I've said since day one that the entire idea of trying to introduce other IPs in magic was a bad idea.

I am DEEPLY amused that they found literally twice as many problems as advantages to this.

I also find that squad is as worrying an example as they could've mentioned. It's basically just Replicate for creatures, which dozens of people have come up with before. Hardly a mechanic that REQUIRED a uniquely new IP being used to be discovered!

And finally the "It introduces Magic to a new audience." is of dubious concern. Magic is certainly not as accessible a system as Lego is... and that idea notoriously didn't work for Lego in the long term. I'm pretty sure that's basically why they even came up with the Ninjago franchise in the first place!

Now Disney is openly gunning for Magic with Lorcana and my disgust with the Disney corporation is pretty much the only reason keeping me from jumping ships.

Yeah, a creature with replicate was the first thing I designed for my Futuresight 2 set. And by now they even updated the rules to work like that would require to actually work.

But I'm a fan of working around restrictions, and if Squad is not that inspiring (not a bad mechanic per se though - just not living up to the claim of "something they wouldn't come up with otherwise), then that doesn't mean we don't get something out of this on another level; I have hopes for the artifact reanimation theme the Necrons seem to feature. It's not something that we wold never see in MtG Canon - both in a new setting or for e. g. Sheoldred's Phyrexians -, but it's something nice that was pushed by the UB setting of choice.

I think that a Magic: the Gathering cards could potentially introduce new people to the game, but not quickly. Some fandoms have loyal fans who would buy a tie-in product like Magic: the Gathering cards. Getting those buyers to play the game rather than just have the cards sitting around is the hard part.

I'm mostly ambivalent about the current state of Universes Beyond. My only concern is the future availability of highly-desired cards from UB and their reprintability, though I believe they stated that they'd treat such cards like the Stranger Things Secret Lair for Magic-fitting reprints.

If your first hobby is Warhammer 40k, can you afford a second hobby?

They definitely stated that they are able to treat individual cards from any UB product like Secret Lair cards, but aren't likely to do so en masse.

Notably though: The cards would only differ in Name, so if the desired cards turns out to be a Tyranid, Astartes or Necron, that subtype will need to stay.

Warhammer, probably not from what I've heard. I think there's a definite niche that might be hard to figure out- something needs to be a bit nerdy, but still has both a broad appeal, loyal fanbase, and a fanbase who would want tie-in or themed products. There's also striking while the iron is hot. For instance, the upcoming Doctor Who Universes Beyond has most of these, but the 2005 continuation's popularity waned a while ago. Maybe something Jurassic Park could work (at the very least, dinosaur fandom is a thing and Jurassic Park would be popular branding to make people aware [not that Magic didn't do a fantastic job with dinosaur depictions in Ixalan]).

I honestly did not think about the implications of the new creature types. Does Games Workshop (or whoever owns Warhammer, I only did a cursory search engine question) own those creatures types to the point that Wizards would have to pay by Games Workshop for simply having the creature type if the cards were reprinted? If such is not an issue, the cards could be thrown into the list and Masters Sets if/when desired.

I found it weird that they chose to make Friends Forever rather than just use parter for the Stranger Things Secret Lair. Were they concerned about power-levels with other partner cards or were they seeking some flavor at the cost of the compatibility of a whole seven cards that weren't released in a standard-legal product.

> "I found it weird that they chose to make Friends Forever rather than just use parter for the Stranger Things Secret Lair. Were they concerned about power-levels with other partner cards or were they seeking some flavor at the cost of the compatibility of a whole seven cards that weren't released in a standard-legal product."

MaRo has gone on record that because each new card with Partner amplifies the power of all of them, they plan going forward to do variants that only tie together that small group without backwards compatibility (though individual cards may be added).

I could any number of movie/TV series UB work better than those of other table-tops. I think, matching creature types may be a benefit: Come for Jurassic Park decks, learn about further Dinosaur cards from Ixalan/Ikoria that go well with your precon, stay for all the planes that don't start with I!

Yeah, they're never doing open-ended partner again because it's too strong. As for the creature types, MaRo has said that Universes Within versions will get new unique creature types that map to the GW-owned ones

@dude1818- So Hobbits reprinted from The Lord of the Rings set may be Kithkin? My hopes are up.

New unique creature types

Besides, they're more like halflings, which is also a supported creature type

What do you mean it didn't work out for Lego? Lego successfully partnered with other franchises, including Star Wars, DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc. Lego and SW have been partners for over two decades, and a new LEGO Star Wars video game just released this year. LEGO Batman movie and products are legendary.

What's so special about Lorcana? That other attempts to take over Magic, such as Pokemon, Yugioh, Warcraft, Hearthstone, etc. couldn't convince you to jump ship?

Most official "new" mechanics and designs have been created independently by armchair designers, like ourselves here. And yeah laypeople get excited when it's their first time discovering it via WotC.

Since this is their first set in UB, of course there will also be new lessons to be learned.

The color pie can be tricky. Mainly because other IPs are not as comprehensive and holistic. On the flip side, one may be asking why doesn't a big universe like WH4K have a prominent nature-aligned faction? Perhaps from this partnership, GW could introspect on bringing more "green" and "white" factions into the limelight.

@Sorrow - So Hobbits reprinted from The Lord of the Rings set may be Kithkin? My hopes are up.

I doubt it. Hobbit is much more well known, and giving them Kithkin type has no appeal to LOTR fans, and only causes confusion and disgust. Besides, Kithkin was just an inferior alternative because they didn't want to infringe on Hobbit.

For that matter, I don't understand the appeal to link subtypes with Magic's own. Unless they're general types, like Dinosaurs. Otherwise, other IPs can and should maintain their unique types. That makes them more exotic and sought after.

Regardless, UB sets aren't Standard legal. So there is no obligation to be as strict as normal Magic sets. Including color pie, subtypes, etc. (Except non-Magic sets would still have Planeswalkers, even though that is Magic-only thing. But only because of playability and compatibility, not flavor.)

Now we're still waiting for the Magic movie . . .

I feel ravenous is a much better example of a mechanic that seems more likely to come from a poduct like this than Squad. I could imagine the restrictions on premium sets make the necessary amount of X spells a hurdle that usually wouldn't be crossed.

It just was that squad got revealed before the article and ravenous did not.

You don't see the appeal in Demons from WH40K synergizing with Demons from MtG premium sets etc.?

> What do you mean it didn't work out for Lego? Lego successfully partnered with other franchises, including Star Wars, DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc. Lego and SW have been partners for over two decades, and a new LEGO Star Wars video game just released this year. LEGO Batman movie and products are legendary.

The point is, at one point they overconcentrated on licensed properties for quite a bit. The problem with that is (as Lego founds out) that those sets sold well enough to fans of those franchise, but were a complete failure when it came to enticing a new generation of Lego fans. Add to the mix how there is a limit to how many new IPs you can license successfully once your big ones run out their contracts and/or their current hype wave dies out and you have a bit of a crisis because it's much harder to alter course as a producer than as a seller.

As far as I can tell, squad seems to be similar to replicate, but different. For one thing, squad seems to be only applicable to permanent spells. Since squad makes copies of the permanent when it enters the battlefield and replicate makes copies of the spell when it is cast, there will be many other differences too.

Guessing from the reminder text, I think that ravenous as a keyword ability is a bit messy. (Many other keyword abilities (including "bands with other") are better designed in my opinion.)

Sets which are not designed for Standard need not have all types, I think. Nor need it have all colors, balanced colors, all common keyword abilities, etc; however. A set designed purely for Constructed (or a uniform Cube) does not need rarities, either. If it it is not designed to be added to Eternal, then there are a few more things you can do, too. The result may be a rather different style of the resulting game, but it will still be Magic: the Gathering.

(For example, you can make a set with no creatures, or all creatures, or only blue and red cards, etc.)

Of course making such changes is not necessarily the best idea, but depending what kind of game you may be trying to make, it might work, but you should be careful to ensure that the game will still work OK in such a case. However, doing this is probably going to be more difficult than just doing the usual way, but is probably still possible somehow.

(One possible example might be if you are drafting multiple sets in sequence, so you will draft first a set with creatures and then a set without creatures, or vice-versa, or first set without multicolors and then a set with only multicolors, or vice-versa, etc.)

> "Sets which are not designed for Standard need not have all types, I think. Nor need it have all colors, balanced colors, all common keyword abilities, etc; however."

WotC has learnt though that it is better to strife for these things to an extend e. g. missing out on color representation in preconstructed decks.

Custom card creators have more freedom.

Speaking of not having all types: It seems, so far, that the decks won't have planeswalkers.

Of the other card types, I don't really see a reason why you would even want to avoid them.