andrew

If I’m reading Demonstrate here correctly you get to destroy two opposing permanents and an opponent destroys one of yours (or another player’s)? I guess it cleanly deals with permanents but the random cast seems like way too much downside.

Wow this escalates fast… casting 3 cheap spells the then after this enters play deals 15 damage. If they’re burn spells GG.

This definitely seems playable to me. A triland and then repeatable surveil 2 in the mid to late game is no joke.

Wow dang that seems fun and pretty strong, hopefully there are more of these

Yeah and I’m not really an alt border guy but that dragon frame looks amazing as well

Yeah I too think it’s overcosted for a flashback Shock but it seems like the Harmonize ability reduces the cost by the tapped creature’s power (not always {1}) which does help a bit.

Yeah does this not seem kind of “nuts” for a 1cmc common? I realize none of the abilities are that strong but for {w} you get a 1/2, relevant creature type, scry 2, and mana fixing that doesn’t require it to tap.

Kind of a cool take on mana fixing at common

As a long time ponza player I welcome any and all LD in every Standard 😜

Spells you cast have Delve

Can’t see any potential issues there! Particularly in the older formats. Hopefully that card costs a ton and does not itself have Delve.

What’s going on with this art? An electric guitar player with horns holding a glowing guitar, with some electricity creature in the back? Am I missing something? It’s a human wizard that fetches a big artifact, I don’t get it.

Maro says the same thing in all of these so it shouldn’t really be a surprise anymore, doesn’t make it less frustrating for me. Perhaps the most frustrating thing though is how he always avoids the actual substance of this recurring player complaint.

Things everyone already understands yet MaRo keeps distracting with: that WotC is a business and needs to focus on profit, that WotC will inherently cater to the market segments that spend the most, and that the UB sets to date are popular.

There are so many nuances that he ignores or blanket “data” that he won’t share that take these from useless to disingenuous and I think thats why his corporate explanations always feel bad to me.

I have two main issues that I feel never get properly addressed in these, and won’t get properly addressed:

1. Chasing profits or short term profit maximization does not need to be assumed to be correct. It’s a valid criticism to say that chasing near term UB sales may not actually be the best business decision in the long term! To just hand wave that away every time as “well people buy UB so we are going to cater to that” is very unfair. What if barely any of these new players convert to longer term players or what if none buy another UB or MTG product? What if by chasing short term profits, WotC wakes up in 3 years with no core player base and new/UB player base interested? MaRo never addresses this point (obviously) and it really takes away from his credibility here.

2. The marketing research they do is also highly suspect and another related thing he just hand waves. "Research" indicates UB=good so they're doing it. I think the fact that Hasbro has otherwise failed to succeed in its other product lines should weigh heavily in whether they conduct accurate product research.

   It's very easy for them to say successful UBs are successful because UB=good. But bad ones, like Transformers, are ignored or because of other variables. Not all UBs are equal. LotR, the wildly successful one, cannot be lumped together with Spongebob such that all UB sets are treated equally. They're wildly different fanbases and have totally different impacts on the lore, nostalgia, and game feel.