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.

 Overread wrote:
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

The hubub is mostly centered on the concern that the side products aren't side at all but are explicitly intended to be part of the core game. I don't think there's any real opposition to the idea of spin offs themselves. Players are worried, and Wizards is being cagey, that the spin offs aren't really spin offs. I'm not convinced that's what's going to happen, but the inability to get an answer from Wizards on the question is so persistent I think there's some kind of gag in place. Most questions relating to MUB get spun off into some peripherally* related issue that doesn't directly address the question being asked.

*silver borders, themes, aesthetics, deck building, constructed formats, etc

The company has a constant year long release cycle. Time Spiral Remastered is about to hit the market on the 19th, and then Strixhaven in April, the D&D set (an internal crossover players were already divided on), then some weird not sure how it works dual set release for Innistrad. By the time those sets launch, they'll be previewing the 2021 release schedule which has already had some leaks but nothing official. Wizards has typically tended to focus exclusively on it's main lines of communication on the next set release with tidbits for the one after it. So these products might not be seeing much info beyond the vaguest details till late 2021 or early 2022.

I feel like Wizards almost has to say something though, cause peeps are freaking out all over. I'm not really seeing the benefit to being cagey for two years about what the future state of the game is supposed to be.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Overread wrote:
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

The hubub is mostly centered on the concern that the side products aren't side at all but are explicitly intended to be part of the core game. I don't think there's any real opposition to the idea of spin offs themselves. Players are worried, and Wizards is being cagey, that the spin offs aren't really spin offs. I'm not convinced that's what's going to happen, but the inability to get an answer from Wizards on the question is so persistent I think there's some kind of gag in place. Most questions relating to MUB get spun off into some peripherally* related issue that doesn't directly address the question being asked.

*silver borders, themes, aesthetics, deck building, constructed formats, etc

From the WOTC website:

That said, Universes Beyond cards will not be Standard legal. We strive to make Magic cards that are widely useful, but Universes Beyond will be above and, well, beyond our normal Standard releases. So nothing much is changing with our normal cadence of releases for Standard. This is purely a cool thing we're doing in addition to all the other cool things we're already doing.

The same article mentions they receive a specific Universes Beyond holostamp to mark them apart. In addition, they stated that TWD set would be retroactively part of UB. They aren't being cagey at all, this stuff was answered the day they announced them.

Standard is only one format, and not even the most popular one.

MtG is a sinking ship...

Warhammer might take over.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Standard is only one format, and not even the most popular one.

Sanctioned Tournaments, FNM, Prerelease events, Draft Weekends, Online, and Arena all use Standard rules. It's the basis for most of the currently most played outside of Commander.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
MtG is a sinking ship...

Warhammer might take over.

Like tons of people I played magic a long time ago, but havent played or been in the culture for ages and ages. (I did buy into Theros because #greekstuff, but before that I hadnt played since... Coldsnap! (which was criminally underrated artwise, IMO)

But is your opinion common? What's it based on?

My impression was Standard was indeed the most generally popular, followed by the rise of Commander and then whatever that one is that lets you use almost any card in the game ever made (which tends to be popular either in super casual groups or super competitive ones).

 Overread wrote:
My impression was Standard was indeed the most generally popular, followed by the rise of Commander and then whatever that one is that lets you use almost any card in the game ever made (which tends to be popular either in super casual groups or super competitive ones).

Legacy. Commander has really grown in popularity because the Highlander style helps curb a lot of the combos and abuses in Standard, Modern, and Legacy.

I have to say I think my most fun with MTG was boosterdrafts; mostly because you always got a reward for your time (ok you had to buy the cards...); but also because it curbed some of the power-combos going on. Not perfect, but it at least levelled the playing field a little between the more and less skilled.

Regular magic sessions can be brutal if you're not that skilled/not buying lots of cards/not buying specific prebuilt decks. If anything I'd say the internet, easy trading and such has spoilt "some" of the card collecting and gaming aspects for me. It's not just that you can find power-decks online, but that you can buy the specific cards to build them - its not so much limited by the local player card pool.

There's ups and downs of course and I freely admit some of my lack of liking the current system is just that I wasn't able/prepared to invest enough time to learn the power-play and to keep up with the constant change.


I still dabble in the idea of collecting casually via boosterdrafts; but I think I'd only get back in if I found the right group to engage with.

The Selesnya Commander deck I just finished putting together after getting into the game makes me feel specifically called out by your comments, Overread.

Standard is the most popular format if you include all of Magic.

But when Magic Arena launched, and while lots of people still play Standard it's kind of died in a lot of places where people play face to face. Commander and Modern are the most popular forms of paper Magic (Wizards is the one who told us this). There's a mix of reasons there but the most obvious is that longtime Magic players have big collections and those gametypes aren't really present on Magic Arena. As Arena has become the focus of standard Magic, Veterans have increasingly played different formats IRL which has in turn made those formats more popular by word of mouth. Commander has exploded in the past few years.

And I also mentioned this before. I'm not sure 'standard play' means in that announcement what it means to Magic players. Do they mean standard play, as in how the game is normally played, or do they mean Standard Play as in the format? That announcement is a copy paste from the investor meeting that preceded it and is word for word the same thing they told a bunch of stake holders, many of whom probably don't play the game or understand it. Is Wizards talking to its investors the same way it talks to its players?

Calling out Standard specifically is weird given the current state of the game and how people are playing it.

Modern uses the same essential banlist as Standard + extra. If it's not legal in Standard, it's not legal in Modern generally speaking. Given how hard they've been pushing Commander though and how popular the format is today both with players and set releases, it's weird to exclude Standard of all things. Commander's a more difficult format to get into because of the buy in. I'm actually surprised in some ways the proposed 40k products are Commander decks rather than Brawl decks (a format that is basically Standard + a commander).

I have to say I think my most fun with MTG was boosterdrafts; mostly because you always got a reward for your time (ok you had to buy the cards...)

Yeah, booster play can be kind of a great equalizer when it comes to people with different levels of collection or investment. It's also still a very popular way to play and makes lots of money. I suspect this factors into why LotR is getting a 'full expansion.'

They'll probably be able to sell that for booster play.