The tables I play at and regular playgroup will ban all this universe beyond crap straight away just like TWD. That will suck for people coming to the store with these cards in their deck not being able to get in a game.
Then it sounds like the problem there would stem from your playgroup, no?
Sounds to me like the problem is Wizards making a mockery of the game and creating the false impression that this garbage will actually be accepted by everyone, no?
You better believe there will be a LOT of playgroups who will want to have nothing to do with ‘universe beyond’.
"Sorry new guy, but you can't play with anyone here because we collectively decided to not accept those Warhammer cards that are in your deck. I know it's not fair to you, but Wizards forced us to gatekeep you out of our group, so really it's their fault that you can't play, not ours."
That's more or less what you sound like from my perspective. You're free to disallow anyone with those cards from playing games with you, but I'm free to think that your playgroup is being whiny and immature for doing so.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
The tables I play at and regular playgroup will ban all this universe beyond crap straight away just like TWD. That will suck for people coming to the store with these cards in their deck not being able to get in a game.
Then it sounds like the problem there would stem from your playgroup, no?
Sounds to me like the problem is Wizards making a mockery of the game and creating the false impression that this garbage will actually be accepted by everyone, no?
You better believe there will be a LOT of playgroups who will want to have nothing to do with ‘universe beyond’.
"Sorry new guy, but you can't play with anyone here because we collectively decided to not accept those Warhammer cards that are in your deck. I know it's not fair to you, but Wizards forced us to gatekeep you out of our group, so really it's their fault that you can't play, not ours."
That's more or less what you sound like from my perspective. You're free to disallow anyone with those cards from playing games with you, but I'm free to think that your playgroup is being whiny and immature for doing so.
Not allowing the Universe Beyond cards definitely is gatekeeping, especially since the Universe Beyond cards are likely to draw lots of new and lapsed players back into the game.
Magic has no lore? Magic has TONS of its own lore, and very rich at that. It was specifically strong prior to the conclusion of the Invasion and the gatewatch gabbledegook that they came out with recently. Note that most of this took place on Dominaria with periodic references and visitations to Shandalar, Rath, and Phyrexia to name a few. Some of the backstories of characters in the Wiki page blow my mind at how rich and vibrant they are. Oldwalkers have a special place and that ought to be focused on a lot more.
If they had kept Dominaria as the "central" plane then I think its IP would've been marketed along the lines of other IPs we're referencing here. Sometimes too many planes can be detrimental to a world of a specific series. (For the life of me I don't understand why you need to have a specific world/plane dedicated to a particular demographic/civilization when you could easily have it on an existing world, just have it go undiscovered until it calls for it). I get they were trying to do that with the Gatewatch on Ravnica but honestly it's just too...generic compared to the lore of Magic's initial days.
'buster
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset. Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
Yeah, Dominaria has a history of a few thousand years (if not more?) that's been explored over numerous sets. The issue with planesjumping every set it that all a planes' history is now implied of hinted at, but the players have no stake in it. Like stick with a plane for a few years, build the lore, explore generations of different characters. That's what Magic needs to return to.
I don't know if I'd go as far as to refuse playing againt someone who has these cards, since I'm already open about Silver bordered cards as long as the player asks for permission. But belittling the persons who've decided to do so by accusing them of gatekeeping is imo offensive and counterproductive.
I believe it is WotC who put the playerbase in an impossible position by tooking a decision that would inevitably create a rift between some of us.
There is undeniably a line somewhere between "expanding the playerbase" and "losing the game's soul in the process", for some this line will be crossed sooner than for others, but it needs to be respected.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
French Commander : Yisan Liliana Kytheon Kari Zev Grenzo Karlov Tajic Gitrog Prossh Turboramp Najeela Modern : Solemnity Prison Martyr Proc Devotion to Green 8 Whacks Eldrazi Processor Bogles Landfall Aggro Legacy : Goblins
It's kind of funny how people on the internet are always super quick to criticise capitalism, but also start defending it the moment a company makes a capitalist move that happens to align with their own interests. Suddenly, if you're against a decision, you're gatekeeping, not letting people have fun, yadda yadda. I stand by my position that filling every franchise with crossover stuff just because it makes money (under the mantle of of "it makes people happy") is not a good thing from a creative standpoint.
Excuse me but demanding people to play with you under the threat of calling you a gatekeeper is kind of insane. Playing a game is still a consentual act.
I have no intention to play with superman and gandalf and captain kirk in a magic game. Calling people gatekeepers because they choose what and how to enjoy their entertainment is pretty digusting. You're not entitled to playing with me and I reserve the right to spend my free time however I choose.
Excuse me but demanding people to play with you under the threat of calling you a gatekeeper is kind of insane. Playing a game is still a consentual act.
I have no intention to play with superman and gandalf and captain kirk in a magic game. Calling people gatekeepers because they choose what and how to enjoy their entertainment is pretty digusting. You're not entitled to playing with me and I reserve the right to spend my free time however I choose.
I generally figure that it's your deck, your rules. This is why I really wish they'd commit alternate names for MtG stuff - people can play with the other IP stuff, but those that would rather not have MtG themed versions to use. Some people don't like foils, but demanding that other players don't play foils against them would be pretty weird. Maybe your playgroup could have a no foils rule, but if some random person shows up at the game store, it'd be pretty weird to walk away from a casual game because they brought their shiny Mountains.
Excuse me but demanding people to play with you under the threat of calling you a gatekeeper is kind of insane. Playing a game is still a consentual act.
I have no intention to play with superman and gandalf and captain kirk in a magic game. Calling people gatekeepers because they choose what and how to enjoy their entertainment is pretty digusting. You're not entitled to playing with me and I reserve the right to spend my free time however I choose.
I generally figure that it's your deck, your rules. This is why I really wish they'd commit alternate names for MtG stuff - people can play with the other IP stuff, but those that would rather not have MtG themed versions to use. Some people don't like foils, but demanding that other players don't play foils against them would be pretty weird. Maybe your playgroup could have a no foils rule, but if some random person shows up at the game store, it'd be pretty weird to walk away from a casual game because they brought their shiny Mountains.
Basically this. Nobody's going to force you to put those cards in your deck. But if you are preventing other people from playing with you because they picked up a card with a particular creative treatment, then yeah, that's 100% gatekeeping. You can certainly chose to own that, but that's what you're doing.
If someone has sexual explicit alternate art cards and likes to play with them, fine, as long as people have no issue with that.
Its nothing new that people have a choice who they play with and nobody is forced into anything.
If its a tournament, you sign up for the rules of the format and the location, whatever they say goes.
----
The vast majority of people will not mind, so its never going to be a big deal (and if at all, we might have single digit cards that are even worth including in any deck, and if they are not crazy in your face cringe worthy themes it might turn out to be just fine).
As said before, a lot of Kaldheim art already looks like Warhammer 40k inspired "Berserkers" and plenty of Demons could just be of that universe without anybody taking notice. Eldrazi Horrors are also graphical comparable to Chaos Demons.
Kaladesh has plenty of flying airships and massive vehicles, plenty of sci-fi inspired stuff in Kaladesh already.
Most Magic planes are much more medieval, much more classic fantasy settings.
However, then we get mechanical horror borg-like Phyrexia, "Star-Gate" like Amonkhet, lots of stuff takes inspiration from many different franchises that mix Magic, fantasy and technology.
If the cards turn out to be badass and amazing, people might change their mind quite quickly.
If the cards are just garbage, nobody will care.
If the cards turn out to be badass and amazing, people might change their mind quite quickly.
If the cards are just garbage, nobody will care.
So MLP and TWD were "terrible" because you don't like those franchises, but Warhammer is OK because you're a fan?
Not a shred of integrity to be seen here, just pure opportunistic behaviour.
Excuse me but demanding people to play with you under the threat of calling you a gatekeeper is kind of insane. Playing a game is still a consentual act.
I have no intention to play with superman and gandalf and captain kirk in a magic game. Calling people gatekeepers because they choose what and how to enjoy their entertainment is pretty digusting. You're not entitled to playing with me and I reserve the right to spend my free time however I choose.
I generally figure that it's your deck, your rules. This is why I really wish they'd commit alternate names for MtG stuff - people can play with the other IP stuff, but those that would rather not have MtG themed versions to use. Some people don't like foils, but demanding that other players don't play foils against them would be pretty weird. Maybe your playgroup could have a no foils rule, but if some random person shows up at the game store, it'd be pretty weird to walk away from a casual game because they brought their shiny Mountains.
By banning or tuning away new players who don't know anything about magic, from the game to the why the IP stuff might rub people the wrong way, that is gatekeeping, its toxic and bullying and it already a major issue with drawing in new people.
Why not to sit down the new player, explain to them why you have a issues with the crossovers and offer to help them build a deck that dosnt have the cross over stuff in it? I personally have a number of decks that I'm happy to lend to newbies just waning to play. Why not offer that instead of possible turning off someone from magic?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
So MLP and TWD were "terrible" because you don't like those franchises, but Warhammer is OK because you're a fan?
Not a shred of integrity to be seen here, just pure opportunistic behaviour.
The Walking Dead cards could very well be put in an Innistrad setting, just like the Godzilla cards, be a alternate version of a different magic card of the set.
Plenty of cards i could totally see as the characters in alternate art versions and it would fit the set theme.
The bad part is how they designed a Secret lair product around the franchise and provided no alternative to the franchise art and theme of the card.
MyLittlePony is a rougher call, but there are a bunch of Pegasus cards that could have alternate art versions as well (cringe no matter what).
The same argument applies to Warhammer 40k, if they are "just" alternate art versions, acceptance is high.
If they are actual magic cards, legal in tournament formats and not silver-bordered, it will be a guarantee to piss people off.
At the very least provide non-franchise versions of the Magic card (then its basically just alternate art, and plenty of people use alternate art for their casual commander decks anyway, without that being a product by WotC).
For all i care, the entire product could be silver-bordered and fans would still buy it when they think the card are cool.
Making them black bordered and legal in formats is a major critique that the franchise products will always have.
I think the biggest thing that bothers me about entire sets of cards that are not Magic related is that it tells us the game can't stand on its own and now they need other IPs to help sell it. It makes the game feel cheap and rake like (look up rake for why I used that word.) If I wanted to play a LotR card game I would have played the actual LotR card game when it was out, if I wanted to play 40k I'd go spend $400 on painting supplies for one miniature.
I think the biggest thing that bothers me about entire sets of cards that are not Magic related is that it tells us the game can't stand on its own and now they need other IPs to help sell it. It makes the game feel cheap and rake like (look up rake for why I used that word.) If I wanted to play a LotR card game I would have played the actual LotR card game when it was out, if I wanted to play 40k I'd go spend $400 on painting supplies for one miniature.
The fact that MTG as a brand isn't selling as well as it has in the past whether it be due to Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro's incompetence or proof of a generation gap of younger players more drawn to IP Crossovers compared to older players who are more conservative in their views of the MTG brand staying the same so that it doesn't end up losing it's own sense of identity with the original source material is definitely worth debating. MTG managed to stand the test of time because we've always believed in the notion that the gameplay mechanics and nostalgia alone were enough for the brand itself to stand on it's own but as it turns out that doesn't really seem to be the case here. The reason why I brought up Upper Deck Entertainment's Marvel / DC Vs. System Trading Card Game as an example earlier was because players actually feared of what the game would look like If it strayed too far away from American Comic Books to where it might look unrecognizable to those who play. I couldn't imagine what Vs. System would've looked like If we had crossed that threshold but oddly enough the game was discontinued only to be re-released as a Living Card Game by the same company with minimal success.
Another problem I have with Paper Trading Card Games / Collectible Card Games like Universal Fighting System by Jasco games (re-branded as UniVersus) and Weiß Schwarz by Bushiroad is that instead of these licensed properties having their own Paper Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game with it's own unique gameplay mechanics they're forced to share the same gameplay mechanics with other licensed properties within the same Paper Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game that plays nothing like the source material they're based upon. It feels too watered down and generic with low learning curves for players who struggle with games being too complicated to learn. Less complexity equals more sales however something too complex won't sell at all as we've already seen with a lot of failed card games within the past couple of decades that missed the mark due to poor marketing and advertising. The sooner the Pay-to-Win business model changes from loot crates to something more convenient that isn't Online / Digital exclusive the better. Unfortunately we haven't found a real solution for it yet especially since now the ongoing pandemic has dramatically changed the paradigm.
"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
Another problem I have with Paper Trading Card Games / Collectible Card Games like Universal Fighting System by Jasco games (re-branded as UniVersus) and Weiß Schwarz by Bushiroad is that instead of these licensed properties having their own Paper Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game with it's own unique gameplay mechanics they're forced to share the same gameplay mechanics with other licensed properties within the same Paper Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game that plays nothing like the source material they're based upon. It feels too watered down and generic with low learning curves for players who struggle with games being too complicated to learn. Less complexity equals more sales however something too complex won't sell at all as we've already seen with a lot of failed card games within the past couple of decades that missed the mark due to poor marketing and advertising. The sooner the Pay-to-Win business model changes from loot crates to something more convenient that isn't Online / Digital exclusive the better. Unfortunately we haven't found a real solution for it yet especially since now the ongoing pandemic has dramatically changed the paradigm.
The interesting thing I find about Weiss is that they incorporated Adventure Time into their card game even though AT already had/has a card game with Card Wars. For the longest time I just thought that Weiss was just the "anime card game" in that you saw a bunch of various anime show up there, but then Adventure Time showed up and I had no idea what it was anymore.
I don't believe Magic really needs to be doing this kind of crossover. As much as I hate TWD Secret Lair at the very least it was compact, I bought the MLP one and I figured that was fine as a strange one off, Hasbro owning both, their abilities are silly, and it was for charity, but it was pretty clear when TWD happened and how it was done (black border, eternal legal, etc) that this was going to happen more and more and that they had opened a box they shouldn't have. With the various rumors about them doing more SLs like that at the time (Harry Potter with Stryxhaven and others) this isn't surprising, but it is highly disappointing.
D&D is one thing, and even I'm not 100% a fan of that per se, but at least they do share some similarities, but with Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, and who knows what other abominations will take place (I can already see a Yugioh card in Magic) this does not seem to bode well for the game.
If the 40kommander decks are not filled with good reprints and strictly all about 40k then I will be skipping out on those decks for the first time in a long time. I'm just not interested in them and the same could be said about LotR, I have no real attachment to that franchise. If they did have ones with franchises I cared about I'd still not enjoy seeing them.
I do wonder what the contracts with these cards are. During a tournament stream will WotC have to pay up for showing Gandalf blocking an Emrakul or when the announcers go on about how good "The Shire" legendary land is?
Man, I like crossovers, but I feel real sketch about this. If the last couple years of short-term profit business decisions hadn't happened, I don't think I'd be so skeptical.
I just have the feeling that this is gonna result in some serious problems down the line. What kind of licensing agreement do they have? What happens if they screw up balance and end up with a Mind Seize type situation, where one deck vastly outsells the others? They say the product will be as available as other supplemental sets, but there's a lot of supplemental sets I couldn't find at the usual non-LGS locations. I still haven't seen the cycling Commander deck from Ikoria out in the wild. How do you reprint any of these cards? Do you just have a mash-up set later on? Or are these cards on an unofficial reserve list, where the first printing is it? What happens if the license runs out, do they not get to use the cards at tourneys? With the LotR set, did they also get the image rights for the actors, or are they going to have to make "Aragon, but not quite as the really popular movie series that got a lot of people into LotR depicted him."
And like, obviously this won't take away from the story team (probably), but unless the mechanical team expands by quite a bit, it'll probably pull from other fun supplemental sets. And I don't think I'm cool giving up stuff like Battlebond and Conspiracy for whatever franchise is looking to make some spare dosh.
People here seem to not get that not every product is for you. I hate lord of the rings but im not going to tell everybody I play with that they can't play with me and my friends even though the cards they have are official black bordered magic cards. Not allowing those people to play with you potentially gets rid of their only way to play magic.
Selfish.
People here seem to not get that not every product is for you. I hate lord of the rings but im not going to tell everybody I play with that they can't play with me and my friends even though the cards they have are official black bordered magic cards. Not allowing those people to play with you potentially gets rid of their only way to play magic.
Selfish.
Exactly for me
And as for the “not every product is for you” thing forget it every time we point that out to anyone on the internet they always call it a excuse even though it’s true
actually you know what the mtg fans have blood on their hands why defend the mtg universe when recently vast majority of people are saying they hate the lore for sets since BFZ with the whole gate-watch thing
actually you know what the mtg fans have blood on their hands why defend the mtg universe when recently vast majority of people are saying they hate the lore for sets since BFZ with the whole gate-watch thing
Probably because there is more lore than just the Gatewatch, both before and after it.
I generally figure that it's your deck, your rules. This is why I really wish they'd commit alternate names for MtG stuff - people can play with the other IP stuff, but those that would rather not have MtG themed versions to use. Some people don't like foils, but demanding that other players don't play foils against them would be pretty weird. Maybe your playgroup could have a no foils rule, but if some random person shows up at the game store, it'd be pretty weird to walk away from a casual game because they brought their shiny Mountains.
But apparently people don't dislike foils enough to not play against them. Your argument is basically "if you don't like something, you have to refuse playing with it and you have to treat all your dislikes equally", which quite evidently real people (as opposed to the made up straw man) don't share. Everyone can set their own boundaries. You are not allowed to tell people who to play with and what games to join. I may dislike foils (for the sake of argument) but still agree to play against an opponent with an all foil deck. But that does not make me a hypocrite when I refuse to play with an opponent who plays, say, un-cards. I can even reserve to make a distinction within the same category based on scope. I can refuse to play with an opponent with a blinged up all foil deck, even though I played against an opponent before who had one or two foils in their deck.
Once again, the crux is: Nobody is entitled to playing with me. And I am simply baffled that we are having this conversation. Is the idea that multiplayer games are consentual in nature such a novel concept?
As for the "if you don't like it don't put it in your deck" argument: I mean, people say that as if that would stop me from playing with those cards. But that's not true. All it means is that I won't have them in my deck. But I may still play with them through in-game interactions, like targeting cards, blocking or simply just being exposed to them during gameplay. It actually annoys me with the godzilla cards on magic arena, because you can't stop your opponent from having these in their decks. My Magic experience is actually lessened from having to fight godzilla or mothra. I understand that this isn't true for everyone, but it is true for me, and I don't see why I should be pressured into doing something I don't want to do rather than just me simply not engaging with it. I haven't touched Magic Arena in a while mostly for this reason and I guess I am literally gatekeeping half the magic community by not playing Magic Arena, based on the logic of some people here.
(Magic Arena is a funny case because they could have easily allowed for disabling special artworks on client side through an option. There's apparently even an option but it's only for your own cards, or the function is bugged, I don't know. I assume it's so that players who pay money for their bling can shove their bling in their opponent's faces, whether they want or not.)
Basically this. Nobody's going to force you to put those cards in your deck. But if you are preventing other people from playing with you because they picked up a card with a particular creative treatment, then yeah, that's 100% gatekeeping. You can certainly chose to own that, but that's what you're doing.
You're using a really messed up definition of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is preventing someone from doing or entering a certain activity or group. By not playing with a person for whatever reason I am not gatekeeping. In fact, if anything, I am keeping myself out of an activity. They are still free to play with whoever they want. They simply have to find a person to agree to play the game the way they want.
Is it gatekeeping when a person comes to the store and wants to play a draft of a certain set and people say "nah, we don't draft" or "nah, we'd rather play <another set>". No, it really isn't and I don't know what to tell people who think that that person is entitled to playing with anyone. I am not anyone's plaything and claiming I am gatekeeping and keeping players from playing, because I am not interested in playing a certain format is really disgusting. What is wrong with you.
Fun fact: I don't like how commander handles the hybrid rule. It's backwards and completely misses the point of hybrid (not meaning to start an argument here on that, just using that as an example). Would it be justified for me to claim other commander players are gatekeeping me because they refuse to play with my version of the hybrid rule? If I threw a tantrum at the store that I was gatekept out of commander for this people would (rightfully) call me insane.
"Sorry new guy, but you can't play with anyone here because we collectively decided to not accept those Warhammer cards that are in your deck. I know it's not fair to you, but Wizards forced us to gatekeep you out of our group, so really it's their fault that you can't play, not ours."
That's more or less what you sound like from my perspective. You're free to disallow anyone with those cards from playing games with you, but I'm free to think that your playgroup is being whiny and immature for doing so.
Not allowing the Universe Beyond cards definitely is gatekeeping, especially since the Universe Beyond cards are likely to draw lots of new and lapsed players back into the game.
If they had kept Dominaria as the "central" plane then I think its IP would've been marketed along the lines of other IPs we're referencing here. Sometimes too many planes can be detrimental to a world of a specific series. (For the life of me I don't understand why you need to have a specific world/plane dedicated to a particular demographic/civilization when you could easily have it on an existing world, just have it go undiscovered until it calls for it). I get they were trying to do that with the Gatewatch on Ravnica but honestly it's just too...generic compared to the lore of Magic's initial days.
'buster
HR Analyst. Gamer. Activist | Fearless, and forthright | Aggro-control is a mindset.
Elspeth and Jhoira rock my world.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
I believe it is WotC who put the playerbase in an impossible position by tooking a decision that would inevitably create a rift between some of us.
There is undeniably a line somewhere between "expanding the playerbase" and "losing the game's soul in the process", for some this line will be crossed sooner than for others, but it needs to be respected.
Modern : Solemnity Prison Martyr Proc Devotion to Green 8 Whacks Eldrazi Processor Bogles Landfall Aggro
Legacy : Goblins
I have no intention to play with superman and gandalf and captain kirk in a magic game. Calling people gatekeepers because they choose what and how to enjoy their entertainment is pretty digusting. You're not entitled to playing with me and I reserve the right to spend my free time however I choose.
I generally figure that it's your deck, your rules. This is why I really wish they'd commit alternate names for MtG stuff - people can play with the other IP stuff, but those that would rather not have MtG themed versions to use. Some people don't like foils, but demanding that other players don't play foils against them would be pretty weird. Maybe your playgroup could have a no foils rule, but if some random person shows up at the game store, it'd be pretty weird to walk away from a casual game because they brought their shiny Mountains.
Its nothing new that people have a choice who they play with and nobody is forced into anything.
If its a tournament, you sign up for the rules of the format and the location, whatever they say goes.
----
The vast majority of people will not mind, so its never going to be a big deal (and if at all, we might have single digit cards that are even worth including in any deck, and if they are not crazy in your face cringe worthy themes it might turn out to be just fine).
As said before, a lot of Kaldheim art already looks like Warhammer 40k inspired "Berserkers" and plenty of Demons could just be of that universe without anybody taking notice. Eldrazi Horrors are also graphical comparable to Chaos Demons.
Kaladesh has plenty of flying airships and massive vehicles, plenty of sci-fi inspired stuff in Kaladesh already.
Most Magic planes are much more medieval, much more classic fantasy settings.
However, then we get mechanical horror borg-like Phyrexia, "Star-Gate" like Amonkhet, lots of stuff takes inspiration from many different franchises that mix Magic, fantasy and technology.
If the cards turn out to be badass and amazing, people might change their mind quite quickly.
If the cards are just garbage, nobody will care.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Not a shred of integrity to be seen here, just pure opportunistic behaviour.
By banning or tuning away new players who don't know anything about magic, from the game to the why the IP stuff might rub people the wrong way, that is gatekeeping, its toxic and bullying and it already a major issue with drawing in new people.
Why not to sit down the new player, explain to them why you have a issues with the crossovers and offer to help them build a deck that dosnt have the cross over stuff in it? I personally have a number of decks that I'm happy to lend to newbies just waning to play. Why not offer that instead of possible turning off someone from magic?
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
The Walking Dead cards could very well be put in an Innistrad setting, just like the Godzilla cards, be a alternate version of a different magic card of the set.
Fiend Hunter, Mentor of the Meek, Snapcaster Mage
Plenty of cards i could totally see as the characters in alternate art versions and it would fit the set theme.
The bad part is how they designed a Secret lair product around the franchise and provided no alternative to the franchise art and theme of the card.
MyLittlePony is a rougher call, but there are a bunch of Pegasus cards that could have alternate art versions as well (cringe no matter what).
The same argument applies to Warhammer 40k, if they are "just" alternate art versions, acceptance is high.
If they are actual magic cards, legal in tournament formats and not silver-bordered, it will be a guarantee to piss people off.
At the very least provide non-franchise versions of the Magic card (then its basically just alternate art, and plenty of people use alternate art for their casual commander decks anyway, without that being a product by WotC).
For all i care, the entire product could be silver-bordered and fans would still buy it when they think the card are cool.
Making them black bordered and legal in formats is a major critique that the franchise products will always have.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Another problem I have with Paper Trading Card Games / Collectible Card Games like Universal Fighting System by Jasco games (re-branded as UniVersus) and Weiß Schwarz by Bushiroad is that instead of these licensed properties having their own Paper Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game with it's own unique gameplay mechanics they're forced to share the same gameplay mechanics with other licensed properties within the same Paper Trading Card Game / Collectible Card Game that plays nothing like the source material they're based upon. It feels too watered down and generic with low learning curves for players who struggle with games being too complicated to learn. Less complexity equals more sales however something too complex won't sell at all as we've already seen with a lot of failed card games within the past couple of decades that missed the mark due to poor marketing and advertising. The sooner the Pay-to-Win business model changes from loot crates to something more convenient that isn't Online / Digital exclusive the better. Unfortunately we haven't found a real solution for it yet especially since now the ongoing pandemic has dramatically changed the paradigm.
"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
The interesting thing I find about Weiss is that they incorporated Adventure Time into their card game even though AT already had/has a card game with Card Wars. For the longest time I just thought that Weiss was just the "anime card game" in that you saw a bunch of various anime show up there, but then Adventure Time showed up and I had no idea what it was anymore.
I don't believe Magic really needs to be doing this kind of crossover. As much as I hate TWD Secret Lair at the very least it was compact, I bought the MLP one and I figured that was fine as a strange one off, Hasbro owning both, their abilities are silly, and it was for charity, but it was pretty clear when TWD happened and how it was done (black border, eternal legal, etc) that this was going to happen more and more and that they had opened a box they shouldn't have. With the various rumors about them doing more SLs like that at the time (Harry Potter with Stryxhaven and others) this isn't surprising, but it is highly disappointing.
D&D is one thing, and even I'm not 100% a fan of that per se, but at least they do share some similarities, but with Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, and who knows what other abominations will take place (I can already see a Yugioh card in Magic) this does not seem to bode well for the game.
If the 40kommander decks are not filled with good reprints and strictly all about 40k then I will be skipping out on those decks for the first time in a long time. I'm just not interested in them and the same could be said about LotR, I have no real attachment to that franchise. If they did have ones with franchises I cared about I'd still not enjoy seeing them.
I do wonder what the contracts with these cards are. During a tournament stream will WotC have to pay up for showing Gandalf blocking an Emrakul or when the announcers go on about how good "The Shire" legendary land is?
interestingly street fighter had many version licensed trading cards not just ufc. probably not an exclusive licensed
so i wouldn't mind the Capcom WORLD IP as a commander promotion
The walking dead guys would be later facing nemesis as a general
Morrigan, Strider Hiryu, Mike Haggar, Dante and Vergil would be so hype as generals/commanders
Pipe Equipment for Mike Haggar.
Some Monster Hunter Dragons in MTG would be awesome too
I just have the feeling that this is gonna result in some serious problems down the line. What kind of licensing agreement do they have? What happens if they screw up balance and end up with a Mind Seize type situation, where one deck vastly outsells the others? They say the product will be as available as other supplemental sets, but there's a lot of supplemental sets I couldn't find at the usual non-LGS locations. I still haven't seen the cycling Commander deck from Ikoria out in the wild. How do you reprint any of these cards? Do you just have a mash-up set later on? Or are these cards on an unofficial reserve list, where the first printing is it? What happens if the license runs out, do they not get to use the cards at tourneys? With the LotR set, did they also get the image rights for the actors, or are they going to have to make "Aragon, but not quite as the really popular movie series that got a lot of people into LotR depicted him."
And like, obviously this won't take away from the story team (probably), but unless the mechanical team expands by quite a bit, it'll probably pull from other fun supplemental sets. And I don't think I'm cool giving up stuff like Battlebond and Conspiracy for whatever franchise is looking to make some spare dosh.
Selfish.
Exactly for me
And as for the “not every product is for you” thing forget it every time we point that out to anyone on the internet they always call it a excuse even though it’s true
actually you know what the mtg fans have blood on their hands why defend the mtg universe when recently vast majority of people are saying they hate the lore for sets since BFZ with the whole gate-watch thing
plus every time they claimed this is gonna killed it they have been wrong every single time
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/twenty-things-were-going-kill-magic-2013-08-01
mtg joining the cross-over trend is just gonna be joining the list of “claims of mtg is dead but doesn't list”
Probably because there is more lore than just the Gatewatch, both before and after it.
But apparently people don't dislike foils enough to not play against them. Your argument is basically "if you don't like something, you have to refuse playing with it and you have to treat all your dislikes equally", which quite evidently real people (as opposed to the made up straw man) don't share. Everyone can set their own boundaries. You are not allowed to tell people who to play with and what games to join. I may dislike foils (for the sake of argument) but still agree to play against an opponent with an all foil deck. But that does not make me a hypocrite when I refuse to play with an opponent who plays, say, un-cards. I can even reserve to make a distinction within the same category based on scope. I can refuse to play with an opponent with a blinged up all foil deck, even though I played against an opponent before who had one or two foils in their deck.
Once again, the crux is: Nobody is entitled to playing with me. And I am simply baffled that we are having this conversation. Is the idea that multiplayer games are consentual in nature such a novel concept?
As for the "if you don't like it don't put it in your deck" argument: I mean, people say that as if that would stop me from playing with those cards. But that's not true. All it means is that I won't have them in my deck. But I may still play with them through in-game interactions, like targeting cards, blocking or simply just being exposed to them during gameplay. It actually annoys me with the godzilla cards on magic arena, because you can't stop your opponent from having these in their decks. My Magic experience is actually lessened from having to fight godzilla or mothra. I understand that this isn't true for everyone, but it is true for me, and I don't see why I should be pressured into doing something I don't want to do rather than just me simply not engaging with it. I haven't touched Magic Arena in a while mostly for this reason and I guess I am literally gatekeeping half the magic community by not playing Magic Arena, based on the logic of some people here.
(Magic Arena is a funny case because they could have easily allowed for disabling special artworks on client side through an option. There's apparently even an option but it's only for your own cards, or the function is bugged, I don't know. I assume it's so that players who pay money for their bling can shove their bling in their opponent's faces, whether they want or not.)
You're using a really messed up definition of gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is preventing someone from doing or entering a certain activity or group. By not playing with a person for whatever reason I am not gatekeeping. In fact, if anything, I am keeping myself out of an activity. They are still free to play with whoever they want. They simply have to find a person to agree to play the game the way they want.
Is it gatekeeping when a person comes to the store and wants to play a draft of a certain set and people say "nah, we don't draft" or "nah, we'd rather play <another set>". No, it really isn't and I don't know what to tell people who think that that person is entitled to playing with anyone. I am not anyone's plaything and claiming I am gatekeeping and keeping players from playing, because I am not interested in playing a certain format is really disgusting. What is wrong with you.
Fun fact: I don't like how commander handles the hybrid rule. It's backwards and completely misses the point of hybrid (not meaning to start an argument here on that, just using that as an example). Would it be justified for me to claim other commander players are gatekeeping me because they refuse to play with my version of the hybrid rule? If I threw a tantrum at the store that I was gatekept out of commander for this people would (rightfully) call me insane.