Gavin has also talked about WAR doing something completely new and exciting.
My bet is that it will have Planeswalkers at uncommon or guaranteed one per pack.
I think MaRo indirectly nixed this idea when talking about the number of Planeswalkers per set in a recent article. Something about not wanting to unbalance Standard with Planeswalkers. They would have to have a lot of Planeswalkers in the set to make one per pack viable without ridiculous amounts of duplicates in a display.
I thought WAR would be PW-heavy too, but now I'm not so sure. I think it might have more than normal, because I can't see them not including the Gatewatch and Bolas in the set.
Then what is so exciting and different about the set? Maybe all of the Planeswalkers will just be creatures (to represent them losing their sparks to Bolas who wants to combine all the new sparks into one old-school spark?).
Maybe the gimick is that the "old-school spark" is like a hot potato and a bunch of people us it for a short time? So we get super powerful Planeswalkers?
Maybe the gimick is that the "old-school spark" is like a hot potato and a bunch of people us it for a short time? So we get super powerful Planeswalkers?
Hm, makes me think of the Monarch mechanic from Conspiracy2. Imagine the legendary creatures of the set have a "Planeswalker mode" - they become the 'sparkholder' and gain the ability to use that mode if they (fulfil some starting condition), or if they inflict loyalty loss on an existing sparkholder they take the spark...
Maybe the gimick is that the "old-school spark" is like a hot potato and a bunch of people us it for a short time? So we get super powerful Planeswalkers?
If they did this, they would have to communicate very clearly on the nature and properties of a/the spark, which I think is something they want to keep a bit muddy for future story purposes.
If they did this, they would have to communicate very clearly on the nature and properties of a/the spark, which I think is something they want to keep a bit muddy for future story purposes.
Well, maybe they can just make this the very specific properties of this one particular artificially melded super-spark; properties not necessarily applicable to your "ordinary" spark.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Perhaps they will have planeswalker team cards. Like all of the Gatewatch represented on a single card, or smaller groups/pairs (e.g. "Jace and Chandra, Ignite the Mind"). That would allow them to squeeze more walkers onto cards, though the type lines would be a mess.
The UMA short-announcement window only worked because it was UMA. If they're going to short-announce more products going forward, I guarantee stores will not like it. Using the response to UMA as a gauge for how this will work is a mistake, if that's what they're actually doing.
It's bad enough War Of The Spark hasn't even had a street date announced yet.
I don't think LGS are necessarily "left in the dark" as it is.
They are.
My local owners hints at what he knows but says he isn't allowed to discuss anything until someone else brings it up.
I believe the entire supply chain has to be aware of products far in advance. I can't imagine any of that changing unless it's to shoehorn more product into the pipeline. In other words, even though WotC made UMA announcement later, it didn't change the timing of the supply chain.
They used to be. It was common that WotC would announce products, or at least street dates, several months in advance. This is apparently no longer the case, as the window has been getting shorter and shorter. And I don't believe your store owner knows anything significant in terms of a release date, because my store owner would know it then as well. And right now, we're kind of in a weird situation with scheduling other non-MTG events in that same time frame, because we don't know.
Shoehorning more product into the schedule like UMA is one thing, not even giving release info on normally scheduled products is another.
A very close friend of mine owns a LGS and I can tell you that he has no idea what's coming up. He saw this product for preorder last week or two weeks ago but has no idea what it is, what's it about or when it's getting released. He's just hoping it won't coincide with whatever Warhammer or Pokemon events he has scheduled.
Maybe the gimick is that the "old-school spark" is like a hot potato and a bunch of people us it for a short time? So we get super powerful Planeswalkers?
Hm, makes me think of the Monarch mechanic from Conspiracy2. Imagine the legendary creatures of the set have a "Planeswalker mode" - they become the 'sparkholder' and gain the ability to use that mode if they (fulfil some starting condition), or if they inflict loyalty loss on an existing sparkholder they take the spark...
Oh man, that would be a lot of fun! I wonder if a Sparkholder is dealt damage by a qualifying legendary creature if the Sparkholder flips from being a super Planeswalker back into a normal legendary creature?
The UMA short-announcement window only worked because it was UMA. If they're going to short-announce more products going forward, I guarantee stores will not like it. Using the response to UMA as a gauge for how this will work is a mistake, if that's what they're actually doing.
It's bad enough War Of The Spark hasn't even had a street date announced yet.
I don't think LGS are necessarily "left in the dark" as it is.
They are.
My local owners hints at what he knows but says he isn't allowed to discuss anything until someone else brings it up.
I believe the entire supply chain has to be aware of products far in advance. I can't imagine any of that changing unless it's to shoehorn more product into the pipeline. In other words, even though WotC made UMA announcement later, it didn't change the timing of the supply chain.
They used to be. It was common that WotC would announce products, or at least street dates, several months in advance. This is apparently no longer the case, as the window has been getting shorter and shorter. And I don't believe your store owner knows anything significant in terms of a release date, because my store owner would know it then as well. And right now, we're kind of in a weird situation with scheduling other non-MTG events in that same time frame, because we don't know.
Shoehorning more product into the schedule like UMA is one thing, not even giving release info on normally scheduled products is another.
A very close friend of mine owns a LGS and I can tell you that he has no idea what's coming up. He saw this product for preorder last week or two weeks ago but has no idea what it is, what's it about or when it's getting released. He's just hoping it won't coincide with whatever Warhammer or Pokemon events he has scheduled.
do you or your friend know what the timeline normally is between stores pre-ordering product and it actually releases? as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, making changes to announcement schedules for marketing is one thing, but changing the time-table for supply chains is more difficult.
i ask because maybe it gives an idea when the product might actually hit stores versus when just the announcement is.
modern, given wizards/cfb doesnt give the community the shaft and bungle coverage, is going to be in the spotlight in march with 3 modern GPs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.
Would keep the format fresh,
and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.
what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.
Would keep the format fresh,
and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.
for the love of all that is good, we do NOT need a new format just for drafting. In my opinion WoTC needs to figure out a way - and fast - to get new cards and reprints directly into eternal formats by skipping Standard entirely. Standard and draft are bound at the hip to eachother.
Making more products to cater to Standard and draft is the OPPOSITE of what this game needs right now. This game needs a lifeline for its eternal formats and if WoTC has been watching closely lately, they would see that the community is wanting some of these "Innovative Products" to start being innovative in how they address the subject of supply/demand and not some new cardtype, keyword or re-tooling of rarities
what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.
Would keep the format fresh,
and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.
for the love of all that is good, we do NOT need a new format just for drafting. In my opinion WoTC needs to figure out a way - and fast - to get new cards and reprints directly into eternal formats by skipping Standard entirely. Standard and draft are bound at the hip to eachother.
Making more products to cater to Standard and draft is the OPPOSITE of what this game needs right now. This game needs a lifeline for its eternal formats and if WoTC has been watching closely lately, they would see that the community is wanting some of these "Innovative Products" to start being innovative in how they address the subject of supply/demand and not some new cardtype, keyword or re-tooling of rarities
I know Gavin said it was a "maybe" for Straight-to-Modern cards in a future set but, I have a feeling that is exactly what WotC is going to do. Not many at first. Maybe like 10 or 15 cards. Nothing crazy, just cards that help nerf some powerful Modern decks and help bolster weaker decks. If the trial is a success, then they will add more new straight-to-modern cards next time. If it turns out to be a mistake, then they will apologize and never do it again.
what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.
Would keep the format fresh,
and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.
Good gravy, as a set collector, that would be an astronomical nightmare. Brings back memories of the absolute horror that was Legends or the stupid stunt they pulled with Unstable. Yeah, I didn't appreciate either happening.
Alot of players don't buy boxes/packs throughout a season but rather at the beginning, on day one. A lot of early sets and bulk sales are created by an individual cracking hundreds of boxes at a time. It would be a HUGE disservice to these players to withhold almost 10% of a set back to encourage them to...what? Buy more boxes??
If a set is honestly good, WotC doesn't need to do these kind of shenanigans.
The UMA short-announcement window only worked because it was UMA. If they're going to short-announce more products going forward, I guarantee stores will not like it. Using the response to UMA as a gauge for how this will work is a mistake, if that's what they're actually doing.
It's bad enough War Of The Spark hasn't even had a street date announced yet.
I don't think LGS are necessarily "left in the dark" as it is.
They are.
My local owners hints at what he knows but says he isn't allowed to discuss anything until someone else brings it up.
I believe the entire supply chain has to be aware of products far in advance. I can't imagine any of that changing unless it's to shoehorn more product into the pipeline. In other words, even though WotC made UMA announcement later, it didn't change the timing of the supply chain.
They used to be. It was common that WotC would announce products, or at least street dates, several months in advance. This is apparently no longer the case, as the window has been getting shorter and shorter. And I don't believe your store owner knows anything significant in terms of a release date, because my store owner would know it then as well. And right now, we're kind of in a weird situation with scheduling other non-MTG events in that same time frame, because we don't know.
Shoehorning more product into the schedule like UMA is one thing, not even giving release info on normally scheduled products is another.
A very close friend of mine owns a LGS and I can tell you that he has no idea what's coming up. He saw this product for preorder last week or two weeks ago but has no idea what it is, what's it about or when it's getting released. He's just hoping it won't coincide with whatever Warhammer or Pokemon events he has scheduled.
do you or your friend know what the timeline normally is between stores pre-ordering product and it actually releases? as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, making changes to announcement schedules for marketing is one thing, but changing the time-table for supply chains is more difficult.
i ask because maybe it gives an idea when the product might actually hit stores versus when just the announcement is.
modern, given wizards/cfb doesnt give the community the shaft and bungle coverage, is going to be in the spotlight in march with 3 modern GPs.
Im at the store helping out right now. He thought I was talking about another product from a different game. Anyways, i brought it up today and he has no clue what i was talking about. Showed him the stream and we even double checked the preorders from the distributor and theres absolutely nothing. I think i just made him panic lol
what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.
Would keep the format fresh,
and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.
Good gravy, as a set collector, that would be an astronomical nightmare. Brings back memories of the absolute horror that was Legends or the stupid stunt they pulled with Unstable. Yeah, I didn't appreciate either happening.
Alot of players don't buy boxes/packs throughout a season but rather at the beginning, on day one. A lot of early sets and bulk sales are created by an individual cracking hundreds of boxes at a time. It would be a HUGE disservice to these players to withhold almost 10% of a set back to encourage them to...what? Buy more boxes??
If a set is honestly good, WotC doesn't need to do these kind of shenanigans.
Interesting to see different opinions. Kinda shows the challenge Wotc has, trying to keep everyone happy when everyone wants different things. My suggestion was from the drafter-perspective, and seemed like a small thing, but there you go.
I still don't think it would be that big of an issue, as long as they kept this to a few commons/uncommons only. In that case it shouldn't be difficult for collectors to pick up the few new cards as they trickle in.
And to answer your question on what it would encourage players to do: It would encourage them to draft more, and to keep drafting after the format gets stale.
But it could still be that it is a bad idea overall. The upside is more drafts (= more sales) and better drafts for the draft afficianados. The downside is frustration (whether it turns out to be justified or not it will still be there, and it will still be a cost) from collectors, as well as confusion from less enfranchised players. 'What the heck is this "War of the spark vol II" - nonsense, is it a completely new set? Neat I'll get some boosters. ANGER! I only got cards I already owned!'
'What the heck is this "War of the spark vol II" - nonsense, is it a completely new set? Neat I'll get some boosters. ANGER! I only got cards I already owned!'
Really the high densty of reprints would make such a "Vol. II" thing quite similar to old-school core sets. A new release will sell mostly on new cards (unless the reprints are on the level of Masters-series releases and even there we experienced diminishing returns). Drafters were not enough to move core set products. They had to change the formula.
How long would you suggest releasing additional volumes? How many different volumes? At what frequency? Do you expect players to be excited about it? Are the volumes going to compete with each other or with the next release? Is "REMIX Masters 2019 Vol. II" going to diminish your sales for "REMIX Masters 2020 Vol. I"?
I'm assuming every box ordered will be from the same printrun/volume. How often do you presonally imagine a vendor or private person solely for draft sales/purposes would order an additional box separately? Could changing the set on the second run actually backfire if you no longer include certain cards and proplr ptrfrt Vol. I ovrt Vol. II?
How does spoiler season work? Do you spoil the whole set with some cards marked as "not yet available in boosters"? Do you have an entirely new release cycle? How do you promote this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
There's not going to be two (or more) print runs with different cards in each. I'd say it's because they wouldn't do that, but it's more because it would be a marketing nightmare for WotC and a sales nightmare for the stores. How much do you order so your players can get sufficient copies of the new commons/uncommons they want? And if they do it at rare/mythic level, it's even worse. Making a Vol II would only benefit singles sellers, not stores. Whatever their innovation is, it's not this.
what about an evolving draft format, where what subsets of cards are in print changes between print runs? So the set has (for example) 280 different cards, but any booster only holds a selection from a subset of 260. Probably wouldn’t be a good idea to change rares/mythics due to collectibilty issues, but for example shifting a top common in each colour (ambuscade in first print run swapped with Prey upon in the second, or the common red burn spell going from 3 to 2 damage could have a significant impact). Could also play around with the multicolour «build-around» uncommons, or the manafixing could change drastically with something like the memorials being swapped out for vivids.
Would keep the format fresh,
and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.
Good gravy, as a set collector, that would be an astronomical nightmare. Brings back memories of the absolute horror that was Legends or the stupid stunt they pulled with Unstable. Yeah, I didn't appreciate either happening.
Alot of players don't buy boxes/packs throughout a season but rather at the beginning, on day one. A lot of early sets and bulk sales are created by an individual cracking hundreds of boxes at a time. It would be a HUGE disservice to these players to withhold almost 10% of a set back to encourage them to...what? Buy more boxes??
If a set is honestly good, WotC doesn't need to do these kind of shenanigans.
Interesting to see different opinions. Kinda shows the challenge Wotc has, trying to keep everyone happy when everyone wants different things. My suggestion was from the drafter-perspective, and seemed like a small thing, but there you go.
I still don't think it would be that big of an issue, as long as they kept this to a few commons/uncommons only. In that case it shouldn't be difficult for collectors to pick up the few new cards as they trickle in.
And to answer your question on what it would encourage players to do: It would encourage them to draft more, and to keep drafting after the format gets stale.
But it could still be that it is a bad idea overall. The upside is more drafts (= more sales) and better drafts for the draft afficianados. The downside is frustration (whether it turns out to be justified or not it will still be there, and it will still be a cost) from collectors, as well as confusion from less enfranchised players. 'What the heck is this "War of the spark vol II" - nonsense, is it a completely new set? Neat I'll get some boosters. ANGER! I only got cards I already owned!'
I would much much rather WotC creates a "tiny" set of 100 or something cards and create a draft format of 2+1 or 3+2 packs than mess with the particulars of a set and the card selection on the reprints.
Should be worth pointing out that the swapped commons and uncommons would NOT have the same rarities as the rest c/u's of the set due the overwhelming print run differences.
I would much much rather WotC creates a "tiny" set of 100 or something cards and create a draft format of 2+1 or 3+2 packs than mess with the particulars of a set and the card selection on the reprints.
Should be worth pointing out that the swapped commons and uncommons would NOT have the same rarities as the rest c/u's of the set due the overwhelming print run differences.
So Wizards just switched to all large sets because small sets were problematic and that's what people talk about in the "innovative product" discussion?
You can have thousands of slightly different draft environments just by mixing and matching three different sets of the most recent four to five years. I don't see the appeal of "even more subtle differences with a little add-on set/20 card replacement" that is supposed to work better than a Cube or pretty much any other dedicated draft product that is just draftable by itself.
I'd really like to hear an explanation, why such a product would appeal to players (over other options).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I would much much rather WotC creates a "tiny" set of 100 or something cards and create a draft format of 2+1 or 3+2 packs than mess with the particulars of a set and the card selection on the reprints.
Should be worth pointing out that the swapped commons and uncommons would NOT have the same rarities as the rest c/u's of the set due the overwhelming print run differences.
So Wizards just switched to all large sets because small sets were problematic and that's what people talk about in the "innovative product" discussion?
I mean, this *is* Wizards we're talking about. They switched from 24 month to 18 month standard but found it problematic and went back. They switched from core sets to no core sets but found that problematic and went back.
There are many companies where I can say with confidence "They're not about to reverse a recent decision". WotC is not one of those companies.
Ok so we know it’s a draftable set and it’s called “modern horizons”.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Huey, Dewey and Louie are always dressed in RUG. it is CLEARLY going to be the wedges block Pioneer: WURFaerie fires BRGDragons ModernBGElves WRBurn UR Fires Turns URGift Storm UG Twiddle Storm
I would much much rather WotC creates a "tiny" set of 100 or something cards and create a draft format of 2+1 or 3+2 packs than mess with the particulars of a set and the card selection on the reprints.
Should be worth pointing out that the swapped commons and uncommons would NOT have the same rarities as the rest c/u's of the set due the overwhelming print run differences.
So Wizards just switched to all large sets because small sets were problematic and that's what people talk about in the "innovative product" discussion?
You can have thousands of slightly different draft environments just by mixing and matching three different sets of the most recent four to five years. I don't see the appeal of "even more subtle differences with a little add-on set/20 card replacement" that is supposed to work better than a Cube or pretty much any other dedicated draft product that is just draftable by itself.
I'd really like to hear an explanation, why such a product would appeal to players (over other options).
I didn't say I wanted a tiny set. I'm saying I would rather have a tiny set over JovianHomarid's suggestion. Big difference. It's the difference between an offer to have a pinky finger or a thumb cut off.
I'm not even making the suggestion that Wizards even do such a thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then what is so exciting and different about the set? Maybe all of the Planeswalkers will just be creatures (to represent them losing their sparks to Bolas who wants to combine all the new sparks into one old-school spark?).
Maybe the gimick is that the "old-school spark" is like a hot potato and a bunch of people us it for a short time? So we get super powerful Planeswalkers?
Hm, makes me think of the Monarch mechanic from Conspiracy2. Imagine the legendary creatures of the set have a "Planeswalker mode" - they become the 'sparkholder' and gain the ability to use that mode if they (fulfil some starting condition), or if they inflict loyalty loss on an existing sparkholder they take the spark...
Well, maybe they can just make this the very specific properties of this one particular artificially melded super-spark; properties not necessarily applicable to your "ordinary" spark.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
A very close friend of mine owns a LGS and I can tell you that he has no idea what's coming up. He saw this product for preorder last week or two weeks ago but has no idea what it is, what's it about or when it's getting released. He's just hoping it won't coincide with whatever Warhammer or Pokemon events he has scheduled.
Oh man, that would be a lot of fun! I wonder if a Sparkholder is dealt damage by a qualifying legendary creature if the Sparkholder flips from being a super Planeswalker back into a normal legendary creature?
do you or your friend know what the timeline normally is between stores pre-ordering product and it actually releases? as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, making changes to announcement schedules for marketing is one thing, but changing the time-table for supply chains is more difficult.
i ask because maybe it gives an idea when the product might actually hit stores versus when just the announcement is.
modern, given wizards/cfb doesnt give the community the shaft and bungle coverage, is going to be in the spotlight in march with 3 modern GPs.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)Would keep the format fresh,
and «truths» about best/worst decks/colours/commons would need to be constantly evaluated.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
for the love of all that is good, we do NOT need a new format just for drafting. In my opinion WoTC needs to figure out a way - and fast - to get new cards and reprints directly into eternal formats by skipping Standard entirely. Standard and draft are bound at the hip to eachother.
Making more products to cater to Standard and draft is the OPPOSITE of what this game needs right now. This game needs a lifeline for its eternal formats and if WoTC has been watching closely lately, they would see that the community is wanting some of these "Innovative Products" to start being innovative in how they address the subject of supply/demand and not some new cardtype, keyword or re-tooling of rarities
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/334931-what-is-the-most-pimp-card-deck-youve-seen-or?comment=5361
Commander
RGOmnath, Locus of Rage Grenades! EDHGR
UWSygg's Defense, EDH - Voltron & ControlWU
BUGMimeoplasm EDH ft. Ifnir Cycling-discard comboBUG
WBTeysa, Connoisseur of CullingBW
BWSelenia & Recruiter of the Guard suicice combo EDHWB
UBRWGO-Kagachi - 5 Color Enchantments - EDHUBRWG
I know Gavin said it was a "maybe" for Straight-to-Modern cards in a future set but, I have a feeling that is exactly what WotC is going to do. Not many at first. Maybe like 10 or 15 cards. Nothing crazy, just cards that help nerf some powerful Modern decks and help bolster weaker decks. If the trial is a success, then they will add more new straight-to-modern cards next time. If it turns out to be a mistake, then they will apologize and never do it again.
Good gravy, as a set collector, that would be an astronomical nightmare. Brings back memories of the absolute horror that was Legends or the stupid stunt they pulled with Unstable. Yeah, I didn't appreciate either happening.
Alot of players don't buy boxes/packs throughout a season but rather at the beginning, on day one. A lot of early sets and bulk sales are created by an individual cracking hundreds of boxes at a time. It would be a HUGE disservice to these players to withhold almost 10% of a set back to encourage them to...what? Buy more boxes??
If a set is honestly good, WotC doesn't need to do these kind of shenanigans.
Im at the store helping out right now. He thought I was talking about another product from a different game. Anyways, i brought it up today and he has no clue what i was talking about. Showed him the stream and we even double checked the preorders from the distributor and theres absolutely nothing. I think i just made him panic lol
Interesting to see different opinions. Kinda shows the challenge Wotc has, trying to keep everyone happy when everyone wants different things. My suggestion was from the drafter-perspective, and seemed like a small thing, but there you go.
I still don't think it would be that big of an issue, as long as they kept this to a few commons/uncommons only. In that case it shouldn't be difficult for collectors to pick up the few new cards as they trickle in.
And to answer your question on what it would encourage players to do: It would encourage them to draft more, and to keep drafting after the format gets stale.
But it could still be that it is a bad idea overall. The upside is more drafts (= more sales) and better drafts for the draft afficianados. The downside is frustration (whether it turns out to be justified or not it will still be there, and it will still be a cost) from collectors, as well as confusion from less enfranchised players. 'What the heck is this "War of the spark vol II" - nonsense, is it a completely new set? Neat I'll get some boosters. ANGER! I only got cards I already owned!'
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
Really the high densty of reprints would make such a "Vol. II" thing quite similar to old-school core sets. A new release will sell mostly on new cards (unless the reprints are on the level of Masters-series releases and even there we experienced diminishing returns). Drafters were not enough to move core set products. They had to change the formula.
How long would you suggest releasing additional volumes? How many different volumes? At what frequency? Do you expect players to be excited about it? Are the volumes going to compete with each other or with the next release? Is "REMIX Masters 2019 Vol. II" going to diminish your sales for "REMIX Masters 2020 Vol. I"?
I'm assuming every box ordered will be from the same printrun/volume. How often do you presonally imagine a vendor or private person solely for draft sales/purposes would order an additional box separately? Could changing the set on the second run actually backfire if you no longer include certain cards and proplr ptrfrt Vol. I ovrt Vol. II?
How does spoiler season work? Do you spoil the whole set with some cards marked as "not yet available in boosters"? Do you have an entirely new release cycle? How do you promote this?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I would much much rather WotC creates a "tiny" set of 100 or something cards and create a draft format of 2+1 or 3+2 packs than mess with the particulars of a set and the card selection on the reprints.
Should be worth pointing out that the swapped commons and uncommons would NOT have the same rarities as the rest c/u's of the set due the overwhelming print run differences.
So Wizards just switched to all large sets because small sets were problematic and that's what people talk about in the "innovative product" discussion?
You can have thousands of slightly different draft environments just by mixing and matching three different sets of the most recent four to five years. I don't see the appeal of "even more subtle differences with a little add-on set/20 card replacement" that is supposed to work better than a Cube or pretty much any other dedicated draft product that is just draftable by itself.
I'd really like to hear an explanation, why such a product would appeal to players (over other options).
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I mean, this *is* Wizards we're talking about. They switched from 24 month to 18 month standard but found it problematic and went back. They switched from core sets to no core sets but found that problematic and went back.
There are many companies where I can say with confidence "They're not about to reverse a recent decision". WotC is not one of those companies.
Pioneer: WURFaerie fires BRGDragons
ModernBGElves WRBurn UR Fires Turns URGift Storm UG Twiddle Storm
I didn't say I wanted a tiny set. I'm saying I would rather have a tiny set over JovianHomarid's suggestion. Big difference. It's the difference between an offer to have a pinky finger or a thumb cut off.
I'm not even making the suggestion that Wizards even do such a thing.