MTG

Couple thoughts after thinking about it a bit more:

• This smells a bit like a quieter way to just raise the price of boosters. Drafts will cost more now, which sucks. They say "Because that is six more boosters than Set Booster displays have right now, be aware the price of a Play Booster display box will be higher than that of a Set Booster display box." Most likely this coincides with a per-booster price increase too which probably (partly) drove this.

• Impact on draft seems way higher than they're leading on, even though they address this. An average of 3 cards from the List per draft has to increase variance. Granted it's now 50 cards instead of 300 in the List, and there is thought to tie it into the set, but that's still more variance. Relatedly, possibly opening 4 (!) rares but 3 fewer commons also has to change the game quite a bit too. 2-rare packs seem not crazy at least, and 3 fewer commons is substantial.

• I'm glad we're going back to just 1 type of booster pack though, I didn't like 2 different packs.

• I hope all cards from the List now make it to Arena! Could be a cool way to get more reprints there.

wow, in practice the changes to Limited might not be very big with this new type of booster, but in the history of MtG this is a humongous change. For the first time since 1993 Draft boosters will have 14 playable cards instead of 15. This changes the fabric of MtG. I feel that in the long run this is a very good shift, all of the problems highlighted in the article are very real, and it seems like they've addressed them well with the Play Booster. Fascinating stuff, I can't wait to hear the Limited podcasts analysing how this changes the game.

Pay more for fewer cards? Gross

I really don't like being negative on these sorts of things. It doesn't lend itself to a good environment for discussion, and it's easy to fall into negativity echo chambers, but my first feeling here is that this is going to suck. It's a massive change to both limited and overall card distribution, and none of it for the better, in my eyes.

My biggest problem is the overall limited changes, and while they say they are working hard to keep it in line with current limited, I just don't see how they can. Limited's biggest asset is that all players have (mostly) the same playing field. In draft, you can't buy your way into a good deck, you have to find it. Luck played a factor, but it was pretty minor overall. Now, between the list spot and the 2 wildcards, that luck factor will be exacerbated by quite a bit, adding about ~~13~~~16 extra rares in a pod by my math, and not evenly distributed, either. That's going to be bad for limited, imo.

Second problem is of course cost. Draft is already pricey, but making the boosters as expensive as set boosters is pushing it too far. Personally I already haven't drafted in paper for a long time due to that, and I'm concerned this will push me out entirely.

Draft is arguably the primary reason I play Magic, and if these changes are as problematic as I think they will be, I'm concerned I'm not going to have a reason to play Magic at all anymore, and that sucks. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

*Math is hard

Agreed with the others that this feels like a sneaky way to increase the price of boosters.

But I can at least see the reasoning. Having 2 kinds of boosters was making it harder on game stores and set boosters being far more popular means draft was getting shorted. I think the changes will take some getting used to but it looks like they already have plans in place to deal with them.

Wow was not expecting such a major change to card distribution! Here's an overview of the new booster contents:

There will be more cards of a rare and mythic rare power level, but adapting to that (making sure players have more answers at lower rarities) is part of how R&D is adjusting our set designs.

What exactly this sentence turns out to mean could have ramifications for constructed play too. Does it mean "removal is getting stronger"? Because removal is too strong already, IMO. It seems to me that creatures are so ridiculously powerful nowadays because they're so easy to kill.

On the other hand, maybe it means "power level is getting flatter across rarities," which is a change I would welcome. Honestly, the phrase "rare and mythic rare power level" is indicative of an ongoing design mistake, if you ask me. Power level should be consistent; complexity should be the main determinant of a card's rarity.

Big picture... nothing in this announcement sounds apocalyptically worrying to me, but I guess I just have a reflexive anxiety anytime Wizards changes anything. Like... this article outlines six problems that arose from the introduction of Set Boosters, and I feel like most or all of them should have been foreseeable. So the same people who got us into this situation are going to get us out of it? Okay.

(Want to know how bad problem #4, "confusion in the marketplace" was? I actually either didn't know or didn't remember that Set Boosters existed until I read this article. I thought Draft and Collector Boosters were the only kinds.)

This all sounded really exciting, right up until the end bit. Massive shake up to draft experience? Could go well if they build sets accordingly. More exciting cards per booster? Nice. But then they went and shit the bed by announcing the cost is going up to Set Booster prices, making draft even more expensive. Yeh, you lost me there, looks like this won’t be the thing that brings me back to in-person draft. Just a greedy grab, yet again.

Differences from existing draft boosters: *

• The potential to open up to 4 rare or mythic rare cards
• -1 playable card
• -3 commons
• +1 non-foil wildcard
• +1 traditional foil wildcard
• 1-in-8 opportunity of getting a card from The List (The List didn't appear in draft boosters)
• ~1-in-3 opportunity of an art card (art cards didn't appear in draft boosters)

* Based on the default without a traditional foil card. Previously, draft boosters had a traditional foil approximately a 1/3 the time.