I personally hated TWD Secret Lair, but I also wanted to run Rick because I have a tribal humans Morophon deck, and he's the best human lord they've printed. For a while it made me really salty, and I felt trapped between two bad outcomes. They always say, "in commander you don't need every card," but it still feels bad when they made a card that mechanically fits your deck but goes against the look and feel of the game that you love. But then I just bought a magic themed proxy which was both less expensive and better looking. Now I run the card mechanically but it doesn't take me out of the world of Magic. Problem solved.
I'm not happy about this direction for the game, but I also think everyone should play with what they want, however they want. TWD? sure. Proxies? sure. The only thing that will determine if I play with you is if you're fun to play with. I'm not going to judge anyone. I also think we should keep an open mind. I'm a huge LotR fan. I wish they were NOT making a crossover, but they are, so at least I should stay positive for now. Maybe it'll be awesome!
- Dontrike
- Registered User
-
Member for 13 years and 26 days
Last active Thu, Apr, 18 2024 17:12:33
- 2 Followers
- 4,149 Total Posts
- 1735 Thanks
-
2
awesomer phantasm posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
2
GeneH posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Claiming every magic product isn't for everyone is a fine sentiment, but it misses the key point in that players in eternal formats don't enjoy that luxury. Now that is a rarefied field of people who have the whale bank to roll expensive cards or who were there for them, but the fact remains that if these cards are legal, then they are possible and therefore could be thought to be necessary to certain builds. It's literally a situation where something "not being for someone" is absolutely irrelevant because the thing exists and could be used against you, so whether or not it is for you is absolutely inconsequential. And the fact that they will either never be reprinted because of the IP or will be open to functional reprints, which in turn will mean that the people they were "for" will have twice the amount of a spell that people who they weren't for, people who missed out or whatever, will be left out. This is a hypothetical and silly I know, but it is illustrative. Imagine if "Bilbo's Revelation" was something on the level of, say, a Brainstorm. As they are loathe to ban things in Vintage, now you have a weapon certain people will be able to access, that they won't be able to reprint, and therefore they have a choice: ban the card, which questions why it existed in the Vintage landscape in the first place and which is, as I said, highly unlikely, or they can print a functional reprint, thus ensuring that a busted card is there twice. We can continue on with any number of other examples of something that could be a real problem in duplicate, functional format. So this above all else is the problem. We are setting up a defacto reserved list, one that encourages a functional FOMO that extends far beyond the issues they experienced with the Walking Dead. That's a stick up. If this was a game without competitive aspects, cool. But it's a game set up around forced scarcity and playability. If they came out and stated that a certain amount of these cards will be allowed to be reprinted as named, that would at least be something. If they held a certain amount in reserve that could be acquired later on via some sort of trade in, cool beans. But as it is, it's not cool. It has wonderful possibilities, but blithely stating it is "for only some people" is to be stating something they know is not the case when it comes to a competitive game. I would argue that it is the result of Hasbro's turn toward higher profitability as they lean toward their highest profit sectors (I know about this as an investor), which is fine as a business. But this isn't a purely esthetic choice, but a mechanical one as well, and they are seeking to expand their sales numbers. Maro being a good employee (as one would expect from someone who feeds his family) will of course make such arguments, but they are hollow and should be regarded as the comments of someone with a vested interested in the business first and the game's longer term health second. And let's all be frank here. Maro is getting older. I hope he both lives and works for many years to come. But he may not still be in that position when these actions cause real issues, so perhaps that is a factor to consider as well in regards to his thoughts.Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
4
Flisch posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from SyrixLoremaster »Am I suddenly going to tell people they cant play with cards if they came from Time Spiral Remastered?
Nobody is saying that though.
All people are saying is "If you play UB I might not play with you or not play a second match with you."
And you know, if you would say that to me about Time Spiral Remastered cards? Sure. That's fair. I wouldn't be mad, because you are free to play and not play what you want. The idea of being entitled to playing with a specific person literally never crossed my mind before this thread.
I don't know why you guys keep having to twist "I don't want to play this" into "I tell people they can't play this" in order to make people who don't like UB look like unreasonable ********s. It's almost as if there is no good moral/ethical argument against not wanting to play UB. -
2
TheOnlyOne652089 posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from Cranky »
I generally find that Brian, as a self-aggrandizing petulant entitled prick, is not a good endorsement to have for your side of a discussion :/
UB will bring more players into the game, and make WotC more money so that they can pay the people who make this game we all love. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to buy it, but a lot of people will and there's nothing wrong with that.
A lot of people buy crack and heroin ... plenty wrong with that ...
Just because something sells does not translate to being good business practice. -
1
Kamino_Taka posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from LeyShade »[
Direction changes with time. In fact, in this case, this would be Magic returning somewhat to it's original direction - a game system for representing multiple franchises. There's also likely the business case: Hasbro could lose the patency that grants them royalties from everyone else if they don't act on the original filing soon, being able to show that the system is being used for it's original purpose. Ya see, that patency of game mechanics is tied to the reason 'for' the mechanic. If they can't prove their using it for intent, they'll have a far harder time trying to justify why those who are have to pay them royalties. Hence why it's a win-win for Hasbro: expanding their market into other IP's to grab those consumers, while also taking care of some backroom business.
I do agree intent wise on these being silver-bordered, that I agree with. Though, if they were trying to prevent confusion with the UN sets, redesigning the holo thing at the bottom of the card seems as wise a choice as any.
Direction won't always change like with my comparison of games. And while I agree that businesswise it is good for short term gains I do not belief there are significant gains or gains in general in the long run, but that is just speculation on my part.
Furthermore your argument about changing directions could also be made the other way around that they stopped their "intended" this is all about other IPs due to their belief that the Magic Brand is musch stronger on it's own. Also Crossover/Promotions do not need to be "repaid in kind" as I do think those crossover/promotions contracts are already fulfilled, but that is also speculative on my end, but based on the fact that most I can remember were done in the style "MTG is popular lesk ask them if we can use their stuff to draw in the MTG crowd" (Similarly to what feels like what Wotc does with UB now) so more of a one and done thing on a smaller scale as to what WOTC is doing now.
And from my own expirience, all those promotions/crossovers with magic did either not much or nothing at all in the long term for me sure I tried a few because of those but none of them stayed with me. -
2
LeyShade posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor Mill
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]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.
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. -
2
Mergatroid_Jones posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)I'm fully against this move (though all our bluster is just wind on the rocks). It significantly cheapens the game aesthetically and thematically, whether or not you have any real investment in the MtG story (which I frankly don't). It dilutes the card pool with things that are thematically and aesthetically alien, and the longer it goes, the less the game feels like what it always has.Posted in: The Rumor Mill
I'm also musing about the earliest MtG crossovers. Who can forget classic characters like Sindbad and Ali Baba? Have vintage players ever complained that Jace, the Mind Sculptor hangs out in a Bazaar of Baghdad? Oh, you're Chandra from Kaladesh? I'm Ali from Cairo. I'm currently reading the Thousand and One Nights (truly massive by the way, makes Homer's stories look like Cat in the Hat), so I can't help but be amused-- MtG did a crossover before it even did its own lore.
Lady Gaga can't be your commander yet, but Cao Cao can. (That's pronounced Tsao Tsao, by the way. The Pinyin system for Chinese spelling is stupid.) Your Humble Budoka can consult with a Taoist Mystic when his heart is troubled.
But I'm just playing devil's advocate. I hate this change. If only a small number of crossover cards exist (as do now), you can easily ignore them. The more that come out, the more of a hodgepodge the game becomes.
My argument is thus: make IP crossover cards BLUE BORDER CARDS!!! -
4
mikeyG posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. -
2
Flisch posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from Cranky »Holy hell, literally none of your arguments make any sort of sense, I'm not even sure where to begin.
Mmh, when you put it like that, maybe you are right. I'll have to rethink my opinions on the matter in light of this new evidence. -
2
Flisch posted a message on Read this announcement at your own risk (it involves mtg)Posted in: The Rumor MillQuote from mikeyG »I'm really confused by this. How are all of you interacting with people where walking away respectfully from something you don't want to be a part of is so outlandish a concept?
Basically this. I'm baffled by the fact that some people here consider "not playing a game with someone" to be mean or gatekeepy.
In my playgroup we tend to play different games throughout a board game evening and not all games are for everyone. And sometimes someone says "oh, you're playing <game> now? I'll pass this round." and then they do something else until we start the next game after that. Now call me naive, but I would have assumed that adults all around the world take a similar approach. "Oh, you're playing silverbordered commander? Eh, not my thing. I'll pass this round." is -to me- a perfectly reasonable thing to say. I guess commander is a special case because the games take longer, but even then you could communicate that beforehand.
Quote from SyrixLoremaster »Oh and on the note of gatekeeping, I have a complete Silver Bordered EDH deck that prior to lockdown, I used to bring to my LGS and force into Commander games. I say force because by it's very nature, people immediately refuse to play with me because "I dont want to be forced to do the Hokey Pokey." This was an actual line dropped on me once and the sheer IGNORANCE of it left me speechless. But take my example and apply it to Johnny, LotR fanboy who has just built his first Magic deck and heard that this local comics and gaming store has people playing Magic, so he goes and takes his deck to play. But when he shows up to play, instead of maybe playing a game or two or if not willing to play against him offering a spare deck to play a couple games of Magic with him players instead give the above vehement rebuttal and oust him from the group "because Im.not playing with those cards" as I see SOOOO many people commenting, YOU are gatekeeping and YOU are part of the problem.
I'm not sure I follow your argument. You forced people into playing a commander format with you and... What is the takeaway here besides the fact that you're a jerk about it?
The gatekeeper analogy continues to be absurd. There are tons of playgroups that only play commander. Imagine little Timmy wants to play draft. Wow what a bunch of gatekeepers. Most players don't want to play with proxies. Sheer unimaginable that 99% of all Magic players are "proxy card" gatekeepers.
Once again, nobody is keeping you out of an activity or group. (As per the definition of gatekeeping) All that happens is that you propose an activity (or group) and others decline to join. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
When a child has a better new design for slivers than the folks at WotC when they made them all Predators.
They kind of had to make it multiple colors, 'cause there's only 18 mono blue snow cards where as in Bant there's 51 (49, not counting Jorn or Domesticated Mammoth.) Being mono blue it would basically be a Future Sight that allows you to play snow islands and nothing else, and that's a little lame.
Though a snow version of Future Sight that does that very thing sounds interesting. You can call it Farmer's Almanac, tells you the future of upcoming winter. How is that not a card already? They can make 160 40k cards, but not something that simple?
1
That's just salesman talk, they are trying to sell this like a good thing, but no matter how many pretty words they use to describe this they can't stop the fact that this product and its goal are more transparent than air. This isn't a celebration for the player base, but instead just another scam to make a quick buck of those with a fat wallet and a poor idea of what a good deal is.
If anything this should be the 3rd anniversary of when they started pushing products on players. It's absolutely an anniversary to see what they could sell and which "intelligent" people would buy it.
1
1
If only, but I'm 100% sure this will sell out, likely because it will be under printed and the various whales/leviathans and "collectors" will snatch them up to add it to their hoard- I mean collections.
5
What does that even mean in response to me not wanting to buy something? You believe me not liking this product means I have no joy in life? I don't, but it's not because of this product.
1
That's certainly a response you posted. I'm sorry it angers you that I don't buy everything WotC puts out.
1
1
It's for the whales/leviathans and the "collectors" that treat this game like a stock market. I'm sure a majority of the packs will be bought by them, if not 90%+.
3
1
While yes, more original ideas are better than "this idea, but with my spin on it", I will say that using other IP is nowhere near better than using mythology.