Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
That just tells me you don't know much about Magic.

Evidently far more than you think.

Lets take it to the root. If you take a look at Rogue Trader and every edition since there have been faction based unit rosters since the outset and with a lot of continuance. Yes in the earliest editions there was a lot of crossover in weapon types and you can have individuals fighting in different factions, but there were restrictions and there was explanation as to what was what. 40K is a narrative driven game has always been so.
Meanwhile to play MTG you got a deck which contained a set number of cards you had a fixed number of random lands in that deck and a mix of other cards delimited only by rarity not content. This was how MTG launched and it has been the core of how it has been played. Even if you now have themed starters there theme is extremely loose and you can at any time swap your cards around and customise your deck, and the flavour text on the card you swap in has never been relevant. It is the opposite to 40K in terms of narrative. So it only includes the narrative you choose to add if you choose to even pay attention which the vast majority of MTG players do not do.

I haven't played MTG for a long time but have a deck still and came back to the game after two decades of not playing. I have a Commander deck and so long as it has cards with the same colour as the Commander and the cards are not in the list of withdrawn cards then its legal, and fluff makes up 0% of the ruling. Themes are possible but entirely optional and even themes are normally only themes for effect with very little in the way of linking narrative.
Meanwhile my Death Guard codex not only tells me which units I can have but why, inherently to the system.

Adding say Pikachu to the Death Guard army would be a problem, a genuine one deserving genuine backlash. Adding Pikachu to a Commander deck would not. Simple really. Even so if someone brought a counts as Pokemon army of Death Guard to a non-GW event I am sure it would be given a fair look. People would be looking to see if you have put the modelling effort to make it look like your Pokemon were plague ridden and had sworn allegiance the ruinous powers. The effort or lack thereof in model theme would matter more than the models actually used. I have seen 'worse'. In fact these crossover armies are normally popular anywhere except where there is a restrictor on GW miniatures only, which is understandable. There was a 'heretical engine' Thomas the Tank Engine meme going around, and this in turn spawned several attempts to make the model. Just google image search 'thomas the tank engine 40k' and see for yourself. Maybe these are just modelling projects, but maybe they see tabletop time in friendly games. You just suspend hardcore 40K for the duration of a non-canon battle, enjoy it and move on. It doesn't cause ruptures in the fabric of the canon.

I am warming to the idea actually of having Princes Luna, some Pokemon, a character from Tolkien and some 40K in a deck. Do I call it the 'salt mine deck' or the 'troll activator deck'? I don't normally name decks except for classification by theme when the theme is a keyword card effect that had some synergy, or a function of the deck as a whole. This seems the norm for most players. I have seen myriad 'green timmy ramp decks' but not a single one is so classified by exactly which green large monsters it contains. They are themeless and work by the effects on the card not the flavour text, with sole exception to keywords which could be just about anything so long as it qualifies for activation.
Why so serious?
It's MTG, it has had themeless factionless decks facing themeless factionless decks for 30 years. Mine had five Moxes in it back then, and even that wasn't a theme, I just happened to have them from random box sets. If someone wants to add ponies, calm down, channel your inner adult and LET THEM.

 Orlanth wrote:
This was how MTG launched and it has been the core of how it has been played.

Maybe for you back then.

Just because you don't care about Magic's lore or themes doesn't mean no one else does. Fun is a two way street. The idea that one person should suck it up and have less fun because someone else can have some is the polar opposite of how most people approach tabletop games but it's the position Magic players seem to be getting forced into whether they like it or not. Somehow it seems to me you'd be having the same reaction if the shoe was on the other foot, so maybe you're the one who could afford to be more an adult?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This was how MTG launched and it has been the core of how it has been played.

Maybe for you back then.

For everyone back then, including Richard Garfield. Attempts at theme were introduced long after MTG got big.

 LordofHats wrote:

Just because you don't care about Magic's lore or themes doesn't mean no one else does. Fun is a two way street.

Fun is a two way street. which means you don't get to dictate incoming traffic. I really do hope that when people turn up at game clubs with pony decks and other licenced crossover material they wont be put upon as some recently implied would happen. It's a petty and ignorant thing to do.

 LordofHats wrote:

Somehow it seems to me you'd be having the same reaction if the shoe was on the other foot, so maybe you're the one who could afford to be more an adult?

I just proved I wasn't suffering the same reaction, with examples and reasoning given.
To reiterate, MTG is inherently themeless, this is a fact. You can retroactively add a theme to it, and you can even have a thin theme shoehorned in with the dueling decks, though the vast majority of players use them as deck fuel or a base to build rather than for the duelling theme itself.
You can choose at any time to restrict yourself to the thin spread of official narrative of MTG and strictly tailor your decks to very specific subset of cards.
However most players will only look at the effect on the cards and its mana costs and will ignore the flavour text entirely. If the card is legal and its effects fit the deck it will get used. Get used to this.

As for crossovers into 40K, they have long been part of the game, mostly as what we would now call 'easter eggs'. Sly Marbo is a clear example that shouldn't need much explanation.

As for crossover armies here is a primer on how to handle them. T L : D R If someone turns up with a crossover army, don't be a petulant child.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2015/02/15/joke-armies-an-editorial/

Fun is a two way street. which means you don't get to dictate incoming traffic.

Neither do you, and your facts are about as factual as the boy who cried wolf.

It's amazing how I'm ignorant for wanting to have fun in a hobby, but you're not for telling me to get used to it? You realize that someone being told to shut up and play a game they won't enjoy is still a net gain of 1 person not having fun, right? It's actually worse than what I normally see. Most Magic players have conversations about power levels and deck styles. Healthy Magic is played by group consent and that's when it's at it's best. Bringing a comp deck out against someone's goofy all chairs deck isn't fun either way. I'm sure those conversations will continue going forward regardless of any new product. Mutual consent and group fun are big parts of the community. People who tell anyone to 'get used to it' aren't people worth playing with regardless of the game being played.

Cognitive dissonances was too generous. You haven't proved anything other than your own callous hypocrisy

 Orlanth wrote:
petulant child.

You're offering a great example of petulance all on your own.

This is what I get for forwarding logical arguments that you can't handle or articulate a counter for.

No point continuing really.

 Orlanth wrote:
This is what I get for forwarding logical arguments that you can't handle or articulate a counter for.

Listing a long line of subjective opinions about 40k and how you value it, and another long line of subjective opinions about Magic and how you value it isn't a logical argument. It's a valid opinion I could respect, but all you've done with it is proclaim it fact and dismiss the entire concept that others might have different opinions and values for their hobby. You've called me ignorant and petulant, but you've been rude and dismissive this entire time, basically acting like the kind of player you'd accuse me of being.

You haven't forwarded anything but your usual brand of condescending smugness. No point continuing? Why did I bother trying is a better question. You're always like this. I should have known better.

Alright this definitely needs to cool down a bit between you two. And I'd much rather that be by your choice than my action. It's clear you disagree with each other and can't find common ground, fine. Let that be the end of it.

OK motyak, point taken.


These need some clarification:

 LordofHats wrote:


It's amazing how I'm ignorant for wanting to have fun in a hobby, but you're not for telling me to get used to it? .

 LordofHats wrote:
You've called me ignorant and petulant, but you've been rude and dismissive this entire time, basically acting like the kind of player you'd accuse me of being.

Lets take a look at this. When did I mention 'ignorance'. Here:

Fun is a two way street. which means you don't get to dictate incoming traffic. I really do hope that when people turn up at game clubs with pony decks and other licenced crossover material they wont be put upon as some recently implied would happen. It's a petty and ignorant thing to do.

So what does this mean if you actually read the post properly. First I did not call you ignorant or petty, instead here it means that if someone turns up with a deck one doesn't like the theme of and one makes that person or their deck unwelcome then that is being petty and ignorant. I stand by those words. If you choose instead that your own fun doesn't extend to vetting what other people are allowed to collect and play then you avoid that label.

As for 'petulance' that was a T L : D R of the attached thread, basically don't behave in the manner described above.

Now as for 'getting over it', so long as the crossovers exist and those who dislike the crossovers don't want to be obnoxious to other people who collect playing cards they don't like the theme of, then some amount of 'getting over it' is required.

This is a clear cut issue of right and wrong. If some claim they are going to go as far as to discriminate against people for the simple matter of having this in a gaming deck:



...or cards of similar ilk, then they need to grow up, and I may vocalise a protest against their behaviour.
I can't be clearer than that.

Hopefully that is all just venting and nobody here will actually stoop anywhere near that low.

Pretty bad example because that’s silver bordered, and therefore illegal in any format.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Pretty bad example because that’s silver bordered, and therefore illegal in any format.

I found a relevant card I could post. It's a stand in for any pony card frankly, and I care little which.

This channel doesnt care they are silver bordered.

You can't use it in a game deck though...

Like that's not me saying I don't like the card. You literally can't (and it's not just because of the silver border). The card isn't playable not just by the rules but by it's own wording.



I addressed it in an earlier post;

Pony's the Galloping were silver border products. By default they aren't legal for constructed play with regular Magic cards (they also used several unique mechanics that wouldn't fit in a regular magic game, EDIT: One of them even references cards that don't exist, and another requires you to have a MLP toy on hand to use it). No one ever really complained that they existed because those cards will never appear in a regular game of Magic unless we're using Rule 0 and house ruling it. They're basically the same thing as you and me sitting down for a 40k game and agreeing to let me play my off-brand Goonies IG models.

The current fuss is that it's confirmed these new products will have black border cards, which are usually taken as a signer of legality for constructed play.

Right now, the only crossover cards that are in the game are the Godzilla reskin cards only a few people really mind, and the TWD promotional cards, only one of which ever sees play. And even then hardly anyone plays it because there are so few Rick cards, and only a subset of people who have one who actually use it (mostly in Human tribal theme decks since Rick is a monstrous buffer).

No one is complaining about Ponies the Galloping. No one really cared that it released. They weren't real cards intended to be played and 4/5 of them actually can't be used because they don't work. Someone could Rule 0 the card, but they'd have to house rule the ambiguous parts or invent the cards it calls for the player to use. Either way, no one is really complaining that people might do wacky things in their own time on their own initiative.

Despite that, Wizards has said the new products will have a distinct holo stamp, which leaves everyone confused about what the relationship is supposed to be. There might not be any official explanation for a long time cause Wizards tends not to talk about things much until we're maybe 3-4 months from release.

All you're confirming is that you really don't play Magic, which makes this vehemence your directing at people who do and care about it really hard to deal with. Very 'logical' on your part, but I guess I'm just expected to let it go so w/e.

So, in summary and over simplifying it.

1 Scifi game, 1 Fantasy game.
The scifi game is being inserted into the fantasy game and the fantasy fans are upset.
Fantasy fans say 'how would you like it if the fantasy went into your scifi game'?
Scifi fans say 'but thats not the same thing'.

I guess it shows the narrowmindedness of the scifi fans.

Well, a magic set rumored for next year is supposedly going to be Cyberpunk themed, but that's it's own barrel of monkeys that's kind of fallen by the wayside because of the crossover announcement. Even that wasn't so bitter though because most people I've seen have no issue with Magic taking Magic in a scifi direction per se (it's already very science fantasy in some settings) and Kamigawa is a setting people have been asking to see more of for a long time. Previous sets featuring the setting have been explicitly stated to be stories from its past, so we've never seen it's present and that has some people excited.

Most of the complaints on the crossover products are that people don't want the game to become an empty platform for crossover products.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
So, in summary and over simplifying it.

1 Scifi game, 1 Fantasy game.
The scifi game is being inserted into the fantasy game and the fantasy fans are upset.

Minus the ad hominem attack, I think you are right. I doubt most MtG fans would have an issue if the AoS/WHFB universe was made into a set.

I noticed that there are two extremes of MTG players (among many others). One kind sees only mechanics of the card the other sees only the artistry of the card.

One side doesn't really care as much what picture is on the card when they play, nor the name of the card or anything fluff/lore/creative about it. What they care is the stats and abilities, the pure mechanics of the card.

The other extreme cares more about the art, name, lore and overall creative artistic side of the card.

Both groups consider the other side important, they just don't weight it as heavily nor as importantly.



So yep when the creative side of magic is at risk one side is up in arms (potentially) whilst another side is not as worried because they can appreciate the art, but for them the core is the mechanics.

In the end I do also appreciate that many don't want to see MTG go the same path as, say, Lego has with tie-in products all over the place. There can be enjoyment in that, but at the same time it can also dilute the original and creative fun. Also from what I can gather MTG doesn't actually "Need" crossovers. It's already a growing giant in the market and doesn't seem at risk of being overlooked. Granted crossovers might help them secure a fresh wave of new younger gamers into their ranks.



In the end we'll have to see what happens

 Jidmah wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
So, in summary and over simplifying it.

1 Scifi game, 1 Fantasy game.
The scifi game is being inserted into the fantasy game and the fantasy fans are upset.

Minus the ad hominem attack, I think you are right. I doubt most MtG fans would have an issue if the AoS/WHFB universe was made into a set.

I don’t think that’s true because one of the sets is Lord of the Rings and people have issue with that too (myself included). It’s more the idea of watering down Magics own IP with external universe stuff in general, not whether it’s a thematic fit or not.

Lord of the Rings would inevitably be about all the characters from the books, because essentially that's what most of the IP is about. These would then have to be slotted into a universe they don't belong and would be in direct competition to MtGs own world building. A LotR set with a huge number of legendary creatures is pretty much impossible.
The warhammer fantasy universe on the other hand is more of a canvas for stories, you could easily create a set which would neither need to create a bunch of new types and mechanics nor would it have to be in contradiction to MtGs color wheel.

Honestly, planes like Kamigawa or Lorwyn feel more alien to the MtG setting than the warhammer fantasy would.

If the argument is just "I don't want any other IP ever for no particular reason but I would totally accept a sci-fi setting made by WotC"... well, no rational argument is going to shift a person's believes.

Mirrodin/New Phyrexia were already fairly Sci-Fi, so yes, I would be more accepting of a sci-fi setting made by WotC than external IP and I don’t see that as particularly irrational, but whatever. It’s the 4th wall breaking that makes Warhammer or LotR or whatever feel incongruous to the setting, not the thematics of the universes being included.

Mirrodin isn't even anywhere near sci-fi, and neither is new phyrexia. Have you even read the books?

I'm talking about tanks, space ships, bombs, guns and explosives in MtG. And not some magic steam-punk things like Kaladesh had.

 Jidmah wrote:
Mirrodin isn't even anywhere near sci-fi, and neither is new phyrexia. Have you even read the books?

I'm talking about tanks, space ships, bombs, guns and explosives in MtG. And not some magic steam-punk things like Kaladesh had.

Whatever, my point is that people are upset about the LotR stuff too, so your initial point about the fact that it’s 40k that’s the problem and if it were fantasy it would be fine, is wrong. I’m sure it would for some people, but not everyone. Would you be okay if when The Old World came back it had Planeswalkers and New Phyrexians and Ravnican Guilds and stuff included? Or Lord of the Rings characters or Space Marines or Walking Dead characters or anything? I don’t understand why people can’t see where people are coming from here. It’s one thing to not personally mind it but I think the objection to the idea is pretty understandable whether you agree or not.

I don’t even know how I’d feel about Wizards doing a sci-fi magic set, I wouldn’t be that keen probably, but that isn’t what’s happening so it doesn’t matter.

Edit: sorry, this isn’t even really aimed at you. Just a bit frustrated.

 Jidmah wrote:
Lord of the Rings would inevitably be about all the characters from the books, because essentially that's what most of the IP is about. These would then have to be slotted into a universe they don't belong and would be in direct competition to MtGs own world building. A LotR set with a huge number of legendary creatures is pretty much impossible.
The warhammer fantasy universe on the other hand is more of a canvas for stories, you could easily create a set which would neither need to create a bunch of new types and mechanics nor would it have to be in contradiction to MtGs color wheel.

Honestly, planes like Kamigawa or Lorwyn feel more alien to the MtG setting than the warhammer fantasy would.

If the argument is just "I don't want any other IP ever for no particular reason but I would totally accept a sci-fi setting made by WotC"... well, no rational argument is going to shift a person's believes.

Depends if they're using lotr specifically for the war of the ring or if it's a catch all term for the first and second ages as well. If it includes the previous ages, then there a hell of a lot of "legendary creatures" they could draw from. Not that I particularly care as I don't play magic. I'm just interested in any nice new art that may be produced.

I sold my MTG cards a couple of years ago and haven't played 40k since I demo'd Star Wars Legion.... yet I'm interested in this.

Commander was the only format of MTG I liked, and I think 40k can fit it pretty well.

I hope they are just stand alone premade decks and can't be used outside 40k games. I know that's all I intend to use them as. I think my MTG friends would be willing to stay with premade decks for 40k, and it makes it much more attractive to my non-MTG friends

$30ish dollars to have a decent lunch game with some coworkers or a group game with my pals when we don't feel like getting our minis out... sounds good.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Whatever, my point is that people are upset about the LotR stuff too, so your initial point about the fact that it’s 40k that’s the problem and if it were fantasy it would be fine, is wrong. I’m sure it would for some people, but not everyone. Would you be okay if when The Old World came back it had Planeswalkers and New Phyrexians and Ravnican Guilds and stuff included?

I would totally be ok with that and, I'd absolutely drop all my money on a boros army if they ever did one. New Phyrexia kind of a special case, but let's not pick apart the argument because of that.

Or Lord of the Rings characters or Space Marines or Walking Dead characters or anything?

See, this a different thing. Lord of the Rings as a general setting I would be ok with, but the other things don't fit into the setting at all.

I don’t understand why people can’t see where people are coming from here. It’s one thing to not personally mind it but I think the objection to the idea is pretty understandable whether you agree or not.

I don’t even know how I’d feel about Wizards doing a sci-fi magic set, I wouldn’t be that keen probably, but that isn’t what’s happening so it doesn’t matter.

Edit: sorry, this isn’t even really aimed at you. Just a bit frustrated.

No harm done

See, this is the reason why I said there is no point in rationally arguing believes. This is your opinion and there is no being wrong or right here. It's same as arguing music, your favorite food or which 40k army you like best. Your opinion doesn't cause any damage to anyone, so you are free to have it. The thing is, you also can't convince someone of your opinion because it wasn't a rational thing to begin with. You are feeling frustrated because you are trying to anyways.
Not liking your magic with other IPs is essentially the same as not liking pineapple on pizza. You can decide for yourself to not like it, but you won't convince the person eating such a pizza that it tastes terrible.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinions on cross-overs, I even like them when they are done well. Having a total disconnect between setting types bugs me, because it usually causes huge flaws in logic and/or handwaves essential parts of one or the other universe.

On the other end, there's people like me who don't really care if the aesthetics of the setting fit because the lore doesn't. What does a Planeswalker mean in LotR or 40k? It doesn't mean anything. Neither setting has such a thing and the concepts of lands and mana don't mean anything either. I'm a lore obsessive kind of person. I like picking into obscure details and pulling out stuff that isn't immediately obvious.

It's "I don't want that" because the very concept that these are meant to be normal cards dilutes the actual game lore and renders it meaningless. The game doesn't become about itself it becomes about the next crossover product.

I tap three mountains and play Mekboy Teleporta is on it's face weird contextually. Orks don't care about mountains. The 40k setting has no use for mana or land. That concept isn't a product that actually reflects 40k in any meaningful way. It's just a random thrown in of a 40k reference into Magic that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I would be interested in these products if they were well done, but it doesn't seem to me that just ramming them into the game and telling people to get used to it is a strong sign that they'll be well done. Which makes it doubling sad to me because I'd be interested in a boxed or precon WH40k card game using Magic as a game engine. That sounds fun.

The idea that all my Magic play will now have to start with a discussion about what IPs to use sounds like work that'll just end in someone telling me to STFU and deal with it somewhere along the road. At that point the game isn't fun anymore. For anyone really.

Otoh if they decide to keep them separate imaging tapping an agriculture world, a manufacturing world and a death world to put a catachan regiment in play, now we're talking.

H'mm considering that formats = allowed expansions you may just see additional commander formats added. I think at this point all we can do is provide feedback to Hasbro/WOTC and idly speculate..

Jerram wrote:
Otoh if they decide to keep them separate imaging tapping an agriculture world, a manufacturing world and a death world to put a catachan regiment in play, now we're talking.

Yeah, this is what kind of gets me.

Plains, Islands, Mountains, Swamps, and Forests don't mean anything in 40k.

Manufactorums or supplies or something totally fit. The mechanics would be funcationally the same, the use lands as a resource card is mechanically independent of thematic context. If I were interested in this product, I'd want to reflect that. And how can you not use the Planeswarker card type for Psykers? Could also work as a representation of a legendary character or commander. Totally fits Like, a space marine deck literally writes itself in a lot of ways;

-Primaris Captain, Soldier (Astartes), all Space Marines you control gain +1/+1.
-Apothecary, Soldier (Astartes), When Apothecary enters the field, put 3 counters on it. If a solider you control would be destroyed, remove 1 counter from Apothecary. That creature is Indestructible till end of turn.
-Devastator Squad, Soldier (Astartes), tap, Deal 3 damage to target creature or character.
-Drop Pod Assault, Instant, Search your deck for 3 Space Marine cards and put them into play tapped and attacking. Use this card only in your combat phase before declaring attackers.
-Iron Halo, Wargear, Equipped Soldier has Protection from non-combat damage.

Really. It really writes itself. I was skeptical about the singleton Commander format and making 65-67 singleton cards, but it's actually not that hard. If I can think up a dozen without trying, the devs could think of plenty.

H'mm considering that formats = allowed expansions you may just see additional commander formats added. I think at this point all we can do is provide feedback to Hasbro/WOTC and idly speculate..

Yeah. Part of me thinks that, either by Wizard's hand or by players, we'll see a splitting of the current play formats into TG Magic and UB Magic, so there'd be TG EDH, which only uses original Magic IP, and then UB EDH that opens the gate to any black border card that isn't banned.

Jerram wrote:
Otoh if they decide to keep them separate imaging tapping an agriculture world, a manufacturing world and a death world to put a catachan regiment in play, now we're talking.

H'mm considering that formats = allowed expansions you may just see additional commander formats added. I think at this point all we can do is provide feedback to Hasbro/WOTC and idly speculate..

That would be cool - just change the name and art

I can see why GW would do this, but I wonder why Wizards is so keen. I was under the impression that MTG had never been more profitable than today, so a brand deal like this sounds a bit desperate, or bizarre at least.

Granted, the MTG writing hasn't been super tight in pretty much forever. There are recurring characters like Jace, Bolas and Chandra, but the settings swing fairly widely in terms of theme, between extremes like Mirrodin, Theros, and Innistrad. But they've always steered clear of licensed settings, even Wizards' own D&D stuff where that would have been relatively simple and uncontroversial.

I'm now wondering if this means all bets are off. Could MTG turn into Smash Brothers? Maybe we'll get a Nintendo set in 2022, and a Dark Souls one soon after. Let's face it, both would sell.

It's probably the same reason that GW is doing animations and school programs. Both firms realise that their strength is not in customer retention, but in recruitment of new young fresh customers

Retaining old customers is very good for both firms, nay essential as the older generations are often running clubs, drawing in people, introducing them and being front-line interactions.

However both are also very clearly aware that if they sit back and rely on those older customers then their customerbase will keep getting older. That might be fine for a few years, heck they might even enjoy a sales boom when those retained older customers hit retirement and have more free time. However its a ticking time bomb for suddenly waking up with an aging customer base and a huge generation gap within the player base. It's very hard to recruit new members in their teens when your youngest members are in their 50s. No matter how welcoming you are the generation gap is there.


One of the biggest strengths GW, Lego and other firms that have lasted long term is recruitment of new generations. LEGO did this by branching into film tie-ins. Meanwhile hobbies like Mecanno and Hornby are running on older generations. From what I know Hornby isn't doing badly, but its not the big toy for kids these days.





MTG I think as a strength could use its brand to create considerable numbers of side products not connected with the core game. There are a lot of no-name small card games that pop up that attach to an existing IP (GW has had a few over the years); and most tend to die off. MTG has the infrastructure to survive and if they branched out they could easily do side games that don't impact their core game. Heck because the side games are side they could easily use the balanced core game data and stats to create separate games. Sure their core market might not want htem; but they'd be making more off side markets and drawing in those customers into their ecosystem.

I'm willing to be some who get into the 40K cards will end up picking up some core MTG stuff too

Ok, so...the way I see this is...

It's a problem.

MtG has done nods to other IPs in the past - the D&D and MLP sets were silver-bordered and con-exclusive in their nature. No one minded this because they were specifically marked as illegal in normal play (the silver border) and iirc there was also a 'charity' element to these sets as well.

The Godzilla 'crossover' cards were fine as well - they were 'alt art' versions of existing cards in the related set and didn't replace them. If you wanted a perfectly normal set you could have it. If you wanted to theme stuff around the Godzilla alt-arts you could. There was no major mechanic changes, they were optional.

MtG's big hoo ha over external IPs came in first with the recent Walking Dead set - which not only produced black bordered cards but also REALLY strong cards in a limited availability set. For real, Rick Grimes and Negan are incredibly strong cards in that set for what they do.

And people got upset because not only did it seem like they were introducing even more of a pay to win element (and MtG is a known MESS for netdecking and pay to win deckbuilding where if you basically can't afford the expensive shiny super cards for your deck, hahaha, have fun with that) but also crossing IPs and making it limited.

My concern is that 40k will end up like this. Black bordered, a limited 'set' priced as a premium above normal MtG rivalling their Masters sets.

Now the solution here is very, very simple - make it a silver-bordered set like the Un-sets.

Admittedly the Un-sets were designed as comedy sets - with joke rules and card mechanics (I still remember an Unhinged draft and raiding the drama soc's costumes for spare shoes for a Shoe Tree) ... but silver border is probably the most straightforward solution and prevents these external IP cards bleeding into Modern, Legacy or Normal play.

For the record- Silver bordered cards ARE legal in Commander. That rule changed last year iirc. However, Commander is intended as a more casual style of play so really, it's subject to agreement with your group with opponents - you're meant to have fun with Commander rather than play hyper-competitively.

The specific mention of 40k Commander being a thing could be an indicator that the cards will possibly be silver bordered as a set.

And to be fair, I have no problem with that.

Alt-arts? Fine.
Silver border sets? Fine.

MtG lost it at TWD because those were black bordered, incredibly potent cards in a very limited release (Secret Lairs) - so were legal in a number of formats and bled an external IP in.