I think it's kind of ridiculous how early they announced this. I mean, it would be much more interesting if they announced there WASN'T going to be an M13...
Honestly, I could get behind them using the old card frame for one Core Set and then switching back to the normal one afterwards, but I really don't see anything hinting at any change to the card face at all for M13.
Other than legitimising the 'Magic 2013' work in progress Promo video that has been around since November by using the exact same logo, this announcement is purely to help WPN plan the next bit. Maybe they are just shifting to earlier announcements to help stores.
Earlier announcements are definitely helpful to organizers who need to know when to be open, and to book venue halls for large events like Prereleases.
Wizards always announce the core sets during the first week of the year. Just prior to the release of the second set of the block and after the announcement of the third set of the block.
That way we get:
March announcement of first set, to be released on October.
August announcement of second set, to be released on February.
November announcement of third set, to be released on May.
January announcement of core set, to be released on July.
It always takes about 6-7 months from announcement to release date. Most people only realize this with the core sets because they think it's awkward that a product called m201X+1 it's released on the first week of 201X.
What if they go in a different direction, and this card set is 100% reprints? They make it white bordered, and pick great cards from Magic's history. Obviously great does not mean BLACK LOTUS ZOMG, but they could probably put a fabulous reprint set together without just reprinting broken, banned, reserve list cards.
It would make sense that they would want to do a "Master's Edition" for the 20th anniversary. However, we also thought that for the 10th and 15th and didn't really get anything major. Granted, 20 is a pretty big deal!
It would make sense that they would want to do a "Master's Edition" for the 20th anniversary. However, we also thought that for the 10th and 15th and didn't really get anything major. Granted, 20 is a pretty big deal!
That's kinda what they did for 8th edition. One previously-unreprinted card from each prior expansion.
And again what they kinda did in Time Spiral with the timeshifted sheet.
Kinda lost interest when I saw Doug Beyer in there. I bet the new mechanic includes putting counters on cards still in your library (just to one-up DFC).
Flavour will be something uninspired, perhaps a return to Arabian Nights (just to one-up our current Breakfast Cereal Monster set).
I think they should just bite the bullet and replace the current dual lands with Ravnica ones. Seriously, they're not too complicated for a core set. It's far more common for a noob to think Darkslick Shores is both an island and a swamp than for them to be confused by Watery Grave being both.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Seth Dracovitch »
If I could "like" or "upvote" you right now, I would.
Quote from Boing »
Into the Maw of Hell is a name so awesome, it deserves its own song.
It would be about a world of brown spikes and red fire, where men fight and scream and become blurry masses. Then it would change to somber, we learn that this glorious place exists only in Raymond Swanland's head. To visit it, you must enter the maw of Hell itself.
The 13 in m13 stands for 2013. This is the 2013 Core Set. It's just getting released in 2012.
Making a set with the name 2013 in it does not make the game magically one year older. Magic is still 19 years old when this set is released.
It's like saying you are 21 years old just so you can get alcohol, but your physical age says you are 20, and thus at an illegal drinking age.
Another example is this. Normally, 6 year olds are in grade 1, 7 year olds are in grade 2 etc. Let's say a person is born September 5, so that when he is in grade 1, he is 6 years old for the entire school year. Let's say he is so smart he skips a grade. He skips grade 2, and now he is in Grade 3. Does him being in Grade 3 make him magically 8 years old? I don't think so.
I want me some good old fashioned Grizzly Bears! No runes on their claws, puh-lease!
Brady Dommermuth has made it quite clear that Planeswalkers refuse to summon real animals, preferring functionally identical mythological animals (like Armodons or those birds with four legs). He's given no explanation as to how they can tell the difference.
Maybe M13 will stay in rotation for two years, thus finally sinking up the release of M14 with 2014.
Heck, I just wish the damn core sets always stayed for two years instead of one. Too many dang cards being printed!
Gah, I think the naming convention is like this. If the product is released before midyear, January 1 to June 30, use the year that the product is released in. If the product is released after midyear, July 1 to December 31, use the year that is one year ahead of the current year.
So in essence, since Magic core sets are released in July, it makes sense to call a set released in 2012, Magic 2013. In Yugioh, the Japanese starter decks are released in March, so their 2011 starter deck is called, "Starter Deck 2011". The American localization calls it Starter Deck Dawn of the XYZ, and they even have the set prefix YS11, as in Yugioh Starter 2011, despite it releasing it in July, just because the Japanese version was called Starter Deck 2011, with set prefix YSD6, just because it was the 6th starter deck, ever since they had their first one in 2006.
Gah, I think the naming convention is like this. If the product is released before midyear, January 1 to June 30, use the year that the product is released in. If the product is released after midyear, July 1 to December 31, use the year that is one year ahead of the current year.
So in essence, since Magic core sets are released in July, it makes sense to call a set released in 2012, Magic 2013. In Yugioh, the Japanese starter decks are released in March, so their 2011 starter deck is called, "Starter Deck 2011". The American localization calls it Starter Deck Dawn of the XYZ, and they even have the set prefix YS11, as in Yugioh Starter 2011, despite it releasing it in July, just because the Japanese version was called Starter Deck 2011, with set prefix YSD6, just because it was the 6th starter deck, ever since they had their first one in 2006.
No, it's so that during the first half of 2013 it doesn't give the impression of an obsolete product. They explained this when M10 was announced. I don't see how Yugioh could have anything to do with anything.
No, it's so that during the first half of 2013 it doesn't give the impression of an obsolete product. They explained this when M10 was announced. I don't see how Yugioh could have anything to do with anything.
In yugioh, they name the starter decks Starter deck 2007, Starter Deck 2008 etc etc, and the current one now is starter deck 2011, and it was released in the year 2011. It is the fact that it was released in March gives them the reason to call it Starter Deck 2011. Magic 2012 is released July 2011, which is, by my rules, past the midyear line. So it must be called Magic 2012 and not Magic 2011. Understand now?
I'll give you an easier one. MLB 2k11 is released March 2011. NBA 2k12 is released October 2011. NBA 2k12 is not called NBA 2k11 because the game is released past the midyear line. That way, this ensures that M13 will be standard legal for 2013 for more than half of 2013. If a product is released directly on July 1 2013, I'd still call it blah blah 2014, but if it were to be released June 30, I would call it blah blah 2013.
Eh, they should just release core sets at the start of the year. Or, better yet, Do a yearly "sneak preview" launch in time for Christmas so that people can get a winter prerelease event in, and everyone can demand the product as presents that winter.
Even better would be if they just made the core set much more of a constant, where a large but finite amount of it is printed, with the idea that a new core set is released/updated when that print run sells out. This might only be updated every 2-3 years, and thus the cards provide more consistency for the players, and value for the collectors, and less overprint for the stability and quality of the long-term game. Then they could just go back to the premise of editions, and we'd change the number as the edition increased.
Eh, they should just release core sets at the start of the year. Or, better yet, Do a yearly "sneak preview" launch in time for Christmas so that people can get a winter prerelease event in, and everyone can demand the product as presents that winter.
Even better would be if they just made the core set much more of a constant, where a large but finite amount of it is printed, with the idea that a new core set is released/updated when that print run sells out. This might only be updated every 2-3 years, and thus the cards provide more consistency for the players, and value for the collectors, and less overprint for the stability and quality of the long-term game. Then they could just go back to the premise of editions, and we'd change the number as the edition increased.
I think they wanted the block expansions to be released during the height in tournament attendance, which is in the American school years, which makes the core set released in the summer holidays, which is why core sets are the third sets to be released in the year. To be honest I think core sets should mark the start of a tournament season, just so that when Worlds comes in, they have 7 sets to work with rather than 5.
I don't really mind the current core set naming convention, and I sort of like it when WOTC releases 4 magic sets per year, and making the core sets annual would make the pattern more consistent, with 3 block sets and a core set. The problem I am having is some people here saying that Magic is 20 years old just because there is the number 2013 in the name. MAGIC IS STILL 19 YEARS OLD PEOPLES. I also think WOTC is making the same mistake of celebrating the Platinum 19th anniversary.
Like I said, a third grader who skipped a grade in the past does not make him 8 to 9 years old. Likewise, a person who failed a grade, which rarely happens anymore, doesn't make that person any younger either.
It's also sort of like the entire Y2K thing, where we were all celebrating the turn of the millennium when 1999 became 2000, then we all realized the turn of the millennium was from 2000 to 2001. As I recall, there's no such think as 0 AD or 0 BCE, so that's why there was that mistake, just because the 19xx changed into 20xx.
In yugioh, they name the starter decks Starter deck 2007, Starter Deck 2008 etc etc, and the current one now is starter deck 2011, and it was released in the year 2011. It is the fact that it was released in March gives them the reason to call it Starter Deck 2011. Magic 2012 is released July 2011, which is, by my rules, past the midyear line. So it must be called Magic 2012 and not Magic 2011. Understand now?
I'll give you an easier one. MLB 2k11 is released March 2011. NBA 2k12 is released October 2011. NBA 2k12 is not called NBA 2k11 because the game is released past the midyear line. That way, this ensures that M13 will be standard legal for 2013 for more than half of 2013. If a product is released directly on July 1 2013, I'd still call it blah blah 2014, but if it were to be released June 30, I would call it blah blah 2013.
No, I don't understand, because they are completely different games made by completely different companies. I have no idea what MLB and NBA stand for, but I do know that Yugioh doesn't have a Standard format. So I understand perfectly what you are saying, as I have always done, but I don't understand why you think it's at all related to Magic. The reason is marketing, because the product will continue to be sold in 2013, and it's not so precise as a midyear cutoff. They have stated this!
What "real damage" do you really think he is going to be able to do? He's hardly the first person to write horrible flavor text and I'm sure he won't be the last.
Just because you don't like someone and have biased opinions towards their work (which we all already know to be quite true) doesn't mean their inclusion in a design team spells the end of Magic as we know it. (Richard Garfield was on the design team that brought us the DFCs you all seem to hate so much, remember?) Even if "the end is nigh," as you seem to think it is, I doubt it has anything to do with Doug Beyer.
Sigh. A few things I need to point out:
1.) I never claimed the end was nigh. I simply believe this will be one of the worst core sets to date, or at least one of the most shallow, formulaic and bland core sets to date. I have zero faith in Beyer's abilities, and him being the lead of the design team is the worst thing that could happen to this set. One bad set != the end of Magic. Did Darksteel end things?
2.) I know he's not the first person to write horrible flavor text. There's been stupid jokes and bland statements before, Beyer's presence in no way helps.
3.) I never claimed that double-faced cards were something I hate. I was skeptical and thought it a bad idea when announced. After playing with them I was completely turned around on them, and I now can't get enough of the artistic sensibilities of these cards.
4.) By "real damage", I mean continuing the limited perspective and entirely frivolous attitudes that pervade this game's design, pedigree and marketing that just plain infuriate me, and most likely weaken M13's flavor and scope with his titters. He's bringing the game down with his more public contributions, his attitude and writing suggest he is similarly doing so with his behind-the-scenes work, and I abhor him for it.
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
No, I don't understand, because they are completely different games made by completely different companies. I have no idea what MLB and NBA stand for, but I do know that Yugioh doesn't have a Standard format. So I understand perfectly what you are saying, as I have always done, but I don't understand why you think it's at all related to Magic. The reason is marketing, because the product will continue to be sold in 2013, and it's not so precise as a midyear cutoff. They have stated this!
As long as you don't know what NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL stands for, you wouldn't understand what I am saying. I am comparing the naming conventions, and NOT the games themselves. That is the reason why you don't get it.
NBA 2k has the annual naming convention. Magic core sets also have an annual naming convention. It doesn't matter if one was a video game and the other a card game. I'm comparing Yugioh to Magic for the sake of the naming convention. One is released in March annually, and the other in July. That is why Yugioh called theirs "Starter Deck 2011", well at least the Japanese version anyway, and Magic called theirs 2012 core set, despite both released in 2011, because one was released before midyear and the other was release after midyear to maximize the amount of time the name in the product matches the year that it currently is in the season, or should I call it in "I don't understand sports" terminology, standard legal.
If it wasn't as precise as a midyear cutoff, and they released core sets in June 14, 2013 let's say, and called it 2014 core set, the set would be in existence most of the time in 2013 than it is in 2014, before 2015 core set replaced it.
As long as you don't know what NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL stands for, you wouldn't understand what I am saying. I am comparing the naming conventions, and NOT the games themselves. That is the reason why you don't get it.
No, the reason I don't get it is that you haven't given any reason why completely unrelated games absolutely have to have the exact same naming convention. You have also failed to explain why you continually refuse to accept the explanation WotC themselves have given. You also haven't explained what those initials stand for, despite it apparently being vital to your argument. All you've done is repeat ad nauseum the mechanics of your proposed naming convention, which I understood perfectly from the start.
If it wasn't as precise as a midyear cutoff, and they released core sets in June 14, 2013 let's say, and called it 2014 core set, the set would be in existence most of the time in 2013 than it is in 2014, before 2015 core set replaced it.
So what? The reason they do it this way (you want a link? Here you go) is so that they're not selling a product advertised as "2012" in 2013. That applies just as well if they're selling it for a couple of weeks more in 2012 than they are in 2013. This just highlights the flaw in your argument, you assume that it is vital that the period in which the product is for sale the longest must be the period for which it is named, but do not make any attempt to explain why this would be good business practice, and when you're splitting hairs over a matter of weeks, I'd say it is most certainly not good business practice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can see it now:
Announcing... Not M13
Trololol
Yeah this would be cool.
I wouldn't mind a face change at all, as long as it isn't anything really silly.
That way we get:
March announcement of first set, to be released on October.
August announcement of second set, to be released on February.
November announcement of third set, to be released on May.
January announcement of core set, to be released on July.
It always takes about 6-7 months from announcement to release date. Most people only realize this with the core sets because they think it's awkward that a product called m201X+1 it's released on the first week of 201X.
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
That's kinda what they did for 8th edition. One previously-unreprinted card from each prior expansion.
And again what they kinda did in Time Spiral with the timeshifted sheet.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
This is what i thought after reading the tag line.
i have a blog. i drink. i draft. misplays ensue.
http://drunkmagicdrafting.blogspot.com
Return to Ravnica Draft #3 now up!
Kiki-Jiki does the sloppy swish.
Flavour will be something uninspired, perhaps a return to Arabian Nights (just to one-up our current Breakfast Cereal Monster set).
The 13 in m13 stands for 2013. This is the 2013 Core Set. It's just getting released in 2012.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Mind = blown
I think they should just bite the bullet and replace the current dual lands with Ravnica ones. Seriously, they're not too complicated for a core set. It's far more common for a noob to think Darkslick Shores is both an island and a swamp than for them to be confused by Watery Grave being both.
Making a set with the name 2013 in it does not make the game magically one year older. Magic is still 19 years old when this set is released.
It's like saying you are 21 years old just so you can get alcohol, but your physical age says you are 20, and thus at an illegal drinking age.
Another example is this. Normally, 6 year olds are in grade 1, 7 year olds are in grade 2 etc. Let's say a person is born September 5, so that when he is in grade 1, he is 6 years old for the entire school year. Let's say he is so smart he skips a grade. He skips grade 2, and now he is in Grade 3. Does him being in Grade 3 make him magically 8 years old? I don't think so.
Maybe M13 will stay in rotation for two years, thus finally sinking up the release of M14 with 2014.
Heck, I just wish the damn core sets always stayed for two years instead of one. Too many dang cards being printed!
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
Brady Dommermuth has made it quite clear that Planeswalkers refuse to summon real animals, preferring functionally identical mythological animals (like Armodons or those birds with four legs). He's given no explanation as to how they can tell the difference.
Gah, I think the naming convention is like this. If the product is released before midyear, January 1 to June 30, use the year that the product is released in. If the product is released after midyear, July 1 to December 31, use the year that is one year ahead of the current year.
So in essence, since Magic core sets are released in July, it makes sense to call a set released in 2012, Magic 2013. In Yugioh, the Japanese starter decks are released in March, so their 2011 starter deck is called, "Starter Deck 2011". The American localization calls it Starter Deck Dawn of the XYZ, and they even have the set prefix YS11, as in Yugioh Starter 2011, despite it releasing it in July, just because the Japanese version was called Starter Deck 2011, with set prefix YSD6, just because it was the 6th starter deck, ever since they had their first one in 2006.
No, it's so that during the first half of 2013 it doesn't give the impression of an obsolete product. They explained this when M10 was announced. I don't see how Yugioh could have anything to do with anything.
In yugioh, they name the starter decks Starter deck 2007, Starter Deck 2008 etc etc, and the current one now is starter deck 2011, and it was released in the year 2011. It is the fact that it was released in March gives them the reason to call it Starter Deck 2011. Magic 2012 is released July 2011, which is, by my rules, past the midyear line. So it must be called Magic 2012 and not Magic 2011. Understand now?
I'll give you an easier one. MLB 2k11 is released March 2011. NBA 2k12 is released October 2011. NBA 2k12 is not called NBA 2k11 because the game is released past the midyear line. That way, this ensures that M13 will be standard legal for 2013 for more than half of 2013. If a product is released directly on July 1 2013, I'd still call it blah blah 2014, but if it were to be released June 30, I would call it blah blah 2013.
Even better would be if they just made the core set much more of a constant, where a large but finite amount of it is printed, with the idea that a new core set is released/updated when that print run sells out. This might only be updated every 2-3 years, and thus the cards provide more consistency for the players, and value for the collectors, and less overprint for the stability and quality of the long-term game. Then they could just go back to the premise of editions, and we'd change the number as the edition increased.
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
I think they wanted the block expansions to be released during the height in tournament attendance, which is in the American school years, which makes the core set released in the summer holidays, which is why core sets are the third sets to be released in the year. To be honest I think core sets should mark the start of a tournament season, just so that when Worlds comes in, they have 7 sets to work with rather than 5.
I don't really mind the current core set naming convention, and I sort of like it when WOTC releases 4 magic sets per year, and making the core sets annual would make the pattern more consistent, with 3 block sets and a core set. The problem I am having is some people here saying that Magic is 20 years old just because there is the number 2013 in the name. MAGIC IS STILL 19 YEARS OLD PEOPLES. I also think WOTC is making the same mistake of celebrating the Platinum 19th anniversary.
Like I said, a third grader who skipped a grade in the past does not make him 8 to 9 years old. Likewise, a person who failed a grade, which rarely happens anymore, doesn't make that person any younger either.
It's also sort of like the entire Y2K thing, where we were all celebrating the turn of the millennium when 1999 became 2000, then we all realized the turn of the millennium was from 2000 to 2001. As I recall, there's no such think as 0 AD or 0 BCE, so that's why there was that mistake, just because the 19xx changed into 20xx.
No, I don't understand, because they are completely different games made by completely different companies. I have no idea what MLB and NBA stand for, but I do know that Yugioh doesn't have a Standard format. So I understand perfectly what you are saying, as I have always done, but I don't understand why you think it's at all related to Magic. The reason is marketing, because the product will continue to be sold in 2013, and it's not so precise as a midyear cutoff. They have stated this!
Sigh. A few things I need to point out:
1.) I never claimed the end was nigh. I simply believe this will be one of the worst core sets to date, or at least one of the most shallow, formulaic and bland core sets to date. I have zero faith in Beyer's abilities, and him being the lead of the design team is the worst thing that could happen to this set. One bad set != the end of Magic. Did Darksteel end things?
2.) I know he's not the first person to write horrible flavor text. There's been stupid jokes and bland statements before, Beyer's presence in no way helps.
3.) I never claimed that double-faced cards were something I hate. I was skeptical and thought it a bad idea when announced. After playing with them I was completely turned around on them, and I now can't get enough of the artistic sensibilities of these cards.
4.) By "real damage", I mean continuing the limited perspective and entirely frivolous attitudes that pervade this game's design, pedigree and marketing that just plain infuriate me, and most likely weaken M13's flavor and scope with his titters. He's bringing the game down with his more public contributions, his attitude and writing suggest he is similarly doing so with his behind-the-scenes work, and I abhor him for it.
Happy now?
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
As long as you don't know what NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL stands for, you wouldn't understand what I am saying. I am comparing the naming conventions, and NOT the games themselves. That is the reason why you don't get it.
NBA 2k has the annual naming convention. Magic core sets also have an annual naming convention. It doesn't matter if one was a video game and the other a card game. I'm comparing Yugioh to Magic for the sake of the naming convention. One is released in March annually, and the other in July. That is why Yugioh called theirs "Starter Deck 2011", well at least the Japanese version anyway, and Magic called theirs 2012 core set, despite both released in 2011, because one was released before midyear and the other was release after midyear to maximize the amount of time the name in the product matches the year that it currently is in the season, or should I call it in "I don't understand sports" terminology, standard legal.
If it wasn't as precise as a midyear cutoff, and they released core sets in June 14, 2013 let's say, and called it 2014 core set, the set would be in existence most of the time in 2013 than it is in 2014, before 2015 core set replaced it.
No, the reason I don't get it is that you haven't given any reason why completely unrelated games absolutely have to have the exact same naming convention. You have also failed to explain why you continually refuse to accept the explanation WotC themselves have given. You also haven't explained what those initials stand for, despite it apparently being vital to your argument. All you've done is repeat ad nauseum the mechanics of your proposed naming convention, which I understood perfectly from the start.
So what? The reason they do it this way (you want a link? Here you go) is so that they're not selling a product advertised as "2012" in 2013. That applies just as well if they're selling it for a couple of weeks more in 2012 than they are in 2013. This just highlights the flaw in your argument, you assume that it is vital that the period in which the product is for sale the longest must be the period for which it is named, but do not make any attempt to explain why this would be good business practice, and when you're splitting hairs over a matter of weeks, I'd say it is most certainly not good business practice.