Very hard not to look at this as a cash grab move.
Exectuive 1: "Folks, standard is failing and our profits are down. We can't just keep churning masters set to make people buy premium products, they're starting to notice our scheme".
Executive 2: "Standard has been bad for years, but you know what people like? Commander"
Executive 3: "Why don't we make Commander with only standard legal cards, so people are forced to buy into our new product even though it is bad?"
*Cheers in the room*
*End scene*
It is... almost as though they were a for-profit company instead of the non-profit charity we were led to believe! Monsters!!!
I got it.
I finally got it.
WoTC wanted to encourage nostalgia with this set, and nothing feels more nostalgic than playing with your old friends on a kitchen table.
You may not be far from the truth. After all, the set is not called "Money Masters" nor "Tournament Staple Masters".
Message to Gavin and others that work on this set: If I don't get $10 U.S. out of value per pack, I'm not opening the pack, period. Keep the EV high and my interest will remain high.
Genuine question: Do you usually get $3.50 value from your normal packs?
2014: Let's drop core sets and 3set-paradigm and introduce 2set-paradigm...
2017: A mistakes were made... Meet core sets and no2set-paradigm...
2016: Meet masterpiece theme...
2017: A mistakes were made... Meet not-every-set masterpiece theme...
2015: Meet Gatewatch storyline...
2017: A mistakes were made... Meet less-Gatewatch storyline...
2007: Meet duel decks...
2017: A mistakes were made...
What you neglect to mention is that for each of those cases and many more you could imagine, it was not a "return to normality" after the "mistake" was acknowledged, but rather, moving towards something different to both the "old" and the "newer", something that comes from the lessons learned through the process. What would you rather they do? Not acknowledge their "mistakes" nor do something better? Or simply never ever changing anything from the old times, never taking risks, never creating new things? Or maybe, doing all that, but somehow, getting it /absolutely perfect/ from the first attempt?
And seriously, would you blame them for changing a product that is over 10 years old? Most /companies/ don't last that long and most non-consumable products are entirely redesigned every few years.
Issue is that they haven't really been learning a lot from their mistakes and those that they are we still haven't seen if they truly are. All of the mistakes leading to products being removed, which then was a mistake on its own, and then bringing back make you wonder if they have truly learned about their mistakes or not. Core sets and Event Decks being removed were because of their continued under par adequacy, which is oddly the same reason as Duel Decks being removed, then years later they are not coming back, showing that what they tried to replace them with was even worse, adding to that mistake.
We can barely expect them to learn from set to set or product to product, an example being the Masters sets and them constantly having the same issues even though there was a year or more between them, so can we expect them to learn from compounding mistakes that plagued past sets and products? Will we see the same issues yet again? With them making the Event Decks later and learn from the meta there is a shining hope, but we've all seen them forget as to why they do certain things (*cough* fetches and lands with basic land types *cough*) before so I can see the issue with why people, and myself, don't trust them after so long.
It wouldn't surprise me in another 3-5 years them bringing back Duel Decks, stating how there is no cheap casual product. Now if only they'd focus on actual products and not these continued attempts at these board game products they keep shoving out.
I get what you are saying, I myself don't have high hopes for this new product. However, I don't automatically discount that it may surprise us. Sure, some poor decisions have been made here and there, but it's not as though there have been NO positive, permanent changes at all. It is more constructive to give them credit for recognising when they have screwed up and continuously try to improve/create new things, than keeping a score of only the mistakes.
For example, the scrapping of the Core Sets: They had been continuously trying to fix and improve Core Sets for a while and unarguably they succeeded to a point. However, some "core" issues remained throughout so scrapping the product altogether was not uncalled for. Obviously, they didn't realise that along with that bathwater, an important baby was also thrown away. It /was/ a mistake, but again, not uncalled for and it is is a good thing that they are fixing it now. Hopefully, its removal and subsequent consequences served to emphasise what exactly is good and necessary for a Core Set and the upcoming iteration will be the best ever. That process of trying, failing, iterating and improving is something that I wouldn't blame anybody for, and much prefer it to a company, who afraid to take risks and failing, plays too safe and the status quo never changes.
2014: Let's drop core sets and 3set-paradigm and introduce 2set-paradigm...
2017: A mistakes were made... Meet core sets and no2set-paradigm...
2016: Meet masterpiece theme...
2017: A mistakes were made... Meet not-every-set masterpiece theme...
2015: Meet Gatewatch storyline...
2017: A mistakes were made... Meet less-Gatewatch storyline...
2007: Meet duel decks...
2017: A mistakes were made...
What you neglect to mention is that for each of those cases and many more you could imagine, it was not a "return to normality" after the "mistake" was acknowledged, but rather, moving towards something different to both the "old" and the "newer", something that comes from the lessons learned through the process. What would you rather they do? Not acknowledge their "mistakes" nor do something better? Or simply never ever changing anything from the old times, never taking risks, never creating new things? Or maybe, doing all that, but somehow, getting it /absolutely perfect/ from the first attempt?
And seriously, would you blame them for changing a product that is over 10 years old? Most /companies/ don't last that long and most non-consumable products are entirely redesigned every few years.
Man, I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me assembling contraptions is wayyyy too easy. Like, as easy as drawing a card, if this card is any indication, with the potential to be significantly more powerful.
Relax, there are only 45 contraptions in the set and I imagine not many more than that number of cards that care about them. That means that well over half of the set is not about contraptions. They have purposefully been concealing the second main mechanic, too. They just made this week all about contraptions.
The first thing that made me go "Hmm" is the black uncommon that encourages all-four-tribes play. Haven't seen a real "Play five color goodstuff" draft card in a while. A quadruple Raise Dead for 3, if you're recovering all four tribes.
Grim Captain's Call
Sorcery 2B
Uncommon
Return a Pirate card from your graveyard to your hand, then do the same for Vampire, Dinosaur, and Merfolk.
I'm guessing it is a little extra something for those who open Vraska and go the odd BG path.
Can't wait to draw three lands or garbage for 3 mana!
One is tempted to suggest not to add any garbage to your deck. More seriously, though, if your three next cards are garbage, you got them out of the way instead of over three painful turns.
I kind of thought this was a little lame, not for any real reason besides it just didn't grab me. My one question is was that Vraska narrating this one?
You presume you know how they work and, in fact, assume the worst. With the referent of Overrun being so obvious, it is clear that the card was first tested as a reprint or functional reprint. They must have found out that it made a group of other designed cards or a strategy too strong and rather than change them, they changed this one card. Overrun has been reprinted a few times in the past and sometimes it was borderline overpowered while other times it was almost unplayable. You cannot predict how that card would have worked in this environment but WotC has the tools and experience to make a more informed guess than at least you.
Also, how are you getting "shortchanged"? How is the fact that this card is worse than Overrun rips you off your money while profiting WotC more?
I hate Dutiful Servants so much it's not even funny. You know Wizards did this on purpose. And poorly designed zombie camel aside, this may be the insult that breaks my back. It's a poorly designed vanilla, with art and flavor purposely designed to trick you to confuse it for another card in the same block. This is the sort of thing that leads to entirely preventable gameplay mistakes in limited. And somehow MaRo said "Print it."
Well, I'm sorry MaRo, but peddle your joke cards elsewhere. And I'm sorry piss-poor designers, but PAY ATTENTION to what you do.
Fun fact - design doesn't come up with the card names (at least not finalized versions) and they most certainly don't pick the art. Blaming Mark Rosewater for this is silly, it's Development you have an issue with (and the art director).
As ridiculous as most of the things you complain about are (like suggesting WotC should have made Rhonas' Last Stand go from questionable to straight out garbage by costing it at 3 CMC, presumably because it offended your sense of symmetry by costing less than the other 2 cards in the cycle that were spoiled at the time), almost NONE of those things are indicative of bad design. In point of fact, almost all of the complaints everyone makes about cards on this forum can be blamed on Development. Why does this card cost so much, it would be so much better if it didn't have this clause, etc etc... odds are the version Design handed off did cost less, and didn't have those riders that render it basically unplayable. It may also have been horrendously broken and cause no end of complaint for entirely different reasons if Development passed it through unchanged, no way to know for sure unless they release an M-Files article on it.
MaRo is responsible for a lot of stuff, but gets blamed for even more.
I'm using MaRo as a stand-in for the kind of guy who advocates (!) printing bad cards. But you're right; this is the kind of combination of art fudge + design fail + "Who cares? It's a common, it's okay that it's garbage" that you'd think MaRo would have caught. Now I don't know what MaRo would have done if he hadn't been asleep at the wheel (perhaps he'd have picked a different piece of art from the reject pile and made it some generic white beast. But that doesn't change the fact it's 1 more for +0/+1 within the same block. It's insulting. And I think MaRo might just be the kind of guy who's okay with that, given his articles.
Dude, please stop talking, you know nothing, nothing at all.
1st: Mark Rosewater is the guy at the beginning of the process, who creates /some/ of the cards' first drafts. He's not an overseer of the full process, nor the one to establish and enforce the power level or the creative direction of cards, nor the one to "okay" the whole result at the end. If you actually read his articles you'd notice how he keeps mentioning that cards he or other people designed were changed by development in ways that they could not influence or predict.
2nd: Again, if you read his articles as you said, you'd have picked up that he's barely involved at all in second sets due to his workload.
3rd: this card was clearly not a makeshift patching of refused art and mechanics. It is clearly a card purposefully created by the Creative Department representative to stress how in a world crumbling to bits, the mummies kept dragging along as if nothing. It's not a cutesy joke, it is a world-building statement.
Basically sums up the first reactions to every card, every set.
And yet, impossibly, people manage to play Standard and other constructed formats with these cards, set after set.
Now, to be fair, people found a way to play Standard during Kamigawa, as well. It generally revolved around 'how can I hit something with my Umezawa's Jitte before you hit something with yours.' It was an awful format with awful cards. We played with those awful cards because, in Standard, you don't have a choice. WotC gives you lemons, you make Standard lemonade. Even if its noxious, stomach-turning, repulsive lemon poison.
All I'm saying is seeing Standard play is more a function of the tools available than the quality of the equipment. Standard is a nail and players will find a hammer for it. Even if it feels bad to swing it.
Well, I was not saying either that there are not such things as bad cards Only that even what seems "bad" compared to older, similar cards might actually be good enough for the very different conditions of the meta once it settles. So what seems poorly designed in comparison to older sets that created a different power level scenario, might actually be intentional design adjusting to a modern scenario that will be just as fun (hopefully) as the older one with its comparatively stronger cards were. In fact, over-powered cards have, historically, ruined more Standard formats than under-powered ones.
My favorite card hast to be Venser, the Sojourner. I love flickering effects and Venser was a repeatable, free one. It made unassuming cards like Kor Hookmaster and Glimmerpoint Stag into hard locks, resetted PWs, recovered "mind-controlled creatures and abused things like Titans and Spine. I had more fun than its healthy with that card.
It is... almost as though they were a for-profit company instead of the non-profit charity we were led to believe! Monsters!!!
You may not be far from the truth. After all, the set is not called "Money Masters" nor "Tournament Staple Masters".
Genuine question: Do you usually get $3.50 value from your normal packs?
Yes.
I get what you are saying, I myself don't have high hopes for this new product. However, I don't automatically discount that it may surprise us. Sure, some poor decisions have been made here and there, but it's not as though there have been NO positive, permanent changes at all. It is more constructive to give them credit for recognising when they have screwed up and continuously try to improve/create new things, than keeping a score of only the mistakes.
For example, the scrapping of the Core Sets: They had been continuously trying to fix and improve Core Sets for a while and unarguably they succeeded to a point. However, some "core" issues remained throughout so scrapping the product altogether was not uncalled for. Obviously, they didn't realise that along with that bathwater, an important baby was also thrown away. It /was/ a mistake, but again, not uncalled for and it is is a good thing that they are fixing it now. Hopefully, its removal and subsequent consequences served to emphasise what exactly is good and necessary for a Core Set and the upcoming iteration will be the best ever. That process of trying, failing, iterating and improving is something that I wouldn't blame anybody for, and much prefer it to a company, who afraid to take risks and failing, plays too safe and the status quo never changes.
What you neglect to mention is that for each of those cases and many more you could imagine, it was not a "return to normality" after the "mistake" was acknowledged, but rather, moving towards something different to both the "old" and the "newer", something that comes from the lessons learned through the process. What would you rather they do? Not acknowledge their "mistakes" nor do something better? Or simply never ever changing anything from the old times, never taking risks, never creating new things? Or maybe, doing all that, but somehow, getting it /absolutely perfect/ from the first attempt?
And seriously, would you blame them for changing a product that is over 10 years old? Most /companies/ don't last that long and most non-consumable products are entirely redesigned every few years.
Relax, there are only 45 contraptions in the set and I imagine not many more than that number of cards that care about them. That means that well over half of the set is not about contraptions. They have purposefully been concealing the second main mechanic, too. They just made this week all about contraptions.
I'm guessing it is a little extra something for those who open Vraska and go the odd BG path.
One is tempted to suggest not to add any garbage to your deck.
Pretty sure it was Admiral Beckett narrating.
Also, how are you getting "shortchanged"? How is the fact that this card is worse than Overrun rips you off your money while profiting WotC more?
Dude, please stop talking, you know nothing, nothing at all.
1st: Mark Rosewater is the guy at the beginning of the process, who creates /some/ of the cards' first drafts. He's not an overseer of the full process, nor the one to establish and enforce the power level or the creative direction of cards, nor the one to "okay" the whole result at the end. If you actually read his articles you'd notice how he keeps mentioning that cards he or other people designed were changed by development in ways that they could not influence or predict.
2nd: Again, if you read his articles as you said, you'd have picked up that he's barely involved at all in second sets due to his workload.
3rd: this card was clearly not a makeshift patching of refused art and mechanics. It is clearly a card purposefully created by the Creative Department representative to stress how in a world crumbling to bits, the mummies kept dragging along as if nothing. It's not a cutesy joke, it is a world-building statement.
Well, I was not saying either that there are not such things as bad cards