What Modern Masters Tells Us

79 posts / 0 new
Last post
The sets included in Modern Masters gives us insight to what I see are two possibilities.

1. We will be getting the zendikar fetches in the next block or so.   Wizards says that Modern Masters is supposed to lower the cost of entry for modern players.  Making modern an FNM formats further cements Wizards goal in making modern an accesseble format for their more casual players.  One of the most expensive aspects of building a modern deck is crafting the mana bases and the zendikar fetches are public enemy number one.  If wizards wants to lower the cost of modern they need to reprint the fetches. (Or print new ones)

2. Wizards is extremely out of touch.  I personally believe that without more frequent reprints of modern staples, i.e. a yearly modern masters type set, modern will quickly go the way of legacy.  A format which is too intimidating and too cost prohibitive for prospective players. 
I agree, perhaps we can get the Onslaught block fetches (Polluted Delta, Flooded Strand, Bloodstained Mire, etc) reprinted sometime too.


I am building a few decks, and one is practically finished (My Pyromancer Ascension, all it really is missing for optimal-ness is a playset of Scalding Tarn and Misty Rainforest for sheer optimization.) However, just the 2 Tarns+rainforests = more than I spent on the whole deck probably, let alone a playset of each. And I looked to duck out of a budget option to run Arid Mesa or something, but nope, $24 each.


Many hope for fetch land reprints now that WotC has "exploded" us with Shock reprints.

Also naturally reprinting fetches helps Legacy too, although the ABUR dual thing is unsolvable (unless WotC breaks a promise, a serious promise in the form of the reserved list).
Decks I run
Show
I currently run a deck for Standard, Modern, Commander and Legacy. For standard, I have a typical, horribly budget Rakdos Deck Wins. For Modern, I have a B/G/U/W Draw-go Reanimator featuring my favorite creature, Wurmcoil Engine. For Legacy, I'm trying too hard to break Pyromancer Ascension. I also run a Naya Zoo with all the oldies. For Commander/EDH, I'm running The Mimeoplasm. A little morals thing about me, I like winning through combos, but not infinitely. However quiet, I am a Christian, so feel free to tell me you are too, it's always a relief.
How to be saved?
Show
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved and your house. Book of Acts 16:31
Cheers!
Fetchlands are basically the worst designed part of this game ever.
Certainly we will only get fetches after shocklands rotate out of Standard. No chance of fetchs+shocks together in Standard.
[<o>]
Fetchlands are basically the worst designed part of this game ever.



Urza's Saga, Prophecy, Mirrodin, Champions of Kamigawa, Book Burning, Obsidian Fireheart and so forth were just my imagination, then?

Regardless, Modern Masters tells us one thing, really:

Buy our cards.
Obsidian Fireheart


What's wrong with Obsidian Fireheart?

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
Obsidian Fireheart


What's wrong with Obsidian Fireheart?



Its textbox is an abomination.

It's like they forgot it's no longer 1994.
but the reminder text is cool
proud member of the 2011 community team
The sets included in Modern Masters gives us insight to what I see are two possibilities.

1. We will be getting the zendikar fetches in the next block or so.   Wizards says that Modern Masters is supposed to lower the cost of entry for modern players.  Making modern an FNM formats further cements Wizards goal in making modern an accesseble format for their more casual players.  One of the most expensive aspects of building a modern deck is crafting the mana bases and the zendikar fetches are public enemy number one.  If wizards wants to lower the cost of modern they need to reprint the fetches. (Or print new ones)

2. Wizards is extremely out of touch.  I personally believe that without more frequent reprints of modern staples, i.e. a yearly modern masters type set, modern will quickly go the way of legacy.  A format which is too intimidating and too cost prohibitive for prospective players. 




Modern has a better chance as there is no no-reprint list for it.  So they can always throw in some support when needed.

How are they out of touch?  Isn't this a test to see how popular the modern masters product goes and is recieved?  Then after seeing how they go they will decide if they want to print the same set, make a MM2, or just drop it all together?

Also they will most likely re-print the fetch lands, but they are not going to flood the market with every expensive modern card available.

I am so glad I was taking all those zendikar packs back when it was on the way out and opening them.  Rather easy to get fetch lands.  Plus this was not that long ago.
The sets included in Modern Masters gives us insight to what I see are two possibilities.

1. We will be getting the zendikar fetches in the next block or so.   Wizards says that Modern Masters is supposed to lower the cost of entry for modern players.  Making modern an FNM formats further cements Wizards goal in making modern an accesseble format for their more casual players.  One of the most expensive aspects of building a modern deck is crafting the mana bases and the zendikar fetches are public enemy number one.  If wizards wants to lower the cost of modern they need to reprint the fetches. (Or print new ones)

2. Wizards is extremely out of touch.  I personally believe that without more frequent reprints of modern staples, i.e. a yearly modern masters type set, modern will quickly go the way of legacy.  A format which is too intimidating and too cost prohibitive for prospective players. 




Modern has a better chance as there is no no-reprint list for it.  So they can always throw in some support when needed.

How are they out of touch?  Isn't this a test to see how popular the modern masters product goes and is recieved?  Then after seeing how they go they will decide if they want to print the same set, make a MM2, or just drop it all together?

Also they will most likely re-print the fetch lands, but they are not going to flood the market with every expensive modern card available.

I am so glad I was taking all those zendikar packs back when it was on the way out and opening them.  Rather easy to get fetch lands.  Plus this was not that long ago.




the reason I  wizards appears out of touch is due to the fact that they want modern masters to increase the   player base.  If they meet this goal then the fetches Will be ineven greater demand.  if they're successful how will anyone be able to afford the mana bases?
Renasce knows nothing of card design or having fun.
but the reminder text is cool



No, it's outdated. If they had continued to make card text like that since the beginning, then I could agree, but they've been moving away from that sort of thing since the early days, so it really seems rather out-of-place and, as I said, outdated. I like internal consitency.

Renasce knows nothing of card design or having fun.



Oh, sorry, let me change my response to be more acknowledging of the amounts of fun contained in this card text. Ahem:

HAHAHA IT SAYS BURN HAHAHA THIS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER OH MY SIDES HAHAHAHA I AM SO INCREDIBLY AMUSED HAHAHAHA
Things change and they will continue to change. Things like cipher and imprint shows they can still do flavorful rules text that has little meaning.
As mechanics. A single card feels out of place. That's why I don't like it. It feels like a random non-sequiteur, not a deliberate choice. More like a last-minute templating solution. "Hey, what if we just write "The land continues to burn"? That would be so cool!" It's a lot like Mindless Null, which basically exists because R&D thought it was funny how bad it was - it seems lazy, pointless and kinda dumb to me.
In the case of Mindless Null, it's a flavor choice, which is completely fine by Magic design principles since a lot of its cards and mechanics are flavor-inspired. Furthermore, Mindless Null doesn't use any wording that's out of place among common Magic cards. Fireheart could present us with new design space in the future and maybe even see reprint accordingly. I personally love to see new words get common usage, as is the case with Cipher and encoded creatures. So, let's see if Fireheart produces anything meaningful in the future.

It's not the mechanic on the Null, it's the fact that they intentionally made him worse than they originally intended to because they thought it would be funny. But don't take my words for it:

www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.a...

While this card isn't a Vampire, it is a "Vampire matters" card and it has a good story, so I'm going to tell it. The original version of this card was as you see it except for 1 ManaBlack Mana. The card was created by Ken during the vampire design. Ken turned over his card designs to Henry (Stern) to put into the set. Henry typed the card in incorrectly as 2 ManaBlack Mana instead of 1 ManaBlack Mana. When the mistake was noticed, most of R&D found it funny and the card was kept as is.
It IS funny, and I hope they do more of the like in the future. They don't need 150 good cards in every set.
As mechanics. A single card feels out of place. That's why I don't like it. It feels like a random non-sequiteur, not a deliberate choice. More like a last-minute templating solution. "Hey, what if we just write "The land continues to burn"? That would be so cool!" It's a lot like Mindless Null, which basically exists because R&D thought it was funny how bad it was - it seems lazy, pointless and kinda dumb to me.


Isn't that the whole point of mythic rares? For them to do cool, one-shot, weird, non-sequiteur things?

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
That's at least one of the uses for them, yes.
It IS funny, and I hope they do more of the like in the future. They don't need 150 good cards in every set.



That's your opinion, and I respect that.

But you're wrong and I hate you.

Isn't that the whole point of mythic rares? For them to do cool, one-shot, weird, non-sequiteur things?



It's certainly a possibility, but I don't think it was well done in this case. Unless it allows me to physically set my opponent's lands on fire - in which case, I take everything back I said earlier - it just doesn't make any sense to randomly change the templating from what it would have been if the card had been a common.
Stop being a stick in the mud.

Fetchlands are basically the worst designed part of this game ever.


This right here.
A wise man on film sequels:
Watching sequels to really good films is like visiting a bollock kicking parlour, paying your money and then proceeding to get your bollocks kicked...then leaving and returning at a later date to repeat the process. -iamthehollow
Decks: :R::G: Karn Tron :R::U: Bloody Fish There Will Be Blood (movie).
Fetchlands were created just to make money, probably.



2. Wizards is extremely out of touch.  I personally believe that without more frequent reprints of modern staples, i.e. a yearly modern masters type set, modern will quickly go the way of legacy.  A format which is too intimidating and too cost prohibitive for prospective players. 



I'm finally learning to temper my excitement from WOTC announcements. Whenever they talk about something new, my first instinct is to imagine the coolest thing it could be, then accept that it will end up being the exact opposite of that. My initial excitement with the flavor of Innistrad was torpedoed into oblivion by the DFC's, so much that I took a year off from the game. 


When they announced Modern, my first thought was that would simply start reprinting Modern staples in future sets. That way they just get folded back into the game organically.

*Of course* what WOTC thinks to do is sell overpriced premium packs that will be rarer than Portal Three Kingdoms, ensuring Kitchen Table players like myself only grab a couple just to see what's in them and that the speculators and the less-than-Friendly LGS's jack the price up to obscene levels, just like the FTV sets. 


I really do want to enjoy MTG as a hobby, but sometimes it's like WOTC is doing everything in it's power to keep me away. 

Of course I don't see it changing as long as the big tournaments continue to bring the folks, I just wish I could filter the main website's articles to hide all the tournament reports. 

 
Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013
Stop being a stick in the mud.



Hey, I was asked why I thought it was bad design and I explained. I'm not seriously telling anyone to agree with me. Jokingly is a different matter.

And I still don't get why fetches are bad design. They're basically the most versatile mana-fixers ever made. Sure, that might be considered bad design by some people, but definitely not the worst in the game. They're not Coastal Hornclaw.
Combined with the Shocks from Ravnica and the original dual lands, they make mana bases way too easy. 90% (hyperbole) of 3 colour decks consist of 5-12 fetches, and 4-8 shocks. If fetches weren't in Modern, it would be a slower and more diverse format and would require even more careful deck building and balancing of colour weights and the like. Not to mention a huge price reduction, attracting many people. For a stock competitive Zoo (Naya colours) deck, you can easily spend upwards of $200 on fetches alone.
A wise man on film sequels:
Watching sequels to really good films is like visiting a bollock kicking parlour, paying your money and then proceeding to get your bollocks kicked...then leaving and returning at a later date to repeat the process. -iamthehollow
Decks: :R::G: Karn Tron :R::U: Bloody Fish There Will Be Blood (movie).
I'm thinking they could make uncommon versions of the fetches that are of course slower but will cost a lot less. ETB Tapped is a good start, similar to the Refuge cycle from Zendikar (which ironically is the block that gave us Modern Fetchlands to begin with).

I'm thinking they could make uncommon versions of the fetches that are of course slower but will cost a lot less. ETB Tapped is a good start, similar to the Refuge cycle from Zendikar (which ironically is the block that gave us Modern Fetchlands to begin with).



Those already exist they are at uncommon in Mirage Bad River They could just reprint that cycle.
At the time of this post, there's precisely five representing the ally-color pairs. But we still need an enemy-color cycle.

Checking their prices on StarCity, the Flood Plain and Bad River go for $0.75 each while the others go for $0.45 each. That ETBT effect apparently means a difference of over $30. I say it's high time the original fetchlands got a reprint and a new cycle to accompany them, or at least a new megacycle of lands that work the same way.

Say, you don't suppose the additional guild land megacycle from DGM is just that, do you?

They're bad design because they make manabases too easy in conjunction with original duals and derivatives like shocklands, therefore limiting the cards you can print in the future.

They encourage bad play and deckbuilding (playing them for 'thinning').

They make certain effects (SDT, DRS and Brainstorm, for instance) more powerful that they should be as 'free' ways to shuffle and load lands into your graveyard.

They make games take much longer because they multiply severalfold the number of times you need to shuffle and cut, to achieve a fairly basic outcome (get a land into play).

www.channelfireball.com/home/rule-of-law...
I don't remember asking why they would be considered bad design.

I merely disagreed with the notion that they're the worst design.
Speaking of disagreeing about bad design, what exactly is wrong with Book Burning?  It's a not a particularly good card, but the punisher mechanic is well established.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the very unfortunate line break in the card's rules text.  Which is not really a problem with design so much as it is card formatting.
The last few cards on my list were mostly meant as a joke. I don't really care that much about Fireheart either, I just brought it up because it bothered me when I read it. But yes, the reference was mostly to the punisher mechanic being bad. I was gonna put in Dash Hopes, but that line break is just too good.

EDIT: Oh, and before anyone asks, the reason I don't like the punisher mechanic is the same as why I don't like the Wurm's Tooth cycle. Because it's one of those things that are hugely overestimated in terms of how good it is by new or inexperienced players and cofuses them into including bad cards in their decks, possibly causing them losses merely by having the card exist. I know MaRo has defended these as "But it teaches them to play and evaluate cards", which I disagree with. Creating cards that look good, but are really bad only causes confusion and bad decisions.
Which people then learn from. If someone doesn't make a mistake or a bad choice, how will they ever grow? We weren't all able to walk right away after all.
A wise man on film sequels:
Watching sequels to really good films is like visiting a bollock kicking parlour, paying your money and then proceeding to get your bollocks kicked...then leaving and returning at a later date to repeat the process. -iamthehollow
Decks: :R::G: Karn Tron :R::U: Bloody Fish There Will Be Blood (movie).
Right, but there's no reason to intentionally try and "deceive" the players.
They're not deceiving anyone. They simply print cards; some cards tend to be good, some tend to be bad. If new players can't tell the bad cards from the good cards yet, that simply stems from their own inexperience.
A wise man on film sequels:
Watching sequels to really good films is like visiting a bollock kicking parlour, paying your money and then proceeding to get your bollocks kicked...then leaving and returning at a later date to repeat the process. -iamthehollow
Decks: :R::G: Karn Tron :R::U: Bloody Fish There Will Be Blood (movie).
Hence the quotation marks.

While no one is actively lying to anyone, the idea that new players become better by thinking that bad cards are good for a longer time is a rather flawed one. My two-person starter package contained a Vizzerdrix, which I thought was the best thing ever until I compared to another card that I found in the packaging which I had missed at first - Rhox. Granted, it was very simplistic and not everything should be that way, but it's what taught me that a 5/5 could be better than a 6/6 by having good abilities.

Punisher cards, however, are far more insidious. You will find even decent players arguing that Dash Hopes is a good card because it always does a lot of work for you for two mana. And they're right, it does - just never what you want. Just like new players need to learn that life is less valuable than they think, players also need to learn that giving your opponent the decision over something is a long way from deciding yourself. The cards are deceptively useless because they look good on paper, but are terrible in theory. That's why they're bad design.

That, and because they're bad cards.

Now, can we agree that my original point of the fetch lands not being the worst thing in Magic is correct, or do I need to clarify my opinions on what I think is bad design further?
I see no line break. I must be blind.
Hence the quotation marks.

While no one is actively lying to anyone, the idea that new players become better by thinking that bad cards are good for a longer time is a rather flawed one. My two-person starter package contained a Vizzerdrix, which I thought was the best thing ever until I compared to another card that I found in the packaging which I had missed at first - Rhox. Granted, it was very simplistic and not everything should be that way, but it's what taught me that a 5/5 could be better than a 6/6 by having good abilities.

Punisher cards, however, are far more insidious. You will find even decent players arguing that Dash Hopes is a good card because it always does a lot of work for you for two mana. And they're right, it does - just never what you want. Just like new players need to learn that life is less valuable than they think, players also need to learn that giving your opponent the decision over something is a long way from deciding yourself. The cards are deceptively useless because they look good on paper, but are terrible in theory. That's why they're bad design.


That's not indicative of bad design. That's more like well-thought out design if you ask me. Magic is a game of many intracacies and subtleties; the worth and effectiveness of cards is clearly one.

I remember when I started and I thought Porcelain Legionnaire was the best thing ever printed because I thought first strike was the best ability. Oh the days.

That, and because they're bad cards.


If all cards were good, where would we be?

Now, can we agree that my original point of the fetch lands not being the worst thing in Magic is correct, or do I need to clarify my opinions on what I think is bad design further?


It's really hard to because this is a subjective opinion. Anyone of us could, and probably do, have different perceptions of good and bad design.

A wise man on film sequels:
Watching sequels to really good films is like visiting a bollock kicking parlour, paying your money and then proceeding to get your bollocks kicked...then leaving and returning at a later date to repeat the process. -iamthehollow
Decks: :R::G: Karn Tron :R::U: Bloody Fish There Will Be Blood (movie).
Now, can we agree that my original point of the fetch lands not being the worst thing in Magic is correct, or do I need to clarify my opinions on what I think is bad design further?


I think the main problem here is that you seem to keep using "bad cards" and "bad design" interchangably, when they're two entirely different things.
 Oh, and before anyone asks, the reason I don't like the punisher mechanic is the same as why I don't like the Wurm's Tooth cycle. Because it's one of those things that are hugely overestimated in terms of how good it is by new or inexperienced players and cofuses them into including bad cards in their decks, possibly causing them losses merely by having the card exist. I know MaRo has defended these as "But it teaches them to play and evaluate cards", which I disagree with. Creating cards that look good, but are really bad only causes confusion and bad decisions.

thats sorta ridiculous. 

1. it is entirely impossible to get rid of bad cards unless we restrict the cardpool down to a single card. 

2. New players have problems evaluating cards in general.  Good players can have problems evaluating cards... its a skill, like many others, that seperates classes of players. There is no disservice to new players by giving them a learning curve and a game to explore. You diminish the game and take away from other's enjoyment when you categorically expunge cards for being "bad"... I would never have been able to play my Punish Ignorance Etherwrought Page life loss deck because both of those are bad cards. I knew they were bad too, but I really wanted to build it and play it and see how many people I could kill with a counterspell.



3DH4LIF3

 Oh, and before anyone asks, the reason I don't like the punisher mechanic is the same as why I don't like the Wurm's Tooth cycle. Because it's one of those things that are hugely overestimated in terms of how good it is by new or inexperienced players and cofuses them into including bad cards in their decks, possibly causing them losses merely by having the card exist. I know MaRo has defended these as "But it teaches them to play and evaluate cards", which I disagree with. Creating cards that look good, but are really bad only causes confusion and bad decisions.

thats sorta ridiculous. 

1. it is entirely impossible to get rid of bad cards unless we restrict the cardpool down to a single card. 

2. New players have problems evaluating cards in general.  Good players can have problems evaluating cards... its a skill, like many others, that seperates classes of players. There is no disservice to new players by giving them a learning curve and a game to explore. You diminish the game and take away from other's enjoyment when you categorically expunge cards for being "bad"... I would never have been able to play my Punish Ignorance Etherwrought Page life loss deck because both of those are bad cards. I knew they were bad too, but I really wanted to build it and play it and see how many people I could kill with a counterspell.







I agree with point #2. I'm always trying to make "bad" decks work as good as they can. Even my brother was working on a Marble Chalice + Onyx Goblet deck despite him knowing there were far better cards, like Wurmcoil Engine and other stuff.

"Bad design" also just gives us something inferior, and perhaps fun. Like I don't use infinite combos cuz they're cheesy. But using cards like these it makes for tons of unexpectedness. And alot of fun.

Simply put, I use what life (in this case, the devs) gives me. So I don't really care about design.

Decks I run
Show
I currently run a deck for Standard, Modern, Commander and Legacy. For standard, I have a typical, horribly budget Rakdos Deck Wins. For Modern, I have a B/G/U/W Draw-go Reanimator featuring my favorite creature, Wurmcoil Engine. For Legacy, I'm trying too hard to break Pyromancer Ascension. I also run a Naya Zoo with all the oldies. For Commander/EDH, I'm running The Mimeoplasm. A little morals thing about me, I like winning through combos, but not infinitely. However quiet, I am a Christian, so feel free to tell me you are too, it's always a relief.
How to be saved?
Show
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved and your house. Book of Acts 16:31
Cheers!
Sign In to post comments