MTG Salvation

Callahan09:I think you should, he sounds shady already, especially since he seemed to have shipped to a totally different place.


And ya, I think this set you only have a chance to win if you hit the big cards (actually even if you hit the big cards you likely just break even and feel lucky you did get burned too badly) and in general you are just burning your money.

Not that you normally don't when you buy boosters, but this is like bonfire level burning your money.

This set is awful.


We drafted a box and it did'nt seem too cohesive and felt like we were drafting a mishmash of kamigawa and metalcraft...

Yes you get the hits but you get WAY MORE misses. True boosters are always a gamble, but this set; the odds are HEAVILY stacked against the guy buying a booster or two. And even for the guy with boxes, mostly you get break even or less.

And I have been lucky so far, got two goyfs from a box and a few packs (+other stuff), but I am still only breaking even, but people around me are all losing bad. And these are friends, so its no fun winning alone.

Thing is this set would be alright if it were priced normally (lets face it the composition is just a normal set, nothing fancy, just the result of wotc printing weak cards for a very long time)

WotC is owned by Hasbro, and Hasbro is a company that not only has shareholders expecting increasing profits every quarter, but Hasbro has historically has leaned hard on WotC to be the profitable part of the company while their other IPs flounder and tend to lose $$$ (looking at GI Joe, Monopoly, My Little Pony, etc.) This has led to the increase in the number of MTG product types each year, the increase in the number of sets released, the 'premium' products that keep getting more and more expensive, the list goes on. Hasbro won't settle for Magic to be profitable, they NEED it to INCREASE in profitability every year, which isn't really sustainable when keeping the health of the game in mind, but it's certainly a dream for them to use Magic and D&D to catapult WotC onto a Marvel trajectory.

Hasbro wants MTG TV shows, video games, action figures, plushies, movies, scented candles, you name it. They want the brand to skyrocket in profitability, and a great way to do that is with crossovers. It's been well documented that crossovers expose large audiences to things they might otherwise not be privy to, and crossover events tend to be the most popular events that happen in media, just look at Fortnite with it's nearly endless crossovers into their game.

Everything WotC is doing they are doing to increase profits, to make as much money as possible. Their developmental viewpoints are far secondary to Hasbro's directives to increase profits. Now there are lots of discussions about the health of the game and especially long-term detriments to what Hasbro is doing to WotC. Product fatigue is creeping in ever more steadily, and now that everything is 'special', nothing is special anymore.

I played a digital card game years back called Infinity Wars, it had a very interesting game design and implementation, and about a year into it's lifespan they got the rights to do a crossover using Star Trek: The Next Generation's IP. It was an awful decision and a troubling direction for a fantasy card game to have such a huge departure from their flavor for a licensed IP set. Their desperation to show off their game as a 'shell' for any IP was a real turn-off to the players. Now WotC and Hasbro can ride this out if it fails because there are so many other vectors with which Magic will cover their losses. A bad set or product idea here or there is par for the course for Magic, fans have learned to shrug it off, not something a fledgling game can afford to do. Nonetheless it's harrowing to see this happening to WotC. Don't get me wrong, I love both LOTR and W4K and would likely really enjoy it if these sets had a blue-boarder or something to boldly signify that these sets weren't compatible with Magic's brand for tournaments and such. I think the direction WotC is heading down is a really tenuous one at best here, but ultimately it will be the consumers who vote with their wallets that decide what happens in the future.

Quote from LeyShade »

Conversely, by prohibiting the production of this product you would be taking away the potential enjoyment of someone else. When two parties find enjoyment in contrary things it is often the case that one party will lose out if they can't find a compromise.

These didn't even exist until a year ago and suddenly now there needs to be compromise?
"Hey, let me shove random things into the game you love that have nothing to do with it."
"Okay, so what should you compromise in return?"
"Uhhhhh......just compromise!"

You want that compromise then start compromising. If these IPs take products away or ruin the ones they like then what should those players get in return? What do you propose as a compromise for those that don't like these products?

It also stands true that just because you prefer 'Magic' products to these newer ones, you would still prefer if those 'Magic' products were not produced in favour of the ones you do enjoy. The sliding scale is just that, a sliding scale - it doesn't invalidate my point that it's core, you're measuring only your own enjoyment, and not considering that every other person will have the exact same view.

Yes, I would like less products I don't enjoy (anyone would), because over the last few years of Magic more and more products have been made that I do not enjoy, for one reason or another (price, product quality (either compared to others or by themselves), value compared to price, those random board game attempts they tried with Ixalan and Game Night), and some of them are redundant (theme boosters), but at the very least those products are Magic products. They sell this game on its own merits through those products and not by trying to sell itself by going "I know LotR, he's a friend of mine" like they are lying to someone trying to get a date.

Here's the thing though, I'm fine with people enjoying things, people like stuff all they want that I don't like or are indifferent to, even the stupid stuff (smoking, driving drunk, putting hooks in their skin) but those don't affect me in any way (unless they are blowing smoke right in my face). What you are proposing is that someone should bring their fun into my fun just because and their fun is likely to ruin my fun. Why should my fun be ruined by someone elses?

How's this for fun example (and I do this because of the last two paragraphs you wrote, which I'll get to soon). My mother had fun beating me. I had fun when it didn't happen. So in your "smart logic" I should have COMPROMISED!!!! with her where she beats me more, just not as hard. Can't take her fun away because "you're measuring only your own enjoyment, and not considering that every other person will have the exact same view." Guess the crossover of that knife she wanted in me was needed cause "it never happened before."

Hence compromise is everyone getting a product for their tastes, .

Ever heard the phrase "when you try and please everyone you'll please no one"?

It's also not a reason to prohibit it. As the design team of Wizards would tell you, they've anticipated and facilitated you're disagreement with the design choice of using the holo-stamp to differentiate these cards from Magic canon cards.

Wow! A different holo-stamp?! Well then that changes....nothing. Not a thing. Not one thing. At least the different border color idea changed enough where when they do make functional reprints they would be vastly different.

A different holo stamp doesn't change tournament narrators saying "Gandalf destroyed Bilbo, bringing back Akroma and the One Ring, which automatically equips to 40k Trap God, and now Sauron comes from exile when two creatures are put into the battlefield if they weren't cast. Now they swing with Negan and they block with super soldier 40k and Llanowar Elves." There's a reason this video is meant as a joke and why it would be very silly and anywhere between a little a whole lot of stupid.

We don't need all the different card game systems, when there is one that clearly works and all others have to pay royalties to. You're argument is tantamount to saying that because a King paved a road in stones, the peasents may only pave roads with coins.

Nope, but that was funny to read.

A better argument to make would be to create a separated sub-team that focuses on UB releases and Magic canon releases separately, with priority on the latter.

A better argument would be these cards not being constructed legal, like everything before it had been. I like the MLP cards (hey, look at that, that ruins a few of your arguments), bought two sets of them, but in no way do I want them in anything other than silly Commander games or at the kitchen table.

And again, you're dislike for something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, when you can just as easily choose to not purchase it if you don't wish to.

Why should someone enjoying something need to go into what I enjoy though? Why does that have to happen? You haven't explained this yet. Why should their fun go into my fun, thereby decreasing my fun.

The reason people debate and compare and create fiction of those IP's crossing over is because they're not being facilitated by current offerings.

Or it's because there are things they will never see. Death Battle is one of those, you will never see Goku fighting Superman and for good reason, and besides fan offering they should never meet officially. Ever. It's the same reason you see fan fictions of Winx Club and Sonic the Hedgehog, sometimes someone likes both and wants to see them together, but that doesn't they should be. People will always wonder who is stronger in anime, Luffy vs. Naruto, Saitama vs. Vegeta, and they'll always do that, usually it comes from passion and not from someone not giving it to them. They just have an imagination.

Believe you me back on the site RPGDL I argued Pikachu winning against Sephiroth, Lyn from Fire Emblem vs. the Red Mage from FF1, but that doesn't mean I want official products made for it. I don't want Hollywood making tv/movies for it, I don't want businesses trying to earn money off of it, sometimes a fan thing is just all it should be.

It's why crossovers are one of the highest selling trends in all mediums, are performed in all mediums, marketed in all mediums, and are the inevitability of all mediums.

Could also be because it's a fad at this point, one that is already becoming tiring, like multiverses in media, and cinematic universes (who remembers the Dark Universe failing in one movie or the Sony's Amazing Spiderman cinematic universe?) Crossovers have existed for decades, usually they were done as a one off for a reason (TMNT showing up on the Power Rangers for one episode) and if they happened any more than that it was a sign of something dying. There's a reason there's Power Rangers only showed up in DC comics fighting Batman once or the Powerpuff girls talking to the Justice League. While crossovers will never die, and they shouldn't, they definitely shouldn't be abused, else it becomes boring and stale. There's a reason you don't eat your favorite food for every meal.

3D was supposedly the future of movies thanks to Avatar, but how often do you see that now? Sure, you can see a movie in the 3D, but isn't done right and not worth the money. Remember when TVs were promoting being 3D? Don't seem them sold now. Virtual reality also came and went over the decades numerous times.

And to counterpoint your narrative over crossovers = failure, I'd just like to point out that the highest grossing product in every medium is a form of crossover...

I'd also like to point out that some of the worst pieces of media are crossovers. It's almost like there can be good and bad ones over time, but there is a much larger section of bad crossovers to good ones. The MCU doesn't prove crossovers are great, it's that when done well it can be because if you look at the DCEU you'll notice that is not the case. Suicide Squad is one of the worst movies of all time, and it's a crossover. Batman v. Superman is a bad movie, also a crossover. Even Avengers 2 isn't a great movie, one of the weakest in the MCU and it's a crossover. The Titanic doing a crossover with that iceberg wasn't a good thing.

Crossovers tend to be sold on the basis of "Hey, two good things brought together can never be bad" and then they put no work into it and it ends up being bad. Music, video games, and more, all of it has far more bad crossovers than it does good ones thanks to that line of thinking. Actual work needs to be put into it for it to do well and when it comes to this crossover with Magic and LotR/40k I do not believe WotC can make it work. That is from the last few years of the game degrading due to various decisions. Slowly I have lost my faith in this game due to those decisions and this decision here is yet another one.

Also, something making money doesn't mean its good, it only means it's popular and makes money. The cigarette industry made billions, Fred Flintstone even sold cigarettes (hey look a "crossover" that wasn't good), but that doesn't mean cigarettes are a good thing.

So using your own words somewhat, it would be the featuring franchises that are admitting they can't stand alone (which, in case you hadn't realised, Games Workshop's holdings are in decline, hence their massive PR push and rush licensing offers at the moment)

So you agree with me. Okay.

No, you tried to impose that for them to dislike the lore, that they clearly didn't know all of it. You made an assumption about that persons capabilities and knowledge. You are now attempting to justify that miscast assumption of yours by attacking me for your mistake.

No, I did not impose anything. I asked if they were aware of all the lore and what parts of it were bad, but if that's imposing to you then there's nothing I can do for you. If someone is going to state the lore is terrible again and again I would like some examples of it, they then can at that point back up their claims. It's called debating or a conversation, that's usually how that works. It's asking a question, not imposing.

I'm fairly sure what allows them to think that way is because they already did it, thrice, and nobody batted an eye except to give them money.

What three times were that exactly cause I'm only aware of TWD, MLP, and convention cards (Nerf Gun, Grimlock, etc) and there definitely were people batting an eye at them. Many had issues them, especially TWD.

And to be honest, I can understand their patience with the small section of elitists that constantly scream that they have a higher knowledge while consistently getting the very fundamental basics wrong.

And these elitists would be......?

I'm getting the feeling you were one of those VS or Overpower players that got angry when they saw kids playing Spiderman and Batman on the same team...

I have no idea what those are, but then again you have been jumping to conclusions like Daffy Duck at the end of a cartoon about every other quote so this is really no surprise.

Mate I can literally go get copies of the original books, copies of books from Magic's midlife, copies of more recent books - all of them state there's a multiverse. Saheli's storyline and the current Phyrexian storyline is over there being a multiverse. We have just remastered a set about that literal concept. The Word of God has spoken, your distaste and head canon doesn't overwrite authorial intent or direction.

Do you have an example of this when the universe isn't collapsing and time portals everywhere allowing it? I'm aware of Time Spiral, but because you like to jump to conclusions of course you'd think I wouldn't know what that is. All I asked was for that, but it's cool you can be as condescending as you claim I'm being.

but also shows you don't understand the core basics of real world quantum physics or the suppositions of how spacetime works

This part is just funny. You just made fun of elitists for telling others how things should be and now I need a quantum physics degree to understand a card game because you said that's how it should be. Odd.

I mean if you don't know about a subject, cool, but don't stand preaching as an authority while making it up on the spot: it doesn't end well. There's a whole kids story about it.

Should probably take your advice there considering you misunderstood asking a question as me enforcing my will on others, but hey. To quote you "pot, meet kettle."

If you like, I'm even prepared to literally cite the dictionary definition of the word if you want to try to test my knowledge further on this field.

Okay, let's do that.

Crossover- an instance of breaking into another category
Cross promotion- the use of one product or service to promote another.

Look at that, there is just enough of a different to separate the two. That's strange. I could have sworn that's what I was arguing. At this point this is semantics because you're upset for some reason. Why are we arguing this specific thing exactly?

Sorry, did you not recognise the Magic The Gathering homepage? I mean, I thought you were the know-all of magic lore:

At no point did I ever say that. I didn't even say Magic lore was amazing, only questioning what they thought was bad. Again, asking a question. Do you have a problem with that or something?

That is the legal definitions that Wizards uses in its patency for their works.

I don't keep up with patents, but it's cool you didn't get angry for asking a question for once. Kudos.

The term Aetherflux has been around since the first sets and books.

Has it? In the wiki and google nothing appears, if it has been around for decades in Magic lore I'm sure I'd find something on it. Do have a link to this or more insults?

The fact you didn't know this, one of the most fundamental pieces of magic lore, means you do not have the breadth of knowledge us dinosaurs have.

Wow, for someone so upset that I corrected some definitions you sure do like insulting others for that very thing. I asked for a link and you couldn't do it, strange strategy.

OK so you made a mistake right there. They don't go to different 'worlds', they go to different 'planes'. Planes contain 'worlds', and can have multiple of them. Planes, is short for 'Planes of Existence', which is also a part of the D&D canon

D&D lore has nothing to do with Magic lore.

(which MTG semi-officially crosses over with). This was held by WOTC for about 10 years before it really became notable in their Planescape franchise, which set down the fundamental rules of 'Gates/Portals' (now part of the MTG lore), and the ability for some entities to move through Planes without needing such. Including the Planeswalkers of MTG, the Lady of Pain from Planescape, and certain 'Gods' from D&D (rules which then feature in Theros and it's sequel).

I already questioned that. Planes have a weird sense of being, they can be just a world or even a universe, strange as they've never explored a plane as a universe before only one specific world, which is where a lot of the confusion came from on my part. I know that angers you.

However, obsession does cause people to freak out whenever their narcissism isn't being indulged, from attention-seeking 'sezuachan sauce' antics to screaming because a card game released a product that 'wasn't' for them, or someone enjoyed an experience they didn't, or god-forbid, someone combined two things to enhance their enjoyment, those filthy hedonists.

Where's the freak out here again? I'm going to say REEEE'ing on the floor at a Mcdonald's over a BBQ sauce is a freak out, but a discussion on the internet is definitely not a freak out.

Also, multiversal cable wasn't even the episode I was talking about, which proves you don't understand the subject matter to refer to it when the episodes point is to make fun of narcisstic behaviour and self-obsessive, on the spot prattling. Also, you are again trying to undermine the word of god by claiming that the Rick and Morty writers are wrong about their own writing while relying on their words to justify your misunderstanding. Honestly, I'm glad you're not one of my students, I'd have to have serious words with admin.

So let me get this straight, you didn't offer an episode title, but I was supposed to correctly assume which one you were talking about? You're right, you are glad I'm not your student as I'd actually ask questions and I see how that really ticks you off.

So you're argument is they're wrong for using the word hate in regards to your attitude, because only your allowed to use it? What?

Or, they said no one should use it, claiming others were using it wrong, even though people were using it correctly. I don't get this one, they said others shouldn't use it, why are you angry at me that I correct them? Seriously, what is this?

I mean, also it's fanciful that you've just chosen to half-quote the dictionary after literally spending nearly a thousand words claiming the dictionary is wrong, but you do you - different strokes for different folks.

Might want to look up one of the definitions of hate, pretty sure I copied it fully. You're welcome to check and get back to me if I half copied it. Go ahead.

So you ask my argument, then make a strawman in its place, attack it, and then parade around like a toddler with a soiled nappy demanding a medal..

They claimed that fake cards were made and were okay, turns out that they are not okay. Odd how it's a strawman when I came up with a fake card with an argument about fake cards. Wow, staying on topic is strawmanning now.

My point is you not liking something doesn't prohibit others enjoying it in their own space or people making products for them.

You've made this point a lot, but you have at no point offered why someone's fun should interject into my fun? If I like baseball should someone's enjoyment of football cause every baseball game to include football? If someone enjoys smoking should that mean they should blow smoke in my face because I enjoy not breathing it in?

Why exactly does my fun mean less than their fun? What is something fun you enjoy? Would it be okay if I injected my fun into it that is antithetical to your fun? If you enjoyed volunteering would it be okay if I drove a monster truck through the building? If you enjoyed drinking would it be okay if I injected my fun of liking it when others don't drink?

At what point is one particular fun more important than another?

They asked for civil conversation, you launched a barrage of insults at them, people retaliated to that, and then your victim playing and trying to blame everyone else for your actions. That sums it up nicely.

Oh sweetie, might want to take a look in the mirror if you think I'm the only one doing it, even in this post you've insulted, retaliated, and then played the victim (like at the end of your post), blame others for your actions. Same thing. Might want to try some introspection. I believe I included myself in there when I said the word "everyone on both sides of the argument", unless you believe I'm outside of everyone. You don't sound like a great teacher if you belittle others so easily.

So not only are you a prolific liar, who's ignorant, I'm fairly sure you're just trying to antagonise people and stir the pot by asking non-questions of people on both sides and then insult-barraging anyone who calls out the contradiction. Or has the temerity to stand by their convictions.

To quote a good friend of mine "you launched a barrage of insults at them, people retaliated to that, and then your victim playing and trying to blame everyone else for your actions. That sums it up nicely."

Wow you somehow took what I said, misquoted it

No, your response to that quote had zero to do with it. I called it out for what it was. Maybe next time reply correctly.

... You don't get to go around using mental illness as a weapon to beat people over the head with, asserting that disagreeing with you is akin to mental illness, and then jump in to accuse those who view with disdain the anger and hatred that people are spewing out as misusing the application of mental illness.

This is some....I mean....wow....Just. Wow. The person I quoted said that if they don't like a thing they should seek therapy and I'm the one doing it? Okay, sure, whatever. At no point did I accuse mental illness in any capacity due to this, but I see we're jumping to conclusions still. Good thing though you ignored them claiming others were mentally unwell to go to the person calling them out on how absolutely awful that was to say. Good job.

animosity and narcisstic self-entitlement of young purists who define their entire identity through a card game to the point of trying to exclude anyone they see as undesireable (anyone who shows happiness, joy, or has fun).

But I thought my liking something should mean it should happen? That's literally been the main driving point of your argument. How come my fun means less than this crossover fun? Now you're telling me this is how it should be, thereby being self-entitled to what you feel is best. Strange how when you do it it's right, but when I do it it's wrong. Guess we'll never figure out why that is.

Your fun just must be more important than my fun.

Screaming about the longevity of the game while demanding products aren't made or formats not played unless it's for 'them'. Screaming that people are sheep for being self-expressive, because the only true self-expression is to mindlessly follow those demanding conformity around themselves.`People who get angry because, shock horror, the majority of other players don't define their real life identities solely by their involvement with a card game.

This is hilarious. First, not screaming. Second, didn't say people were sheep at any point. Third, never mentioned identities in any way. Seems like you're tired about something that never happened. Again you jumped to some mighty conclusions like a pole vaulter.

The fact you're talking to an autistic person, feeling that you've the right to condescend to me because of that and then claim my complaint of your behaviour is 'nonsense' is called 'ableism',

Now we're at the main insanity. Where do I begin with this? How would I ever know that you're autistic, first of all. I don't know you. At all. Most I know about you is a forum name. That's it. Secondly, calling your opinion nonsense isn't abelism, not in the least. Considering you said just the same if not worse what does that make your arguments? Strange how you can condescend and insult and it's fine, but calling something you say nonsense is "bullying".

and unlike the fictious disabled person in your head that you can bully, I'm standing up to you front and center, and you're clearly in a panic not knowing what to do because I didn't just take it and then run away.

At no point was I bullying you, not sure where you got that. If you believe not agreeing with you is bullying then there's literally nothing I can do for you. At no point has there been panic, this argument isn't worth that emotion, though this has earned other more humorous emotions.

they're sparing you of my onslaught.

Okay. Might want to cut down on that edge.

Quote from mikeyG »

Quote from LeyShade »

Since those early sets, Magic has appeared in: Multiple tactics, strategy and hack n slash video games. A magazine only cross-promotion with Yu-Gi-Oh (A gold card Dark Magician, a 'dragon' 6 star Shivan Dragon monster). Official crossover material for D&D. A series of game books (published by company who produces Queens Blade books). A staff only UFS (now AniVersus) character card. Referenced/parodied in at least two anime. A proposed & developed, ultimately unreleased board game that crossed over with the Monster In My Pocket brand. A crossbrand drinks promotion with World of Warcraft. A white dwarf only army list for Slivers...

These are a handful of examples from around the world, across MTG's history. The only difference is this time those franchies appear in MTG card form.

I can't say that I'm particularly moved by the argument "MtG concepts/likenesses/settings have been used in promos of other IPs, so this is fine" because I don't play those games and never heard of the promos you're talking about. They aren't a part of my MtG experience and they have nothing to do with how I view the game. I have been involved with MtG in some form or another since 1998 and my perspective on what the game is was shaped by almost a quarter century of MtG cards, not cynical promotional stuff that exists outside the game.

And that's fine, I can appreciate that view. But it's a string that works both ways. For many other players, Magic is ancillary, it's a part of their world but doesn't define it. They will likely be cross-hobbyists, or people who fell out of love with the game.

This is where that 'this product isn't for you' comes in.

It is like FF7. I don't particularly love that game, but it's fine enough and it's a good example of what I'm trying to express so let's just pretend I love that game. Cloud has appeared in a lot of other IPs, none of which I play, to me that is just tacky marketing from Square that I can and do safely ignore because they exist outside and apart from the game of FF7 that I enjoy. But if the Kingdom Hearts gang showed up in FF7 Remake Part Two, it would surely compromise my perception of the game.

This is a thing that's already been discussed and put to bed.

These cards are not Magic canon cards, hence their dissimilar holo stamps. Also, two Kingdom Hearts characters are the most requested DLC characters for FF7 Remake PT2.

If these other franchises were being included into the canonised stories of MTG, then that would be a functionally different problem. Compatible playing pieces isn't such a big deal, when there's rumours on the other IP's side that this is actually a two way street, with some Gatewatch members supposedly getting mini's through Games Workshop, who now share the LOTR licence with Hasbro.

Which is why I find it so amusing that a tiny subset of players who've proudly pushed their IP into the frames of others are now having a major backlash that those same IPs are appearing in theirs.[/quote]

We did what now? What makes you think I'm proud that WotC pushed their IP elsewhere to market MtG and/or make a quick buck? At best, I accept that it's a thing WotC will do in their strategy to keep the market for the game healthy.

I wouldn't include you in that subset of players Mikey - you've actually got reasons for your disagreements with this.

As well, since we're expressing what we're amused by, I'm amused by how posters here are characterizing the attitudes and behaviors of those who aren't liking the Universe Beyond concept. It's all getting the clickbait title treatment, overstating responses and emotionality to frame arguments and posters in a way that's easier to argue against or paint as dismissible. I'm not experiencing a major backlash, UB is a thing that doesn't vibe with my experience of the game, I'm unlikely to engage with it and I doubt I'll ever experience much if any of it so this isn't really a big deal to me. I just find the debate here fascinating and truth be told, I've got pandemic boredom amid chronic work stress and every cat benefits from a scratching post.

And I honestly Mikey wish that both sides would take a more reasoned and responsible attitude to the whole thing because you are right, people are losing their minds over something they could just as easily choose not to buy or not to personally play with. But if they're allowed to be bombastic, surely the most enigmatic villain of MTGS should get to play, si?

Your last sentence is a sentiment that I can share. My claws need sharpening once in a while too.

To say that MTG wasn't designed to facilitate crossover's is to literally ignore the patenting documents that force everyone else to pay Hasbro royalties (because most of it's mechanical fundamentals (like tapping a card to show it's used) are properiety).

What player constructs their perception of the game on patent documents?

Perception doesn't matter in regards to facts. I can perceive the sky as red and green, but that matters little if one has damaged eyes or is looking through a filter. Perception is relative, essentially, as you know.

As for what is original and divergent about lifting a picture of Christoper Lambert from the movie Merlin, making a set about a Magic School with a cross promotion for that other IP (promotion abandoned eleventh hour after other IP frontperson damaged said IP), or, Magic's most iconic villian being copied from an 80's sci-fi show villian. The whole thing was always designed to be a crossover of multiple IP's, it just wasn't considered big enough by the other IPs brand managers to make it a worthwhile investment for them to grant a license to use most of the time (as opposed to Games Workshop's recent scattershot approach of licenses for everyone).

Homage/Influence/Parody =/= Crossover

This is why the events of The Avengers XXX: A Porn Parody are not canon in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. A little more seriously, though, there's a reason aspects of MtG being influenced by or homages to other works does not feel out of place where UB does. It's adaptation versus transplantation, and honestly it's been surreal for me to see so many posters not get that. To give credit to Tiro, he analogized the point well by saying the Theros gods might as well have been the actual Greek gods by the logic that homage/influence and crossovers are interchangeable.

Perhaps you're right, though, that MtG was always intended not to be a game of its own with its own independent identity but instead a multi-IP platform of crossovers only delayed by MtG not being big enough. But at the end of the day, that hasn't been my experience with the game for almost a quarter century and I don't intend for it to be part of my experience going forward.[/quote]

I am aware of the difference, but I was not asked 'what is the difference between homage, parody and plagerism', I was dictated at in essence that 'everything in Magic is completely original or divergent', which is what I challenged.

Also, I will note, it's not out of place because of adaption. That's a slight misunderstanding. It's not out of place because their copying the main elements of work they've already copied everything else from. Hence why WOTC used to pay royalties to Tolkien's group for things contained within the reserved list, and why Kithkin aren't hobbits or gnomes (the latter they'd have to pay Games Workshop for ironically, who then have to pay... Tolkien's group).

Throwing LOTR in with Magic fare isn't going to cause a big stir: they're both fantasy rooted with a lot of overlap due to the above. What does feel out of place is 40K, and that's something others have mentioned - if they'd used any of the fantasy stuff, nobody would of really batted an eye. And thus the problem isn't really an argument over UB, it's an argument over 'dissonance of theme'. Those who like anachronistic works and grand crossovers are going to love it, and thematic purists will hate it, and that's going to be the real divide.

But Magic itself was always designed for this, it was always the end goal - it always is with media of any type. I'll always love Magic's lore (most of it), and I'm glad it grew to be as grand as it is. But it's time for the purists to let go for the sake of the game, as there's nowhere left for it to go, because when we're reskinning Harry Potter and The Worst Witch, or reskinning Merlin, it's just better for all sides if we use the originals. Because as much as people don't want to admit it, WOTC isn't pulling in new players with core Magic releases anymore and Magic's fanbase is to blame for that. If this people want this game to survive, especially during a period of reduced in person interaction, it has to be allowed to reach new audiences and has to do so in a way those audiences are open to.

Without new players, this game will die, like all those before it who focused too hard on their self-contained bubble of purists.

Quote from TetzaHexloq »

Quote from FlossedBeaver »

I don't even know what people are arguing about anymore.

Abaddon the Despoiler killing Gandalf even though he's getting buffed by Rick whilst holding Lucille.

That actually sounds pretty fun in a weird way hehe

I think the new art pairs up better with the Hans art, and it's nice to have Hans show up in her art, but the old art has better composition and is nicer to look at overall. I think it makes sense for Saffi to be running from a Lhurgoyf. I think that Saffi being sacrificed doesn't necessarily have to mean she tried to fight the Lhurgoyf off with a dagger, maybe they just could have Delta Splitted.

I think as far as "political" angles of this thread go, women have the right to be strong, which means they also have the freedom to be weak, or wear boob armor, if they want to. And the right to run from Lhurgoyfs, I think, too. Maybe in this version of "Ach! Hans, Run!" the Lhurgoyf is only a 1/2. We've all run from 20/20 Mortivores in multiplayer games though, there's no shame in it. I don't think the art was updated for any sexualized reasons because as Ilovesaprolings pointed out, Radha's art hasn't been changed. We've all noticed how loose Radha's fly is. You can see her, uh, fuzz. Honestly I think they just wanted to get Hans in there, because he's fun.

Quote from DJK3654 »

Quote from JuiceBOX »

People need to realize that they intend to keep doing this. Their goal is to keep printing cards they can ban.

Banning cards isn't really in WotC's interest. Big money cards like Oko and Uro have lost value as a result of being banned.
It's more that it is in WotC's interest to push the envelope with big money cards like Oko and Uro to make sure they are highly sought after, and as a result, a number of such cards have been over the top. If you're deliberately aiming for top of the pack, sometimes they fall under and are more mediocre, sometimes they go over.
I'd say it's a case of WotC taking too many risks with these cards without enough playtesting to make sure they're in line.
Plus, WotC works on a delay between finalising the set and printing, so banning have flow-on effects of throwing off the balancing of the metagame that future sets were developed around. So banning can end up chaining like that.

I must vehemently disagree with you. It's not oversight to continue doing this kind of thing. It's a model and it's not an uncommon model in mobile gaming or free to play gaming. They've determined that they have sold enough of the product - the remaining profit exists on the secondary market where they are only indirect beneficiaries.

The decision makes perfect sense. They've made their money off Uro - time to make room for the next pushed crap to gouge.

Love that Teferrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii adsfa;sjdgl';adfgkjl;adsfhl;asdfijasdfjl;'. Art style is giving me strong Disney like vibes akin to Hercules. Being a parent this strikes me hardcore in a sentimental manner.

Will all those who got into a tizzy about this SL simmer down now? It's really not that bad.

'buster