Unreleased and New Card Discussion

[BeneTleilax]

There's no reason anyone should object to something like Jackknight and yet you can't count on that.

You say, after skimming over the points in my post where I list reasons people don't want to play against Un cards on a regular basis. Even if you don't have a regular playgroup, you're still calculating that a significant portion of people you'll play with would opt out of playing against Un cards if they had the chance, and your response is to try and deny them that chance.

I haven't seen a single ruling regarding Saw in Half, just tons of ridiculous and fun combos.

I mean, maybe if "maybe drawing the game by mistake if you try to copy and opponent's creature with a loop and they sac in response" and "having to look up what exactly sort of */* I'm trying to copy and how the layers work" are your idea of fun combos. Like, one of the first use cases I came up with for this was trying to copy Pack Rat or similar in monoblack rats, and it's just a layers migraine. I also haven't seen a loop with this that isn't "splinter twin but possibly non-deterministic because of aforementioned rules snafu".

[Sharpened]

There's no reason anyone should object to something like Jackknight and yet you can't count on that.

You say, after skimming over the points in my post where I list reasons people don't want to play against Un cards on a regular basis. Even if you don't have a regular playgroup, you're still calculating that a significant portion of people you'll play with would opt out of playing against Un cards if they had the chance, and your response is to try and deny them that chance.

You aren't a mindreader, nor are you watching me. So you can't accurately tell me what it is that I am doing or thinking. Please don't try. It's not a productive way to have a discussion.

I did not reread your posts about uncards. I opened scryfall, looked at Unstable, and tried to find a card that I'd want to play if it was legal. Jackknight would be a good card in a Zabaz, the Glimmerwasp deck, and the extra text is less extraneous than Steamflogger Boss and that's legal.

Yes, some people would object to playing against Jackknight. Some people would object to playing against Armageddon. But the default is that its legal. I'm not denying them anything. If they don't want to play against a card, they don't have to. But if Unfinity contained a new version of Jackknight, the default is that it would be legal, and I think that's a good thing.

I haven't seen a single ruling regarding Saw in Half, just tons of ridiculous and fun combos.

I mean, maybe if "maybe drawing the game by mistake if you try to copy and opponent's creature with a loop and they sac in response" and "having to look up what exactly sort of */* I'm trying to copy and how the layers work" are your idea of fun combos. Like, one of the first use cases I came up with for this was trying to copy Pack Rat or similar in monoblack rats, and it's just a layers migraine. I also haven't seen a loop with this that isn't "splinter twin but possibly non-deterministic because of aforementioned rules snafu".

Please be more specific about the drawing the game. I still don't see how it's possible.

The */* on Pack Rat or some other card is complicated, but no moreso than we already have with Quicksilver Gargantuan. The copy effect that sets power and toughness effectively overwrites the characteristic defining ability of the original card (in this case, Pack Rat) so you are left with 2 pack rats that have half the power and toughness that the original did when it was sawed and half, and the P/T won't change as more rats come and go. (I think, I could be wrong on the specifics, not a judge)

It's a headache, but one that already exists in blackborder, which means its not a good reason that the card can't be blackborder.

[DirkGently]

I don't think this is fair.

Look, it's hard to argue for the purity of the Magic IP if you have Universe Beyond cards running around. Also, plenty of the jokes that are just humor could see print in any Magic set. You can't say the won't do puns like Beast in Show, when they have already printed Apes of Rath in blackborder.

As for gameplay, while absurd or unusual, plenty of the cards make for interesting gameplay. I would love to be able to build a deck that uses something like Zzzyxas's Abyss. Some of the silver border cards are really fun to play as cards and not just jokes. I wouldn't want to inflict things like Skull Saucer on myself or others most of the time, but the Augment gameplay is actually really neat.

Moreover, cards are meant to be played with. It sort of sucks to have cards that could be played, but aren't legal. Yes, you can Rule 0 some things, but others are a big ask. If it works (not everything UN does), having it be default legal just makes sense and is better for most people. Letting people play with the cards they buy is a good thing. So blackbordering the cards that can be blackborder seems like a great change to me (I realize everyone won't love it, as everything has its detractors, but I would expect it to be popular as a whole).

I just think they screwed up in the demarcation of the nonlegal cards.

I'm not complaining about the fully-legal non-acorn cards. Remains to be seen on those, but to a certain extent I agree that there are plenty of dumb things that are already legal (I'd kinda prefer that they didn't exist, but at the same time flavor has never been a strong priority for me so it's not a big annoyance - I hate UB because they're ads, not as much because of the flavor breach). Mostly I just think it's kinda pointless and stupid to shift from the totally-functional-and-fine border scheme to caring about the foil stamps, which are much harder to differentiate and overly complicate things.

And the cynic in me (especially after UB being black border, even though they would have been fine and much less controversial in silver) says that their motivation in doing this is that silver bordered cards have probably not sold well historically, and they're trying to "solve the problem" by intentionally muddying the waters between legal and non-legal, especially in commander which drives so many sales these days.

EDIT: also, I'd say, while some un cards are "fun to play" a lot of them are absolute miserable cancer. I suspect they don't playtest them nearly as much as their main sets.

[BeneTleilax]

I did not reread your posts about uncards.

So you replied to my post, but didn't read the whole thing? I don't really see where I can go from here, other than shout into the void some, I guess. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[5colorsrainbow]

And the cynic in me (especially after UB being black border, even though they would have been fine and much less controversial in silver) says that their motivation in doing this is that silver bordered cards have probably not sold well historically, and they're trying to "solve the problem" by intentionally muddying the waters between legal and non-legal, especially in commander which drives so many sales these days.

They have sold very well actually. There was a whole thing about Unhinged "not selling well" but Maro and a few people argued that was due to them printing the set like a normal set vs a side set and no lack of interest and Unstable proved them right. From everything talked on Unstable sold well and was popular, which is why they also made Unsanctioned, they wanted to do more un-card but didn't quiet have time to do a full set.

[Sharpened]

I did not reread your posts about uncards.

So you replied to my post, but didn't read the whole thing? I don't really see where I can go from here, other than shout into the void some, I guess. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I actually quoted what I was specifically replying to in my post, so as to leave it in context. You asked me to clarify my point. So that's what I tried to do.

You seemed to object to my clarification with, and I quote:

You say, after skimming over the points in my post where I list reasons people don't want to play against Un cards on a regular basis.

I did not do that. I did not think I had to do that. You specifically asked for clarification of my point, the point being that it's a lot to ask to expect unknown people to accept playing with silverbordered cards when they are not legal by default (You indicated that you thought I meant it was too much of an imposition on my playgroup, which was not the case, so I clarified like you asked).

I see two scenarios:
Either you think I'm not reading your words, which I am including quoted in my responses in order to make sure that I am responding directly to them

or

You deliberately are pulling individual sentences of mine out of context in order to.... well, I don't know how to finish this sentence without violating forum guidelines.

I'm kind of at a loss as to where to go from here. Definitely upsetting.

[DirkGently]

They have sold very well actually. There was a whole thing about Unhinged "not selling well" but Maro and a few people argued that was due to them printing the set like a normal set vs a side set and no lack of interest and Unstable proved them right. From everything talked on Unstable sold well and was popular, which is why they also made Unsanctioned, they wanted to do more un-card but didn't quiet have time to do a full set.

I obviously can't claim to have any hard data, but outside of a few weeks of drafts I haven't really seen people with unstable cards. I mean what are you supposed to do with them anyway? Except for the basic lands they're basically dumpster food - Urza's the most expensive card and he barely outvalues the basic lands. That's not a great sign.

I expect Maro is pretty motivated to big-up unstable - what's the point of comparison for "sold well"? A regular standard set? I really doubt it comes anywhere close to that. But ofc they won't release the actual numbers so afaik there's no way to know.

[Sporegorger_Dragon]

Speaking of rulings, my favorite so far is if you saw a Little Girl in half, you get two full grown women (i.e. 1/1).

Wait, why is that? You'd get one-fourth of a girl; you're dividing by 2.

EDIT: OH ROUND UP EACH TIME GOT IT!

[BeneTleilax]

I actually quoted what I was specifically replying to in my post, so as to leave it in context. You asked me to clarify my point. So that's what I tried to do.

Thank you for clarifying your own thought process. Here is my own. Given that I had listed my main reason for disliking Un sets in the post you quoted, I saw two options. The first was that you were deliberately ignoring my reasons for not wanting to play against Un cards (because they are a clear departure from the tone of the game) in order to deny their existence, rather than contest their validity. The second was that you had only read those parts of my post you responded to, and hadn't considered the rest. I considered both options somewhat frustrating, but went with the second (that you had only partly read the post you quoted from, in other words, had skimmed it) as it seemed more charitable. You then replied that I should not be so audacious as to assume you read my post before responding. Given that that's a precondition for communication, I was unsure how to proceed.

[5colorsrainbow]

They have sold very well actually. There was a whole thing about Unhinged "not selling well" but Maro and a few people argued that was due to them printing the set like a normal set vs a side set and no lack of interest and Unstable proved them right. From everything talked on Unstable sold well and was popular, which is why they also made Unsanctioned, they wanted to do more un-card but didn't quiet have time to do a full set.

I obviously can't claim to have any hard data, but outside of a few weeks of drafts I haven't really seen people with unstable cards. I mean what are you supposed to do with them anyway? Except for the basic lands they're basically dumpster food - Urza's the most expensive card and he barely outvalues the basic lands. That's not a great sign.

I personally put all of mine into a cube to draft from/do limited deck playing on some nights. Idk what others do but if we are giving out personal experiences the walmart I was getting mtg cards for while never could be keep them on the shelves. I remember me and a friend picking up some to draft with in the afternoon/evening, next morning my family needed some stuff so around noon i went back to the walmart and I notice all the unstable had been sold out. I live in a small area so its rare to packs being sold out.

I expect Maro is pretty motivated to big-up unstable - what's the point of comparison for "sold well"? A regular standard set? I really doubt it comes anywhere close to that. But ofc they won't release the actual numbers so afaik there's no way to know.

Sold well in terms of of side set such as conspicey or battle bound.

[DirkGently]

I personally put all of mine into a cube to draft from/do limited deck playing on some nights. Idk what others do but if we are giving out personal experiences the walmart I was getting mtg cards for while never could be keep them on the shelves. I remember me and a friend picking up some to draft with in the afternoon/evening, next morning my family needed some stuff so around noon i went back to the walmart and I notice all the unstable had been sold out. I live in a small area so its rare to packs being sold out.

Sold well in terms of of side set such as conspicey or battle bound.

Not having them in stock is a product of availability and interest. If they didn't have many to begin with, it wouldn't take a lot of interest to deplete them.

If the cards were in high demand, they'd have a pricetag that wasn't "please take this cardboard garbage away from me." They probably sold a lot better than previous un-sets since stores did draft nights with it - unless you've got a specific quote saying that they sold better or comparable to those other sets, I'm assuming he meant in comparison to unhinged, which isn't surprising ofc.

Even if it did sell reasonably well, though, I'm sure it would sell significantly better if it had cards with value outside of draft, especially now that the "special" basics have gotten less and less special. There are certainly some players who will buy an un-set because they like the flavor, and people who will draft it when it's at their LGS because it's a thing to do, but constructed players who don't have a willing-to-do-silver-border playgroup don't really have anything to get out of it aside from the basics. I'd be very surprised if drawing in that audience wasn't the intention behind this decision.

Personally I'm probably not going to enjoy the draft format, but I guess we'll see. Maybe they tested this one more than not-at-all.

[5colorsrainbow]

I personally put all of mine into a cube to draft from/do limited deck playing on some nights. Idk what others do but if we are giving out personal experiences the walmart I was getting mtg cards for while never could be keep them on the shelves. I remember me and a friend picking up some to draft with in the afternoon/evening, next morning my family needed some stuff so around noon i went back to the walmart and I notice all the unstable had been sold out. I live in a small area so its rare to packs being sold out.

Sold well in terms of of side set such as conspicey or battle bound.

Not having them in stock is a product of availability and interest. If they didn't have many to begin with, it wouldn't take a lot of interest to deplete them.

If the cards were in high demand, they'd have a pricetag that wasn't "please take this cardboard garbage away from me." They probably sold a lot better than previous un-sets since stores did draft nights with it - unless you've got a specific quote saying that they sold better or comparable to those other sets, I'm assuming he meant in comparison to unhinged, which isn't surprising ofc.

Even if it did sell reasonably well, though, I'm sure it would sell significantly better if it had cards with value outside of draft, especially now that the "special" basics have gotten less and less special. There are certainly some players who will buy an un-set because they like the flavor, and people who will draft it when it's at their LGS because it's a thing to do, but constructed players who don't have a willing-to-do-silver-border playgroup don't really have anything to get out of it aside from the basics. I'd be very surprised if drawing in that audience wasn't the intention behind this decision.

Personally I'm probably not going to enjoy the draft format, but I guess we'll see. Maybe they tested this one more than not-at-all.

From his 2018 state of design article;
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2018-08-20

HIGHLIGHTS

There was clearly an audience for the product.

One of the biggest hurdles in getting this product made was convincing the Powers That Be that there was an audience for Un- sets. Well, that debate's over. Unstable had three printings and looks like it's going to be one of the best-selling non-Masters supplements of all time. Apparently, some of us enjoy a little silliness in our Magic. And yes, this greatly increases the chances of a fourth Un- set.

[Dunharrow]

People looking for reasons why so much of the set is 'non-acorn' but don't seem to trust WOTC's published explanation? There were 2 reasons cards would be silver border in the past: 1: They don't work in the rules, and 2: The card does not match the flavour of the magic universe. Now that they have black border cards that are from non-magic universes, they are okay making the joke cards black border.
Blast from the Past is a joke card, but obviously works in black border. They won't change it to 'non acorn', but in the future cards like this will be legal in eternal formats.
Amateur Auteur
Box of Free-Range Goblins

I think this does two things: 1: It enables them to use die rolling, which is now black border but has also been a majorly important part of all unsets. The random chaos is integral to the experience. 2: It gets people who are not interested in unsets (like me) to consider this a high-value product. I never bought un-cards, but now the value in this set has me reconsidering. I hated the idea of only being able to play with the basic lands from previous sets... but now a lot of the set will have replay value.
Oh also the acorn method allows them to reprint cards with new art. The shocklands are awesome.

[TheGildedGoose]

Oh also the acorn method allows them to reprint cards with new art. The shocklands are awesome.

They could've done this, anyway. Ain't no silver boardered basics.

[5colorsrainbow]

Oh also the acorn method allows them to reprint cards with new art. The shocklands are awesome.

They could've done this, anyway. Ain't no silver boardered basics.

Yes but look at what happened with Steam Flogger Boss where it had to be put on the land sheet and it have to replace one of the lands you pulled. Not really sure people would want a naturalize to replace a full art land.

[DirkGently]

From his 2018 state of design article;
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2018-08-20

I stand corrected then. Although I really don't understand people who would pay that much money for such worthless cards tbh. I'm guessing a lot of packs got binned after taking out the basic. Although non-standard, non-masters expansions is not exactly a huge pool, so it's a little bit of damning with faint praise. There's what, BB, 2 conspiracy sets, commander legends (which wasn't released at the time)...I guess he might be including stuff like planechase and archenemy, but those are preconstructed products so there's no store drafts driving sales, so not really a fair comparison imo. At my LGS it was basically "draft unstable or you don't get to draft this week." (the latter was probably the better choice tbh).

But regardless of how well the set did, and whether that was because of store drafts, private drafts, people collecting them for god-knows-what-reason, or people stripping them for basic lands, adding legal cards will bring in an audience that otherwise wouldn't be interested and I'm sure that was a major factor, likely the biggest factor, in that decision. And I also have a hard time believing they couldn't figure out a scheme to print some sheets of black border and some of silver border if they wanted to.

[Wallycaine]

And I also have a hard time believing they couldn't figure out a scheme to print some sheets of black border and some of silver border if they wanted to.

I went in depth on it earlier, but the basic gist is "yes, they theoretically can print both, but it's logistically impractical and design wise nearly impossible". In order to have two different borders, they need two different sheets, which means two different sets of "slots". So they'd either be building "Silver bordered set with X Black bordered cards per pack", or "Black bordered set with X Silver bordered cards per pack", neither of which lead to a good limited enviroment or the freedom to designate cards as black or silver bordered as they needed. They'd also be extremely constrained on the ratios of silver to black border, as they'd have to work out to be exact sheets worth. That sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare if they'd had that planned from day one of vision design, and the article made it clear that this decision was made *well* into it's design, which means that restructuring the set to try and do multiple types of sheets would have involved throwing out literal years of work.

[DirkGently]

I went in depth on it earlier, but the basic gist is "yes, they theoretically can print both, but it's logistically impractical and design wise nearly impossible". In order to have two different borders, they need two different sheets, which means two different sets of "slots".

I went back and read the post, but I still don't see WHY they can't print both borders on the same sheet. I was thinking maybe it's because the cutting isn't necessarily perfect and there might be some silver on the black border or black border on the silver, but I've hardly ever seen full-art cards with an edge from another card. Why would having different border colors be any more difficult?

And even going past that, I don't know the complete process of how the cards are put into packs after being cut, but it seems like they could be shuffled around so as to still be random-ish even if they needed to do silver borders on different sheets from black border.

neither of which lead to a good limited enviroment

Based on Unstable I'd say it would be the least of their problems tbh.

[Gamazson]

I am torn about Unfinity.

The black border / acorn thing frustrates me. If they wanted to some un-cards to be legal legacy play, they should have just put them in a reprint set and left the main set in silver border. Or they could have slotted the black border versions in the collectors booster as a special printing. This acorn thing will confuse more casual players, which is predominantly a problem for commander tables.

The set's theme does excite me though. I am a MASSIVE science fiction nerd. I'll be buying as many of the lands as I can. I really dig the pulp magazine art style. I'm also looking forward to seeing what references they make. This is the perfect set for the vehicle mechanic.

[Rumpy5897]

adding legal cards will bring in an audience that otherwise wouldn't be interested and I'm sure that was a major factor, likely the biggest factor, in that decision

This is the main driving factor. I just about ignored the last couple of revival Un-sets as they had nothing for EDH by definition. I caught glimpses of Unstable via a gameplay video, and it honestly looked a lot more plain than what I associated with Un-sets. Partially black bordered space carnival set? Sure, sign me up, and force me to pay attention by making it EDH legal. Mind this a lot less than the IP crossovers, which don't seem to be driven by anything other than publicity pushes from the IPs appearing.

[pokken]

Yeh, I just ignore unsets personally. I'm now excited to get to play Balloon Animal Clown in my deck full of otherwise cool magic cards!

[Wallycaine]

I went in depth on it earlier, but the basic gist is "yes, they theoretically can print both, but it's logistically impractical and design wise nearly impossible". In order to have two different borders, they need two different sheets, which means two different sets of "slots".

I went back and read the post, but I still don't see WHY they can't print both borders on the same sheet. I was thinking maybe it's because the cutting isn't necessarily perfect and there might be some silver on the black border or black border on the silver, but I've hardly ever seen full-art cards with an edge from another card. Why would having different border colors be any more difficult?

I'm purely going off public statements from Mark Rosewater. He's explained repeatedly that having more than one type of border on a sheet is logistically impossible. I believe it does have to do with the process of cutting, and that borderless cards have special requirements for that that make that whole sheet significantly more expensive to produce, which is why there's never more than one sheet worth of borderless promos, and they occur at a rate of one per pack or less. I would speculate that making an entire set use that process would be far too expensive for them to sell for less than collector booster prices. Which would be a very very different product, and likely one getting even more complaints than the current implementation.

It might also be worth considering that even if Un-sets aren't for you, there are people who find them fun and would prefer a fun limited environment (which Unstable did have, imo).

[DirkGently]

I'm purely going off public statements from Mark Rosewater. He's explained repeatedly that having more than one type of border on a sheet is logistically impossible. I believe it does have to do with the process of cutting, and that borderless cards have special requirements for that that make that whole sheet significantly more expensive to produce, which is why there's never more than one sheet worth of borderless promos, and they occur at a rate of one per pack or less. I would speculate that making an entire set use that process would be far too expensive for them to sell for less than collector booster prices. Which would be a very very different product, and likely one getting even more complaints than the current implementation.

Is any of this actually confirmed or are you guessing?

If that does happen to be true, though, just change the border slightly so there's a ring of black around the outside edge, but still mostly silver. They already changed the border once to add more black with unstable, at least it's a consistent concept. Think about how stupid this has gotten.

"How can I tell if a card is legal?"

"Oh, it's very simple. If it doesn't have a black border, it's not legal."

"So white border isn't legal?"

"No, white border is legal, sorry. If it's silver, it's not legal."

"Gold border?"

"Oops, sorry again, no that's also illegal. Black and white are good, gold and silver aren't."

"But that's everything?"

"Oh, right, it also has to have an oval foil stamp. It's that tiny little thing at the bottom that nobody gave a crap about until just now."

"But don't all commons/uncommons not have that stamp?"

"Right, I mean if it DOES have an acorn stamp, then it's illegal."

"And what about this triangle stamp?"

"That one is legal. See, it's very simple. First you check the border. If it's silver or gold, then it's not legal. If it's white or black, then it's legal. If it's black border and has either no foil stamp, an oval foil stamp, or a triangle foil stamp, then it's definitely legal, but if it has an acorn foil stamp, then it's not legal. Simple!"

"So this Pikachu card I found..."

"I'm going to %$#% kill you."

It might also be worth considering that even if Un-sets aren't for you, there are people who find them fun and would prefer a fun limited environment (which Unstable did have, imo).

Oh yeah, nothing says "fun" like being locked out of your turn by Clocknapper, or locked out of playing the rest of the game by X. Those were definitely fun cards that received very thorough playtesting, I'm sure. Not to mention all the "fun" of having good cards which require you to physically hurt yourself to play them. Fun!

[Wallycaine]

I'm purely going off public statements from Mark Rosewater. He's explained repeatedly that having more than one type of border on a sheet is logistically impossible. I believe it does have to do with the process of cutting, and that borderless cards have special requirements for that that make that whole sheet significantly more expensive to produce, which is why there's never more than one sheet worth of borderless promos, and they occur at a rate of one per pack or less. I would speculate that making an entire set use that process would be far too expensive for them to sell for less than collector booster prices. Which would be a very very different product, and likely one getting even more complaints than the current implementation.

Is any of this actually confirmed or are you guessing?

I specifically stated the part at which I began speculating. You can choose to believe that between Wizards of the Coast and the printing firms they've worked with no one has ever come up with your brilliant "put a line of black" idea, or you could assume that the matter may be more complex than that. All the information I'm relaying has been made available by Mark Rosewater at one point or another.

[DirkGently]

I specifically stated the part at which I began speculating. You can choose to believe that between Wizards of the Coast and the printing firms they've worked with no one has ever come up with your brilliant "put a line of black" idea, or you could assume that the matter may be more complex than that. All the information I'm relaying has been made available by Mark Rosewater at one point or another.

What I think is that they didn't want to make it work, and any explanation is just an attempt to placate the masses. I think that deliberately obfuscating the line between legal and illegal benefits their sales. I think Maro in particular believes that un sets should be fully legal in commander in order to increase the popularity of his pet project. I think Maro in particular, as good as he may be at other aspects of development, doesn't understand commander and doesn't take it seriously. I also think his definition of "fun" - at least when it's fully unconstrained - is very different from mine and, frankly, goes against most of what I actually enjoy about magic.

And so long as we're both speculating, my guesses are as good as yours.