What is the biggest set that has been released? I think the biggest one I've seen was Lorwyn, which had 301 if I remember correctly.
Was there one bigger than that?
Do you think Wizards should go back to bigger sets?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We'll scale these cliffs, traverse Brittle Bridge, and then fight our way down the volcanic slopes on the other side."
"Isn't the shortest route through the canyon?"
"Yes."
"So shouldn't we--"
"No."
I don't think they should go back to bigger sets. sets already have maybe 10 cards for anything beyond EDH, and upping the count by 50 would probably give us 49-50 more draft-only cards and lower odds of drawing the good ones
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I like "more" cards and especially NEW cards.
Personally i hate reprints of cards i already have.
So the more new cards, the better.
However, collectors usually dont like it, as it becomes harder and harder to get all the cards, especially foils.
If a set is smaller, you need to buy less boxes to get all the cards.
And simply having more cards means more artists, more artwork, more of everything, so WotC likes to have less cards simply to cut costs as well.
For print sheets, they might also streamline the process so sets have more or less the same number of cards.
All kinds of reasons they probably wont print any much larger set anymore.
New cards which are functional reprints of old cards Hill Giant / Canyon Minotaur for example are a waste of namespace in most cases. Nobody wanted the Hill Giant and while Canyon Minotaur may be a more useful tribe, it's still just a filler card... Adding new cards to formats outside Standard is a more interesting concept, the Commander and Conspiracy releases along with the recent Battle Bond add more cards for casual players and play in new design space a similar release aimed at a Modern power level (and legal) would be super interesting.
So bigger sets would be a no, since there would just be more functional reprints, more varied sets, that's an idea I can get behind. Older sets were often over 300, Mirage, Tempest and Urza's Saga all clocked in at 335, cosmcbun is right on Fifth Edition...
This thread is really old, so I'm going to lock it. if you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread rather than bringing up an old one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Was there one bigger than that?
Do you think Wizards should go back to bigger sets?
"Isn't the shortest route through the canyon?"
"Yes."
"So shouldn't we--"
"No."
Personally i hate reprints of cards i already have.
So the more new cards, the better.
However, collectors usually dont like it, as it becomes harder and harder to get all the cards, especially foils.
If a set is smaller, you need to buy less boxes to get all the cards.
And simply having more cards means more artists, more artwork, more of everything, so WotC likes to have less cards simply to cut costs as well.
For print sheets, they might also streamline the process so sets have more or less the same number of cards.
All kinds of reasons they probably wont print any much larger set anymore.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
So bigger sets would be a no, since there would just be more functional reprints, more varied sets, that's an idea I can get behind. Older sets were often over 300, Mirage, Tempest and Urza's Saga all clocked in at 335, cosmcbun is right on Fifth Edition...