My guess is it's a cycle of five monocolor precon decks that each pack the basic essentials for their color. The deck structures probably go as thus: Forty of the cards consist of basic lands, vanilla creatures, and sorceries ideal for learning the ropes so to speak, while the other twenty consist of extra basic lands, nonvanilla creatures, artifacts, enchantments, and instants, and one or two Rare face cards (gotta have something eyecatching to put on the front, right?) that can be added to the 40 card deck once the player is ready to advance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Please, they mentioned in a recent article that they were going to do a separate MTG product aimed at beginners. "Magic Origins" is a great name for such a product.
Though if it's actually the end of the reserve list, or at least a reprint of some of the mechanically interesting but not money money cards, I'll be really happy. There's lots of cool obscure stuff on the reserve list that's basically impossible to find but not actually valued very high.
My guess is it's a cycle of five monocolor precon decks that each pack the basic essentials for their color. The deck structures probably go as thus: Forty of the cards consist of basic lands, vanilla creatures, and sorceries ideal for learning the ropes so to speak, while the other twenty consist of extra basic lands, nonvanilla creatures, artifacts, enchantments, and instants, and one or two Rare face cards (gotta have something eyecatching to put on the front, right?) that can be added to the 40 card deck once the player is ready to advance.
I hope that if they do your method, that they don't discontinue the set associated intro packs. From what I can see, what you suggest is kind of like the old core set theme decks, but in the style of the 2 player starter set decks.
Currently, intro packs are built to be the first thing new players buy, which is why we don't have some form of a starter set, and the reasons why intro packs suck. Now that they have a dedicated starter product. I hope that WOTC takes away the boring and suck away from the intro packs, and turn them into a product where a player must already know the basic game before they can use these new intro packs, which would be renamed into theme decks.
The theme decks would include no boosters, and would be more of a complete deck. It's sole purpose is not to teach the basic game, or deckbuilding. It's purpose now is to focus on set flavor and set mechanical themes. The things I would like the theme decks to keep from intro packs would be the foil rare, and the whole intro pack color pattern, where the colors are distributed equally among intro packs.
I remember the old theme decks had this little storyline blurb on their strategy inserts. For example, in Odyssey, Pressure Cooker theme deck had a blurb on the Cabal, while Liftoff theme deck had a blurb on the cephalids. They took that away in Planar Chaos when they decided to put all the decklists into one unified strategy insert, and thus there is only a blurb on the entire storyline, rather than different ones for individual decks. When theme decks became intro packs, they took that away, and all we got was a larger strategy insert filled with garbage information that should have been in the starter product instead. The M15 strategy insert contains the 5 decklists on one side, and absolutely no information on the other side, except a giant piece of artwork, and 2 blurbs talking about "hunt bigger game", and the 2 boosters. Basically saying, theme decks have small strategy inserts with more information, and intro packs have large strategy inserts with less information. Seems kind of stupid to me.
The notion that WOTC won't end the reserved list for fear of a lawsuit is beyond absurd, is my point. Even if someone, or a group of people, were so idiotic that they would sue for damages when there exists no binding contract and even have the larger task of proving that new prints of old cards somehow destroys their value (since their collector value is subjective), makes the entire topic more ridiculous than the theory that man never landed on the moon.
Keep telling yourselves that your little conspiracy is true, that's fine. To me, it's a joke.
Pardon, but if you'd read bLatch's post a little more deeply you'd see this: "Promisory Estoppel"
Estoppel: "In law, estoppel is a set of doctrines in which a court prevents a litigant from taking an action the litigant normally would have the right to take, in order to prevent an inequitable result. Estoppel occurs when a party "reasonably relies on the promise of another party, and because of the reliance is injured or damaged".[1] For example, estoppel precludes "a person from denying, or asserting anything to the contrary of, that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied"
Promisory Estoppel: "In many jurisdictions of the United States, promissory estoppel is an alternative to consideration as a basis for enforcing a promise. It is also sometimes called detrimental reliance."
An example: "Suppose that B goes to a store and sees a sign that the price of a radio is $10. B tells the shopkeeper that he will get the money and come back later that day to purchase it; there is no discussion of price. The shopkeeper says that when B returns, he will welcome B as a customer — unless he sells all three of his radios first. Hearing this, B goes and sells his watch for $10 (it was really worth $15, but since B wanted the money right away, he chose not to wait for the best price). When B returns, the sign says $11, and the owner tells B that he has raised the price. In equity, can you argue that the shopkeeper is estopped by conduct? B relied upon the implied representation that a radio would be sold for $10 when he returned with the money; B has sold his watch at a discount, to his detriment. (This element would be absent if B sold the watch at the market price.) But the shopkeeper did not guarantee to hold one of the radios against the possibility of B's return nor did they agree a fixed price.
In some common-law jurisdictions, a promise by the shopkeeper to hold a specific radio would create a binding contract, even if B had to go for the money. A promise to pay the owner in the future is good consideration if it is made in exchange for a promise to sell a specific radio (one from three is probably sufficiently specific): one promise in exchange for a second promise creates equal value. So the shopkeeper's actual words and knowledge are critical to deciding whether either a contract or an estoppel arises."
So, you might be thinking of a "binding contract" as a piece of paper everyone signs. That's rather simplistic. Essentially WotC created a verbal contract with their collectors with the promise of the Reserved List. Let's say WotC abolishes the Reserved List and starts printing some of the expensive cards from it. If the price of their printings of the cards drops as a result WotC could very well be legally liable for economic damages done to the collectors. It's sort of weird, but it's the truth. These collectors would have a pretty good case against WotC.
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.
Though if it's actually the end of the reserve list, or at least a reprint of some of the mechanically interesting but not money money cards, I'll be really happy. There's lots of cool obscure stuff on the reserve list that's basically impossible to find but not actually valued very high.
I hope that if they do your method, that they don't discontinue the set associated intro packs. From what I can see, what you suggest is kind of like the old core set theme decks, but in the style of the 2 player starter set decks.
Currently, intro packs are built to be the first thing new players buy, which is why we don't have some form of a starter set, and the reasons why intro packs suck. Now that they have a dedicated starter product. I hope that WOTC takes away the boring and suck away from the intro packs, and turn them into a product where a player must already know the basic game before they can use these new intro packs, which would be renamed into theme decks.
The theme decks would include no boosters, and would be more of a complete deck. It's sole purpose is not to teach the basic game, or deckbuilding. It's purpose now is to focus on set flavor and set mechanical themes. The things I would like the theme decks to keep from intro packs would be the foil rare, and the whole intro pack color pattern, where the colors are distributed equally among intro packs.
I remember the old theme decks had this little storyline blurb on their strategy inserts. For example, in Odyssey, Pressure Cooker theme deck had a blurb on the Cabal, while Liftoff theme deck had a blurb on the cephalids. They took that away in Planar Chaos when they decided to put all the decklists into one unified strategy insert, and thus there is only a blurb on the entire storyline, rather than different ones for individual decks. When theme decks became intro packs, they took that away, and all we got was a larger strategy insert filled with garbage information that should have been in the starter product instead. The M15 strategy insert contains the 5 decklists on one side, and absolutely no information on the other side, except a giant piece of artwork, and 2 blurbs talking about "hunt bigger game", and the 2 boosters. Basically saying, theme decks have small strategy inserts with more information, and intro packs have large strategy inserts with less information. Seems kind of stupid to me.
Pardon, but if you'd read bLatch's post a little more deeply you'd see this: "Promisory Estoppel"
Estoppel: "In law, estoppel is a set of doctrines in which a court prevents a litigant from taking an action the litigant normally would have the right to take, in order to prevent an inequitable result. Estoppel occurs when a party "reasonably relies on the promise of another party, and because of the reliance is injured or damaged".[1] For example, estoppel precludes "a person from denying, or asserting anything to the contrary of, that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied"
Promisory Estoppel: "In many jurisdictions of the United States, promissory estoppel is an alternative to consideration as a basis for enforcing a promise. It is also sometimes called detrimental reliance."
An example: "Suppose that B goes to a store and sees a sign that the price of a radio is $10. B tells the shopkeeper that he will get the money and come back later that day to purchase it; there is no discussion of price. The shopkeeper says that when B returns, he will welcome B as a customer — unless he sells all three of his radios first. Hearing this, B goes and sells his watch for $10 (it was really worth $15, but since B wanted the money right away, he chose not to wait for the best price). When B returns, the sign says $11, and the owner tells B that he has raised the price. In equity, can you argue that the shopkeeper is estopped by conduct? B relied upon the implied representation that a radio would be sold for $10 when he returned with the money; B has sold his watch at a discount, to his detriment. (This element would be absent if B sold the watch at the market price.) But the shopkeeper did not guarantee to hold one of the radios against the possibility of B's return nor did they agree a fixed price.
In some common-law jurisdictions, a promise by the shopkeeper to hold a specific radio would create a binding contract, even if B had to go for the money. A promise to pay the owner in the future is good consideration if it is made in exchange for a promise to sell a specific radio (one from three is probably sufficiently specific): one promise in exchange for a second promise creates equal value. So the shopkeeper's actual words and knowledge are critical to deciding whether either a contract or an estoppel arises."
So, you might be thinking of a "binding contract" as a piece of paper everyone signs. That's rather simplistic. Essentially WotC created a verbal contract with their collectors with the promise of the Reserved List. Let's say WotC abolishes the Reserved List and starts printing some of the expensive cards from it. If the price of their printings of the cards drops as a result WotC could very well be legally liable for economic damages done to the collectors. It's sort of weird, but it's the truth. These collectors would have a pretty good case against WotC.
Sig courtesy of DOLZero
[82/360] Custom Cube
Blog about the Custom Cube