MTG Salvation

Yeah forgotten realms writers just kinda decided to fold egyptian, norse, and greek gods and myths into their cosmology back in the late 80s with manual of the planes. Kinda lame and uncreative if you ask me but whatever. Buncha vedic gods are in there too somewhere.

Quote from Dontrike »

Quote from buffntuff »

Honestly the arguments against this stuff just break down to "Change is scary and I don't like it." Tough tootin! We live mortal lives on a planet that is hurtling through the universe at insane speeds, at no point is anything not changing. You either learn to roll with it or it breaks you. Pick one!

This just goes in the "You can't criticize something" pile and that's an awful idea that you just have to accept things just because. Are you saying that you've never complained about something in your life changing?

You don't have to accept anything! You can be as miserable and angry as you like! Or you can learn to do the things you enjoy and not do the things you don't enjoy and waste 0% of your time telling folks who can't fix it for you how you want it fixed. Or if you're really daring you can try and get together with all the other aggrieved folks and start a discord to coordinate a harassment campaign targeting wotc with the intent of making their lives and jobs miserable until they stop doing this universe unbound bull hooey. It's seedy but it works.

Quote from soramaro »

Quote from buffntuff »

Honestly the arguments against this stuff just break down to "Change is scary and I don't like it." Tough tootin! We live mortal lives on a planet that is hurtling through the universe at insane speeds, at no point is anything not changing. You either learn to roll with it or it breaks you. Pick one!

When I look at the DND cards that are coming out now, I feel nothing. They're not new additions to Magic's multiverse. They're all just goofy fantasy characters that get put on Magic cards because people already like them in another product that is otherwise completely separate. Aside from very pragmatic reasons like the product making money, I still fail to see the creative through-line that had to lead here.

Nothing has to lead anywhere and no one is entitled to an explanation from anyone or anything and you're absolutely asking the wrong people for one anyway.

If you want the "creative" answer it's probably just that they keep doing these dumb supplemental commander products because it's a popular format and it fills a hole in the schedule and by dipping into the well of forgotten realms they don't have to split up a team who is already busy coordinating creative for 4 standard sets a year. Also BG3 was originally supposed to be done by now so hasbro wanted to do a cross-marketing push. But I'm just speculating.

And stop with the "wizards sold out" stuff, this game was created as paper gambling and then built on the back of a 30 year old financialized market that inherently by its very design privileges people with money over everyone else. This is a pay to win game and it always has been outside of limited. There is no world in which a CCG with scarce cards sorted by both rarity and power could approach something like a creative work with purely artistic and completely non-monetary intentions. If there was a "creative" goal here then wizards would be printing every card on demand at cost.

Honestly the arguments against this stuff just break down to "Change is scary and I don't like it." Tough tootin! We live mortal lives on a planet that is hurtling through the universe at insane speeds, at no point is anything not changing. You either learn to roll with it or it breaks you. Pick one!

Alright I've skimmed this thread and now I definitely want to put together a commander deck solely out of crossover cards. When people ask me what I'm playing I will tell them I'm playing a Stranger Things CCG (please advise if there's a simpler way to get to 5 color than mike and eleven).

There's a lot going on in this thread but I just wanted to say H*ll yeah I love jumpstart this news is amazing everyone play jumpstart with me aaaaaaaaaaaah

Kinda want to get these just for the sleeves on arena. Still kinda nuts to me how many people get triggered by the pride badge on apex legends. I would like to make more people online uncomfortable.

Quote from Card Slinger J »

Been contemplating on running Bootleggers' Stash in Chatterfang, Squirrel General for Commander and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it. I'd much rather cast Treasure Map for 2 rather than pay 5G to enable my lands to produce Treasures which stops you from casting your own spells unless you have a way to untap lands during your opponents turns to produce the Treasures like with Seedborn Muse and Awakening.

In a format where mana curve matters to where you want to have more room to cast more spells in one turn is better than just casting a Bootleggers' Stash and having to pass the turn or having to wait a turn when your opponents could potentially combo out for game though in the case with other 5 or 6 mana value enchantments like Doubling Season it isn't as restrictive on how many spells you cast a turn.

You can tap treasures on your opponents turn, you know? You can tap them when they come into play, they're not creatures.

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

Quote from buffntuff »

I mean it's about mana generation. It's green. It's the "Channel" color. It would be weird in any other color and broken in colorless.

Actually it would be totally fine in red, as red makes lots of treasure tokens anyway and has that "theme" in basically any other set so far.

In this set every color has treasures, so its neither green or anything, could totally be colorless for that matter alone, as treasures are nothing special in any color regarding this set.

What makes it green is the coupling to lands, as green cares about lands especially, not so much about treasures.

I mean other colors get like one or two treasures for jumping through some hoops. Between this and the tap for a treasure guy with no hoops, it's green. I think originally treasure overall was planned to be much more red hence Goldspan Dragon to represent the idea of "temporary" mana, but in this set it's pretty firmly shifted over to red green and green gets the big guns.

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

Quote from Grixh »

It's not actually ambiguous as it is, but maybe "that are each controlled by a different player" would be better. That's the Agadeem's Awakening approach. "For each player, choose up to one target creature that player controls" also works, but is kinda long.

"For each player, choose up to one other target creature that player controls" , might be long, but its MUCH cleaner to read and you do exactly that and you are fine.

The confusing part is that instead of making clear its one for each player, you get the "any number" at first, which kinda implies at first that you get many targets per player, while its then reduced to "controlled by different players" , so its a convoluted way to express the meaning of an effect.

The "For each" template is more along the logic a programmer would write code, makes it clean to understand whats going on.

The WotC template is more like "do that , except dont do that" , which is just confusing to read.

I think for each would imply they would have to choose once for each player, or it at least implies that each of these would execute individually but they in fact execute all at the same time as a single effect. But also I don't know if there is a less complex way to word this because the programmer version of wording this would be a for each nested inside a when trigger. See: Acererak the archlich

Plus there's the real boring reason that it's slightly shorter to word it the way that it is on the card.

"When [cardname] enters the battlefield, for each player, exile up to one target creature that player controls until [cardname] leaves the battlefield."

"When [cardname] enters the battlefield, exile any number of target creatures controlled by different players until [cardname] leaves the battlefield."

You'll note they even shortened the cardname in the second cardname. Edit to add, well it looked shorter the first time I wrote it

Quote from foam_dome »

Ayo the Fomori were from Ixalan? I thought they were from the plane of Ir, unless Wizards is gonna retcon all that.

No, apparently, according to the main story, millenia ago, the ancestors of the Oltec were close to being conquered by who they call "the colonizers", which were giants in enormous flying machines that appeared out of nowhere. They were the ones who closed the inner sun off in the first place. Quint thinks that they are equivalent to the "coin empire" he is researching that has left artifacts all over the multiverse and seemingly was present on multiple planes ages ago. The main story even ends with him exploring one of the downed ships that's been left in a closed off part of the core and accidentally waking one giant up from what appears to be some kind of suspended animation.

Well, and the card here now indicates that the coin empire was in fact run by the ancestors of the Fomori (which are indeed from Ir) who have apparently once travelled the multiverse and tried to colonize it. Not a retcon, but a twist I certainly wouldn't have seen coming.

My first instinct is to say, "For friggin' out loud, y'all, you already jacked up the price on the packs! Pick something and stick with it," but it occurs to me they probably haven't jiggered around the pack format like this for years. One's sense of timing gets...skewed, after playing this game for a while and not keeping up with these kind of things.

That being said - "Hey, we're putting one less card in the packs, but you have a higher chance of getting a sweet foil or a mythic that's not even in the set!" Tell me again about how this totally isn't gambling, guys; you've been saying the quiet part awful loud lately.

Less cards and making drafting more expensive doesn't seem like a win WotC made this out to be to "save limited." The least they could have done was split the difference between the packs and put his new pack in between the prices of the two being cut. They could have at least cut the art card and included another card. I understand some like them, at first I was rather fond of them, but I'd rather have a game piece than a bookmark, and if they could remove the ad/tip card(s) altogether that would be swell or at least put them on the back of tokens, at least those are nice game pieces to open rather than a "Wanna play more? Then buy Magic twice with Arena!!!!"

In the end this seems like another "Hasbro needs us to make more profit" and force those that like limited to spend more.

Re: 12 fewer cards in draft pool

I'm frankly shocked that people haven't latched into this more. It's not like we're cutting 4 last picks per pack. Unless a draft becomes 4 packs instead of 3, I could see it becoming much more difficult to draft enough solid picks to make anything other than suggested 2 color archetypes work (with a splash). Especially for new players.

Quote from Card Slinger J »

That still doesn't change the fact that Draft Boosters were purposefully designed with an extremely low Expected Value (EV) to get Local Game Stores (LGSs) in financial debt and potential bankruptcy. Why do you think Set Boosters and Collector Boosters sold more? Because they had better pull rates for getting the best cards. If the Local Game Store (LGS) can pull the best cards then they can sell them as singles or actually turn a profit selling sealed product without being forced to dump it on Amazon at half the price.

Draft boosters were incidentally designed with a low EV in order to facilitate Limited play, not because it's some grand conspiracy to plunge LGSes into bankruptcy. More commons and uncommons in the pack to support Limited = fewer rares = lower EV. It's just basic critical thinking.
How do you think it would benefit the profitability of Magic for Wizards to cripple one of the biggest incentives for people to continue playing at the local level? Do you seriously believe that Magic would be sustainable if Wizards tanked a bunch of businesses supporting organized play? Magic can't continue to grow at its current rate if LGSes board up their windows and players are relegated to only playing with their friend circles. Many people would certainly continue to play and new people would still come into the game, but growth would slow significantly.

Quote from Mergatroid_Jones »

There have been too many types of booster for a while now. Honestly the only thing I don't like is the drop to 14 cards. Just give us an extra common! One of the things this will do is make commons less... common. So the really good ones will go up in cost.

It's the main advantage from my pov. I would welcome even more reduction in product variety, although not at the cost of price increase.

Quote from buffntuff »

ETA: "May contain booster fun" buddy I will tell you whether or not this booster contains fun

This seriously reads like allergen disclaimer on foods. "May contain eggs and peanuts."

Quote from Flisch »

If it was actually cool I would even like it, but these cookbooks are just an assortment of regular funky-named stuff or "Omg look, these spaghetti are black. Necromancers!"

Of course, it's incredibly hard to come up with actually good original dishes, so I guess this would always be out of scope for franchise-based cookbooks.

i don't think they are meant to be original dishes. it's rather just a coffe table book that is suposed to be browsed and invoke warm feelings that they found something that evokes spirit of particular guild, character etc. with cheesy name. not actual cookbook.
from the screens it seemsvlike they have some amout of flavor (pun intended), could have done better but also could have done much worse.