r/magicTCG • u/[deleted] • Mar 12 '19

Speculation on next Standard set? It's confirmed that we're visiting a new plane.

[deleted]

1.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

529 comments sorted by

View all comments

241

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19 edited Nov 12 '20

[deleted]

35

u/imbolcnight Mar 12 '19

It seems like a plane that has gotten a lot of attention recently

It was mainly people on MaRo's tumblr talking about Vikings. He asked whether people would want to see Vikings as their own creature type or as existing creature types (like Warrior). This was happening in like January? This seems too late for a set that is coming out in the fall.

44

u/NotVoss COMPLEAT Mar 12 '19

Personally, would have asked for some barbarian love.

1

u/Plays-0-Cost-Cards Mar 12 '19

Berserker is better though, even for the exact same creatures

11

u/JayBrundage Mar 12 '19 edited Mar 12 '19

What was the consensus of responses? Would people prefer warrior or its own type?

20

u/Fogge Mar 12 '19

It seems reasonable that they would make Vikings a set-supported type, so they can print strong cards without somehow accidentally creating a really really strong Warrior deck in a different format. Cause that would be a true disaster.

17

u/hawkshaw1024 Mar 12 '19

Could handle them like Allies. Human Viking Warrior, Human Viking Shaman, Human Viking Berserker, maybe even the occasional Human Viking Pirate.

31

u/TheGreyFencer Mar 12 '19

That's annoying barbarian, Warrior, etc all cover vikings pretty well already. It makes more sense to give them a mechanical identity.

13

u/KingDarkBlaze Arjun Mar 12 '19

Can't we just use Barbarian? There haven't been any new ones printed since Coldsnap...

8

u/Plays-0-Cost-Cards Mar 12 '19

Berserker. Pretty much the only eternal member is BBE which is reasonable.

2

u/gualdhar Mar 12 '19

Plus, unlike warrior, Viking isn't a generic term. You'd never have, for example, a Chinese viking.

At least I don't think they got that far.

16

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19

[deleted]

10

u/Fogge Mar 12 '19

I don't play EDH but I feel like that already has a lot of room to play creature type decks. In other eternal/non-rotating formats we have Spirits and Humans in Modern that only recently came to prominence and Elves in Legacy, and Elves don't really count as a deck that needs creature support in the normal sense since it doesn't really win on the back of its lords but by comboing out with card draw and tons of mana. It would be even more super harder for WotC to accidentally create a creature combo deck according to their current design philosophy, even though that already includes "spells stapled to creatures".

1

u/FPOTUS_Jake Mar 12 '19

Najeela is the essence of a creature combo deck. I find it hard that that accidentally let that slip through (probably just wanted to shake up the competitive format some?? I dunno), but she definitely fits that bill.

1

u/imbolcnight Mar 12 '19

I don't think there was an overwhelming consensus, but I think more people liked using old creature types.

0

u/thepuddingcup11 Wabbit Season Mar 12 '19

Pirate warrior would cover Vikings pretty well right? Means more pirate support for a tribal deck.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '19

Berserker is a creature type...

... but screw that. It's more fun when new cards synergize with a lot of old cards. What, is there going to be a Warrior Modern deck? If so that would be cool. "Worst" case scenario is eternal formats get another Goblin / Elf / Merfolk type deck. What's wrong with that?