Agree with everyone else who says you should be able to get the for free just by asking a store or someone who's played Magic for a while. Note that most people don't bring boxes of land around with them so you'll probably have to ask them ahead of time.
If you'd rather not then I think the Deckbuilder's Toolkit is a better deal than the fat pack for a new player. It comes with 4 boosters, some staple commons, and 100 basic lands, and it's around $20 which should be manageable.
Hilarious, MaRo gives himself a 2.5 / 3 thumbs up for Theros block, only losing half a thumb for not printing any enchantments until Journey. Everything else was roses apparently.
My god. It's like he's living in a bubble. I know that anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, but it's hard to reconcile the rosy report on Theros with the fact that my local FNM in Yokohama went from 20+ regulars to about 6 regulars and my friend's local FNM in Nagoya went from 30+ regulars to 4 regulars over the course of Theros block.
It's a shame really because his inability to admit failure means we'll be getting more of the same "designs" as long as he's in charge. I mean even look at this recent tumblr post. Maybe I'm reading too much into the phrasing but it sounds like he's saying we the players are the ones at fault for failing to acknowledge that enchantment creatures are what makes an enchantment block.
Even the idea that everything would have been better if Constellation had been spread throughout the block is wrong. Constellation is a boring lazy mechanic, I'm actually not even convinced that it was designed into the block at the beginning, it has the feel of a mechanic that was quickly added after Born was released and people started to get upset about the no enchantments in the enchantment block.
Aside: They say they develop sets two years in advance etc. but a lot of the things they say don't add up e.g. printing Cavern of Souls in AVR to fight mana leak because of Snapcaster Mage in Innistrad. Which wouldn't have actually been that bad if it wasn't for the Delver tempo strategy, which they might have caught in the FFL except they didn't because the change to Delver's power was late in the development process.
Based on his other correspondence throughout the block, you can tell he thought enchantment creatures were a really cool and smart idea and that he's disappointed with their reception. What MaRo doesn't get is that people wanted enchantments to matter in a way unique to enchantments, nobody was asking for affinity for enchantments like he continually brings up, and nobody was asking for enchantment creatures. Anyone who's played Magic back in the days when enchantments did actually matter could of told them that so there's obviously a disconnect somewhere.
Hilarious, MaRo gives himself a 2.5 / 3 thumbs up for Theros block, only losing half a thumb for not printing any enchantments until Journey. Everything else was roses apparently.
I think Theros block was a failure on several levels:
1. Power level. It seems like there's an obvious difference between the constructed power level cards and the casual power level cards. I don't think it's fair to say the entire block was underpowered, 5/5's for 4 and 3/3's for 2 are pretty much at the top of the power curve second only to Tarmogoyf, but after you take out those few obviously constructed playable cards, the rest do seem overcosted and weak.
2. Top down design. I think they actually failed to do top down design. Basically, the idea behind top down design is to first envisage a world, then to bring that world to life using mechanics. But, if the world you envisage is defined by Magic mechanics, then you can only conclude that the mechanics came first and thus cannot be top down design. I think it is highly unlikely that the designers of Theros came up with the idea of Enchantment Creatures independent of any knowledge of the Enchantment card type.
3. No enchantments in the enchantment block. There was another thread about this, but basically, Theros - the enchantment block, had no archetype defining enchantments that weren't also creatures. So many powerful, flavorful, enchantments throughout the history of Magic yet somehow the well ran dry for the enchantment block.
4. Communication. Not only was it a dumb idea to leave out the enchantments (people who get excited about Theros being an enchantment block, umm.. want to play enchantments) but after people started complaining they apparently thought it was okay to practically lie to us on social media, it's not an enchantment block, yes it is, or maybe yes it is but not in an enchantments matters kind of way, haha just tricking - we wanted this thing we took away and are now returning to be a surprise!
Eh, I hope that Wizards wins honestly. Regardless of the legality of the situation, it's pretty clearly intent on being extremely close to Magic, and was designed with that purpose in mind. All it feels like is going on is trying to hide behind the law because they can, as opposed to making a good game with their own ideas.
You've got it all backwards!
The ideas behind Magic belong to us all now, nobody's hiding behind the law, instead the law has given us this IP in the interests of the public good.
Personally, I think Hex is just different enough to give it that tainted feel that you're describing where it feels like they're (needlessly) trying to copy Magic in an underhanded way. I wish someone would just start printing functional clones with their own flavor, artwork etc. But the complexities of the law, the uncertainty that creates, and the huge personal risk for those involved seems like this will be unlikely in the near future. Of course, if Hex fights it and wins then that will open the field, but something tells me that if it gets close to that Hasbro will buy them out or find some other way to stop them.
The real question is, when do games using the mechanics of Magic stop actually being considered "rip-off"s.
As has been pointed out a few times, the mechanics aren't protected by copyright anymore, so those people shouldn't be worried. However, the problem here is the blatant copying of individual card designs. Form of the Dragon is one thing, because there might only be a small handful of ways to turn a player into a dragon, but a copy-paste of Horned Turtle in your game? Really? How lazy can a person be? The document linked in the OP is a pretty damning list, overall.
My point was that with the expiration of the patent the game mechanics are now in the public domain and Wizards should accept that in good faith. Certainly, their artwork, their layout, and their flavor text, should be protected along with their trademarks and trade dress, but creating a clone of Magic is fair game now.
It's the same thing as with the drug companies and generics, as a society we grant IP protections to encourage development of IP and allow the creators to realize their profits, but in return for those protections we also stipulate that it will eventually enter the public domain. Like the structure of a drug, the card designs should be allowed to be copied functionally the same so that the game may be played with its pieces.
Magic, the game, has reached the end of its protection period and rather than graciously accepting this fact, Wizards is attempting to harass the first comer to take advantage of this new public domain IP with a costly lawsuit.
The real question is, when do games using the mechanics of Magic stop actually being considered "rip-off"s.
Anybody should now be able to create a game using the protected mechanics of Magic without fear of being sued (IANAL etc) or as far as I'm concerned even having to skirt around such things as "tapping" or "mana" or whatever else was actually patented.
WoTC should be competing on their ability to create fun, good quality sets, and their ability to run tournaments using their official game pieces (branded Magic cards).
The Wizards store locator http://locator.wizards.com includes Korean stores, for example enter Seoul and you'll see quite a few stores. Other cities are also supported so you could try Busan, Daegu, Ansan, etc.
Something I just discovered, Google docs spell checks for Magic card names - thanks Google!
To test: open a new Google doc and try misspelling some card names that have made up words in them (names, places, etc) and notice that the misspelled card names are underlined red. On a new line spell the card name correctly and notice that there are no underlines.
For the something new, I'm thinking contraptions is a strong possibility. Steampunk and concern for the environment was popular a couple of years ago when this block was being designed so it wouldn't surprise me if it had a nature vs technology theme or subtheme (something killed all the dragons) and contraptions are a highly requested type that fit into a setting like that.
I think banding has a good chance of coming back with a rules update to simplify it (not that it's hard but that's another discussion). The reason I say this is because it seems to me that they've been experimenting with banding like effects such as Odric, Master Tactician and the whole Bestow mechanic. "Fixing" banding would add to the color pie and potentially give creature combat a little more depth. Not to mention all the cards with banding that could now be reprinted in supplemental products.
However, they did choose to show horses and asian-looking armor in this announcement which sets our expectations so perhaps Steampunk is a little far fetched and horsemanship, flanking, or bushido is more likely.
It doesn't mean Wizards is automatically going to win, and if they don't then it opens up a whole new field of competition, think blatant clones and third party Magic expansions.
I love Magic as much as the next person but I'd much rather see them competing on creative assets and overall gameplay experience than just making a couple of "constructed playable" mythics every few months.
Of course Hasbro has the resources to keep this in court for years so I wouldn't expect a WoTC loss anytime soon.
You seem to be taking this personally, you should know I'm not attacking you or casual players, I myself am now a casual player and I haven't played in any event since Gatecrash. What I am attacking is the use of huge numbers of casual players as an argument when there isn't any evidence to support their existence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you'd rather not then I think the Deckbuilder's Toolkit is a better deal than the fat pack for a new player. It comes with 4 boosters, some staple commons, and 100 basic lands, and it's around $20 which should be manageable.
It's a shame really because his inability to admit failure means we'll be getting more of the same "designs" as long as he's in charge. I mean even look at this recent tumblr post. Maybe I'm reading too much into the phrasing but it sounds like he's saying we the players are the ones at fault for failing to acknowledge that enchantment creatures are what makes an enchantment block.
Even the idea that everything would have been better if Constellation had been spread throughout the block is wrong. Constellation is a boring lazy mechanic, I'm actually not even convinced that it was designed into the block at the beginning, it has the feel of a mechanic that was quickly added after Born was released and people started to get upset about the no enchantments in the enchantment block.
Aside: They say they develop sets two years in advance etc. but a lot of the things they say don't add up e.g. printing Cavern of Souls in AVR to fight mana leak because of Snapcaster Mage in Innistrad. Which wouldn't have actually been that bad if it wasn't for the Delver tempo strategy, which they might have caught in the FFL except they didn't because the change to Delver's power was late in the development process.
Based on his other correspondence throughout the block, you can tell he thought enchantment creatures were a really cool and smart idea and that he's disappointed with their reception. What MaRo doesn't get is that people wanted enchantments to matter in a way unique to enchantments, nobody was asking for affinity for enchantments like he continually brings up, and nobody was asking for enchantment creatures. Anyone who's played Magic back in the days when enchantments did actually matter could of told them that so there's obviously a disconnect somewhere.
State of Design 2014
1. Power level. It seems like there's an obvious difference between the constructed power level cards and the casual power level cards. I don't think it's fair to say the entire block was underpowered, 5/5's for 4 and 3/3's for 2 are pretty much at the top of the power curve second only to Tarmogoyf, but after you take out those few obviously constructed playable cards, the rest do seem overcosted and weak.
2. Top down design. I think they actually failed to do top down design. Basically, the idea behind top down design is to first envisage a world, then to bring that world to life using mechanics. But, if the world you envisage is defined by Magic mechanics, then you can only conclude that the mechanics came first and thus cannot be top down design. I think it is highly unlikely that the designers of Theros came up with the idea of Enchantment Creatures independent of any knowledge of the Enchantment card type.
3. No enchantments in the enchantment block. There was another thread about this, but basically, Theros - the enchantment block, had no archetype defining enchantments that weren't also creatures. So many powerful, flavorful, enchantments throughout the history of Magic yet somehow the well ran dry for the enchantment block.
4. Communication. Not only was it a dumb idea to leave out the enchantments (people who get excited about Theros being an enchantment block, umm.. want to play enchantments) but after people started complaining they apparently thought it was okay to practically lie to us on social media, it's not an enchantment block, yes it is, or maybe yes it is but not in an enchantments matters kind of way, haha just tricking - we wanted this thing we took away and are now returning to be a surprise!
You've got it all backwards!
The ideas behind Magic belong to us all now, nobody's hiding behind the law, instead the law has given us this IP in the interests of the public good.
Personally, I think Hex is just different enough to give it that tainted feel that you're describing where it feels like they're (needlessly) trying to copy Magic in an underhanded way. I wish someone would just start printing functional clones with their own flavor, artwork etc. But the complexities of the law, the uncertainty that creates, and the huge personal risk for those involved seems like this will be unlikely in the near future. Of course, if Hex fights it and wins then that will open the field, but something tells me that if it gets close to that Hasbro will buy them out or find some other way to stop them.
My point was that with the expiration of the patent the game mechanics are now in the public domain and Wizards should accept that in good faith. Certainly, their artwork, their layout, and their flavor text, should be protected along with their trademarks and trade dress, but creating a clone of Magic is fair game now.
It's the same thing as with the drug companies and generics, as a society we grant IP protections to encourage development of IP and allow the creators to realize their profits, but in return for those protections we also stipulate that it will eventually enter the public domain. Like the structure of a drug, the card designs should be allowed to be copied functionally the same so that the game may be played with its pieces.
Magic, the game, has reached the end of its protection period and rather than graciously accepting this fact, Wizards is attempting to harass the first comer to take advantage of this new public domain IP with a costly lawsuit.
Anybody should now be able to create a game using the protected mechanics of Magic without fear of being sued (IANAL etc) or as far as I'm concerned even having to skirt around such things as "tapping" or "mana" or whatever else was actually patented.
WoTC should be competing on their ability to create fun, good quality sets, and their ability to run tournaments using their official game pieces (branded Magic cards).
http://t.co/PNLV90jq1z
It does seem now that he could be Temur clan also (that is, some of them also have white fur trim and that plate reinforced leather armor).
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/arcana/1496
To test: open a new Google doc and try misspelling some card names that have made up words in them (names, places, etc) and notice that the misspelled card names are underlined red. On a new line spell the card name correctly and notice that there are no underlines.
Neat!
The hint is that it's something a lot of people have been asking for which narrows it down somewhat.
I think banding has a good chance of coming back with a rules update to simplify it (not that it's hard but that's another discussion). The reason I say this is because it seems to me that they've been experimenting with banding like effects such as Odric, Master Tactician and the whole Bestow mechanic. "Fixing" banding would add to the color pie and potentially give creature combat a little more depth. Not to mention all the cards with banding that could now be reprinted in supplemental products.
However, they did choose to show horses and asian-looking armor in this announcement which sets our expectations so perhaps Steampunk is a little far fetched and horsemanship, flanking, or bushido is more likely.
I love Magic as much as the next person but I'd much rather see them competing on creative assets and overall gameplay experience than just making a couple of "constructed playable" mythics every few months.
Of course Hasbro has the resources to keep this in court for years so I wouldn't expect a WoTC loss anytime soon.
You seem to be taking this personally, you should know I'm not attacking you or casual players, I myself am now a casual player and I haven't played in any event since Gatecrash. What I am attacking is the use of huge numbers of casual players as an argument when there isn't any evidence to support their existence.