Support NeoGAF

[Imperfected]

I put GCoJ every so slightly above Tibalt because CoJ can tick up to doing something potentially useful in an EDH game using an ability that does nothing rather than using an ability that's a horrible version of Gamble. It's pretty close, though. But "Do nothing" > "Most likely makes my situation worse" for + abilities.

I could see it if Champion of Justice was 2 mana. I'm okay with burning 2 mana on a joke card that maybe ends up reading "prevent the next damage target unblocked creature would deal to you" if I'm lucky, but paying Gideon, Ally of Vehicles mana cost for CoJ? Not happening.

 

[HK-47]

Any testing the Gideon Ult + Glorious End combo? I can't see it coming up that much, but that's pretty much the only way I see either being used in standard.

Man, I wish Gideon was better. I have a pair of them that I got at the pre-release and I have no idea what to do with them.

I hope all Gideons are garbage from now until the end of time

 

[OnPoint]

I hope all Gideons are garbage from now until the end of time

You won't have to worry about it when he dies in Hour of Devastation and is eventually replaced by Elspeth.

Spoiler

___________________

 

[red13th]

Elspeth chatting about brunch. oooh boy.

 

[OnPoint]

Elspeth chatting about brunch. oooh boy.

Incoming joke about her wanting brains on toast because she's totally going to be a zombie now

 

[HK-47]

You won't have to worry about it when he dies in Hour of Devastation and is eventually replaced by Elspeth.

Spoiler

___________________

I've been waiting for years. Hopefully his death is depicted on a reprint of hero's downfall, because it's frankly ridiculous there is so little pw removal with how they push that cancer

 

[Santiako]

From reddit, found on a WotC survey:

WotC potentially looking into bringing back core sets already.

 

[kirblar]

Wow, 2-block rotation dying already?

I wonder if they're just eating through mechanics and themes too quickly now (see: Innistrad and Amonkhet both being GY sets), w/ Spring sets not getting the sales boost they expected.

 

[red13th]

From reddit, found on a WotC survey:



WotC potentially looking into bringing back core sets already.

Is this serious. hahaha. I can't believe it.

 

[SigmasonicX]

Not sure what to make of this. If they are bringing back core sets, I imagine they would now be supplemental sets that are still in Standard, with there still being two blocks a year. The newer core sets had the issue of having a confusing target audience, with attempts to make it exciting for Standard players. I could see this being more like the Planeswalker decks in aim.

 

[DrArchon]

Jesus Christ, what the hell is going on at WotC. They're flip flopping more than your average presidential candidate.

"We're going to heavily focus on the Gatewatch!" -> "We're going to focus less on the Gatewatch."

"No more core sets!" -> "Maybe core sets?"

"We see no need to ban Copy Cat!" -> "Yeah, Copy Cat is banned. Sorry 'bout that."

Next thing you know they're going to go back to 3 sets per block.

 

[kirblar]

Jesus Christ, what the hell is going on at WotC. They're flip flopping more than your average presidential candidate.

"We're going to heavily focus on the Gatewatch!" -> "We're going to focus less on the Gatewatch."

"No more core sets!" -> "Maybe core sets?"

"We see no need to ban Copy Cat!" -> "Yeah, Copy Cat is banned. Sorry 'bout that."

Next thing you know they're going to go back to 3 sets per block.

The swap from twice-yearly rotation to once now makes more sense.

They likely ARE going back to 3 sets per block, and that decision was already made at the time. (Note that going from 3 blocks to 4 was the obvious solution that they didn't do.)

It's also possible they might do "3-block + core, 2-block, 2-block" as a pattern. (but probably not.)

 

[noquarter]

I would be for them going back to three set blocks with a core set. Would like the core sets to be planar though and they could still get the story stuff too. Something like, Core 2019: Have, telling a little bit of back story and an introduction to Vryn. Maybe introduce one new mechanic and a taste of the plane.

Probably just be super genetic though.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Could somebody break this down for the new guy? What's a core set, why did they stop doing them, etc.

 

[Santiako]

Could somebody break this down for the new guy? What's a core set, why did they stop doing them, etc.

Core Set were yearly sets comprised mostly of reprints of old cards. They were used to keep staples in standard, while not having to care about flavour of cards or fitting them into a particular theme.

They stopped doing them because presumably the sold less than new sets.

 

[SigmasonicX]

I'd rather they didn't return to three set blocks. You think this thread would be this active for Kaladesh set 3: Tezzeret's Scheme?

 

[SigmasonicX]

Could somebody break this down for the new guy? What's a core set, why did they stop doing them, etc.

As for why they got rid of them, see this article.

Core sets didn't sell well and attempted to be appealing for both beginners and experts, but satisfying neither.

 

[kirblar]

In that graph of Set Sales over the past decade+, modern Spring Sets still weren't doing nearly as well as Fall sets despite the attempt to even things out.

Turns out the back to school timeframe is just really good for launching blocks.

 

[red13th]

So much flip-flopping, WotC's crazy lately.

I really don't want 3 block sets too though.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Core Set were yearly sets comprised mostly of reprints of old cards. They were used to keep staples in standard, while not having to care about flavour of cards or fitting them into a particular theme.

They stopped doing them because presumably the sold less than new sets.

As for why they got rid of them, see this article.

Core sets didn't sell well and attempted to be appealing for both beginners and experts, but satisfying neither.

Hmm. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, if the goal is to keep a stock of "staple" cards to just tweak the art/flavor text and mix them into the new set?

 

[OnPoint]

I'd rather they didn't return to three set blocks. You think this thread would be this active for Kaladesh set 3: Tezzeret's Scheme?

I would hope that they would figure out better narrative structures if they're going to go back to three set blocks.

 

[Santiako]

Hmm. Wouldn't it make more sense, then, if the goal is to keep a stock of "staple" cards to just tweak the art/flavor text and mix them into the new set?

It's not the art/flavour text only, it's also the names and themes. For example, you can't really fit (random choices here) the card "Sorin Markov" in Kaladesh, "Golgari Germination" in Amonkhet, "Lord of Atlantis" in Zendikar or "Thormod's Crypt" in Innistrad.

 

[DrArchon]

So much flip-flopping, WotC's crazy lately.

I really don't want 3 block sets too though.

Yeah, I remember so many third blocks just being awful when they tried to course-correct after the first two blocks were either too good or not good enough. Remember Fifth Dawn and Saviors of Kamigawa? Those were terrible. I liked the three-part story structure of "set up world/problem -> rising tension -> climax/resolution" but in terms of actual gameplay I much prefer having two blocks to a set.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It's not the art/flavour text only, it's also the names and themes. For example, you can't really fit (random choices here) the card "Sorin Markov" in Kaladesh, "Golgari Germination" in Amonkhet, "Lord of Atlantis" in Zendikar or "Thormod's Crypt" in Innistrad.

Ah, when I was thinking of staples I was thinking... Like, Lightning Bolt. Hadn't considered the other stuff.

Yeah, I dunno. Maybe it'd be better to just have a Core set that's always a part of standard and is periodically (rather than regularly) reprinted to keep the costs down.

 

[FreedomFrisbee]

Wizards needing to bring Core Sets back speaks to their own ineptitude. When they removed the Core Sets they knew those cards had to go somewhere but they didn't put them anywhere and continued making sets as normal. There needed to be a major rethink of what went into a normal expansion to make up for the lack of core set cards, but they continued to treat expansions the same. No Core Sets should have been fine. Just print Searing Spear every other block. Somehow they decided not to do this.

I don't see them going back to 3 set blocks. And if they bring core sets back they should return to just being reprints.

 

[OnPoint]

Wizards needing to bring Core Sets back speaks to their own ineptitude. When they removed the Core Sets they knew those cards had to go somewhere but they didn't put them anywhere and continued making sets as normal. There needed to be a major rethink of what went into a normal expansion to make up for the lack of core set cards, but they continued to treat expansions the same. No Core Sets should have been fine. Just print Searing Spear every other block. Somehow they decided not to do this.

I don't see them going back to 3 set blocks. And if they bring core sets back they should return to just being reprints.

Yup. I will never understand them.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

To be fair, 2-set blocks chew through design space super quick.

 

[kirblar]

To be fair, 2-set blocks chew through design space super quick.

Yup, Innistrad/Amonkhet really make this obvious.

Also the issues with all the poopy new land designs. (Minus Cycling Lands, those are amazing.)

 

[alternade]

Why can't they just do 2 and 3 set blocks as the see fit? I didn't realy understand the logic behind moving to 2 set blocks anyway. Was it just it move the story forward and have less stagnant metas?

 

[SigmasonicX]

Yup, Innistrad/Amonkhet really make this obvious.

Also the issues with all the poopy new land designs. (Minus Cycling Lands, those are amazing.)

I don't see how any less design space would be chewed up by keeping the third set, nor do I see how Amonkhet means they ran out of ideas and had to do another graveyard block.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

Why can't they just do 2 and 3 set blocks as the see fit? I didn't realy understand the logic behind moving to 2 set blocks anyway. Was it just it move the story forward and have less stagnant metas?

If they rotate once a year in the Fall, they should have this flexibility, and they should exercise it.

I don't see how any less design space would be chewed up by keeping the third set, nor do I see how Amonkhet means they ran out of ideas and had to do another graveyard block.

You dump your mechanics wholesale twice as often. In the 3-set + core-set world, your core set didn't need new mechanics, and your third set really only needed one.

 

[Firemind]

Yup. I will never understand them.

Lightning Strike with exile would have been perfect in Amonkhet. Instead we got Magma Spray.

 

[alternade]

I liked the 3 set block world, barring disasters like Dragons Maze. Im fully in favor of them bringing back core sets though. Give them a chance to add needed reprints and introduce standard staples like the titans and thragtusk.

With the 2 set design it feels like they don't have enough cards to support new mechanics and strategies.

 

[Infinite Stars]

Wizards really, really feels like they have no idea what they're supposed to be doing for Standard.

Honestly, I think Supplemental set of Neo "Core sets" every two years would be a good compromise. Give it a release date of November and make it be the Intro Magic product.

 

[HK-47]

Three set blocks are better for the flavor and story of the plane. Get that three act structure. There is a reason we only see one city on planes now. We start mid build up now or we zoom to whatever crisis is happening.

 

[charlequin]

Wow, 2-block rotation dying already?

This would be a terrible idea. There's zero chance that they're gonna switch to only three standard-legal sets a year (both for pure revenue reasons and because of the horrible effect that'd have on Standard) so the alternative is to go back to... what? A world where one set a year is guaranteed to sell horribly and be boring to all established players, and where a second set is guaranteed to be shitty filler because it's not possible to

I'm also just not sure how they could accomplish this logistically. You can go from 3 to 2 set blocks easily by just killing one; even if you're doing it fast you can hatchet-job your existing set designs to make it happen. You need a full 2 year prep window to make the change in the other direction, so they'd be looking at 2019 at the absolute earliest to start it up.

On the other hand, you could make a non-randomized annual core product in addition to the blocks pretty easily and solve a ton of the issues with staples/answers they currently have in Standard formats. Buy "Essential 2019" and you get a Pithing Needle and a Hero's Downfall and all that crap, all of which is legal for as long as the accompanying blocks are.

 

[A_Dang]

On all this Core Set talk:

What if they took a bit more of a value approach to the Core Set and made it some kind of "Modern Masters Lite" set with $4 packs? No major money reprints, but some $10-$20 staples, and maybe mix in some new cards?

 

[SigmasonicX]

You dump your mechanics wholesale twice as often. In the 3-set + core-set world, your core set didn't need new mechanics, and your third set really only needed one.

I see no evidence that they are running out of mechanics to a point that it would be a major reason to stop having two blocks, especially with supplemental sets introducing new mechanics more and more. Plus, nothing is stopping them from just having three mechanics like in Kaladesh, or focusing on a returning mechanic like cycling in Amonkhet. SOI and Amonkhet playing around in the same area but having different feels comes off more as confidence that they could do that, not... whatever you guys are arguing it proves, which I'm still unclear on.

The new core set product only makes sense as an additional supplemental product targeted toward beginners only. Indeed, I was thinking that there should be a draftable product that beginners can play with.

 

[Joe Molotov]

On all this Core Set talk:

What if they took a bit more of a value approach to the Core Set and made it some kind of "Modern Masters Lite" set with $4 packs? No major money reprints, but some $10-$20 staples, and maybe mix in some new cards?

What value stuff could they even reprint that are not "too strong for Standard"?

 

[kirblar]

I see no evidence that they are running out of mechanics to a point that it would be a major reason to stop having two blocks, especially with supplemental sets introducing new mechanics more and more. Plus, nothing is stopping them from just having three mechanics like in Kaladesh, or focusing on a returning mechanic like cycling in Amonkhet. SOI and Amonkhet playing around in the same area but having different feels comes off more as confidence that they could do that, not... whatever you guys are arguing it proves, which I'm still unclear on.

The new core set product only makes sense as an additional supplemental product targeted toward beginners only. Indeed, I was thinking that there should be a draftable product that beginners can play with.

I'm going to counter with the newly created dual land cycles being really bad (minus cycling lands) so far + 2 GY sets nearly back to back.

 

[A_Dang]

What value stuff could they even reprint that are not "too strong for Standard"?

Sorry, I didn't even consider standard, I was more thinking about a supplemental set, like Modern Masters, as an on-ramp for new players to get into the game or for people that play modern to get mid-range staples. This would just be for draft and card supply. I am not in on standard at all so it didn't cross my mind, and I totally see how my solution is missing one of the main reasons core sets existed previously.

 

[charlequin]

I really don't think people appreciate the marketing reasons why going back to one block a year is a non-starter. Let me make a comparison to Magic's closest direct competitor: Hearthstone launches three new expansion sets each year, each of which has a complete creative reset, a brand new set of mechanics and themes, and the expectation of a near-complete metagame shift driven by brand-new types of decks emerging. That's what it takes to keep people interested and to ensure lapsed players or people who are potentially diving in have good breaking points to invest at.

The Magic equivalent isn't an expansion release, it's a new block, because that's when all of the things that lead to player fatigue get reset: the prominently-focused themes, the mechanics, the creative treatment, the types of decks being successful. If you go back to doing that once a year, there's no upside case (nobody really goes OH BOY I'M PUMPED FOR THE THIRD EXPANSION even for the most popular settings) but a big downside case where people check out. You think people got mad about standard now, imagine a world where Cat hit the scene and there was another nine months before a non-Kaladesh expansion was going to come out. Even in older eras with little competition and minimal online communication this was a huge contributor to major dropoffs of business; today, with tons of great competing products and the internet making everything feel older faster it would be a disaster.

You dump your mechanics wholesale twice as often.

Which is the reason to actually follow the trendline set by Kaladesh and max out at 4 mechanics a block ratherr than the eleven in BFZ block, not to go back to a model that makes people suffer through a full year of even the most half-baked block ideas.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

I see no evidence that they are running out of mechanics to a point that it would be a major reason to stop having two blocks, especially with supplemental sets introducing new mechanics more and more. SOI and Amonkhet playing around in the same area but having different feels comes off more as confidence that they could do that, not... whatever you guys are arguing it proves, which I'm still unclear on.

The new core set product only makes sense as an additional supplemental product targeted toward beginners only.

It's not that they're running out of mechanics (so saying they're "chewing up design space" probably doesn't communicate it right). It's more that they aren't exploring them as much as they could, and they have to come up with more of them on a faster cadence (so they don't get tested/fleshed-out as much as they should be).

 

[SigmasonicX]

It's not that they're running out of mechanics (so saying they're "chewing up design space" probably doesn't communicate it right). It's more that they aren't exploring them as much as they could, and they have to come up with more of them on a faster cadence (so they don't get tested/fleshed-out as much as they should be).

If this is about them not catching Standard problems, then there are better ways to handle it than upending their sales model.

 

[charlequin]

To be more concrete about why this idea doesn't make sense, let me put it this way. The old world had a variety of problems, all of which were direct and unsolvable problems with the set structure:

• It was impossible to design three good sets that were desirable consumer goods based on a single block concept, as proven by 20+ years of blocks.
• Core sets sold horribly and were marketing duds, but took just as much time and effort to create as an expansion.
• A year-long block cycle meant only one marketing jumping-on point per year, so almost no way to meaningfully pitch to people off-cycle.
• When a large set was unpopular, people were doomed to an entire year with nothing new and interesting that wasn't just expanding on it. If you hated Theros (or whatever), you could tune out completely and come back a calendar year later.
• Only adjusting the metagame in a serious way once a year means bad formats drag on interminably. If people are sick of Devotion (JUST FOR EXAMPLE HERE) you're going to be looking at sets that aim to support that theme, not enable counter-strategies, for a full year, and seeing a lot of later competitive events driven by the exact same decks that were winning earlier.
• WotC has to rely on storytelling and innovation as their primary marketing vectors to get people to play, and both of these get dribbled out real slowly when you have to spend a whole year on each beat. (This, like the previous two points, is made worse in the modern short-attention-span social-media era.)

The problems in the current world, conversely, are all problems that are solvable in other ways: bad Standard formats are amenable to design/development changes and new testing procedures; lack of answers is solvable by a change to set design, an "embedded" set, or a new non-randomized annual product; lack of design space isn't a real problem if you actually design twice-annual blocks like they're twice-annual; lesser uptake on the spring block is probably fixable by actually marketing the spring block as thoroughly as the fall block. Most importantly, these problems are not as bad as the first set of problems, and there's still no way to solve any of that first set if you switch back, and no guarantee you'll solve all of the latter set in the process (like, Standard could still easily be bad in a one-block world.) There's no path to further growth or even really stagnant maintenance of current revenue by that path, it just guarantees MTG will be worse-positioned to compete and to succeed with MDN when that launches.

 

[kirblar]

If this is about them not catching Standard problems, then there are better ways to handle it than upending their sales model.

They already did upend their sales model. There have been some serious issues since.

a) Standard being crappy ever since Dragons of Tarkir and the new model started up (hurting Standard attendance a LOT)
b) Blowing through mechanics at a very fast pace without letting them breathe eating up design space
c) Blowing through settings at a very fast pace requiring a lot more creative staff (aka much larger labor budget required.)

All which would be great if Spring/Summer sales increased!

But they didn't. That's the problem. And that's why we're seeing them go back.

 

[SigmasonicX]

Is there actually any evidence that there is no significant difference in sales during spring and summer after the block model change?

 

[Hero]

To be fair, 2-set blocks chew through design space super quick.

Yup, Innistrad/Amonkhet really make this obvious.

Also the issues with all the poopy new land designs. (Minus Cycling Lands, those are amazing.)

Yeah, it probably wasn't translating to the sales they wanted. I'm glad if they go back.

They can put hoser stuff in Core Set Whatever easier, I suppose.

Plus, I feel like some mechanics could've gotten more cards. Like Energy is awesome, but who the hell knows when we're getting more cards that support that?

 

[kirblar]

Is there actually any evidence that there is no significant difference in sales during spring and summer after the block model change?

Yes but i cant recall where i saw the bar graph timeline.

 

[Firemind]

I still think they have no clue how to design limited formats bottom to top. Most limited formats that had the small set released and their orders reversed have turned out worse.