|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on May 25, 2023 16:12:49 GMT
Folks, before we begin, I have some bad news. Our entire crew walked out in solidarity with the... recent unpleasantness; something to do with "unsafe working conditions", or some such nonsense. Anyway, rather than hire scabs, or rather, hire new scabs (hi to The Panel!) 1, I'll be doing all the behind-the-camera stuff myself. So, stri--no, strike thatstart up the theme music, 54321 and all that... Hello, and welcome back to The MageLaughlin Group! This week, we're just outside beautiful downtown Nyongbyon. That bitch'll never find us here-- Ral: Not unless she reads this column. Like I said, she'll never find us here; NOBODY reads this drivel! And if she does find us here, she'll never take us alive!!!
Ahem. So anyway, our Panel: Daij_Djan, ZephyrPhantom, and dangerousdice, and our First Question is from dangerousdice: What does the panel think of the recent proliferation of emblem-based mechanics? (Take the initiative, Dungeons, The ring tempts you, etc...)1I do have a reputation to uphold here as the site's resident rabid, radical Leftist, ready to burn down capitalism itself, and all of its parasitic Mammonistic billionaires, to cinders. |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on May 25, 2023 18:27:39 GMT
What the hell is this? There's no Pinkertons here to terrorize or sign into absurd contracts.
We scrapped that premise because we were too busy sending pawns and knooks to fight Ghandi's Nuclear Missles. Keep up.
Look, I get it. Sagas were a smash hit and Richard Garfield is an excellent game designer. But I think they should've stopped at dungeons, because we're seeing what happens when you spam this mechanic every set or promotional product you get - an endless supply of extra doodads and hamster wheels you have to keep track of every turn, and seeing as many of these are targeted at Commander, I can't imagine it gets easier with four players as opposed to 2.
I remember WoTC used to talk about how just remembering how to remove a time counter from suspend was a memory issue, or how too much combat interaction in Lorwyn was a concern - it feels like we've moved long past those days*, and it's assumed that people are just more willing to pick up complex game elements now (partially because Arena will track it for you, I suppose). I'm not sure if that's the direction the game should be going in, given how there are enough barriers to entry already, but at the same time it's hard to argue with the fact the product sells well.
*On a related note, it also makes me think about how people complain that EDH decks feel like they're mostly prebuilt packages of the best cards these days, or jank decks having to deal with that stuff without lots of rule 0...I wonder if that's related, in a way? As someone who's always had trouble wrapping their head around making a singleton deck that's 'good enough to not be flopping on turn 8' without 'pissing everyone off at the table' good, I feel like making decks more 'premade' would appeal to me. But at the same time, it cuts down on variety and the appeal of being able to casually play to begin with...
|
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on May 31, 2023 17:49:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 1, 2023 11:59:15 GMT
Sorry for the delay, current late work shifts really make want to get on my nerves  But first of all: What does the panel think of the recent proliferation of emblem-based mechanics? (Take the initiative, Dungeons, The ring tempts you, etc...) Honestly, I don't really have much to add to this beyond what I already said a while back – so allow me to be a bit lazy and just quote myself: Cards introducing extra game pieces like the Monarch, Day/Night, Initiative„Reading the card explains the card“ is sadly dead nowadays. Ironically, I didn't mind it much when the Monarch started this – I actually liked it back then. But the more concepts like this WotC introduces to the game, the more they start annoying me. Also, since I don't have much new to add, allow me to rant about the newest emblem addition for a second: Isn't the ring a complete flavor train wreck? First of all, why does neither this one, nor this one (and obviously not this one) use the emblem? Also even if we're looking purely at the emblem – why is it all upside?! I mean, I know. I get it. Magic players are way too weak and scared to handle any downsides (according to WotC), but the ring being a burden is one of the biggest plot points of the franchise. Heck, the mechanic is even called „the ring tempts you“.. No, no it doesn't. It doesn't „tempt“ me at all – it offers sweets upon sweets and gives me a back massage while at it.. |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 2, 2023 7:32:20 GMT
Also, since I don't have much new to add, allow me to rant about the newest emblem addition for a second: Isn't the ring a complete flavor train wreck? First of all, why does neither this one, nor this one (and obviously not this one) use the emblem? Also even if we're looking purely at the emblem – why is it all upside?! I mean, I know. I get it. Magic players are way too weak and scared to handle any downsides (according to WotC), but the ring being a burden is one of the biggest plot points of the franchise. Heck, the mechanic is even called „the ring tempts you“.. No, no it doesn't. It doesn't „tempt“ me at all – it offers sweets upon sweets and gives me a back massage while at it.. I was originally going to play Devils' Advocate on this (because apparently my own personal devil isn't interested in doing so...) but I remembered a saying that's circulated the game industry "People will optimize the fun out of a game." In other words, if people think there's a way to play the game better that comes at the expense of fun they will sacrifice having fun, even if that defeats the point*. I've seen this firsthand particularly in MMOs where people would rather sit in a corner for 12 hours (literally!) and spam the same 1-3 buttons over and over if it was more efficient to get rare drops than play the game as intended and actually enjoy some intricate build you might've thought up that is some level of casual or competitive. If I had to take a guess, I think this is exactly what happened in playtesting - people realized there were better things to do than to play a Ring with drawbacks, and simply opted not to do so because there are other neat fun things you can do like play one of the many spellslinging Gandalfs or amass an army of orcs (I really like what they did with Amass here, as an aside, because this gives it a lot of room to show up in any set that needs some interesting tribal play). So I think it's less players being "wimpy and scared" or WoTC imagining some group of hypothetical scrubs, and more that people are actually too inherently competitive and Spike-y to roll with the idea of doing so**. Sure, you could ignore that crowd and just cater to casuals and LOTR fans, but if I was a business I'd probably also try and get as many people playing my new fancy crossover gimmick as possible, as opposed to really going all in on pleasing one group and neglecting others. (And while I don't have explicit numbers or a marketing team's research to back my experiences up, I'm definitely of the opinion that this is a much more common type of gamer than we might think - like I said, play some MMOs and you will find tons of players like that.) *Since I'm aware one of the responses to this tends to be "just play casual, don't think about playing the best!" - I would like to point out that that the impulse to play well has to be resisted in this case, i.e. playing casually is not a chunk of players' first instinct. **You can even observe this mindset in action just by looking at Gatherer comments of older cards that are bad or strictly worse versions of other cards - to quote the Baneslayer Angel comment page, "I dare you to count how many comments are made of older creatures on Gatherer that are merely offhand references to modern ones, rather than a discussion of the card in it's own right." |
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 2, 2023 14:40:52 GMT
Will totally respond to this when I'm at my computer later today  |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 2, 2023 16:48:32 GMT
Also, since I don't have much new to add, allow me to rant about the newest emblem addition for a second: Isn't the ring a complete flavor train wreck? First of all, why does neither this one, nor this one (and obviously not this one) use the emblem? Also even if we're looking purely at the emblem – why is it all upside?! I mean, I know. I get it. Magic players are way too weak and scared to handle any downsides (according to WotC), but the ring being a burden is one of the biggest plot points of the franchise. Heck, the mechanic is even called „the ring tempts you“.. No, no it doesn't. It doesn't „tempt“ me at all – it offers sweets upon sweets and gives me a back massage while at it.. I was originally going to play Devils' Advocate on this (because apparently my own personal devil isn't interested in doing so...) but I remembered a saying that's circulated the game industry "People will optimize the fun out of a game." In other words, if people think there's a way to play the game better that comes at the expense of fun they will sacrifice having fun, even if that defeats the point*. I've seen this firsthand particularly in MMOs where people would rather sit in a corner for 12 hours (literally!) and spam the same 1-3 buttons over and over if it was more efficient to get rare drops than play the game as intended and actually enjoy some intricate build you might've thought up that is some level of casual or competitive. If I had to take a guess, I think this is exactly what happened in playtesting - people realized there were better things to do than to play a Ring with drawbacks, and simply opted not to do so because there are other neat fun things you can do like play one of the many spellslinging Gandalfs or amass an army of orcs (I really like what they did with Amass here, as an aside, because this gives it a lot of room to show up in any set that needs some interesting tribal play). So I think it's less players being "wimpy and scared" or WoTC imagining some group of hypothetical scrubs, and more that people are actually too inherently competitive and Spike-y to roll with the idea of doing so**. Sure, you could ignore that crowd and just cater to casuals and LOTR fans, but if I was a business I'd probably also try and get as many people playing my new fancy crossover gimmick as possible, as opposed to really going all in on pleasing one group and neglecting others. (And while I don't have explicit numbers or a marketing team's research to back my experiences up, I'm definitely of the opinion that this is a much more common type of gamer than we might think - like I said, play some MMOs and you will find tons of players like that.) *Since I'm aware one of the responses to this tends to be "just play casual, don't think about playing the best!" - I would like to point out that that the impulse to play well has to be resisted in this case, i.e. playing casually is not a chunk of players' first instinct. **You can even observe this mindset in action just by looking at Gatherer comments of older cards that are bad or strictly worse versions of other cards - to quote the Baneslayer Angel comment page, "I dare you to count how many comments are made of older creatures on Gatherer that are merely offhand references to modern ones, rather than a discussion of the card in it's own right."This truly excellent point is only slightly tarnished by the linked article having its second half trapped behind a paywall. |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 2, 2023 17:47:57 GMT
This truly excellent point is only slightly tarnished by the linked article having its second half trapped behind a paywall. Where were you this whole time? Eating Uranium-238. You ever tried this stuff with polonium icing?...on second thought, I don't want to know. |
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 3, 2023 16:30:15 GMT
Ok, here we go First of all: (I really like what they did with Amass here, as an aside, because this gives it a lot of room to show up in any set that needs some interesting tribal play) Agreed, really like they twist on Amass they came up with That aside: I have to admit, I partly agree with you here. I especially get the "People will optimize the fun out of a game." concept as a WoW-player myself. But then again: Isn't this kind of a lazy copout to a balancing issue? People play Wraths over Plague Wind simply because their costs are adjusted as such - and likewise I'm pretty sure The Ring emblem could have been balanced accordingly.. It's not like I'd suggest a major downside either, just to be clear. Like just from the top of my head: How about making getting the additional abilities for the emblem optional, but requiring a cost of one or two mana? Having the option would definitely fit the tempation flavor and the one time life payments could for be balanced around somehow.. Then again, this is kind of one of my pet peeves - so I might be overreacting here / overthinking this |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 3, 2023 18:26:17 GMT
Ok, here we go But then again: Isn't this kind of a lazy copout to a balancing issue? People play Wraths over Plague Wind simply because their costs are adjusted as such - and likewise I'm pretty sure The Ring emblem could have been balanced accordingly.. It's not like I'd suggest a major downside either, just to be clear. Like just from the top of my head: How about making getting the additional abilities for the emblem optional, but requiring a cost of one or two mana? Having the option would definitely fit the tempation flavor and the one time life payments could for be balanced around somehow.. Then again, this is kind of one of my pet peeves - so I might be overreacting here / overthinking this People also play Wraths over Plague Wind because 3/5ths of the game's colors and roughly 1/3rd of decks out there can make do with few to no creatures. I'm sure sdj has many horror stories about the-archetype-that-which-will-not-be-named, but more importantly, I think that's conflating just being a Spike with "sacrificing fun to be a Spike". The-archetype-which-will-not-be-named doesn't have to trip over itself to play wraths because of how it inherently works - even moreso now when Planeswalkers act as finishers that won't get hit so easily by them. The conversation we're having about Wraths and Plague Wind may be about balance, but the point I'm trying to make about The Ring is that player perception was more important than balance in its development, and the results say to me that WoTC had to fight an uphill battle dealing with people's feelings rather than how well balanced the card was. I think smaller drawbacks, particularly life payments, would've been a good compromise between people who wanted the flavor to be at least roughly correct and people who would've refused to play the mechanic otherwise. One other thing I want to bring up is that it takes a lot of time and effort to make a (custom) set, and that fielding people's feedback, arguing with your own development/design team, and making new cards all at the same time are a pretty rough process. I'm not saying the Ring is my favorite design ever (we've already talked about how spamming Dungeons == bad, and my point definitely isn't going to make up for Pinkertons, Hogaak, or other blatant issues anytime soon), but if we're talking specifically about "Why the Ring doesn't have drawbacks", I can see why WoTC might've skipped on trying to fix that particular detail in favor of making sure their new crossover set on the whole was well received. |
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 3, 2023 20:05:08 GMT
I could now be very petty and try to take the "maybe if WotC wouldn't put out so much stuff, they would have had the time / ressources to fix it" - but even I have to admit that would be too petty indeed 
So yeah, your reasoning is definitely solid |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 3, 2023 20:53:44 GMT
To be fair, it's a valid point you can observe in custom magic, too - larger sets are bigger hurdles to churn out. Doubly so if art is involved. I still haven't revisited my Urabrask precon deck because I ran out of steam between that and some IRL stuff. It might not be the main problem that is causing these Hogaak/Oko/Lurrus-type designs to be spawned, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of many small contributors to the increasing number of gaffes WoTC has had as of late.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 3, 2023 22:11:02 GMT
I could now be very petty and try to take the "maybe if WotC wouldn't put out so much stuff, they would have had the time / ressources to fix it" - but even I have to admit that would be too petty indeed
So yeah, your reasoning is definitely solid No, no, be as petty as you like, especially with how valid the point is. 🍿🍿🍿dangerousdice, do you have anything to add, or is your mouth too full of popcorn, like mine is? |
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 5, 2023 13:36:21 GMT
Sorry, I just got my first job, and things are a bit hectic!  Onto the question! I really liked them to start out with, and I like them all (so far) individually, but I think I'm getting a bit overwhelmed by the tide of command zone tokens. They should be spread out a bit more, probably only one a year at most to keep them novel. Granted, the only mechanic I've been able to play with dungeons, and that was on arena, so I don't know how it plays on paper. Any notes, Marvoni? I don't like 'em. They don't track at all and they feel weird.Fair, fair. Am I the last one to answer, or does anyone else want to weigh in? |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 5, 2023 20:25:24 GMT
So, the consensus is that individually, the emblem-based mechanics are fine (some can be quite fun, actually), but having so many, and additionally having so many so close to each other is starting to feel like speedrunning the Chinese water torture, aka waterboarding. I'm not gonna differ there. Nor am I gonna deviate from the consensus that The Ring 1 is a total flavor fail for not also having an obviously needed downside. Here's one just off the top of my head: "Whenever The Ring tempts a player, that player loses life equal to the number of abilities The Ring has." You could also adjust the abilities to make them slightly more powerful, to balance out this drawback: 2nd ability is draw two instead of draw one. 4th ability grants the Ring-bearer lifelink, and the life loss is increased to 4. See? That was just off the top of my head. Easy. I suspect that WotC were a little too focused on the whole "Sauron eventually bodyjacks the ringbearer" aspect of the original stories. I do love The Dungeon, though. I just wish they'd code the Initiative's dungeon into Arena (+8/+8 to all my creatures? Yes pleaseGIVE IT TO ME, NOW!). EDIT: Having just read this, it appears as though the designers and developers were far too focused on the drawbacks happening to the Ring-bearing creature, and not the player. Everything else I've said on the matter still stands. Ok, our next Question is from me: What is your opinion of the changes to Standard and Alchemy? 1I wanted to include a link to the end of the opening scene of Help!, where all the cultists are shouting "The ring! The ring!", but, surprise surprise, youtube doesn't have it. |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 5, 2023 22:46:54 GMT
Seems alright. I think there's good incentives to have a stable Standard that's easier to buy into while Alchemy caters specifically to the Hearthstone crowd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 6, 2023 8:09:18 GMT
OK, this is kind of a tough question for me since as mentioned a few times in the past, I've never been interested in Standard since I dislike the concept of rotating formats in general - also Alchemy is Alchemy, which I pretty much despise to this day. So with this in mind, my evaluation might be completely off for obvious reasons Still, personally I wonder: If I was into a rotating format - would I really be happy about said format rotating slower? One of the complaints I've heard in the past is about cards getting reprinted (like the Titans) and then outstaying their welcome - won't this happen much more often this way? The one thing that's definitely good to see though is this deviding Standard and Alchemy further - since the latter this way can less and less be seen as the "improved Standard" it kind of was sold for originally (which then in return got critisized by paper players).. |
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 11, 2023 0:25:43 GMT
Just to clarify: They're making Alchemy rotate sets out, which they weren't doing before? (I'm sorry, I missed most of the alchemy introduction, so I don't remember if it rotated or not.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 11, 2023 7:25:32 GMT
Alchemy was always a rotating format. I'm sure sdj will have a joke ready but the announcement is basically saying Alchemy isn't changing at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 12, 2023 4:46:55 GMT
Alchemy was always a rotating format. I'm sure sdj will have a joke ready but the announcement is basically saying Alchemy isn't changing at all. Ah, OK! That makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 12, 2023 15:50:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 12, 2023 17:21:36 GMT
Seems alright. I think there's good incentives to have a stable Standard that's easier to buy into while Alchemy caters specifically to the Hearthstone crowd. I'm kind of in the same spot as Daij - I don't really keep up with Standard these days and don't have much excitement for it. I do recognize why it's important Standard stays healthy though. |
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 13, 2023 4:09:53 GMT
Seems alright. I think there's good incentives to have a stable Standard that's easier to buy into while Alchemy caters specifically to the Hearthstone crowd. I'm kind of in the same spot as Daij - I don't really keep up with Standard these days and don't have much excitement for it. I do recognize why it's important Standard stays healthy though. Honestly, if I may be so bold as to invoke the rule of three, it's okay I guess. I don't really participate in either format, and I don't think it'll be that big a problem. But again, I don't really care one way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 13, 2023 20:33:55 GMT
I'monna take us back to late 2015. Yes, I know, The Before Times, in The Long, Long Ago. Anyway, WotC were wondering what to do about the fact that because of all the grinding on Arena (and, to a lesser extent, MTGO) Standard was becoming "solved" in a matter of days. Their plan: to increase the rate at which Standard rotated. This would make the format that much more dynamic, force players to spend just a little more time overall to come up with their OP bullshit, and as an added benefit, players would have to spend just a little bit more money each year trying to keep up, making Daddy hasbroseph happy as well. It was a brilliant plan, and they would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for a buch of meddling little crybabies who were worried that spending just a little bit more each year would make them just a little bit poorer. WELL LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE NOW! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW, YOU WHINY LITTLE BITCHES?! LOOK WHAT YOUR COMPLAINING HAS WROGHT!!! LOOK ON YOUR WORKS, AND DESPAIR, FOR YOU ARE THE REASON THE WHALES HAVE NO WOOL LEFT!!!Rememeber, this was before WotC did away with things like MSRP, actually caring about game balance, and the entire records of the DCI. 1If WotC was worried about Standard becoming stale too soon 2 back then, and the problem has only gotten worse, why in the almighty christ fucking himself onto a clone of himself would they think that going in the opposite direction would solve the problem? Mebbe it's yet another move to make all Magic be like Commander, but look where that got us last time. While I'm glad they seem more willing to ban things, I keep finding that it's still not enough. I want more bans. I want personal banlists on Arena, so I never have to see another fucking eugene (hell, most of the planeswalkers are 100% bullshit), Portal to Phyrexia, Cityscape Leveler, H. R. Giger's wet dream, H. R. Giger's other wet dream, H. R. Giger's wet dreams 3-5 (the ones that made him start questioning his sexuality first, then his sanity second, before finally giving up and saying "Aw, fuck it, I'm a teratophile, I can only get it up for teratomae."), almost all of the cards specifically designed for alchemy 3--look, we're gonna be here all eternity if I were to list all the cards I hate, so let's just say that there's a lot of OP bullshit out there that WotC love to release with little to no care for how it will affect the Social Gamer Timmies and Tammies like me, and that the Johnnies, Jennies, and especially Spikes out there love to inflict upon others without a care for how many different blood pressure meds I'm now forced to take, and leave it at that. All I'm saying is, there's a wealth of information to be gathered about how to design card that DON'T piss people off, if they'd only allow personal banlists. Or mebbe I'm just fooling myself, and the Munchkins out there will find ways to game the system by banning every card that isn't in a deck that has no chance of beating their favorite pet deck, but I'd imagine that'd be pretty easy to spot and put a stop to. Our next Question 4 comes from me: You're in charge at WotC, whatever you say goes; what are two things you'd add &/or get rid of in Magic?1And just like yesterday, I just can't stop The Spiffing Brit from narrarting what I'm typing. GET OUT OF MY HEAD, FUNNY BRITISH TEA MAN!!!!! 2And now it's Paul from Mitten Squad's voice. Just fucking great. 3Actually, this would make a great topic for a future episode's Question: What are your opinions on the alchemy format? Someone remind me next downtime to include that in our discussion. 4And now, apparently, I've got nerbit's voice going, for the full hat trick. |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 18, 2023 20:20:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 19, 2023 2:42:37 GMT
tl;dr Selfish wish - Purple mana. I've done a bit of testing with the cards that did exist and it turns out having a very narrow series of powerful cards mixed with jank and no dedicated multicolor lands actually causes it to balance itself out fairly okay as a color.
Sensible wish - Otherwise, maybe I'd slow down the rate at which we get cards for Modern that are soft rotating it but that's about all I can think of. I think I've kind of gotten apathetic to the constant highlighting of problems in Magic tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 19, 2023 16:11:19 GMT
tl;dr Selfish wish - Purple mana. I've done a bit of testing with the cards that did exist and it turns out having a very narrow series of powerful cards mixed with jank and no dedicated multicolor lands actually causes it to balance itself out fairly okay as a color. Sensible wish - Otherwise, maybe I'd slow down the rate at which we get cards for Modern that are soft rotating it but that's about all I can think of. I think I've kind of gotten apathetic to the constant highlighting of problems in Magic tbh. Yeah, but "the constant highlighting of problems in Magic" is just so much Schadenfreudic fun. It's kinda along the same line as "The beating will continue until morale improves"--"The constant highlighting of problems in Magic will continue until WotC finally fucking gets it right for a change!" |
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 20, 2023 5:24:27 GMT
Not focusing on actual good, coherent ideas? World Series Canada/Brazil Commander decks all the way! "U/B Snow V.S. W/R Explore" and "B/R Sacrifice V.S. W/U Reanimator" would absolutely Slap.
Oh, and setting up format input groups for pauper, legacy, etc. so we don't have to deal with as many format-breaking cards might be nice. Maybe start a development group for making control less soul-crushing and/or negotiate for a UB Set for The Owl House. (Glyphs would make great tokens, and Eda's curse would be fun for a tdfc.)
I might also shuffle some funds towards the story and/or management so the story doesn't feel so rushed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 21, 2023 19:37:00 GMT
Global Series decks referencing various countries and cultures would've been fun. Shame they basically canned the idea after the first pair of deck.s
|
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 22, 2023 16:48:06 GMT
Not gonna lie, I've been pondering about a more unique and/or interesting response – but the heat here in Germany has pretty much fired my brain sadly. So instead, I'll go with the cheap answer for today – maybe I'll come up with something more to add to one of my later responses You're in charge at WotC, whatever you say goes; what are two things you'd add &/or get rid of in Magic? First of all: I've ranted about this many, many times – remove Alchemy only erratas. For me, still to this day the worst that has ever happed to Magic ever – the rules text / stats / cost(s) of a card should never change depending on the medium you play the card in. This is an UnSet concept, so keep it there! And for the second option, bring back the two set block structure. I understand why WotC moved away from the three set version – but moving all the way down to single sets for new planes only makes them pass by way too quickly to ever stuck with us as we already discussed in the past. |
|
"When in doubt, do a common." 
