Metamorphosis
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Aug. 25, 2014, 11:14 a.m. by spyroswiz
According to today's article in Daily MTG, Mark Posewater announced the new structure of blocks. We are going to have 2 rotations each year( one in fall and one in spring). Also, in summer 2015 its going to be the last core set. From then we are going to have 2 blocks each year. Whats your thoughts about the new model? For more informations: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mm/metamorphosis
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." is a quote from the Bible. Alpha and Omega are also the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Also, Alpha Myr , Omega Myr .
August 27, 2014 6:26 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #4
Oh okay, it fits then, considering we had Alpha and Beta during Magic's first few years. But then, what would they name the very last set? Shouldn't the VERY last set be named Omega? I think that is a fitting name for it, should WotC have to end Magic for whatever reason.
M16 should be named something else. Something that fits a more "change" theme. I know nothing about the Greek alphabet though.
August 27, 2014 6:32 p.m.
Kingzerker says... #5
Alpha, Beta... And finally Omega which literally means "end". Good thinking @Fulcrum!
Also, I second everything said by @jlwalker20. His post raised many of the points mine on pg7 did in a more concise and direct manner. Really looking forward to this next step in Magic's evolution!
August 27, 2014 6:32 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #6
Fulcrum that's a pretty cool idea. I'm definitely for it.
August 27, 2014 6:56 p.m.
@Femme_Fatale: The reason why I think Omega would be fitting for the final core set is Alpha and Beta were technically core sets. It would also be fitting for the final set ever to be Omega, but such a thought is blasphemy.
August 27, 2014 8:25 p.m.
jlwalker20 says... #9
Wrath of God won't be reprinted as a non-Theros card because of the link to religion, so I don't know that they'd go for Alpha/Omega, but what do I know?
August 27, 2014 9:07 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #10
Alpha/Omega isn't a heavy biblical concept jlwalker20. The character is literally using words from another language for a literary impact. They were made by the Greeks, a time before the bible, and are words in our every day language. They are more of a link to science, specifically electronics and electromagnetism.
August 27, 2014 9:16 p.m.
sertsew123 says... #11
What about delta. It's another Greek letter that literally symbolizes change in both science and math. For example delta y over delta x is the slope formula. It would keep the Greek letter pattern but would symbolize change of the system instead of absolutly the end.
August 27, 2014 10:25 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #12
I like Delta, it fits the theme as well. Because WotC may bring back the core sets again a few years later.
August 27, 2014 10:59 p.m.
but not for at least a decade. How long has it been since shadowmoor and lorwyn?
August 27, 2014 11:21 p.m.
well at any rate is was a (successful) experiment. Hopefully they come up with awesome means to try out new ways to test ideas and not completely f**k standard up like they are with this and did with shadomoor/lorwyn
August 28, 2014 12:14 a.m.
@Asher18, yeah, cause standard is perfect. No dominant decks that keep getting played constantly and bore you to death every time you go to an fnm
August 28, 2014 9:34 a.m.
I'm so glad my LGS isn't filled with people who net deck. Every complaint i've heard about standard since theros was released simply just doesn't come up at my local shop.
August 28, 2014 10:06 a.m.
It's not like there is no one who does it, but listen to people complain on here all standard season long and you'd think they're playing on the pro tour. I swear people will tell you that they've literally only played against 3 different decks in the last year, Mono-black devotion, Mono-blue devotion, and U/W/x. There are so many people who complain about card prices and how they're inflated because there is no variety among decks and there is all of these people who post up their "budget decks" their working on. But when you see a thread about someone complaining on here, it's like their trying to convince you that no one at their local shop builds with what they got, that everyone goes out and spends top dollar every week and only plays what deck won a pro event the week before. I just think it's funny because when people complain, they want to make it seem like they lost to what's considered the "best deck" and so anytime they lose to a deck that has a Pack Rat , Desecration Demon , Thassa, God of the Sea or Supreme Verdict in it, naturally that person is net decking. It's standard... it's a small card pool and some cards are just strictly better than others in that color. So naturally if your building a standard deck that is competitive it's going to contain cards that you see the pro's using. The whiners don't seem to realize this so they blame "net decking" as the problem, even though that's typically not really what happened. They just don't know better and feel like they need to blame something. It's just funny because If they really had played against nothing but net decks for the last year you'd think by now they would knows whats going on. Apparently a year just isn't enough for them to figure anything out lol.
August 28, 2014 11:15 a.m.
That was an extremely valid point until you finished it with "lol." Personally, I never really saw the point in net decking. You copy someone else and usually do worse then they did. It makes the gave at least 100 times more expensive and just...not fun. I play outside the box, which is shown through my newest deck, Who the HELL is Garrex?!. I don't play esper control, not MBD, not MUD, and it makes the game more enjoyable because it's new and exciting to use a seldom-used archetype against the monstrous top-8 winning decks. If you win, that deck and the player who copied it look like asses, but if you lose, at least you have fun playing and surprising players who could have never sen this archetype played competitively before!
August 28, 2014 11:29 a.m.
As long as there are people who play this game there will be decks that do better than others and there will be people who copy those decks. I don't really understand why people get annoyed about it. That's how games work. You find an optimal solution that leads to victory and you use it. If other people copy you, don't complain about it just accept that that's what it's like.
It so happens that MBD and UW/x seem to be optimal decks so they see all the play. So fucking what? That's what happens when there's a small card pool. There are fewer answers to the 'problem' (the problem being how to win often).
August 28, 2014 12:46 p.m.
A quick disclaimer: I played MTG casual from Revised through Weatherlight and Standard through the Mirage block, then I quit until spring 2014 (yeah, I know, a 17 year break...). I feel happy now with Modern as I can afford to slowly build a competitive deck that will not be almost totally "illegal" in a few months, and then keep the cards and slowly build others..
I am not sure how all this is going to impact me and my liking of Magic but I have the feeling that not much. I suppose I am glad to see the core set dissapear because I have always seen it as a Limited thing after Revised and I have never liked Limited (nor have I ever bought core boosters after Revised).
I am not sure however how this new set of changes is going to impact the newcomer or the recent Standard player... For me, Standard has always been uninteresting: if you had not many ressources nor too much time, Standard felt like a Catch 22: you committed scarce ressources to a single competitive deck and then had to divest cards to cope with rotation, but, at the same time, you got bored with just a single deck and had no ressources to acquire another competitive deck nor the time to trade heavily to change the deck without a significant cost...
So, is a total newcomer going to feel disappointed/hooked by Standard more than with the current system? Imho it will depend on Wizards reprints. The total number of cards published each year seems similar, right? 4 sets instead of 3 and a core... The new system would require a priori more time to dedicate to Magic as the competitive landscape is apparently changing faster, but wizards could reprint and/or ban cards so as to avoid newcomers leaving Magic out of "rotation sickness". I think card prices are going to spike just like now, but for shorter periods of time, and I fear two rotations are going to scare and tire out of Magic more newcomers than the old system... just my 2 cents.
August 28, 2014 1:04 p.m.
This isn't directed specifically at you Abubroki I'm not accusing you of this, but something you said reminded me of it. Another thing I find funny along with all the net deck complaining is how people complain that standard gets stale and boring because it's nothing but the same decks winning all the time but then their argument for the appeal of modern is the fact that you can build a competitive deck and then keep playing it because it doesn't rotate. I realize the potential for lost value with standard cards rotating but really that's irrelevant. If you get bored with standard because you don't want to play the same deck for a year straight how is being able to play your deck for even longer in modern more appealing? It's a contradicting statement that they try to cover up by using rotation as a negative to try and persuade your oppinion. Which is funny because the whole point of standard is that the meta is consistently changing. That's done through rotation, so sometimes the meta shifts with the release of different sets and it shifts with rotation. It's tough to use rotation as a negative against standard when it's a huge part of the driving force behind it. That's why the new standard will benefit from the new format. It should create a meta that doesn't stall out and have to wait an entire year for rotation to happen in order to reset things. A meta that evolves more consistently should create variety and should create a better play environment for everyone. Along with the ability, as others have pointed out, to put out more relevant reprints more often helping other formats benefit as well. So people should stop trying to knock rotation like it's a negative thing. Without it.. standard couldn't function.
August 28, 2014 1:36 p.m.
Playing modern does feel very different from playing standard though. The decks are a lot harder to master and it does have its own evolving meta. To think of modern as some sort of non-rotating standard is wrong because the decks take longer to learn. To think of modern as a stagnant format is wrong, the meta does change.
August 28, 2014 3:47 p.m.
@ChiefBell I don't think anyone was trying to say modern is stagnant. Modern does have an evolving meta, but it evolves far more slowly than standard. It also does have long periods where the meta won't shift at all. It does occasionally have periods where the meta shifts quite often, but those are becoming more rare now that people have gotten used to the format. Even when the meta shifts, however, the individual cards rarely lose their value by very much, because those cards tend to stay powerful, they're just used in different decks in different ways.
This biggest modern shifts are usually when a new, really powerful card is printed (Young Pyromancer and Delver of Secrets Flip and Snapcaster Mage are good examples of this) and then when things are banned or un-banned (most recently Deathrite Shaman being banned hurt Jund very badly, while the un-banning of Wild Nacatl and Bitterblossom allowed zoo and fairies respectively to make comebacks in the meta). There are times, though, where the ban list won't be changed and no new cards powerful enough to really impact the meta will be printed.
Standard is different, though. It's meta rotates on a set schedule. Occasionally (like what's been happening since after Theros) the meta will stagnate for almost a whole year when nothing particularly powerful or exciting gets printed after the first set in a block. That usually doesn't happen too often although it is a problem with Theros block. The new change will ensure that the standard meta is constantly rotating. The meta shifts will now be smaller, but will happen a lot more often, which I think is good since that's kind of the whole point of standard; a constantly shifting card pool which forces players to make new decks and utilizes new strategies often.
I don't think anyone was trying to bad mouth modern, it's just that different formats are for different people. That's why we have them, after all.
August 28, 2014 5:08 p.m.
I appreciate that it's just Abenz was presenting standard and modern as a dichotomy between a shifting format and a non shifting format and I was saying - that's not true.
August 28, 2014 5:25 p.m.
I appreciate that it's just Abenz was presenting standard and modern as a dichotomy between a shifting format and a non shifting format and I was saying - that's not true.
August 28, 2014 5:25 p.m.
It's not so much that I think modern doesn't ever evolve, as Skraz1265 says, there are things that can cause shifts in the meta, they just happen at a much slower pace. What I was getting at is the way people try to hate on standard calling it stagnant (because of years like this one) but then try to use the fact that your deck sticks around longer in modern because of no rotation as a plus side. It's contradicting, that's all. Plus just the general hate on the rotation of standard in the first place along with the complains in this thread about a block of cards rotating out ever six months. I just find it funny because rotation is what makes standard function. The whole point of standard is that it's a constantly changing environment where people need to continuously adapt in order to keep up. Having three 2 set blocks will increase card types and mechanics creating variety which will add to the puzzle that your trying to solve when building a deck. Rotation means new things get added and things leave, it's a way to prevent things from getting stagnant for too long and provide a source of continuous change. Like I said I just find it funny, complaining about standard because it rotates is like complaining about modern because it doesn't rotate. It's literally a giant part of what the whole format is based around and wouldn't exist without it.
August 28, 2014 6:12 p.m.
Not felt accused at all abenz419 : )
I wasn't as clear as I should have been and I was probably projecting my own past experience to any newcomer to Magic. I see your points and you are totally correct; there has to be a Standard format (hence rotations), but it just might not be for me. I hope the changes bring overall good, I was just thinking of a possible segment of newcomers to the game who might not have either enough financial ressources nor time: with little time to trade and really keep the pace of new sets, they might feel discouraged by the speed of Standard just as I did, although it is much easier now to keep pace in the internet era. By "boredom" of playing a single deck for a year I actually meant my dissatisfaction with affording only one and having to divest it for a new one; guess Standard is too frenetic or claustrophobic for me, despite quite stale metagames like currently with Theros, as pointed by other comments, and could feel more frenetic after changes.
August 28, 2014 6:25 p.m.
dudes, this ROCKS! No more boring core set? so many new sets and new worlds? 3-set standard? (the core set usually didn't add much to standard) This is AWESOME!
August 28, 2014 6:52 p.m.
I like this new standard. 3 blocks instead of two to play around with, sweet! Sure each block will be a little smaller but that's okay. modern - more boring, difficult to me. Yes there are more cards available and you can play a lot of different decks, but if you have few people who play modern at your LGS and most of them have great decks, then the inexperienced, and more casual player who hasn't spent money on buying imrakul or has the perfect lands to make their deck awesome then there is no chance to win. Guys are playing tron and good decks. Not that fun for an amateur. Standard has more players and more people who play with a variety of budgets. You can play any deck you want and still have fun. Sure it may suck that they didn't reprint your favorite card in the newest set but that's ok. Maybe next time ha.
August 30, 2014 8:56 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #35
There isn't much here in terms of hilarity, and I read them all.
August 30, 2014 3:27 p.m.
Femme_Fatale I don't think you understand hilarity like the rest of us do. People running around like the Four Horsemen just rode in, chunks of concrete falling from the sky and people with their armpit hairs on fire just because there's not going to be a core set after M16 is hilarious. :D
August 31, 2014 12:36 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #37
I just think that is just men being the idiots they are. Nothing new there.
August 31, 2014 4:38 p.m.
Huh? I was busy. lol
I like this idea of faster rotation. It means theres more chances for newer players to get in. It means experienced players wont get bored of a "stagnate" standard. This current standard is a great example. At the end of M14 i was playing packrat and desecration demon and being told both cards were bad. Im almost playing the same deck now with only bile blight, Elspeth and banishing light relevant to the deck. (playing b/w midrange) . This new rotation system means that wont happen.
August 31, 2014 8:43 p.m.
the maturity level here astounds me. To restart the rage, I loved m13 and m15. They are great sets and I will honestly miss core sets. They had lots of great cards like Chandra, Pyromaster and Nissa, Worldwaker along with bringing back stuff like convoke (Chord of Calling ) And I will miss them a lot. RIP core sets, may your legacy be written in m16!
August 31, 2014 11:43 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #50
It's 15 pages in Asher18, we already went over every single gripe and positive factor over the core sets being removed and the change in rotation speeds.
-Fulcrum says... #1
Disclaimer: I haven't read any of the 13 pages of posts, so I don't know what's been discussed and what hasn't.
Am I the only one who hopes the final core set is named Omega instead of M16?
August 27, 2014 5:59 p.m.