Thread #97888913
File: mtgnoub.png (49.4 KB)
49.4 KB PNG
Magic the Gathering: No UB
LET'S FORKIN GOOOOO Edition
This is a thread for a discussion of Magic the Gathering where no set or release that required 3rd party IP licensing can be mentioned. That includes Universes Beyond and Secret Lair.
WARNING: There is a massive sperg from /edhg/ seething over the existence of threads he didn't personally make and it is highly likely that he is going to try to shit up these threads for a while.
Ignore him and one day he will kill himself.
The ONLY Magic sets this year:
>Lorwyn Eclipsed, January 23 2026
>Secrets of Strixhaven, April 24 2026
>Reality Fracture, October 2 2026
Thread Question:
The leak about Reality Fracture being a color swap set rather than a pie break set is looking confirmed now we've seen the monoB Ral. What do you hope to see?
Personally I just want more Ashling color swaps. I would love an Ashling in each color and was a bit disappointed that her blue counterpart is tied to red, being a double face card.
368 RepliesView Thread
>>
>>
File: sld-2296-meltdown.jpg (128.5 KB)
128.5 KB JPG
>>
File: jace & vraska.png (192.6 KB)
192.6 KB PNG
I like Jace's daughter as a character and I wish her cards were better. There, I said it.
>>
>>
>>
>>97888963 see >>97888941
>>
File: soifessor strikes again.png (1.5 MB)
1.5 MB PNG
>>97888963
Exactly what it says. A thread for discussing Magic in all formats but without UB and SLs
>>97888969
I would be interested to. The Magic community is too castrated to be vocal against UB. Too many influencer afraid to bite the hand that feeds them will complain about UB, but then buy boxes of it to open or play it on their streams to time with releases.
It's time the community said what it wants instead of this "i don't wanna yuck someone else's yum" shit
>>
File: picard.jpg (32.2 KB)
32.2 KB JPG
I am so excited for November
https://youtu.be/nolpET4mgiI
>>
File: 1775834058269644m.jpg (117.7 KB)
117.7 KB JPG
this is the future you choose.
>>
>>
File: ecl-245-tam-mindful-first-year.jpg (134.8 KB)
134.8 KB JPG
Tam a CUTE! I hope she has a good story in Reality Fracture
>>
>>
>>97889090
That might be too granular, but there is pre-modern
Yugioh has shown that gamers can revolt against their overlords and disapprove of what they're printing, returning to retro formats. I think the potential is there in Magic, you just have to organize.
>>
File: 1759029304773187.png (16.5 KB)
16.5 KB PNG
The Reality Fracture leak for those who haven't seen it. Blue Chandra is basically guaranteed, rest of the Jacestice League also likely to get swaps
>>
The best of Reality Fracture will be get a non gay version of Strixhaven.
>>
File: stx-124-charge-through.jpg (172.3 KB)
172.3 KB JPG
>>97889263
>we would like to proudly introduce Reality Fracture, an alternate timeline where anything is possible! Have you ever wondered "what if Strixhaven wasn't gay?"
I can see it now.
In all seriousness though, I don't hate Strixhaven. I think the idea of a magic school and having to learn and study magic is neat, the bits I don't like are the American college and sportsball aspects
>>
>>
>>
File: sos-248-diary-of-dreams.jpg (125.5 KB)
125.5 KB JPG
>>97889429
This isn't a UB hate thread, it's just a no UB thread. I think speculating about how much/what UB there will be next year is against the spirit of the thread.
Just find joy in what we have.
Here, I like this Strixhaven card.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 1772166191821923m.jpg (134.6 KB)
134.6 KB JPG
>Strixhaven in 2 weeks then 6 months until the next set
Whelp.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97889605
Not very familiar with it but it sounds a bit cancerous to me, maybe someone else can weigh in on it.
All we need to do is connect with other people who don't like where Magic is going. That's it.
>>97889615
So you're saying Magic is perfect without UB? Dangerously based take.
But idk, you can complain about powercreep or bans, or anything your little heart desires, cutie.
>>
File: v12-5-dryad-arbor.png (1.3 MB)
1.3 MB PNG
I just want one of these for each colour.
WHY, WOTC? WHY WON'T YOU COMPLETE THE SET?!
>>
>>97889745
I think because lands are inexplicably green's "thing"
Idk man I've argued with oldheads irl about this shit, but I think it was a design mistake to make fundamental game actions like drawing cards and playing lands the domain of particular colors.
It would be like if only red was good at combat and other colors were crippled in comparison
>>
File: 1724294033283754.png (1.4 MB)
1.4 MB PNG
Predict the next female gooner card, right now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97889847
this meme isn't accurate,
i've never met a woman mtg player who dislikes hot female art or finds it "problematic". most seem to love it (at least if they like magic at all they prefer the nielson/ guay sexy art over the globohomo BIPOC full armor shit since R2R.
it was literally the one flat asian who bitched about being mogged by elves n shit (plus troons of course, for the same reasons) that got signalboosted by soi boys
sad
>>
>>
>>97890223
True
>>97890300
Angry that his anecdote was countered by an anecdote
>>
>>
>>97888969
I checked the meta document and I was not feeling it. Just nothing unique, just the same control/midrange/combo stuff. The last few sets have been kind of "meh" mechanics wise so it just feels like an uninspired meta. Not a bad meta, just generic and boring.
>>
>>
>>97889745
>>97889755
You could have each color having a different permanent as a land, but they already fucked that up by having all the 5 colors artifact lands.
>>
>>
>>
File: mb2-999-WAO-wrenn-and-one.jpg (128.7 KB)
128.7 KB JPG
>>97890397
You totally could for planeswalker. A battle land would be doable too, I don't see why not. Main issue would be the issue that dryad arbor already has, clarity issues when considering attackers/blockers.
>>
>>97890435
If you made an instant/sorcery that would have to go to blue so which colour would take artifact? Red? Like a treasure land? Maybe but then who the fuck takes battles? Because that seems red or black
>>97890437
What color would the planeswalker be thouuuuugh
>>
>>97890444
G = 1/1 creature
R = battle that you can defeat to make it tap for RR
B = planeswalkerit's yawg reawakened in urborg, you can throw in a dark ritual reference for the memberberries
U = artifact that can do some new shit I guess idk
W = enchantment aura that gives some benefit to the enchanted creature while the land is untapped
>>
>>
File: didnt-say-the-magic-word.jpg (112.8 KB)
112.8 KB JPG
Jurassic Park is back online!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: captain.jpg (149.9 KB)
149.9 KB JPG
>>97890749
The magic word in question
>>
>>97890789
Honestly UB should always have been a different format. Even as a Commander player I didn’t like its inclusion. I got into Magic for Magic, UB was forced on us
Now is the time to speak up
>>97890790
Not aware of any leaks. It’ll all come in time one way or another
Lorwyn was my number 1 pick to return to but they didn’t reprint a lot of the cards I think they should have.
I’m also partial to Eldraine, but I don’t want to keep going back there too frequently.
I think Kaldheim never really got its moment and a revisit there could be deserved. Theros or Amonkhet could also be good, gods were neat
>>
>>
>>
File: ninja turtles.png (699.3 KB)
699.3 KB PNG
You lost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxjY1an_i0
>>
>>97890933
>A magic school that encompasses an entire plane of existence is a retarded idea.
As far as I'm aware the school isn't the entire plane. But even if it was I don't see how that's any sillier than Ravnica. It's just a feature of the planar multiverse thing going on, inevitably they will have a neat idea and stick to the design philosophy of "the whole plane is like this"
>>
Came back to playing arena because I realized every other game is either worse or doesn't have an online client.
Honestly I also really like how pretty much every cosmetic in this client can be obtained later on even if you miss it, really minimizes fomo.
But why don't we have a /vg/ general? Feels really weird for a game as big as magic to not be able to maintain a general there when yugioh has multiple.
Also I really hate the whole spiderman/ninja turtles shit that is happening. Probably a really bad time to return to this game just for that but alas.
Reposting this because apparently I posted it on the dead thread.
>>
>>97891001
>But why don't we have a /vg/ general?
Could always make one, friend
>Also I really hate the whole spiderman/ninja turtles shit that is happening.
Yeah LotR and Final Fantashit made millions of dollars so the Hasbro execs are going to keep cranking the slot machine looking for another million dollar IP. Fortunately rumor is that they're getting a bit skittish since Spider-Man performed severely under expectations. Avatar did well, but it's looking like Turtles didn't.
It could really go either way, but we won't know for 2 years since that's the lag time between design of a set and its release. There's guaranteed to be a couple more years of this shit at least.
But if we organise like we have been doing, WotC could be pressured into at least not allowing UB to be legal and that would be a win
>>
>>97890985
>I don't see how that's any sillier than Ravnica
You can't have a functioning economy or anything at all if literally all you have is a fucking school. If all jobs are teachers and if everything anybody does is study to become a teacher. It's not a functioning model for a society of any size, even a city let alone an entire world. Ravnica is retarded too but at least it has a whole ecosystem going on with tons of different people doing different jobs.
Incidentally this kind of shit (reducing each nu-plane to one theme with zero depth or thought) is why all planes after Innistrad suck dick.
>>
>>97891007
There are so many online formats at this point that they should just give us a no UB standard or something.
I am not even a huge magic nerd, my experience with the game is relatively little and I mostly dip my toe in a variety of tcgs, but seeing this ninja turtle shit is really sucking my enjoyment of this game.
I only first started playing magic when arena was in beta. Ixalan was like my first set and aesthetically at least I really enjoyed it.
Thinking back at it, War of the spark really felt like the beginning of this UB shit that is happening. Sure it wasn't actually UB, but it was basically an avengers rip off and feels like the beginning of wotc trying to use pop culture to lure new players in.
>>
>>97890833
honestly I'd prefer going to some yet to explore planes (no, not muraganda). lorwyn had some cool cards but I don't reeally care about tribal heavy settings. I don't mind a return to set as long as it's not like the travesty that was aetherdrift
>>
>>97891013
Why does a plane need a functioning economy? The current lore is that anyone can travel the Omen Paths without a Spark, why couldn’t people just visit Strixhaven?
As it happens, the school isn’t even the entire plane. Apparently the school is located on the northern continent of the plane of Arcavios, so there you go
>>
>>
>>97891029
The current lore can suck my dick and omenpaths have existed for literally like a month in story time. One month. What the fuck did they do in the millions of years before them, when only like 50 people in the whole multiverse could planeswalk? What will they do when the omenpaths are gone and removed from the lore?
>>
>>
>>
>>97891025
Vryn and Regatha are probably the two most obvious unexplored planes because of their connections to Jace and Chandra, respectively.
Xerex won that Phyrexia Battle voting thing (Vryn was second), but it's whole point was that it's nonsensical world full of geometrical oddities and physics fuckery that mindbroke Phyrexians so I'm not sure if current MtG developers can make it work.
Echoir sounds interesting - a plane with big-ass castle where giant Titan collects various creatures from other planes.
You can probably write some hype-ass story set in Equilor, as it's supposed to be one of the oldest planes in multiverse with it's human inhabitants being long living and supposedly on Urza's powerlevel.
There's plenty of planechase and book/comics planes that feel too specific theme-wise or gimmicky to work as settings for separate sets but would be interesting to see. I hated what WoTC did with Aetherdrift, but a travel-themed sets letting us to see these places would be okay?
Also Angrath's home plane because Angrath is based. We know only know that it has minotaurs and probably dragons and is close to Kaldheim.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97891023
Yeah it's been a long road.
>Sure it wasn't actually UB, but it was basically an avengers rip off
And it only got worse from there, developing into what people in the community commonly refer to as "hat sets". Prime examples being Murders at Karlov Manor where the hat was a detective hat, and Outlaws of Thunder Junction where the hat was a cowboy hat.
Felt like they were raising the temperature to get people used to sets essentially based on movie genres
>>
>>97891039
>>97891138
>>97891168
All of this is redundant because as I already said the university is not the entire plane as it turns out. The plane is Arcavios and Strixhaven is a location in it
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97891038
the vanilla creature gimmick is not for me. MAYBE if it was s non-creature spell centered set but I doubt that
>>97891119
there is a lot of potential. I just wanna know what the hell is going on with garruk. hopefully he shows up in fractured but whole
>>
>>97890786
Variety in strategies, different top decks having different wincons, etc. Modern used to be good when decks like Living End, Taking turns, Burn, Death's Shadows, Ponza, etc. All were either Tier 1 or 2 and were competitive and played mostly different from each other. The meta doc I saw was mostly just goblin decks, Temu combo and Azorius control, some of the most basic strategies and a huge chunk of the metagame.
>But you are comparing an eternal format meta to a standard meta
That's true, but even with that in mind we've had more diverse metas before, like the meta right after War of the Spark, before the bans ramped up and the set release pacing exploded. That level of variety is what appeals to me and Astral Standard isn't there for me yet due to the current bland game design policy WotC has.
>>97890924
An anon linked to me on the main MTG thread a week or so ago and it was pretty through. I don't know where the link is right now, however.
>>
>>97891072
Why would you play arean for any constructed format? It takes ages to build any competitive deck due to the terrible wildcard economy and you can just buy Tabletop Simulator and build any deck you want if you want to play casually anyways.
>>
>>
>>
reposting because of thread autism
please help me pick which 8 cards i should get rid of, i dont know shit about how to round out a deck im just buying a bunch of upgrades everyone says are good
https://moxfield.com/decks/8uOhu266EE-K3SFSFA1gQw
>>
>>
>>
>>97890985
Ravnica works because the guilds all fulfill different roles in society, and together they form something that resembles a complete society. Strixhaven doesn't work because literally all we know about the plane is "there are five dragons, Archaics, and the wizard school." They copypasted Harry Potter without thinking about what happens outside of Hogwarts. Even Ikoria has a more fleshed out setting.
>>
>>97891399
I found a drive doc about the meta
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10eYFlIVV8h6BAncQJ2KMNwq_EztNDzuB/view
>azorius has 80%+ winrate
>>
File: mai waif.jpg (602.3 KB)
602.3 KB JPG
I don't like UB but grixis Azula card is fucking baller
How do I reconcile with this fact
>>
>>97891119
>Also Angrath's home plane because Angrath is based.
Aranzhur was as good as destroyed per the new Strixhaven novel. It physically remains but got wrecked to the point where it no longer supports life. Angrath and his family fucked off from there. He was last heard from planning to relocate survivors of his plane to Innistrad.
>>
>>97891535
there's a lot but these popped out
your curve is quite high considering how little ramp you got. but not only that, your low end has cards like gravecrawler which is doesn't do very much in this deck since you have very few sacrifice outlets for it to keep casting it over and over. worst case you'll only get one measly trigger
I know it's very tempting to put high cost setup pieces in the deck but you gotta cut cards like obnix, meren and junji for the same reasons
anything that needs 2 or more hoops to jump through and start with the more expesive ones
>>
>>
>>
>>97891560
Redpill me on planar standard, what are the rules and where can i play?
>>97891656
Just have principles, easy as that.
>>
>>
>>
File: 3zsa5olam6vg1.jpg (137.9 KB)
137.9 KB JPG
And least Adams' will get paid.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: sos-79-dissection-practice.jpg (150.2 KB)
150.2 KB JPG
I AM FUCKING STARVING FOR GOOD IN UNIVERSE CARD ART. IM SO TIRED OF EVERYTHING LOOKING LIKE HEARTHSTONE.
>>
File: sos-88-leech-collector.jpg (121.5 KB)
121.5 KB JPG
>>97892034
>IM SO TIRED OF EVERYTHING LOOKING LIKE HEARTHSTONE.
Best I can do is "Even gayer and shitter than Hearthstone"
>>
File: sos-15-erode.jpg (131.8 KB)
131.8 KB JPG
>>97892034
What about this one?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97892051
>>97892095
once you do that it's required you switch to the containment general
>>
File: sos-71-wisdom-of-ages.jpg (147.6 KB)
147.6 KB JPG
>>97892111
What about this one? I like this one, too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 20260414_150206.jpg (7.8 MB)
7.8 MB JPG
>>97892231
>>97892273
Jewish word-game pilpulling technicality gymnastics are boring. Let's say "canceled" instead is that better you freaks?
>>
>>
>>
>>97892324
Ravnica block is like a 7/10 Discworld which is still quite enjoyable.
I like "Tapestries" which is an anthology of the super-old lore (pre-Dominaria) and I think there is one other anthology from that time as well.
>>
>>
>>97892324
https://www.docdroid.net/f3zSDG0/children-of-the-nameless-pdf
This is the best mtg book and it's free.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 1000002538.jpg (164.2 KB)
164.2 KB JPG
Gonna build this Chad. Give me some cards that go stupid in a go-wide Selesnya tokens deck. Extra points if they somehow exploit his sacrifice ability.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: Alela.jpg (97.4 KB)
97.4 KB JPG
Alela Anthem/Enchantress EDH deck with light Faerie synergy and a basic gameplan of utilizing control and Anthem enchantments to stall until I have an army of beefed up flying tokens to swing and win with.
Yay or nay?
>>
File: ulg-13-martyr-s-cause.jpg (306 KB)
306 KB JPG
>>97892497
The other anon isn't wrong. That's like the most straightforward commander ever. What kind of tricks are you expecting? You could go heavy on wraths I guess, use stuff like cryptolith rite to close the gap on command tax. There's really nothing cool or special to do with him. I'll always recommend picrel for token decks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97892578
You think that because you are a pig yourself. The reality is 100% of people with self respect will not bite that garbage even if they like the IP, simply because some IPs are not mean for Magic.
I like Rick & Morty but it would be shit to see it in MTG as a set.
>>
>>
>>
>>97892584
If the UB selectors had better taste and cared about the tone of Magic, we wouldn't really be having this discussion. Then again, we also have the problem with Secret Lairs and any other limited product working as a pseudo reserve list to drive up prices for scalpers. Magic's got a lot of holes in it these days.
>captcha is STILL fucked
God I hate this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97893064
you are so blindingly upset about people not being slop-eating little piggies like you that you can't even fathom that people who dislike UB could possibly also like some of the most popular fantasy/"nerd" franchises in the world.
Like in what universe could you possibly consider it impossible for someone to dislike and not support Magic the Gathering Universes Beyond and like fucking Lord of the Rings at the same time
>>
>>97893077
>Y-YOU'RE MAD
>I'M GONNA MAKE MY OWN SANDBOX AND TELL EVERYONE I HATE THAT THING BUT I'M NOT ANGRY-
Please. Please do go on about how not-mad you are. Make another thread about how not-upset you are right now.
>>
>>
>>97889429
if next year is less than 6 sets I'll be happy
If it's just three regular sets, the last marvel UB, and something that actually feels in line with magic and not horribly memeworthy (ie something like Naruto, and thus every thread is that one Sasuke art as a different bonus sheet card) then I think I will refrain from complaining that much
>>
File: 1764584974031867.png (272.5 KB)
272.5 KB PNG
>>97893111
I just want an original, properly fleshed out plane that isn't a hat set
and no Planeswalkers.
>>
File: 1708836688700031.gif (2.3 MB)
2.3 MB GIF
>>97893111
>if next year is less than 6 sets
>>
>>
>>97893122
have we gotten a single new plane that wasn't just a hat set with or without effort put into it since Innistrad, besides Tarkir?
>Gothic horror plane
>Greek mythology plane
>Nordic mythology plane
>South America plane
>Dinosaur plane
>>
File: 1760498063948215.jpg (814.7 KB)
814.7 KB JPG
Which deck should I play for next premodern in 2 weeks?
>Previously played, don't want to play again for now
Survival Infestation aggro
Standstill aggro (Flippi, UW weenie)
Blood Oath sligh
Stasis
It's proxy friendly so I can just print out whatever deck I want; price isn't an issue. I'd prefer not to play decks like FEB that require a gorillion matches to become good with. For whatever reason although I prefer combo in legacy I prefer fair decks in premodern.
>>97893122
I would like them to do a set in Fiora, Leovold's plane. Given the quality of lore friendly sets lately though I wouldn't hold my breath.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97893189
Id say that counts in the same way Tarkir (which is just mongolia with dragons) does as a non hat-set plane, it's a weird mashup of jeets and jeetmobiles but it's not just dude the mahabharata lmao
>>97893200
It's a hat set plane where the walkers play as teachers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97892685
>>97892818
It’s an /edhg/ shitpost. Just that same pro-UB troll seething that this thread is successful and trying to devolve it into an unusable shit-flinging mess
>>
>>97892578
Nope. I got into Magic for Magic. I know what IP would tempt me and I’d still have no problem refusing it because I think UB is bad for Magic as a whole.
Avatar was a franchize I liked a lot. I rewatched the whole original series when the UB announced, but I haven’t even TOUCHED an Avatar Magic card, let alone spent any money on them
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 577770588_1157594366537052_6203680731781897958_n.jpg (167.7 KB)
167.7 KB JPG
Long-term wise focusing on third party licenses is kind of bad business overall. Not really /tg/ related, but look what happened to Funko Pop and Fortnite. FP announced that they may go bankrupt very soon and Fortnite bunch of alternative game modes and fired bunch of people. Licenses are expensive and if your core product is shit, it does not matter if it's tied to popular franchise.
Finding proper franchise to turn into cash is pretty difficult, too - you want something popular but also something that does not have already tons of merch. FF, Avatar and LoTR were kind of lucky shots because they all are extremely popular franchises with merch-starving fandoms.
>>
>>97893601
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Mark Rosewater is a massive copium-smoking faggot that is driving MTG into the ground because in his retarded head he thinks that putting SPOIDAMAN on poorly designed and printed cards is somehow making them less poorly designed and printed.
>>
>>
>>
>>97893357
>an entire thread to whine about UB
Sir, this is a thread to ignore UB. Read the OP.
>>97893601
Same goes for you. We're not interested in talking about what a bad decision UB is. The point of this thread is to act like it doesn't exist, kindly keep to the OP.
>>
File: 02mtg.gif (70.3 KB)
70.3 KB GIF
>>97889615
>>97889629
>>97890122
FIRE cards
https://scryfall.com/card/fdn/746/spectral-sailor
https://scryfall.com/card/tdm/139/dragon-sniper
>>
File: leech.jpg (180.9 KB)
180.9 KB JPG
>>97892040
At least post the UW version
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97893852
I believe that's what he's saying. Outside of Tarkir and Kaladesh, every new plane introduced since Innistrad (inclusive) has been a hat set/planes. Some have more effort put into them and are enjoyable as settings, but they're all still starting from the point of planet of hats.
>>
File: hats.png (632.1 KB)
632.1 KB PNG
>>97893992
Eh feels like the definition of "hat" to some people just means a genre they're familiar with or has recently been popular. Recent here meaning like within a century.
How is Lorwyn NOT a hat set if Innistrad is? It's the fairytale hat, before Eldraine. In fact you could even go 1 further and say it's the D&D set before the D&D set because Lorwyn and Shadowmoor are basically one to one fucking rip offs of the Feywild and Shadowfell in D&D.
I think it muddies the waters too much to get upset about Magic taking inspiration from popular fantasy or mythology. Hat sets to me are more specifically sets clearly trying to recreate a genre or setting that has been in cinema in the last 50 years.
Gangster movies, westerns, magic schools, noir etc etc etc.
With an emphasis on making existing characters play roles in that genre
By that definition Capenna was the first true hat set.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: otj-220-marchesa-dealer-of-death.jpg (153.4 KB)
153.4 KB JPG
>>97894052
I would say not because it wasn't really riffing on a movie genre or forcing pre-existing characters to engage with movie tropes.
It was just playing on the Spanish conquest and lost-world dinosaurs. Fair game imo.
An existing character engaging with tropes is the biggest signal of a hat set to me
>a powerful queen is going to dress like a common outlaw and go on a heist cos it's the cowboy set!!!!
>>
>>97894052
No, that's not what a hat set is. Lets take the most obvious hat set: Outlaws of Thunder Junction. It's the cowboy set, everyone is some variation of cowboy and wild west-themed there. Including characters who really, really shouldn't be. Rakdos goes to Thunder Junction? He gets a vest, bandolier and cowboy hat! Marchesa goes to Thunder Junction? That's right, she's now a wild west showgirl (or something, I can't be assed to look up her art)!
Ixalan, by contrast, doesn't have anyone who goes there suddenly turn into a pirate. There are things other than pirates in Ixalan, and not everything there is immediately recognizable as a specific (usually movie-related and recognizable to normies) trope. So the past Ixalan sets are not to be considered hat sets (future sets might be, like murders, which is set on ravnica but very much a hat set).
>>
>>97894051
Also Jace has been a "heady" character at least since he was involved in the mazer run in Dragon's maze. Who else in the gatewatch would be in charge of investigating what was happening in Innistrad? Chandra? Nissa? At best Gideon, but he was never the type of guy to investigate stuff either. In the context of the setting at the time, Jace was the only actual option.
Execution also something important when putting down "hat sets". Hat sets, in my opinion, also has to have the feel of something that isn't a natural progression of the story or setting. I wouldn't say SOI is a hat set because the investigation aspect is something that makes sense as a continuation of the BfZ plot where one of the titans was missing and Nahiri, one of the people in charge of sealing the Eldrazi, was also missing in action and they had to figure out what was happening. The transition into a mystery makes more sense.
Hat sets like Thunder Junction, Markov, Aetherdrift, etc feels more like the writers don't want to actually bother with a consistent plot or world and just want to do these "fun" concepts and force the characters that already exist in this template they want to do instead of what would be a good fit for the setting that already exists.
Execution, execution, execution. The reason why the more "thematic" sets feel more like playhouse versions of previous thematic sets is because the writing and atmosphere mostly suck in terms of quality. Characters that had not business being involved in these sets are mostly acting out of character or completely outside of what they care, stories bend themselves over to fit these new ideas, etc. It's like the whole storyline and character development took a break for a joke episode that isn't particularly funny or entertaining, actual filler.
>>
>>97894052
>>97894063
It's a hat set because Jace is dressed up like a castaway and Vraska is dressed up like a pirate
>>
>>97894051
Also Jace has been a "heady" character at least since he was involved in the maze run in Dragon's maze. Who else in the gatewatch would be in charge of investigating what was happening in Innistrad? Chandra? Nissa? At best Gideon, but he was never the type of guy to investigate stuff either. In the context of the setting at the time, Jace was the only actual option.
Execution also something important when putting down "hat sets". Hat sets, in my opinion, also has to have the feel of something that isn't a natural progression of the story or setting. I wouldn't say SOI is a hat set because the investigation aspect is something that makes sense as a continuation of the BfZ plot where one of the titans was missing and Nahiri, one of the people in charge of sealing the Eldrazi, was also missing in action and they had to figure out what was happening. The transition into a mystery makes more sense.
Hat sets like Thunder Junction, Markov, Aetherdrift, etc feels more like the writers don't want to actually bother with a consistent plot or world and just want to do these "fun" concepts and force the characters that already exist in this template they want to do instead of what would be a good fit for the setting that already exists.
Execution, execution, execution. The reason why the more "thematic" sets feel more like playhouse versions of previous thematic sets is because the writing and atmosphere mostly suck in terms of quality. Characters that had not business being involved in these sets are mostly acting out of character or completely outside of what they care, stories bend themselves over to fit these new ideas, etc. It's like the whole storyline and character development took a break for a joke episode that isn't particularly funny or entertaining, actual filler.
>>
>>97894089
>>97894104
Sorry for the double post, fucking 4chan's captcha has been fucking up since yesterday.
>>97894091
No, because there's a proper plot reason for them to be there and for Jace to be a Castaway. This anon here has the proper idea: >>97894063
It's about characters and the story simply changing completely to fit the "aesthetics" of the set just for the sake of it.
>>
>>
>>97894227
Borderline, there's still plot reasons and, as you said, Elspeth has reasons to be there and also Urabraska and such. In my mind, the hat sets are unarguably Thunder Junction, Markov and Aetherdrift. The "plot" reasons are slim at best, it's just about trying a setting for the sake of trying and barely any interesting design space.
New Capenna and Duskmorn are botherline, with Duskmourn closer to the Hat Set definition, but I'll give New Capenna more of a pass because it doesn't change a well established setting like Markov did, didn't just create a new set out of nowhere just for the sake of a shallow theme while shoving characters there for no reason like Thunder and to an extent Aetherdrift did.
I'll die on the hill of the three ones I mentioned being undeniably hat sets, however.
>>
>>
>>97894227
It's a matter of intention. I don't think the purpose of Ixalan was to have Jace play castaway, I think that's just the role in the story they had to give him.
I do think the purpose of Capenna was to have characters larp as roaring 20s gangsters
>>97894304
I like it too. Wish WotC would do longer print runs though, it is quite tiresome that good sets sell out and it becomes hard to support my LGS because they don't have anything.
They only recently restocked on Bloomburrow. Fucking BLOOMBURROW. Lorwyn restock in a year I guess.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97894089
>Hat sets like Thunder Junction, Markov, Aetherdrift, etc feels more like the writers don't want to actually bother with a consistent plot or world and just want to do these "fun" concepts
I'll agree DFT was conceived that way but I wouldn't put it in the same tier as OTJ. Despite the ridiculous premise it does do a fair bit of worldbuilding for Avishkar/Kaladesh and Amonkhet, and irons out some of the new interplanar politics that weren't really touched on much in the sets prior. It's not like OTJ which was completely plot-driven and dropped the characters wearing cosplay in an empty sandbox.
>>
>>
>>97894735
DFT was bad though. Whatever idiot came up with death races for Magic needs a pay cut. I also hate that we revisited Amonkhet but most of the cards were tainted with that shitty Start Your Engines! mechanic which we will literally never see again.
I've said it once and I'll say it again, I do not think Magic benefits from every set having a new keyword. I think existing keywords and mechanics being revisited would be more interesting. I'd rather see Rooms actually become playable than just hyperactively jump to the next thing constantly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97895187
>I've said it once and I'll say it again, I do not think Magic benefits from every set having a new keyword.
Agreed 100%. There's so many shitty gimmick mechanics created just to have the required amount of new keywords per set. And 90% of them are just a special case of Kicker anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97895202
Yeah it’s not a system designed for visiting so many planes just once, but you’d think someone on the design team would suggest changing their approach.
I think the best keyword of the last few (-UB)sets has been blight probably. It’s an interesting “cost” to tack onto normal cards to justify reducing their mana value. Incredibly powerful in -1/-1 decks of course.
Other than that I don’t even know. Warp is good, I fucking love warping in Starwinder and telling people it says I draw for each damage dealt to face and not for each creature that connected. But again, so few cards printed with it that are worth playing and we all know when we’ll next see warp in a set…
>>97895382
You can’t post it in this thread regardless. Go on, the whole fucking board is your playground, I don’t get what your obsession is with trolling here.
>>
>>
>>97895886
>>97895769
I don't even mind forage, I think squirrels effectively getting a tribal keyword is cool, but like everything else we have no idea when we'll ever see it again
>>
>>97895769
>>97895886
4chan is fucking dying. I tried to post earlier, to the effect of:
I actually liked forage as a tribal keyword for squirrels but like everything else they didn't print enough of it and we might not see it again for years.
>>
File: spider.png (643.1 KB)
643.1 KB PNG
>>
>>
>>97892324
The Thran and The Brothers War are great. Prequel/beginning of the artifacts cycle and also the best in that series. Covers the rise of Yawgmoth and Urza vs Mishra.
Ice Age cycle (The Gathering Dark, Eternal Ice, Shattered Alliance) I loved in high school. Jodah and Jaya Ballard are fun to read.
Chainer's Torment is my favorite, great story and you can treat as a self contained novel if you want. Chainer and Kamahl are bros.
>>
>>97892324
Not the best but I think the weatherlight crew is overhated. The rath stuff is good and Mercandian Masques is a fun fish out of water adventure. Invasion block is sadly proto avengers endgame despite being good in game.
>>
File: harkinian big sip.png (11 KB)
11 KB PNG
>>97892324
Seconding the Brothers' War, Grubbkino is always worth a read. For pre-revision I'm particularly partial to Ashes of the Sun, but if you're not in the mood for Hurloon minotaur politics it's not likely to appeal to you. For nuWalker content, Agents of Artifice and Test of Metal are the only ones I can recommend, but I did stop reading after Scars of Mirrodin's rather dreadful novel.
My most controversial pick would be the Onlsaught cycle, books so divisive that they were officially retconned and remain despised by a lower class of intellects too base to appreciate unmen, angel-leopard-centaurs or Jeska's absolute clusterfuck of a journey.Every day I lament being in the timeline that Yawgmoth's reveal was retconned and we got the unbelievably gay nuPhyrexia instead of the true Phyrexia's return
>>
>>
>>
File: Ancestral Knowledge.png (476.3 KB)
476.3 KB PNG
Why haven't people liked this since it left Standard? Especially with ways to prevent and knock off counters?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97894032
>How is Lorwyn NOT a hat set if Innistrad is?
Well, first off it has no humans, so ninety-nine percent of actual fairy tales are eliminated.
>>97894041
Nah, that's the original Innistrad, which is the "Twilight" hat.
>>
File: 1751603157950065.jpg (1.7 MB)
1.7 MB JPG
>>97893937
Well I described playstyle above, but to be more specific I tend to lean away from blue or control although I'm not opposed to them. Flippi and Survival Infestation have been my preferred decks so far, but I'd like to try a variety.
>>
>>
>>97896640
The point was that it is an absurd assertion, dumbass.
>>97896746
>>97896746
>first off it has no humans, so ninety-nine percent of actual fairy tales are eliminated.
Why would that matter? First of all there's fairytales without humans, usually the ones about fairies and elves. But even if not, OG Lorwyn was from a time when WotC still gave a shit about the players being planeswalkers and visiting the planes, so you as the player are in the role of your snow white or whatever the fuck else.
>>
File: ecl-233-maralen-fae-ascendant.jpg (143.5 KB)
143.5 KB JPG
>>97892533
It's fine. I dunno, I have such a weakness for tribal decks, I have like 6 of them, I can't imagine building Alela as anything other than faeries, and other Alela is already strictly better for that. Arguably pic related is now even better and all legendary faeries that can, go in the 99.
There are also just better esper artifacts and/or enchantress commanders.
I think if I HAD to build Provocateur I would probably build it as equipment for the lols. Get a body to equip to every time I cast an equip spell, reduce equip costs to 0, swing with jacked up faeries
>>
>>
>>
File: dmr-157-elvish-spirit-guide.jpg (137.2 KB)
137.2 KB JPG
>>97897741
Yeah theft is tranny strats, but access to green and an excuse to put elves (like pic related) into faerie decks is really powerful. You can also make infinite loops that will steal your opponents entire decks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97897897
Having each of the two color limited archetypes themed around a particular fairy tale was genius desu. Gave the set a lot of definition and was an organic way to make the world feel big while still being resonant.
>>
>>
>>
File: blade-runner2049-blade-runner.gif (224.7 KB)
224.7 KB GIF
what went so wrong with this game?
>>
>>
>>
>>97899230
>every set has to be an island, resulting in mechanics bloat and little in the way of thought out connection and synergy (getting rid of blocks)
>extreme focus on making money, to the detriment of the overall functionality of the game (bajillion products a year, straight-to-Modern premium sets)
>shifting focus from a competitive format that demands careful balance and playtesting to a casual, deliberately unbalanced format, then printing mechanically unique cards that unbalance the format even further (Commander)
>>
>>
>>
>>97899290
>>97899299
It's so true. Even the most hated sets like Aetherdrift and Karlov Manor are infinitely improved flavorwise just by being able to have the main set not spoil the winner/killer, and then able to make cards referencing the winner/killer in the expansions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97899449
Seem to be doing just fine with MtG even if their other products suck
>>97899455
DODGE V FORD
>>
>>97899455
And yet mtg is actually going the way of pokemon, the tcg people keep telling me is "player friendly"
>all the chase cards are for collectors, just like pokemon
>building a casual edh deck has never been cheaper
(You) cannot refuse this no matter how hard you try with your contrarianism
>but.... but... edh isnt a real format!!
Uh oh 60 card boomer melty
>>
>>
>>97899390
What if they left things like that unanswered until the following set, and put a few cards in that were"conclusions" to the previous set?
For example, Thunder Junction followed Karlov Manor, so it gets a few non-affiliated cards depicting the killer from MKM. The players would take in all of MKM, make their guesses, have some time to speculate, and then during spoiler season for the next set we'd get our answer. All it would take is a single vertical cycle depicting the conclusion.
>>
>>97899499
No it's not, anything even resembling a staple or a popular commander is going to the moon, including fucking precons, because of speculators, and the definition of "casual" is getting muddier by the day
>>
>>97899516
>definition of "casual" is getting muddier by the day
Tell me that you're so poor you are that you cant afford a $100 edh deck so i can just tell you to accept being a filthy F2P and just proxy so all your problems go away
>>
>>97899532
>Cannot refute anon's point that card prices are inflated
>Straight to ad hom calling anon a "poorfag"
Kill yourself squirrelnigger.
You can notice price gouges without being priced out of the game, faggot.
>>
File: hasbro stock.png (97.4 KB)
97.4 KB PNG
>>97899504
I mean, objectively they are. Peaked pre-pandemic but they're only about $20 behind that peak. Comparable to Disney, well ahead of Mattel.
You can rage about it all you want but Harbro is doing well financially. Sure Magic is about their own profitable product, but apparently it's so profitable that's enough.
The issue isn't whether they are doing well financially, it is whether doing well financially justifies shameless molestation of your own product- which in my view it does not.
>>
>>
>>
>>97899566
What's the market cap on your company, anon?
>>97899567
Holy fuck would you read posts before you reply to them?
>Sure Magic is about their own profitable product, but apparently it's so profitable that's enough.
>The issue isn't whether they are doing well financially, it is whether doing well financially justifies shameless molestation of your own product- which in my view it does not.
>>
File: pokemon-pikachu.gif (1.3 MB)
1.3 MB GIF
>>97899546
>he cannot afford a $100 edh deck
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97899550
>You can rage about it all you want but Harbro is doing well financially
This. This is the spirit that has killed the west. Everything great we have ever created, has been ground down to dust by this mindset.
Line go up. Line go up. Line go up. What does it matter, is the world goes down? Mistaking a companies fiscal heights with their real success is a spiritual atrocity.
The measure of success is what you contribute to the world, and the legacy you leave. What good is higher profits, when your products turn shit? The value of your work is the fruits of your labor. Only vile, soulless, rotten husks mistake cash for merit. Burning your oak door to stay warm for one day of winter, means you die when the cold rushes in tomorrow.
>The issue isn't whether they are doing well financially, it is whether doing well financially justifies shameless molestation of your own product- which in my view it does not.
Amen.
>>
>>
>>97899604
>>97899606
NTA, but Devil's Advocate for a moment: what would you anons say as a measurable driver for the game's success? It's a product. Ultimately its goal is to make money. Even if there are other ways Hasbro could make money, clearly what they ARE doing is working towards that goal.
>>
>>
>>
>>97899616
>what would you anons say as a measurable driver for the game's success? It's a product. Ultimately its goal is to make money.
No see that's the problem. The game PIECES are a product, the game is the game. It's like if a company was making money selling rare 1-in-a-million platinum-plated chess pieces. The success of that company has fucking nothing to do with the health of the game of chess.
By WotC's own fucking admission they have no idea how many people are "kitchen table" Magic players and how/what those players play
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97899616
>>97899653
Hasbro is sacrificing the core audience of magic that has stuck with it for years for the sake of attracting newfags that might find marvel shit or any other specific pop culture icon attractive. At the same time they are also trying to get a piece of the pie that is the collectible pokemon market.
They are killing the game for the sake of short term profits and profitable fads, they are basically just being greedy.
>>
>>97899635
>Its gameplay being good, idiot.
I said "measurable" drivers.
>>97899633
I won't disagree with you that the game is worse now, but to the company selling those chess pieces, why would they want to stop? If enough people are buying those exclusive Gold Archer, Dragon, or whatever chess pieces, then from a company standpoint people are still playing the game. I do hate to give credibility to the Nebraska meme too, but individual anecdotes don't reflect the overall playerbase when there are shops that still have active playerbases.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97899695
>I said "measurable" drivers.
????
Literall
https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame
Since when the fuck has a tabletop game's quality not been measurable????????????
>>
>>
>>
File: 374d44b02cfbbfc94f669953879ebbf5.jpg (262.7 KB)
262.7 KB JPG
>>97899733
>why you don't let go
Because, it is right to hold on.
>>
>>97899712
>Average
Closer than the other guy's pisstake, but that's not really what I was going for.
The problem with averages is that they're suspect to a sampling bias problem. The only people who influenced that vote are people who know BGG and care to rate it. That's something that's at least one degree of separation further than engagement in the product skewed towards online enthusiasts more than the casual market. Put another way if someone buys a pack from their LGS every week, there's no 1-to-1 translation that person will vote on BBG.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97899757
You claimed it is not measurable.
It is currently being measured. Your claim is fully false.
>muh average
Goal post moving. Ignored.
I repeat: The measure by which a game's success is measured is the gameplay. The Duke is a better game than anything Hasbro has shit out, even though it made basically zero dollars.
>>
>>
>>
>>97899812
>Well if you want to be pedantic, I asked for a quantifiable measure of the game's success, and instead you gave me an aggregate of BoardGameGeek users' opinions
Which is a quantity. The measure has been quantified. You have been given a quantifiable measure.
>>
>>97899783
That's why I think my next one is going to be a proxy. The speculative market and inflation made this game ridiculous for how little I get out of it to accommodate newfags and people who don't play. I can't imagine being a new player and being asked to buy into this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97899867
>You received what you asked for.
No I did not, and I just said so.
If I go into my LGS tomorrow, how many people there do you think will have ever voted on BGG? Considering worldwide that there's 43K ratings across that website for its entire lifespan, probably not many if at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97899985
No, we're already past that. Your request was satisfied so you shifted the goal posts to "muh objective tho"
Traditional verificationist slime tactics. Sadly, it won't work. The objective standard for the quality of a game is the standards of best practices in game design. (Accompanied by relative best practice standards in art / literature if present in said game.)
>>
>>
>>
>>97899994
>then fall back on an aggregate that doesn't poll even a thousandth of the playerbase.
I copypasted the rest of the line since you didn't.
Your quantity doesn't satisfy me, and instead of accepting that and revising your approach you're instead turning into a malding retard screaming that he won a point that's been rebuttaled and trying to ad hom.
Let me restate in more absolute terms: your figure isn't a random sampling of the playerbase nor is it any meaningful quantifiable division. It's the kind of figure WotC wouldn't use to quantify the health of their game, and not one that anyone beyond a subset of enthusiasts care about. It's not reflective of the game at large.
>>
>>97899999
Meant for >>97899938.
Nice digits.
>>
>>97900022
>I copypasted the rest of the line since you didn't.
It's not relevant, so I don't know why you would bother.
>Your quantity doesn't satisfy me,
I don't care. The existence of a quantified metric objectively satisfies the requirements you laid out. (For a to be quantifiable metric.)
Your refusal to accept this is not relevant.
>Let me restate in more absolute terms: your figure isn't a random sampling of the playerbase nor is it any meaningful quantifiable division. It's the kind of figure WotC wouldn't use to quantify the health of their game, and not one that anyone beyond a subset of enthusiasts care about. It's not reflective of the game at large.
Doesn't matter. It is an extant quantifiable metric, which full and completely fulfills the request you put forward. Nitpicking about the nature of the metric is not relevant to this discussion.
>>
>>
>>97900045
>It's not relevant
Well it is, and refusing to acknowledge that is moving the goalposts (apparently).
I asked for, and I'll quote, a "measurable driver for the game's success." BGG isn't reflective of the larger playerbase, so I don't care.
Understand that enforced apathy works in your favor, since if we're grabbing arbitrary metrics besides this, you do end up validating that "local Nebraska scene" meme by cherrypicking the game's health into a curated group of people.
Directly address this instead of repeating yourself or don't even bother replying.
>>
>>
>>97900101
>Well it is,
You asked for a quantifiable metric.
The existence of a quantifiable metric satisfies this request.
A quantifiable metric exists.
Therefor, you have been satisfied.
>BGG isn't reflective of the larger playerbase, so I don't care.
Ah, I see you are retarded and aren't aware of what "Example" means. Observe that in response to a request for a measure of a game's quality, you were directed to a site that measures the quality of games. Perhaps you can figure out the point that was being made from there.
If not, whatever. Go take your idiocy, and carry on. I won't spoon feed you things you are too dull to comprehend. You are too stupid to be worth the effort.
>>
>>
>>97900149
>A quantifiable metric that reflects the health of this game at large you disingenuous faggot.
No, the discussion was incepted by the question,
>What is a measurable driver for the game's success?
The proposed response: Gameplay quality.
The attempted refutation is that "quality" isn't quantifiable.
It is provably quantifiable by the existence of websites that exist solely to quantify it.
The goalposts were moved to "Objective".
Which was also satisfied, by reference to industry best practices as an objective standard.
>>
>>97900168
>It is provably quantifiable by the existence of websites that exist solely to quantify it.
Ah, finally, you're starting to actually move past "b-b-but I gave a figure" and actually argue its relevance.
And I'll rephrase my earlier rebuttal: BGG isn't even a thousandth of the playerbase, and doesn't directly translate into player participation. So why would WotC even acknowledge it if their sales are up?
>The goalposts were moved to "Objective".
No they were not you lying faggot. From the start, I asked for a quantifiable measure of the game's success. You have not given me that at all. You tried to answer with "gameplay quality," and your backing for that is an enthusiast aggregate. Again...
>if we're grabbing arbitrary metrics besides this [a direct reflection of the game's success], you do end up validating that "local Nebraska scene" meme by cherrypicking the game's health into a curated group of people.
Please, address these points instead of just repeating yourself.
>>
>>97900247
>Ah, finally, you're starting to actually move past "b-b-but I gave a figure" and actually argue its relevance.
This was implicit in the initial presentation of the example. You being too parse that information to notice is a you problem. You acting smug about your inability to parse that information is pathetic and shameful.
>And I'll rephrase my earlier rebuttal: BGG isn't even a thousandth of the playerbase, and doesn't directly translate into player participation. So why would WotC even acknowledge it if their sales are up?
Sorry, why would we care what WotC thinks? This is a discussion about the success of games in general, within the context of MTG. WotC has literally zero relevance to this discussion.
>From the start, I asked for a quantifiable measure of the game's success.
It has been provided.
>You have not given me that at all.
Man declares the sky doesn't exist while looking up.
Review scores, Captain Retard. The quantifiable metric is review scores.
Does the existence of that metric make you cry? Shit your pants and cum? Fine. Go with a boolean checklist of whether or not a game follows any given best practice.
>arbitrary metrics
Merely declaring that a fact which negates your entire point to be arbitrary does not prevent your point from being negated. The "arbitrarienss" of something is, in fact, total faff of zero consequence.
>you do end up validating that "local Nebraska scene" meme by cherrypicking the game's health into a curated group of people.
Good thing we're not talking about the game's health, then.
>Please, address these points instead of just repeating yourself.
Just did. But also, I didn't need to address them because they are have no relevance to the discussion.
>>
>>97900300
It's just if ALL you care about is making money, then you miss the point of what was the basis of capitalism, provide a good product or service to society and THEN be rewarded profits over it, when profits are your only focus, you turn capitalism into a game where cutting off the quality to its minimum becomes the whole point, which leads to the current shitty business practices of most companies nowadays.
>>
>>97900329
>It's just if ALL you care about is making money, then you miss the point of what was the basis of capitalism, provide a good product or service to society and THEN be rewarded profits over it, when profits are your only focus, you turn capitalism into a game where cutting off the quality to its minimum becomes the whole point, which leads to the current shitty business practices of most companies nowadays.
Sure. We're not talking about that. We're talking about a metric by which a game's success is determined.
The assertion that "Profit maketh the quality" is completely obliterated by the existence of Van Gogh, J.S. Bach, and games like The Duke. The existence of such people/things proves that anyone who subscribes to the idea that profit determines quality is a fool.
>>
>>97900247
>And I'll rephrase my earlier rebuttal: BGG isn't even a thousandth of the playerbase, and doesn't directly translate into player participation. So why would WotC even acknowledge it if their sales are up?
Not that anon, but WotC themselves make constant surveys to its playerbase, Maro has his blogatog, they have their own sales figures and such. They have more than enough data to support their decisions. The argument isn't that the choices they make do'nt make them more profits, the argument is that why should we care about that or encourage it if it makes the overall quality of the product worse or more irrelevant over time?
Also, the argument that "More money > more success" is not that strong overall when several pieces of great media, from movies to games and such have not always been financially successful because financial success goes beyond just good product. There's marketing, market interest, overall financial health of the market at the time the product is release, cultural relevance, etc.
And I'll rephrase my earlier rebuttal: BGG isn't even a thousandth of the playerbase, and doesn't directly translate into player participation. So why would WotC even acknowledge it if their sales are up?
It's not the same as the BGG example because BGG is a well known enthusiast website within the /tg/ scene. It's not like that Nebraska store is well known for being a trend setter or reference for the sales and design decisions of WotC when BGG has been taken as reference by other designers and companies several times, if not specifically by WotC.
>>
>>97900341
Oh, I agree with that, hence my other post here: >>97900350
>>
>>97900300
>You being too parse that information to notice is a you problem. You acting smug about your inability to parse that information is pathetic and shameful.
I really hate to be the guy that says "you make grammar bad big dumb," but when you're making lines like this, take a step back from the keyboard, take a breath, and revise your approach.
>Sorry, why would we care what WotC thinks?
...Because WotC makes the game you idiot, not us.
If WotC uses a metric besides some forum's average rating, why would they change course if what they're doing makes them money?
>The quantifiable metric is review scores.
I'm going to copypaste the line you didn't bother answering:
>>BGG isn't even a thousandth of the playerbase, and doesn't directly translate into player participation. So why would WotC even acknowledge it if their sales are up?
You're so fucking stupid, man...
>Merely declaring that a fact which negates your entire point to be arbitrary does not prevent your point from being negated
I had to reread that pile of shit line twice and it isn't even correct. Let me reword it for the sake of my sanity: A rebuttal is still valid even if it's arbitrary.
No. No it is not, and you're now actively going through doublespeak here.
Is your "7" the same as someone else's "7?" No, it is not. That's also part of the reason EDH rankings switched to the bracket system and tried to give more concrete baselines, and even then there's still room for subjectivity. Slapping a nimber on something does not make it quantifiable just because you revised an abstraction to have a number label, you stupid faggot.
If you want to argue otherwise, I rate your post a 0/10. You cannot argue against that because it's a quantifiable metric because it uses a number, and is thus objective.
>>
>>97900382
>I really hate to be the guy that says "you make grammar bad big dumb," but when you're making lines like this, take a step back from the keyboard, take a breath, and revise your approach.
No, I do NOT edit my posts on Family Friendly 4channel. Cry about it, nerd.
>If WotC uses
Is does not equal ought.
>Is your "7" the same as someone else's "7?" No, it is not. That's also part of the reason EDH rankings switched to the bracket system and tried to give more concrete baselines, and even then there's still room for subjectivity. Slapping a nimber on something does not make it quantifiable just because you revised an abstraction to have a number label, you stupid faggot.
How someone opts to quantify something has zero impact on whether or not that ting is able to be quantified.
>>
>>97900382
>If WotC uses a metric besides some forum's average rating, why would they change course if what they're doing makes them money?
Because it's a short term metric for profits that other companies in the same area of "collectibles" have been shown to not hold for long, specially when you rely on outside IPs to hold it up.
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/60971/funko-sales-profits-decline
Nobody is refuting the point that they are not making money, we are arguing that they are making this profit while running their product and brand to the ground and only because Hasbro has to squeeze them for all its worth because they are the only profitable part of the company.
They are making money NOW, companies usually want to make money for a long time, but this type of business practice is the type of practice that leads to companies either failing when the IP licenses costs outweight the earnings or when the parent company goes under and they don't have anything beyond cheap, generic product to keep them afloat.
>Is your "7" the same as someone else's "7?" No, it is not. That's also part of the reason EDH rankings switched to the bracket system and tried to give more concrete baselines, and even then there's still room for subjectivity. Slapping a nimber on something does not make it quantifiable just because you revised an abstraction to have a number label, you stupid faggot.
But completely ignoring the number altogether is also stupid. At the very least it showcases a trend in a certain public's interest in the product's quality. It's relevant as a measuring stick, but WotC can and mostly likely choose to not use it or care about it in lieu of its own internal measurements like the surveys and such.
You want something absolute to denote game quality and it simply isn't one, but also arguing that BGG score are 100% subjective is also wrong because BGG, as a website, has its own standards and general trends in how they perceive quality and game design.
>>
>>
>>97900350
>not the same as the BGG example because BGG is a well known enthusiast website within the /tg/ scene.
Known to us, yeah, but that's also the same issue as before where we're not reflective of the larger game.
>It's not like that Nebraska store is well known for being a trend setter or reference for the sales and design decisions of WotC
I don't really know of any evidence that BGG is that much of a design influence either, but regardless, the fallacy of the Nebraska shop is to point out that Wizards is designing to cater to local metas instead of larger online communities. It's a decision that can be backed by your forementioned direct surveys.
With regards to your implicit mention that good products can still not make money, I agree that there are some where this is the case, but due to Magic's existing history I wouldn't consider those applicable exceptions.
>>
>>97900472
>Known to us, yeah
Known to people that play card games and board games as a hobby aka most likely everybody involved in WotC or at least in WotC's game design decisions.
>I don't really know of any evidence that BGG is that much of a design influence either
I'd argue BBG score is similar to metacritic scores for movies and video games, but on a smaller scale. It's not officially relevant, but it's a relevant point for many game developers and publishers. Not WotC most likely because they have their own measuring systems, as referenced in other posts.
>>
>>
>>97900421
>No, I do NOT edit my posts on Family Friendly 4channel
No, I don't care that you're vulgar. I care that you're throwing a tard rage.
>Is does not equal ought.
You're too stupid to see how this forfeits your entire point.
>How someone opts to quantify something has zero impact on whether or not that ting is able to be quantified.
I agree, and by complementary argument attaching a number to an opinion does not make that opinion a quanfitied metric.
>>97900424
>Funko pops
I see you faggots toss this around a lot, but it's not comparable. Funko's strategy is to cast a wide net for its products to try to ensure that someone will buy one of their products. Fundamentally, this means most of the figures at a Funko display in a store will not sell to the average consumer, for cheap. Selling maybe three figures won't recoup the losses if the other hundred in the display are going to be a net loss for the company.
UB doesn't work like that. WotC can easily recoup the loss for a failed UB like Assassin's Creed of Spider-Man, and the risk for getting one right outweighs it to them. The UB strategy is to bet that the sales of Final Fantasy, Middle Earth, etc etc will outweigh the production costs of those sets AND the failed UB lines. They only need a few of them to be hits for that to happen.
It gets even more ridiculous, since WotC's sales go through distributors, so if a UB ends up failing, WotC doesn't eat as much of the loss since the distributors already did. So the gamble for them is either that a UB product will give them marginal loss, or make LotR/FF money
Again, not a comparison to Funko, at all.
>or when the parent company goes under and they don't have anything beyond cheap, generic product to keep them afloat
Wut? If Hasbro goes under, if WotC can't split, they're gone no matter how "healthy" the game is.
>trend in a certain public's interest
Again, who gives a shit about a "certain" group's interest?
You keep seeming to think that care is granted.
>>
File: maxresdefault-2612944674.jpg (157.4 KB)
157.4 KB JPG
>>97900577
>I care that you're throwing a tard rage.
>>
>>97900496
>Known to people that play card games and board games as a hobby
Again, if I walk into my LGS tomorrow, how many people there do you think will have left a review on BGG?
>everybody involved in WotC or at least in WotC's game design decisions.
MaRo didn't even know what "LabMan deck" meant until a few years ago.
I really doubt that WotC employees are that invested in what places outside of the tournament scene and Youtube are saying.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
It's up, with a disclaimer to give jannies the benefit of the doubt
>>97901462
>>97901462
>>97901462
>>
>>97900577
>UB doesn't work like that. WotC can easily recoup the loss for a failed UB like Assassin's Creed of Spider-Man
How do you know that? Do you know how much the licensing fee was? What was the deal?
>The UB strategy is to bet that the sales of Final Fantasy, Middle Earth, etc etc will outweigh the production costs of those sets AND the failed UB lines. They only need a few of them to be hits for that to happen.
Up until when, how many times will it work? It's literally gambling on which IP will sell or not.
>It gets even more ridiculous, since WotC's sales go through distributors, so if a UB ends up failing, WotC doesn't eat as much of the loss since the distributors already did. So the gamble for them is either that a UB product will give them marginal loss, or make LotR/FF money
And you think distributors will keep getting those products if they start not selling as much? Spiderman, Ass creed and TMNT already did sales below expectaiotns.
Here's a different comparison then:
https://gameinformer.com/feature/2019/04/09/the-rise-and-fall-of-tellt ale-games
Telltale games. A well known game developer that started well enough with their own IPs and games, then started making games with cheaper licenses like Sam and Max and then finally made a massive success with The Walking Dead. After that, EVERY SINGLE GAME they made was based on a license they paid big money for and every single one lost money (save for the minecraft one). Literally kept pumping out games, paying big money for licensing until they never got another big hit and they went bankrupt.
There you go, a much more appropriate comparison.
>Wut? If Hasbro goes under, if WotC can't split, they're gone no matter how "healthy" the game is.
Yes, hence our concern with the shitty business practices, you doofus.
>Again, who gives a shit about a "certain" group's interest?
People that care about sales and don't have other means to measure public interest? BGG is a source of data, even if limited.
>>
>>97900602
>Again, if I walk into my LGS tomorrow, how many people there do you think will have left a review on BGG?
Anedoctal. Your LGS doesn't represent the market either. BGG at least can showcase its track record in terms of how they qualify and consider the quality of the games they feel are good or bad. Your LGS can literally have anybody and tend to any direction in terms of tastes and purchase tendencies. It's way worse of an example for interest if we are discussing BGG as a decent source of public interest. BGG > your LGS 100%
>>
>>97900577
>I agree, and by complementary argument attaching a number to an opinion does not make that opinion a quanfitied metric.
It does if you keep a consistent record of said opinions and consistency. That's literally how any decent review system with a score works. You set up standards and parameters that work for the reviewer and you contrast that with what it's being reviewed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97901657
>How do you know that?
Easy. Because if it were prohibitorily expensive, we wouldn't have a lineup of them for the next year announced WHILE UB Secret Lairs are still happening.
>It's literally gambling on which IP will sell or not.
You can say the exact thing about any expansion.
>And you think distributors will keep getting those products if they start not selling as much?
Yes, they will, because those stores don't want to lose their WPN status or miss out on the next FF.
>After that, EVERY SINGLE GAME they made was based on a license they paid big money for and every single one lost money (save for the minecraft one).
Telltale chose niche IPs and all of their games were the same, but different. UB has Magic's game as a backdrop, but it's a continuation.
Think of it this way:
You play The Walking Dead. You like it. You see Fables. You know only that it's going to be a VN in the Telltale formula. The world might not interest you.
You play Magic. There's a Ninja Turtle set coming out. The theme is a turn-off for you, but there's a good GB land in the precon, and Shredder looks like he can hurt the table. You pick it up because it also has a mana rock that makes treasure and another copy of Blasphemous Act.
A more appropriate comparison, yeah, but the continuation aspect gives incentive for people who aren't interested in the IP to buy the product anyway because it directly upgrades their existing game instead of asking for new investment.
>hence our concern with the shitty business practices, you doofus.
...But UB is making them money, dumbass.
>>
>>97901675
>Anedoctal
No, statistical you mouthbreather. BGG gives around 47k reviews of MTG over that sites' lifespan. Googlefu shows that 50 million people play globally. There is a <0.1% chance anyone I ask will have left a review there.
And my LGS does represent the market you dumbass. It's a random sampling of Magic fans who actually participate in the game. It's the most direct criteria and level of separation you can get.
>BGG at least can showcase its track record in terms of how they qualify
It's literally just an aggregate of opinions my guy...
>Your LGS can literally have anybody and tend to any direction in terms of tastes and purchase tendencies
Yes. That's why it's a better representation. Do you not know what "Sampling Bias" means?
>>97901679
>if you keep a consistent record of said opinions and consistency
You're implying this about every review on the site. Aside from being categorically false, how would you know that? How do you know an opinion written, say, five years ago is still relevant?
>You set up standards and parameters that work for the reviewer
As far as I can tell that isn't there on BGG, so quit talking out of your ass.
>>
>>97902378
>Think of it this way:
I want to elaborate on this point a little more.
The trend we've seen with (successful) UBs is that they have some design space that's more outlandish and power crept compared to what came before. To give two examples, cards like Vivi ruined a few formats, and Shark Shredder is a fun design. Meanwhile, some people interested in these IPs that have a cursory knowledge of Magic might be tempted to play and get invested, especially when the tie-in is faithful to the source material. Ninja Turtles pulled from multiple product lines, Final Fantasy made Nomura art on its chase variants, Hell even the Sonic SLs had artists from the IDW comics do the art. From a marketing perspective, this incentivizes consumers from both angles of the tie-in to buy the product.
A lot of Telltale games relied on IPs that the public lacked a larger awareness of, and the gameplay was already established as rather lukewarm, since it was carried by the individual writing entirely towards that series. But the main difference is that Telltale games are standalone from their other licenses, so as far as repeat consumer is concerned it's an entirely new risk from an entirely new brand (i.e. the choices you made in The Walking Dead have no effect on Minecraft Story Mode).
On the other end of that approach, if someone picks up The Walking Dead because the like the show, what incentive is there for them to pick up Sam and Max? The gameplay of Telltale games is not engaging enough to be a positive factor for most consumers making that decision.
IN SHORT:
Telltale needed to convince The Walking Dead fans to buy Sam and Max. Magic can stop halfway and work the vice-versa.