"Maybe its to introduce new players to the game" Pokémon has been the exact same for over 30 years, and its never jeopardized its own identity by deciding to burn its IP for money and fomo. There has never been a transformer, ghostbuster, or marvel hero inside of the Pokémon brand ever, and it does just fine. "Everyone says its bad until its an IP you like" Listen, I love final fantasy. When I heard Emit Selch from FFXIV was getting a card, I got excited under the premise that it was a Secret Lair and not going to be competition legal. My problem with Universes Beyond isn't explicitly the IPs they are deciding to collaborate with, but the fact that I have no choice but to interact with this in one way or another, unlike keeping universes beyond to secret lair drops, or even giving it its own format, or just deciding to make a new IP all together for these collabs and keeping Magic, Magic. We were told not to worry about it when the Walking Dead had cards in a set, that it was "Only 5 Cards", but if that was the blindfold then the LOTR collab, and the Serialization of cards like The One Ring was us being guided off of the edge of a cliff. And everyone who talks ill about their beloved franchise making decisions that don't make any sense, they are treated like lepers or called gatekeepers. And it takes up half of the yearly release schedule. The release schedule filled with our characters playing dress up.
Still blows my mind that the ring who greatest claim to fame is "there is nothing else like it in all of existence" doesn't have a line of text that says "you can only have one of this card in your deck".
I mean, that solves (or at least helps mitigate) the specific problem of TOR, but it doesn't do anything about all of the future problems that Universes Beyond will continue to cause. When you're making money off an IP that you don't actually own there are a lot of difficult questions that will need to be resolved.
@@johngalt200this is an especially rough case because this card is makes so many decks stronger. When Storm gets banned in commander (because we can’t just ban cards from being commander) it may not be as terrible?
Wizard's business model: print broken cards, create fomo, collect money, ban cards repeat as often as you think you can get away with it. Color xerox copies are cheap, make proxies, have fun, screw Wizards.
Pay your LGS it’s 1.50-2$ above market on cards up to 8$, buy your individual packs and Precons there, and buy snacks/drinks on site. You’ve now done your duty.
I don't understand why people say that people who dislike universes beyond would like it if something they liked were used. I don't want things I like in magic any more than I would want magic to appear in those things.
When Universes Beyond was announced I was in the big group all saying we didn't like it, but I knew I was on the losing side when a lot of people standing on that side started saying "oo but LotR is a good one" or whatever. There are a few people like you and I but we're the minority of a minority.
We got a glimpse of this when Orcish Bowmasters wasn't banned alongside Fury, even though the goal was explicitly to make small creatures playable again. They worked around it by making "good" one drops 1/2 instead of x/1, but that was a clear instance of a card that was super ubiquitous dodging a ban for unknown reasons.
"Stuff I like" has already been added through "Universes Beyond". I don't own any of them, because even the stuff I like still isn't Magic The Gathering, and doesn't belong here.
Yea their argument of, "you'll hate it until something you like gets added," was stupid and ignorant. I will NEVER like outside universes being added to MtG. I will NEVER like the fortnitification of Magic. These guys are putz.
You and I feel that way but a majority of players are fine with UB in general and a majority of people who don't love it seem happy to make their pet exception. I get being riled up at the over generalization but I think it's more true than not.
This is why these cards should have been self contained sets meant only to play against each other. Silver border would have let them design whatever they wanted without affecting the main game. And people could have played Gandalf vs Iron Man and Dr. Who all they wanted.
You're absolutely right, but at this point even some of the Unset cards are legal in formats like Modern, which is such a change from when being silver border actually meant something.
One issue with printing cards that "hate" for the one ring is that drawing cards is such a basic game action and indestructible is such a high threshhold to cross that any answers are going to be brutal for the play experience. Orcish Bowmasters is really tough on control deck already, and playing an artifact deck against Karn the Great Creator is a nightmare. So yeah you could print a 0 mana Annul or a 1 mana bowmaster, but you're so far up the power creep at that point that little actual design space is left over to do anything interesting.
Yes, and it's also like... as soon as I resolve the one ring, it immediately draws a card and gives me a turn of invulnerability. Even if you then have a card that exiles an artifact from the game for one red mana (bypassing indestructibility), I'm still pretty okay with that exchange as the One Ring player.
"Should the one ring be banned." Yes there is no argument that it shouldn't be. When a card is THIS unhealthy THIS prevalent and has the entire game built and designed around it and will continue to do so until it is power crept by something stronger or banned it unfortunately cannot be allowed to be played. I played modern for years I want to get back into it, I cannot see how the format could ever be enjoyable while every deck to be competitive requires 4 copies of the one ring to be played and every side board and even some of your main board slots have to be taken up by cards exclusively there to beat your opponents 4 copies of the one ring. The game isnt about beating your opponent its about beating the one ring. The health of the game always need to take priority.
That would involve slowing down set releases, and that’s a mission-fail when the only objective that matters is hitting the newest quarterly profit projection mark.
It certainly is potent. Is a legacy level card in modern. Much like grief, orcish, and similar. I love them pushing boundaries but much like flesh and blood, it's time to hall of fame the one ring for modern.
@@Interrobang212 i have been told my takes for commander are the minority, and where i stand, the one ring is just meh. untap it, bounce it infinitely, so? you die to oracle just the same. die to torment. in response force of negation the ring. the new strix counterspell. repeat for all the answers in magic. commander isnt casual. 1 winner, not 4. at this point i just dont care much for the people playing the format where any of the above are false. we can be friends but i wont play with them.
@@FightsWithSpoons Just because the card doesn't directly beat the undisputed strongest wincon in Commander (that 97% of the card pool can't interact with to begin with) doesn't make the card any less ridiculous. The card is a borderline staple in CEDH for crying out loud. Some RogSi lists are even playing it -- a deck that *doesn't want* the game to go for long enough to get the full value out of it.
For what it's worth, I don't want any other IP in Magic, including the ones I love. I love LOTR, but I didn't mesh with the printed version. I sure as heck don't want to see David the Gnome, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Last Unicorn, or any of the rest of my childhood dredged up onto Magic cards.
“Everyone feels that way until it’s something YOU like” is an argument with merit, and yet, despite all the outside things that I like being turned into magic sets, I still hate it.
The one ring is arguably the one card that could get restricted in modern. “This is a 4 of format, what do you mean i can only have 1 the one ring” “Its the ONE ring dude!”
Just ban it in competitive formats. We make up a small fraction of the playerbase, anyway. If Commander is the only format its legal in, I really don't think anyone will care.
I know that "rule zero" is the popular go-to... but realistically, they can only ban ANYTHING in a competitive situation. Outside of that, a table can play whatever the hell it wants to, right?
I don't really get this argument. I do not buy that direct to modern UB sets are bringing new people into modern and that banning UB cards from modern hutrts the trust. What hurts trust more in the long run is having these DtM sets, and then spending significant development time into making sure that specific cards are POWERFUL FOR COMMANDER, and not worrying about the effect of that card on modern. who is this hypothetical new player that is getting into magic because of the LOTR set and going directly to modern? LIke, I'm not worried about hypothetically losing a new player to modern because TOR was banned, I'm worried about the health of my format due to a format warping card that was designed for a completely different format.
You are 100% correct. The entry point for Universes Beyond is commander and kitchen-table magic. To pretend that UB brings people to one of the potentially most expensive (on average) formats is just wrong.
I think it probably *does* hurt the trust, but I'd tend to agree with you that the playability and health of the format is more important than frustration with "wasted" product. That is to say, I also don't think people would buy into UB specifically to play in Modern. I think a lot of Modern players buy into UB, but at the end of the day they're *probably* going to stay in the format either way, and would ultimately appreciate bans of cards that are clearly problematic.
It's true, there's no way a significant number of people who come to Magic from other IP's are going to dive head-first into expensive formats like Modern, but I doubt the staying power of bringing people in to ANY format through Universes Beyond. They came for the IP they already liked, not Magic, so it's by no means a given that they'll enjoy Magic itself enough to become a long-term player.
From wizards point of view the one ring has to be a win right? They rotated modern and the iconic card of a UB set is a must have. That's a success in their fire strategy as well as their shoehorn IP strategy. If you make the card busted enough people will buy in record numbers, the game be damned.
@@isambo400 no rotation == no sells no sells == no money no money == "this product is not for you" and ... both modern and Commander == no rotation (About Commander: just creating more and more pushed cards & Commanders is enough to force rotation)
Hard disagree on the everyone hates it until they make something you like. I like a bunch of the UB IP but I won't spend a penny on any of these. They're just straight up bad for the game
Agreed. I LOVE Final Fantasy.....have been a fan for years.....and you know what? It needs to stay on the consoles and out of my card game. Magic doesn't need it to be great.
It's absolutely wild to hold the position that 'it doesn't matter that wizards is adding other IPs to the game' and then IMMEDIATELY point out how that exact action is a lose lose
Call me a purist or a boomer or something, but no, it doesn't matter whether I like the Universes Beyond IP or not. I've been a Star Wars fan since I was a kid (before the dark times, before Disney) but that doesn't mean I want Darth Vader to be my commander. I know it's subjective and I'm clearly in the minority on this, but I miss when Magic took itself seriously.
I don't like crossovers in my lego either. At some point creators stopped creating and just did money-grabbing "synergies" and crossovers. UB should just be sets that don't interact with the mainline sets and can be used in casual play or as stand alone blocks.
Old players don't really buy as much product, they either play legacy or commander and have the cards they need. New players are willing to buy more and more new products. Wotc makes nothing on the secondary market, older players if they know what they want, will just buy the cards from shops and dealers, new players will buy sealed product more often.
TOR needs to be banned in Modern. It's ubiquitous - seeing play in nearly 50% of decks, and in almost *every* top tier deck. Something needs to be done.
@@jessoftherocksbased on the logic of the argument, yes. So point taken. But I think you know that's a strawman. Ubiquity itself isn't the problem, but powerlevel and homogeneity of play patterns. If most games are devolving in to "do I find The One Ring" *or* "do I find The One Ring *before* you do," then I'd say that play patterns are becoming homogeneous and that is a problem. Especially if the majority of decks that don't play TOR can't really compete with those that can. They bring up skullclamp in this video as an example of when WotC had a similar problem, and it's a good example. It's also the reason they probably can't unban mental misstep - because it "goes in every/any deck."
@@joelmeeks8683if there were good answers to TOR we either would have seen them by now, or we would have seen TORs play % decrease. The former has happened, some, but the latter has not. So the problem of homogeneous play persists.
Re: Eyes lighting up @4:08. I'm having the reverse of this! My wife has been playing Baulder's Gate and every time a character or place that had a card comes up, I go "OH I KNOW THAT ONE!" Basilisk Gate got mentioned last night. "I played that in my 9 Fingers Keen deck!" A friend of mine decided to cosplay Jaheira and I was like "I know her! From Magic! Err, Baulder's Gate!" So the reverse advertising, that Magic helps get people into these crossovers and helps them appreciate them too is totally true.
I feel like there is a gross misconception with game designers who believe that any new player is a good for the health of a game. You need a certain level of gatekeeping to keep the integrity of the game or else the amount of people who come into it wanting completely different things drown out the intent of the game in the first place. Which is funny because you can then just say "well then people have to adapt to the new demands" but its not actually that simple because if you keep doing that process then you are splitting your appeal to more and more groups of people and absolutely destroying your ability to appease any of them. Which is why I say that that is probably more dangerous to the longevity of the game than the health of it. You have to gatekeep or else lose what you have already built. If you like the game because they printed Thanos on it then you were never going to enjoy it to begin with.
I got into Street Fighter around the time the UB cards came out, I still disliked the crossover. And really, the only reason I could appreciate a UB tie-in is if they gave some underexposed media a window onto a bigger platform, which is antithetical to the goal of cashing in on other popular IP's within wotc's own popular IP. And even then I would tolerate it more than enjoy it. I feel this within a single crossovers, too. When they did SF, they did Ryu, Chun Li, Zangief. Whom we've seen so many times before in SF. It'd be much cooler to me if they had done some deep cuts in SF's huge cast of characters, but, again, that's the opposite of what they want to do.
@@BushRat253 Or, it gives you a poison counter with each burden counter on the Ring itself everytime it's used in addition so it gamemechanicaly actually turns you "corrupted" after the second use
@@zirilan3398I thought about the poison counters for a really long time. I think tapping into self burn from the burden counters faster may be enough for modern with life being only 20. Not to mention opponents could proliferate the counters much more easily.
errata should only ever be used to update old card with new terms and rules changes as time goes. that kind of use for errata is never acceptable for any reason. IE companions should have been banned forever not erratad.
That's not great gameplay: "oh, you lucked into the 1/4 or 1/3 chance that you drew your OP card, and I didn't hit my 1/4 or 1/3 chance that I drew my OP card? You win, I guess."
I hadn't really considered what if the ip dies in the 3 years it takes. Imagine if they had a game of thrones set designed to release after season 8. It would have been a disaster.
I sort of felt that way about the original Walking Dead secret lair. Personally the show died for me long before, but I also felt like in pop culture it had fallen by the wayside by the time the secret lair was announced.
From a product strategy pov it doesn’t even make sense to put universes beyond into modern. There’s already a ton of standard sets coming out and we have modern horizons. New players are not playing modern either, modern is popular but it’s among very enfranchised players and doesn’t even approach the popularity of commander. Banning the one ring doesn’t affect a majority of player base.
One thought I've had about Unerverses Beyond is that, it is undeniable that it brings people who have neverplayed magic to the game, you cannot argue this, but, what is the data on those people sticking around? When new UB set have come out, you hear a ton of stories along the lines of "Huge fan of Fallout and now getting into magic" but like, now that we're almost a year out from that, are they still playing? still buying cards? do they have any interest in continuing either. If these new players are sticking around and branching into other aspects of magic, that awesome! But, if theyre not, is the growth that we're seeing in magic only coming with each new UB set? If its the latter doesn't that basically mean magic is in a bubble?
To give you more anecdotal evidence, yes! Most of the players at my lgs have started the last year or two from lotr, doctor who, and especially warhammer. I still play with these people, today.
This is in fact the risk/problem with trying to appeal to a new audience in a way that has little-to-nothing to do with what you/your product is at your/its core. You risk pushing away your base for a theoretical "new" base that won't really like you unless you change several other things as well, ultimately losing the core value. It's the same thing we've been seeing in other forms of entertainment and media, and it sucks there too.
In my experience, my warhammer and LOTR friends kept playing, w doctor who friends bought (a couple) the precon and never opened it, they just leave at a display for some reason
The Fallout set, specifically Mr. House and his dice based mechanic, got me in to MTG, Warhammer is a nice tie in to where I spend my Real Hobby Dollars (been doing that for 15 years with 8 different armies, 4 for 40k and another 4 for Sigmar), Assassin's Creed was fun imo with the Artifacts of Eden, I grabbed a whole booster box of LotR and pulled a One Ring for my troubles, I've got 3 of the MH3 precon commander decks, one of the Thunder Junction, grabbed maybe a dozen booster packs of each, a couple of the collector packs for MH3 and I've recently shelled out for probably a couple dozen boosters for Duskmourn (lost count) as well as grabbing 2 of the Nightmare boxes and another 3 collector boosters. So I can say from personal experience, Universes Beyound pulled me in and I've stuck around and shelled out a decent amount for more UB stuff as well as the non-UB stuff. And this all was so I could finally play MTG with one of my Warhammer buddies whose been on my ass about it for a bit.
Not only are there about 250 cards in a set but then there are about 100 additional alternate art versions of various cards. *And then* there's the commander decks that have hundreds of new pieces of art for both new cards and universes beyond versions of classic cards. They easily spent millions on the art budget. Anyway, don't mean that to be sound like "well actually you're wrong 🤓" More that I was surprised to realize just how many cards were in that set.
A personal issue I have with UB sets is how they reinforce the creature type bias towards human. I would care less if there were no kinship support for humans but there is, and with humans already being over 12.5% of all cards in magic making even more sets with worlds without goblins, zombies, elves, merfolk, let alone MTG's own creatures....Just more humans
@@blamau14 It's not just that there are few IPs without humans. It's the that so man IPs so focused on humans. Take Star wars, there are hundreds if not thousands of types of aliens and well over 90% of all characters are human.
They're also errata'ing out MTG's own homegrown creature types, which you could argue is part of the same effect. Cephalids no longer exist, because if you're a new player, what the heck is a cephalid?
For what it’s worth, my take is that WotC does not care about player experience. If they did, The One Ring would already be banned. Or at least banned in Modern because R/W energy is roughly 40% of the meta right now. At what point does the negative experience of everyone who doesn’t or can’t use TOR outweigh the experience of those who do? If something doesn’t change, it’s pretty much confirmed that WotC values sales above all else. Which isn’t surprising because they are a business with the goal of making as much money as possible at the end of the day.
Honestly a huge solution to this problem is a tool that wizards has but doesn't use. Restricted. Four One Rings can warp the meta One One Ring can just be a powerful card.
Cast Into the Fire has been legal as long as The One Ring has, printed in the same set. Still not enough to curtail the card. Fact of the matter is, anyone in the comments here saying "don't ban it" or "errata it" are not Modern players in any real capacity. The card is an absolute menace, and a lot of games devolve into "who can get their Ring first." After that, they run away with the game. And for the people who are saying "Only Energy is the problem," the Ring's mere existence pushed decks that cannot afford to play it out of the format entirely precisely because it is the literal best thing you can do as a control/midrange deck. The card will still see widespread play if Energy gets knocked down a peg. The inverse is also a problem for the format unfortunately. If TOR is banned, and Energy be left without a card banned, Energy will STILL be the best thing you can do in the format considering TOR is also a stabilizing tool against aggro. Card should have never been printed. WOTC's design mistakes with Modern over the past year and a half are egregious and embarrassing. I was a long-time Modern player who played in SCGCons, 1k's, etc who sold out of the format for Pauper because of this stuff.
@@topkapi9351 I lean more towards an Ajani or Phlage ban but they're in a tough spot because Energy's cards are all so good individually. I think Guide would be a good hit as well personally. Ocelot into Ajani is nuts. Guide into Ajani is nuts. Phlage adds a hard to deal with threat and inevitability to the deck. It's really tough.
@@halcyonacoustic7366 Even if there were more, the problem is more about how unless you're a counterspell deck, the value gained from TOR if you don't have the answer right then and there is too much.
Erratas shouldn't be the standard for mtg balancing imo. Even Companions: the correct solution imo was to ban them, not to make them *not* do what the card says. Erratas can and will happen, but they need to be treated as the last resort, nuclear solution that they are.
@@TheL0rd0fSpace the card’s been playable now for almost 2 years and this suggested errata changes the fewest words on the card and makes the easiest change without altering the function of the card. Erata’ing a card after 2 years isn’t “standard mtg balancing”. But yeah, they should be play testing better beforehand, ESPECIALLY for set-defining cards.
My preferred solution is to errata the card to add the line "A deck may contain only one copy of the One Ring". The *big* problem with the One Ring is the ability to draw into another copy, and then legend rule away the old copy and stop taking damage. Restrict decks to one copy, and the biggest problem goes away. Moreover, this should have been part of the card's original design in the first place---it is THE ONE RING. There is only one. It makes no sense to have several! That said, I also hate the idea of errata-ing a paper card. Reading the card *should* explain the card. :/
why are there so many dum dums who want to abuse the errata? it is not okay to use errata for anything except updating cards with modern wording. companions should have been banned and the only ring should be banned.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 (1) Errata *has* been used in the past to change the way that cards behave. The go-to example is companions. (2) If you don't like the solution of errata-ing the card (which, fair enough, though I don't think that one has to be a "dum dum" in order to disagree with you), restrict the card to one per deck. I think that errata-ing the card is a better flavor win, but the same end can be achieved by restricting it.
I'm surprised have a few people mention this but I think it's extremely fitting that One Ring is so powerful because I'm pretty sure the one ring represents power itself in Lord of the rings. Now I'm not saying it's a good thing but it is kind of funny.
I still think the one ring should have been restricted in every format from the start; like, how do you get more than one of the one ring in your deck in its the one ring?
Personally I don't really see a problem with banning universes beyond cards in general, if someone quits MTG because 1 card got banned they probably wouldn't have stuck around long anyway. Something like the one ring is a bit different for 2 reasons. It is just SUCH and iconic LOTR thing that without the ring LOTR is just "lord of the" and they sold that set so hard specifically with that card to the point it starts to feel like its entering the range of fraud / dishonest business practices. I honestly feel like Post Malone might have grounds to sue after buying the super one ring for $2m if it were to get banned (not lawyer, so take my legal opinion with a grain of salt).
AH, but that wasn't a normal card. Likely not to be played anyway, it's 1 of 1 serialized, in mordor text. banning would have 0 effect on the value. because it's not a game piece, it's a collector piece.
I havent played modern since LOTR came out. Every time new, busted cards are printed, i dont get excited to play strong cards. I get worried about when the card will be banned. I never bought any pitch elementals, i never bought LOTR powerhouses, and i never bought anything from MH3. I dont trust these powerful card designs until theyve been power crept out of the format, which inherently makes them unplayable anyways, so there is never a good time or a good deck to choose to play when looking at modern.
Ive noticed around me that people are getting rid of their rings en masse. Everyone seem to be selling them and even on places likes cardmarket the price is in a significant downward trend (lost 25% of its value in a month). So my guess is that everyone is expecting the ban to come.
My issue with the universes beyond stuff isn't that magic now has cards with these IPs. My issue with the beyond stuff is that you end up needing to play these cards even if you aren't interested in the IP. It would be different if the universes within versions came out at the same time as the crossovers like with the ikoria godzilla cards.
They screwed the pooch hard in terms of avoiding this altogether. "You may only have 1 copy of The One Ring in your deck" was right there and they didn't see it.
i think this is why they are in standard now. because it allows them to make them weaker, therefore unlikely to be banned, and yet still playable especially with wizards wanting to also onboard new players in standard
Not that relying on word of mouth is a solution by any stretch but it seems safer to bring in new players by connections to the people in their community rather than connections to a specific card or even a product. Friendships often last longer than the relevancy of a card and it really feels like they've leaned fully into the product side with all the universe beyond product.
If anything they should test a "restricted list" in modern and slap the one ring on it. Perhaps do a partener style errata to 'The ONE Ring' that a deck may contain no more than one one ring. That would solve the problem in large part, The legend rule makes the one ring VERY abusable if you're running 4, rule of thumb is dont run 4 legendaries (3 is really the normal limit outside of very few OP cards). TOR flips that on its head by makeing every one better than the last by reseting the life loss if you want to while giving protection from everything again at worst. IF it still needs to be banned then Wizards can go to their partners and explain how they did every thing they could to not ban it.
I think as MTG continues to grow, it will be forced to adapt a gacha model where no card will ever get banned. As prices rise and money becomes more scarce, the priority will become to preserve card value over cultivating a healthy format.
Miyazaki is a fan of Magic to some degree. Bloodborne likely takes some inspiration from Innistrad and Melania's blossom is straight up based on the imagery from a specific card. Can't find the name right now unfortunately. So who knows, maybe we can get some FromSoft cards.
I think placing a limit on not playing 4 copies of the one ring and just 1 can be a nice solution! even pricess can go down and everyone may be able to affort one
Thought about this a while ago too. They make these UB sets awesome because the IP’s can’t be messed with. Basically an advertisement. So does that mean they can’t ban some cards because it makes the IP look bad? Very possible.
One option is to change the legend rule again. Make it so if you have two of the same legend in play you must sacrifice the newest. That stops the ring from being abused
@@JacksonSlayer24 yeah me too, but that's always been a weird rule. Back in the day you could kill your opponenet's legend by playing your own. They changed the rule and players complained, but they got over it. With this change the legend rule would probabaly be more intuitive to new players.
I think the biggest issue players have with Universes Beyond isn't that "Oh I don't like this IP in Magic the Gathering" I think its way more "This IP doesn't fit with Magic the Gathering". I think most players will agree that Lord of the Rings as a Universes Beyond set is from a flavor standpoint a home run because it and Magic are still fantasy series. Things like Marvel super heroes and Spongebob sitting next to Jace, Chandra or Sorin has a very serious tone clash that feels like it cheapens Magic the Gathering as a whole. If we got more fantasy series crossovers as Universes Beyond I think that would fit really well within Magic's aesthetic, lore and design. Dark Souls and Elden Ring would be amazing cross overs that feel like they could be at home in Magic similar to how Lord of the Rings was.
The problem is not The One Ring. The problem is the modern format itself. For the most part, legacy has absorbed these powerful supplementary products. They can be meta defining or even warping, but the power level of legacy is at the point where you can generally beat that strategy. UB Psychic Frog pile is beaten by Eldrazi. Eldrazi is beaten by Red Prison and combo. Combo is beaten by faster combo, which in turn is beaten by UB Psychic Frog pile. Modern doesn't have that power balance because it doesn't have the enablers to make it work. You can play The One Ring on turn 2 in legacy, and that's a good play, but not a broken one. Modern simply can't handle these powerful cards and the best strategy is simply the best with few weaknesses. Unless they change their approach to modern, it will continue to decline as a format.
Legacy isn't in a good place either my dude, when all formats that have been existing for decades are dominated purely by cards printed in the last year we've got a huge problem, not to mention that recently they had to ban grief and earlier than that they had to ban all the good initiative cards because the format couldn't handle that.
They printed Cast into the Fire as a in set solution to the one ring. In the Lord of the Rings. Mark Rosewater has also said on his blogatog that WotC can in fact reprint the One Ring
As an economist by training there's a *lot* of thoughts here, certainly more than I could fit in a comment. It's not "solvable" as we don't and can't know the numbers at play, but the incentives are interesting to think about here. In particular I think the questions regarding future sets at "reputation" are the most interesting to look at. Does banning a card cause more damage to reputation than a lackluster powerlevel of a set? How much of the sales of a set are dependent upon its power level and how much of it is simply the new and exciting mechanics or crossover appeal? It's sadly unknowable without the insider knowledge at WotC but there's a lot to think about here. Might actually sit down and do some analysis when I get the time
Just to say, actually in Fortnite each season brings gameplay changes in terms of new stuff you can do in the map + always new game modalities are created. It's not just skins or weapons. It could be compared with the changes brought in each magic set
16:00 Bringing new players to a game is great, but only as long as the nature of the game is not drastically changed to do that. It's the same argument as a musician diluting their style to become more popular. At some point said musician will stop being themselves if they keep chasing mass appeal. Striking a balance here should be key. Sometimes I think Magic is already past the point of losing its identity. They lowered the quality of world-building due to rapid set releases and the drive for representation(tm) at any cost. Plus more and more Universes Beyond and now Unsets in Standard (KM, OTJ, DSK) ruin the sense of in-multiverse cohesion massively.
For those who say "just restrict it", if this would happen it would truly become a ubiquitous card that goes innebery deck as everyone is now suffering from the same downside with running it and the power you get from it would be true powerful. It needs to be banned fully. (In regards to The One Ring)
This was a good and pretty reasonable conversation. Now that I've got that out of the way, can we bring back the old legend rule for the one ring? Only one person gets it, ever, at a time?
I don't think that post Malone would be mad if one ring will be banned, especially if it will be banned only in modern (black lotus banned everywhere and was for a lot time most expensive card, and ring 100% wouldn't be banned in any format other than modern)
I think there's a fallacy at play here, and its that new players basically dont play modern, which is the only format in which the One Ring is actually a problem. New players are by and large going to either play standard/draft, commander, or kitchen table magic, or they're going to play on Arena where they can fix cards instead of banning them.
It, along with all LOTR cards, should be banned from non-Commander formats. ...and as much as I love X-Men I don't want those cards in non-Commander formats either.
The solution for the one ring is on flavour as well. Make it restricted in all formats. There can only be one in a deck list. I also think sone artefacts and creatures should not be able to be copied.
Yes but also it was essentially indestructible in the series with the exception of the fires of Mount Doom. Which the magic card "cast into the fire" references and accomplishes by exiling a target artifact. I think the indestructible is fine and is a flavour win, but some of the other solutions people have suggested like restricting it to 1 copy per deck or errata the rules text so the burden counters are on the player is also good but a more drastic step
The original legend rule was only one copy of a legendary permanent on the battlefield at a time (no matter who controls it), you could still run four copies in your deck.
Thanks so much for your perspectives and insight! I'd love to hear what yall think of the restriction option that some folks have been chattering about regarding The One Ring. To me, the way that its legendary status makes it more powerful is unique enough to be a sound argument for creating a new precedent. Legend ruling shouldn't be all upside. And.. that's not even taking into account the gloriousness of the powerful flavor win of a 1 of One Ring. Anywho I hope yall have a wonderful day!
They are going to take another one of my $100 purchases. They really do not want my money any longer. Why pay for pieces they will just take back without compensation.
I didn't know you could buy singles from WotC, must be a new thing. If you can't buy singles from them, you therefore didn't give any money to WotC for that One Ring and should reevaluate where your frustration should be directed at. WotC print the cards, put them in packs for generally the same price and decide their legality. It's the players and the secondary market that decides one peice of cardboard with ink is worth $0.35 or $100 and exchange cards for those prices.
Heres my take: WoTC now owns the rules committee for EDH, and the Ring should not be allowed in both formats. WoTC shouldnhave to choose which format gets the Ring. IMO, Ban it in modern, keep it in EDH, and reprint it. The card should have always read "tap: put a burden counter on this card and draw cards equal to the number of burden counters on this card. Whenever this card is tapped, its controller takes damage for each burden counter on this card. Damage by this card can not be prevented."
Another note about universes beyond, there are very few great cards. There are tons and tons of modern cards it's no surprise that a few good cards with the current power creep are able to slip into a deck or two. The one ring needed to be good to sell everyone on universes beyond but banning it might not really turn other IP off per se. Most IP that would join mtg to promote themselves might need a hype train and they might hope they get lucky enough to warrant a bannable card.
They should Errata it. If its a problem in competitive formats then competitive players should be aware of the changes. Functional errata is out of hand when its done constantly then it's too much. Also think the One Ring has very dubious ties to the One Ring in the Novel
In your mind what is the problem with the card? I have played against it a bunch of course, yes it is in a lot of decks, its annoying, but getting it out doesn't mean a win all the time. I don't have a problem with it.
Here’s the link to Gavin’s Kickstarter: www.kickstarter.com/projects/lastditchgames/bullets-and-teeth-and-aliens?ref=him1bs
You guys have a serious case of Nerd Savior Complex.
I do appreciate the thematic threadline of destroying the One Ring because it was too powerful and corrupted gameplay.
YES!
Ooooo actually pretty thematic.
Almost makes up for the fact that you're actively incetivized to play multiple of The *One* Ring in your deck.
Haha working as intended.
So WotC is Gollum?
"Maybe its to introduce new players to the game"
Pokémon has been the exact same for over 30 years, and its never jeopardized its own identity by deciding to burn its IP for money and fomo. There has never been a transformer, ghostbuster, or marvel hero inside of the Pokémon brand ever, and it does just fine.
"Everyone says its bad until its an IP you like"
Listen, I love final fantasy. When I heard Emit Selch from FFXIV was getting a card, I got excited under the premise that it was a Secret Lair and not going to be competition legal. My problem with Universes Beyond isn't explicitly the IPs they are deciding to collaborate with, but the fact that I have no choice but to interact with this in one way or another, unlike keeping universes beyond to secret lair drops, or even giving it its own format, or just deciding to make a new IP all together for these collabs and keeping Magic, Magic.
We were told not to worry about it when the Walking Dead had cards in a set, that it was "Only 5 Cards", but if that was the blindfold then the LOTR collab, and the Serialization of cards like The One Ring was us being guided off of the edge of a cliff. And everyone who talks ill about their beloved franchise making decisions that don't make any sense, they are treated like lepers or called gatekeepers.
And it takes up half of the yearly release schedule.
The release schedule filled with our characters playing dress up.
Still blows my mind that the ring who greatest claim to fame is "there is nothing else like it in all of existence" doesn't have a line of text that says "you can only have one of this card in your deck".
I mean, that solves (or at least helps mitigate) the specific problem of TOR, but it doesn't do anything about all of the future problems that Universes Beyond will continue to cause. When you're making money off an IP that you don't actually own there are a lot of difficult questions that will need to be resolved.
@@johngalt200this is an especially rough case because this card is makes so many decks stronger. When Storm gets banned in commander (because we can’t just ban cards from being commander) it may not be as terrible?
That was the original rule for Legendary cards.
because that would have been stupid.
@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 not as stupid as having your username be "Wesley wyndam" I'm afraid
Wizard's business model: print broken cards, create fomo, collect money, ban cards repeat as often as you think you can get away with it. Color xerox copies are cheap, make proxies, have fun, screw Wizards.
But buy things at your LGS especially if you play there to support them
ever heard of Yu gi ho? same shit, really
Pay your LGS it’s 1.50-2$ above market on cards up to 8$, buy your individual packs and Precons there, and buy snacks/drinks on site.
You’ve now done your duty.
@@TingusPingus269 I'm never playing in an LGS
I don't understand why people say that people who dislike universes beyond would like it if something they liked were used. I don't want things I like in magic any more than I would want magic to appear in those things.
Yea that was a TERRIBLE argument and really showcases that they don't understand or care about the core issue people actually have with it. Morons.
When Universes Beyond was announced I was in the big group all saying we didn't like it, but I knew I was on the losing side when a lot of people standing on that side started saying "oo but LotR is a good one" or whatever. There are a few people like you and I but we're the minority of a minority.
We got a glimpse of this when Orcish Bowmasters wasn't banned alongside Fury, even though the goal was explicitly to make small creatures playable again. They worked around it by making "good" one drops 1/2 instead of x/1, but that was a clear instance of a card that was super ubiquitous dodging a ban for unknown reasons.
Unknown Reason$
The reason was to knock the BR Grief down a peg without banning the deck and the deck wasn't known as Scam Fury was it now.
"Stuff I like" has already been added through "Universes Beyond". I don't own any of them, because even the stuff I like still isn't Magic The Gathering, and doesn't belong here.
Yea their argument of, "you'll hate it until something you like gets added," was stupid and ignorant. I will NEVER like outside universes being added to MtG. I will NEVER like the fortnitification of Magic. These guys are putz.
You and I feel that way but a majority of players are fine with UB in general and a majority of people who don't love it seem happy to make their pet exception. I get being riled up at the over generalization but I think it's more true than not.
This is why these cards should have been self contained sets meant only to play against each other. Silver border would have let them design whatever they wanted without affecting the main game. And people could have played Gandalf vs Iron Man and Dr. Who all they wanted.
You're absolutely right, but at this point even some of the Unset cards are legal in formats like Modern, which is such a change from when being silver border actually meant something.
@@blamau14 That's also a problem because it has made Unsets less wacky and fun.
that would have reduced sells
and you know .... MONEY
That was a click-baity thumbnail, huh
nonono, they’re saying it *can’t* be banned /s
i fell for it, too 😞
I mean, it's crossed out 😂 that's for plausible deniability.
Yeah I'm really not a fan of the clickbaity titles recently. The algorithm seems to be favoring it, though, so I guess I can't blame them.
Got ya to comment though, get farmed dum dum
I pissed my pants I’m so frightened
One issue with printing cards that "hate" for the one ring is that drawing cards is such a basic game action and indestructible is such a high threshhold to cross that any answers are going to be brutal for the play experience. Orcish Bowmasters is really tough on control deck already, and playing an artifact deck against Karn the Great Creator is a nightmare. So yeah you could print a 0 mana Annul or a 1 mana bowmaster, but you're so far up the power creep at that point that little actual design space is left over to do anything interesting.
Yes, and it's also like... as soon as I resolve the one ring, it immediately draws a card and gives me a turn of invulnerability. Even if you then have a card that exiles an artifact from the game for one red mana (bypassing indestructibility), I'm still pretty okay with that exchange as the One Ring player.
Trapped in the screen deals with it quite nicely. So too does any other exile effect.
Removal means more than destroy remember.
@@lightworker2956 Negate target activated ability of an artifact, and if you do, exile that artifact.
"Give the meta time to adjust."
What do you mean? It's been 2 years.
EDIT: It's been 1 year and 4 months.
No it hasn't?
@codyhanson1344 you're right, my bad. 😅
That's just how long it's felt.
@@topkapi9351 We've gotten 2+ years worth of sets since, so...
You’re literally like the fifth person I’ve seen in the last two weeks who has thought that set was two years ago 😅😅
"Should the one ring be banned." Yes there is no argument that it shouldn't be. When a card is THIS unhealthy THIS prevalent and has the entire game built and designed around it and will continue to do so until it is power crept by something stronger or banned it unfortunately cannot be allowed to be played. I played modern for years I want to get back into it, I cannot see how the format could ever be enjoyable while every deck to be competitive requires 4 copies of the one ring to be played and every side board and even some of your main board slots have to be taken up by cards exclusively there to beat your opponents 4 copies of the one ring. The game isnt about beating your opponent its about beating the one ring. The health of the game always need to take priority.
but, ermmm think of the INVESTORS! The only to buy Magix cards is to speculate and resell them!!
It would be nice if they took more time to balance before printing the set rather than relying so heavily on banning after the fact.
That would involve slowing down set releases, and that’s a mission-fail when the only objective that matters is hitting the newest quarterly profit projection mark.
Ban it. Card should have never been printed into modern
It certainly is potent. Is a legacy level card in modern. Much like grief, orcish, and similar. I love them pushing boundaries but much like flesh and blood, it's time to hall of fame the one ring for modern.
It's equally bad in commander, just that format self regulates somewhat. It only creates horrible play experiences.
@@Interrobang212 i have been told my takes for commander are the minority, and where i stand, the one ring is just meh. untap it, bounce it infinitely, so? you die to oracle just the same. die to torment. in response force of negation the ring. the new strix counterspell. repeat for all the answers in magic. commander isnt casual. 1 winner, not 4. at this point i just dont care much for the people playing the format where any of the above are false. we can be friends but i wont play with them.
Better still, NONE of the Universes Beyond Sets need to be legal in ANY format except Commander.
@@FightsWithSpoons Just because the card doesn't directly beat the undisputed strongest wincon in Commander (that 97% of the card pool can't interact with to begin with) doesn't make the card any less ridiculous. The card is a borderline staple in CEDH for crying out loud. Some RogSi lists are even playing it -- a deck that *doesn't want* the game to go for long enough to get the full value out of it.
For what it's worth, I don't want any other IP in Magic, including the ones I love. I love LOTR, but I didn't mesh with the printed version. I sure as heck don't want to see David the Gnome, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Last Unicorn, or any of the rest of my childhood dredged up onto Magic cards.
“Everyone feels that way until it’s something YOU like” is an argument with merit, and yet, despite all the outside things that I like being turned into magic sets, I still hate it.
The one ring is arguably the one card that could get restricted in modern. “This is a 4 of format, what do you mean i can only have 1 the one ring” “Its the ONE ring dude!”
Karn decks Rejoice!!!
Just ban it in competitive formats. We make up a small fraction of the playerbase, anyway. If Commander is the only format its legal in, I really don't think anyone will care.
I know that "rule zero" is the popular go-to... but realistically, they can only ban ANYTHING in a competitive situation. Outside of that, a table can play whatever the hell it wants to, right?
I don't really get this argument. I do not buy that direct to modern UB sets are bringing new people into modern and that banning UB cards from modern hutrts the trust. What hurts trust more in the long run is having these DtM sets, and then spending significant development time into making sure that specific cards are POWERFUL FOR COMMANDER, and not worrying about the effect of that card on modern.
who is this hypothetical new player that is getting into magic because of the LOTR set and going directly to modern? LIke, I'm not worried about hypothetically losing a new player to modern because TOR was banned, I'm worried about the health of my format due to a format warping card that was designed for a completely different format.
You are 100% correct. The entry point for Universes Beyond is commander and kitchen-table magic. To pretend that UB brings people to one of the potentially most expensive (on average) formats is just wrong.
I think it probably *does* hurt the trust, but I'd tend to agree with you that the playability and health of the format is more important than frustration with "wasted" product.
That is to say, I also don't think people would buy into UB specifically to play in Modern. I think a lot of Modern players buy into UB, but at the end of the day they're *probably* going to stay in the format either way, and would ultimately appreciate bans of cards that are clearly problematic.
It's true, there's no way a significant number of people who come to Magic from other IP's are going to dive head-first into expensive formats like Modern, but I doubt the staying power of bringing people in to ANY format through Universes Beyond. They came for the IP they already liked, not Magic, so it's by no means a given that they'll enjoy Magic itself enough to become a long-term player.
Agree with you both as well.
From wizards point of view the one ring has to be a win right? They rotated modern and the iconic card of a UB set is a must have. That's a success in their fire strategy as well as their shoehorn IP strategy. If you make the card busted enough people will buy in record numbers, the game be damned.
Wotc hates modern players so yes
@@isambo400 no rotation == no sells
no sells == no money
no money == "this product is not for you"
and ... both modern and Commander == no rotation
(About Commander: just creating more and more pushed cards & Commanders is enough to force rotation)
Hard disagree on the everyone hates it until they make something you like. I like a bunch of the UB IP but I won't spend a penny on any of these. They're just straight up bad for the game
Agreed.
Yet some of the most broken cards in the history of magic are not ub cards
Agreed. I LOVE Final Fantasy.....have been a fan for years.....and you know what? It needs to stay on the consoles and out of my card game.
Magic doesn't need it to be great.
It's absolutely wild to hold the position that 'it doesn't matter that wizards is adding other IPs to the game' and then IMMEDIATELY point out how that exact action is a lose lose
Call me a purist or a boomer or something, but no, it doesn't matter whether I like the Universes Beyond IP or not. I've been a Star Wars fan since I was a kid (before the dark times, before Disney) but that doesn't mean I want Darth Vader to be my commander. I know it's subjective and I'm clearly in the minority on this, but I miss when Magic took itself seriously.
I don't like crossovers in my lego either. At some point creators stopped creating and just did money-grabbing "synergies" and crossovers. UB should just be sets that don't interact with the mainline sets and can be used in casual play or as stand alone blocks.
Why is bringing in new players more important than not losing old players?
Old players don't really buy as much product, they either play legacy or commander and have the cards they need. New players are willing to buy more and more new products.
Wotc makes nothing on the secondary market, older players if they know what they want, will just buy the cards from shops and dealers, new players will buy sealed product more often.
amount of old players leaving is extremely small compared to new players, plus new players are more likely to spend more money on the game
because thats how you keep a game going.
TOR needs to be banned in Modern. It's ubiquitous - seeing play in nearly 50% of decks, and in almost *every* top tier deck. Something needs to be done.
so are fetch lands, should we also ban them?
@@jessoftherocksfetch lands have been a problem for years, so yeah probably.
I disagree. Just run answers is my thought.
@@jessoftherocksbased on the logic of the argument, yes. So point taken. But I think you know that's a strawman.
Ubiquity itself isn't the problem, but powerlevel and homogeneity of play patterns. If most games are devolving in to "do I find The One Ring" *or* "do I find The One Ring *before* you do," then I'd say that play patterns are becoming homogeneous and that is a problem. Especially if the majority of decks that don't play TOR can't really compete with those that can. They bring up skullclamp in this video as an example of when WotC had a similar problem, and it's a good example. It's also the reason they probably can't unban mental misstep - because it "goes in every/any deck."
@@joelmeeks8683if there were good answers to TOR we either would have seen them by now, or we would have seen TORs play % decrease. The former has happened, some, but the latter has not. So the problem of homogeneous play persists.
Re: Eyes lighting up @4:08. I'm having the reverse of this! My wife has been playing Baulder's Gate and every time a character or place that had a card comes up, I go "OH I KNOW THAT ONE!" Basilisk Gate got mentioned last night. "I played that in my 9 Fingers Keen deck!" A friend of mine decided to cosplay Jaheira and I was like "I know her! From Magic! Err, Baulder's Gate!" So the reverse advertising, that Magic helps get people into these crossovers and helps them appreciate them too is totally true.
They should rename it "The Pay-to-Won Ring"
I feel like there is a gross misconception with game designers who believe that any new player is a good for the health of a game. You need a certain level of gatekeeping to keep the integrity of the game or else the amount of people who come into it wanting completely different things drown out the intent of the game in the first place.
Which is funny because you can then just say "well then people have to adapt to the new demands" but its not actually that simple because if you keep doing that process then you are splitting your appeal to more and more groups of people and absolutely destroying your ability to appease any of them.
Which is why I say that that is probably more dangerous to the longevity of the game than the health of it. You have to gatekeep or else lose what you have already built. If you like the game because they printed Thanos on it then you were never going to enjoy it to begin with.
@icholi88 very well said, and true.
lol.
If you are on your phone, keep tapping -10 seconds at the very start of the video
No I still feel universes beyond sucks even though I have 10 years in Warhammer
I got into Street Fighter around the time the UB cards came out, I still disliked the crossover. And really, the only reason I could appreciate a UB tie-in is if they gave some underexposed media a window onto a bigger platform, which is antithetical to the goal of cashing in on other popular IP's within wotc's own popular IP. And even then I would tolerate it more than enjoy it.
I feel this within a single crossovers, too. When they did SF, they did Ryu, Chun Li, Zangief. Whom we've seen so many times before in SF. It'd be much cooler to me if they had done some deep cuts in SF's huge cast of characters, but, again, that's the opposite of what they want to do.
It could be a universe beyond that I chose personally and I’d still hate it. You’re 100% wrong.
100% agree. I like pizza and I like ice cream, but that doesn't mean I want pizza-flavored ice cream.
Simple errata- burden counters go on the player instead.
Ohhhhhh! I like that!
@@BushRat253 Or, it gives you a poison counter with each burden counter on the Ring itself everytime it's used in addition so it gamemechanicaly actually turns you "corrupted" after the second use
@@zirilan3398I thought about the poison counters for a really long time. I think tapping into self burn from the burden counters faster may be enough for modern with life being only 20. Not to mention opponents could proliferate the counters much more easily.
errata should only ever be used to update old card with new terms and rules changes as time goes.
that kind of use for errata is never acceptable for any reason. IE companions should have been banned forever not erratad.
What if you could only play…1 ring?
Just because it's funny does not mean it's right. If it's too good then ban it.
Bring back the restricted list!
That's not great gameplay: "oh, you lucked into the 1/4 or 1/3 chance that you drew your OP card, and I didn't hit my 1/4 or 1/3 chance that I drew my OP card? You win, I guess."
This is the answer
Definitely! Yugioh has has a list for years where decks can only have 2 or 1 copy of a card in decks
Add “A deck can only contain one copy of The One Ring”. It’s a flavor win for LOTR fans and restricts the power it has in non-singleton formats.
If the card is too good, ban it. That's magic policy
@@midnalight6419 You are also ignoring design.
then it will come down to players finding the one "one ring" and deciding games on that. complete ban or nothing.
@@midnalight6419 Not in Vintage, where there's the Restricted List.
All that does is create swingy games that still have an auto include. Hard no.
I hadn't really considered what if the ip dies in the 3 years it takes.
Imagine if they had a game of thrones set designed to release after season 8. It would have been a disaster.
Or something like a Harry Potter branded set
Oooh man that would be so bad.
I sort of felt that way about the original Walking Dead secret lair. Personally the show died for me long before, but I also felt like in pop culture it had fallen by the wayside by the time the secret lair was announced.
From a product strategy pov it doesn’t even make sense to put universes beyond into modern. There’s already a ton of standard sets coming out and we have modern horizons. New players are not playing modern either, modern is popular but it’s among very enfranchised players and doesn’t even approach the popularity of commander. Banning the one ring doesn’t affect a majority of player base.
One thought I've had about Unerverses Beyond is that, it is undeniable that it brings people who have neverplayed magic to the game, you cannot argue this, but, what is the data on those people sticking around? When new UB set have come out, you hear a ton of stories along the lines of "Huge fan of Fallout and now getting into magic" but like, now that we're almost a year out from that, are they still playing? still buying cards? do they have any interest in continuing either.
If these new players are sticking around and branching into other aspects of magic, that awesome! But, if theyre not, is the growth that we're seeing in magic only coming with each new UB set? If its the latter doesn't that basically mean magic is in a bubble?
To give you more anecdotal evidence, yes! Most of the players at my lgs have started the last year or two from lotr, doctor who, and especially warhammer. I still play with these people, today.
This is in fact the risk/problem with trying to appeal to a new audience in a way that has little-to-nothing to do with what you/your product is at your/its core. You risk pushing away your base for a theoretical "new" base that won't really like you unless you change several other things as well, ultimately losing the core value. It's the same thing we've been seeing in other forms of entertainment and media, and it sucks there too.
In my experience, my warhammer and LOTR friends kept playing, w doctor who friends bought (a couple) the precon and never opened it, they just leave at a display for some reason
The Fallout set, specifically Mr. House and his dice based mechanic, got me in to MTG, Warhammer is a nice tie in to where I spend my Real Hobby Dollars (been doing that for 15 years with 8 different armies, 4 for 40k and another 4 for Sigmar), Assassin's Creed was fun imo with the Artifacts of Eden, I grabbed a whole booster box of LotR and pulled a One Ring for my troubles, I've got 3 of the MH3 precon commander decks, one of the Thunder Junction, grabbed maybe a dozen booster packs of each, a couple of the collector packs for MH3 and I've recently shelled out for probably a couple dozen boosters for Duskmourn (lost count) as well as grabbing 2 of the Nightmare boxes and another 3 collector boosters. So I can say from personal experience, Universes Beyound pulled me in and I've stuck around and shelled out a decent amount for more UB stuff as well as the non-UB stuff. And this all was so I could finally play MTG with one of my Warhammer buddies whose been on my ass about it for a bit.
WOTC are interested in one thing, money. Bottom line print and online flooded with sets, money.
Not only are there about 250 cards in a set but then there are about 100 additional alternate art versions of various cards. *And then* there's the commander decks that have hundreds of new pieces of art for both new cards and universes beyond versions of classic cards. They easily spent millions on the art budget. Anyway, don't mean that to be sound like "well actually you're wrong 🤓" More that I was surprised to realize just how many cards were in that set.
Oh man, great point!
Just wait. AI generated art Magic cards are coming.
@@veerkillerx then don't buy them. ever.
WoTC printed an answer in the LOTR set: Cast into the fire
A personal issue I have with UB sets is how they reinforce the creature type bias towards human. I would care less if there were no kinship support for humans but there is, and with humans already being over 12.5% of all cards in magic making even more sets with worlds without goblins, zombies, elves, merfolk, let alone MTG's own creatures....Just more humans
Huh, hadn't thought about that, but you're right. Not a lot of IP's out there with no humans in them.
@@blamau14 It's not just that there are few IPs without humans. It's the that so man IPs so focused on humans. Take Star wars, there are hundreds if not thousands of types of aliens and well over 90% of all characters are human.
They're also errata'ing out MTG's own homegrown creature types, which you could argue is part of the same effect. Cephalids no longer exist, because if you're a new player, what the heck is a cephalid?
For what it’s worth, my take is that WotC does not care about player experience. If they did, The One Ring would already be banned. Or at least banned in Modern because R/W energy is roughly 40% of the meta right now. At what point does the negative experience of everyone who doesn’t or can’t use TOR outweigh the experience of those who do? If something doesn’t change, it’s pretty much confirmed that WotC values sales above all else. Which isn’t surprising because they are a business with the goal of making as much money as possible at the end of the day.
thats been confirmed for 30 years.
capitalism is evil.
This is why I stopped playing magic. Tired of spending money
I never liked Universes beyond. Magic lost the soul of its story and theming.
That makes sense to me but comically magic owes almost all of that to Tolkien.
Honestly a huge solution to this problem is a tool that wizards has but doesn't use. Restricted.
Four One Rings can warp the meta
One One Ring can just be a powerful card.
that thumbnail.. doing work
Universes Beyond should just remain commander only cards. Keep them out of all competitive play.
Can you imagine how valuable the "never released sets" will be that get sent to a landfill after the company declares bankruptcy?
Cast Into the Fire has been legal as long as The One Ring has, printed in the same set. Still not enough to curtail the card.
Fact of the matter is, anyone in the comments here saying "don't ban it" or "errata it" are not Modern players in any real capacity. The card is an absolute menace, and a lot of games devolve into "who can get their Ring first." After that, they run away with the game.
And for the people who are saying "Only Energy is the problem," the Ring's mere existence pushed decks that cannot afford to play it out of the format entirely precisely because it is the literal best thing you can do as a control/midrange deck. The card will still see widespread play if Energy gets knocked down a peg.
The inverse is also a problem for the format unfortunately. If TOR is banned, and Energy be left without a card banned, Energy will STILL be the best thing you can do in the format considering TOR is also a stabilizing tool against aggro.
Card should have never been printed. WOTC's design mistakes with Modern over the past year and a half are egregious and embarrassing. I was a long-time Modern player who played in SCGCons, 1k's, etc who sold out of the format for Pauper because of this stuff.
Ban it and Guide of Souls and problem solved? Unfortunately, guide would feel bad, but at this point what can you do. 🤷🏽♂️
@@topkapi9351 I lean more towards an Ajani or Phlage ban but they're in a tough spot because Energy's cards are all so good individually. I think Guide would be a good hit as well personally.
Ocelot into Ajani is nuts. Guide into Ajani is nuts. Phlage adds a hard to deal with threat and inevitability to the deck. It's really tough.
Having one of the few answers be exclusive to red is problematic.
@@halcyonacoustic7366 Even if there were more, the problem is more about how unless you're a counterspell deck, the value gained from TOR if you don't have the answer right then and there is too much.
A million others probably already suggested this errata: Put burden counters on the player instead of the ring.
Erratas shouldn't be the standard for mtg balancing imo.
Even Companions: the correct solution imo was to ban them, not to make them *not* do what the card says.
Erratas can and will happen, but they need to be treated as the last resort, nuclear solution that they are.
@@TheL0rd0fSpace the card’s been playable now for almost 2 years and this suggested errata changes the fewest words on the card and makes the easiest change without altering the function of the card. Erata’ing a card after 2 years isn’t “standard mtg balancing”. But yeah, they should be play testing better beforehand, ESPECIALLY for set-defining cards.
Burden counters aren't the problem with that card
Make it an emblem that can stack
My preferred solution is to errata the card to add the line "A deck may contain only one copy of the One Ring". The *big* problem with the One Ring is the ability to draw into another copy, and then legend rule away the old copy and stop taking damage. Restrict decks to one copy, and the biggest problem goes away. Moreover, this should have been part of the card's original design in the first place---it is THE ONE RING. There is only one. It makes no sense to have several!
That said, I also hate the idea of errata-ing a paper card. Reading the card *should* explain the card. :/
why are there so many dum dums who want to abuse the errata? it is not okay to use errata for anything except updating cards with modern wording.
companions should have been banned and the only ring should be banned.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 (1) Errata *has* been used in the past to change the way that cards behave. The go-to example is companions.
(2) If you don't like the solution of errata-ing the card (which, fair enough, though I don't think that one has to be a "dum dum" in order to disagree with you), restrict the card to one per deck. I think that errata-ing the card is a better flavor win, but the same end can be achieved by restricting it.
I'm surprised have a few people mention this but I think it's extremely fitting that One Ring is so powerful because I'm pretty sure the one ring represents power itself in Lord of the rings. Now I'm not saying it's a good thing but it is kind of funny.
I still think the one ring should have been restricted in every format from the start; like, how do you get more than one of the one ring in your deck in its the one ring?
it's a magic card so that would be stupid. flavor doesn't work that way.
Personally I don't really see a problem with banning universes beyond cards in general, if someone quits MTG because 1 card got banned they probably wouldn't have stuck around long anyway. Something like the one ring is a bit different for 2 reasons. It is just SUCH and iconic LOTR thing that without the ring LOTR is just "lord of the" and they sold that set so hard specifically with that card to the point it starts to feel like its entering the range of fraud / dishonest business practices. I honestly feel like Post Malone might have grounds to sue after buying the super one ring for $2m if it were to get banned (not lawyer, so take my legal opinion with a grain of salt).
AH, but that wasn't a normal card. Likely not to be played anyway, it's 1 of 1 serialized, in mordor text. banning would have 0 effect on the value. because it's not a game piece, it's a collector piece.
I havent played modern since LOTR came out. Every time new, busted cards are printed, i dont get excited to play strong cards. I get worried about when the card will be banned. I never bought any pitch elementals, i never bought LOTR powerhouses, and i never bought anything from MH3. I dont trust these powerful card designs until theyve been power crept out of the format, which inherently makes them unplayable anyways, so there is never a good time or a good deck to choose to play when looking at modern.
Seems the only way to test if it _can_ be banned is to have a very signficiant portion of people force reasoning out of WOTC.
Ive noticed around me that people are getting rid of their rings en masse. Everyone seem to be selling them and even on places likes cardmarket the price is in a significant downward trend (lost 25% of its value in a month). So my guess is that everyone is expecting the ban to come.
Even if you ban say Thors hammer is that why Marvel fans bought the card in the first place to play in a modern tournament? Probably not.
My issue with the universes beyond stuff isn't that magic now has cards with these IPs. My issue with the beyond stuff is that you end up needing to play these cards even if you aren't interested in the IP. It would be different if the universes within versions came out at the same time as the crossovers like with the ikoria godzilla cards.
They screwed the pooch hard in terms of avoiding this altogether. "You may only have 1 copy of The One Ring in your deck" was right there and they didn't see it.
A very popular artist who has made art for Wizards for 27 years has confirmed that they only pay $1000 per illustration.
i think this is why they are in standard now. because it allows them to make them weaker, therefore unlikely to be banned, and yet still playable especially with wizards wanting to also onboard new players in standard
Retcon the text to "You can only play 1 copy of The One Ring." Boom. Flavor win and balance win.
Not that relying on word of mouth is a solution by any stretch but it seems safer to bring in new players by connections to the people in their community rather than connections to a specific card or even a product. Friendships often last longer than the relevancy of a card and it really feels like they've leaned fully into the product side with all the universe beyond product.
If anything they should test a "restricted list" in modern and slap the one ring on it. Perhaps do a partener style errata to 'The ONE Ring' that a deck may contain no more than one one ring. That would solve the problem in large part, The legend rule makes the one ring VERY abusable if you're running 4, rule of thumb is dont run 4 legendaries (3 is really the normal limit outside of very few OP cards). TOR flips that on its head by makeing every one better than the last by reseting the life loss if you want to while giving protection from everything again at worst. IF it still needs to be banned then Wizards can go to their partners and explain how they did every thing they could to not ban it.
I think as MTG continues to grow, it will be forced to adapt a gacha model where no card will ever get banned. As prices rise and money becomes more scarce, the priority will become to preserve card value over cultivating a healthy format.
Miyazaki is a fan of Magic to some degree. Bloodborne likely takes some inspiration from Innistrad and Melania's blossom is straight up based on the imagery from a specific card. Can't find the name right now unfortunately. So who knows, maybe we can get some FromSoft cards.
The scarlet Aonea is very clearly modeled after a lotus
WotC should change the legend rule to 'one copy in decklist' it solves so many problems
I think placing a limit on not playing 4 copies of the one ring and just 1 can be a nice solution! even pricess can go down and everyone may be able to affort one
Thought about this a while ago too. They make these UB sets awesome because the IP’s can’t be messed with. Basically an advertisement. So does that mean they can’t ban some cards because it makes the IP look bad? Very possible.
One option is to change the legend rule again. Make it so if you have two of the same legend in play you must sacrifice the newest. That stops the ring from being abused
Not a fan of this one, I'd like my new Liliana otV rather than my one with a single loyalty
@@JacksonSlayer24 yeah me too, but that's always been a weird rule. Back in the day you could kill your opponenet's legend by playing your own. They changed the rule and players complained, but they got over it. With this change the legend rule would probabaly be more intuitive to new players.
With edh being such a popular format these days, they will never go back to that legend ruling. It ruins their most popular format.
I think the biggest issue players have with Universes Beyond isn't that "Oh I don't like this IP in Magic the Gathering" I think its way more "This IP doesn't fit with Magic the Gathering". I think most players will agree that Lord of the Rings as a Universes Beyond set is from a flavor standpoint a home run because it and Magic are still fantasy series. Things like Marvel super heroes and Spongebob sitting next to Jace, Chandra or Sorin has a very serious tone clash that feels like it cheapens Magic the Gathering as a whole. If we got more fantasy series crossovers as Universes Beyond I think that would fit really well within Magic's aesthetic, lore and design. Dark Souls and Elden Ring would be amazing cross overs that feel like they could be at home in Magic similar to how Lord of the Rings was.
The problem is not The One Ring. The problem is the modern format itself. For the most part, legacy has absorbed these powerful supplementary products. They can be meta defining or even warping, but the power level of legacy is at the point where you can generally beat that strategy. UB Psychic Frog pile is beaten by Eldrazi. Eldrazi is beaten by Red Prison and combo. Combo is beaten by faster combo, which in turn is beaten by UB Psychic Frog pile.
Modern doesn't have that power balance because it doesn't have the enablers to make it work. You can play The One Ring on turn 2 in legacy, and that's a good play, but not a broken one. Modern simply can't handle these powerful cards and the best strategy is simply the best with few weaknesses. Unless they change their approach to modern, it will continue to decline as a format.
I think I agree. It might have something to do with them making threats better and answers worse.
Legacy isn't in a good place either my dude, when all formats that have been existing for decades are dominated purely by cards printed in the last year we've got a huge problem, not to mention that recently they had to ban grief and earlier than that they had to ban all the good initiative cards because the format couldn't handle that.
They printed Cast into the Fire as a in set solution to the one ring. In the Lord of the Rings. Mark Rosewater has also said on his blogatog that WotC can in fact reprint the One Ring
As an economist by training there's a *lot* of thoughts here, certainly more than I could fit in a comment. It's not "solvable" as we don't and can't know the numbers at play, but the incentives are interesting to think about here. In particular I think the questions regarding future sets at "reputation" are the most interesting to look at. Does banning a card cause more damage to reputation than a lackluster powerlevel of a set? How much of the sales of a set are dependent upon its power level and how much of it is simply the new and exciting mechanics or crossover appeal? It's sadly unknowable without the insider knowledge at WotC but there's a lot to think about here. Might actually sit down and do some analysis when I get the time
You can ban it, but it must be dropped into the fires of Mount Doom.
Just to say, actually in Fortnite each season brings gameplay changes in terms of new stuff you can do in the map + always new game modalities are created. It's not just skins or weapons. It could be compared with the changes brought in each magic set
Honestly restricting The One Ring in all formats appeals to my inner Vorthos and Melvin so hard.
Hey what’s that little board game on the table between you? It looks fun 😏
IP should be a consideration to balance the game - it still is a collector item
16:00 Bringing new players to a game is great, but only as long as the nature of the game is not drastically changed to do that. It's the same argument as a musician diluting their style to become more popular. At some point said musician will stop being themselves if they keep chasing mass appeal. Striking a balance here should be key.
Sometimes I think Magic is already past the point of losing its identity. They lowered the quality of world-building due to rapid set releases and the drive for representation(tm) at any cost. Plus more and more Universes Beyond and now Unsets in Standard (KM, OTJ, DSK) ruin the sense of in-multiverse cohesion massively.
For those who say "just restrict it", if this would happen it would truly become a ubiquitous card that goes innebery deck as everyone is now suffering from the same downside with running it and the power you get from it would be true powerful. It needs to be banned fully.
(In regards to The One Ring)
This was a good and pretty reasonable conversation. Now that I've got that out of the way, can we bring back the old legend rule for the one ring? Only one person gets it, ever, at a time?
I don't think that post Malone would be mad if one ring will be banned, especially if it will be banned only in modern (black lotus banned everywhere and was for a lot time most expensive card, and ring 100% wouldn't be banned in any format other than modern)
no power creep in modern! no power creep in pauper! no power creeeeeep
I think there's a fallacy at play here, and its that new players basically dont play modern, which is the only format in which the One Ring is actually a problem. New players are by and large going to either play standard/draft, commander, or kitchen table magic, or they're going to play on Arena where they can fix cards instead of banning them.
It, along with all LOTR cards, should be banned from non-Commander formats.
...and as much as I love X-Men I don't want those cards in non-Commander formats either.
Really wish they did a you can have only 1 copy in the deck. Would be on flavor, and help somewhat, as it wouldn’t be as reliable
It’s a cool idea for sure!
I wish all these tie ins were just skins for existing cards.
The solution for the one ring is on flavour as well. Make it restricted in all formats. There can only be one in a deck list. I also think sone artefacts and creatures should not be able to be copied.
They should errata The One Ring to not be indestructible. The whole point of the whole series of Lord of the Rings is that they destroy the ring.
Yes but also it was essentially indestructible in the series with the exception of the fires of Mount Doom. Which the magic card "cast into the fire" references and accomplishes by exiling a target artifact. I think the indestructible is fine and is a flavour win, but some of the other solutions people have suggested like restricting it to 1 copy per deck or errata the rules text so the burden counters are on the player is also good but a more drastic step
I feel like "flavor" being the reason to not ban something just leads to the whoke dish tasting like crap. Just ban or limit it
They could go back to the original legend rule-only 1 of a legendary card in a deck
The original legend rule was only one copy of a legendary permanent on the battlefield at a time (no matter who controls it), you could still run four copies in your deck.
@@blamau14 that was the first legend rule change
Thanks so much for your perspectives and insight! I'd love to hear what yall think of the restriction option that some folks have been chattering about regarding The One Ring. To me, the way that its legendary status makes it more powerful is unique enough to be a sound argument for creating a new precedent. Legend ruling shouldn't be all upside. And.. that's not even taking into account the gloriousness of the powerful flavor win of a 1 of One Ring. Anywho I hope yall have a wonderful day!
Great suggestion!
They are going to take another one of my $100 purchases. They really do not want my money any longer. Why pay for pieces they will just take back without compensation.
I didn't know you could buy singles from WotC, must be a new thing. If you can't buy singles from them, you therefore didn't give any money to WotC for that One Ring and should reevaluate where your frustration should be directed at. WotC print the cards, put them in packs for generally the same price and decide their legality. It's the players and the secondary market that decides one peice of cardboard with ink is worth $0.35 or $100 and exchange cards for those prices.
@@TrustedSmokie8829 Look at you being all deliberately obtuse just so you could miss the point. Way to go. Welcome to muted forever. Have a great day.
@@sayntfuu salty much?
@@NoahRobertson-w4b Tired of useful idiots.
Heres my take: WoTC now owns the rules committee for EDH, and the Ring should not be allowed in both formats. WoTC shouldnhave to choose which format gets the Ring. IMO, Ban it in modern, keep it in EDH, and reprint it.
The card should have always read "tap: put a burden counter on this card and draw cards equal to the number of burden counters on this card. Whenever this card is tapped, its controller takes damage for each burden counter on this card. Damage by this card can not be prevented."
Another note about universes beyond, there are very few great cards. There are tons and tons of modern cards it's no surprise that a few good cards with the current power creep are able to slip into a deck or two. The one ring needed to be good to sell everyone on universes beyond but banning it might not really turn other IP off per se. Most IP that would join mtg to promote themselves might need a hype train and they might hope they get lucky enough to warrant a bannable card.
They should Errata it. If its a problem in competitive formats then competitive players should be aware of the changes. Functional errata is out of hand when its done constantly then it's too much.
Also think the One Ring has very dubious ties to the One Ring in the Novel
In your mind what is the problem with the card? I have played against it a bunch of course, yes it is in a lot of decks, its annoying, but getting it out doesn't mean a win all the time. I don't have a problem with it.
It will just get powercrept out of the format. Remember Ragavan? My guess is Wizards will add defabricate to a creature with flash.