle, duress, and similar hate cards had been in the format, they'd need less bannings.
Perhaps more importantly, you want a product that people can sensibly return to the game with. If 20% of the existing standard cards are always the same, people can return to the game w/o feeling lost or dropping a mint (right away that is).
This is especially shocking given that MTGO accounts for about 40% of Magic the Gathering's revenue.
MTGO's current model needs to die horribly. Look at Pokemon TGO Online is free to play, digital mirrors of cards, and is well beloved. Next time you go to Walmart, look at the shelf space devoted to Pokemon TGO and the space devoted to Magic. Pictures speak louder than words.
The only draft formats I've practically skipped since I started playing Magic were M15, Magic Origins, and BFZx3, and I know that less people online play the core set formats. They're boring and, as you mentioned, lead to some cards having insane prices because they weren't opened enough.
Isn't that more or less half of the the current magic sets? And that's even with Masterpieces; $10 Fatal Pushes and Hour of Devestation is doomed to the same.
I just hope that they do flashback drafts online during the summer, and I hope that they don't actually print Constructed-worthy cards at rare and mythic in these core sets so that their low supplies don't punish Constructed players.
That's a great idea. You know what's also a great idea? Encouraging me to buy physicial cards by giving me a digital mirror, then encouraging me to spend real money on the tokens so I can join a draft.
I'm a huge fan of Faerie Guard. Surprised that card hasn't been printed yet!
Wizards is probably flirting with a Mega-cycle. However, their drawf is a flavor fail, hence functional reprint here. Faerie Guard is probably the TOP of what blue can get for the cost (2/2 seems more likely, but strict cycles rock and encourage collecting). I figure if the core set isn't tribal faerie, but tribal merfolk, this'll work.
Doh! Griffin! It needs to be a griffin! Griffins are clearly white, but have suffered from 2/2s for 3W for much of Magic's history. Pegasus tend to be 1/2s or 2/1s, and could arguably be 2/2s; but I think a 2/3 griffin makes sense, and fits the requirement for an iconic magic creature type.
I'd be disappointed in a core set that didn't have white soldiers, clerics, dwarf artificers, pegasi, griffins, angels, and at least one avatar. Maybe a spirit dragon?
I'm sure they'll slip some spirits in there (ghosts or otherwise), but if they didn't have a single spirit in the set, I don't think I'd notice. Spirit is almost too generic fantasy, as it could describe any number of actual fantasy things - ghosts, souls, shades, illusions, etc. I'm pretty sure I could find a suitable quality spirit to reprint in a core set along the way. Spectral Shepherd, Blessed Spirits, Niblis of the Mist, Lantern Kami (if not suntail hawk), maybe Dearly Departed or Phantom General.
Dwarves feel predominantly Red because they are builders and artificers, happily fashioning with the tools that gods and magics have laid at their feet (which makes them feel non-blue). White is okay for them, but Dwarves don't have that commitment to blind community that other races do. Dwarves, like humans, can be more individualistic. White is comfortable with artifice so it's okay.
I think part of what felt dissonant about Aerial Responder to entombed_hydra was the fact that Dwarves are creatures that usually operate under the earth, not in the skies. They forge weapons and armor and buildings from the minerals surrounding the molten primal core of mountains.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
Actually... since Kaladesh had vehicles and equipment, I'm still thoroughly confused at how a dwarf can fly in such a way that can't be crewed or equipped by other creatures....
I wouldn't mind if Dwarves in a core set had the unique design space of being involved in equipment and/or vehicles. RW ideally. Perhaps the core set could have mild "skeletons" of tribal themes: R Goblins B Zombies U W Soldiers G Elves RU Wizards BW clerics UG WR dwarves GB Gorgons?
But honestly, I think that's asking too much. Give us 5 clear (monocolored base) tribes, with uncommon lords and 2-3 cards of that type at each rarity, as appropriate. Other types should be featured as well; it shouldn't be completely tribal.
Admittedly, with the possible exception of Goblin Chieftain, I think all of these could be improved, changed.
Reaper is probably the toughest nut to crack, as it's a bomb in limited, although a bit slow, and helps to hinder zombify strategies... yet in constructed, he's not much of a driving force as you'd almost never use his tap ability.
Archdurid can add a lot of mana, which in tribal elves might otherwise be useless... so that feels bad. Yet the card itself feels really on point.
Sovereign seems fair, yet bomby with even only 1 other merfolk.
That said, if you put enough efficient removal and/or lifegain in the set, you can smooth these things out, I think.
When they are supported as sub themes, lords can work well. My guess is uncommon lords in all 5 colors would be too loud though as it would basically force tribal themes into everyones decks. A cycle of 5 rare lords seems more interesting for limited. Or just choose one or two tribes to support in one or two non-overlapping color pairs and make the archetypes for those color pairs tribal.
They typical white characteristic race is Human, not soldier.
Reaper is probably the toughest nut to crack, as it's a bomb in limited, although a bit slow, and helps to hinder zombify strategies... yet in constructed, he's not much of a driving force as you'd almost never use his tap ability.
If you are sticking to uncommon lords, why not just use Lord of the accursed then?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
I don't like LoTA for a few reasons. His (oddly worded) symmetrical activated ability is off; his mana cost is too splashable for the lord convention, and he's a 2/3 again defying convention.
Defying convention is fine, but there has to some substantive reason to do so other than just "because". Besides, zombie tokens would surely be in my core set, and having even a clunky graveyard answer is practical.
As for (U) vs (R), while I have no doubt some people will draft tribal, half of the creatures in a core set wouldn't have supported creature types for those 5 tribes. I've drafted core sets where you got a rare lord and got 2-3 commons to support it. I think we can kick things up a notch by including more utility elves, goblins, etc. Remember, both Onslaught and Lorywn ran more than 5 tribes. I think a 5-tribe-centric mtg set with slightly less tribal emphasis will help. If nothing else, (U) lords would be a bit hit with the casual crowd (then again, that's another reason to make some new, but classic lords).
AS for white's tribal... gonna go with soldiers here > humans. Humans tend to be in all 5 colors to some degree. Besides, it "defies" the convention by making it a "class" type rather than a traditional creature type. Kithkin, dwarves, birds, catfolk, and even griffins are alternatives. But I suspect we'll have lots of soldiers worthy of a core set worth tapping, and that's not true of any of those. Indeed, Kithkin Soldiers, Dwarf Soldiers, and Cat Soldiers are all on the table. White can have a truly diverse "soldier" tribal, which is pretty interesting.
I don't like LoTA for a few reasons. His (oddly worded) symmetrical activated ability is off; his mana cost is too splashable for the lord convention, and he's a 2/3 again defying convention.
Splashable mana costs and 2/3 bodies make the lords play significantly better though. Less swingy and less dependant on support from other cards which works really well when you want tribal sub themes in limited.
As for (U) vs (R), while I have no doubt some people will draft tribal, half of the creatures in a core set wouldn't have supported creature types for those 5 tribes. I've drafted core sets where you got a rare lord and got 2-3 commons to support it.
That is an easy problem to fix though. All you need is a high as-fan for the relevant creature types.
At uncommon we are talking about ~4.5 lords per draft, so on the order of half of players in any given pod would be incentivized to include tribal themes in their decks. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, just make sure there are interesting things to do for players who don't like or are tired of tribal.
Alternatively, if you have the cycle at rare and maintain the needed asfan to support them, you get to make them more interesting/splashy, and reduce the rate of tribal to ~2 drafters per pod, which should make your limited environment more diverse as long as you include interesting things to do aside from tribal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
I don't like LoTA for a few reasons. His (oddly worded) symmetrical activated ability is off; his mana cost is too splashable for the lord convention, and he's a 2/3 again defying convention.
Splashable mana costs and 2/3 bodies make the lords play significantly better though.
Yes... it's amazing how giving creatures more power or toughness and/or giving them an easier to play mana cost makes them able to be played better.
But the tribes in question are primarily single-color, so splashability merely serves to undermine the focus on that creature type. Why wouldn't you hatedraft a lord in a color you're splashing for lighting bolt or Pacifism? But you're not going to splash for 1CC cards not in your tribe, are you?
It's almost as if these iconic mainstay conventions are taylored to drafting ques.
As for (U) vs (R), while I have no doubt some people will draft tribal, half of the creatures in a core set wouldn't have supported creature types for those 5 tribes. I've drafted core sets where you got a rare lord and got 2-3 commons to support it.
That is an easy problem to fix though. All you need is a high as-fan for the relevant creature types.
?
A satisfactory core set should be a base set, providing a skeleton of competitive cards, checks, and balances, and introducing players to the game and lore of magic. Magic is about... magic. So you want to have a variety of creatures with a variety of types to attract players. You can have a tribal skeleton, but not enough that a (mostly non-rotating) tribal deck will stay in standard tier 1 for ever.
At uncommon we are talking about ~4.5 lords per draft, so on the order of half of players in any given pod would be incentivized to include tribal themes in their decks. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, just make sure there are interesting things to do for players who don't like or are tired of tribal.
I'm actually predisposed to think that a core set should be larger than other sets... whether across the board, or only at rare. That said, sure. The big difference between a core set and a tribal block, though, is that the tribes are only mildly supported. Think Amonkhet Cats, rsther than zombies.
Alternatively, if you have the cycle at rare and maintain the needed asfan to support them, you get to make them more interesting/splashy, and reduce the rate of tribal to ~2 drafters per pod, which should make your limited environment more diverse as long as you include interesting things to do aside from tribal.
As with everything, you want testing to say anything about limited. But pre-testing, I think this is a plausible move - especially if you can do lords like Cementery Reaper that play a variety of roles, and is worth running for either lordship or tokenship.
But yes, I think a core set should give the skeleton for many deck archetypes. Red Burn. White weenie. Tribes 1-5. Reanimator. Even some form of combo deck... for better or worse.
Yes... it's amazing how giving creatures more power or toughness and/or giving them an easier to play mana cost makes them able to be played better.
But the tribes in question are primarily single-color, so splashability merely serves to undermine the focus on that creature type. Why wouldn't you hatedraft a lord in a color you're splashing for lighting bolt or Pacifism? But you're not going to splash for 1CC cards not in your tribe, are you?
It's almost as if these iconic mainstay conventions are taylored to drafting ques.
You understand that when I'm talking about playability, I'm not actually talking about power level. It's about smooth gameplay and letting players cast their spells, and reducing swinginess. The simple truth is that you don't need difficult color costs on these lords because the lords aren't splashable in this format anyway. Lords are only good if you have enough creatures of the relevant creature type. I'm never splashing a typical goblin lord into my BG deck because I won't have any goblins in my GB limited deck. The RR in the cost is irrelevant. So the typical function of the double color cost isn't justified for these designs, meaning we now need to consider the actual impact of the double colored costs for these designs. I'd posit that it merely makes the cards swingier, punishing players needlessly for playing typical two color RX decks they are forced to run, making it harder for these players to play their spells. You don't need the double color cost here. Now, if you switch to rare designers which are actually worth splashing and you want to prevent splashing, by all means, use the double color cost.
2/2 vs 2/3 has similar logic. It's not about power level, it's about how many support creatures players need to get before the lord is worth playing. By making the lord better as a standalone card, you lower set design constraints relating to getting that lord to function in limited.
?
A satisfactory core set should be a base set, providing a skeleton of competitive cards, checks, and balances, and introducing players to the game and lore of magic. Magic is about... magic. So you want to have a variety of creatures with a variety of types to attract players. You can have a tribal skeleton, but not enough that a (mostly non-rotating) tribal deck will stay in standard tier 1 for ever.
Are you asking me what asfan is? If so, it's a measure of how common something is in packs. If a set has 100 commons and exactly one common equipment (and no other equipment at uncommon/rare/mythic), then the set has an asfan of 0.1 for equipment. You expect to see 0.1 equipment per pack.
If you want the lords to function in limited, you are going to need to print many cards of the relevant creature types. You just kind of have to. This is the set design constraint imposed by tribal themes. As I mentioned earlier, you can lower this constraint by making lords better as standalone cards. If you print goblin lord A, you will need a higher asfan of goblins in order to support it than if you print goblin lord B.
Goblin Lord A 1RR
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1. t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/2
Goblin Lord B 2R
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1. t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/3
...Just to offer a final point of clarification. Lord B is strictly better than Lord A, but neither is particularly playable if there are 0 goblins in the format. In order for either card to be viable in limited (or constructed for that matter), you need to support them by printing some number of goblins. The better your goblin lord is as a standalone card, the fewer goblins you need to print to make that lord viable. By making your lords better as standalone cards, you reduce the set design constraints imposed by your tribal sub themes. (note that your lords don't necessarily need to be 2/3s to see this effect, I'm merely using it as an example)
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
It's about smooth gameplay and letting players cast their spells, and reducing swinginess.
Actually, isn't it encouraging swinginess, as more people can productively hate draft, splash, and play cards that give substantive advantage but are hard(er) to remove.
I'm on record in the thread as saying Lightning Bolt, but there's a big difference between a lord blocking grizzly bears and living and blocking and dying.
Goblin Lord A 1RR
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1. t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/2
Goblin Lord B 2R
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1. t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/3
Goblin Chieftain
Not budging here. Your 1RR is functionally worse (and YOU may be okay with this, but I am not). Your 2R one is just garbage in comparison. No one wants it. Also, "you control".
You seem to intentionally miss the point whenever the opportunity arises.
Let's try one final time, third time as always is the charm. No more trying to convey two lessons at a time, just a simple straight forward design lesson for you. No examples to get lost in or nomenclature you could be confused by.
The better a lord is as a standalone card, the fewer creatures of the lord's type you will need to print in order to support the lord.
In real terms, what this means is that if you want a tribal subtheme (as opposed to a primary theme or not a theme at all), you want your lords to be mediocre (as opposed to bad, or good) as standalone cards. They should have moderately potent tribal effects to remain balanced.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
The stats are 2/2 so that he can trounce 1/1s, of which a good core set will have several, but will trade with 2/2s. He is not a wall to throw in front of your opponent's stuff. Lords being fragile is nothing new, and it helps to teach players about risk and strategy. Do they swing with everyone? Do they risk it?
He costs 1RR. This means that he is difficult to splash. Red is notable for being an often splashed card in limited due to removal. "Hate drafting" this if I can splash it... and then maybe go deeper red... would be easy at 2R - He can make my deck if I need him to. But at 1RR I cannot splash him realistically. Thus if I hate draft him, I don't have the change to play him.
The core set should have fun goblins, it shouldn't lead to an intensive goblin tribal draft. Core drafts should teach players how to draft, not how to draft for a tribal set.
It is a good choice to support a light goblin tribal subtheme. It's probably not what I would go with personally.
He costs 1RR. This means that he is difficult to splash. Red is notable for being an often splashed card in limited due to removal. "Hate drafting" this if I can splash it... and then maybe go deeper red... would be easy at 2R - He can make my deck if I need him to. But at 1RR I cannot splash him realistically. Thus if I hate draft him, I don't have the change to play him.
There is a huge difference between taking something on speculation and hate drafting something. And no, you aren't going to splash a goblin chiefmate into your WB deck because, as I've already pointed out several times, you won't have any goblins in WB and a 2/2 haste for 3 is an aweful card to splash for. If you are splashing for a 3 mana 2/2 haste, then something has gone horribly wrong in your draft or horribly wrong with set design.
Goblin Chiefmate 2R
Creature - Goblin {U/r}
Haste
Other goblin creatures you control get +1/+1 and have haste.
2/2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Did you cast Void Winnower? Its just astounding to me how you are woefully missing the point here. I can't....
I choose my words carefully. Maybe you should do the same, as you keep saying things that are false and easy to disprove.
What's worse, you never seem to note that, upon this correction, that you misspoke or had a false assertion. It's always my fault for not automatically agreeing with your secret subtext.
It is a good choice to support a light goblin tribal subtheme. It's probably not what I would go with personally.
Why not? It's been printed. It wasn't broken. It combines two iconic cards into one practical version. It doesn't strictly obsolete anything (well... anything I can think of).
From a coreset design perspective, what more could you ask for a lord? Especially a lord that might be downshifted to (U)?
He costs 1RR. This means that he is difficult to splash. Red is notable for being an often splashed card in limited due to removal. "Hate drafting" this if I can splash it... and then maybe go deeper red... would be easy at 2R - He can make my deck if I need him to. But at 1RR I cannot splash him realistically. Thus if I hate draft him, I don't have the change to play him.
There is a huge difference between taking something on speculation and hate drafting something.
Not for splashable cards. If I have to choose between a mediocre uncommon card I might run and a build-around-me uncommon that can help an opponent snowball that's also a C- creature on it's own in a color I might splash for removal, I might take the latter to hate draft, knowing that there is a path to me running it should draft go poorly... or really well.
And no, you aren't going to splash a goblin chiefmate into your WB deck because, as I've already pointed out several times, you won't have any goblins in WB and a 2/2 haste for 3 is an aweful card to splash for. If you are splashing for a 3 mana 2/2 haste, then something has gone horribly wrong in your draft or horribly wrong with set design.
Powercreep aside, I don't think you're thinking through the entire draft. One tends to start with one color and prioritize removal and bombs, both of which you might splash for. However your "I'd splash it" removal might become your 2nd or 1st color with enough support. If I've got 3 liGHtninGBolt and a CHaR, I'd run a 2/2 haste for 2R as one of my creatures if it meant red was my 2nd color, instead of my 3rd.
Draft is dynamic, and a good drafter will be open to changing colors, hate drafting, and splashing. The easier to cast you make a spell (again, ignoring the fact that making a card easier to cast w/o other changes increases it's power level), it takes away interesting draft choices. Hate drafting is no longer -1 to your cardpool if you can easily run targets of hate-drafting.
Goblin Chiefmate 2R
Creature - Goblin {U/r}
Haste
Other goblin creatures you control get +1/+1 and have haste.
2/2
Unacceptable obsoleting of an existing card.
Easily splashable; is there any situation in which you pass this card (other than to get removal you could use on this card... or a bomb)? I think not.
I choose my words carefully. Maybe you should do the same, as you keep saying things that are false and easy to disprove.
What's worse, you never seem to note that, upon this correction, that you misspoke or had a false assertion. It's always my fault for not automatically agreeing with your secret subtext.
It's not subtext. It's just typical design terms and generally used mtg terms. There is no subtext in my quote below.
"The better a lord is as a standalone card, the fewer creatures of the lord's type you will need to print in order to support the lord."
Why not? It's been printed. It wasn't broken. It combines two iconic cards into one practical version. It doesn't strictly obsolete anything (well... anything I can think of).
From a coreset design perspective, what more could you ask for a lord? Especially a lord that might be downshifted to (U)?
Frankly, I think it wraps up too much of its power in its tribal theme in a way that lord of the accursed doesn't. It's fine though and worth testing to see how it actually plays
Not for splashable cards. If I have to choose between a mediocre uncommon card I might run and a build-around-me uncommon that can help an opponent snowball that's also a C- creature on it's own in a color I might splash for removal, I might take the latter to hate draft, knowing that there is a path to me running it should draft go poorly... or really well.
This is literally just you not knowing what hate drafting is. If you take a card in order to open up an option to splash or hedge into a color you aren't otherwise in, this is called speculating. Here is a relevant article to clarify this point for you. There is nothing wrong with players taking things on speculation and you won't be meaningfully reducing speculative picks by switching from 1RR to 2R on otherwise un-splashable cards.
I'm ignoring the rest of your post in an attempt to prevent confusion and also because I'm already tired of trying to help you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
One with Nothing iconic 1cmc black card? Vampiric Tutor is more inline with the other tutors, plus it would get more people to try to buy packs.
Don't think I didn't think that. Vampiric Tutor in standard seems dangerous, as such I'd be happier with a reprint in a block set than a core set.
Note: As per my Proposal mark 2, I've moved the "full art" cycle to one cycle per rarity (C-1CMC instants, U-1CC creatures, R-2CC sorceries, M-planeswalkers), so I don't propose giving One with Nothing a full art card anymore.
However, depending on how many rares the core set gets, One with Nothing could be an excellent "bad rare" to print, as it's simple, interesting, and was once constructed playable. Mind you, I preferred Shining Shoal as a response to Owling Mine, but not every deck in the format ran white and Owling mine was interesting and a force to be dealt with.
Does a core set NEED "bad rares" of this kind? Many bomb limited creatures will fill this role, end up being cheap on the 2ndary market, and attract casual players. But one thing One With Nothing will do is teach new drafters that not all rares are worth 1st picking, or even mid-pack-picking. 5 years ago I'd have kicked myself for even considering it to be reprinted anywhere, let alone a core set. But I've been persuaded as I've come to value simplicity and the need to have available answers should WOTC mess up again. Wizard's response to Owling Mine was to stop printing Boomerang effects w/o non-land, and to stop printing Stone Rain effects under 4 mana, often not even at 5 mana. But having One with Nothing, Zombie Infestation, and Peace of Mind in a core set would help just in case they make similar mistakes in the future.
Besides, in terms of "epic fails," pulling a One With Nothing probably feels more memorable than pulling whatever the next worst card in the set would be. It makes for a better story than "I opened an Orgg."
Faerie Guard- Vigilance ain't Blue, so its third ability has to be Prowess or whatever keyword will be used in the core set. That frees up Vigilance for the Green 3-drop.
Quicken- Too complex for common I think.
Ancestral Plagiarism- Because of mana issues, this is pretty much a hate card for mirror matches. I don't know if I would consider Red hating itself to be iconic.
Dragon Burst- The issue again is this card's identity. This is Red taking a page out of Black and calling it "iconic".
One of the interesting things they did when they began putting reminder text on cards was to remove the reminder text from foils. I hope the next core set will take this approach; such that your normal Ornithopter has flying reminder text, but your foil does not.
low
Edit: To be clear, I am suggesting full art with text and without reminder text.
What I'd like to see is a few cycles of foils that go a step farther, with alternate art and/or full-art. Here I'm proposing two cycles that would have full-art foils: a 1CMC instant cycle, and a 1CC 3 keyword cycle. The latter will feel familiar, as I've seen a few people propose these in the past and I've had my fair share. The latter will consist mostly of iconic (U) reprints, but there may be a few newbies in there.
Creature cycle:
Vampire Nighthawk 1BB Vampire Shaman - Flying, Deathtouch, Lifelink 2/3
Hurloon Bodyguard 1RR Minotaur Warrior - Haste, Menace, First Strike 2/3
Faerie Guard 1UU Faerie Soldier - Vigilance, Flying, Flash 2/3
Serra Peacekeeper 1WW Angel Cleric - Flying, Lifelink, Vigilance 2/3
Ambush Basilisk 1GG Basilisk - Haste, Flash, Deathtouch 2/3 (I like the Raging Kavu-style tension here.)
Each of these cards, I think, could conceivably see constructed play, so a full-art card for each of these would be highly prized.
1CMC instant Common cycle:
Erase W
Giant Growth G
Smelt R
Vile Rebirth B
Quicken U
1CMC Instant Uncommon Cycle
Lightning Bolt R
Bring DOWN B Instant (U) Target creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X equals the number of cards in your graveyard.
Condemn W (This is a good Swords to Plowshares variant.)
Featherize U Instant (U) Exile target creature. Its controller creates a 2/2 blue bird creature token with flying. (Pongify Variant that avoids "regeneration" text. Uses Swan Song Token)
1CMC instant Rare cycle:
Worldly Tutor G
Silence W
Swan Song U
One with Nothing B (I feel cruel here, but there just isn't another iconic black rare instant at 1 mana, and the set needs some "bad" cards, right?)
Ancestral Plagiarism R Instant (R) Target opponent exiles the top 3 cards of his or her library. Until end of turn, you may play non-land cards exiled in this way as if they were in your hand. (This feels iconic, represents a different part of red's color pie than the other 2 in the vertical cycle, and yet probably isn't too good. Still, if you're running 5 colors, this could be "draw 2 cards" for R; quite interesting)
Alternative:
Dragon Burst R Instant (R) Search your library for a dragon card and put it into your graveyard. Dragon Burst deals damage equal to that dragon's power to target creature. (Finding a fair rare 1cmc instant for red is hard; so here I went with an entomb variant that got some damage in.)
I just hope that they do flashback drafts online during the summer, and I hope that they don't actually print Constructed-worthy cards at rare and mythic in these core sets so that their low supplies don't punish Constructed players.
I hope, too, that they aren't using this as a means to normalize printing multiple Masters sets per year. If you only do 3 real Standard sets per year, that opens up room for 2 Masters sets per year instead of 1. They're using up all their reprint equity.
Regarding your post, I think that full art no-text cards don't belong in a core set for obvious reasons. How would a newer player know what the card does? Doing Masterpieces or special art of iconic cards would be cool, as you suggest. Masterpieces, in particular, would help keep prices lower, at least in paper.
I'm a huge fan of Faerie Guard. Surprised that card hasn't been printed yet!
I think the 1 mana instant removal spell that is black (Bring Low) seems too weak, perhaps the weakest out of the 5, for the color that is supposed to be the best at removal. Featherize is cool design, although maybe too strong (arguably better than Rapid Hybridization/Pongify). Also, can green get Prey Upon at instant speed, or is that too obviously strong?
I couldn't imagine Wizards wanting Worldly Tutor in Standard because they tend to discourage tutoring at a competitive mana cost. Worldly Tutor would totally warp the format.
One with Nothing does seem really mean by the way. Yes the sets have to have bad cards, but you could always upshift an uncommon to rare.
Dragon Burst seems too powerful.
Faerie Guard seems much weaker than the other cards in the creature cycle. Instant common cycle looks good.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
I mean full art w/ text (transparent text boxes, w/o reminder text).
I'm not sure about Bring Low largely because I think the core set should have Echoing Decay at common. It's actually quite strong, though, as you're outpacing most 1cmc removal spells provided you're running fetches.
Featherize would need some testing; I'm open to suggestions. However, I like the idea that it's popping out an existing token. Generally I think a 2/2 flyer will be comparable to a 3/3 in many situations... but, again, testing.
Instant Prey Upon would need to cost a lot; it 2 or 3 for 1s. I don't know if I want Fight in a core set; but if I do, Prey Upon seems right at common. I'd worry my set has too low a curve, but I want to include lots of mana sinks to balance this.
Re: Worldly Tutor - I could see Wizards nixing this; open to suggestions.
One with Nothing is quite bad. But it saw constructed play, is iconic, and would satisfy a "bad"/not limited bomb rare for black. Let's face facts - There are going to be cards like this in any set; but if they've seen constructed play I think it's much better than if they haven't. Plus, it's preemptive Owling Mine hate, which is good to have in a format.
Dragon Burst is kind of odd... but it only hits creatures. Still, tutor is tutor, so open to alternatives.
Faerie Guard has to be weaker than the rest; blue's terrible at creatures. However, it does block most of it's counterparts, and it plays well with draw-go. I could see it seeing a lot of play.
I'm in favor of a "core set box set" of preconstructed decks w/ "eternal staples" in addition to this, but we need a set with easy to understand cards. As this list shows, however, I don't mean "boring" or "underpowered" cards.
I trust you're familiar with the analysis that if pithing needle, duress, and similar hate cards had been in the format, they'd need less bannings.
Perhaps more importantly, you want a product that people can sensibly return to the game with. If 20% of the existing standard cards are always the same, people can return to the game w/o feeling lost or dropping a mint (right away that is).
MTGO's current model needs to die horribly. Look at Pokemon TGO Online is free to play, digital mirrors of cards, and is well beloved. Next time you go to Walmart, look at the shelf space devoted to Pokemon TGO and the space devoted to Magic. Pictures speak louder than words.
Isn't that more or less half of the the current magic sets? And that's even with Masterpieces; $10 Fatal Pushes and Hour of Devestation is doomed to the same.
That's a great idea. You know what's also a great idea? Encouraging me to buy physicial cards by giving me a digital mirror, then encouraging me to spend real money on the tokens so I can join a draft.
Masters need to be printed less often; obviously. Greed is not good for a game, or much of anything.
Please no.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear; they're full art with text, but no reminder text.
Wizards is probably flirting with a Mega-cycle. However, their drawf is a flavor fail, hence functional reprint here. Faerie Guard is probably the TOP of what blue can get for the cost (2/2 seems more likely, but strict cycles rock and encourage collecting). I figure if the core set isn't tribal faerie, but tribal merfolk, this'll work.
Aerial Responder is already the white version of this.
bring low already exists
Follow me on instagram @TheMTGWord
Angel Tribal would love a 3 drop, so I don't see a problem tribal-shifting the creature to be more marketable/popular.
But a 2/3 flyer doesn't scream "dwarf" in a fantasy set.
I'd be okay with something other than Angel here; but it has to be a white-aligned flying creature type.
I'd be disappointed in a core set that didn't have white soldiers, clerics, dwarf artificers, pegasi, griffins, angels, and at least one avatar. Maybe a spirit dragon?
I'm sure they'll slip some spirits in there (ghosts or otherwise), but if they didn't have a single spirit in the set, I don't think I'd notice. Spirit is almost too generic fantasy, as it could describe any number of actual fantasy things - ghosts, souls, shades, illusions, etc. I'm pretty sure I could find a suitable quality spirit to reprint in a core set along the way. Spectral Shepherd, Blessed Spirits, Niblis of the Mist, Lantern Kami (if not suntail hawk), maybe Dearly Departed or Phantom General.
I think part of what felt dissonant about Aerial Responder to entombed_hydra was the fact that Dwarves are creatures that usually operate under the earth, not in the skies. They forge weapons and armor and buildings from the minerals surrounding the molten primal core of mountains.
I wouldn't mind if Dwarves in a core set had the unique design space of being involved in equipment and/or vehicles. RW ideally. Perhaps the core set could have mild "skeletons" of tribal themes:
R Goblins
B Zombies
U
W Soldiers
G Elves
RU Wizards
BW clerics
UG
WR dwarves
GB Gorgons?
But honestly, I think that's asking too much. Give us 5 clear (monocolored base) tribes, with uncommon lords and 2-3 cards of that type at each rarity, as appropriate. Other types should be featured as well; it shouldn't be completely tribal.
I would consider downshifting the following cards for a core set to uncommon: Cemetery Reaper, Elvish Archdruid, Goblin Chieftain, and Merfolk Sovereign. Add a comparable +1/+1 and keyword for soldiers, and you're good?
Admittedly, with the possible exception of Goblin Chieftain, I think all of these could be improved, changed.
Reaper is probably the toughest nut to crack, as it's a bomb in limited, although a bit slow, and helps to hinder zombify strategies... yet in constructed, he's not much of a driving force as you'd almost never use his tap ability.
Archdurid can add a lot of mana, which in tribal elves might otherwise be useless... so that feels bad. Yet the card itself feels really on point.
Sovereign seems fair, yet bomby with even only 1 other merfolk.
That said, if you put enough efficient removal and/or lifegain in the set, you can smooth these things out, I think.
When they are supported as sub themes, lords can work well. My guess is uncommon lords in all 5 colors would be too loud though as it would basically force tribal themes into everyones decks. A cycle of 5 rare lords seems more interesting for limited. Or just choose one or two tribes to support in one or two non-overlapping color pairs and make the archetypes for those color pairs tribal.
They typical white characteristic race is Human, not soldier.
If you are sticking to uncommon lords, why not just use Lord of the accursed then?
- Manite
Defying convention is fine, but there has to some substantive reason to do so other than just "because". Besides, zombie tokens would surely be in my core set, and having even a clunky graveyard answer is practical.
As for (U) vs (R), while I have no doubt some people will draft tribal, half of the creatures in a core set wouldn't have supported creature types for those 5 tribes. I've drafted core sets where you got a rare lord and got 2-3 commons to support it. I think we can kick things up a notch by including more utility elves, goblins, etc. Remember, both Onslaught and Lorywn ran more than 5 tribes. I think a 5-tribe-centric mtg set with slightly less tribal emphasis will help. If nothing else, (U) lords would be a bit hit with the casual crowd (then again, that's another reason to make some new, but classic lords).
AS for white's tribal... gonna go with soldiers here > humans. Humans tend to be in all 5 colors to some degree. Besides, it "defies" the convention by making it a "class" type rather than a traditional creature type. Kithkin, dwarves, birds, catfolk, and even griffins are alternatives. But I suspect we'll have lots of soldiers worthy of a core set worth tapping, and that's not true of any of those. Indeed, Kithkin Soldiers, Dwarf Soldiers, and Cat Soldiers are all on the table. White can have a truly diverse "soldier" tribal, which is pretty interesting.
Splashable mana costs and 2/3 bodies make the lords play significantly better though. Less swingy and less dependant on support from other cards which works really well when you want tribal sub themes in limited.
That is an easy problem to fix though. All you need is a high as-fan for the relevant creature types.
At uncommon we are talking about ~4.5 lords per draft, so on the order of half of players in any given pod would be incentivized to include tribal themes in their decks. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, just make sure there are interesting things to do for players who don't like or are tired of tribal.
Alternatively, if you have the cycle at rare and maintain the needed asfan to support them, you get to make them more interesting/splashy, and reduce the rate of tribal to ~2 drafters per pod, which should make your limited environment more diverse as long as you include interesting things to do aside from tribal.
- Manite
Yes... it's amazing how giving creatures more power or toughness and/or giving them an easier to play mana cost makes them able to be played better.
But the tribes in question are primarily single-color, so splashability merely serves to undermine the focus on that creature type. Why wouldn't you hatedraft a lord in a color you're splashing for lighting bolt or Pacifism? But you're not going to splash for 1CC cards not in your tribe, are you?
It's almost as if these iconic mainstay conventions are taylored to drafting ques.
?
A satisfactory core set should be a base set, providing a skeleton of competitive cards, checks, and balances, and introducing players to the game and lore of magic. Magic is about... magic. So you want to have a variety of creatures with a variety of types to attract players. You can have a tribal skeleton, but not enough that a (mostly non-rotating) tribal deck will stay in standard tier 1 for ever.
I'm actually predisposed to think that a core set should be larger than other sets... whether across the board, or only at rare. That said, sure. The big difference between a core set and a tribal block, though, is that the tribes are only mildly supported. Think Amonkhet Cats, rsther than zombies.
As with everything, you want testing to say anything about limited. But pre-testing, I think this is a plausible move - especially if you can do lords like Cementery Reaper that play a variety of roles, and is worth running for either lordship or tokenship.
But yes, I think a core set should give the skeleton for many deck archetypes. Red Burn. White weenie. Tribes 1-5. Reanimator. Even some form of combo deck... for better or worse.
You understand that when I'm talking about playability, I'm not actually talking about power level. It's about smooth gameplay and letting players cast their spells, and reducing swinginess. The simple truth is that you don't need difficult color costs on these lords because the lords aren't splashable in this format anyway. Lords are only good if you have enough creatures of the relevant creature type. I'm never splashing a typical goblin lord into my BG deck because I won't have any goblins in my GB limited deck. The RR in the cost is irrelevant. So the typical function of the double color cost isn't justified for these designs, meaning we now need to consider the actual impact of the double colored costs for these designs. I'd posit that it merely makes the cards swingier, punishing players needlessly for playing typical two color RX decks they are forced to run, making it harder for these players to play their spells. You don't need the double color cost here. Now, if you switch to rare designers which are actually worth splashing and you want to prevent splashing, by all means, use the double color cost.
2/2 vs 2/3 has similar logic. It's not about power level, it's about how many support creatures players need to get before the lord is worth playing. By making the lord better as a standalone card, you lower set design constraints relating to getting that lord to function in limited.
Are you asking me what asfan is? If so, it's a measure of how common something is in packs. If a set has 100 commons and exactly one common equipment (and no other equipment at uncommon/rare/mythic), then the set has an asfan of 0.1 for equipment. You expect to see 0.1 equipment per pack.
If you want the lords to function in limited, you are going to need to print many cards of the relevant creature types. You just kind of have to. This is the set design constraint imposed by tribal themes. As I mentioned earlier, you can lower this constraint by making lords better as standalone cards. If you print goblin lord A, you will need a higher asfan of goblins in order to support it than if you print goblin lord B.
Goblin Lord A 1RR
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1.
t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/2
Goblin Lord B 2R
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1.
t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/3
...Just to offer a final point of clarification. Lord B is strictly better than Lord A, but neither is particularly playable if there are 0 goblins in the format. In order for either card to be viable in limited (or constructed for that matter), you need to support them by printing some number of goblins. The better your goblin lord is as a standalone card, the fewer goblins you need to print to make that lord viable. By making your lords better as standalone cards, you reduce the set design constraints imposed by your tribal sub themes. (note that your lords don't necessarily need to be 2/3s to see this effect, I'm merely using it as an example)
- Manite
You understand there's a causal connection between the two concepts?
Actually, isn't it encouraging swinginess, as more people can productively hate draft, splash, and play cards that give substantive advantage but are hard(er) to remove.
I'd run a 2/2 haste for 2R. And I'd surely be more inclined to hate draft it if I'm already splashing for a liGHtninGBolt.
Cemetery Reaper
I'm on record in the thread as saying Lightning Bolt, but there's a big difference between a lord blocking grizzly bears and living and blocking and dying.
I can assure you, it is. In limited. In constructed. Also, it's about convention.
You'll need to print several, sure.
Well... I don't have to. Cemetery Reaper, Imperious Perfect...
Goblin Chieftain
Not budging here. Your 1RR is functionally worse (and YOU may be okay with this, but I am not). Your 2R one is just garbage in comparison. No one wants it. Also, "you control".
Let's try one final time, third time as always is the charm. No more trying to convey two lessons at a time, just a simple straight forward design lesson for you. No examples to get lost in or nomenclature you could be confused by.
The better a lord is as a standalone card, the fewer creatures of the lord's type you will need to print in order to support the lord.
In real terms, what this means is that if you want a tribal subtheme (as opposed to a primary theme or not a theme at all), you want your lords to be mediocre (as opposed to bad, or good) as standalone cards. They should have moderately potent tribal effects to remain balanced.
- Manite
I'm quite convinced Goblin Chieftain is just about the best lord we could get for a coreset, taking inspiration from goblin king and goblin warchief.
The stats are 2/2 so that he can trounce 1/1s, of which a good core set will have several, but will trade with 2/2s. He is not a wall to throw in front of your opponent's stuff. Lords being fragile is nothing new, and it helps to teach players about risk and strategy. Do they swing with everyone? Do they risk it?
He costs 1RR. This means that he is difficult to splash. Red is notable for being an often splashed card in limited due to removal. "Hate drafting" this if I can splash it... and then maybe go deeper red... would be easy at 2R - He can make my deck if I need him to. But at 1RR I cannot splash him realistically. Thus if I hate draft him, I don't have the change to play him.
PS; rewarding numbers:
M2012 had 6 goblins:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Magic%202012%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
M2013 had 6 ggoblins:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Magic%202013%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
M2015 had 7 goblins:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Magic%202015%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
Alpha had 3 (kinda):
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Limited%20Edition%20Alpha%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
So let's be clear, I don't need the 17 from Onslaught
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22onslaught%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
or the 27 from Lorywn
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22lorwyn%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
to make tribal a fair subtheme.
The core set should have fun goblins, it shouldn't lead to an intensive goblin tribal draft. Core drafts should teach players how to draft, not how to draft for a tribal set.
Did you cast Void Winnower? Its just astounding to me how you are woefully missing the point here. I can't....
It is a good choice to support a light goblin tribal subtheme. It's probably not what I would go with personally.
There is a huge difference between taking something on speculation and hate drafting something. And no, you aren't going to splash a goblin chiefmate into your WB deck because, as I've already pointed out several times, you won't have any goblins in WB and a 2/2 haste for 3 is an aweful card to splash for. If you are splashing for a 3 mana 2/2 haste, then something has gone horribly wrong in your draft or horribly wrong with set design.
Goblin Chiefmate 2R
Creature - Goblin {U/r}
Haste
Other goblin creatures you control get +1/+1 and have haste.
2/2
- Manite
I choose my words carefully. Maybe you should do the same, as you keep saying things that are false and easy to disprove.
What's worse, you never seem to note that, upon this correction, that you misspoke or had a false assertion. It's always my fault for not automatically agreeing with your secret subtext.
Why not? It's been printed. It wasn't broken. It combines two iconic cards into one practical version. It doesn't strictly obsolete anything (well... anything I can think of).
From a coreset design perspective, what more could you ask for a lord? Especially a lord that might be downshifted to (U)?
Not for splashable cards. If I have to choose between a mediocre uncommon card I might run and a build-around-me uncommon that can help an opponent snowball that's also a C- creature on it's own in a color I might splash for removal, I might take the latter to hate draft, knowing that there is a path to me running it should draft go poorly... or really well.
Meanwhile, if you're UG and Goblin Chieftian shows up... well, it's still better than Fugitive Wizard, and I might still splash for Lighting Bolt.
Powercreep aside, I don't think you're thinking through the entire draft. One tends to start with one color and prioritize removal and bombs, both of which you might splash for. However your "I'd splash it" removal might become your 2nd or 1st color with enough support. If I've got 3 liGHtninGBolt and a CHaR, I'd run a 2/2 haste for 2R as one of my creatures if it meant red was my 2nd color, instead of my 3rd.
Draft is dynamic, and a good drafter will be open to changing colors, hate drafting, and splashing. The easier to cast you make a spell (again, ignoring the fact that making a card easier to cast w/o other changes increases it's power level), it takes away interesting draft choices. Hate drafting is no longer -1 to your cardpool if you can easily run targets of hate-drafting.
Unacceptable obsoleting of an existing card.
Easily splashable; is there any situation in which you pass this card (other than to get removal you could use on this card... or a bomb)? I think not.
It's not subtext. It's just typical design terms and generally used mtg terms. There is no subtext in my quote below.
"The better a lord is as a standalone card, the fewer creatures of the lord's type you will need to print in order to support the lord."
Frankly, I think it wraps up too much of its power in its tribal theme in a way that lord of the accursed doesn't. It's fine though and worth testing to see how it actually plays
This is literally just you not knowing what hate drafting is. If you take a card in order to open up an option to splash or hedge into a color you aren't otherwise in, this is called speculating. Here is a relevant article to clarify this point for you. There is nothing wrong with players taking things on speculation and you won't be meaningfully reducing speculative picks by switching from 1RR to 2R on otherwise un-splashable cards.
I'm ignoring the rest of your post in an attempt to prevent confusion and also because I'm already tired of trying to help you.
- Manite
Don't think I didn't think that. Vampiric Tutor in standard seems dangerous, as such I'd be happier with a reprint in a block set than a core set.
Note: As per my Proposal mark 2, I've moved the "full art" cycle to one cycle per rarity (C-1CMC instants, U-1CC creatures, R-2CC sorceries, M-planeswalkers), so I don't propose giving One with Nothing a full art card anymore.
However, depending on how many rares the core set gets, One with Nothing could be an excellent "bad rare" to print, as it's simple, interesting, and was once constructed playable. Mind you, I preferred Shining Shoal as a response to Owling Mine, but not every deck in the format ran white and Owling mine was interesting and a force to be dealt with.
Does a core set NEED "bad rares" of this kind? Many bomb limited creatures will fill this role, end up being cheap on the 2ndary market, and attract casual players. But one thing One With Nothing will do is teach new drafters that not all rares are worth 1st picking, or even mid-pack-picking. 5 years ago I'd have kicked myself for even considering it to be reprinted anywhere, let alone a core set. But I've been persuaded as I've come to value simplicity and the need to have available answers should WOTC mess up again. Wizard's response to Owling Mine was to stop printing Boomerang effects w/o non-land, and to stop printing Stone Rain effects under 4 mana, often not even at 5 mana. But having One with Nothing, Zombie Infestation, and Peace of Mind in a core set would help just in case they make similar mistakes in the future.
Besides, in terms of "epic fails," pulling a One With Nothing probably feels more memorable than pulling whatever the next worst card in the set would be. It makes for a better story than "I opened an Orgg."
Quicken- Too complex for common I think.
Ancestral Plagiarism- Because of mana issues, this is pretty much a hate card for mirror matches. I don't know if I would consider Red hating itself to be iconic.
Dragon Burst- The issue again is this card's identity. This is Red taking a page out of Black and calling it "iconic".