Lets look at MTG when it started in alpha, does magic look or play ANYTHING like it did back then?
Yes, especially if you play limited. The basics (play lands, play creatures, attack and block, play removal and tricks, win with bombs) are essentially the same as they were when I started playing in 1994. A lot has changed since then, but the basic game hasn't.
The babying and whining of this thread is really super pitiful guys, really, it is.
The reality is that these same guys have been giving us the game of magic in whatever form they may have it for 15 years. Lets look at MTG when it started in alpha, does magic look or play ANYTHING like it did back then? So many changes have been made since then, so many improvements, so much that they've done right has paid off and is making MTG continue to grow. Why do you just resist it entirely? I can't find anything in the list of changes something I could not get used to or even like in the future.
Go sit down and play with all alpha and beta cards for the next week, then think about what would have happened if WOTC changed nothing and just kept reprinting versions of those same cards over and over. Changes under their eye have typically done nothing but help.
Yeah, except the land won't always replace the crappiest common in the pack; sometimes it will be the common you actually want. I know I'd be annoyed crack a pack and find an Island in place of a Mulldrifter or Oblivion Ring.
On the bright side its not like you will ever KNOW what card you missed out on :D... :).... :frown:.... I just
made myself sad...
And anyway, I'm a little lost as to why more people aren't celebrating the smaller set sizes -- that means less money being spent to keep up with Standard.
I am with you on this one 100%. Standard was far to large and as others have pointed out hopefully a smaller set size will mean 1) More testing with the cards (Rather than testing with 180 they will be testing with 150 or whatever for the small sets) which will help catch mistake cards and weed out unplayable cards resulting in higher quality sets over all 2) As you said it will hopefully lower the price of standard.
The only mistake I think was calling them "Mythic Rares". If they had just called what they are now calling rares some form of "super uncommons", people would be throwing parades in the streets...
The thing that bothers me is that Rosewater is saying that the set size is the problem. Maybe they should have stuck to their set size rules. Anybody else remember what else they did after changing the card face? They redid the set sizes. Instead of a huge 350 card main set and two 143 card small sets, it went with Mirrodin at 306 and the two small sets at 165 each. This change was supposed to make it easier for people to collect all the cards in the sets and not overwhelm them with too many cards at once. They followed that for one block with Kamigawa (except for the two copies of the brothers legend). Then there's the extra Coldsnap at 155. Rav block followed with 306/165/180. Time spiral again with 301+121/165/180. What's lorwyn/shadowmoor at? 281/150/281/180. If they only would have followed the rules they themselves setup they wouldn't have had this problem. But they got greedy. And while I understand the math about the ultra rares, saying "Everybody else is doing it" is not a valid reason. Didn't Rosewater's mother ever tell him you don't jump off a bridge because everyone else does? Name one other CCG that is as popular as MTG or has the staying power.
This is his opinion on Mythic Rares, from his article today. I still have issues seeing this as anything other than a money-grab attempt by Wizards, however.
You'd almost think they printed sets to make money or something crazy like that, huh?
And anyway, I'm a little lost as to why more people aren't celebrating the smaller set sizes -- that means less money being spent to keep up with Standard.
Precisely. I haven't played Magic this (Magic) year because when I heard about the "Two large set" thing and saw the size of Lorwyn (and assumed the size of then-Jelly would be the same), I knew it wouldn't be cost effective. I hate collecting rares from large sets. I've spent thousands of dollars playing Magic over the years but collecting rares from large sets twice in a year (and 3 times in the calendar year, with Xth out) was the straw that broke the camel's back. Plus I've got tons of extra cards all over the place.
This announcement sealed it for me: I'm going to get back into collecting with Alara (playing on MTGO in block) and get back into Standard when 11th hits. I fully support the smaller set sizes.
As long as they don't lower the power density, I'm in favor of the smaller sets. Hopefully this will encourage a quality-over-quanity approach. My only concern is that less cards will mean less diversity, but I'll trust WotC on this one, at least.
I didn't notice that they were cutting 60-card precons when I first read the article; they will be missed. Like many players, I got my start in deckbuilding by modifying precons for casual play. This will still be possible, I suppose, but it will take a little more. The extra rare is nice, at least. Hopefully the smaller precon size, like the smaller set size, will encourage a higher density of playable cards. A nice balance between Rat's Nest and... every other precon.
As long as they don't lower the power density, I'm in favor of the smaller sets. Hopefully this will encourage a quality-over-quanity approach. My only concern is that less cards will mean less diversity, but I'll trust WotC on this one, at least.
I would think, if nothing else, it would increase the density of good uncommons. If you could create 110 commons per large set, which they did, but only choose the best 80, wouldn't that create a strong cardpool?
(Not to mention those 80 would be easier to collect :))
The problem is the other 4 all go into control decks, and control is nearly dead right now. It's not the walkers themselves that they made too weak (for the most part.)
Similarly the Command cycle, three colors are seeing a decent amount of play, the red one would as well if it hadn't been overnerfed at the last minute. The last one is white and belongs in control decks, nuff said.
Point is, Lorwyn's Mythics would be a high share of tournie staples. A set like shadowmoor would be the opposite.
I can say that I have read all seven pages that were up when I started typing this. After going through all that, I request that people stop posting mathematical formulas. If someone is not smart enough to read previous posts, they aren't going to get what you're saying, and I'm tired of reading the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
See, not fun.
That said, I think the Mythic Rare is annoying, because they basically said Mythic Rares won't be worth playing competitively, which means the disappointment of getting will negate the amazing-ness of its rarity. But if they make them awesome (as the rarity implies), they'll have insane prices...pick your poison.
To the guy who said these aren't ultra-rares b/c of some math inherently attached to URs: These are ultra-rare, for Magic. We're talking in the context of Magic (it's kind of what this site is all about). So, while not in line with your math, the most comparable thing is ultra-rares, so we call them ultra-rares, don't flip out for no reason.
Land in every pack: If that land was foil, I would have no problem with this. It would be pretty cool to have a foil land set for my decks. However, this would ruin the "Foil land for the win" joke that runs amok in my playgroup... not a bad trade off.
Reduced Set sizes: No problem, in fact, I too see this as a positive shift (good job, Wizards, you can do something that's all right and has no foreseeable downside)
Also, I'd like to point out something: Rosewater says "utility rares" and you all jump to Dual-lands. Think HARD, there are twenty true dual lands: Alpha's Duals, and Rav's Shocks. These can be land-cycled for, retrieved with the sac-lands, etc etc. But look, there are only two sets: one from 1994, and another form 2005, that's roughly a ten year gap. You all start salivating for the anticipated less-rare dual lands, but by my estimation, you'll be waiting another six and a half years to reap the benefits you're waiting for. (Yes, I realize there are other *quote*DUAL*unquote* (read: non-basic mana fixer) lands, but don't tell me you didn't focus in on Ravnica lands.)
Also, I dislike the commercialism presented by Rosewater, I would prefer him to blather about flavor and toss in a mention of how he wrote for Roseanne before he dropped the mystique and revealed the cutthroat capitalism he represents.
Edit: I don't have a strong opinion on the shift from Pre-cons to intro packs, but I don't know if it's a good idea, because I think the pre-cons are a great way to jump into Standard events. If the intro packs manage to cover that while providing a bit of change, I'd support the shift, but if it's merely a showcase of the set with little regard to synergy or playability, I would file it under "Bad Idea".
To the guy who said these aren't ultra-rares b/c of some math inherently attached to URs: These are ultra-rare, for Magic. We're talking in the context of Magic (it's kind of what this site is all about). So, while not in line with your math, the most comparable thing is ultra-rares, so we call them ultra-rares, don't flip out for no reason.
Fine. In the context of Magic,
Blue Hurricane is ultra rare. Shichifukujin Dragon is ultra rare.
Mythic rares are not ultra rare.
The problem is that they haven't said they're eliminating skill-testers (official euphemism for horrible cards like the 2 you mentioned.) So the basic land will replace the 13th-14th card.
Q. F. T.
I'm not saying the 14th and 15th pick are the most important picks of the pack. That would just be plain ignorant. But the mere fact that you have that 14th and 15th pick to consider makes a difference. This also weighs in for buying boxes/cases. The card count for those is down, no matter how slightly.
For every fifteen cents you make, you should give me a penny. What? It's only a penny. It's not that big of a deal. At first. It adds up for collectors, and it takes away, as fnord said, the skill-testers. And even if it is replacing something crappy like a Pulling Teeth, I'd rather have that 15th pick to consider. If we're in pack three, I've somehow gone mono-black, and my last two picks are Hostile Realm and Pulling Teeth, I'd take the Teeth. If they were Hostile Realm and an Island, well, I would have been better off with some Teeth.
Fine. In the context of Magic,
Blue Hurricane is ultra rare. Shichifukujin Dragon is ultra rare.
Mythic rares are not ultra rare.
So there's only one of each ultra rare printed ever? Yes, I realize there are more than one Blue Hurricane, but there's only one of the Dragons, or only one of the World Champion 1998, or whatever year they made that card. When people call them ultra rares, they aren't comparing their rarity. They're comparing their flavor, if you can really call it that. -Jack
P.S. - I am simply amazed you knew how to spell the name of that Dragon. Kudos. -Jack
And even if it is replacing something crappy like a Pulling Teeth, I'd rather have that 15th pick to consider. If we're in pack three, I've somehow gone mono-black, and my last two picks are Hostile Realm and Pulling Teeth, I'd take the Teeth.
You don't put either in your deck and have a prayer of winning the draft anyway. And anyone in the box/case mindset is going to have a complete common playset with this reduced set size regardless of basic lands.
You don't put either in your deck and have a prayer of winning the draft anyway. And anyone in the box/case mindset is going to have a complete common playset with this reduced set size regardless of basic lands.
Have you ever drafted before? Have you ever actually been happy to see a land in your pack? Sure, you might be a little bit because it's foil, but these won't even have that. They are just shafting out a card from the pack. Be it an amazing common (Nameless Inversion, Mulldrifter) or a terrible one (Hostile Realm, Pulling Teeth), I'd still rather see a common than a land.
Also, I'd like to point out something: Rosewater says "utility rares" and you all jump to Dual-lands.
Maybe that's because Rosewater mentioned Dual Lands in the very next sentence?
We've also decided that there are certain things we specifically do not want to be mythic rares. The largest category is utility cards, what I'll define as cards that fill a universal function. Some examples of this category would be cycles of dual lands and cards like Mutavault or Char.
Is that immediate enough for ya?
Think HARD, there are twenty true dual lands: Alpha's Duals, and Rav's Shocks. These can be land-cycled for, retrieved with the sac-lands, etc etc. But look, there are only two sets: one from 1994, and another form 2005, that's roughly a ten year gap. You all start salivating for the anticipated less-rare dual lands, but by my estimation, you'll be waiting another six and a half years to reap the benefits you're waiting for. (Yes, I realize there are other *quote*DUAL*unquote* (read: non-basic mana fixer) lands, but don't tell me you didn't focus in on Ravnica lands.)
I think everyone understood this to mean the block dual lands that have been in every modern magic set.
I'm not saying the 14th and 15th pick are the most important picks of the pack. That would just be plain ignorant. But the mere fact that you have that 14th and 15th pick to consider makes a difference. This also weighs in for buying boxes/cases. The card count for those is down, no matter how slightly.
This seems like complaining for complaining's sake. In practical terms, the 15th card in a draft is a card you're handed. It's not something you chose, so it has a random chance of being of any possible use to you (and less than that, really, since you've been drafting cards that would be of use to you). It would have less utility than a basic land to your deck.
Moreover, this was the case in Coldsnap draft, but you don't hear people complaining about Coldsnap's draft environment being made worse by the existence of a land in the pack. Same for 10th edition. This change changes absolutely nothing about limited.
So there's only one of each ultra rare printed ever? Yes, I realize there are more than one Blue Hurricane, but there's only one of the Dragons, or only one of the World Champion 1998, or whatever year they made that card. When people call them ultra rares, they aren't comparing their rarity. They're comparing their flavor, if you can really call it that. -Jack
The term as used in this thread is based off of the general CCG term, as used in other games. But this is not accurate, as the term refers to rarities far rarer than 1 in 8.
P.S. - I am simply amazed you knew how to spell the name of that Dragon. Kudos. -Jack
Copy/paste is a wonderful thing.
Moreover, this was the case in Coldsnap draft, but you don't hear people complaining about Coldsnap's draft environment being made worse by the existence of a land in the pack.
You would almost never get a land 15th pick in a 3xCSP draft. This was because of the set's mechanics. Snow-covered basics were quite valuable and would often go fairly early.
Moreover, this was the case in Coldsnap draft, but you don't hear people complaining about Coldsnap's draft environment being made worse by the existence of a land in the pack. Same for 10th edition. This change changes absolutely nothing about limited.
-E
I actually never had the chance to do a Coldsnap draft, so I'm pretty unaware of what it's like to have a land in every pack. Two things, though. First, those were snow lands. People actually wanted those. Second... yeah, it probably doesn't really amount to anything at all when it comes down to it, and this complaining probably means nothing, but when I open a pack, be it prize or just to remember the childish glee of yesteryear of opening a pack, I'd still rather see a fifteenth card in my pack than a land. I think new players would like that more, too, especially if they're buying their packs at any sort of shop. They can ask for lands, they don't need to open them.
And don't tell me they might not know they need lands. No one is going to buy some random game without first reading something about it or, at the very least, asking someone about it. -Jack
The term as used in this thread is based off of the general CCG term, as used in other games. But this is not accurate, as the term refers to rarities far rarer than 1 in 8.
Well... punch me in the face and call me slappy, I didn't know that there were any cards actually dubbed "Ultra Rares" in the game of Magic. Well, my arguments about Mystic Rares being comparable to Ultra Rares in Yu-Gi-Oh as far as flavor still stands. -Jack
I dont care if the "ultra-Rare"/"mistic rare" is only twice as rare as a normal one. Just one of them has to slip through in case of power, or end up in a few top 8 decks, and prices will go through the roof, and BB and Goyf will be laugable prices..
next to that, vendors WILL sell them as being: OMG, ULTRA RARE, LIMITED blah blah blah, selling them for insane prices.
Personally, I dont like it at all.. imagine needing a playset of one "slipped through" power Mystic rare? 100$ x 4? How is that going to increase player rate???
Again, I KNOW that they are only twice as rare as a normal one, but the perception will make it an expensive card.. weยดll see..
I don't really think Tarmogoyf would have been printed as a Mythic rare. The card slipped through development, but it was never seen as splashy, initially. I think cards like Venser or the Grandeur legend cycle would have been more likely to be printed at Mythic. Basically, Timmy-style stuff (legends, gigantic splashy spells and Planeswalkers).
I actually never had the chance to do a Coldsnap draft, so I'm pretty unaware of what it's like to have a land in every pack. Two things, though. First, those were snow lands. People actually wanted those. Second... yeah, it probably doesn't really amount to anything at all when it comes down to it, and this complaining probably means nothing, but when I open a pack, be it prize or just to remember the childish glee of yesteryear of opening a pack, I'd still rather see a fifteenth card in my pack than a land. I think new players would like that more, too, especially if they're buying their packs at any sort of shop. They can ask for lands, they don't need to open them.
And don't tell me they might not know they need lands. No one is going to buy some random game without first reading something about it or, at the very least, asking someone about it. -Jack
Well I think your two points are kinda fighting against one another. The fact that Coldsnap had basic snow lands in every pack made Snow lands easy to have. I never was at a lack for Snow lands and accumulated more than enough just from opening packs. This was DEFINITELY not the case prior to Coldsnap. Snow Lands were very hard to find. Their prices probably weren't that high, but to be fair, they weren't that useful prior to Coldsnap either. The distribution in Coldsnap made it very easy to get our hands on those lands.
That's what they want to eventually accomplish with new players, as well. If you've bought enough product, you should never be at a loss for lands. If you're an old player, and you open, say, a box of cards, you'll already have more than a playset of commons. By that point, the 15th card being a land or another Hisoka's Defiance doesn't really matter. (Actually, the land might be used to help some new player. The common probably won't.)
Also the next time a block has a new supertyped Basic land, you'll be happy that they're coming in packs. (Man someone's gonna start a speculation thread about that, I can feel it. - [ALA] NEW BASIC LAND SUPERTYPE?!?!@?")
And anyway, I'm a little lost as to why more people aren't celebrating the smaller set sizes -- that means less money being spent to keep up with Standard.
Perhaps because people have to get more packs in order to get the mystic rares, and thus it balances out? In the end, the normal rares in the set will be cheap, perhaps at around $10, and if a doran/garruk/akroma gets printed as a mystic, then we'll be looking at $80+ cards. Is that really balance?
Perhaps because people have to get more packs in order to get the mystic rares, and thus it balances out? In the end, the normal rares in the set will be cheap, perhaps at around $10, and if a doran/garruk/akroma gets printed as a mystic, then we'll be looking at $80+ cards. Is that really balance?
As far as the research I can find indicates, the rarity of foil cards is about 1-6 (which I'm guessing is applied then to the rarity of the card. So the odds of getting a foil common are higher than a foil uncommon and so on). The odds of getting a Mythic rare is 1-8. Not that much higher (17% vs 13%, rounding up). The price of cards is determined by the supply, not by the hype around the rarity. Foil cards are typically not 4-8 times the price of the non-foil price.
Plus you don't have to compete with the "ooh shiny" sector of the market and can deal with the actual quality of the cards.
The fact that Coldsnap had basic snow lands in every pack made Snow lands easy to have. I never was at a lack for Snow lands and accumulated more than enough just from opening packs.
I can't say I, or most people I know, ever really had such luck. Maybe they didn't buy nearly as many packs because, supposedly, the quality of the Coldsnap set was quite a bit lower overall than other sets (as I said, I didn't play this set much, so I never saw a lot of the cards). But the only snow lands I have any good number of are Mountains and Forests because I played KarstenBot Baby Killer way back when.
Also the next time a block has a new supertyped Basic land, you'll be happy that they're coming in packs.
I can't say I really would. I'd rather have it in place of, say, the token/rules tip card. Again, I didn't play limited during Coldsnap, so I really don't know what it's like to open the snow lands, so maybe I'll be happy for that land when the day comes. But why not just do it for that set? Wait... because they want to supply lands for new players. Right. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just saying I don't like it. Call it being selfish, because that's really what it is; I don't want to see more land, and I'd rather make a new player not have the lands. (Though, to be fair, and to make me look like less of an ass, I often donate my commons/uncommons to newer players at drafts at the end of the tournament. Which could be another argument against the lands - They'd be getting more cards they could use in their casual decks.)
(Man someone's gonna start a speculation thread about that, I can feel it. - [ALA] NEW BASIC LAND SUPERTYPE?!?!@?")-E
Sadly enough... that's probably true. I find it humorous to see some of the crazy things these people speculate on. -Jack
The point about snow lands was that you can't add any number of them to your draft deck, you only get whatever ones you pull out of boosters. And there were a number of powerful commons and other cards that relied on snow mana. This makes them relevant as opposed to 15th picks.
Set Size: Hmm, I kinda liked big sets, never understood the complaints about there being too many new cards, and would have preferred the sets even bigger. Don't think I'll like this one... (*)
Mythic Rares: Don't really see the need for it, but I kinda like the idea. Could backfire, though, and it really screws up my custom sets' rarity-based mechanics. (***)
Booster Lands: Good to have basics more available, but at the cost of a common? Why not go for 17 cards per booster (1R, 3U, 11C, 1BL, 1T) instead? Is there really no room to stuff another card into that booster? (**)
Intro Packs: They're really just precons under another name, plus a booster, so that's nice. But if you're teaching people how to play, why not teach them about proper deck size as well? Abd what's the logic behind 41 cards?(***)
Planeswalker's Guide: Long overdue. (*****)
Planeswalker Novels: Sounds like a good idea. (***)
Block Novels: Either they're gonna skimp on the story to get it all to fit in one book, or the book's gonna collapse under the weight of its plot. A lose-lose situation. (*)
Fat Pack: If I'm reading it right, we lose the novel and get an excerpt of whaever's out there instead. I don't buy FPs anymore, but if I still did I'd be annoyed, since I had two reasons to buy them: the novel and the Player's Guide. I don't like it. (*)
Thou shalt not have others of the same Legendary before me Thou shalt not frame images with the modern card face Thou shalt not change rules in vain Remember the Reserved List to keep it holy Honor thy Slivers and the symmetry of their abilities Thou shalt not kill mana burn Thou shalt not sacrifice depth for accessibility Thou shalt not steal combat damage from the stack Thou shalt tell a story through thy cards All must be one
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, especially if you play limited. The basics (play lands, play creatures, attack and block, play removal and tricks, win with bombs) are essentially the same as they were when I started playing in 1994. A lot has changed since then, but the basic game hasn't.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Could not agree with you more.
On the bright side its not like you will ever KNOW what card you missed out on :D... :).... :frown:.... I just
made myself sad...
I am with you on this one 100%. Standard was far to large and as others have pointed out hopefully a smaller set size will mean 1) More testing with the cards (Rather than testing with 180 they will be testing with 150 or whatever for the small sets) which will help catch mistake cards and weed out unplayable cards resulting in higher quality sets over all 2) As you said it will hopefully lower the price of standard.
RB Olivia Voldaren RB
GB Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons GB
BWR Queen Marchesa BWR
RW Anya, Merciless Angel RW
UW Bruna, Light of Alabaster UW
UB Wydwen, The Biting Gale UB
GU Momir Vig, simic visionary GU
WG Karametra, God of Harvests WG
WUBSydri, Galvanic GeniusWUB
You'd almost think they printed sets to make money or something crazy like that, huh?
Precisely. I haven't played Magic this (Magic) year because when I heard about the "Two large set" thing and saw the size of Lorwyn (and assumed the size of then-Jelly would be the same), I knew it wouldn't be cost effective. I hate collecting rares from large sets. I've spent thousands of dollars playing Magic over the years but collecting rares from large sets twice in a year (and 3 times in the calendar year, with Xth out) was the straw that broke the camel's back. Plus I've got tons of extra cards all over the place.
This announcement sealed it for me: I'm going to get back into collecting with Alara (playing on MTGO in block) and get back into Standard when 11th hits. I fully support the smaller set sizes.
-E
I didn't notice that they were cutting 60-card precons when I first read the article; they will be missed. Like many players, I got my start in deckbuilding by modifying precons for casual play. This will still be possible, I suppose, but it will take a little more. The extra rare is nice, at least. Hopefully the smaller precon size, like the smaller set size, will encourage a higher density of playable cards. A nice balance between Rat's Nest and... every other precon.
Mr. Planeswalker looks like Garruk...A little.
Any ideas on his abilities?
Props to SpiderBoy4 and High(~)Light Studios for awesome Banner & Avvy!
Navrica
Argentum
I would think, if nothing else, it would increase the density of good uncommons. If you could create 110 commons per large set, which they did, but only choose the best 80, wouldn't that create a strong cardpool?
(Not to mention those 80 would be easier to collect :))
-E
The problem is the other 4 all go into control decks, and control is nearly dead right now. It's not the walkers themselves that they made too weak (for the most part.)
Similarly the Command cycle, three colors are seeing a decent amount of play, the red one would as well if it hadn't been overnerfed at the last minute. The last one is white and belongs in control decks, nuff said.
Point is, Lorwyn's Mythics would be a high share of tournie staples. A set like shadowmoor would be the opposite.
See, not fun.
That said, I think the Mythic Rare is annoying, because they basically said Mythic Rares won't be worth playing competitively, which means the disappointment of getting will negate the amazing-ness of its rarity. But if they make them awesome (as the rarity implies), they'll have insane prices...pick your poison.
To the guy who said these aren't ultra-rares b/c of some math inherently attached to URs: These are ultra-rare, for Magic. We're talking in the context of Magic (it's kind of what this site is all about). So, while not in line with your math, the most comparable thing is ultra-rares, so we call them ultra-rares, don't flip out for no reason.
Land in every pack: If that land was foil, I would have no problem with this. It would be pretty cool to have a foil land set for my decks. However, this would ruin the "Foil land for the win" joke that runs amok in my playgroup... not a bad trade off.
Reduced Set sizes: No problem, in fact, I too see this as a positive shift (good job, Wizards, you can do something that's all right and has no foreseeable downside)
Also, I'd like to point out something: Rosewater says "utility rares" and you all jump to Dual-lands. Think HARD, there are twenty true dual lands: Alpha's Duals, and Rav's Shocks. These can be land-cycled for, retrieved with the sac-lands, etc etc. But look, there are only two sets: one from 1994, and another form 2005, that's roughly a ten year gap. You all start salivating for the anticipated less-rare dual lands, but by my estimation, you'll be waiting another six and a half years to reap the benefits you're waiting for. (Yes, I realize there are other *quote*DUAL*unquote* (read: non-basic mana fixer) lands, but don't tell me you didn't focus in on Ravnica lands.)
Also, I dislike the commercialism presented by Rosewater, I would prefer him to blather about flavor and toss in a mention of how he wrote for Roseanne before he dropped the mystique and revealed the cutthroat capitalism he represents.
Edit: I don't have a strong opinion on the shift from Pre-cons to intro packs, but I don't know if it's a good idea, because I think the pre-cons are a great way to jump into Standard events. If the intro packs manage to cover that while providing a bit of change, I'd support the shift, but if it's merely a showcase of the set with little regard to synergy or playability, I would file it under "Bad Idea".
I have come to spread the gospel of Cockatrice, the best free source for online play.
------------
In Phyrexia, Black will do anything to be broken in Vintage.
Fine. In the context of Magic,
Blue Hurricane is ultra rare.
Shichifukujin Dragon is ultra rare.
Mythic rares are not ultra rare.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I'm not saying the 14th and 15th pick are the most important picks of the pack. That would just be plain ignorant. But the mere fact that you have that 14th and 15th pick to consider makes a difference. This also weighs in for buying boxes/cases. The card count for those is down, no matter how slightly.
For every fifteen cents you make, you should give me a penny. What? It's only a penny. It's not that big of a deal. At first. It adds up for collectors, and it takes away, as fnord said, the skill-testers. And even if it is replacing something crappy like a Pulling Teeth, I'd rather have that 15th pick to consider. If we're in pack three, I've somehow gone mono-black, and my last two picks are Hostile Realm and Pulling Teeth, I'd take the Teeth. If they were Hostile Realm and an Island, well, I would have been better off with some Teeth. So there's only one of each ultra rare printed ever? Yes, I realize there are more than one Blue Hurricane, but there's only one of the Dragons, or only one of the World Champion 1998, or whatever year they made that card. When people call them ultra rares, they aren't comparing their rarity. They're comparing their flavor, if you can really call it that. -Jack
P.S. - I am simply amazed you knew how to spell the name of that Dragon. Kudos. -Jack
Q. F. T.
Want a cool banner like mine?
Go to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Vizzerdrix Count = 183, 3 in Italian, 2 Foil
You don't put either in your deck and have a prayer of winning the draft anyway. And anyone in the box/case mindset is going to have a complete common playset with this reduced set size regardless of basic lands.
Want a cool banner like mine?
Go to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Vizzerdrix Count = 183, 3 in Italian, 2 Foil
Maybe that's because Rosewater mentioned Dual Lands in the very next sentence?
Is that immediate enough for ya?
I think everyone understood this to mean the block dual lands that have been in every modern magic set.
This seems like complaining for complaining's sake. In practical terms, the 15th card in a draft is a card you're handed. It's not something you chose, so it has a random chance of being of any possible use to you (and less than that, really, since you've been drafting cards that would be of use to you). It would have less utility than a basic land to your deck.
Moreover, this was the case in Coldsnap draft, but you don't hear people complaining about Coldsnap's draft environment being made worse by the existence of a land in the pack. Same for 10th edition. This change changes absolutely nothing about limited.
-E
But you were talking about the context of Magic. In this context, the term "ultra rare" refers to unique or nearly unique cards. See http://www.magiclibrarities.net/rarities.html
The term as used in this thread is based off of the general CCG term, as used in other games. But this is not accurate, as the term refers to rarities far rarer than 1 in 8.
Copy/paste is a wonderful thing.
You would almost never get a land 15th pick in a 3xCSP draft. This was because of the set's mechanics. Snow-covered basics were quite valuable and would often go fairly early.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
And don't tell me they might not know they need lands. No one is going to buy some random game without first reading something about it or, at the very least, asking someone about it. -Jack
.::EDIT::. I actually never had the chance to do a Coldsnap draft, so I'm pretty unaware of what it's like to have a land in every pack. Two things, though. First, those were snow lands. People actually wanted those. Second... yeah, it probably doesn't really amount to anything at all when it comes down to it, and this complaining probably means nothing, but when I open a pack, be it prize or just to remember the childish glee of yesteryear of opening a pack, I'd still rather see a fifteenth card in my pack than a land. I think new players would like that more, too, especially if they're buying their packs at any sort of shop. They can ask for lands, they don't need to open them. Well... punch me in the face and call me slappy, I didn't know that there were any cards actually dubbed "Ultra Rares" in the game of Magic. Well, my arguments about Mystic Rares being comparable to Ultra Rares in Yu-Gi-Oh as far as flavor still stands. -Jack
Want a cool banner like mine?
Go to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Vizzerdrix Count = 183, 3 in Italian, 2 Foil
I don't really think Tarmogoyf would have been printed as a Mythic rare. The card slipped through development, but it was never seen as splashy, initially. I think cards like Venser or the Grandeur legend cycle would have been more likely to be printed at Mythic. Basically, Timmy-style stuff (legends, gigantic splashy spells and Planeswalkers).
Well I think your two points are kinda fighting against one another. The fact that Coldsnap had basic snow lands in every pack made Snow lands easy to have. I never was at a lack for Snow lands and accumulated more than enough just from opening packs. This was DEFINITELY not the case prior to Coldsnap. Snow Lands were very hard to find. Their prices probably weren't that high, but to be fair, they weren't that useful prior to Coldsnap either. The distribution in Coldsnap made it very easy to get our hands on those lands.
That's what they want to eventually accomplish with new players, as well. If you've bought enough product, you should never be at a loss for lands. If you're an old player, and you open, say, a box of cards, you'll already have more than a playset of commons. By that point, the 15th card being a land or another Hisoka's Defiance doesn't really matter. (Actually, the land might be used to help some new player. The common probably won't.)
Also the next time a block has a new supertyped Basic land, you'll be happy that they're coming in packs. (Man someone's gonna start a speculation thread about that, I can feel it. - [ALA] NEW BASIC LAND SUPERTYPE?!?!@?")
-E
Perhaps because people have to get more packs in order to get the mystic rares, and thus it balances out? In the end, the normal rares in the set will be cheap, perhaps at around $10, and if a doran/garruk/akroma gets printed as a mystic, then we'll be looking at $80+ cards. Is that really balance?
As far as the research I can find indicates, the rarity of foil cards is about 1-6 (which I'm guessing is applied then to the rarity of the card. So the odds of getting a foil common are higher than a foil uncommon and so on). The odds of getting a Mythic rare is 1-8. Not that much higher (17% vs 13%, rounding up). The price of cards is determined by the supply, not by the hype around the rarity. Foil cards are typically not 4-8 times the price of the non-foil price.
Plus you don't have to compete with the "ooh shiny" sector of the market and can deal with the actual quality of the cards.
-E
Want a cool banner like mine?
Go to Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Vizzerdrix Count = 183, 3 in Italian, 2 Foil
Other than that, Go WotC!
Also- no more set Novels, instead we get one big block novel once a year which is kind of depressing, but meh...
I'm glad others were successful in pointing out that you're way overreacting.
Set Size: Hmm, I kinda liked big sets, never understood the complaints about there being too many new cards, and would have preferred the sets even bigger. Don't think I'll like this one... (*)
Mythic Rares: Don't really see the need for it, but I kinda like the idea. Could backfire, though, and it really screws up my custom sets' rarity-based mechanics. (***)
Booster Lands: Good to have basics more available, but at the cost of a common? Why not go for 17 cards per booster (1R, 3U, 11C, 1BL, 1T) instead? Is there really no room to stuff another card into that booster? (**)
Intro Packs: They're really just precons under another name, plus a booster, so that's nice. But if you're teaching people how to play, why not teach them about proper deck size as well? Abd what's the logic behind 41 cards?(***)
Planeswalker's Guide: Long overdue. (*****)
Planeswalker Novels: Sounds like a good idea. (***)
Block Novels: Either they're gonna skimp on the story to get it all to fit in one book, or the book's gonna collapse under the weight of its plot. A lose-lose situation. (*)
Fat Pack: If I'm reading it right, we lose the novel and get an excerpt of whaever's out there instead. I don't buy FPs anymore, but if I still did I'd be annoyed, since I had two reasons to buy them: the novel and the Player's Guide. I don't like it. (*)
Thou shalt not frame images with the modern card face
Thou shalt not change rules in vain
Remember the Reserved List to keep it holy
Honor thy Slivers and the symmetry of their abilities
Thou shalt not kill mana burn
Thou shalt not sacrifice depth for accessibility
Thou shalt not steal combat damage from the stack
Thou shalt tell a story through thy cards
All must be one