More of an informational post than anything. I'm stoked about getting some extra use out of the Battle sets.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
It would be nice to include some information in your informational post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Too late for me. After dragons and origins rotated I decided it wasn't worth it and sold all my standard staples as standard was too much to keep up with and not enough fun for the price. 6 month rotation was too irritating to put up with. Enjoying spending money on Modern cards now and building lots of fun decks.
Too late for me. After dragons and origins rotated I decided it wasn't worth it and sold all my standard staples as standard was too much to keep up with and not enough fun for the price. 6 month rotation was too irritating to put up with. Enjoying spending money on Modern cards now and building lots of fun decks.
Yeah I feel that. There was no way a set like Dragons or Origins deserved to be played for such a small time window while a gimmicky block like Zendikar gets to stick around.
I'm singing praises to the heavens we got a yearly cycle again. I don't really know what to tell people who are still sour over last season other than get over it? What exactly do you want WoTC to do to fix the situation that origins and Kahns got rotated fast? They can't exactly turn back the hands of time here. Personally I'm not a fan of eldrazi, either, since the entire block left a scar on modern thanks to the shear broken synergy the eldrazi had with land from a previous zendikar block. Synergy so potent that people in legacy are able to make competitive decks on a budget just from the said eldrazi cards. It also means we got another year of this guy. Assuming everyones favorite giant fur ball doesn't take over the same role.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Too late for me. After dragons and origins rotated I decided it wasn't worth it and sold all my standard staples as standard was too much to keep up with and not enough fun for the price. 6 month rotation was too irritating to put up with. Enjoying spending money on Modern cards now and building lots of fun decks.
Yeah I feel that. There was no way a set like Dragons or Origins deserved to be played for such a small time window while a gimmicky block like Zendikar gets to stick around.
You do realize that Dragons/Origins would have rotated out with the release of Kaladesh even with the original rotation time period right? Even if Dragons stuck around for another six months no one wanted another half year of CoCo.
Too late for me. After dragons and origins rotated I decided it wasn't worth it and sold all my standard staples as standard was too much to keep up with and not enough fun for the price. 6 month rotation was too irritating to put up with. Enjoying spending money on Modern cards now and building lots of fun decks.
Yeah I feel that. There was no way a set like Dragons or Origins deserved to be played for such a small time window while a gimmicky block like Zendikar gets to stick around.
You do realize that Dragons/Origins would have rotated out with the release of Kaladesh even with the original rotation time period right? Even if Dragons stuck around for another six months no one wanted another half year of CoCo.
That may be so. I still feel that Origins was quite deserving of a longer run; considering it was a nice core set to the meta.
Right now I think most people are glad their decks are not going to be out dated for a long time. I was certain I would quit MTG if they didn't shift back to a yearly format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I think I like the change. I enjoyed the aspect of Standard having a couple of phases under the original model. They weren't specifically outlined phases. More of a gradation as sets were released and the card pool expanded. We had Small Standard and Big Standard near the end, and each phase seemed to have its own character, in terms of how metagames evolved.
With the quick rotation sechedule, it was essentially Small Standard year round. As a result each set, even those that were not a rotation set, still had a pretty big effect, since they were a always a significant portion of the card pool. While there were only 2 rotations each year, it felt more like 4 rotations, 1 for each set. Looking at Battle vs Gatewatch Standards, and Shadows vs Eldritch Moon Standards, there was huge shifts in the meta games despite not being rotations.
This happened in the old model too, especially early on in the Small Standard period, but as Standard got bigger, it tended to smooth out. Strategies would stay mostly viable at each set release. Jund throughout INN-RTR. Black Devotion for RTR-THR. Abzan throughout THR-KTK. People complain about dominate decks staying dominate, but that is what you get if you want a more stable metagame where decks do not rise and fall as quickly based on individual set releases.
So let me get this straight. From now on autumn sets will rotate out after two years. Sets released in spring last only 18 months? We will have new releases four times a year and once a year two whole blocks will rotate out? I'm a returning player (I quit after Time Spiral) and just try to understand this.
It's the same system they used in Time Spiral. You just have a fourth set in the place of the core set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In case I didn't tell you, I don't care about your opinion I just want your facts. And not the facts that make you seem smart. I want the ones that are actual facts.
I had grown accustomed to 6 month rotations, and I'm not sure I like going back to the old 12 month system. I do like the fact that we'll have periods of a larger card pool; ideally they would have just extended the length of time a set was in standard (from 18 to 24) and kept the 6 month cycle.
Well, they had some good reasons to try a 6 month rotation. For one, people were a bit tired of seeing Siege Rhino everywhere and there were some pretty powerful decks that just took over the entire meta for ages, so the idea was to have faster rotating sets and a smaller card pool to help expand the number of viable decks around and make things cheaper for deck builders. Instead, it made standard more expensive and Wizards underestimated how many casual standard players actually built decks and expected to play standard with them for at least a good half a year or more. So in the end, people in general disliked the 6 month rotation of standard even more than the one year of Siege Rhino.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I disagree strongly with their decision and the worst part about it is that some sets are now once again in standard for a really long time while otheres are in standard for just a very small amount of time in comparison.
That's the way it always was since Standard existed (before Tarkir) You'd have the core set lasting 2 years and then the first set of a 3-set block last 1.75 years and the other 2 be progressively shorter.
This meant that the third set of a block rarely sold well (barring sets with OP cards), for a lot of reasons.
1) The cards stayed Standard for the last amount of time.
2) The metagame was already established and the third set was only bought enough for the key pieces - the third set rarely if ever shook things up.
3) The third set was usually working with a design space with the set mechanics that was almost exhausted, and the cards were usually less interesting.
We're still keeping the two-block model, which gets rid of reason #3. However, I think #2 is the biggest reason, which is now brought back. I don't expect the small set in the Amonkhet block to do well unless they do something to really shake up the metagame.
i also hate that we jump from 8 sets to 5 on rotation.
I would much rather have them change standard to 4 blocks so that we always switch between 8 and 7 sets and all blocks are in there for the same amount of time.
While I agree - they won't. The problem with new player rotation is not really the 16 months vs 24 months lifecycle, it's the amount of time between rotations. If you build a deck in the Fall you are good with it for a full year. This allows casual players to get more bang for their buck. In the 6 month rotation cycle, if they use cards from the oldest set they will be forced to rebuild every 6 months.
Being an MTG vet who got back in just before Eldrich Moon launched - I knew this and built my deck with as few Origins and Dragons cards as possible, and avoided BFZ knowing it would rotate out soon. I'm annoyed that BFZ is sticking around - but I may pick up cards for it because it's around for a full year (and I have more money now then I did at EMN launch) I hate BFZ so much, and I hate many of the cards in it. I was so looking forward to it rotating out.
Right now I feel the same way as I did when I first realised that my least favourite block of all time (Lorwyn) was going to rotate out at the same time as my favourite set of all time (Shadowmoor) and I couldn't have my Shadowmoor without sinking faeries ruining it!
I prefer the frequent rotations - it's good for the game because it means the meta-game is forced to adapt more often (which is the reason I play Standard rather than an Eternal format) The metagame has been hyper diverse since that change because people can't keep a legacy strategy going forever. I'm now afraid that the format will be 'solved' by Aether Revolt leaving Amonkhet and Hour of Devastation to be just be viewed as pieces to add to the best decks to make them more efficient and will never shine on their own.
I understand that they have to appeal to more casual players, and from that angle it is the right decision. It's just bad for the rest of the game.
I also feel like we've been seeing two-block archs, so I actually think they planned this for awhile. We had Eldrazi in BFZ and continuing that arch with Emrakul in SOI block. Now we have Tezeret on Kaladesh followed up with Amonkhet - which we know to be under the thrall of Nicol Bolas. In both cases the two blocks tie together somehow - so it definitely feels like they planned for this.
This happened in the old model too, especially early on in the Small Standard period, but as Standard got bigger, it tended to smooth out. Strategies would stay mostly viable at each set release. Jund throughout INN-RTR. Black Devotion for RTR-THR. Abzan throughout THR-KTK. People complain about dominate decks staying dominate, but that is what you get if you want a more stable metagame where decks do not rise and fall as quickly based on individual set releases.
That's precicely what I don't what. I like the metagame shaking up frequently. If we're going to be looking at a game where the meta is 'solved' after the 2nd set and the spring and summer sets just add efficiency choices and don't change the dominant meta, then that creates a very boring play environment.
The metagame being shaken up every 6 months was perfect - I love the variety and Standard hasn't felt as stale as it did with the old system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rose tint my world, keep me safe from my trouble and pain.
I also dislike the eldrazi since they had horrible art, no personality, and the designers forgot they were used in the old set as a natural disaster.
My favorite cards from the block are all non-eldrazi like Gideon and drana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
So what is going to happen to Shadow Over Innistrad/Eldritch Moon ? In the old system, they would have been legal until when exactly ? And with the new system, when are they going to rotate out ?
SOI/EMN rotates in September and would've rotated out in September regardless.
I see it from both angles, on the faster rotation, people would get bored of the card pool on the tournament level and feel like it would take forever to get to the next standard format.
However, with faster rotations people also spent more money on cards, in addition, and this is the most important point I think, players wouldn't have enough time to truly figure out the standard format and have really meaningful games over a longer period of time.
Certainly in the past we've had dominating cards, but WOTC usually takes care to create cards and synergies that can play against them.
I think the enjoyment of the game requires time to develop a finely tuned meta, and I think that goes for all competitive games in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
I see it from both angles, on the faster rotation, people would get bored of the card pool on the tournament level and feel like it would take forever to get to the next standard format.
I presume this first sentence is to read 'on the slower rotation'?
For me, it's not about individual cards. There are some sets I hate and I usually quit playing for a few years to not play them (Masques, both Mirrodins, Lorwyn, original Innistrad) When I got back into Magic this most recent time (just before EMN) I hate BFZ - but I figure because of the quicker rotation cycle I can live with it... oh wait, now it's around for another 6 months. I feel a little duped. That said, there are a couple of fun cards in the set I did wind up enjoying playing with. I just wish Ulamog, Gideon, and Sylvan Advocate didn't exist. Okay, so it is specific cards - but I wouldn't even have given BFZ a chance at all if it wasn't for the faster rotation.
Hating specific cards is going to impact people like yourself regardless of the amount of time they're in the cardpool.
Suggesting that people are going to be more willing to play the game if those cards remain in the game for less time is sort of the opposite of what the game is supposed to do, draw you in.
If a game exists for you to wish that parts of it were not in there, that should lead you and others to play other games right? Or design a better game by your standards.
We all have access to the same card pools when it comes to game balance, and if winning is the only way to have fun, then by that logic, the best chance to have fun is to play the cards we hate and yet some how think are the best (which is a depressing mindset to have I think.)
Sometimes you just have to enjoy being the underdog, or enjoy taking apart the meta with strategy.
I personally enjoy playing against the meta on a level where I make the best cards bad and bad cards good, its what keeps me in this game.
I think when I just tried to jam only what I wanted to play, I hated cards. I hated Thragtusk in its day, because I loved to play mono red at the time.
Fairness is not fun, what is fun in game design is the unknown strength of different strategies.
Being able to explore a game, study it, understand it, and compete with others doing that is what makes a game legendary.
This is why games like street fighter 3, chess, starcraft, and modern format exist, because they're an endless puzzle with the hardest opponents all trying to master the same game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The red mage lives by the variance and dies by the variance. May the variance be with you, always.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
RGWNaya BurnRGW+++RGWKiki ComboRGW
UGInfectUG+++++++++.++++++++UGMerfolkUG
GGNykthos WaveGG++++++++++GGStompyGG
BRVampiresBR+++++++.+++++++BRGoblinsBR
WGBogglesWG+++++++++++++CRSkred RedCR
UBRGDredgeUBRG++++++++++BB8 RackBB
URWJeskaiURW+++.++UBRGrixis DelverUBR
URStormUR++++++++UWGBant CompanyUWG
WUBRGHumansWUBRG+CCEldrazi TronCC
Yeah I feel that. There was no way a set like Dragons or Origins deserved to be played for such a small time window while a gimmicky block like Zendikar gets to stick around.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
You do realize that Dragons/Origins would have rotated out with the release of Kaladesh even with the original rotation time period right? Even if Dragons stuck around for another six months no one wanted another half year of CoCo.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
That may be so. I still feel that Origins was quite deserving of a longer run; considering it was a nice core set to the meta.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
With the quick rotation sechedule, it was essentially Small Standard year round. As a result each set, even those that were not a rotation set, still had a pretty big effect, since they were a always a significant portion of the card pool. While there were only 2 rotations each year, it felt more like 4 rotations, 1 for each set. Looking at Battle vs Gatewatch Standards, and Shadows vs Eldritch Moon Standards, there was huge shifts in the meta games despite not being rotations.
This happened in the old model too, especially early on in the Small Standard period, but as Standard got bigger, it tended to smooth out. Strategies would stay mostly viable at each set release. Jund throughout INN-RTR. Black Devotion for RTR-THR. Abzan throughout THR-KTK. People complain about dominate decks staying dominate, but that is what you get if you want a more stable metagame where decks do not rise and fall as quickly based on individual set releases.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Cockatrice username: Blackcat77
UR Blue-Red Control
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
UWR Jeskai Control
Having 2 blocks rotate at the same time will be interesting though
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
That's the way it always was since Standard existed (before Tarkir) You'd have the core set lasting 2 years and then the first set of a 3-set block last 1.75 years and the other 2 be progressively shorter.
This meant that the third set of a block rarely sold well (barring sets with OP cards), for a lot of reasons.
1) The cards stayed Standard for the last amount of time.
2) The metagame was already established and the third set was only bought enough for the key pieces - the third set rarely if ever shook things up.
3) The third set was usually working with a design space with the set mechanics that was almost exhausted, and the cards were usually less interesting.
We're still keeping the two-block model, which gets rid of reason #3. However, I think #2 is the biggest reason, which is now brought back. I don't expect the small set in the Amonkhet block to do well unless they do something to really shake up the metagame.
While I agree - they won't. The problem with new player rotation is not really the 16 months vs 24 months lifecycle, it's the amount of time between rotations. If you build a deck in the Fall you are good with it for a full year. This allows casual players to get more bang for their buck. In the 6 month rotation cycle, if they use cards from the oldest set they will be forced to rebuild every 6 months.
Being an MTG vet who got back in just before Eldrich Moon launched - I knew this and built my deck with as few Origins and Dragons cards as possible, and avoided BFZ knowing it would rotate out soon. I'm annoyed that BFZ is sticking around - but I may pick up cards for it because it's around for a full year (and I have more money now then I did at EMN launch) I hate BFZ so much, and I hate many of the cards in it. I was so looking forward to it rotating out.
Right now I feel the same way as I did when I first realised that my least favourite block of all time (Lorwyn) was going to rotate out at the same time as my favourite set of all time (Shadowmoor) and I couldn't have my Shadowmoor without sinking faeries ruining it!
I prefer the frequent rotations - it's good for the game because it means the meta-game is forced to adapt more often (which is the reason I play Standard rather than an Eternal format) The metagame has been hyper diverse since that change because people can't keep a legacy strategy going forever. I'm now afraid that the format will be 'solved' by Aether Revolt leaving Amonkhet and Hour of Devastation to be just be viewed as pieces to add to the best decks to make them more efficient and will never shine on their own.
I understand that they have to appeal to more casual players, and from that angle it is the right decision. It's just bad for the rest of the game.
I also feel like we've been seeing two-block archs, so I actually think they planned this for awhile. We had Eldrazi in BFZ and continuing that arch with Emrakul in SOI block. Now we have Tezeret on Kaladesh followed up with Amonkhet - which we know to be under the thrall of Nicol Bolas. In both cases the two blocks tie together somehow - so it definitely feels like they planned for this.
That's precicely what I don't what. I like the metagame shaking up frequently. If we're going to be looking at a game where the meta is 'solved' after the 2nd set and the spring and summer sets just add efficiency choices and don't change the dominant meta, then that creates a very boring play environment.
The metagame being shaken up every 6 months was perfect - I love the variety and Standard hasn't felt as stale as it did with the old system.
My favorite cards from the block are all non-eldrazi like Gideon and drana.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
SOI/EMN rotates in September and would've rotated out in September regardless.
However, with faster rotations people also spent more money on cards, in addition, and this is the most important point I think, players wouldn't have enough time to truly figure out the standard format and have really meaningful games over a longer period of time.
Certainly in the past we've had dominating cards, but WOTC usually takes care to create cards and synergies that can play against them.
I think the enjoyment of the game requires time to develop a finely tuned meta, and I think that goes for all competitive games in general.
I presume this first sentence is to read 'on the slower rotation'?
For me, it's not about individual cards. There are some sets I hate and I usually quit playing for a few years to not play them (Masques, both Mirrodins, Lorwyn, original Innistrad) When I got back into Magic this most recent time (just before EMN) I hate BFZ - but I figure because of the quicker rotation cycle I can live with it... oh wait, now it's around for another 6 months. I feel a little duped. That said, there are a couple of fun cards in the set I did wind up enjoying playing with. I just wish Ulamog, Gideon, and Sylvan Advocate didn't exist. Okay, so it is specific cards - but I wouldn't even have given BFZ a chance at all if it wasn't for the faster rotation.
Suggesting that people are going to be more willing to play the game if those cards remain in the game for less time is sort of the opposite of what the game is supposed to do, draw you in.
If a game exists for you to wish that parts of it were not in there, that should lead you and others to play other games right? Or design a better game by your standards.
We all have access to the same card pools when it comes to game balance, and if winning is the only way to have fun, then by that logic, the best chance to have fun is to play the cards we hate and yet some how think are the best (which is a depressing mindset to have I think.)
Sometimes you just have to enjoy being the underdog, or enjoy taking apart the meta with strategy.
I personally enjoy playing against the meta on a level where I make the best cards bad and bad cards good, its what keeps me in this game.
I think when I just tried to jam only what I wanted to play, I hated cards. I hated Thragtusk in its day, because I loved to play mono red at the time.
Fairness is not fun, what is fun in game design is the unknown strength of different strategies.
Being able to explore a game, study it, understand it, and compete with others doing that is what makes a game legendary.
This is why games like street fighter 3, chess, starcraft, and modern format exist, because they're an endless puzzle with the hardest opponents all trying to master the same game.