I get it, limited is a huge part of the game and is what sets are typically built around.
That being said, a product like Masters has multiple goals it is trying to achieve and I think it is almost inarguable that the most important of those is to reprint cards that have become prohibitively expensive or hard to acquire on the secondary market or just ones that could use a nice refresh.
The draft oriented nature of these products however has lead to some less than desirable sets as of late however with only Modern Masters 2017 really delivering in a way that the original Modern Masters had previously (and the second to a lesser extent).
I'm not going to really touch on the more..oddball choices to represent certain sets in this product, though those are at least in part due to the "needs of limited" and are at least a relevant talking point here given another goal of this set in particular was to celebrate the history of the game and showcase iconic cards from every single set in the game's history.
But..did anyone really care if this set was good to draft or not? I mean, yeah I'm sure there actually are a few, but don't you think the people counting on these sets to actually make certain cards and formats more accessible are a bit more important to cater to here? There's plenty of sets out there to draft with, some that are HEAVILY focused on the format such as Conspiracy. Why did they have to make a $35+ draft format and then make it very very hard to actually get that value out of the packs you are playing with? It's even more egregious here given the real lack of themes and archetypes represented one could really make a cohesive strategy or deck around.
I feel this also hurt the most recent Un-set, which really felt like it lacked a lot of the way out there, wacky and bizarre effects the previous products had solely so it could function better as a playable set to draft with, and then shoving all 3 Un-sets together to do an Un-block draft just doesn't gel given the time between each set and just how poorly they all play together.
WotC is balancing a lot of different goals. If they wanted to make a popular draft set and reprint cards they would make MSRP $5 and walk away. They are trying to make a product popular with drafters, constructed players, and at the same time keep people already invested in the game happy.
When people/WotC use the excuse of "draft or limited health", I just wanna strangle a cat token. WotC can make a good limited set without water down value or making bad cards. The first Modern Master is a proof that they can make a coherent limited format and still have it powerful, fun, balanced, and full of value (MM3 was pretty close and Eternal Masters wasn't bad either, both Conspiracy sets felt competently done).
For instance, A25 has Living Death, Unearth, Zombify, and cycling creatures. Still it's not enough to warranty Rest in Piece as one of the rares you can open. Also, the whole reanimate focused strategy is very watered down and probably not worthy the trouble. Maybe if it had Reanimate, Animated Dead, Exhume, or Dread Return (or whatever, so many cheap better options than Zombify) and more worthy fatties maybe it could work. Also, maybe adding Relic of Progenitus as uncommon could be better than waste a rare slot that represents RtR. This is just one of the problems if we focus on the limited in A25. Also, no Astral Slide (a quarter buck card) with this amount of cycling and no real payoff for morphing (probably it shouldn't be even a theme).
I don't get why Master sets have just one or two PWs limit. They should pack more of them in the pool as well.
WotC really didn't spend much time design both Iconic and A25. It's just a lazy product all around.
Short answer: No, it didn't need to be a draft set.
Long Answer: I can only assume that Wizards has misunderstood "People like to draft Masters sets" as "People are buying Masters sets to draft". While drafting $4/pack sets just for the sake of drafting is an entirely reasonable cost for entertainment, once you reach $10/pack you need to assume that drafting is just a way to get more fun out of opening a pack that you want cards from.
In a perfect world, WotC would realize this and start printing Masters sets as a means to increase supplies of cards that need them, then use any leftover space to shore up limited a bit. Basically, don't adjust rarities because of limited, don't avoid printing things because they don't play well with limited, and don't fill up too much space with cards included purely because of limited archetypes. Any fun gained from limited should be a bonus to opening the packs, but I think I speak for most people when I say that if I'm paying $10 a pack for something, I'm opening them because I want to keep the cards, not because of drafting.
I think the best way of seeing what kind of effect limited has on a Masters set is to compare it to a preconstructed reprint set like Commander product or even Duel Decks. While there have certainly been a few stinkers over the years, they make (comparatively) a lot of people happy overall with their choices for reprints. With Masters sets, you generally assume 90%+ of the commons and uncommons are in the set exclusively because of draft and have no real value, while at least preconstructed commons are generally on-point for the theme and usually not complete chaff.
I will disagree about Unstable not needing to be a draft set, though. WotC fully knew that a lot of people would be drafting as basically an excuse to open fancy lands. The fact of the matter is that it's a non-legal set, so many people aren't going to be playing with the cards outside of the initial draft. Plus, I think that reeling in the crazy a bit compared to the first 2 Un-sets wasn't a bad thing overall - the first 2 Un-sets sometimes crossed the line from "silly" to "arbitrary".
Short answer: No, it didn't need to be a draft set.
Long Answer: I can only assume that Wizards has misunderstood "People like to draft Masters sets" as "People are buying Masters sets to draft". While drafting $4/pack sets just for the sake of drafting is an entirely reasonable cost for entertainment, once you reach $10/pack you need to assume that drafting is just a way to get more fun out of opening a pack that you want cards from.
I buy Masters solely for the purpose of drafting. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Different people play in different ways. Don't be too certain that your experience is universalizable. Maybe I'm a member of a tiny minority... maybe I'm not. Who knows? The answer is probably "Wizards' market research division".
Drafters like 2 things in their sets, Well build/not too swingy (all colors/stratagys need to have bread/break) and cheap. they want a good draft set, MSRP that sucker for $2 a pack and wach em fly off the shelves.
Apparently not to WotC since it's not even a good draft set. The limited environment of this set is SO bland. The archetypes that are supposedly in the set are lacking enough powerful support that they are essentially non existent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Universal Basic Income
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That being said, a product like Masters has multiple goals it is trying to achieve and I think it is almost inarguable that the most important of those is to reprint cards that have become prohibitively expensive or hard to acquire on the secondary market or just ones that could use a nice refresh.
The draft oriented nature of these products however has lead to some less than desirable sets as of late however with only Modern Masters 2017 really delivering in a way that the original Modern Masters had previously (and the second to a lesser extent).
I'm not going to really touch on the more..oddball choices to represent certain sets in this product, though those are at least in part due to the "needs of limited" and are at least a relevant talking point here given another goal of this set in particular was to celebrate the history of the game and showcase iconic cards from every single set in the game's history.
But..did anyone really care if this set was good to draft or not? I mean, yeah I'm sure there actually are a few, but don't you think the people counting on these sets to actually make certain cards and formats more accessible are a bit more important to cater to here? There's plenty of sets out there to draft with, some that are HEAVILY focused on the format such as Conspiracy. Why did they have to make a $35+ draft format and then make it very very hard to actually get that value out of the packs you are playing with? It's even more egregious here given the real lack of themes and archetypes represented one could really make a cohesive strategy or deck around.
I feel this also hurt the most recent Un-set, which really felt like it lacked a lot of the way out there, wacky and bizarre effects the previous products had solely so it could function better as a playable set to draft with, and then shoving all 3 Un-sets together to do an Un-block draft just doesn't gel given the time between each set and just how poorly they all play together.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
For instance, A25 has Living Death, Unearth, Zombify, and cycling creatures. Still it's not enough to warranty Rest in Piece as one of the rares you can open. Also, the whole reanimate focused strategy is very watered down and probably not worthy the trouble. Maybe if it had Reanimate, Animated Dead, Exhume, or Dread Return (or whatever, so many cheap better options than Zombify) and more worthy fatties maybe it could work. Also, maybe adding Relic of Progenitus as uncommon could be better than waste a rare slot that represents RtR. This is just one of the problems if we focus on the limited in A25. Also, no Astral Slide (a quarter buck card) with this amount of cycling and no real payoff for morphing (probably it shouldn't be even a theme).
I don't get why Master sets have just one or two PWs limit. They should pack more of them in the pool as well.
WotC really didn't spend much time design both Iconic and A25. It's just a lazy product all around.
Long Answer: I can only assume that Wizards has misunderstood "People like to draft Masters sets" as "People are buying Masters sets to draft". While drafting $4/pack sets just for the sake of drafting is an entirely reasonable cost for entertainment, once you reach $10/pack you need to assume that drafting is just a way to get more fun out of opening a pack that you want cards from.
In a perfect world, WotC would realize this and start printing Masters sets as a means to increase supplies of cards that need them, then use any leftover space to shore up limited a bit. Basically, don't adjust rarities because of limited, don't avoid printing things because they don't play well with limited, and don't fill up too much space with cards included purely because of limited archetypes. Any fun gained from limited should be a bonus to opening the packs, but I think I speak for most people when I say that if I'm paying $10 a pack for something, I'm opening them because I want to keep the cards, not because of drafting.
I think the best way of seeing what kind of effect limited has on a Masters set is to compare it to a preconstructed reprint set like Commander product or even Duel Decks. While there have certainly been a few stinkers over the years, they make (comparatively) a lot of people happy overall with their choices for reprints. With Masters sets, you generally assume 90%+ of the commons and uncommons are in the set exclusively because of draft and have no real value, while at least preconstructed commons are generally on-point for the theme and usually not complete chaff.
I will disagree about Unstable not needing to be a draft set, though. WotC fully knew that a lot of people would be drafting as basically an excuse to open fancy lands. The fact of the matter is that it's a non-legal set, so many people aren't going to be playing with the cards outside of the initial draft. Plus, I think that reeling in the crazy a bit compared to the first 2 Un-sets wasn't a bad thing overall - the first 2 Un-sets sometimes crossed the line from "silly" to "arbitrary".
Different people play in different ways. Don't be too certain that your experience is universalizable. Maybe I'm a member of a tiny minority... maybe I'm not. Who knows? The answer is probably "Wizards' market research division".