Wasn't the main justification for removing the core sets a low amount of sales? Including the fact that new players would rather just buy the newest set anyway? This seems like they ran out of ideas what to print as supplemental products, and decided to bring back core sets, who just retired a few years ago. Fake hype and excitement for what will essentially be a pile of trash + a few chase mythics. I can already tell when sales will start getting lower, they will retire them again.
Large stand alone sets only is fine. However what almost nobody realizes is that this means people will have to spend more money now to get chase rares/mythics. No doubt all of this was run through a spreadsheet in excel by some Hasbro accountant before approval. Muh creativity. I just hope this means we won't see a red conscript effect in every set.
Also Maro's tone is very arrogant I feel. Starts with successes, who are honestly minor things. Then moves on to *challenges* not to failures. Not only is failure the proper antonym, some of those points really were major failures, like the two block rotation. A lot of the talk in the challenge section is also very patronizing and trying to minimize WotC's role. Like in the masterpiece section. *it required explaining, and the audience never quite warmed up to it.* You see, it's not because the masterpieces were a visual disaster, it's because the audience just doesn't get it.
Core sets will sell lower... but if the choices are a low selling core set each year, or driving away players due to a screwed up environment that cant print basic answers, I think they would rather the former.
An example that doesn't have as onerous a condition but also doesn't help with mana screw...
Example Mana Dork
G (likely)
1/1
T: Add 1 mana of any color to your mana pool. Activate this ability only if you control 3 or more lands.
Hamfisted but gets the point across.
This mana dork will be useless from constructed point of view.
The reason that 1-mana mana dork is good in constructed format because it can produce mana in the early stage, not because it can produce mana in the late stage. Mana dork is usually a terrible top deck in the late stage.
A core set is going to sell badly if you continually reprint the same rares in 4-5 consecutive sets (PWs and check duals).
Origins had some good cards that were used in standard (a few see play in non-rotating) and felt like what a core set should be.
If they utilize the core set correctly and stop limiting themselves because of bureaucratic nonsensical jargon they claim (like oh we didn't print this because of X or Y, or we can only print those cards as a cycle) and print things because they are needed and required, a core set will do better.
I enjoy the change to all sets being large; its going to increase the standard cardpool slightly, which is good. This will allow them to print those few cards that are needed to help keep the format more balanced. It makes it much more flexible for them to stay on a plane/world or go to a new one without it feeling stale or unexciting...and if they do stay on a plane for 2 sets, the number of cards centered around that plane won't be too much...and if they did all 3 sets on one plane, it would be marginally more than what a 3-set block would normally be.
I do worry that drafting is going to be a little boring during core sets with more reprints, but I'm open to it. I wonder if the timing will still be the same? It'd be interesting if core sets were only draftable for 2 months, with an extra week.5 added to the other sets to make up for it.
Drafting large sets is the best, though, so I think this is a good idea.
gatewatch, meh, don't care much, but it sounds fine.
fewer masterpieces sounds good, though it hasn't impacted me much.
more playtesting sounds positive for the game as a whole. I hope there's fewer "aggro is accidentally broken" limited environments.
Like in the masterpiece section. *it required explaining, and the audience never quite warmed up to it.* You see, it's not because the masterpieces were a visual disaster, it's because the audience just doesn't get it.
He's correct though. Ignoring the subjective "the masterpieces were a visual disaster" complaint (and it is subjective; many people liked how they looked, especially when they saw the masterpieces in person), the theme did require explaining, as it didn't make any sense just by looking at the cards (and in relation to the name, "Invocations"), and most players didn't buy into that theme. While the playerbase was divided over the looks of the cards, they were pretty united in their confusion with the theme.
Man, I would love to see another Lorwyn -> Shadowmoor block, but given how Innistrad turned out it just wouldn't be the same. They will flush in new mechanics and warp the entire set just like they did in Shadows over Innistrad since they always have to be "hey look, we're the new kid on the block! Come play with our hip new cards that include 3 cmc mana dorks because now 2 cmc is too good." And then we will get some weird new phasing mechanic or rebound mechanic all over again.
It's not about the setting, it's what they do with the set and what mechanics they put in it that make the set stand out. The window dressing is all bonus when it comes to actually playing the game.
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!
A core set is going to sell badly if you continually reprint the same rares in 4-5 consecutive sets (PWs and check duals).
Origins had some good cards that were used in standard (a few see play in non-rotating) and felt like what a core set should be.
If they utilize the core set correctly and stop limiting themselves because of bureaucratic nonsensical jargon they claim (like oh we didn't print this because of X or Y, or we can only print those cards as a cycle) and print things because they are needed and required, a core set will do better.
I enjoy the change to all sets being large; its going to increase the standard cardpool slightly, which is good. This will allow them to print those few cards that are needed to help keep the format more balanced. It makes it much more flexible for them to stay on a plane/world or go to a new one without it feeling stale or unexciting...and if they do stay on a plane for 2 sets, the number of cards centered around that plane won't be too much...and if they did all 3 sets on one plane, it would be marginally more than what a 3-set block would normally be.
That's why you mix it up every set, have the check lands in one set, then in the next, put in the have lands, the one after that painlands, then maybe a new cycle in the fourth, rinse and repeat. There is a long enough time between each iteration of any given cycle that it feels fresh again once it returns.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Man, I would love to see another Lorwyn -> Shadowmoor block, but given how Innistrad turned out it just wouldn't be the same. They will flush in new mechanics and warp the entire set just like they did in Shadows over Innistrad since they always have to be "hey look, we're the new kid on the block! Come play with our hip new cards that include 3 cmc mana dorks because now 2 cmc is too good." And then we will get some weird new phasing mechanic or rebound mechanic all over again.
It's not about the setting, it's what they do with the set and what mechanics they put in it that make the set stand out. The window dressing is all bonus when it comes to actually playing the game.
Considering Lorwyn and Shadowmoor basically "merged" due to the absence of The Great Aurora, it'd be different no matter what in a hypothetical return set.
I don't get this idea of wanting everything to be exactly the same in a return. Battle for Zendikar did it poorly, but I personally didn't mind Shadows over Innistrad's take on it.
Man, I would love to see another Lorwyn -> Shadowmoor block, but given how Innistrad turned out it just wouldn't be the same. They will flush in new mechanics and warp the entire set just like they did in Shadows over Innistrad since they always have to be "hey look, we're the new kid on the block! Come play with our hip new cards that include 3 cmc mana dorks because now 2 cmc is too good." And then we will get some weird new phasing mechanic or rebound mechanic all over again.
It's not about the setting, it's what they do with the set and what mechanics they put in it that make the set stand out. The window dressing is all bonus when it comes to actually playing the game.
Considering Lorwyn and Shadowmoor basically "merged" due to the absence of The Great Aurora, it'd be different no matter what in a hypothetical return set.
I don't get this idea of wanting everything to be exactly the same in a return. Battle for Zendikar did it poorly, but I personally didn't mind Shadows over Innistrad's take on it.
I think the post was more about the underlying metas and mechanics in a particular set. IMHO SOI/EM blew an awesome mechanic by screwing up Investigate. I get why it wasn't necessary to keep it going due to the story but, honestly, when the story gets in the way ot an actual game, then they've made a fantastically poor design choice. Other sets are like that too. Far too many one offs that we rarely or never see again all to tell a story. Then as the next set rolls around, there's virtually no supporting cards in the larger picture and they get shoved into boxes waiting years, if ever, for new cards with that mechanic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Core sets will sell lower... but if the choices are a low selling core set each year, or driving away players due to a screwed up environment that cant print basic answers, I think they would rather the former.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Or you know, it´s old and is everchanging which can only be a good thing. I really like these changes.
This mana dork will be useless from constructed point of view.
The reason that 1-mana mana dork is good in constructed format because it can produce mana in the early stage, not because it can produce mana in the late stage. Mana dork is usually a terrible top deck in the late stage.
Anything, but nothing at the moment...
Modern:
WUBRGAmulet Titan, WUBRGHuman
WUBRAd Nauseam, WBRGDeath Shadow, UBRGScapeshift, UBRGDredge
WURJeskai Nahiri, WURCheeri0s, WBGCounter Company, WRGBurn, UBRMadcap Moon, BRGJund Midrange
UBTurn,BRGriselbrand Reanimator, WGKnight Company, RGRG Tron, RGRG Ponza, XAffinity, XEldrazi Tron
Origins had some good cards that were used in standard (a few see play in non-rotating) and felt like what a core set should be.
If they utilize the core set correctly and stop limiting themselves because of bureaucratic nonsensical jargon they claim (like oh we didn't print this because of X or Y, or we can only print those cards as a cycle) and print things because they are needed and required, a core set will do better.
I enjoy the change to all sets being large; its going to increase the standard cardpool slightly, which is good. This will allow them to print those few cards that are needed to help keep the format more balanced. It makes it much more flexible for them to stay on a plane/world or go to a new one without it feeling stale or unexciting...and if they do stay on a plane for 2 sets, the number of cards centered around that plane won't be too much...and if they did all 3 sets on one plane, it would be marginally more than what a 3-set block would normally be.
WBG Karador GBW
R Daretti R
RG Omnath GR
WRG Modern Burn GRW
WB Modern Tokens BW
DCI Rules Advisor as of 5/18/2015
Drafting large sets is the best, though, so I think this is a good idea.
gatewatch, meh, don't care much, but it sounds fine.
fewer masterpieces sounds good, though it hasn't impacted me much.
more playtesting sounds positive for the game as a whole. I hope there's fewer "aggro is accidentally broken" limited environments.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
He's correct though. Ignoring the subjective "the masterpieces were a visual disaster" complaint (and it is subjective; many people liked how they looked, especially when they saw the masterpieces in person), the theme did require explaining, as it didn't make any sense just by looking at the cards (and in relation to the name, "Invocations"), and most players didn't buy into that theme. While the playerbase was divided over the looks of the cards, they were pretty united in their confusion with the theme.
It's not about the setting, it's what they do with the set and what mechanics they put in it that make the set stand out. The window dressing is all bonus when it comes to actually playing the game.
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 why you mix it up every set, have the check lands in one set, then in the next, put in the have lands, the one after that painlands, then maybe a new cycle in the fourth, rinse and repeat. There is a long enough time between each iteration of any given cycle that it feels fresh again once it returns.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
Considering Lorwyn and Shadowmoor basically "merged" due to the absence of The Great Aurora, it'd be different no matter what in a hypothetical return set.
I don't get this idea of wanting everything to be exactly the same in a return. Battle for Zendikar did it poorly, but I personally didn't mind Shadows over Innistrad's take on it.
I think the post was more about the underlying metas and mechanics in a particular set. IMHO SOI/EM blew an awesome mechanic by screwing up Investigate. I get why it wasn't necessary to keep it going due to the story but, honestly, when the story gets in the way ot an actual game, then they've made a fantastically poor design choice. Other sets are like that too. Far too many one offs that we rarely or never see again all to tell a story. Then as the next set rolls around, there's virtually no supporting cards in the larger picture and they get shoved into boxes waiting years, if ever, for new cards with that mechanic.