We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss
 
Theros: Elspeth's Tragedy
 
The Magic Market Index for July 14th, 2017
 
Treasure Cruisin' with Daxos Enchantress
  • 1

    posted a message on Uhh I think wizards has a problem on their hand (Ixalan)
    I <sarcasm>love</sarcasm> that people are advocating for ruining someone's life over this. Wow.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on Un-Set 3 Unstable


    vs.



    One says that it's legal in Vintage / Commander; the other does not. I'm sure noone will be surprised that every non-basic card from Unglued and Unhinged excludes legality options for anything other than Un-Sets.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on Un-Set 3 Unstable
    I keep thinking about possible themes for an Un- Masterpiece series (previously in this thread I suggested Justifications)...but it just hit me, they can literally be anything, because:

    • Expeditions
    • Inventions
    • Invocations
    • Un-ions
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on Un-Set 3 Unstable
    The naysayers will play it. They'll have fun. And they'll still complain despite getting more value than spending the same amount of money on most DC movies.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on And the Spring 2018 set is Dominaria
    Quote from Boreez »
    The question is - what really defines Dominaria? We'll see a bunch of recognizable place names, but from a game mechanic perspective, what can they do to make this feel like old-school Dominaria and not a NWO layer laid on top of familiar names?
    There is nothing that mechanically defines Dominaria (except over-the-top mana, maybe). It's all about classic, RPG-style fantasy. That's what people loved so much about pre-Eldrazi Zendikar.

    Quote from Xenocyde3000 »
    MaRo is saying that they finally figured out how to return to Dominaria... what shenanigan is he talking about? Is Bolas responsible?
    That's been my prediction for the past year or so. Whatever Bolas is doing on Amonkhet, it's to somehow power a Planar Gate strong enough to re-access his home plane, where he presumably has something he needs/wants to regain pre-Sundering pre-Mending power levels.

    Quote from RSSR »
    I once asked Maro on Twitter if they had completely abandoned Dominarian Slivers in favor of Shandalarian Slivers, his response: "No."
    Which doesn't have to mean mechanically, he could just mean that aesthetically.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on Un-Set 3 Unstable
    Quote from jackspeed »
    I can't wait to open a masterpiece basic land (unglued foil).
    While that would be awesome, really it would, I expect that it won't fit with whatever theme they would showcase for an Un- Masterpiece series. I'm thinking "Justifications" that all have flavor text attempting to explain why famously bad cards are in fact good, as told by Squee.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on Un-Set 3 Unstable
    Quote from Jhyrryl »
    This could have been another conspiracy set.
    People who care about Conspiracy as a format, and not just for the reprints that it brings, share a lot of overlap in target audience with fans of Un-.


    Conspiracy sets are popular not only because of the format and good reprints but also because new cards are created that support EDH and Legacy.

    Unstable won't have any reprints that will support eternal formats nor will it have new cards that will support EDH, Legacy (or any format for that matter aside from drafting and perhaps fringe joke cubes).

    I really think there are more people that would want a return to Kamigawa set than an unset, but Mark Rosewater is so biased because he's obsessed with unsets for some reason.
    Again, you're using non-Conspiracy formats as the reason for your disappointment that this isn't a Conspiracy set, and I'm going to say again that fans of the Conspiracy format will greatly overlap with fans of Un-.

    For what it's worth, Un- cards see frequent use in Cubes that are not fringe jokes, and is arguably the best type of set that WotC can print in support of the Cube format, which is played way more than Legacy, and EDH already gets a yearly supplement.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 5

    posted a message on Un-Set 3 Unstable
    When our group drafted Unglued, a buddy of mine did not hesitate to remove his pants when Hurloon Wrangler hit the table opposite him. Un- is fun!
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on Un-Set 3 Unstable
    This could have been another conspiracy set.
    People who care about Conspiracy as a format, and not just for the reprints that it brings, share a lot of overlap in target audience with fans of Un-.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Hour of Devastation Promo Materials and New Cards
    Quote from Boogelawoof »
    Quote from Jhyrryl »
    Alesha is pleased with Wildfire Eternal and all of its (low-power) Afflict brethren.


    Does that actually work? I don't think Alesha actually makes the creature attack, just come into play attacking. IIRC, the creature actually needed to attack to get triggers like that to work.

    Edit: i think the "and isn't blocked" part of it might actually make it work. I'm looking at the interaction with master of cruelties, which last I remember worked with Alesha
    Yeah, the triggering event is "isn't blocked" during the Declare Blocking Creatures step. The "attacks a player" clause is a clarification that the ability does not trigger when attacking non-players. I can image that a better template would read, "Whenever ~ isn't blocked while attacking a player, [do the thing]."
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Hour of Devastation Promo Materials and New Cards
    Alesha is pleased with Wildfire Eternal and all of its (low-power) Afflict brethren.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Metamorphosis 2.0 - Return of core sets, less masterpieces and more.
    Quote from doc.brown »
    Quote from Shea_0 »
    Quote from Colt47 »
    The part I liked the most is the returning of core sets because it is the easiest place to print popular tribal cards and answers. The part that I'm not too sure about is the dropping of the Masterpieces from the sets unless it's a very special set. It's sort of a win and lose situation: Booster packs will become more valuable since masterpieces are no longer a factor in the box EV. On the other hand, the rest of the cards soak up the dollar value those cards held, so it makes the rest of the set more expensive and thus more costly to buy singles. If they went all the way and got rid of mythics with the masterpieces I'd be a bit less on the fence with it since that would be very good for those that play by the booster rather than by the single.

    Also, with the new core set are they going to be winding back on the Masters sets and put more reprints into the main sets finally? I'd love to see a core set that has cards like Noble Hierarch, but the kinds of cards I think that set will have will really be things like Birds of Paradise, Wrath of God, maybe Damnation, etc. They could definitely put in something like Fulminator Mage if they judge hybrid mana to be simple enough to understand.


    Your line of thinking brings me to the realization that the 3 large sets, and I assume the core set, will have sufficiently larger card pools than current sets, large enough that it also means that 15 mythics per set will become a thing of the past. What exactly this means I don't know but if blocks are no longer a thing and went from 3 sets per block to recently 2 sets per block (30 mythics) then what's next? 15? No way! I'm betting that MaRo's newly unveiled "vanilla mythic" project is a means of diluting the power of mythics if they have to print more for the sake of larger sets. It's a bit unsettling to see this; I'm discovering these thoughts as I continue reading news but anyways..


    MaRo,
    If you see this, please only make tribal vanilla mythics.. please don't let the concept become pushed as a tool for weakening mythics. Vanilla mythics can work in the context of tribal - if they are good enough - (I believe),it would be a shame to see the concept used in many other ways.


    your maths confuses me....
    we are going from 2 big sets and 2 small sets per year to 3 big and 1 small. big sets have 15 mythics and small sets have 10. so we are going from 50 mythics per year to 55. how is that an issue?

    4 large sets. The article has some sentences that are at cross purposes, but it's 4 large sets: 3 Story, 1 Core.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Metamorphosis 2.0 - Return of core sets, less masterpieces and more.
    Quote from Jhyrryl »
    For the Ravnica fans saying that this will be perfect for another return because they can do 5 guilds plus 5 guilds, I think you're missing the point. THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO SPLIT THINGS UP

    If the story is concise and set in Ravnica, they can do all 10 guilds in a single set. If the story is mega-huge, requiring 3 sets, they can still do all 10 guilds in each set! Just because they have opted to give every guild a unique mechanical identity in the past, does not require that they continue doing so. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with having 5 mechanics, 1 per color, and letting guilds share those mechanics. Then individual multi-colored cards could interact with the pairings in interesting ways.


    Fitting all 10 guilds into 1 large sit is way too much, even Mark Rosewater have talked about that before
    Alternately you could say he talked about trying to fit 10 new mechanics into a single set, and then cited past Ravnica sets as an example.

    Quote from Manite »
    Quote from Jhyrryl »
    For the Ravnica fans saying that this will be perfect for another return because they can do 5 guilds plus 5 guilds, I think you're missing the point. THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO SPLIT THINGS UP

    If the story is concise and set in Ravnica, they can do all 10 guilds in a single set. If the story is mega-huge, requiring 3 sets, they can still do all 10 guilds in each set!


    Except that's how most fans want the Guilds split up, myself included. I'll take two large sets with five guilds each if it means more cards for each guild.

    Quote from Jhyrryl »
    Just because they have opted to give every guild a unique mechanical identity in the past, does not require that they continue doing so. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with having 5 mechanics, 1 per color, and letting guilds share those mechanics. Then individual multi-colored cards could interact with the pairings in interesting ways.


    Except that fans like each guild getting its own mechanic. If anything, I'd like for the guilds to get past keywords as guild mechanics, like Izzet Surge and Orzhov Exploit. Additionally, design prefers putting mechanics in 2-3 colors to give players more choices for cards to play in that strategy. It's like when they do tribal themes.
    There is a big difference between what people say they want or like, and what people actually like as demonstrated by their purchasing power. Ravnica hasn't been experienced in another way to provide a frame of reference, so while it's easy to say that you like your status quo, you can't meaningfully say that you wouldn't like to experience the setting in some other way.

    Quote from Manite »
    Quote from Jhyrryl »
    More to the point, they don't need to be beholden to color symmetry either. If they want to do a story set on Ravnica that focuses on an Izzet / Golgari war, then they can. Mix in some mono-white Guildless who are protecting innocent bystanders and you've got some semblance of color balance. But you don't even need that, because maybe the next set takes us to a white-dominant plane.


    That's missing the point of Ravnica. Ravnica is about the ten guilds. A Ravnica set or sets should strive for roughly equal representation of the ten, otherwise fans of the underrepresented guilds will feel left out.
    Why force your story tellers to work in such arbitrarily defined ways? Why couldn't such representation be more spread out over time? Over 3 years under this paradigm, we could easily visit Ravnica 5 times and still have room to tell a dozen other stories on several other worlds.

    Quote from Manite »
    Plus you also have drafting issues to address. What does a player who wants to play RW or mostly got RW cards do in your Izzet vs. Golgari scenario?
    Why would you expect to find many RW cards in such a set, or even very many mono-R cards?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on Metamorphosis 2.0 - Return of core sets, less masterpieces and more.
    For the Ravnica fans saying that this will be perfect for another return because they can do 5 guilds plus 5 guilds, I think you're missing the point. THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO SPLIT THINGS UP

    If the story is concise and set in Ravnica, they can do all 10 guilds in a single set. If the story is mega-huge, requiring 3 sets, they can still do all 10 guilds in each set! Just because they have opted to give every guild a unique mechanical identity in the past, does not require that they continue doing so. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with having 5 mechanics, 1 per color, and letting guilds share those mechanics. Then individual multi-colored cards could interact with the pairings in interesting ways.

    More to the point, they don't need to be beholden to color symmetry either. If they want to do a story set on Ravnica that focuses on an Izzet / Golgari war, then they can. Mix in some mono-white Guildless who are protecting innocent bystanders and you've got some semblance of color balance. But you don't even need that, because maybe the next set takes us to a white-dominant plane.

    This paradigm opens up a tremendous amount of story-telling potential, and I hope they understand just how much and embrace it.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Metamorphosis 2.0 - Return of core sets, less masterpieces and more.
    Hindsight is 20/20 and it would have been great to see positive changes without any mistake, but that's rarely how the world works in any capacity. Doing away with Core sets was the biggest mistake of Metamorphosis 1.0; the 18 month schedule just amplified the problems of not having Core sets with baseline reprints in the rotation. If you ask people what their first MtG purchase was, their answers are going to represent uninformed decisions. Of course most first-time players are buying the most recently released product before understanding how card collections works. But for those who convert into repeat customers, if a Core set exists, someone plugged into the community would know that they are buying Core product just as much as any other set because of the "generic" dual lands and utility cards. But business people aren't plugged into the community. I know people will point at stories that indicate designers and developers made these decisions, but the fact is that they didn't do it in a vacuum...someone showed them a non-existent problem (the poor results of surveys and marketing analysis) and told them to solve it. That's not the fault of the designers and developers.

    All that being said, Metamorphosis 1.0 shook things up enough that Meta 2.0 is, in my opinion, going to make the Standard and Unlimited game even more enjoyable than it was previously, barring implementation mistakes in individual sets.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.