LovesTha🦒

@counterspell another idea to shake it up a bit: the price limit is for cards with that name in you deck: one copy if it is 50c, two copies if it is 25c, etc.

Could even allow for going over 4 cookies for truely chaff cards

@counterspell Lemmy not federating post content does make things annoying

@counterspell nope. Deleting and reposting ;)

deleted by creator

@andrew Elsewhere a friend dup up: it was in the earnings call.

So yeah, this directly contradicts WotC’s position that they know how much to print. WotC just flat lying to us.

@andrew Anyone know where Hasbro has said this? As it obviously goes against WotC saying they know how to predict how much to print…

@nokturne213 @mike We are? Oh, I hadn’t realised that :(

@itsJoelle @SlippiHUD 3D printers are very bad at making mtg cards ;p

@luxyr42 @mike It gives a ceiling, not a floor or average power level.

Treating such system as not informing deck building is ignoring human behaviour. People will avoid including a single card from a higher tier than they enjoy playing. Unless it is worth bringing up in Rule 0 conversations and explaining that it isn’t a good way to think about this deck in particular.

And players will treat a single card from +1 tier more kindly than they will treat a tier 1 deck including a tier 4 card.

@mike @MysticKetchup original goal isn’t really an important number. It’s just a number that below there they are better off not doing it. 30k is a useful amount of money, but plenty ends up at the printers and not in Phil’s pocket.

@nexguy @MysticKetchup That is valid for insular play groups, it doesn’t work at conventions. And only partially works at stores, they can be a mixed bag.

@Evu @mike I know of unicorn decks that sol ring is bad in, but they are so unusual they only demonstrate the truth.

@MysticKetchup best PT ever.

It gave a lot of people hope of being great

@Semjaza At least there the were trying to straight nerf. And going from +1/+1 to +1/-1 is a nerf, just not on *that* card

@Semjaza the history of untested changes breaking is long. Skullclamp is another example

@Spzi opperating in fear of a too strong card leads to boring sets. But it is the right way to do the changes that don’t get tested.

@andrew @Evu any process will have changes that occur without testing. Unless the process is willing to miss shipping dates.

I think the design crime with Nadu was the fear of shipping a bad card after nerfing the card. Not realising the modification was risky is something professionals should know: novel abilities are risky.

@meant2live218 @MysticKetchup some of the Mirrodin block bans were similarly wide sweeping, but had to hit more cards in each deck.

@morphballganon @Evu does it? They always ban after a deck is turning people off the format. So there is downside to being slow to act.

Does a broken deck drive enough people to crack packs to find the broken card to play it? That is questionable.

@MysticKetchup I’ve always cracked into one pool and built from there. But then the bulk I’ve done were pre prerelease kits.