About Fallen Empires and Urza Block--these WERE problems, but I wasn't focusing on 'problems the game has had'. That wasn't the point of the article. It was about announcements/decisions that had an initial, highly negative reaction. Neither Fallen Empires nor Urza Block fell into that category--it took a while for people to realize what a problem they caused, and it wasn't all at once.
Also, little known fact, but Fallen Empires wasn't entirely WotC's fault. They vastly overproduced it, yes, but they sent a substantial amount of their stock off to be destroyed so the market wasn't saturated. Unfortunately, the company they hired to destroy it all instead turned around and sold it instead. Whoops.
I always thought those anti-Chronicles players were stupid, speculator crybabies. Screw 'em.
I wouldn't mind seeing the return of another Chronicles type set in the future; I think it'd be fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I'm working on:
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
I just recently got into the game and i gotta say, i loved the historical background in the article. i have this obsession with learning everything i can about the game and its history.
I hope the new changes don't ruin the game either...
Fallen Empires wasn't a bad set. People were confusing availability with playability. Those that read my long response on page 2 (all 3 of you) know that I don't give a damn about people whining that their cards aren't "worth" anything.
Looking back on it today, yeah... it looks bad. But hell... don't most sets?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 MtG judge (L2 coming soon) and Dominion tournament coordinator serving Flint MI and its surrounding cities.
Fallen Empires wasn't a bad set. People were confusing availability with playability.
I remember that Fallen Empire packs were very popular in sealed constructed and booster constructed formats at the time because FE packs had a lot more creatures than packs from other sets.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks I'm working on:
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
Fallen Empires was also oddly useful BECAUSE it was so damned cheap--I remember splurging on the 99 cent packs to grow my collection a bit, and the creatures were actually pretty darned solid for the day. It wasn't profitable for WotC or the stores that sold it, but most old school players I know have fond memories of the cards themselves.
Fallen Empires wasn't a bad set. People were confusing availability with playability. Those that read my long response on page 2 (all 3 of you) know that I don't give a damn about people whining that their cards aren't "worth" anything.
Looking back on it today, yeah... it looks bad. But hell... don't most sets?
Personally I'm not. I played the heck out of Fallen Empires at the time and (like I said) it had a few cards that were great. Goblin Grenade, Hymn to Tourach... Maybe some of the blue stuff (it became useful later anyhow)... Hand of Justice? Icatian Javelinier Maybe a couple more here and there... Then you get to stuff that was of questionable worth really. And I'm talking playability there, not availability.
Availability though... Nearly all of the useful stuff I mentioned were common cards and the rest of the set was uncommon (uncommon 1 and 3 granted but...). So it does become tough to separate the two.
On the other hand, Fallen Empires really simply didn't succeed because it was a prototype tribal set where virtually none of the tribes worked as envisioned. Sure you had goblin decks based around the grenade but which goblins were used from the set? Sure you had a discard deck based around Hymn but which Thrulls were used in it? Sure you had a couple worthy additions to a Merfolk deck but the deck was essentially only modified by them. Then there were Soldiers and Homerids and Thallids...
Yeah, I'm surprised he didn't mention Urza's block. It's a mistake in R&D, not necessarily a fundamental change to the game though. I mean seriously - reprint Timetwister, but make it better? Draw as many cards as you want (Bargain)? Search your deck for an artifact and put it directly in play? A land that taps for multiple blue mana? And who the hell ever thought Yawgmoth's Will was fit to print??
Urza's Block represented several fundemental changes to the game, all of them quite a bit more far reaching than most of the changes that were shown in the article. You've given some decent examples of cards that were game altering but Urza's actually broke a good many tentative rules for card development.
About Fallen Empires and Urza Block--these WERE problems, but I wasn't focusing on 'problems the game has had'. That wasn't the point of the article. It was about announcements/decisions that had an initial, highly negative reaction. Neither Fallen Empires nor Urza Block fell into that category--it took a while for people to realize what a problem they caused, and it wasn't all at once.
Also, little known fact, but Fallen Empires wasn't entirely WotC's fault. They vastly overproduced it, yes, but they sent a substantial amount of their stock off to be destroyed so the market wasn't saturated. Unfortunately, the company they hired to destroy it all instead turned around and sold it instead. Whoops.
*laugh*
Like I said, I'd envisioned a prototype version of the big blue deck (obviously wasn't Academy at the time) prior to Urza's release and once I saw cards like Stroke of Genius and Tolarian Academy it was... Well, I was pretty beside myself. Talking about preview card announcements here. It really wasn't that tough to figure the stuff out when they'd broken so many longstanding rules (or guidelines, whatever) that it would be bad, bad news.
Which is my point. The article is talking about announcements or developments (they really didn't announce the rules changes for sixth in advance except in an odd preview format, much like card releases from what I remember--I wasn't entirely in the loop at the time though) where Wizards turned out to be right in the long run from the article's perspective. Don't tell me that Chronicles isn't a similar example to Urza's. And don't even mention Portal (ummmmm... I honestly have little opinion on the set--I avoided it--but it seems obvious that it wasn't successful) or the silly set (which I won't either). Neither of those two subsets were greeted incredibly favorably by most and neither turned out to be good ideas in the end.
I'd suggest that in many cases that M:tG has survived in spite of Wizards rather than Wizard's decisions turning out to be correct (or not incorrect) in the end. Yup you dismiss Urza's as developmental or people not figuring it out at once but ummmmmmmm... Tolarian Academy was *incredibly* obvious to anyone seeing it with half a head in the game that it was an error. It was not quiet or silent error given that Type I was still a viable structure at the time (so I put my five Moxes down...). I'd rank the uproar over it to be quite a bit higher than most of the things you cite. Maybe even up as high as ten.
Affinity? Sure, I'll give you that. It did take a bit to get to breaking that. It wasn't obvious from the outset. It needed a new deck archetype to break it. Not really the irrational exuberance sort of thing hyped in the article.
Kamigawa...???
Whether the new changes really mess with the game... Well, like I said, the Mythics would require a reasonably massive cardbase to collect the things. The fact that many are mediocre only makes the good ones tougher to get. The Type II structure that you dismiss in your article really works in with that. Another thing to note that parallels your article though. Foils were originally in the same slot as Rares but that didn't really work out. Putting Mythics in that slot too isn't a case of something entirely new for Wizards.
Prerelease has definitely made things a lot less fun for me (not that it was mentioned in the article). I mean I'd be off to Seattle this weekend (wow) if they hadn't changed it around.
And don't even mention Portal (ummmmm... I honestly have little opinion on the set--I avoided it--but it seems obvious that it wasn't successful) or the silly set (which I won't either). Neither of those two subsets were greeted incredibly favorably by most and neither turned out to be good ideas in the end.
Yes, that silly set, the one that was so unpopular that Wizards released a second one...for no apparent reason. It's not like there was an upwelling of approval over the humor and ingenuity presented by it.
I'll also say that the Planeswalker cards were a good addition. I don't think they cheapen the game any, nor do they take away from the "You are a Planeswalker" mythos. Nowhere in the mythology of Magic does it say "You are the ONLY Planeswalker." Being able to call upon an ally to aid you in a time of peril is something Planeswalkers have done before (Urza's army fighting the Phyrexians, Teferi's cohort during the Time Spiral debacle). This just adds another layer of flavor.
I don't think you'll find many who argue (with logical grounds) that the Planeswalker cards are not interesting or well designed. What people are up in arms about is the fact that, to implement these cards, Wizards destroyed much of what the Magic storyline had built up over many years. The thorough salting of these wounds comes from the fact that it was completely unnecessary.
If i remember right, it wasn't a spell tree, rather a spell chain. Its basically the stack but once the chain "goes off", you can't add anymore until the chain is empty.
6th ed rules:
I target a 2/2 creature with shock. you cast Whispers of the muse that resolves, you draw a card. You mise a Giant growth, target your 2/2 with it, it lives.
Pre 6th ed:
I target a 2/2 creature with shock. you cast Whispers of the muse that resolves, you draw a card. Since the chain is still on going, the shock resolves, killing your 2/2 creature.
Even though I was playing since Mirage (with breaks in between), I can honestly say the 6th ed rules really made Magic more smooth and logical.
For the new players out there, try finding (or downloading) the game Shandalar.
*laugh*
Personally I think that is what makes the current stack rules silly and stupid. They (in concept) go last in first out but then instead of going last in, they sneak another last in there (which isn't *actually* last but is only the current last) so you can cheese card draws which would in concept not apply.
So the stack:
You cast shock.
They cast whispers.
Last in first out order whispers, shock.
Whispers resolves. You draw. You get GG. You decide to cast it.
Last in first out order giant growth, whispers, shock.
Actual order whispers, giant growth, shock. NOT last in first out.
Now I could understand this making sense if your point is that one is faster than the other (say, reacting to a creature cast) but you are comparing two instants here so in concept they should be the same speed. It *really* does not make sense. And I don't agree that it is more logical or even makes it simpler. It just makes it different and adds different complexities that weren't needed with the rules prior to the stack thing.
Yes, that silly set, the one that was so unpopular that Wizards released a second one...for no apparent reason. It's not like there was an upwelling of approval over the humor and ingenuity presented by it.
*at which time Ander gets a bit frustrated with forum rules and his slow connection*
Hmm. Not sure if you are being facetious, sarcastic or serious there
*grin* I don't like either set personally as a semi serious M:tG player (serious enough but still up for the noncutthroat T1 deck group game). It really confused things a lot when I was playing other newbies in casual who couldn't understand why they couldn't play their *namestupidbrokencard* in a casual game. For me it caused big headaches. The same goes with Portal (which also had a second set, etc for it--is it still around?).
Were they funny? Sorta.
Were they popular? Well, I just played a tourney with the first silly set for base price a couple of months back. I'll admit it was kinda fun but that doesn't mean it was a successful set. Especially when it took so long for them to do it again.
Personally though, I'd be all for another Chronicles;) Wizards doesn't reprint old Legends so basically all of the cards with names are all just dirt collectors and worth very little except for the crazy collectors. I like a lot of the old legends and legendary cards personally.
I *like* Coldsnap personally and really don't think that it was a mistake either way. I just kinda wish that it came out in the same format as this current set. Imagine some of the artifact cards from Coldsnap in combination with the cards from this set:) Possibly close to broken but I'd say not so much personally.
Was it touted as a big negative, people protesting thing when it came out? I'd say less than any of the ones he posted. (Maybe a two or three on his level meter) Are people down on it now? Yeah I'd say it goes in the negative to neutral collumn now:)
I think many of us were outraged that WotC concocted a transparent lie... either it was a poor joke or they honestly thought to mislead us... which was a sad failure.
Whoops, I did forget Coldsnap--or at least, the manner in which they unveiled it. The set itself is an entire separate set of issues. That wasn't really a policy change or product decision though, so much as a hugely misguided/poorly executed PR failure. I'm not sure how well it would have fit in the article, because like I said it wasn't the decision that caused a stir or had much impact (other than increasing the size of Standard even further).
Perhaps I should do a follow up article on points where the game really was weakened. There seems to be demand for it. Perhaps after I move.
Hmm. Not sure if you are being facetious, sarcastic or serious there
*grin* I don't like either set personally as a semi serious M:tG player (serious enough but still up for the noncutthroat T1 deck group game). It really confused things a lot when I was playing other newbies in casual who couldn't understand why they couldn't play their *namestupidbrokencard* in a casual game. For me it caused big headaches. The same goes with Portal (which also had a second set, etc for it--is it still around?).
Were they funny? Sorta.
Were they popular? Well, I just played a tourney with the first silly set for base price a couple of months back. I'll admit it was kinda fun but that doesn't mean it was a successful set. Especially when it took so long for them to do it again.
I assume by silly set you mean Unglued, and it's sequel, Unhinged. Yes, they were funny (most of the time). Also I forgot the basic lands, people freaking love the full art on Unglued and Unhinged lands.
I assume by silly set you mean Unglued, and it's sequel, Unhinged. Yes, they were funny (most of the time). Also I forgot the basic lands, people freaking love the full art on Unglued and Unhinged lands.
I think many of us were outraged that WotC concocted a transparent lie... either it was a poor joke or they honestly thought to mislead us... which was a sad failure.
It has been stated many times that it was a cute backstory joke, but the presentation of it came across as way too serious and not joking enough; people thought we were supposed to believe it, but the point was that we were supposed to snicker and say "riiiiight" and then enjoy the surprise summer set - not believe it at all!
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
I started playing in ice age, but only really got into the game at Odyssey. I agree most of the changes have turned out to be for the best. here are the changes I have persistent negative opinions on-
It's just a personal taste thing, but I thought the change from summon to creature was a bad one. the "summon-creature type" layout seemed a lot more flavorful to me and any benefits that might have been had from the change are balanced with the fact that the old way made it clearer that while in your hand the card was a spell that summoned the creature in question. (creature cards aren't creatures while they are in your hand) this is really no big deal.
The new frames are better designed in that they're easier to read , but it would have been nice if they could have kept more of the fantasy flavor of the old frames when they made the change. I know someone who quit the game over this change, and I think he overreacted.
from ravnica till eveningtide i've bought a fat pack from every set except one (didn't have the cash for guildpact. I still wonder what happened in that novel). For me it was a way to get a few packs of the new set, read the story, and get a bunch of usable-to cool extras. I liked them so much that when I got my girlfriend into the game, I got her buying fatpacks too. we're kind of disapointed at what they're doing to the fatpack. I liked the life counters better than the dice, but that was okay. We felt a little gyped getting one box instead of two, but by now I have enough of them. The reason we won't be buying the fatpack anymore now though is because they took out the novel. To us, the ability to find out the story line of the set was the main reason for buying fatpacks instead of regular packs. It was the combination of the novel and magic cards that made the fat pack worth it. Including an advertisement for the novel doesn't cut it. To us, taking the novel out is the same as discontinuing the fatpack. we'll miss it.
there are probably better ways to get basic lands out there than putting them in expert level packs. mythic rares are probably uneccessary and silly, but not really damaging to the game. For this stuff, I'm in the wait and see crowd.
I enjoyed the article. Nice summary of the big changes in magic (not the R&D or other mistakes - read, the posts about Urza block & Fallen Empires, Homelands, Coldsnap). Anyways, here are my views on the current batch of changes:
Fatpacks: I didn't like losing the other box in the fat pack, but I do like the extra 2 packs or whatever the difference is.
Ultra-rares (or whatever): I am against these. three rarities are enough. Especially if these are at 1:8 packs & there are 15 of these. This is a money grab in the truest sense of the word by Hasbro (maybe wizards is the victim?). there are generally 2-4 chase rares (>$10 cards) per set, not building them into even more scarce cards is totally a money grab. If even half of these are any good, they will be worth lots. One would need to pick up at very least 4-5 boxes to get a whole set of these; 16-20 boxes for 4x sets. Granted, most are very expensive casting cost wise, but others are easily playable and have good abilities. I think that it should replace a common instead of a rare. I think this is totally crappy for people that like to have playsets of the sets. Normal rares will be totally devalued due to everyone needing to open more packs to get the mythics.
New card faces: I have never much cared for the new card faces (I have been playing since '95). Yes, they are more readable, but look too cartoonish. I liked the old font better too. More of a different feel than the "normal" font that is used now.
Good article, again.
L8r,
Gero1369
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love older cards (Legends, Revised & Before). Can't wait to get more!
Been playing since Sept. '95 (4th Edition; Ice Age Era).
Ultra-rares (or whatever): I am against these. three rarities are enough. Especially if these are at 1:8 packs & there are 15 of these. This is a money grab in the truest sense of the word by Hasbro (maybe wizards is the victim?). there are generally 2-4 chase rares (>$10 cards) per set, not building them into even more scarce cards is totally a money grab. If even half of these are any good, they will be worth lots. One would need to pick up at very least 4-5 boxes to get a whole set of these; 16-20 boxes for 4x sets. Granted, most are very expensive casting cost wise, but others are easily playable and have good abilities. I think that it should replace a common instead of a rare. I think this is totally crappy for people that like to have playsets of the sets. Normal rares will be totally devalued due to everyone needing to open more packs to get the mythics.
Granted, the more outstanding a single mythic rare is compared to the others, the more it will cost. For example, if Betrayers of Kamigawa went with this model, Umezawa's Jitte would have been easily 50-70 bucks a pop, because it would have been the only good mythic rare in the set (abide it was like the only good rare in the set period). By the same token, if Lorwyn had this model, the prices of garruk wildspeaker would have not gone up as much simply because there are a lot of other good rares to open boosters for. It's generally better to have a bunch of good mythics than to have just a single awesome one. I agree that it's a money grab by Hasbro, but there's not much we can do about that either...
Eh... maybe Mythic Rares won't turn out bad in the long run, but its really hard to defend the move because A) It seems like an obvious money grab and B) There really isn't anything positive to come from the news. The only thing remotely positive about it is that maybe the non-mythics will come down in price slightly because the ratio of non mythics to total cards in set have gone up. Of course, it all comes back to the fact that if any of the Mythics turn into a constructed staple, its going to cost a lot to get a playset.
The current card frame is still inferior to the original frame. Sure, there are a few nice changes (like a bigger art window and bigger p/t), but it has come at the cost of the old-school fantasy feel of the game. This is the real reason other changes, such as "summon" to "creature," were frowned upon. They make it less imaginative.
I have "gotten used to" the current frames, but every time I pull out an old card and compare it to a new one, I wish we had the old frames back. For a fantasy game feel, they are simply superior, even to this day.
As for mythics, I was against them then, and am still against them now. Sarkhan, Tezzeret, and Elspeth are all $20+. Ajani would likely be near that as well if not for the flood of prerelease and release versions out there. How, exactly, does this make the game any less expensive than it was before? Crap like Godsire, which would be a $0.50 rare, still goes for $2-3 as well.
EDIT: Sorry for semi-necroing this thread. I just read it for the first time today.
Also, little known fact, but Fallen Empires wasn't entirely WotC's fault. They vastly overproduced it, yes, but they sent a substantial amount of their stock off to be destroyed so the market wasn't saturated. Unfortunately, the company they hired to destroy it all instead turned around and sold it instead. Whoops.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
I wouldn't mind seeing the return of another Chronicles type set in the future; I think it'd be fun.
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
I hope the new changes don't ruin the game either...
Looking back on it today, yeah... it looks bad. But hell... don't most sets?
I remember that Fallen Empire packs were very popular in sealed constructed and booster constructed formats at the time because FE packs had a lot more creatures than packs from other sets.
:symb::symu: Gravy Boat
:symu::symg: PickleStorm 2.0
:symr::symu::symb: You Have To Follow The Ruels
Scryb-Death
Man-Pudding FTW!
:symu::symr::symg: Hot, Wet Meat
Pull My Finkle
Tight Clams Aggro
Randy Buehler's Day Off
:symu::symb: Naughty Uncle
:symw::symb: We'll get rid of it at the prom (Tempo)
:symr::symr: Bloody Beaver
:symu::symr::symw::symb::symg: 5-Color Cockfight
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Personally I'm not. I played the heck out of Fallen Empires at the time and (like I said) it had a few cards that were great. Goblin Grenade, Hymn to Tourach... Maybe some of the blue stuff (it became useful later anyhow)... Hand of Justice? Icatian Javelinier Maybe a couple more here and there... Then you get to stuff that was of questionable worth really. And I'm talking playability there, not availability.
Availability though... Nearly all of the useful stuff I mentioned were common cards and the rest of the set was uncommon (uncommon 1 and 3 granted but...). So it does become tough to separate the two.
On the other hand, Fallen Empires really simply didn't succeed because it was a prototype tribal set where virtually none of the tribes worked as envisioned. Sure you had goblin decks based around the grenade but which goblins were used from the set? Sure you had a discard deck based around Hymn but which Thrulls were used in it? Sure you had a couple worthy additions to a Merfolk deck but the deck was essentially only modified by them. Then there were Soldiers and Homerids and Thallids...
Urza's Block represented several fundemental changes to the game, all of them quite a bit more far reaching than most of the changes that were shown in the article. You've given some decent examples of cards that were game altering but Urza's actually broke a good many tentative rules for card development.
*laugh*
Like I said, I'd envisioned a prototype version of the big blue deck (obviously wasn't Academy at the time) prior to Urza's release and once I saw cards like Stroke of Genius and Tolarian Academy it was... Well, I was pretty beside myself. Talking about preview card announcements here. It really wasn't that tough to figure the stuff out when they'd broken so many longstanding rules (or guidelines, whatever) that it would be bad, bad news.
Which is my point. The article is talking about announcements or developments (they really didn't announce the rules changes for sixth in advance except in an odd preview format, much like card releases from what I remember--I wasn't entirely in the loop at the time though) where Wizards turned out to be right in the long run from the article's perspective. Don't tell me that Chronicles isn't a similar example to Urza's. And don't even mention Portal (ummmmm... I honestly have little opinion on the set--I avoided it--but it seems obvious that it wasn't successful) or the silly set (which I won't either). Neither of those two subsets were greeted incredibly favorably by most and neither turned out to be good ideas in the end.
I'd suggest that in many cases that M:tG has survived in spite of Wizards rather than Wizard's decisions turning out to be correct (or not incorrect) in the end. Yup you dismiss Urza's as developmental or people not figuring it out at once but ummmmmmmm... Tolarian Academy was *incredibly* obvious to anyone seeing it with half a head in the game that it was an error. It was not quiet or silent error given that Type I was still a viable structure at the time (so I put my five Moxes down...). I'd rank the uproar over it to be quite a bit higher than most of the things you cite. Maybe even up as high as ten.
Affinity? Sure, I'll give you that. It did take a bit to get to breaking that. It wasn't obvious from the outset. It needed a new deck archetype to break it. Not really the irrational exuberance sort of thing hyped in the article.
Kamigawa...???
Whether the new changes really mess with the game... Well, like I said, the Mythics would require a reasonably massive cardbase to collect the things. The fact that many are mediocre only makes the good ones tougher to get. The Type II structure that you dismiss in your article really works in with that. Another thing to note that parallels your article though. Foils were originally in the same slot as Rares but that didn't really work out. Putting Mythics in that slot too isn't a case of something entirely new for Wizards.
Prerelease has definitely made things a lot less fun for me (not that it was mentioned in the article). I mean I'd be off to Seattle this weekend (wow) if they hadn't changed it around.
Ander
Yes, that silly set, the one that was so unpopular that Wizards released a second one...for no apparent reason. It's not like there was an upwelling of approval over the humor and ingenuity presented by it.
I don't think you'll find many who argue (with logical grounds) that the Planeswalker cards are not interesting or well designed. What people are up in arms about is the fact that, to implement these cards, Wizards destroyed much of what the Magic storyline had built up over many years. The thorough salting of these wounds comes from the fact that it was completely unnecessary.
I have come to spread the gospel of Cockatrice, the best free source for online play.
------------
In Phyrexia, Black will do anything to be broken in Vintage.
*laugh*
Personally I think that is what makes the current stack rules silly and stupid. They (in concept) go last in first out but then instead of going last in, they sneak another last in there (which isn't *actually* last but is only the current last) so you can cheese card draws which would in concept not apply.
So the stack:
You cast shock.
They cast whispers.
Last in first out order whispers, shock.
Whispers resolves. You draw. You get GG. You decide to cast it.
Last in first out order giant growth, whispers, shock.
Actual order whispers, giant growth, shock. NOT last in first out.
Now I could understand this making sense if your point is that one is faster than the other (say, reacting to a creature cast) but you are comparing two instants here so in concept they should be the same speed. It *really* does not make sense. And I don't agree that it is more logical or even makes it simpler. It just makes it different and adds different complexities that weren't needed with the rules prior to the stack thing.
*at which time Ander gets a bit frustrated with forum rules and his slow connection*
Hmm. Not sure if you are being facetious, sarcastic or serious there
*grin* I don't like either set personally as a semi serious M:tG player (serious enough but still up for the noncutthroat T1 deck group game). It really confused things a lot when I was playing other newbies in casual who couldn't understand why they couldn't play their *namestupidbrokencard* in a casual game. For me it caused big headaches. The same goes with Portal (which also had a second set, etc for it--is it still around?).
Were they funny? Sorta.
Were they popular? Well, I just played a tourney with the first silly set for base price a couple of months back. I'll admit it was kinda fun but that doesn't mean it was a successful set. Especially when it took so long for them to do it again.
Personally though, I'd be all for another Chronicles;) Wizards doesn't reprint old Legends so basically all of the cards with names are all just dirt collectors and worth very little except for the crazy collectors. I like a lot of the old legends and legendary cards personally.
Ander
Me? Or him?
I *like* Coldsnap personally and really don't think that it was a mistake either way. I just kinda wish that it came out in the same format as this current set. Imagine some of the artifact cards from Coldsnap in combination with the cards from this set:) Possibly close to broken but I'd say not so much personally.
Was it touted as a big negative, people protesting thing when it came out? I'd say less than any of the ones he posted. (Maybe a two or three on his level meter) Are people down on it now? Yeah I'd say it goes in the negative to neutral collumn now:)
Ander
Perhaps I should do a follow up article on points where the game really was weakened. There seems to be demand for it. Perhaps after I move.
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
I assume by silly set you mean Unglued, and it's sequel, Unhinged. Yes, they were funny (most of the time). Also I forgot the basic lands, people freaking love the full art on Unglued and Unhinged lands.
I have come to spread the gospel of Cockatrice, the best free source for online play.
------------
In Phyrexia, Black will do anything to be broken in Vintage.
Yup. Those would be the silly sets.
Ander
It has been stated many times that it was a cute backstory joke, but the presentation of it came across as way too serious and not joking enough; people thought we were supposed to believe it, but the point was that we were supposed to snicker and say "riiiiight" and then enjoy the surprise summer set - not believe it at all!
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
It's just a personal taste thing, but I thought the change from summon to creature was a bad one. the "summon-creature type" layout seemed a lot more flavorful to me and any benefits that might have been had from the change are balanced with the fact that the old way made it clearer that while in your hand the card was a spell that summoned the creature in question. (creature cards aren't creatures while they are in your hand) this is really no big deal.
The new frames are better designed in that they're easier to read , but it would have been nice if they could have kept more of the fantasy flavor of the old frames when they made the change. I know someone who quit the game over this change, and I think he overreacted.
from ravnica till eveningtide i've bought a fat pack from every set except one (didn't have the cash for guildpact. I still wonder what happened in that novel). For me it was a way to get a few packs of the new set, read the story, and get a bunch of usable-to cool extras. I liked them so much that when I got my girlfriend into the game, I got her buying fatpacks too. we're kind of disapointed at what they're doing to the fatpack. I liked the life counters better than the dice, but that was okay. We felt a little gyped getting one box instead of two, but by now I have enough of them. The reason we won't be buying the fatpack anymore now though is because they took out the novel. To us, the ability to find out the story line of the set was the main reason for buying fatpacks instead of regular packs. It was the combination of the novel and magic cards that made the fat pack worth it. Including an advertisement for the novel doesn't cut it. To us, taking the novel out is the same as discontinuing the fatpack. we'll miss it.
there are probably better ways to get basic lands out there than putting them in expert level packs. mythic rares are probably uneccessary and silly, but not really damaging to the game. For this stuff, I'm in the wait and see crowd.
casual deck construction contest season 3:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=189597
my trade thread:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=239539
Fatpacks: I didn't like losing the other box in the fat pack, but I do like the extra 2 packs or whatever the difference is.
Ultra-rares (or whatever): I am against these. three rarities are enough. Especially if these are at 1:8 packs & there are 15 of these. This is a money grab in the truest sense of the word by Hasbro (maybe wizards is the victim?). there are generally 2-4 chase rares (>$10 cards) per set, not building them into even more scarce cards is totally a money grab. If even half of these are any good, they will be worth lots. One would need to pick up at very least 4-5 boxes to get a whole set of these; 16-20 boxes for 4x sets. Granted, most are very expensive casting cost wise, but others are easily playable and have good abilities. I think that it should replace a common instead of a rare. I think this is totally crappy for people that like to have playsets of the sets. Normal rares will be totally devalued due to everyone needing to open more packs to get the mythics.
New card faces: I have never much cared for the new card faces (I have been playing since '95). Yes, they are more readable, but look too cartoonish. I liked the old font better too. More of a different feel than the "normal" font that is used now.
Good article, again.
L8r,
Gero1369
Been playing since Sept. '95 (4th Edition; Ice Age Era).
~~CHECK OUT MY EBAY STORE!!
Click here for information on the Magic: The Gathering computer game.
Granted, the more outstanding a single mythic rare is compared to the others, the more it will cost. For example, if Betrayers of Kamigawa went with this model, Umezawa's Jitte would have been easily 50-70 bucks a pop, because it would have been the only good mythic rare in the set (abide it was like the only good rare in the set period). By the same token, if Lorwyn had this model, the prices of garruk wildspeaker would have not gone up as much simply because there are a lot of other good rares to open boosters for. It's generally better to have a bunch of good mythics than to have just a single awesome one. I agree that it's a money grab by Hasbro, but there's not much we can do about that either...
燃える時計秘密めく花の香り
www.pokemoncrossroads.com
I have "gotten used to" the current frames, but every time I pull out an old card and compare it to a new one, I wish we had the old frames back. For a fantasy game feel, they are simply superior, even to this day.
As for mythics, I was against them then, and am still against them now. Sarkhan, Tezzeret, and Elspeth are all $20+. Ajani would likely be near that as well if not for the flood of prerelease and release versions out there. How, exactly, does this make the game any less expensive than it was before? Crap like Godsire, which would be a $0.50 rare, still goes for $2-3 as well.
EDIT: Sorry for semi-necroing this thread. I just read it for the first time today.