Seriously, I think blue border is the best solution. It doesn't have to be bright blue, just barely different enough from black border to be recognizable. That way, it doesn't feel bad to categorically not play blue border in your deck, but if you want to for mechanical reasons, you can.
It's an entirely new type of card, so having a different border color not only makes sense, it's well within precedent.
Abaddon the Despoiler killing Gandalf even though he's getting buffed by Rick whilst holding Lucille.
If I were completely new to MTG, that really wouldn't sound more bizarre than any other combination of 4 cards.
As a longtime player, of course, that sounds completely inorganic and dissonant compared with all my experiences and perceptions leading up to this moment. Maybe the truth is... the truth is everyone is allowed to react within their own set of preconceived notions (or lack thereof), and not tear others down for having different opinions on how to receive this new product.
Abaddon the Despoiler killing Gandalf even though he's getting buffed by Rick whilst holding Lucille.
If I were completely new to MTG, that really wouldn't sound more bizarre than any other combination of 4 cards.
As a longtime player, of course, that sounds completely inorganic and dissonant compared with all my experiences and perceptions leading up to this moment. Maybe the truth is... the truth is everyone is allowed to react within their own set of preconceived notions (or lack thereof), and not tear others down for having different opinions on how to receive this new product.
It's weird because while I can understand what your doing here and can agree with the principal as someone who only knows one of the names in that sentence I can 100% agree that it doesn't seem strange at all.
Magic has a Multiverse. Planes aren't just their own worlds, they are standalone dimensions. Entire separate universes. Which makes mortal teenager Planeswalkers besting overlords of entire planes stupid.
That said, a Multiverse would not excuse what is transpiring here. I'll maintain an open mind but the outrage is justified.
See above, as when the word of god officially lists it in it's copyrights and trademarks as a mechanical system to facilitate gameplay across multiple IP's (the same filing that has existed from origin to now), that it consistently crosses over with other IP's (self confessing you're ignoring those because you like those IP's doesn't make them less of a crossover), and directly plans crossovers with other IP's (which it's done since it's inception). The ONLY thing Wizards ever made clear wasn't part of the crossover was it's own story canon, which admittely would be terrible if they tried to canonise other IP's into their own. But they've never, not in the history of the games publication, ever said that the mechanical focus can't be crossed over into other games, other IP's or other media.
I mean one thing is liking tha change, one thing is bull*****ting that magic was about crossovers all along
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
I might be misunderstanding you here, and if that's the case I apologize, but Magic does have a multiverse. Earth and Jupiter are different worlds in the same universe, like how Innistrad and its moon are in the same universe. But Innistrad and Zendikar aren't in the same universe in that same respect. They're different planes within Magic's Multiverse.
You are going to have to explain where the multiple universes are in Magic. The closest it every got was just before the Mending when portals were opening through time or when WotC tried to make us believe New Phyrexia might be Mirrodin Pure.
I might be misunderstanding you here, and if that's the case I apologize, but Magic does have a multiverse. Earth and Jupiter are different worlds in the same universe, like how Innistrad and its moon are in the same universe. But Innistrad and Zendikar aren't in the same universe in that same respect. They're different planes within Magic's Multiverse.
You are going to have to explain where the multiple universes are in Magic. The closest it every got was just before the Mending when portals were opening through time or when WotC tried to make us believe New Phyrexia might be Mirrodin Pure.
...the concept of the Multiverse has been around for a long, long time. Urza and all the rest weren't astronauts, they ripped holes in reality to just to different holes (that's what led to the Mending in the first place, so now Ob Nixilis can no longer just rip through reality without even thinking about it). Here's one example: Dominaria is the name of a plane of reality, and the planet where 95% of the story happened before 2007. However, there is another planet in Dominaria's solar system called Jinoue. It's not a moon of Dominaria the planet, and yet it was still in the universe OF Dominaria. Another example: Lorwyn (and thus Shadowmoor) is encolsed entirely within a ring of mountains. Beyond that, a weird metaphysical place where elementals come from called the [card]Primal Beyond[/csrd]. After that? Nonexistence. Here's a 7-year old thread on this site about it.
I might be misunderstanding you here, and if that's the case I apologize, but Magic does have a multiverse. Earth and Jupiter are different worlds in the same universe, like how Innistrad and its moon are in the same universe. But Innistrad and Zendikar aren't in the same universe in that same respect. They're different planes within Magic's Multiverse.
You are going to have to explain where the multiple universes are in Magic. The closest it every got was just before the Mending when portals were opening through time or when WotC tried to make us believe New Phyrexia might be Mirrodin Pure.
...the concept of the Multiverse has been around for a long, long time. Urza and all the rest weren't astronauts, they ripped holes in reality to just to different holes (that's what led to the Mending in the first place, so now Ob Nixilis can no longer just rip through reality without even thinking about it). Here's one example: Dominaria is the name of a plane of reality, and the planet where 95% of the story happened before 2007. However, there is another planet in Dominaria's solar system called Jinoue. It's not a moon of Dominaria the planet, and yet it was still in the universe OF Dominaria. Another example: Lorwyn (and thus Shadowmoor) is encolsed entirely within a ring of mountains. Beyond that, a weird metaphysical place where elementals come from called the [card]Primal Beyond[/csrd]. After that? Nonexistence. Here's a 7-year old thread on this site about it.
Looking into the wiki you seem to be very correct that they can be universes, but the issue being we've never seen a plane as a universe, every time we visit a plane it's usually a planet. It is at that point then I have to ask why is it WotC hasn't gone exploring say in the "Dominaria universe" or the "Innistrad universe." On that what then of Worldsouls? Now a worldsoul would denote a world, as its name suggest, but if a worldsoul is attached to a plane and the plane is the said universe than doesn't that throw a bit of a problem into planes being universes, but rather sections of space within the universe? In addition Dominaria, in the story, is said to affect other planes, but if its separated from others within its own universe how would it go about doing that? True we had the Mending which affected the entire Magic universe, but I mean on a lower scale.
But that makes your argument simply: It's ok to deny people product that they want to play with, as long as it's not the product 'I' want to play with.
Or I was arguing the point that "this doesn't take anything away", which the development time of this could have meant other normal Magic products didn't get developed, making what that poster said false. This isn't a "only product I like", there are a lot I don't like being made (planeswalker decks, theme boosters, collector's boosters, secret lairs), but they are Magic products. I know that I'd much rather have Magic product that focuses on Magic than focusing on other products. I play Magic to play Magic, not to play LotR or 40k, if I wanted to do that there are other avenues for those to other card games to video games to miniatures.
Conversely, by prohibiting the production of this product you would be taking away the potential enjoyment of someone else. When two parties find enjoyment in contrary things it is often the case that one party will lose out if they can't find a compromise.
It also stands true that just because you prefer 'Magic' products to these newer ones, you would still prefer if those 'Magic' products were not produced in favour of the ones you do enjoy. The sliding scale is just that, a sliding scale - it doesn't invalidate my point that it's core, you're measuring only your own enjoyment, and not considering that every other person will have the exact same view.
Hence compromise is everyone getting a product for their tastes, rather than only one group gets a product for their tastes: a fast way to wither and die, hence WOTC abandoning their prior 'standard support only' ideology to support other popular formats with releases.
Also, relatively sure neither of those IP's had a card game that functioned using MTG's system... until now.
....And? That's not a reason to put them in the game. Smoking commercials haven't been in the MTG system either, guess based on your logic they should be in the game too.
It's also not a reason to prohibit it. As the design team of Wizards would tell you, they've anticipated and facilitated you're disagreement with the design choice of using the holo-stamp to differentiate these cards from Magic canon cards.
We don't need all the different card game systems, when there is one that clearly works and all others have to pay royalties to. You're argument is tantamount to saying that because a King paved a road in stones, the peasents may only pave roads with coins. It's illogical, unnecessary and from a design standpoint; dysfunctional.
A better argument to make would be to create a separated sub-team that focuses on UB releases and Magic canon releases separately, with priority on the latter. It's actually what the current design shift of most card based games is moving to, especially with how parent companies are restructuring their portfolios. And again, you're dislike for something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, when you can just as easily choose to not purchase it if you don't wish to.
If that was the case, people wouldn't be arguing since childhood about which hero/villain/characters are better across franchises, and in my experience across a breadth of media, the biggest causes of failure for established IP's are antagonizing their consumer base and/or purist consumers who bully out those newly interested for not liking 'the right part' of said media (in thie case of this thread, it seems to be obsessive with Dominaria lore, conveniently ignoring the cross-IP references in all the non-Dominaria lore). Cross IP promotion is very rarely stated as a reason for total IP failure.
So your argument is "people like to debate about superheroes" is a reason to do this?
Also, you may want to look at the DCEU for a failure to crossover.
While a crossover may not be why something fails it's usually a sign that an IP is dying and they are trying to do anything to bring in an audience of any kind to survive. Television does this plenty, from crossovers to time travel, there are a myriad of examples that show when an IP is starting to fail. To me a crossover, if it is done too often, is an admittance that the IP you are bringing in so many others into cannot stand on its own. Magic has been on pretty shaky ground the last couple of years, constant products, gameplay becoming weaker due to cards being too strong and gameplay not balanced, and more that this is just another problem to add to that list.
The reason people debate and compare and create fiction of those IP's crossing over is because they're not being facilitated by current offerings. It's why crossovers are one of the highest selling trends in all mediums, are performed in all mediums, marketed in all mediums, and are the inevitability of all mediums.
Visual Novels are crossover of books and video games. Any 'feat' in a song is a crossover of two artists brands. Every Pizza Hut with Mars ice cream desert is a crossover promotion. Even the computer you type on, will have advertised itself using this same mechanism.
And to counterpoint your narrative over crossovers = failure, I'd just like to point out that the highest grossing product in every medium is a form of crossover...
Also, because you only seem to understand the cultural expectations of your own immediacy, I'd like to point out that from the perspective of those who work in these industries, people seeking to enter your domain of influence is considered a sign of success: the weaker property features in the stronger. So using your own words somewhat, it would be the featuring franchises that are admitting they can't stand alone (which, in case you hadn't realised, Games Workshop's holdings are in decline, hence their massive PR push and rush licensing offers at the moment)
You're now at the point of literally sitting telling us how great Magic lore is, and then telling is that the lore of Magic is 100% wrong as compared to your personal headcanon.
I have not said how great Magic lore is, but why read when you can ignore things! I questioned whether that person knew all of it as they said "it's terrible" multiple times in a row with no evidence for their opinion as to why, but hey if you want to jump to conclusions I can get that mat from Office Space.
As for a copyright, I don't care. Magic was not intended for this for well over two decades, there's a reason they stopped doing it. What makes them so sure they can pull it off now and make the game better? I'm sure crickets will sound soon.
No, you tried to impose that for them to dislike the lore, that they clearly didn't know all of it. You made an assumption about that persons capabilities and knowledge. You are now attempting to justify that miscast assumption of yours by attacking me for your mistake.
I'm fairly sure what allows them to think that way is because they already did it, thrice, and nobody batted an eye except to give them money. And to be honest, I can understand their patience with the small section of elitists that constantly scream that they have a higher knowledge while consistently getting the very fundamental basics wrong. So I'm fairly sure they can pull it off, because they're attempting to launch secondary system that maintains compatability with Magic, while being able to expand into it's own giant crossover-nonsense thing (see, AniVersus, who WOTC feels threatened by).
I'm getting the feeling you were one of those VS or Overpower players that got angry when they saw kids playing Spiderman and Batman on the same team...
Then by your own established logic, they must of either 1) Gone to the places of residence of those other entities to meet them (within that IP), or 2) Those things came to the spellcasters residence for them to know of these other entities (within Magic IP). That means, on the weight of your own argument, the game's fundamental core is literally steeped in there being a multiverse of endless possibility.
All Magic worlds are in the Magic UNIVERSE, it cannot be a multiverse if there's only one. That's literally what multi- means, multiple. An extra world is not another universe, it's another world in THE universe. Just like how Jupiter isn't another universe to Earth. How do you not know that? Dragonball has a multiverse. Power Rangers has a multiverse. Marvel & DC have a multiverse. Magic does not have a multiverse.
They are not traveling to Angel Grove to summon Goldar, they are traveling to Innistrad and summoning a zombie. One is within Magic's own universe, the other had a average at best movie in 2017.
Mate I can literally go get copies of the original books, copies of books from Magic's midlife, copies of more recent books - all of them state there's a multiverse. Saheli's storyline and the current Phyrexian storyline is over there being a multiverse. We have just remastered a set about that literal concept. The Word of God has spoken, your distaste and head canon doesn't overwrite authorial intent or direction.
I mean your first paragraph doesn't just fly in the face of the established canon of decades of MTG lore and the faces of the games makers, but also shows you don't understand the core basics of real world quantum physics or the suppositions of how spacetime works
I mean if you don't know about a subject, cool, but don't stand preaching as an authority while making it up on the spot: it doesn't end well. There's a whole kids story about it.
Thanks for reminding me, I totally forgot about the Neopets/Kellogs/Hasbro cereal crossover in the UK from when I was a wee one.
That's a promotion, not a crossover. Pizza Hut didn't "crossover" with Sony in the 90s to give out PS1 demo discs when you ordered a pizza.
Actualllllyyyy (imagine it in 'her' voice), that is legally called a cross-promotional offer, and is legally also defined as a form of crossover (where two brands, IP's or features thereof are manifest in the same works as per agreed by their respective owners). This was formalised in law in both the UK and US during the argument between Disney and Warner Bros over the representations of Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny in the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
If you like, I'm even prepared to literally cite the dictionary definition of the word if you want to try to test my knowledge further on this field.
Wow, you sent me to the main page of a company. That tells me......nothing. So the "word of god" is nothing?
Sorry, did you not recognise the Magic The Gathering homepage? I mean, I thought you were the know-all of magic lore: how sad you must be to click a link that takes you to the main page of the actual people who make the game and decide what is and isn't. Or maybe you're just choosing to be ignorant, something you were complaining others did before.
and the aether fluxx itself is a name for the space between dimensions of existence. The 'planes' and 'aether flux' are themselves copyrighted as a multiverse, with those names being the IP's 'terminological names' for those phenomena.
Looking that up on google and MTG wiki gives me nothing for what this is outside of Aetherflux Reservoir, what is this?
That is the legal definitions that Wizards uses in its patency for their works. The term Aetherflux has been around since the first sets and books. It's WOTC legally held right to sue anyone using that term in their creative works, because it's their name for their multiverse, as listed in the legal filing with the various trademark and copyright offices I have to deal with.
The fact you didn't know this, one of the most fundamental pieces of magic lore, means you do not have the breadth of knowledge us dinosaurs have. It means you're just another wet that hasn't learned how the world works (either fictional or real). Canon of a product changes to suit the business decisions of those at the top. Be grateful that the consistency of Magic canon to retain it's multiversal standings, from it's literal inception, has circled round to pay dividends while it's undoubtably the most popular form of medium expression
In essence, planeswalking is exactly like Rick and Morty, which is why the shows creators have even taken jabs at properties such as MTG and narrative devices like The Storyteller's Convention (both in the same episode).
Yeah, you're right, cause they're the same thing. Garruk is able to walk through time and different universes, yep, happens every block. No, they go to different worlds and that's the only thing in common. One thing in common does not make it exactly. Magic doesn't cause people to rush McDonald's screaming for BBQ sauce and cause them to flop on the floor screaming "REEEEEEE I'M PICKLE RICK" (in this case the REEE is actually correct for what happened in that famous video.)
That episode in no way was a jab at MTG, it was an episode where they came up with random jokes that they couldn't fit into an episode and then created the multiverse tv as a framing device to allow them to do so. It wasn't making fun of anything in particular, just a bunch of random jokes.
Also, world walking has been a thing in literature/media long before Magic and Rick & Morty, it's nothing new.
OK so you made a mistake right there. They don't go to different 'worlds', they go to different 'planes'. Planes contain 'worlds', and can have multiple of them. Planes, is short for 'Planes of Existence', which is also a part of the D&D canon (which MTG semi-officially crosses over with). This was held by WOTC for about 10 years before it really became notable in their Planescape franchise, which set down the fundamental rules of 'Gates/Portals' (now part of the MTG lore), and the ability for some entities to move through Planes without needing such. Including the Planeswalkers of MTG, the Lady of Pain from Planescape, and certain 'Gods' from D&D (rules which then feature in Theros and it's sequel).
So when a company literally uses the same storytelling rule sets, copyrights and trademarks them as such, says themselves in both statements and within the written material that makes the canon that this a multiverse, you're 'but I don't like it' attitude and complete non-understanding of the subject matter doesn't change the facts.
However, obsession does cause people to freak out whenever their narcissism isn't being indulged, from attention-seeking 'sezuachan sauce' antics to screaming because a card game released a product that 'wasn't' for them, or someone enjoyed an experience they didn't, or god-forbid, someone combined two things to enhance their enjoyment, those filthy hedonists.
Also, multiversal cable wasn't even the episode I was talking about, which proves you don't understand the subject matter to refer to it when the episodes point is to make fun of narcisstic behaviour and self-obsessive, on the spot prattling. Also, you are again trying to undermine the word of god by claiming that the Rick and Morty writers are wrong about their own writing while relying on their words to justify your misunderstanding. Honestly, I'm glad you're not one of my students, I'd have to have serious words with admin.
And yes, it has. But that's the difference between world walking and planeswalking. Planeswalking is a copyrighted term by WOTC, which is why everyone jumps through ridiculous hoops to try to avoid saying that word when dealing with multiversal concepts in their own works.
You just spent an entire section going off at someone for using words incorrectly (despite them being entirely accurate). That sounds a lot like a case of 'pot, kettle, black' to me...
Because telling someone you can't use the word hate (definition - feel intense or passionate dislike) is wrong as it is being used correctly by those who hate this announcement. It's not my fault when people use words incorrectly. Would you like to try again, but this time do it better?
So you're argument is they're wrong for using the word hate in regards to your attitude, because only your allowed to use it? What?
I mean, also it's fanciful that you've just chosen to half-quote the dictionary after literally spending nearly a thousand words claiming the dictionary is wrong, but you do you - different strokes for different folks.
Your argument is becoming more detached from observable fact and straying into trying to impose your feelings (which are clearly strong) in pace of those facts.
What's your argument here again? The poster I replied to stated that because a magazine did a thing and made a fake card that means that it's okay for other fake cards to be used. You're right, we should let the 1 cmc "You win the game" card in play. It only makes sense.
So you ask my argument, then make a strawman in its place, attack it, and then parade around like a toddler with a soiled nappy demanding a medal..
My point is you not liking something doesn't prohibit others enjoying it in their own space or people making products for them. I think you know that, but I think you've run out of road and have realised bad insults aren't working on me, so you're not just being ignorant and obtuse, but also dismissive of those who're your seniors presenting you with evidenced, black and white facts.
If you go around screaming in peoples faces in public, insulting them and belittling them, screaming "I was just communicating" when they retaliate will get you zero sympathy for your situation because your actions have repercussions that weasel wording will not always save you from.
No one is screaming in people's faces here, insulting and belittling are being done by multiple people from both sides of the like/dislike aisle, you for example are doing the same thing. Not sure where you are going with this, people get passionate and conversations happen. That poster wanted people to communicate, but then hated it when people were....communicating. That's literally hypocrisy on their part.
They asked for civil conversation, you launched a barrage of insults at them, people retaliated to that, and then your victim playing and trying to blame everyone else for your actions. That sums it up nicely.
So not only are you a prolific liar, who's ignorant, I'm fairly sure you're just trying to antagonise people and stir the pot by asking non-questions of people on both sides and then insult-barraging anyone who calls out the contradiction. Or has the temerity to stand by their convictions.
See above, as when the word of god officially lists it in it's copyrights and trademarks as a mechanical system to facilitate gameplay across multiple IP's (the same filing that has existed from origin to now), that it consistently crosses over with other IP's (self confessing you're ignoring those because you like those IP's doesn't make them less of a crossover), and directly plans crossovers with other IP's (which it's done since it's inception).
Wow....that literally had nothing to do with my argument or the argument the poster I replied to was making which was what is a crossover or not, in their example they believe being inspired by something automatically makes the thing brought about by inspiration a crossover, which it is not, but I'm glad you could post a bunch of nonsense that had zero to do with any of the points being made in that quote block. Good job.
Wow you somehow took what I said, misquoted it and then wrote out an answer to something completely different, and then somehow that's my fault that you've the reading comprehension of a frog and the slight-of-hand skills of a badger? Did your favourite character from WITW live in a big house?
My point stands, you deliberately misquoting me because you don't have an answer doesn't invalidate my point.
It seems like a tantrum really, you drop your enjoyment because one addition to the game, maybe you didn't enjoy the game that much in the first place. Anyway, seems like something deeper going on, I would talk with my therapist for sure.
So you believe someone not liking their hobby anymore because said hobby no longer matches their interests is a mental disorder that needs therapy? *deep sigh*.......What?
Sorry, remember that part I brought up earlier I wanted to save for later...
... You don't get to go around using mental illness as a weapon to beat people over the head with, asserting that disagreeing with you is akin to mental illness, and then jump in to accuse those who view with disdain the anger and hatred that people are spewing out as misusing the application of mental illness.[/quote]
[/quote]Ummm....what?! When was I using mental illness as a weapon? What in the blue ever loving echi double hockey sticks is this?[/quote]
I noticed the one thing you didn't quote of mine was earlier. You snipped one of yours (as well as rewriting parts of my quotes, don't think I didn't notice) where you attacked that users mental capacity for the fact they enjoy cross-IP works. They retaliated in kind and you immediately went to victim playing. I established that earlier.
Hence my standpoint above which hasn't changed, and my lack of respect towards you (which has intensified with each of the arrogant things you've done, from lying, to misquoting me, to being wilfully ignorant, to outright cognitive dissonance).
I guess you're maybe just not used to someone who doesn't need attention and applause and will just say what they think consequences be damned, because I'm not concerned with getting onlookers on my side or egging the fight on, I'm just fed up with the outright lying, animosity and narcisstic self-entitlement of young purists who define their entire identity through a card game to the point of trying to exclude anyone they see as undesireable (anyone who shows happiness, joy, or has fun). Screaming about the longevity of the game while demanding products aren't made or formats not played unless it's for 'them'. Screaming that people are sheep for being self-expressive, because the only true self-expression is to mindlessly follow those demanding conformity around themselves.`People who get angry because, shock horror, the majority of other players don't define their real life identities solely by their involvement with a card game.
[quote from="Dontrike »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/820636-read-this-announcement-at-your-own-risk-it?comment=231"]I know it's consistent with your side of the arguments 'one rule for us, another rule for everyone else' mentality that drives your sides collective consciousness, but as someone who literally lives with the feeling of reality trying to crush them from existence everyday, seeing anyone bandying around mental illness as a weapon (or ill conceived defense) is appaulling, and that behaviour will drive away new players and destroy the games enduring fandom far quicker than any disagreement over IP crossovers, favourite deck colours or favourite formats ever could.
Argument is fine, tearing someone else apart is fine. Using the mental health of third parties is not.
No, seriously, WHAT?! What rules am I imposing for others but not following? I'm having some real trouble trying to not get banned for spitting out obscenities, how was I doing any of that? The poster I replied to said it was a mental condition and I was questioning it.
What is happening here? What is this nonsense?
The fact you're talking to an autistic person, feeling that you've the right to condescend to me because of that and then claim my complaint of your behaviour is 'nonsense' is called 'ableism', and unlike the fictious disabled person in your head that you can bully, I'm standing up to you front and center, and you're clearly in a panic not knowing what to do because I didn't just take it and then run away.
Though despite your attitude, I don't think anything is gained for any of us by banning you. A warning and a timeout should be enough. Though be thankful to the admins, because they're not sparing me of you, they're sparing you of my onslaught.
Also, they can, as with TWD cards, make 'functional reprints' any time they want. Using this card as an example, Wizards could reprint this card when the licence deal ends... but they must change the card name, the art, and may not use 'Walker' as a creature token because 'walkers' are a 'terminological' identifier of TWD, and I'm reasonbly sure nobody is stupid enough to go to court and try to make the case that TWD's fans are unfamiliar with that term.
One issue with the functional reprints is when you get to the scale of the 40kommander decks and LotR set is that we could be seeing the potential of 300+ cards strictly with those IPs on them. That's a lot of functional reprints. They may also never be able to Godzilla skin those cards as they would still need Gandalf below the "other name" of the card and that then would accrue some sort of cost. I also have to wonder if this would be an issue on streamed tournaments when WotC shows someone playing Gandalf in a Legacy game or on Arena if any of these cards go to Historic. will we see those cards banned so WotC doesn't have to keep shelling out money to show those licenses?
I don't particularly look forward to seeing a "Functional reprint set" with the tag line of "Now with proper Magic art and text."
TWD had the issue where we couldn't see the proper name of the cards beneath the TWD names, currently there is no promise of a "real" version of those cards because WotC didn't think that far ahead.
This is accurate and why I made an argument internally against using functional reprint ideals for these products. I view that the skins methodology used for the Godzilla cards or the current, compatible but separate implementation being better. I obviously rooted for the latter as it allows the franchise to grow. If UB does well that increases chances of player uptake of core Magic because of UB acting as a gateway, more likely to be acceptable for teens due to IP fandom and for relatives to throw a deck in a christmas stocking or birthday bag.
[quote]Since those early sets, Magic has appeared in: Multiple tactics, strategy and hack n slash video games. A magazine only cross-promotion with Yu-Gi-Oh (A gold card Dark Magician, a 'dragon' 6 star Shivan Dragon monster). Official crossover material for D&D. A series of game books (published by company who produces Queens Blade books). A staff only UFS (now AniVersus) character card. Referenced/parodied in at least two anime. A proposed & developed, ultimately unreleased board game that crossed over with the Monster In My Pocket brand. A crossbrand drinks promotion with World of Warcraft. A white dwarf only army list for Slivers...
These are a handful of examples from around the world, across MTG's history. The only difference is this time those franchies appear in MTG card form. Which is why I find it so amusing that a tiny subset of players who've proudly pushed their IP into the frames of others are now having a major backlash that those same IPs are appearing in theirs. To say that MTG wasn't designed to facilitate crossover's is to literally ignore the patenting documents that force everyone else to pay Hasbro royalties (because most of it's mechanical fundamentals (like tapping a card to show it's used) are properiety).
The thing is that direction is important you wouldn't call Persona or Metroid or Minecraft Games that were designed to facilitate crossovers just because they appear in Smash bros which is however a game which is desinged to do that. Furthermore most if not all of those crossovers happened not from the hasbro side asking but the crossover side asking to basically do the thing many in here accuse wizards of doing with this, a quick cash grab. Also the size of the crossovers were in most cases hold to a minimum to you know have the other IP keep it's Identity.
That's why I personally wouldn't mind a silver bordered crossover set for example that way you can use the game system but keeping the crossover distinct but still playable for those that like these, albeit as an opt-in rather than an opt-out.
Direction changes with time. In fact, in this case, this would be Magic returning somewhat to it's original direction - a game system for representing multiple franchises. There's also likely the business case: Hasbro could lose the patency that grants them royalties from everyone else if they don't act on the original filing soon, being able to show that the system is being used for it's original purpose. Ya see, that patency of game mechanics is tied to the reason 'for' the mechanic. If they can't prove their using it for intent, they'll have a far harder time trying to justify why those who are have to pay them royalties. Hence why it's a win-win for Hasbro: expanding their market into other IP's to grab those consumers, while also taking care of some backroom business.
I do agree intent wise on these being silver-bordered, that I agree with. Though, if they were trying to prevent confusion with the UN sets, redesigning the holo thing at the bottom of the card seems as wise a choice as any.
Since those early sets, Magic has appeared in: Multiple tactics, strategy and hack n slash video games. A magazine only cross-promotion with Yu-Gi-Oh (A gold card Dark Magician, a 'dragon' 6 star Shivan Dragon monster). Official crossover material for D&D. A series of game books (published by company who produces Queens Blade books). A staff only UFS (now AniVersus) character card. Referenced/parodied in at least two anime. A proposed & developed, ultimately unreleased board game that crossed over with the Monster In My Pocket brand. A crossbrand drinks promotion with World of Warcraft. A white dwarf only army list for Slivers...
These are a handful of examples from around the world, across MTG's history. The only difference is this time those franchies appear in MTG card form.
I can't say that I'm particularly moved by the argument "MtG concepts/likenesses/settings have been used in promos of other IPs, so this is fine" because I don't play those games and never heard of the promos you're talking about. They aren't a part of my MtG experience and they have nothing to do with how I view the game. I have been involved with MtG in some form or another since 1998 and my perspective on what the game is was shaped by almost a quarter century of MtG cards, not cynical promotional stuff that exists outside the game.
And that's fine, I can appreciate that view. But it's a string that works both ways. For many other players, Magic is ancillary, it's a part of their world but doesn't define it. They will likely be cross-hobbyists, or people who fell out of love with the game.
This is where that 'this product isn't for you' comes in.
It is like FF7. I don't particularly love that game, but it's fine enough and it's a good example of what I'm trying to express so let's just pretend I love that game. Cloud has appeared in a lot of other IPs, none of which I play, to me that is just tacky marketing from Square that I can and do safely ignore because they exist outside and apart from the game of FF7 that I enjoy. But if the Kingdom Hearts gang showed up in FF7 Remake Part Two, it would surely compromise my perception of the game.
This is a thing that's already been discussed and put to bed.
These cards are not Magic canon cards, hence their dissimilar holo stamps. Also, two Kingdom Hearts characters are the most requested DLC characters for FF7 Remake PT2.
If these other franchises were being included into the canonised stories of MTG, then that would be a functionally different problem. Compatible playing pieces isn't such a big deal, when there's rumours on the other IP's side that this is actually a two way street, with some Gatewatch members supposedly getting mini's through Games Workshop, who now share the LOTR licence with Hasbro.
Which is why I find it so amusing that a tiny subset of players who've proudly pushed their IP into the frames of others are now having a major backlash that those same IPs are appearing in theirs.[/quote]
We did what now? What makes you think I'm proud that WotC pushed their IP elsewhere to market MtG and/or make a quick buck? At best, I accept that it's a thing WotC will do in their strategy to keep the market for the game healthy.
I wouldn't include you in that subset of players Mikey - you've actually got reasons for your disagreements with this.
As well, since we're expressing what we're amused by, I'm amused by how posters here are characterizing the attitudes and behaviors of those who aren't liking the Universe Beyond concept. It's all getting the clickbait title treatment, overstating responses and emotionality to frame arguments and posters in a way that's easier to argue against or paint as dismissible. I'm not experiencing a major backlash, UB is a thing that doesn't vibe with my experience of the game, I'm unlikely to engage with it and I doubt I'll ever experience much if any of it so this isn't really a big deal to me. I just find the debate here fascinating and truth be told, I've got pandemic boredom amid chronic work stress and every cat benefits from a scratching post.
And I honestly Mikey wish that both sides would take a more reasoned and responsible attitude to the whole thing because you are right, people are losing their minds over something they could just as easily choose not to buy or not to personally play with. But if they're allowed to be bombastic, surely the most enigmatic villain of MTGS should get to play, si?
Your last sentence is a sentiment that I can share. My claws need sharpening once in a while too.
To say that MTG wasn't designed to facilitate crossover's is to literally ignore the patenting documents that force everyone else to pay Hasbro royalties (because most of it's mechanical fundamentals (like tapping a card to show it's used) are properiety).
What player constructs their perception of the game on patent documents?
Perception doesn't matter in regards to facts. I can perceive the sky as red and green, but that matters little if one has damaged eyes or is looking through a filter. Perception is relative, essentially, as you know.
As for what is original and divergent about lifting a picture of Christoper Lambert from the movie Merlin, making a set about a Magic School with a cross promotion for that other IP (promotion abandoned eleventh hour after other IP frontperson damaged said IP), or, Magic's most iconic villian being copied from an 80's sci-fi show villian. The whole thing was always designed to be a crossover of multiple IP's, it just wasn't considered big enough by the other IPs brand managers to make it a worthwhile investment for them to grant a license to use most of the time (as opposed to Games Workshop's recent scattershot approach of licenses for everyone).
Homage/Influence/Parody =/= Crossover
This is why the events of The Avengers XXX: A Porn Parody are not canon in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A little more seriously, though, there's a reason aspects of MtG being influenced by or homages to other works does not feel out of place where UB does. It's adaptation versus transplantation, and honestly it's been surreal for me to see so many posters not get that. To give credit to Tiro, he analogized the point well by saying the Theros gods might as well have been the actual Greek gods by the logic that homage/influence and crossovers are interchangeable.
Perhaps you're right, though, that MtG was always intended not to be a game of its own with its own independent identity but instead a multi-IP platform of crossovers only delayed by MtG not being big enough. But at the end of the day, that hasn't been my experience with the game for almost a quarter century and I don't intend for it to be part of my experience going forward.[/quote]
I am aware of the difference, but I was not asked 'what is the difference between homage, parody and plagerism', I was dictated at in essence that 'everything in Magic is completely original or divergent', which is what I challenged.
Also, I will note, it's not out of place because of adaption. That's a slight misunderstanding. It's not out of place because their copying the main elements of work they've already copied everything else from. Hence why WOTC used to pay royalties to Tolkien's group for things contained within the reserved list, and why Kithkin aren't hobbits or gnomes (the latter they'd have to pay Games Workshop for ironically, who then have to pay... Tolkien's group).
Throwing LOTR in with Magic fare isn't going to cause a big stir: they're both fantasy rooted with a lot of overlap due to the above. What does feel out of place is 40K, and that's something others have mentioned - if they'd used any of the fantasy stuff, nobody would of really batted an eye. And thus the problem isn't really an argument over UB, it's an argument over 'dissonance of theme'. Those who like anachronistic works and grand crossovers are going to love it, and thematic purists will hate it, and that's going to be the real divide.
But Magic itself was always designed for this, it was always the end goal - it always is with media of any type. I'll always love Magic's lore (most of it), and I'm glad it grew to be as grand as it is. But it's time for the purists to let go for the sake of the game, as there's nowhere left for it to go, because when we're reskinning Harry Potter and The Worst Witch, or reskinning Merlin, it's just better for all sides if we use the originals. Because as much as people don't want to admit it, WOTC isn't pulling in new players with core Magic releases anymore and Magic's fanbase is to blame for that. If this people want this game to survive, especially during a period of reduced in person interaction, it has to be allowed to reach new audiences and has to do so in a way those audiences are open to.
Without new players, this game will die, like all those before it who focused too hard on their self-contained bubble of purists.
And that's fine, I can appreciate that view. But it's a string that works both ways. For many other players, Magic is ancillary, it's a part of their world but doesn't define it.
What an odd thing to say, it's not my assumption that many people in this thread have their world defined by MtG.
This is a thing that's already been discussed and put to bed.
These cards are not Magic canon cards, hence their dissimilar holo stamps.
I'm not mistaking them for canon in the story, and they don't need to be for me to feel they're out of place in the game.
Also, two Kingdom Hearts characters are the most requested DLC characters for FF7 Remake PT2.
My ever-increasing dislike for FF and its fans continues unabated.
I wouldn't include you in that subset of players Mikey - you've actually got reasons for your disagreements with this.
So does everyone involved in this conversation. Whether or not they're understood or validated by others.
And I honestly Mikey wish that both sides would take a more reasoned and responsible attitude to the whole thing because you are right, people are losing their minds over something they could just as easily choose not to buy or not to personally play with. But if they're allowed to be bombastic, surely the most enigmatic villain of MTGS should get to play, si?
Your last sentence is a sentiment that I can share. My claws need sharpening once in a while too.
Oh honey. No to all of this, but especially that bolded part.
Perception doesn't matter in regards to facts. I can perceive the sky as red and green, but that matters little if one has damaged eyes or is looking through a filter. Perception is relative, essentially, as you know.
And the facts you're presenting are irrelevant to why people play the game. People play games because of the way they feel when they do and they view the game through the lens of that experience - not patent documents. I think arguing for UB using patent documents misses the forest for the trees and probably wouldn't be a compelling pitch for most players. Players are going to form an attachment to a game based on their perception of it, I don't think that includes investigating the patent documents of the game to understand the intent of its creators in the early 90s.
I want to thank you for your effort to further explain yourself, though you should know that your misfired tags made replying to you next to impossible (when quoting, the format goes wonky and I lost most of the content of your posts forcing me to do a ramshackle copy/paste job) so if you don't see much response, that could be a reason why. I think you speak well to your points, but I can't say that anything you've argued has been compelling for me in regards to this product. It's actually had the opposite effect, I'm even less warm to UB than I was before and I have even less desire to interact with people who are excited by it because everything has gotten so pedantic and far afield of the fun spirit of the game. I used to sideeye and tolerate the cynical corporate crap WotC did, but now the players themselves are trying to browbeat others into liking the cynical corporate crap with arguments about patents and metaphysics.
[
Direction changes with time. In fact, in this case, this would be Magic returning somewhat to it's original direction - a game system for representing multiple franchises. There's also likely the business case: Hasbro could lose the patency that grants them royalties from everyone else if they don't act on the original filing soon, being able to show that the system is being used for it's original purpose. Ya see, that patency of game mechanics is tied to the reason 'for' the mechanic. If they can't prove their using it for intent, they'll have a far harder time trying to justify why those who are have to pay them royalties. Hence why it's a win-win for Hasbro: expanding their market into other IP's to grab those consumers, while also taking care of some backroom business.
I do agree intent wise on these being silver-bordered, that I agree with. Though, if they were trying to prevent confusion with the UN sets, redesigning the holo thing at the bottom of the card seems as wise a choice as any.
Direction won't always change like with my comparison of games. And while I agree that businesswise it is good for short term gains I do not belief there are significant gains or gains in general in the long run, but that is just speculation on my part.
Furthermore your argument about changing directions could also be made the other way around that they stopped their "intended" this is all about other IPs due to their belief that the Magic Brand is musch stronger on it's own. Also Crossover/Promotions do not need to be "repaid in kind" as I do think those crossover/promotions contracts are already fulfilled, but that is also speculative on my end, but based on the fact that most I can remember were done in the style "MTG is popular lesk ask them if we can use their stuff to draw in the MTG crowd" (Similarly to what feels like what Wotc does with UB now) so more of a one and done thing on a smaller scale as to what WOTC is doing now.
And from my own expirience, all those promotions/crossovers with magic did either not much or nothing at all in the long term for me sure I tried a few because of those but none of them stayed with me.
So using your own words somewhat, it would be the featuring franchises that are admitting they can't stand alone (which, in case you hadn't realised, Games Workshop's holdings are in decline, hence their massive PR push and rush licensing offers at the moment)
I don't know what you're talking about. Or rather, I don't think you know what you're talking about; GW's properties are as popular as they've ever been, continuing to show growth with every earnings statement they release. If they're down at all for any reason at the moment, it's because of covid and covid alone - and in that respect they're not unlike MTG. If you're referring to the slate of licenses that seem to switch hands in perpetuity (board games, card games, RPGs, etc), that's been going on for years now at this point. Suffice it to say, GW isn't the slightest bit "in decline."
Quote from LeyShade »
Perception doesn't matter in regards to facts. I can perceive the sky as red and green, but that matters little if one has damaged eyes or is looking through a filter. Perception is relative, essentially, as you know.
The only facts being spoken to are whether or not people will embrace these new products, and why. Whatever Wizard's original intent might have been ultimately has no bearing on how the game has been managed these past 25+ years, or how it exists in its current incarnation, according to the perceptions of enfranchised players; you could be the most knowledgeable poster here on the subject of feudal Japanese culture and spirituality, and that would still give you no leverage from which to preach about how Kamigawa should have been well-received despite player expectation. Perception is everything.
I bet the people who feel indignant toward the people not wanting a crossover never even tried the card game that already existed for that IP. Said card game that already withered and died. After all, why play say the LOTR card game when you can just stick with MTG? Its like a dark comedy of sorts, that graveyard of alternate card games that failed to be popular and longstanding as MTG, YGO, or Pkmn. So many players with sunkcost that didn't want hop across the pond to another card game. But then who can blame them, when money is finite and the prices shred wallets. Is it better to have only played a single card game and be ignorant to what else had come out, or is it better to have reached out to another game even while knowing the possibility of if that game may eventually die.
See above, as when the word of god officially lists it in it's copyrights and trademarks as a mechanical system to facilitate gameplay across multiple IP's (the same filing that has existed from origin to now), that it consistently crosses over with other IP's (self confessing you're ignoring those because you like those IP's doesn't make them less of a crossover), and directly plans crossovers with other IP's (which it's done since it's inception). The ONLY thing Wizards ever made clear wasn't part of the crossover was it's own story canon, which admittely would be terrible if they tried to canonise other IP's into their own. But they've never, not in the history of the games publication, ever said that the mechanical focus can't be crossed over into other games, other IP's or other media.
I mean one thing is liking tha change, one thing is bull*****ting that magic was about crossovers all along
Don't really understand why Mark Rosewater is being hypocritical about this. Either he wants Magic to be Magic without being someone else's IP (Intellectual Property) or he's perfectly fine with these IP's diluting the Magic brand. He's saying this in a way that doesn't offend his co-workers at Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro which doesn't make sense to me.
The more you dilute Magic as a brand eventually it will lose it's own sense of identity and I'm guessing that Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro thinks that the game's entire card pool is actually big enough to where that doesn't happen regardless of how much of these IP Crossovers they print in Universal Beyond. Only difference is that previous IP Crossovers were printed in very limited supply through HasCon, Secret Lairs, and Promos.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Conversely, by prohibiting the production of this product you would be taking away the potential enjoyment of someone else. When two parties find enjoyment in contrary things it is often the case that one party will lose out if they can't find a compromise.
These didn't even exist until a year ago and suddenly now there needs to be compromise?
"Hey, let me shove random things into the game you love that have nothing to do with it."
"Okay, so what should you compromise in return?"
"Uhhhhh......just compromise!"
You want that compromise then start compromising. If these IPs take products away or ruin the ones they like then what should those players get in return? What do you propose as a compromise for those that don't like these products?
It also stands true that just because you prefer 'Magic' products to these newer ones, you would still prefer if those 'Magic' products were not produced in favour of the ones you do enjoy. The sliding scale is just that, a sliding scale - it doesn't invalidate my point that it's core, you're measuring only your own enjoyment, and not considering that every other person will have the exact same view.
Yes, I would like less products I don't enjoy (anyone would), because over the last few years of Magic more and more products have been made that I do not enjoy, for one reason or another (price, product quality (either compared to others or by themselves), value compared to price, those random board game attempts they tried with Ixalan and Game Night), and some of them are redundant (theme boosters), but at the very least those products are Magic products. They sell this game on its own merits through those products and not by trying to sell itself by going "I know LotR, he's a friend of mine" like they are lying to someone trying to get a date.
Here's the thing though, I'm fine with people enjoying things, people like stuff all they want that I don't like or are indifferent to, even the stupid stuff (smoking, driving drunk, putting hooks in their skin) but those don't affect me in any way (unless they are blowing smoke right in my face). What you are proposing is that someone should bring their fun into my fun just because and their fun is likely to ruin my fun. Why should my fun be ruined by someone elses?
How's this for fun example (and I do this because of the last two paragraphs you wrote, which I'll get to soon). My mother had fun beating me. I had fun when it didn't happen. So in your "smart logic" I should have COMPROMISED!!!! with her where she beats me more, just not as hard. Can't take her fun away because "you're measuring only your own enjoyment, and not considering that every other person will have the exact same view." Guess the crossover of that knife she wanted in me was needed cause "it never happened before."
Hence compromise is everyone getting a product for their tastes, .
Ever heard the phrase "when you try and please everyone you'll please no one"?
It's also not a reason to prohibit it. As the design team of Wizards would tell you, they've anticipated and facilitated you're disagreement with the design choice of using the holo-stamp to differentiate these cards from Magic canon cards.
Wow! A different holo-stamp?! Well then that changes....nothing. Not a thing. Not one thing. At least the different border color idea changed enough where when they do make functional reprints they would be vastly different.
A different holo stamp doesn't change tournament narrators saying "Gandalf destroyed Bilbo, bringing back Akroma and the One Ring, which automatically equips to 40k Trap God, and now Sauron comes from exile when two creatures are put into the battlefield if they weren't cast. Now they swing with Negan and they block with super soldier 40k and Llanowar Elves." There's a reason this video is meant as a joke and why it would be very silly and anywhere between a little a whole lot of stupid.
We don't need all the different card game systems, when there is one that clearly works and all others have to pay royalties to. You're argument is tantamount to saying that because a King paved a road in stones, the peasents may only pave roads with coins.
Nope, but that was funny to read.
A better argument to make would be to create a separated sub-team that focuses on UB releases and Magic canon releases separately, with priority on the latter.
A better argument would be these cards not being constructed legal, like everything before it had been. I like the MLP cards (hey, look at that, that ruins a few of your arguments), bought two sets of them, but in no way do I want them in anything other than silly Commander games or at the kitchen table.
And again, you're dislike for something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, when you can just as easily choose to not purchase it if you don't wish to.
Why should someone enjoying something need to go into what I enjoy though? Why does that have to happen? You haven't explained this yet. Why should their fun go into my fun, thereby decreasing my fun.
The reason people debate and compare and create fiction of those IP's crossing over is because they're not being facilitated by current offerings.
Or it's because there are things they will never see. Death Battle is one of those, you will never see Goku fighting Superman and for good reason, and besides fan offering they should never meet officially. Ever. It's the same reason you see fan fictions of Winx Club and Sonic the Hedgehog, sometimes someone likes both and wants to see them together, but that doesn't they should be. People will always wonder who is stronger in anime, Luffy vs. Naruto, Saitama vs. Vegeta, and they'll always do that, usually it comes from passion and not from someone not giving it to them. They just have an imagination.
Believe you me back on the site RPGDL I argued Pikachu winning against Sephiroth, Lyn from Fire Emblem vs. the Red Mage from FF1, but that doesn't mean I want official products made for it. I don't want Hollywood making tv/movies for it, I don't want businesses trying to earn money off of it, sometimes a fan thing is just all it should be.
It's why crossovers are one of the highest selling trends in all mediums, are performed in all mediums, marketed in all mediums, and are the inevitability of all mediums.
Could also be because it's a fad at this point, one that is already becoming tiring, like multiverses in media, and cinematic universes (who remembers the Dark Universe failing in one movie or the Sony's Amazing Spiderman cinematic universe?) Crossovers have existed for decades, usually they were done as a one off for a reason (TMNT showing up on the Power Rangers for one episode) and if they happened any more than that it was a sign of something dying. There's a reason there's Power Rangers only showed up in DC comics fighting Batman once or the Powerpuff girls talking to the Justice League. While crossovers will never die, and they shouldn't, they definitely shouldn't be abused, else it becomes boring and stale. There's a reason you don't eat your favorite food for every meal.
3D was supposedly the future of movies thanks to Avatar, but how often do you see that now? Sure, you can see a movie in the 3D, but isn't done right and not worth the money. Remember when TVs were promoting being 3D? Don't seem them sold now. Virtual reality also came and went over the decades numerous times.
And to counterpoint your narrative over crossovers = failure, I'd just like to point out that the highest grossing product in every medium is a form of crossover...
I'd also like to point out that some of the worst pieces of media are crossovers. It's almost like there can be good and bad ones over time, but there is a much larger section of bad crossovers to good ones. The MCU doesn't prove crossovers are great, it's that when done well it can be because if you look at the DCEU you'll notice that is not the case. Suicide Squad is one of the worst movies of all time, and it's a crossover. Batman v. Superman is a bad movie, also a crossover. Even Avengers 2 isn't a great movie, one of the weakest in the MCU and it's a crossover. The Titanic doing a crossover with that iceberg wasn't a good thing.
Crossovers tend to be sold on the basis of "Hey, two good things brought together can never be bad" and then they put no work into it and it ends up being bad. Music, video games, and more, all of it has far more bad crossovers than it does good ones thanks to that line of thinking. Actual work needs to be put into it for it to do well and when it comes to this crossover with Magic and LotR/40k I do not believe WotC can make it work. That is from the last few years of the game degrading due to various decisions. Slowly I have lost my faith in this game due to those decisions and this decision here is yet another one.
Also, something making money doesn't mean its good, it only means it's popular and makes money. The cigarette industry made billions, Fred Flintstone even sold cigarettes (hey look a "crossover" that wasn't good), but that doesn't mean cigarettes are a good thing.
So using your own words somewhat, it would be the featuring franchises that are admitting they can't stand alone (which, in case you hadn't realised, Games Workshop's holdings are in decline, hence their massive PR push and rush licensing offers at the moment)
So you agree with me. Okay.
No, you tried to impose that for them to dislike the lore, that they clearly didn't know all of it. You made an assumption about that persons capabilities and knowledge. You are now attempting to justify that miscast assumption of yours by attacking me for your mistake.
No, I did not impose anything. I asked if they were aware of all the lore and what parts of it were bad, but if that's imposing to you then there's nothing I can do for you. If someone is going to state the lore is terrible again and again I would like some examples of it, they then can at that point back up their claims. It's called debating or a conversation, that's usually how that works. It's asking a question, not imposing.
I'm fairly sure what allows them to think that way is because they already did it, thrice, and nobody batted an eye except to give them money.
What three times were that exactly cause I'm only aware of TWD, MLP, and convention cards (Nerf Gun, Grimlock, etc) and there definitely were people batting an eye at them. Many had issues them, especially TWD.
And to be honest, I can understand their patience with the small section of elitists that constantly scream that they have a higher knowledge while consistently getting the very fundamental basics wrong.
And these elitists would be......?
I'm getting the feeling you were one of those VS or Overpower players that got angry when they saw kids playing Spiderman and Batman on the same team...
I have no idea what those are, but then again you have been jumping to conclusions like Daffy Duck at the end of a cartoon about every other quote so this is really no surprise.
Mate I can literally go get copies of the original books, copies of books from Magic's midlife, copies of more recent books - all of them state there's a multiverse. Saheli's storyline and the current Phyrexian storyline is over there being a multiverse. We have just remastered a set about that literal concept. The Word of God has spoken, your distaste and head canon doesn't overwrite authorial intent or direction.
Do you have an example of this when the universe isn't collapsing and time portals everywhere allowing it? I'm aware of Time Spiral, but because you like to jump to conclusions of course you'd think I wouldn't know what that is. All I asked was for that, but it's cool you can be as condescending as you claim I'm being.
but also shows you don't understand the core basics of real world quantum physics or the suppositions of how spacetime works
This part is just funny. You just made fun of elitists for telling others how things should be and now I need a quantum physics degree to understand a card game because you said that's how it should be. Odd.
I mean if you don't know about a subject, cool, but don't stand preaching as an authority while making it up on the spot: it doesn't end well. There's a whole kids story about it.
Should probably take your advice there considering you misunderstood asking a question as me enforcing my will on others, but hey. To quote you "pot, meet kettle."
If you like, I'm even prepared to literally cite the dictionary definition of the word if you want to try to test my knowledge further on this field.
Okay, let's do that.
Crossover- an instance of breaking into another category
Cross promotion- the use of one product or service to promote another.
Look at that, there is just enough of a different to separate the two. That's strange. I could have sworn that's what I was arguing. At this point this is semantics because you're upset for some reason. Why are we arguing this specific thing exactly?
Sorry, did you not recognise the Magic The Gathering homepage? I mean, I thought you were the know-all of magic lore:
At no point did I ever say that. I didn't even say Magic lore was amazing, only questioning what they thought was bad. Again, asking a question. Do you have a problem with that or something?
That is the legal definitions that Wizards uses in its patency for their works.
I don't keep up with patents, but it's cool you didn't get angry for asking a question for once. Kudos.
The term Aetherflux has been around since the first sets and books.
Has it? In the wiki and google nothing appears, if it has been around for decades in Magic lore I'm sure I'd find something on it. Do have a link to this or more insults?
The fact you didn't know this, one of the most fundamental pieces of magic lore, means you do not have the breadth of knowledge us dinosaurs have.
Wow, for someone so upset that I corrected some definitions you sure do like insulting others for that very thing. I asked for a link and you couldn't do it, strange strategy.
OK so you made a mistake right there. They don't go to different 'worlds', they go to different 'planes'. Planes contain 'worlds', and can have multiple of them. Planes, is short for 'Planes of Existence', which is also a part of the D&D canon
D&D lore has nothing to do with Magic lore.
(which MTG semi-officially crosses over with). This was held by WOTC for about 10 years before it really became notable in their Planescape franchise, which set down the fundamental rules of 'Gates/Portals' (now part of the MTG lore), and the ability for some entities to move through Planes without needing such. Including the Planeswalkers of MTG, the Lady of Pain from Planescape, and certain 'Gods' from D&D (rules which then feature in Theros and it's sequel).
I already questioned that. Planes have a weird sense of being, they can be just a world or even a universe, strange as they've never explored a plane as a universe before only one specific world, which is where a lot of the confusion came from on my part. I know that angers you.
However, obsession does cause people to freak out whenever their narcissism isn't being indulged, from attention-seeking 'sezuachan sauce' antics to screaming because a card game released a product that 'wasn't' for them, or someone enjoyed an experience they didn't, or god-forbid, someone combined two things to enhance their enjoyment, those filthy hedonists.
Where's the freak out here again? I'm going to say REEEE'ing on the floor at a Mcdonald's over a BBQ sauce is a freak out, but a discussion on the internet is definitely not a freak out.
Also, multiversal cable wasn't even the episode I was talking about, which proves you don't understand the subject matter to refer to it when the episodes point is to make fun of narcisstic behaviour and self-obsessive, on the spot prattling. Also, you are again trying to undermine the word of god by claiming that the Rick and Morty writers are wrong about their own writing while relying on their words to justify your misunderstanding. Honestly, I'm glad you're not one of my students, I'd have to have serious words with admin.
So let me get this straight, you didn't offer an episode title, but I was supposed to correctly assume which one you were talking about? You're right, you are glad I'm not your student as I'd actually ask questions and I see how that really ticks you off.
So you're argument is they're wrong for using the word hate in regards to your attitude, because only your allowed to use it? What?
Or, they said no one should use it, claiming others were using it wrong, even though people were using it correctly. I don't get this one, they said others shouldn't use it, why are you angry at me that I correct them? Seriously, what is this?
I mean, also it's fanciful that you've just chosen to half-quote the dictionary after literally spending nearly a thousand words claiming the dictionary is wrong, but you do you - different strokes for different folks.
Might want to look up one of the definitions of hate, pretty sure I copied it fully. You're welcome to check and get back to me if I half copied it. Go ahead.
So you ask my argument, then make a strawman in its place, attack it, and then parade around like a toddler with a soiled nappy demanding a medal..
They claimed that fake cards were made and were okay, turns out that they are not okay. Odd how it's a strawman when I came up with a fake card with an argument about fake cards. Wow, staying on topic is strawmanning now.
My point is you not liking something doesn't prohibit others enjoying it in their own space or people making products for them.
You've made this point a lot, but you have at no point offered why someone's fun should interject into my fun? If I like baseball should someone's enjoyment of football cause every baseball game to include football? If someone enjoys smoking should that mean they should blow smoke in my face because I enjoy not breathing it in?
Why exactly does my fun mean less than their fun? What is something fun you enjoy? Would it be okay if I injected my fun into it that is antithetical to your fun? If you enjoyed volunteering would it be okay if I drove a monster truck through the building? If you enjoyed drinking would it be okay if I injected my fun of liking it when others don't drink?
At what point is one particular fun more important than another?
They asked for civil conversation, you launched a barrage of insults at them, people retaliated to that, and then your victim playing and trying to blame everyone else for your actions. That sums it up nicely.
Oh sweetie, might want to take a look in the mirror if you think I'm the only one doing it, even in this post you've insulted, retaliated, and then played the victim (like at the end of your post), blame others for your actions. Same thing. Might want to try some introspection. I believe I included myself in there when I said the word "everyone on both sides of the argument", unless you believe I'm outside of everyone. You don't sound like a great teacher if you belittle others so easily.
So not only are you a prolific liar, who's ignorant, I'm fairly sure you're just trying to antagonise people and stir the pot by asking non-questions of people on both sides and then insult-barraging anyone who calls out the contradiction. Or has the temerity to stand by their convictions.
To quote a good friend of mine "you launched a barrage of insults at them, people retaliated to that, and then your victim playing and trying to blame everyone else for your actions. That sums it up nicely."
Wow you somehow took what I said, misquoted it
No, your response to that quote had zero to do with it. I called it out for what it was. Maybe next time reply correctly.
... You don't get to go around using mental illness as a weapon to beat people over the head with, asserting that disagreeing with you is akin to mental illness, and then jump in to accuse those who view with disdain the anger and hatred that people are spewing out as misusing the application of mental illness.
This is some....I mean....wow....Just. Wow. The person I quoted said that if they don't like a thing they should seek therapy and I'm the one doing it? Okay, sure, whatever. At no point did I accuse mental illness in any capacity due to this, but I see we're jumping to conclusions still. Good thing though you ignored them claiming others were mentally unwell to go to the person calling them out on how absolutely awful that was to say. Good job.
animosity and narcisstic self-entitlement of young purists who define their entire identity through a card game to the point of trying to exclude anyone they see as undesireable (anyone who shows happiness, joy, or has fun).
But I thought my liking something should mean it should happen? That's literally been the main driving point of your argument. How come my fun means less than this crossover fun? Now you're telling me this is how it should be, thereby being self-entitled to what you feel is best. Strange how when you do it it's right, but when I do it it's wrong. Guess we'll never figure out why that is.
Your fun just must be more important than my fun.
Screaming about the longevity of the game while demanding products aren't made or formats not played unless it's for 'them'. Screaming that people are sheep for being self-expressive, because the only true self-expression is to mindlessly follow those demanding conformity around themselves.`People who get angry because, shock horror, the majority of other players don't define their real life identities solely by their involvement with a card game.
This is hilarious. First, not screaming. Second, didn't say people were sheep at any point. Third, never mentioned identities in any way. Seems like you're tired about something that never happened. Again you jumped to some mighty conclusions like a pole vaulter.
The fact you're talking to an autistic person, feeling that you've the right to condescend to me because of that and then claim my complaint of your behaviour is 'nonsense' is called 'ableism',
Now we're at the main insanity. Where do I begin with this? How would I ever know that you're autistic, first of all. I don't know you. At all. Most I know about you is a forum name. That's it. Secondly, calling your opinion nonsense isn't abelism, not in the least. Considering you said just the same if not worse what does that make your arguments? Strange how you can condescend and insult and it's fine, but calling something you say nonsense is "bullying".
and unlike the fictious disabled person in your head that you can bully, I'm standing up to you front and center, and you're clearly in a panic not knowing what to do because I didn't just take it and then run away.
At no point was I bullying you, not sure where you got that. If you believe not agreeing with you is bullying then there's literally nothing I can do for you. At no point has there been panic, this argument isn't worth that emotion, though this has earned other more humorous emotions.
What I find remarkable are the endless wishlists and requests for actual Magic worlds, characters, returns and themes that are still awaited, or denied.
I don't suspect this product will take away from any of that, but it does feel jarring. MTG has been very elastic in recent years, back and forth with alarming upheavals and controversy.
Don't really understand why Mark Rosewater is being hypocritical about this. Either he wants Magic to be Magic without being someone else's IP (Intellectual Property) or he's perfectly fine with these IP's diluting the Magic brand. He's saying this in a way that doesn't offend his co-workers at Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro which doesn't make sense to me.
That's really easy: $$$$$
A significant piece of MaRo's role as chief mouthpiece for the game is being the smiling face that sells all of the big decisions made for the game, and that sometimes includes decisions driven by market research and corporate strategy that the game design team would not want. So it's not really hypocrisy, he's just doing his job, and sometimes that means needing to pivot one's public statements to be celebratory of a move you once said you'd never want. I don't really blame MaRo, I'm not sure what else he could really say and at least this way he can save face with a "I never would have done this but the way it was proposed was really innovative and sold me on the concept in a way I never considered before" redemption moment.
So no, this has nothing to do with MaRo not wanting to offend others, he's just doing his job as the mouthpiece.
WotC is owned by Hasbro, and Hasbro is a company that not only has shareholders expecting increasing profits every quarter, but Hasbro has historically has leaned hard on WotC to be the profitable part of the company while their other IPs flounder and tend to lose $$$ (looking at GI Joe, Monopoly, My Little Pony, etc.) This has led to the increase in the number of MTG product types each year, the increase in the number of sets released, the 'premium' products that keep getting more and more expensive, the list goes on. Hasbro won't settle for Magic to be profitable, they NEED it to INCREASE in profitability every year, which isn't really sustainable when keeping the health of the game in mind, but it's certainly a dream for them to use Magic and D&D to catapult WotC onto a Marvel trajectory.
Hasbro wants MTG TV shows, video games, action figures, plushies, movies, scented candles, you name it. They want the brand to skyrocket in profitability, and a great way to do that is with crossovers. It's been well documented that crossovers expose large audiences to things they might otherwise not be privy to, and crossover events tend to be the most popular events that happen in media, just look at Fortnite with it's nearly endless crossovers into their game.
Everything WotC is doing they are doing to increase profits, to make as much money as possible. Their developmental viewpoints are far secondary to Hasbro's directives to increase profits. Now there are lots of discussions about the health of the game and especially long-term detriments to what Hasbro is doing to WotC. Product fatigue is creeping in ever more steadily, and now that everything is 'special', nothing is special anymore.
I played a digital card game years back called Infinity Wars, it had a very interesting game design and implementation, and about a year into it's lifespan they got the rights to do a crossover using Star Trek: The Next Generation's IP. It was an awful decision and a troubling direction for a fantasy card game to have such a huge departure from their flavor for a licensed IP set. Their desperation to show off their game as a 'shell' for any IP was a real turn-off to the players. Now WotC and Hasbro can ride this out if it fails because there are so many other vectors with which Magic will cover their losses. A bad set or product idea here or there is par for the course for Magic, fans have learned to shrug it off, not something a fledgling game can afford to do. Nonetheless it's harrowing to see this happening to WotC. Don't get me wrong, I love both LOTR and W4K and would likely really enjoy it if these sets had a blue-boarder or something to boldly signify that these sets weren't compatible with Magic's brand for tournaments and such. I think the direction WotC is heading down is a really tenuous one at best here, but ultimately it will be the consumers who vote with their wallets that decide what happens in the future.
I mean one thing is liking tha change, one thing is bull*****ting that magic was about crossovers all along
Don't really understand why Mark Rosewater is being hypocritical about this.
Outside of the discussion whether MaRo should have changed his opinion (or even has; I've not invested any research into whether this is a development he personally favors), I think,, seven/eight years is enough of a time to consider a change of opinion just that, rather than calling it hypocrisy.
Not that he is specifically stating personal opinion in the quoted reply either, reads more like a statement about the company's stance and policy at the time.
What I find remarkable are the endless wishlists and requests for actual Magic worlds, characters, returns and themes that are still awaited, or denied.
I don't suspect this product will take away from any of that, but it does feel jarring.
Nah, world building is a significant bottle neck. Which is why their departure from three-set blocks was accompanied with a significant expansion of their Creative team. This is probably a partial reason why this cross-over experiment does make business sense: Using an outside IP saves them building a world from scratch. Though building worlds from scratch is actually a strength I value in their product.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Conuly »
Heck, every day I wake up, I don't go out and kill people - and I'm rewarded by not having legions of enemies! Amazing how that works.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seriously, I think blue border is the best solution. It doesn't have to be bright blue, just barely different enough from black border to be recognizable. That way, it doesn't feel bad to categorically not play blue border in your deck, but if you want to for mechanical reasons, you can.
It's an entirely new type of card, so having a different border color not only makes sense, it's well within precedent.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Abaddon the Despoiler killing Gandalf even though he's getting buffed by Rick whilst holding Lucille.
https://archidekt.com/user/71716
If I were completely new to MTG, that really wouldn't sound more bizarre than any other combination of 4 cards.
As a longtime player, of course, that sounds completely inorganic and dissonant compared with all my experiences and perceptions leading up to this moment. Maybe the truth is... the truth is everyone is allowed to react within their own set of preconceived notions (or lack thereof), and not tear others down for having different opinions on how to receive this new product.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
That said, a Multiverse would not excuse what is transpiring here. I'll maintain an open mind but the outrage is justified.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
I mean one thing is liking tha change, one thing is bull*****ting that magic was about crossovers all along
That actually sounds pretty fun in a weird way hehe
You are going to have to explain where the multiple universes are in Magic. The closest it every got was just before the Mending when portals were opening through time or when WotC tried to make us believe New Phyrexia might be Mirrodin Pure.
This would definitely help, though I would still not like the cards being put out.
Looking into the wiki you seem to be very correct that they can be universes, but the issue being we've never seen a plane as a universe, every time we visit a plane it's usually a planet. It is at that point then I have to ask why is it WotC hasn't gone exploring say in the "Dominaria universe" or the "Innistrad universe." On that what then of Worldsouls? Now a worldsoul would denote a world, as its name suggest, but if a worldsoul is attached to a plane and the plane is the said universe than doesn't that throw a bit of a problem into planes being universes, but rather sections of space within the universe? In addition Dominaria, in the story, is said to affect other planes, but if its separated from others within its own universe how would it go about doing that? True we had the Mending which affected the entire Magic universe, but I mean on a lower scale.
I'd definitely like to know if someone sent this to Maro and why such a thing changed.
Conversely, by prohibiting the production of this product you would be taking away the potential enjoyment of someone else. When two parties find enjoyment in contrary things it is often the case that one party will lose out if they can't find a compromise.
It also stands true that just because you prefer 'Magic' products to these newer ones, you would still prefer if those 'Magic' products were not produced in favour of the ones you do enjoy. The sliding scale is just that, a sliding scale - it doesn't invalidate my point that it's core, you're measuring only your own enjoyment, and not considering that every other person will have the exact same view.
Hence compromise is everyone getting a product for their tastes, rather than only one group gets a product for their tastes: a fast way to wither and die, hence WOTC abandoning their prior 'standard support only' ideology to support other popular formats with releases.
It's also not a reason to prohibit it. As the design team of Wizards would tell you, they've anticipated and facilitated you're disagreement with the design choice of using the holo-stamp to differentiate these cards from Magic canon cards.
We don't need all the different card game systems, when there is one that clearly works and all others have to pay royalties to. You're argument is tantamount to saying that because a King paved a road in stones, the peasents may only pave roads with coins. It's illogical, unnecessary and from a design standpoint; dysfunctional.
A better argument to make would be to create a separated sub-team that focuses on UB releases and Magic canon releases separately, with priority on the latter. It's actually what the current design shift of most card based games is moving to, especially with how parent companies are restructuring their portfolios. And again, you're dislike for something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, when you can just as easily choose to not purchase it if you don't wish to.
Again, why wouldn't I enjoy two things I enjoy crossing over? It's a convention that's existed for millennium. You can even go back to the foundation works Kaldheim was based on to see it crossing over with another popular mythos of its time. Jam is nice, so is bread, and peanut butter - put them together, it's a whole different sensation.
The reason people debate and compare and create fiction of those IP's crossing over is because they're not being facilitated by current offerings. It's why crossovers are one of the highest selling trends in all mediums, are performed in all mediums, marketed in all mediums, and are the inevitability of all mediums.
Visual Novels are crossover of books and video games. Any 'feat' in a song is a crossover of two artists brands. Every Pizza Hut with Mars ice cream desert is a crossover promotion. Even the computer you type on, will have advertised itself using this same mechanism.
And to counterpoint your narrative over crossovers = failure, I'd just like to point out that the highest grossing product in every medium is a form of crossover...
Also, because you only seem to understand the cultural expectations of your own immediacy, I'd like to point out that from the perspective of those who work in these industries, people seeking to enter your domain of influence is considered a sign of success: the weaker property features in the stronger. So using your own words somewhat, it would be the featuring franchises that are admitting they can't stand alone (which, in case you hadn't realised, Games Workshop's holdings are in decline, hence their massive PR push and rush licensing offers at the moment)
No, you tried to impose that for them to dislike the lore, that they clearly didn't know all of it. You made an assumption about that persons capabilities and knowledge. You are now attempting to justify that miscast assumption of yours by attacking me for your mistake.
I'm fairly sure what allows them to think that way is because they already did it, thrice, and nobody batted an eye except to give them money. And to be honest, I can understand their patience with the small section of elitists that constantly scream that they have a higher knowledge while consistently getting the very fundamental basics wrong. So I'm fairly sure they can pull it off, because they're attempting to launch secondary system that maintains compatability with Magic, while being able to expand into it's own giant crossover-nonsense thing (see, AniVersus, who WOTC feels threatened by).
I'm getting the feeling you were one of those VS or Overpower players that got angry when they saw kids playing Spiderman and Batman on the same team...
Mate I can literally go get copies of the original books, copies of books from Magic's midlife, copies of more recent books - all of them state there's a multiverse. Saheli's storyline and the current Phyrexian storyline is over there being a multiverse. We have just remastered a set about that literal concept. The Word of God has spoken, your distaste and head canon doesn't overwrite authorial intent or direction.
I mean your first paragraph doesn't just fly in the face of the established canon of decades of MTG lore and the faces of the games makers, but also shows you don't understand the core basics of real world quantum physics or the suppositions of how spacetime works
I mean if you don't know about a subject, cool, but don't stand preaching as an authority while making it up on the spot: it doesn't end well. There's a whole kids story about it.
Actualllllyyyy (imagine it in 'her' voice), that is legally called a cross-promotional offer, and is legally also defined as a form of crossover (where two brands, IP's or features thereof are manifest in the same works as per agreed by their respective owners). This was formalised in law in both the UK and US during the argument between Disney and Warner Bros over the representations of Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny in the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
If you like, I'm even prepared to literally cite the dictionary definition of the word if you want to try to test my knowledge further on this field.
Sorry, did you not recognise the Magic The Gathering homepage? I mean, I thought you were the know-all of magic lore: how sad you must be to click a link that takes you to the main page of the actual people who make the game and decide what is and isn't. Or maybe you're just choosing to be ignorant, something you were complaining others did before.
I got two entire sets of proof, plus a notable moment of Magic canon and the place it occurs.
So are you being deliberately ignorant or do you just literally not have any idea what you're talking about?
That is the legal definitions that Wizards uses in its patency for their works. The term Aetherflux has been around since the first sets and books. It's WOTC legally held right to sue anyone using that term in their creative works, because it's their name for their multiverse, as listed in the legal filing with the various trademark and copyright offices I have to deal with.
The fact you didn't know this, one of the most fundamental pieces of magic lore, means you do not have the breadth of knowledge us dinosaurs have. It means you're just another wet that hasn't learned how the world works (either fictional or real). Canon of a product changes to suit the business decisions of those at the top. Be grateful that the consistency of Magic canon to retain it's multiversal standings, from it's literal inception, has circled round to pay dividends while it's undoubtably the most popular form of medium expression
OK so you made a mistake right there. They don't go to different 'worlds', they go to different 'planes'. Planes contain 'worlds', and can have multiple of them. Planes, is short for 'Planes of Existence', which is also a part of the D&D canon (which MTG semi-officially crosses over with). This was held by WOTC for about 10 years before it really became notable in their Planescape franchise, which set down the fundamental rules of 'Gates/Portals' (now part of the MTG lore), and the ability for some entities to move through Planes without needing such. Including the Planeswalkers of MTG, the Lady of Pain from Planescape, and certain 'Gods' from D&D (rules which then feature in Theros and it's sequel).
So when a company literally uses the same storytelling rule sets, copyrights and trademarks them as such, says themselves in both statements and within the written material that makes the canon that this a multiverse, you're 'but I don't like it' attitude and complete non-understanding of the subject matter doesn't change the facts.
However, obsession does cause people to freak out whenever their narcissism isn't being indulged, from attention-seeking 'sezuachan sauce' antics to screaming because a card game released a product that 'wasn't' for them, or someone enjoyed an experience they didn't, or god-forbid, someone combined two things to enhance their enjoyment, those filthy hedonists.
Also, multiversal cable wasn't even the episode I was talking about, which proves you don't understand the subject matter to refer to it when the episodes point is to make fun of narcisstic behaviour and self-obsessive, on the spot prattling. Also, you are again trying to undermine the word of god by claiming that the Rick and Morty writers are wrong about their own writing while relying on their words to justify your misunderstanding. Honestly, I'm glad you're not one of my students, I'd have to have serious words with admin.
And yes, it has. But that's the difference between world walking and planeswalking. Planeswalking is a copyrighted term by WOTC, which is why everyone jumps through ridiculous hoops to try to avoid saying that word when dealing with multiversal concepts in their own works.
So you're argument is they're wrong for using the word hate in regards to your attitude, because only your allowed to use it? What?
I mean, also it's fanciful that you've just chosen to half-quote the dictionary after literally spending nearly a thousand words claiming the dictionary is wrong, but you do you - different strokes for different folks.
So you ask my argument, then make a strawman in its place, attack it, and then parade around like a toddler with a soiled nappy demanding a medal..
My point is you not liking something doesn't prohibit others enjoying it in their own space or people making products for them. I think you know that, but I think you've run out of road and have realised bad insults aren't working on me, so you're not just being ignorant and obtuse, but also dismissive of those who're your seniors presenting you with evidenced, black and white facts.
They asked for civil conversation, you launched a barrage of insults at them, people retaliated to that, and then your victim playing and trying to blame everyone else for your actions. That sums it up nicely.
So not only are you a prolific liar, who's ignorant, I'm fairly sure you're just trying to antagonise people and stir the pot by asking non-questions of people on both sides and then insult-barraging anyone who calls out the contradiction. Or has the temerity to stand by their convictions.
Wow you somehow took what I said, misquoted it and then wrote out an answer to something completely different, and then somehow that's my fault that you've the reading comprehension of a frog and the slight-of-hand skills of a badger? Did your favourite character from WITW live in a big house?
My point stands, you deliberately misquoting me because you don't have an answer doesn't invalidate my point.
... You don't get to go around using mental illness as a weapon to beat people over the head with, asserting that disagreeing with you is akin to mental illness, and then jump in to accuse those who view with disdain the anger and hatred that people are spewing out as misusing the application of mental illness.[/quote]
[/quote]Ummm....what?! When was I using mental illness as a weapon? What in the blue ever loving echi double hockey sticks is this?[/quote]
I noticed the one thing you didn't quote of mine was earlier. You snipped one of yours (as well as rewriting parts of my quotes, don't think I didn't notice) where you attacked that users mental capacity for the fact they enjoy cross-IP works. They retaliated in kind and you immediately went to victim playing. I established that earlier.
Hence my standpoint above which hasn't changed, and my lack of respect towards you (which has intensified with each of the arrogant things you've done, from lying, to misquoting me, to being wilfully ignorant, to outright cognitive dissonance).
I guess you're maybe just not used to someone who doesn't need attention and applause and will just say what they think consequences be damned, because I'm not concerned with getting onlookers on my side or egging the fight on, I'm just fed up with the outright lying, animosity and narcisstic self-entitlement of young purists who define their entire identity through a card game to the point of trying to exclude anyone they see as undesireable (anyone who shows happiness, joy, or has fun). Screaming about the longevity of the game while demanding products aren't made or formats not played unless it's for 'them'. Screaming that people are sheep for being self-expressive, because the only true self-expression is to mindlessly follow those demanding conformity around themselves.`People who get angry because, shock horror, the majority of other players don't define their real life identities solely by their involvement with a card game.
The fact you're talking to an autistic person, feeling that you've the right to condescend to me because of that and then claim my complaint of your behaviour is 'nonsense' is called 'ableism', and unlike the fictious disabled person in your head that you can bully, I'm standing up to you front and center, and you're clearly in a panic not knowing what to do because I didn't just take it and then run away.
Though despite your attitude, I don't think anything is gained for any of us by banning you. A warning and a timeout should be enough. Though be thankful to the admins, because they're not sparing me of you, they're sparing you of my onslaught.
This user has language problems due to their mental health problems and sometimes may not use the best wording to explain their thoughts.
Draft the "'What Is This Nonsense?'" casual cube.
This is accurate and why I made an argument internally against using functional reprint ideals for these products. I view that the skins methodology used for the Godzilla cards or the current, compatible but separate implementation being better. I obviously rooted for the latter as it allows the franchise to grow. If UB does well that increases chances of player uptake of core Magic because of UB acting as a gateway, more likely to be acceptable for teens due to IP fandom and for relatives to throw a deck in a christmas stocking or birthday bag.
This user has language problems due to their mental health problems and sometimes may not use the best wording to explain their thoughts.
Draft the "'What Is This Nonsense?'" casual cube.
Direction changes with time. In fact, in this case, this would be Magic returning somewhat to it's original direction - a game system for representing multiple franchises. There's also likely the business case: Hasbro could lose the patency that grants them royalties from everyone else if they don't act on the original filing soon, being able to show that the system is being used for it's original purpose. Ya see, that patency of game mechanics is tied to the reason 'for' the mechanic. If they can't prove their using it for intent, they'll have a far harder time trying to justify why those who are have to pay them royalties. Hence why it's a win-win for Hasbro: expanding their market into other IP's to grab those consumers, while also taking care of some backroom business.
I do agree intent wise on these being silver-bordered, that I agree with. Though, if they were trying to prevent confusion with the UN sets, redesigning the holo thing at the bottom of the card seems as wise a choice as any.
This user has language problems due to their mental health problems and sometimes may not use the best wording to explain their thoughts.
Draft the "'What Is This Nonsense?'" casual cube.
I wouldn't include you in that subset of players Mikey - you've actually got reasons for your disagreements with this.
And I honestly Mikey wish that both sides would take a more reasoned and responsible attitude to the whole thing because you are right, people are losing their minds over something they could just as easily choose not to buy or not to personally play with. But if they're allowed to be bombastic, surely the most enigmatic villain of MTGS should get to play, si?
Your last sentence is a sentiment that I can share. My claws need sharpening once in a while too.
Perception doesn't matter in regards to facts. I can perceive the sky as red and green, but that matters little if one has damaged eyes or is looking through a filter. Perception is relative, essentially, as you know.
Homage/Influence/Parody =/= Crossover
This is why the events of The Avengers XXX: A Porn Parody are not canon in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A little more seriously, though, there's a reason aspects of MtG being influenced by or homages to other works does not feel out of place where UB does. It's adaptation versus transplantation, and honestly it's been surreal for me to see so many posters not get that. To give credit to Tiro, he analogized the point well by saying the Theros gods might as well have been the actual Greek gods by the logic that homage/influence and crossovers are interchangeable.
Perhaps you're right, though, that MtG was always intended not to be a game of its own with its own independent identity but instead a multi-IP platform of crossovers only delayed by MtG not being big enough. But at the end of the day, that hasn't been my experience with the game for almost a quarter century and I don't intend for it to be part of my experience going forward.[/quote]
I am aware of the difference, but I was not asked 'what is the difference between homage, parody and plagerism', I was dictated at in essence that 'everything in Magic is completely original or divergent', which is what I challenged.
Also, I will note, it's not out of place because of adaption. That's a slight misunderstanding. It's not out of place because their copying the main elements of work they've already copied everything else from. Hence why WOTC used to pay royalties to Tolkien's group for things contained within the reserved list, and why Kithkin aren't hobbits or gnomes (the latter they'd have to pay Games Workshop for ironically, who then have to pay... Tolkien's group).
Throwing LOTR in with Magic fare isn't going to cause a big stir: they're both fantasy rooted with a lot of overlap due to the above. What does feel out of place is 40K, and that's something others have mentioned - if they'd used any of the fantasy stuff, nobody would of really batted an eye. And thus the problem isn't really an argument over UB, it's an argument over 'dissonance of theme'. Those who like anachronistic works and grand crossovers are going to love it, and thematic purists will hate it, and that's going to be the real divide.
But Magic itself was always designed for this, it was always the end goal - it always is with media of any type. I'll always love Magic's lore (most of it), and I'm glad it grew to be as grand as it is. But it's time for the purists to let go for the sake of the game, as there's nowhere left for it to go, because when we're reskinning Harry Potter and The Worst Witch, or reskinning Merlin, it's just better for all sides if we use the originals. Because as much as people don't want to admit it, WOTC isn't pulling in new players with core Magic releases anymore and Magic's fanbase is to blame for that. If this people want this game to survive, especially during a period of reduced in person interaction, it has to be allowed to reach new audiences and has to do so in a way those audiences are open to.
Without new players, this game will die, like all those before it who focused too hard on their self-contained bubble of purists.
This user has language problems due to their mental health problems and sometimes may not use the best wording to explain their thoughts.
Draft the "'What Is This Nonsense?'" casual cube.
What an odd thing to say, it's not my assumption that many people in this thread have their world defined by MtG.
I'm not mistaking them for canon in the story, and they don't need to be for me to feel they're out of place in the game.
My ever-increasing dislike for FF and its fans continues unabated.
So does everyone involved in this conversation. Whether or not they're understood or validated by others.
Oh honey. No to all of this, but especially that bolded part.
And the facts you're presenting are irrelevant to why people play the game. People play games because of the way they feel when they do and they view the game through the lens of that experience - not patent documents. I think arguing for UB using patent documents misses the forest for the trees and probably wouldn't be a compelling pitch for most players. Players are going to form an attachment to a game based on their perception of it, I don't think that includes investigating the patent documents of the game to understand the intent of its creators in the early 90s.
I want to thank you for your effort to further explain yourself, though you should know that your misfired tags made replying to you next to impossible (when quoting, the format goes wonky and I lost most of the content of your posts forcing me to do a ramshackle copy/paste job) so if you don't see much response, that could be a reason why. I think you speak well to your points, but I can't say that anything you've argued has been compelling for me in regards to this product. It's actually had the opposite effect, I'm even less warm to UB than I was before and I have even less desire to interact with people who are excited by it because everything has gotten so pedantic and far afield of the fun spirit of the game. I used to sideeye and tolerate the cynical corporate crap WotC did, but now the players themselves are trying to browbeat others into liking the cynical corporate crap with arguments about patents and metaphysics.
What even if this conversation anymore?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Direction won't always change like with my comparison of games. And while I agree that businesswise it is good for short term gains I do not belief there are significant gains or gains in general in the long run, but that is just speculation on my part.
Furthermore your argument about changing directions could also be made the other way around that they stopped their "intended" this is all about other IPs due to their belief that the Magic Brand is musch stronger on it's own. Also Crossover/Promotions do not need to be "repaid in kind" as I do think those crossover/promotions contracts are already fulfilled, but that is also speculative on my end, but based on the fact that most I can remember were done in the style "MTG is popular lesk ask them if we can use their stuff to draw in the MTG crowd" (Similarly to what feels like what Wotc does with UB now) so more of a one and done thing on a smaller scale as to what WOTC is doing now.
And from my own expirience, all those promotions/crossovers with magic did either not much or nothing at all in the long term for me sure I tried a few because of those but none of them stayed with me.
Lessons I've learned from my 3-year-old.
I don't know what you're talking about. Or rather, I don't think you know what you're talking about; GW's properties are as popular as they've ever been, continuing to show growth with every earnings statement they release. If they're down at all for any reason at the moment, it's because of covid and covid alone - and in that respect they're not unlike MTG. If you're referring to the slate of licenses that seem to switch hands in perpetuity (board games, card games, RPGs, etc), that's been going on for years now at this point. Suffice it to say, GW isn't the slightest bit "in decline."
The only facts being spoken to are whether or not people will embrace these new products, and why. Whatever Wizard's original intent might have been ultimately has no bearing on how the game has been managed these past 25+ years, or how it exists in its current incarnation, according to the perceptions of enfranchised players; you could be the most knowledgeable poster here on the subject of feudal Japanese culture and spirituality, and that would still give you no leverage from which to preach about how Kamigawa should have been well-received despite player expectation. Perception is everything.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
The more you dilute Magic as a brand eventually it will lose it's own sense of identity and I'm guessing that Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro thinks that the game's entire card pool is actually big enough to where that doesn't happen regardless of how much of these IP Crossovers they print in Universal Beyond. Only difference is that previous IP Crossovers were printed in very limited supply through HasCon, Secret Lairs, and Promos.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
These didn't even exist until a year ago and suddenly now there needs to be compromise?
"Hey, let me shove random things into the game you love that have nothing to do with it."
"Okay, so what should you compromise in return?"
"Uhhhhh......just compromise!"
You want that compromise then start compromising. If these IPs take products away or ruin the ones they like then what should those players get in return? What do you propose as a compromise for those that don't like these products?
Yes, I would like less products I don't enjoy (anyone would), because over the last few years of Magic more and more products have been made that I do not enjoy, for one reason or another (price, product quality (either compared to others or by themselves), value compared to price, those random board game attempts they tried with Ixalan and Game Night), and some of them are redundant (theme boosters), but at the very least those products are Magic products. They sell this game on its own merits through those products and not by trying to sell itself by going "I know LotR, he's a friend of mine" like they are lying to someone trying to get a date.
Here's the thing though, I'm fine with people enjoying things, people like stuff all they want that I don't like or are indifferent to, even the stupid stuff (smoking, driving drunk, putting hooks in their skin) but those don't affect me in any way (unless they are blowing smoke right in my face). What you are proposing is that someone should bring their fun into my fun just because and their fun is likely to ruin my fun. Why should my fun be ruined by someone elses?
How's this for fun example (and I do this because of the last two paragraphs you wrote, which I'll get to soon). My mother had fun beating me. I had fun when it didn't happen. So in your "smart logic" I should have COMPROMISED!!!! with her where she beats me more, just not as hard. Can't take her fun away because "you're measuring only your own enjoyment, and not considering that every other person will have the exact same view." Guess the crossover of that knife she wanted in me was needed cause "it never happened before."
Ever heard the phrase "when you try and please everyone you'll please no one"?
Wow! A different holo-stamp?! Well then that changes....nothing. Not a thing. Not one thing. At least the different border color idea changed enough where when they do make functional reprints they would be vastly different.
A different holo stamp doesn't change tournament narrators saying "Gandalf destroyed Bilbo, bringing back Akroma and the One Ring, which automatically equips to 40k Trap God, and now Sauron comes from exile when two creatures are put into the battlefield if they weren't cast. Now they swing with Negan and they block with super soldier 40k and Llanowar Elves." There's a reason this video is meant as a joke and why it would be very silly and anywhere between a little a whole lot of stupid.
Nope, but that was funny to read.
A better argument would be these cards not being constructed legal, like everything before it had been. I like the MLP cards (hey, look at that, that ruins a few of your arguments), bought two sets of them, but in no way do I want them in anything other than silly Commander games or at the kitchen table.
Why should someone enjoying something need to go into what I enjoy though? Why does that have to happen? You haven't explained this yet. Why should their fun go into my fun, thereby decreasing my fun.
Or it's because there are things they will never see. Death Battle is one of those, you will never see Goku fighting Superman and for good reason, and besides fan offering they should never meet officially. Ever. It's the same reason you see fan fictions of Winx Club and Sonic the Hedgehog, sometimes someone likes both and wants to see them together, but that doesn't they should be. People will always wonder who is stronger in anime, Luffy vs. Naruto, Saitama vs. Vegeta, and they'll always do that, usually it comes from passion and not from someone not giving it to them. They just have an imagination.
Believe you me back on the site RPGDL I argued Pikachu winning against Sephiroth, Lyn from Fire Emblem vs. the Red Mage from FF1, but that doesn't mean I want official products made for it. I don't want Hollywood making tv/movies for it, I don't want businesses trying to earn money off of it, sometimes a fan thing is just all it should be.
Could also be because it's a fad at this point, one that is already becoming tiring, like multiverses in media, and cinematic universes (who remembers the Dark Universe failing in one movie or the Sony's Amazing Spiderman cinematic universe?) Crossovers have existed for decades, usually they were done as a one off for a reason (TMNT showing up on the Power Rangers for one episode) and if they happened any more than that it was a sign of something dying. There's a reason there's Power Rangers only showed up in DC comics fighting Batman once or the Powerpuff girls talking to the Justice League. While crossovers will never die, and they shouldn't, they definitely shouldn't be abused, else it becomes boring and stale. There's a reason you don't eat your favorite food for every meal.
3D was supposedly the future of movies thanks to Avatar, but how often do you see that now? Sure, you can see a movie in the 3D, but isn't done right and not worth the money. Remember when TVs were promoting being 3D? Don't seem them sold now. Virtual reality also came and went over the decades numerous times.
I'd also like to point out that some of the worst pieces of media are crossovers. It's almost like there can be good and bad ones over time, but there is a much larger section of bad crossovers to good ones. The MCU doesn't prove crossovers are great, it's that when done well it can be because if you look at the DCEU you'll notice that is not the case. Suicide Squad is one of the worst movies of all time, and it's a crossover. Batman v. Superman is a bad movie, also a crossover. Even Avengers 2 isn't a great movie, one of the weakest in the MCU and it's a crossover. The Titanic doing a crossover with that iceberg wasn't a good thing.
Crossovers tend to be sold on the basis of "Hey, two good things brought together can never be bad" and then they put no work into it and it ends up being bad. Music, video games, and more, all of it has far more bad crossovers than it does good ones thanks to that line of thinking. Actual work needs to be put into it for it to do well and when it comes to this crossover with Magic and LotR/40k I do not believe WotC can make it work. That is from the last few years of the game degrading due to various decisions. Slowly I have lost my faith in this game due to those decisions and this decision here is yet another one.
Also, something making money doesn't mean its good, it only means it's popular and makes money. The cigarette industry made billions, Fred Flintstone even sold cigarettes (hey look a "crossover" that wasn't good), but that doesn't mean cigarettes are a good thing.
So you agree with me. Okay.
No, I did not impose anything. I asked if they were aware of all the lore and what parts of it were bad, but if that's imposing to you then there's nothing I can do for you. If someone is going to state the lore is terrible again and again I would like some examples of it, they then can at that point back up their claims. It's called debating or a conversation, that's usually how that works. It's asking a question, not imposing.
What three times were that exactly cause I'm only aware of TWD, MLP, and convention cards (Nerf Gun, Grimlock, etc) and there definitely were people batting an eye at them. Many had issues them, especially TWD.
And these elitists would be......?
I have no idea what those are, but then again you have been jumping to conclusions like Daffy Duck at the end of a cartoon about every other quote so this is really no surprise.
Do you have an example of this when the universe isn't collapsing and time portals everywhere allowing it? I'm aware of Time Spiral, but because you like to jump to conclusions of course you'd think I wouldn't know what that is. All I asked was for that, but it's cool you can be as condescending as you claim I'm being.
This part is just funny. You just made fun of elitists for telling others how things should be and now I need a quantum physics degree to understand a card game because you said that's how it should be. Odd.
Should probably take your advice there considering you misunderstood asking a question as me enforcing my will on others, but hey. To quote you "pot, meet kettle."
Okay, let's do that.
Crossover- an instance of breaking into another category
Cross promotion- the use of one product or service to promote another.
Look at that, there is just enough of a different to separate the two. That's strange. I could have sworn that's what I was arguing. At this point this is semantics because you're upset for some reason. Why are we arguing this specific thing exactly?
At no point did I ever say that. I didn't even say Magic lore was amazing, only questioning what they thought was bad. Again, asking a question. Do you have a problem with that or something?
I don't keep up with patents, but it's cool you didn't get angry for asking a question for once. Kudos.
Has it? In the wiki and google nothing appears, if it has been around for decades in Magic lore I'm sure I'd find something on it. Do have a link to this or more insults?
Wow, for someone so upset that I corrected some definitions you sure do like insulting others for that very thing. I asked for a link and you couldn't do it, strange strategy.
D&D lore has nothing to do with Magic lore.
I already questioned that. Planes have a weird sense of being, they can be just a world or even a universe, strange as they've never explored a plane as a universe before only one specific world, which is where a lot of the confusion came from on my part. I know that angers you.
Where's the freak out here again? I'm going to say REEEE'ing on the floor at a Mcdonald's over a BBQ sauce is a freak out, but a discussion on the internet is definitely not a freak out.
So let me get this straight, you didn't offer an episode title, but I was supposed to correctly assume which one you were talking about? You're right, you are glad I'm not your student as I'd actually ask questions and I see how that really ticks you off.
Or, they said no one should use it, claiming others were using it wrong, even though people were using it correctly. I don't get this one, they said others shouldn't use it, why are you angry at me that I correct them? Seriously, what is this?
Might want to look up one of the definitions of hate, pretty sure I copied it fully. You're welcome to check and get back to me if I half copied it. Go ahead.
They claimed that fake cards were made and were okay, turns out that they are not okay. Odd how it's a strawman when I came up with a fake card with an argument about fake cards. Wow, staying on topic is strawmanning now.
You've made this point a lot, but you have at no point offered why someone's fun should interject into my fun? If I like baseball should someone's enjoyment of football cause every baseball game to include football? If someone enjoys smoking should that mean they should blow smoke in my face because I enjoy not breathing it in?
Why exactly does my fun mean less than their fun? What is something fun you enjoy? Would it be okay if I injected my fun into it that is antithetical to your fun? If you enjoyed volunteering would it be okay if I drove a monster truck through the building? If you enjoyed drinking would it be okay if I injected my fun of liking it when others don't drink?
At what point is one particular fun more important than another?
Oh sweetie, might want to take a look in the mirror if you think I'm the only one doing it, even in this post you've insulted, retaliated, and then played the victim (like at the end of your post), blame others for your actions. Same thing. Might want to try some introspection. I believe I included myself in there when I said the word "everyone on both sides of the argument", unless you believe I'm outside of everyone. You don't sound like a great teacher if you belittle others so easily.
To quote a good friend of mine "you launched a barrage of insults at them, people retaliated to that, and then your victim playing and trying to blame everyone else for your actions. That sums it up nicely."
No, your response to that quote had zero to do with it. I called it out for what it was. Maybe next time reply correctly.
This is some....I mean....wow....Just. Wow. The person I quoted said that if they don't like a thing they should seek therapy and I'm the one doing it? Okay, sure, whatever. At no point did I accuse mental illness in any capacity due to this, but I see we're jumping to conclusions still. Good thing though you ignored them claiming others were mentally unwell to go to the person calling them out on how absolutely awful that was to say. Good job.
But I thought my liking something should mean it should happen? That's literally been the main driving point of your argument. How come my fun means less than this crossover fun? Now you're telling me this is how it should be, thereby being self-entitled to what you feel is best. Strange how when you do it it's right, but when I do it it's wrong. Guess we'll never figure out why that is.
Your fun just must be more important than my fun.
This is hilarious. First, not screaming. Second, didn't say people were sheep at any point. Third, never mentioned identities in any way. Seems like you're tired about something that never happened. Again you jumped to some mighty conclusions like a pole vaulter.
Now we're at the main insanity. Where do I begin with this? How would I ever know that you're autistic, first of all. I don't know you. At all. Most I know about you is a forum name. That's it. Secondly, calling your opinion nonsense isn't abelism, not in the least. Considering you said just the same if not worse what does that make your arguments? Strange how you can condescend and insult and it's fine, but calling something you say nonsense is "bullying".
At no point was I bullying you, not sure where you got that. If you believe not agreeing with you is bullying then there's literally nothing I can do for you. At no point has there been panic, this argument isn't worth that emotion, though this has earned other more humorous emotions.
Okay. Might want to cut down on that edge.
I don't suspect this product will take away from any of that, but it does feel jarring. MTG has been very elastic in recent years, back and forth with alarming upheavals and controversy.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
That's really easy: $$$$$
A significant piece of MaRo's role as chief mouthpiece for the game is being the smiling face that sells all of the big decisions made for the game, and that sometimes includes decisions driven by market research and corporate strategy that the game design team would not want. So it's not really hypocrisy, he's just doing his job, and sometimes that means needing to pivot one's public statements to be celebratory of a move you once said you'd never want. I don't really blame MaRo, I'm not sure what else he could really say and at least this way he can save face with a "I never would have done this but the way it was proposed was really innovative and sold me on the concept in a way I never considered before" redemption moment.
So no, this has nothing to do with MaRo not wanting to offend others, he's just doing his job as the mouthpiece.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Hasbro wants MTG TV shows, video games, action figures, plushies, movies, scented candles, you name it. They want the brand to skyrocket in profitability, and a great way to do that is with crossovers. It's been well documented that crossovers expose large audiences to things they might otherwise not be privy to, and crossover events tend to be the most popular events that happen in media, just look at Fortnite with it's nearly endless crossovers into their game.
Everything WotC is doing they are doing to increase profits, to make as much money as possible. Their developmental viewpoints are far secondary to Hasbro's directives to increase profits. Now there are lots of discussions about the health of the game and especially long-term detriments to what Hasbro is doing to WotC. Product fatigue is creeping in ever more steadily, and now that everything is 'special', nothing is special anymore.
I played a digital card game years back called Infinity Wars, it had a very interesting game design and implementation, and about a year into it's lifespan they got the rights to do a crossover using Star Trek: The Next Generation's IP. It was an awful decision and a troubling direction for a fantasy card game to have such a huge departure from their flavor for a licensed IP set. Their desperation to show off their game as a 'shell' for any IP was a real turn-off to the players. Now WotC and Hasbro can ride this out if it fails because there are so many other vectors with which Magic will cover their losses. A bad set or product idea here or there is par for the course for Magic, fans have learned to shrug it off, not something a fledgling game can afford to do. Nonetheless it's harrowing to see this happening to WotC. Don't get me wrong, I love both LOTR and W4K and would likely really enjoy it if these sets had a blue-boarder or something to boldly signify that these sets weren't compatible with Magic's brand for tournaments and such. I think the direction WotC is heading down is a really tenuous one at best here, but ultimately it will be the consumers who vote with their wallets that decide what happens in the future.
Outside of the discussion whether MaRo should have changed his opinion (or even has; I've not invested any research into whether this is a development he personally favors), I think,, seven/eight years is enough of a time to consider a change of opinion just that, rather than calling it hypocrisy.
Not that he is specifically stating personal opinion in the quoted reply either, reads more like a statement about the company's stance and policy at the time.
Nah, world building is a significant bottle neck. Which is why their departure from three-set blocks was accompanied with a significant expansion of their Creative team. This is probably a partial reason why this cross-over experiment does make business sense: Using an outside IP saves them building a world from scratch. Though building worlds from scratch is actually a strength I value in their product.
Although ninjas are experts of camouflage and concealment, they are actually horrible liars. This means that no matter where you are, you can shout out, “Are there any ninjas here?” and if there’s a ninja within earshot, he’ll be compelled to respond.