They couldn't have handled the Return to Return to Ravnica under the Two-Block Paradigm. I've always wondered about that. Problem solved: 2 or 3 large sets for the RtRtR.
Yes the could have. MaRo even stated in the first Metamorphosis article that two set block weren't lock in to large/small, just that it was the default.
Going back to Ravina would essentially be Return to Ravnica/Gatecrash without Dragon's Maze under either 1.0 or 2.0 method.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
One of the main reasons they stated to justify the removal of core sets in the first place was that they found new players bought whatever the latest product was and didn't necessarily buy the core set so it was failing in its role as an introductory product. So now they're bringing back the core set and making it an introductory product for new players? Anything seem wrong here?
Two things I want to point out for people to consider:
1) I don't think this is going to have the impact on story development that some people are worried it will. If the flavor of a world lends itself to multiple sets and a forced delineation between events, they have that device at their disposal. If it doesn't, they aren't constrained by that structure and they can tell the story within a single set (which will likely be the default).
There's no threshold number of cards required to tell a story, after all. The same is true of sets.
2) MaRo's column focused on design because that's what he does. Power level, mechanical development, etc., are not his core area of responsibility.
He addressed the things that fall under his purview. That's entirely reasonable.
Change #1—The Fall, Winter, and Spring Sets Will All Be Large Sets That Are Drafted Alone
Okay this cool. It fixes my issues with the return of core sets (being too slow with the story and mechanics getting over used). This opens up so many possibilities that wizards said they couldn't do before, 3 (maybe even 4?!) color sets, return to more unpopular planes for a single set, using mechanics that have a more limited design space, ect.
They also don't need to change the number of planeswalkers, 3 each large set (9) plus one for the coreset, instead of two large sets with three and two small sets with two.
Change #2—The Summer Set Will Be a Revamped Core Set
Eh I not a fan of core sets as much but I like that the story used as background or set up for stories. Cool to maybe get more origins of the walkers.
Change #3—A Different Approach to the Gatewatch
I think people are glancing over this sections. We are seeing less of the gatewatch on cards and less of them all together in the story but they will still be our leads. I guess it be like how SoI and Kaladesh was during the first set, 1-2 of the main members driving the story and maybe one one of them getting a card.
Change #4—The Masterpieces Series Will Revert to Being in Fewer Sets
Okay. Never loved or hated Masterpieces I'm good with this.
Change #5—We're Changing Things Behind the Scenes
Lets see now this goes. Remember everyone Maro is the head of design so most of the issues of game balance is development.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
So Maro has nothing to do with card mechanics and power level? At all. Design just comes up with card art, theme, and story with a blank text box?
Why did he say on twitter 'we're printing cards people want to buy"?
He seems to lay claim to Emrakul and it's lack of fun in standard.
He's the guy making the announcement for the new testing team as well... he didn't indicate he was passing on info from someone else.
There's not so much departmental division at WotC as there should be.
If the core sets are going to be geared even more toward new players than in years past, then perhaps the packs of that product should also be cheaper...
An excellent point. But it probably has a snowballs chance in Hell. Hasbro sees nothing but $$$$$ signs.
I worry about a "weakened" Core Set. Sounds like a recipe for poor sales.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I'm a fan of all of these, but I will disagree on the invocations. They were just insanely hard to read. The Masterpieces and Expeditions were great, but the font and look of invocations was horrid. Looking forward to core sets coming back, as they are a fine safety valve to allay environment problems. Three big sets a year is okay, it will make building decks slightly more expensive though; less of the Gatewatch is always a great thing. Just pace them out, people!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
I like the reintroduction of the core set. Ivve been advocating that WotC needs something for beginner players. The current 2 set, 2 block rotation with the lame duck starter and slightly improved PW decks wasn't the way to do it. As someone mentioned, I had a heck of a time building simpler decks for younger kids and in every case, none were standard legal because the selection just wasn't there. On top of that, it irritated the heck out of me that WotC wasn't publishing basic core cards (how Lightning is not flavorful in any set is beyond me). In a nutshell, it was already hard enough to get new players over the teaching hurdle, there was still the idea of thm tossing their cards and building completely new decks to try their hand at standard.
I am on the fence about whether the core deck should be Standard legal. I like the idea someone presented to make the set not Standard legal by default in order to properly feed into the Casual and Modern markets. But that deviates from the goal of offering a set for lesser skilled players.
I like the cut back on Masterpieces. I don't know how that wil affect prices though. Will new sets without Masterpeices be better sets overall because choice cards aren't being made masterpeices? Will the new cards be worse than ever? Will the price on cards sky rocket because speculators aren't opening as many boxes? Will we never see a proper reprint of older, high. value cards (not like we did anyway)?
I have absolutely no fear of the change to 3+1 large set design with variable block sizes. This is as should be. It was astronomically fun to pull cards from distinct sets and trying to get them to work together. When you have entire blocks that are... well... thought out and carefully designed, some of the fun is kind of sucked out. It's like walking around in the middle of the woods, without a soul around, then stumbling across a working soda machine in the middle of a field and all it has is grape Crush.
I think this a good jab at fixing thins. Time will tell if this is a step in the right direction.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Holy cow, after over two decades, blocks are dead. Blocks are dead! I can't believe it.
(Not saying the changes are bad, but holy cow, this seems like a bigger change than the one we got 2015 with the switch to the 2 block per year model.)
Overall, I like the changes. Big blocks are great, and flexibility to stay on a world as long as they want or to leave it as soon as they want is amazing, both for story and for mechanics. As others have said, this could enable returns to worlds we like (come on, new Kamigawa ninjas) but that may not have gotten the chance under the three- or even two-set block systems. I used to hate Core Sets, but they started getting better toward the end, so hopefully they do these well.
Reading through this thread, I get the feeling a lot of people only skimmed the bullet points and didn't bother to read the article. Some assume that every story will end after one set, but Mark specifically said they could stay 1, 2, or 3 sets to play out a story. Others also raised concerns that were addressed in the article. My take is, let's wait and see. Sure, Wizards has made a few missteps, but it's still a game that we all love, or what are we doing on this site?
Core sets - I never minded core sets but the high volume of reprinted unusable crap was always an irritation. ... Returning them specifically so they can reprint just a few cards without marring 'flavor' seems to be a weak decision and a major compromise (change) to simply avoid disturbing a set's flavor. I'd think Thoughtseize should be fine in any world. Same goes for Hero's Downfall and Pithing Needle and most cards that need to get a reprint to help out standard. What's wrong with giving a card a new name and reprinting the text if flavor is so bloody important???
I only noticed Mark use the word fun a couple times in the article and he sure as hell didn't address GAME BALANCE AT ALL.
I sympathize about the bad reprints in Core Sets, but they seemed to do better with the later ones (thank goodness they started doing half new cards in them), so I'm hopeful for the new iteration. The thing I find odd about your post is that you complain about reprints and say that he didn't address game balance - isn't that a role best handled by reprints? What better way to balance the game than to use a tried and tested card that we know answers a problem and therefore balances the game?
I agree that many cards would fit in any (or nearly any) world, but when you suggest functional reprints with a new name, that causes other problems. Singleton formats, like Commander, can be affected for better or ill by a deluge of functional reprints. Sure, I love having Terramorphic ExpanseandEvolving Wilds, but what happens when they do that with a potential combo card? What happens when every card has a functional reprint? Now I can run essentially a 50 card deck rather than 100. And for those that don't play Commander, it still has issues. Memory issues and complexity issues, now that there are more cards with different names that do the same thing - it's just a lot simpler to have less functional reprints and use a known card.
I agree that many cards would fit in any (or nearly any) world, but when you suggest functional reprints with a new name, that causes other problems. Singleton formats, like Commander, can be affected for better or ill by a deluge of functional reprints. Sure, I love having Terramorphic ExpanseandEvolving Wilds, but what happens when they do that with a potential combo card? What happens when every card has a functional reprint? Now I can run essentially a 50 card deck rather than 100. And for those that don't play Commander, it still has issues. Memory issues and complexity issues, now that there are more cards with different names that do the same thing - it's just a lot simpler to have less functional reprints and use a known card.
I get the affect on other formats, makes total sense. It's just a continuation of my utter frustration with story over content. By content I mean balance and a good game. Wouldn't more people play and get into story etc if the game was awesome and balanced? Ok Maro isn't in charge of balance per se however I get the feeling WotC behind the scenes gets very mushy structurally when you get between design and balance as many people are pointing out. Until the new Test Team it was a part time job for design members to 'future test', duckbilled, and work on balance. It's a collaborative project you could say and I for sure think they should have solid lines between departments. There SHOULD be a team that takes a set after design's done and they make whatever changes they need to without it going backwards. Does someone have a link to the chain of command for the different departments? Who then is solely responsible for plunging Standard into the dark ages? And doesn't it all start with design?
While I understand the need for Core sets for Standard, this will bring sort of a downtime for a casual player like me. As for catering to newer players, I feel they got this in reverse. I would think it's better to simplify normal sets and amping up the complexity of core sets. Normal sets in recent years are wordy as hell.
But I guess the perks of having them means some EDH foil staples can hopefully be reprinted.
Just also be prepared for more bad cards printed. We may need a bigger lens to filter out the crap we get in the future. Small downside if you ask me.
My personal solution would be an annual Standard Masters instead of a core set.
Wanna add that multicolor blocks like Ravnica, shards and Khans might be a little tougher to design for just one set. I understand they can stretch it to another set but it will kinda dilute the coffee if you know what I mean. I find it hard to envisage a good block out of multicolor with the new method.
But like some have mentioned, niche planes can be revisited! Your Lorwyns and Kamigawas are a big possibility.
Wanna add that multicolor blocks like Ravnica, shards and Khans might be a little tougher to design for just one set. I understand they can stretch it to another set but it will kinda dilute the coffee if you know what I mean. I find it hard to envisage a good block out of multicolor.
I think you are right about Ravnica, but Khans (or any Wedge Set) and any Shard set work perfectly for the 1 Set model. MaRo has stated multiple times that Khans and Alara both "cheated" in this regard. Neither block was a 3 color block. Each had a good 3 color set and then kind of fell off for the last 2 sets in the blocks. So I would hopefully expect a few more 3 color sets under this model.
So, the block structure is going away and our trips to planes can span anywhere from one to three sets, eh?
I think we now know what to expect from our next trip to Ravnica. Hello RTR and GTC!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
One of the main reasons they stated to justify the removal of core sets in the first place was that they found new players bought whatever the latest product was and didn't necessarily buy the core set so it was failing in its role as an introductory product. So now they're bringing back the core set and making it an introductory product for new players? Anything seem wrong here?
Not really. This is what got out of the announcement.
A: the change from 2 or 3 set blocks to just 1 (or more but let's not get into semantics here) means that every set (and I assume core) will now host the full suite of lands. Before, the child sets could not carry their own being dependent on the parent set for basic cards. So by that logic, if a newcomer always buys the latest pack, that means a newcomer can potentially buy a child set and miss out on key supporting cards to play the game properly. By having individual parent sets w/o smaller sets, it does away with this whole problem entirely.
B: the core set fulfills the introductory role but also fills a gap that many players experience trying to shore up their Standard collection with basic and slowly rotating cards. If a new player jumps in whole hog, they'll end up buying packs (assuming they're not smart enough to snag singles) from the last two or three sets and end up having half their cards rotate out within months or worse, weeks. The core set offers a way for cards to not rotate out so quickly as well as including the much needed filler cards that don't quite fit into a specific theme. (Again, how is Lightning not thematic for any set?)
A lot of players wrongly held core sets in derision and both players and WotC mishandled them for years. But core sets are supposed to consist of cards every player should have in their aresonal. Why does one think the Power 9 come from no other sets? If you have core cards readily available and legal, then you can focus more on the fun satellite cards because you have a fixed (albeit temporary) meta to run them. With core sets, WotC can introduce subtle shifts in the meta without warping the field with crazy power or pathetically weak cards as has been happening with Standard lately.
One of the main reasons they stated to justify the removal of core sets in the first place was that they found new players bought whatever the latest product was and didn't necessarily buy the core set so it was failing in its role as an introductory product. So now they're bringing back the core set and making it an introductory product for new players? Anything seem wrong here?
Quite a bit, from my perspective.
The prior system could hardly have been designed better for eternal. Cram 3 set's worth of riffs on mechanics into two sets, so you get higher quality density. Chuck the Core set, and essentially replace it with the Masters series. Speed up rotation so they can take more risks without having them do too much damage.
Now, we're getting a massive change of focus. The Core Set is back, and worse, it's replacing one of the expansions with another standard-friendly, beginner-themed set. They slowed down rotation, which wrecked the balance of Standard, so the solution is to make it harder to print powerful cards. They are adding a new division to development specifically to stop standard from getting out of hand (which is one of the big ways that eternal gets cards!).
Nothing that they are doing necessarily means bad news for eternal. They could put Time Walk 2.0 into the Core set at 2U if they felt like it. But, the sentiment behind these changes strongly suggests, to me, a move to pull back from eternal and focus on draft and standard. I'm not a fan of that.
[quote from="Fiveod »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/778010-metamorphosis-2-0-return-of-core-sets-less?comment=111"]
WotC mishandled them for years. But core sets are supposed to consist of cards every player should have in their aresonal. Why does one think the Power 9 come from no other sets? If you have core cards readily available and legal, then you can focus more on the fun satellite cards because you have a fixed (albeit temporary) meta to run them.
I agree with this completely. You're essentially saying the Core set should be "Standard Masters," where you go to get your Cancels and Lightning Strikes and other color-defining cards. I think that's a great idea. And, based on the past, I have absolutely zero confidence that is what it will be.
Instead, like always, we'll get Giant Spider and Pillarfield Ox and who knows what other garbage vanilla creatures because (1) it is for draft and (2) it has to be easy for beginners. These design constraints produce a weak product. Give us "Standard Masters." Don't give us more of the same Core Set "everyone needs a Giant Spider!" garbage.
What is frustrating here is that they gave themselves a perfect avenue to supplement Standard exactly the way you're suggesting - the Planeswalker decks. But, they didn't use them. Chock'em full of playsets of the core removal spells and basic creatures for each color. Use THAT as your avenue for vanilla filler. Why make a whole Core set out of it subject to drafting constraints?
Yes the could have. MaRo even stated in the first Metamorphosis article that two set block weren't lock in to large/small, just that it was the default.
Going back to Ravina would essentially be Return to Ravnica/Gatecrash without Dragon's Maze under either 1.0 or 2.0 method.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
Maybe they will pull out the thesaurus and use every variation of "loner" available to them
1) I don't think this is going to have the impact on story development that some people are worried it will. If the flavor of a world lends itself to multiple sets and a forced delineation between events, they have that device at their disposal. If it doesn't, they aren't constrained by that structure and they can tell the story within a single set (which will likely be the default).
There's no threshold number of cards required to tell a story, after all. The same is true of sets.
2) MaRo's column focused on design because that's what he does. Power level, mechanical development, etc., are not his core area of responsibility.
He addressed the things that fall under his purview. That's entirely reasonable.
Okay this cool. It fixes my issues with the return of core sets (being too slow with the story and mechanics getting over used). This opens up so many possibilities that wizards said they couldn't do before, 3 (maybe even 4?!) color sets, return to more unpopular planes for a single set, using mechanics that have a more limited design space, ect.
They also don't need to change the number of planeswalkers, 3 each large set (9) plus one for the coreset, instead of two large sets with three and two small sets with two.
Change #2—The Summer Set Will Be a Revamped Core Set
Eh I not a fan of core sets as much but I like that the story used as background or set up for stories. Cool to maybe get more origins of the walkers.
Change #3—A Different Approach to the Gatewatch
I think people are glancing over this sections. We are seeing less of the gatewatch on cards and less of them all together in the story but they will still be our leads. I guess it be like how SoI and Kaladesh was during the first set, 1-2 of the main members driving the story and maybe one one of them getting a card.
Change #4—The Masterpieces Series Will Revert to Being in Fewer Sets
Okay. Never loved or hated Masterpieces I'm good with this.
Change #5—We're Changing Things Behind the Scenes
Lets see now this goes. Remember everyone Maro is the head of design so most of the issues of game balance is development.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Why did he say on twitter 'we're printing cards people want to buy"?
He seems to lay claim to Emrakul and it's lack of fun in standard.
He's the guy making the announcement for the new testing team as well... he didn't indicate he was passing on info from someone else.
There's not so much departmental division at WotC as there should be.
An excellent point. But it probably has a snowballs chance in Hell. Hasbro sees nothing but $$$$$ signs.
I worry about a "weakened" Core Set. Sounds like a recipe for poor sales.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
I am on the fence about whether the core deck should be Standard legal. I like the idea someone presented to make the set not Standard legal by default in order to properly feed into the Casual and Modern markets. But that deviates from the goal of offering a set for lesser skilled players.
I like the cut back on Masterpieces. I don't know how that wil affect prices though. Will new sets without Masterpeices be better sets overall because choice cards aren't being made masterpeices? Will the new cards be worse than ever? Will the price on cards sky rocket because speculators aren't opening as many boxes? Will we never see a proper reprint of older, high. value cards (not like we did anyway)?
I have absolutely no fear of the change to 3+1 large set design with variable block sizes. This is as should be. It was astronomically fun to pull cards from distinct sets and trying to get them to work together. When you have entire blocks that are... well... thought out and carefully designed, some of the fun is kind of sucked out. It's like walking around in the middle of the woods, without a soul around, then stumbling across a working soda machine in the middle of a field and all it has is grape Crush.
I think this a good jab at fixing thins. Time will tell if this is a step in the right direction.
The glass half full guy says I'm with you.
The glass half empty guy says I'm expecting a watered down version of M14/M15 with Serra Angels and Shivan Dragons galore.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
(Not saying the changes are bad, but holy cow, this seems like a bigger change than the one we got 2015 with the switch to the 2 block per year model.)
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
Reading through this thread, I get the feeling a lot of people only skimmed the bullet points and didn't bother to read the article. Some assume that every story will end after one set, but Mark specifically said they could stay 1, 2, or 3 sets to play out a story. Others also raised concerns that were addressed in the article. My take is, let's wait and see. Sure, Wizards has made a few missteps, but it's still a game that we all love, or what are we doing on this site?
I sympathize about the bad reprints in Core Sets, but they seemed to do better with the later ones (thank goodness they started doing half new cards in them), so I'm hopeful for the new iteration. The thing I find odd about your post is that you complain about reprints and say that he didn't address game balance - isn't that a role best handled by reprints? What better way to balance the game than to use a tried and tested card that we know answers a problem and therefore balances the game?
I agree that many cards would fit in any (or nearly any) world, but when you suggest functional reprints with a new name, that causes other problems. Singleton formats, like Commander, can be affected for better or ill by a deluge of functional reprints. Sure, I love having Terramorphic Expanse and Evolving Wilds, but what happens when they do that with a potential combo card? What happens when every card has a functional reprint? Now I can run essentially a 50 card deck rather than 100. And for those that don't play Commander, it still has issues. Memory issues and complexity issues, now that there are more cards with different names that do the same thing - it's just a lot simpler to have less functional reprints and use a known card.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
I get the affect on other formats, makes total sense. It's just a continuation of my utter frustration with story over content. By content I mean balance and a good game. Wouldn't more people play and get into story etc if the game was awesome and balanced? Ok Maro isn't in charge of balance per se however I get the feeling WotC behind the scenes gets very mushy structurally when you get between design and balance as many people are pointing out. Until the new Test Team it was a part time job for design members to 'future test', duckbilled, and work on balance. It's a collaborative project you could say and I for sure think they should have solid lines between departments. There SHOULD be a team that takes a set after design's done and they make whatever changes they need to without it going backwards. Does someone have a link to the chain of command for the different departments? Who then is solely responsible for plunging Standard into the dark ages? And doesn't it all start with design?
But I guess the perks of having them means some EDH foil staples can hopefully be reprinted.
Just also be prepared for more bad cards printed. We may need a bigger lens to filter out the crap we get in the future. Small downside if you ask me.
My personal solution would be an annual Standard Masters instead of a core set.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
But like some have mentioned, niche planes can be revisited! Your Lorwyns and Kamigawas are a big possibility.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I think we now know what to expect from our next trip to Ravnica. Hello RTR and GTC!
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Not really. This is what got out of the announcement.
A: the change from 2 or 3 set blocks to just 1 (or more but let's not get into semantics here) means that every set (and I assume core) will now host the full suite of lands. Before, the child sets could not carry their own being dependent on the parent set for basic cards. So by that logic, if a newcomer always buys the latest pack, that means a newcomer can potentially buy a child set and miss out on key supporting cards to play the game properly. By having individual parent sets w/o smaller sets, it does away with this whole problem entirely.
B: the core set fulfills the introductory role but also fills a gap that many players experience trying to shore up their Standard collection with basic and slowly rotating cards. If a new player jumps in whole hog, they'll end up buying packs (assuming they're not smart enough to snag singles) from the last two or three sets and end up having half their cards rotate out within months or worse, weeks. The core set offers a way for cards to not rotate out so quickly as well as including the much needed filler cards that don't quite fit into a specific theme. (Again, how is Lightning not thematic for any set?)
A lot of players wrongly held core sets in derision and both players and WotC mishandled them for years. But core sets are supposed to consist of cards every player should have in their aresonal. Why does one think the Power 9 come from no other sets? If you have core cards readily available and legal, then you can focus more on the fun satellite cards because you have a fixed (albeit temporary) meta to run them. With core sets, WotC can introduce subtle shifts in the meta without warping the field with crazy power or pathetically weak cards as has been happening with Standard lately.
Quite a bit, from my perspective.
The prior system could hardly have been designed better for eternal. Cram 3 set's worth of riffs on mechanics into two sets, so you get higher quality density. Chuck the Core set, and essentially replace it with the Masters series. Speed up rotation so they can take more risks without having them do too much damage.
Now, we're getting a massive change of focus. The Core Set is back, and worse, it's replacing one of the expansions with another standard-friendly, beginner-themed set. They slowed down rotation, which wrecked the balance of Standard, so the solution is to make it harder to print powerful cards. They are adding a new division to development specifically to stop standard from getting out of hand (which is one of the big ways that eternal gets cards!).
Nothing that they are doing necessarily means bad news for eternal. They could put Time Walk 2.0 into the Core set at 2U if they felt like it. But, the sentiment behind these changes strongly suggests, to me, a move to pull back from eternal and focus on draft and standard. I'm not a fan of that.
I agree with this completely. You're essentially saying the Core set should be "Standard Masters," where you go to get your Cancels and Lightning Strikes and other color-defining cards. I think that's a great idea. And, based on the past, I have absolutely zero confidence that is what it will be.
Instead, like always, we'll get Giant Spider and Pillarfield Ox and who knows what other garbage vanilla creatures because (1) it is for draft and (2) it has to be easy for beginners. These design constraints produce a weak product. Give us "Standard Masters." Don't give us more of the same Core Set "everyone needs a Giant Spider!" garbage.
What is frustrating here is that they gave themselves a perfect avenue to supplement Standard exactly the way you're suggesting - the Planeswalker decks. But, they didn't use them. Chock'em full of playsets of the core removal spells and basic creatures for each color. Use THAT as your avenue for vanilla filler. Why make a whole Core set out of it subject to drafting constraints?