Also can't help but notice how Alara Reborn, Future Sight, Rise of Eldrazi and New Phyrexia were great sets. Its only MaRo's recent third sets thats been terrible.
Saviors of Kamigawa, Dissension, Fifth Dawn, and Scourge were all relatively bad third sets. It most certainly isn't just recent third sets that have been terrible.
Some people just want to be unhappy it seems. This is big news. Not quite the news I was expecting, but at least it isn't "Reprinting Fetchlands" or a number of other things brought up. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. I do feel mildly disappointed that there will be more reprints, but I'm wanting to see how it all pans out before I decide.
Weird. TGC player had an article by raph levy just up seconds after the announcement commenting in detail that means he had access to the info before it got posted. It's now been pulled...
I thought these kind of thing wouldnt happen after the godbook incident...
Just noticed the article is gone. Never had a chance to read it.
Weird. TGC player had an article by raph levy just up seconds after the announcement commenting in detail that means he had access to the info before it got posted. It's now been pulled...
I thought these kind of thing wouldnt happen after the godbook incident...
Just noticed the article is gone. Never had a chance to read it.
He goes in detail with all the bullet point changes with his own take on it.
It'll probably be back on tomorrow
It's just a blunder that shows a lot of leaking still goes on between WoTC and the medias...
Just adding an opinion that I'm sure has been said already but I'm not about to read 19 full pages (or the 10+ or so since the update ran today)...
I think this is a great change for the Standard constructed play experience. But I think this hurts limited except for those who are too ADD to savour an existing world for 9 months instead of 6.
I also think losing the Core Set hurts. Having design space that is free from the contexts of a defined world is an awesome thing, both for new cards and reprints. While it can be unexciting to play, I think it's existence is worthwhile, and makes looking forward to the fall set more exciting. Now we get two fall sets per year.
Not enough anticipation, too much delivery.
Overall, other than it's impact on Standard, I give this change two thumbs down.
huh... more story lines, more worlds... more stuff in general. new themes, and they can take a few more risks with them, too, because each individual set is smaller now.
I like it.
Individual sets ARE NOT smaller. I would ask that you provide a source to back up that claim.
meh, pretty overhyped i'm pretty sure UNLESS, they use the fact that cards rotate faster to risk making mistakes more often. if we consistently get more Modern/Legacy playable cards, this could be good, otherwise, irrelevant to people who don't care if a card is Standard legal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
This means more money for Wizard, Khans will rotate out in 18 months instead of 24... am I the only one seeing that?
Nope the entire time I read the article I had the Hasbro power point presentation in my mind about increasing profit.
Not sure you understand how this works. There are still the same number of sets being released each year, so same number of packs being released every year. Now, if they up their game and actually improve the card quality of each set since there is no lame duck 3rd set and no core that while filled with reprints also has cards that people want/need, then this is all upside.
Since cards that are good in standard but weak in modern will have a shorter lifespan, this should also decrease the cost of standard singles.
This will depend heavily on how they rotate draft formats on MtGO since the one of the biggest though least talked about effects of card prices for standard legal sets is set redemption from MtGO. While a set is legal to redeem and still being drafted, it's total value has a cap.
Cards rotate out faster. I need to buy more cards/products more often to keep up in standard.
There will actually be less product in standard at rotation. At rotation, a smaller percentage of the total number of cards in standard will rotate. With a standard that contains the expected large/small/small/core/large/small/small/core sets at rotation, there are roughly 1600 cards in the pool, 800 of them leave and 250 enter. With an expected large/small/large/small/large/small standard there will be about 1200 cards in the pool, 400 of them leave and 250 enter. Over the course of a year, the number of cards released will be roughly the same as before. So sets will rotate more often, but the number of cards you have to buy does not change. In fact, if anything, the number you have to buy should go down slightly since the extra large set or 2 per rotation will likely go away for a while. It is also possible that this saves you money in the long run due to skewed perception of the value of cards during their standard tenure causing speculators to dump faster into hype.
This is actually great for people who play eternal formats. Expansion sets instead of core sets means less junk rare reprints every year, as well as more new mechanics and new takes on old mechanics. This means there's a much higher chance of getting new modern and legacy playable cards every year. Core sets were terrible for modern/legacy players in terms of new cards to play with. The only thing they were good for was lowering the price of staples that got reprinted in them, and price doesn't even matter that much to the people who only care about eternal since they're likely to already have their decks built. So yes, I think this change will actually be fantastic for eternal formats in the long run.
There will actually be less product in standard at rotation. At rotation, a smaller percentage of the total number of cards in standard will rotate. With a standard that contains the expected large/small/small/core/large/small/small/core sets at rotation, there are roughly 1600 cards in the pool, 800 of them leave and 250 enter. With an expected large/small/large/small/large/small standard there will be about 1200 cards in the pool, 400 of them leave and 250 enter. Over the course of a year, the number of cards released will be roughly the same as before. So sets will rotate more often, but the number of cards you have to buy does not change. In fact, if anything, the number you have to buy should go down slightly since the extra large set or 2 per rotation will likely go away for a while. It is also possible that this saves you money in the long run due to skewed perception of the value of cards during their standard tenure causing speculators to dump faster into hype.
Hmm - I get what you're saying... but it kind of skirts the issue that someone concerned about faster rotation has doesn't it? Faster rotation means the cards they actually buy, are standard playable for less time. And in turn means they are buying more packs/boxes. Ultimately means to keep up, they're spending more per year than before. The total number of cards is not actually, directly related, is it?
There will actually be less product in standard at rotation. At rotation, a smaller percentage of the total number of cards in standard will rotate. With a standard that contains the expected large/small/small/core/large/small/small/core sets at rotation, there are roughly 1600 cards in the pool, 800 of them leave and 250 enter. With an expected large/small/large/small/large/small standard there will be about 1200 cards in the pool, 400 of them leave and 250 enter. Over the course of a year, the number of cards released will be roughly the same as before. So sets will rotate more often, but the number of cards you have to buy does not change. In fact, if anything, the number you have to buy should go down slightly since the extra large set or 2 per rotation will likely go away for a while. It is also possible that this saves you money in the long run due to skewed perception of the value of cards during their standard tenure causing speculators to dump faster into hype.
Hmm - I get what you're saying... but it kind of skirts the issue that someone concerned about faster rotation has doesn't it? Faster rotation means the cards they actually buy, are standard playable for less time. And in turn means they are buying more packs/boxes. Ultimately means to keep up, they're spending more per year than before. The total number of cards is not actually, directly related, is it?
ok, lets give the cards a weight based on how many months they are expected to stay in rotation then. You have 250 cards per large set and 150 per small set (rough numbers, but it make the math easier). The fall set is always large and lasts for 24 months under the current model. Next two sets in the block are on average small (this hasn't actually been true for the last few years but I am going to ignore that even though it would work in my favor to factor those extra cards in) and last for 21 months and 18 months respectively. The 4th set of the seasonal cycle is large and lasts only 15 months. If we take these numbers we can come up with a simple weighting system that gives the cards in standard at rotation a point value of 31,200 of which half is lost once a year. Under the new system standard will contain 20,250 points of cards at rotation of which 6,750 points worth of cards rotate out. This gives a total of 13,500 points rotating out per year under the new model vs. 15,600 under the old model.
Now that is ultra simplified math that doesn't account for everything, but if we can assume that there will be a like number of standard playable rares/mythics per year under both systems, then those ratios matter. If instead this means that there are actually MORE standard relevant cards printed per year then those values skew in a way that supports standard becoming more expensive for those who have to have everything, but, are we really going to be mad at Wizards for printing MORE good cards? God I hope not. Of course, the rest of that story is that if there are more good cards printed per set, then total set value becomes spread out among a greater number of cards which keeps the top card from having as high of a value ceiling.
This all comes back to set redemption on MTGO though. That is the glue that keeps set values together. I can only hope that they change the draft queues to fire off for current block and previous 3 rather than keeping it to the current 2 block system plus core. Even if it is just whatever is standard legal though it should be fine.
-Cards getting banned
-Development stifling interactions between new + old mechanics, especially if they are in the first block and the second set of the third block.
Case in point, the rebound mechanic. It was specifically given a condition that it be cast from one's hand, so that a rebound spell couldn't be cast off cascade.
Similarly, the Fuse mechanic on split cards and Snapcaster Mage.
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Commander
U Tetsuko Umezawa, Fugitive
RG Zilortha, Strength Incarnate
WB Amalia Benavides Aguirre
Just noticed the article is gone. Never had a chance to read it.
He goes in detail with all the bullet point changes with his own take on it.
It'll probably be back on tomorrow
It's just a blunder that shows a lot of leaking still goes on between WoTC and the medias...
I think this is a great change for the Standard constructed play experience. But I think this hurts limited except for those who are too ADD to savour an existing world for 9 months instead of 6.
I also think losing the Core Set hurts. Having design space that is free from the contexts of a defined world is an awesome thing, both for new cards and reprints. While it can be unexciting to play, I think it's existence is worthwhile, and makes looking forward to the fall set more exciting. Now we get two fall sets per year.
Not enough anticipation, too much delivery.
Overall, other than it's impact on Standard, I give this change two thumbs down.
WBG Abzan Midrange
BRG Dredgevine
Individual sets ARE NOT smaller. I would ask that you provide a source to back up that claim.
There will actually be less product in standard at rotation. At rotation, a smaller percentage of the total number of cards in standard will rotate. With a standard that contains the expected large/small/small/core/large/small/small/core sets at rotation, there are roughly 1600 cards in the pool, 800 of them leave and 250 enter. With an expected large/small/large/small/large/small standard there will be about 1200 cards in the pool, 400 of them leave and 250 enter. Over the course of a year, the number of cards released will be roughly the same as before. So sets will rotate more often, but the number of cards you have to buy does not change. In fact, if anything, the number you have to buy should go down slightly since the extra large set or 2 per rotation will likely go away for a while. It is also possible that this saves you money in the long run due to skewed perception of the value of cards during their standard tenure causing speculators to dump faster into hype.
This is actually great for people who play eternal formats. Expansion sets instead of core sets means less junk rare reprints every year, as well as more new mechanics and new takes on old mechanics. This means there's a much higher chance of getting new modern and legacy playable cards every year. Core sets were terrible for modern/legacy players in terms of new cards to play with. The only thing they were good for was lowering the price of staples that got reprinted in them, and price doesn't even matter that much to the people who only care about eternal since they're likely to already have their decks built. So yes, I think this change will actually be fantastic for eternal formats in the long run.
Hmm - I get what you're saying... but it kind of skirts the issue that someone concerned about faster rotation has doesn't it? Faster rotation means the cards they actually buy, are standard playable for less time. And in turn means they are buying more packs/boxes. Ultimately means to keep up, they're spending more per year than before. The total number of cards is not actually, directly related, is it?
ok, lets give the cards a weight based on how many months they are expected to stay in rotation then. You have 250 cards per large set and 150 per small set (rough numbers, but it make the math easier). The fall set is always large and lasts for 24 months under the current model. Next two sets in the block are on average small (this hasn't actually been true for the last few years but I am going to ignore that even though it would work in my favor to factor those extra cards in) and last for 21 months and 18 months respectively. The 4th set of the seasonal cycle is large and lasts only 15 months. If we take these numbers we can come up with a simple weighting system that gives the cards in standard at rotation a point value of 31,200 of which half is lost once a year. Under the new system standard will contain 20,250 points of cards at rotation of which 6,750 points worth of cards rotate out. This gives a total of 13,500 points rotating out per year under the new model vs. 15,600 under the old model.
Now that is ultra simplified math that doesn't account for everything, but if we can assume that there will be a like number of standard playable rares/mythics per year under both systems, then those ratios matter. If instead this means that there are actually MORE standard relevant cards printed per year then those values skew in a way that supports standard becoming more expensive for those who have to have everything, but, are we really going to be mad at Wizards for printing MORE good cards? God I hope not. Of course, the rest of that story is that if there are more good cards printed per set, then total set value becomes spread out among a greater number of cards which keeps the top card from having as high of a value ceiling.
This all comes back to set redemption on MTGO though. That is the glue that keeps set values together. I can only hope that they change the draft queues to fire off for current block and previous 3 rather than keeping it to the current 2 block system plus core. Even if it is just whatever is standard legal though it should be fine.
-Cards getting banned
-Development stifling interactions between new + old mechanics, especially if they are in the first block and the second set of the third block.
Case in point, the rebound mechanic. It was specifically given a condition that it be cast from one's hand, so that a rebound spell couldn't be cast off cascade.
Similarly, the Fuse mechanic on split cards and Snapcaster Mage.
I'm looking forward to this : )
"OH GOD MY BRAIN IS EXPLOADING AT HOW BAD THE ART IS ON MY OWN CARD"
-A friend's first impression of Ancestral Recall
10/10, I tapped.