I like that the “elite unique” sirs/dames are only able to be played at unique levels (one per deck). You can only have one Sir Percival running around. I also like that the boxes are filled with ~7-8 of these “elite uniques” for limited play. It allows draft/sealed players to obtain more unique cards. Remember that AL was created more for sealed events than constructed… The only other option in my opinion was to make generic elite knights without known lore. That isn’t nearly as fun. I think people will get over it. People love to complain.
Yes… but I don’t like that they took away the elite slots…. I did not get nearly enough elite game pieces. The whole issue I had opening this set is that I got so many dummy cards for the draft experience. It’s a waste of time opening these boxes as it is a draft box… there is at least 2 packs of filler ordinaries and exceptionals instead of an even distribution of usable game pieces. For me it goes so much further than just the elite/unique sirs. It’s just a symptom of a larger problem of wanting to design draft packs instead of packs that are filled according to their actual rarity. They overpacked with threshold creatures, generic colored knights and these elites slots were eaten up by this elite/unique issues. If you add all these issues together… you get allot of repetitive kind of bad feeling opening packs because they are designed to be the same.
I don't think the argument of "The set was tuned for limited" really holds up when plenty of games manage to do that and also have the set work for the normal constructed audience and format. MTG will do specific slots in packs if they want to seed a specific theme. There's decades of existing TCGs and technology to use to make sure the pack opening experience is what you want that don't involve involve using weird appearance rates for uniques.
@@Monkey_D._Elliott So MTG has the exact same pull rates for mythics set to set regardless of the cards?? I find that hard to believe… I’m just saying the opening experience was fine to me and I don’t really see why everyone was so upset. Especially since this set was tailored heavy to draft/sealed. It would have been way more confusing to call the “elite” unique knights elite but you can only have one. 🤷♂️ Also, EC is not Magic. This card game doesn’t want to be like other card games. They do it different and will probably continue that way. People need to learn to go with ebbs and flows and breathe 😂
@@Monkey_D._Elliott ha ha… well sorcery isn’t Magic my friend and you can’t compare a company that has one release a year and relies on community support to one that is releasing multiple themes, formats and sets quarterly.
I was telling my friend the same thing. Maybe they planned the reveal with the sheet, but I agree. I dont really care myself, but i wouldn't give some people a reason to be mad, but at the same time, someone will always find a reason to get mad, lol
To answer your question: I consider this a "A tempest in a glass of water". Imagine the worst, worst case scenario: Someone A opens a "true unique" but doesnt need it, her friend B also open a booster and also gets a unique, but its only a "Elite Unique". A trades her "true unique" towards B "elite unique" but DIDNT KNOW IT WASN'T A TRUE UNIQUE! ... Ok, because A did'nt check the value etc maybe she lost 1-2$ in trade because of a slight lack of knowledge? Back in the days of MTG, we had listing of R, U and C with numbers like R1,R2,R3... we had an idea what was more rare and what wasnt. Now WOTC doesnt even care or voluntarily doesnt tell ANY kind of rarity within rarity, wich creates issues sometimes. In the case of Eric Curiosa, I think it was a good gesture to show one print sheet to give us an insight, but not tell us EVERYTHING in advance. Also, my personnal opinion: 100% positive on that. Opening a box full of uniques gives a real feeling of Arthurian Legends. Nice video btw ;)
Yes, I am concerned unwary new players who are not watching a range of news sources will be bafled by this and are more likely to be duped on the trade value of their first openings. I am relieved that the community are sharing this information more readily and widely than the company itself. I think it is important to note that, from Arthurian Legends onwards, the 'Unique' term on a card is more aligned with limits on deck inclusion rather than actual card rarity / production scarcity. I expect over an entire case to see quite a few duplicate Uniques based on what I've observed in other peoples' openings.
Thanks for the video. Absolutely something that could have been fixed with a bit of communication. They have a year between sets, it's plenty of time to address changes and things they're intending to do. For my money, of they really wanted the knights to show up in draft, I don't know why they didn't just add a Knight slot to the pack. I guess the main issue is that Eric wants to make Sorcery for himself and everyone else is incidental. He, and the team, are going to do what they and we're likely just going to have to deal or move on. Its frustrating
The only reason I would disagree about letting players know ahead of time about the increase pull rate of Sirs/Dame in relation to their rarity is because it would create another controversial subject that EC is now filling it's premium product with "game pieces" rather than "collectibles." Sorcery is a product people have associated with mystique and collectability. Originally I was in the camp that boxes priced at $129 MSRP is going to be fine if you're able to pull 6 foils and 6 "real" uniques, however, after seeing the value that comes out of these boxes, where EC missed the mark on this product was pricing. Had Arthurian Legends been priced at $109 MSRP based on what we know today, this product would be a major success.
Last time I checked you could get boxes for 110 on tcgplayer. Honestly if the boxes were cheaper I'd buy more, but I feel kicked in the teeth opening so many "uniques" and doubles of those "uniques" that could have been a useful elite....
Heh, no way for EC to win right? You could very well be correct, but I think that additional but careful communication about this change could have reduced the grumbling significantly. Also, I previously felt boxes should have been $119 before release, but I agree about the $109 now. Of course, we are still in the very early days of the market, so hopefully there can be some corrections. However, history shows us that singles prices only tend to go down after release, so things could get rough.
@@Lord_of_Itza I opened three boxes,then went on TCGplayer and bought the remaining elites I needed for the playset I'm working on. It only cost me $23...
They would save themselves a lot of headache and frustration from players if they would just communicate better with the players. That's been a theme since Alpha.
i’ve seen people suggest that unique was never a rarity signifier but simply just a way to tell you how much of a card you can use. i think that’s incredibly disingenuous. of course it was a rarity signifier, that’s why nearly every beta box had 7 uniques and 29 elites. uniques were meant to be more rare. i understand why they changed it but it still is a CHANGE. that being said, i also feel that i would have felt better opening my boxes if i knew ahead of time. i’m sure it is great for draft and i can’t wait to try it out. not so much for just opening a box tho imo.
People who are upset about this what are they saying? It felt pretty obvious that is what happened whenever you opened a box and it was 50% elite 50% Uniques. The part that I would not have liked to have seen would be a new player trading a high valued actual unique sir/dame for one printed as an elite.
Your very last statement is a large concern with this change, but hopefully the topic is discussed enough on the various platforms to prevent that. The main complaint I have heard is related to how Unique in Alpha and Beta also meant something in relation to collectability, and that was suddenly changed without notice.
All in all, I agree with you. A bit of communication goes a long way. AL does play extremely well in a limited format! However, i can't help but chuckle at this topic. The ubiquitous fake uniques remind me of mtg Chronicles. 😅🤔😂
Didnt just finding out, but couldn't card. Could have been on the box topper pack. Tho there should be a key word in the body when the deck when it doesn't match the rarity in the sub text. Don't think this really changes how anyone was buying boxes. And anyone buying singles in the first few weeks is dumb. Cards flux so much. Was wondering why I had gotten so many sir cards so makes sense
I agree about the uniques, but they did that for a reason so as to not get to use 2 of the same sirs i guess. I do think they should have made them a bit less common on pull rates or had a different marking, but people would complain on that as well. Like a uniquElite or something else, anyways it is done probably for drafts and so a 4-player format or more can have each player get afew of them. But with that said, I had fun opening the boxes, and nothing is always going to be perfect. One last thing I agree with what you said about Eric's team coming out in advance and communicating a bit more upfront.
The sirs dont affect othe "true unique pull rates" chdck Wizards Den video... its all explained there qith evidences and number so please stop make anyone guilty for fake uniques. Lord of Itza please check Haines video and comment.
I have seen his video, and he confirms that the pull rate for truly unique cards is slightly less in Arthurian Legends than Alpha and Beta. However, that is not what I am trying to address in this video. I am focusing on the designation of cards as Unique when they are printed as much as an Elite, which is different from Alpha and Beta. The fake unique moniker may not be fair, but it is the first thing that came to my mind. If the community establishes another term for these cards, I would be happy to use it.
I think they made a poor design choice in this regard. Should have labeled them elite with a keyword that represents only one of these cards can be in play on your side. If you end up with two sac one of them. This way a unique stays truly unique.
I don't know what the fuss is about. It didn't take long for everyone to discover what's what. Sorcery has never disclosed pull rate information so why should they clarify that some uniques are printed at elite rarity.
Don't piss on the parade bud...your too early and thinking too much. Maybe this is how we will get more uniques into our decks in the future as it grows. Might be a change to 5 uniques in a deck when we go to 60/40...be patient be diligent and keep on CONTESTING THE REALM...!!!
"Fake" feels negative, like a lie. For game-play purposes the cards function as unique. So let's call them "functional" uniques vs something like print-count uniques.
Josh, I think Sorcery isn't the game for you. Nearly every monologue from you is very negative and primarily only about collecting. It comes off that you hate the game. Maybe try to focus on gameplay strategy and deck building in future content?
I do enjoy the collecting aspect of Sorcery as much as playing. However, I don’t feel I have the necessary video editing skills to make game play videos, so I don’t really intend to break into the space unless I can improve in that regard. I also question your indication that nearly every video is negative. I was very clear that everyone should wait for the new set before judging the 50/30 change. I congratulated EC for a mostly successful delivery of AL. This video certainly has some criticism, but only regarding the lack of communication from EC regarding major changes. But, you certainly have the right to your opinion, and I will ponder it for future videos. However, I will always call a spade what it is.
I think we are ready to move on 😊
Some of the Discords I have been in don't make me think so, but this will be my last video on the topic.
I like that the “elite unique” sirs/dames are only able to be played at unique levels (one per deck). You can only have one Sir Percival running around. I also like that the boxes are filled with ~7-8 of these “elite uniques” for limited play. It allows draft/sealed players to obtain more unique cards. Remember that AL was created more for sealed events than constructed… The only other option in my opinion was to make generic elite knights without known lore. That isn’t nearly as fun. I think people will get over it. People love to complain.
Yes, they should definitely be unique from a play perspective, and folks will move on to the next topic of conversation eventually.
Yes… but I don’t like that they took away the elite slots…. I did not get nearly enough elite game pieces. The whole issue I had opening this set is that I got so many dummy cards for the draft experience. It’s a waste of time opening these boxes as it is a draft box… there is at least 2 packs of filler ordinaries and exceptionals instead of an even distribution of usable game pieces. For me it goes so much further than just the elite/unique sirs. It’s just a symptom of a larger problem of wanting to design draft packs instead of packs that are filled according to their actual rarity. They overpacked with threshold creatures, generic colored knights and these elites slots were eaten up by this elite/unique issues. If you add all these issues together… you get allot of repetitive kind of bad feeling opening packs because they are designed to be the same.
I don't think the argument of "The set was tuned for limited" really holds up when plenty of games manage to do that and also have the set work for the normal constructed audience and format.
MTG will do specific slots in packs if they want to seed a specific theme. There's decades of existing TCGs and technology to use to make sure the pack opening experience is what you want that don't involve involve using weird appearance rates for uniques.
@@Monkey_D._Elliott So MTG has the exact same pull rates for mythics set to set regardless of the cards?? I find that hard to believe… I’m just saying the opening experience was fine to me and I don’t really see why everyone was so upset. Especially since this set was tailored heavy to draft/sealed. It would have been way more confusing to call the “elite” unique knights elite but you can only have one. 🤷♂️ Also, EC is not Magic. This card game doesn’t want to be like other card games. They do it different and will probably continue that way. People need to learn to go with ebbs and flows and breathe 😂
@@Monkey_D._Elliott ha ha… well sorcery isn’t Magic my friend and you can’t compare a company that has one release a year and relies on community support to one that is releasing multiple themes, formats and sets quarterly.
I was telling my friend the same thing. Maybe they planned the reveal with the sheet, but I agree. I dont really care myself, but i wouldn't give some people a reason to be mad, but at the same time, someone will always find a reason to get mad, lol
To answer your question: I consider this a "A tempest in a glass of water". Imagine the worst, worst case scenario: Someone A opens a "true unique" but doesnt need it, her friend B also open a booster and also gets a unique, but its only a "Elite Unique". A trades her "true unique" towards B "elite unique" but DIDNT KNOW IT WASN'T A TRUE UNIQUE! ... Ok, because A did'nt check the value etc maybe she lost 1-2$ in trade because of a slight lack of knowledge?
Back in the days of MTG, we had listing of R, U and C with numbers like R1,R2,R3... we had an idea what was more rare and what wasnt. Now WOTC doesnt even care or voluntarily doesnt tell ANY kind of rarity within rarity, wich creates issues sometimes. In the case of Eric Curiosa, I think it was a good gesture to show one print sheet to give us an insight, but not tell us EVERYTHING in advance.
Also, my personnal opinion: 100% positive on that. Opening a box full of uniques gives a real feeling of Arthurian Legends. Nice video btw ;)
Yes, I am concerned unwary new players who are not watching a range of news sources will be bafled by this and are more likely to be duped on the trade value of their first openings. I am relieved that the community are sharing this information more readily and widely than the company itself.
I think it is important to note that, from Arthurian Legends onwards, the 'Unique' term on a card is more aligned with limits on deck inclusion rather than actual card rarity / production scarcity. I expect over an entire case to see quite a few duplicate Uniques based on what I've observed in other peoples' openings.
Thanks for the video. Absolutely something that could have been fixed with a bit of communication. They have a year between sets, it's plenty of time to address changes and things they're intending to do. For my money, of they really wanted the knights to show up in draft, I don't know why they didn't just add a Knight slot to the pack.
I guess the main issue is that Eric wants to make Sorcery for himself and everyone else is incidental. He, and the team, are going to do what they and we're likely just going to have to deal or move on. Its frustrating
The only reason I would disagree about letting players know ahead of time about the increase pull rate of Sirs/Dame in relation to their rarity is because it would create another controversial subject that EC is now filling it's premium product with "game pieces" rather than "collectibles." Sorcery is a product people have associated with mystique and collectability. Originally I was in the camp that boxes priced at $129 MSRP is going to be fine if you're able to pull 6 foils and 6 "real" uniques, however, after seeing the value that comes out of these boxes, where EC missed the mark on this product was pricing. Had Arthurian Legends been priced at $109 MSRP based on what we know today, this product would be a major success.
Last time I checked you could get boxes for 110 on tcgplayer. Honestly if the boxes were cheaper I'd buy more, but I feel kicked in the teeth opening so many "uniques" and doubles of those "uniques" that could have been a useful elite....
Heh, no way for EC to win right? You could very well be correct, but I think that additional but careful communication about this change could have reduced the grumbling significantly. Also, I previously felt boxes should have been $119 before release, but I agree about the $109 now. Of course, we are still in the very early days of the market, so hopefully there can be some corrections. However, history shows us that singles prices only tend to go down after release, so things could get rough.
@@Lord_of_Itza I opened three boxes,then went on TCGplayer and bought the remaining elites I needed for the playset I'm working on. It only cost me $23...
I did the very same, though it cost me $28
Strong agree. Upped the price of packs while decreasing the hit rates is super lame, and much greater of an issue than the rarity thing.
They should have just made the fake unique sir/dame a random hit in the common slots. Like a common curio found around 4-6 per box. Problem solved.
Collectability wise I hate those sirs and dame. Diminishes the whole "unique" and opening experience.
They would save themselves a lot of headache and frustration from players if they would just communicate better with the players. That's been a theme since Alpha.
i’ve seen people suggest that unique was never a rarity signifier but simply just a way to tell you how much of a card you can use. i think that’s incredibly disingenuous. of course it was a rarity signifier, that’s why nearly every beta box had 7 uniques and 29 elites. uniques were meant to be more rare. i understand why they changed it but it still is a CHANGE.
that being said, i also feel that i would have felt better opening my boxes if i knew ahead of time. i’m sure it is great for draft and i can’t wait to try it out. not so much for just opening a box tho imo.
Spot on
I think there should be a marking. U1 vs. U2, for example. I’m afraid for traders of the “trading” card nature getting rekd
Yes, new people getting hosed in trades is a concern. I am hoping we can get the message out enough that those situations are prevented though.
People who are upset about this what are they saying?
It felt pretty obvious that is what happened whenever you opened a box and it was 50% elite 50% Uniques.
The part that I would not have liked to have seen would be a new player trading a high valued actual unique sir/dame for one printed as an elite.
Your very last statement is a large concern with this change, but hopefully the topic is discussed enough on the various platforms to prevent that. The main complaint I have heard is related to how Unique in Alpha and Beta also meant something in relation to collectability, and that was suddenly changed without notice.
All in all, I agree with you. A bit of communication goes a long way. AL does play extremely well in a limited format! However, i can't help but chuckle at this topic. The ubiquitous fake uniques remind me of mtg Chronicles. 😅🤔😂
Ah, Chronicles…what a time to be in Magic…
Didnt just finding out, but couldn't card. Could have been on the box topper pack.
Tho there should be a key word in the body when the deck when it doesn't match the rarity in the sub text.
Don't think this really changes how anyone was buying boxes. And anyone buying singles in the first few weeks is dumb. Cards flux so much.
Was wondering why I had gotten so many sir cards so makes sense
Has EC ever specifically said the rarity listed on the card was the print frequency?
No? But we know how they're printed, thanks to the Print Sheets that EC uses for prize support.
They should have just made them elite rarity with "can only have one in a deck" in the text box
I agree about the uniques, but they did that for a reason so as to not get to use 2 of the same sirs i guess. I do think they should have made them a bit less common on pull rates or had a different marking, but people would complain on that as well. Like a uniquElite or something else, anyways it is done probably for drafts and so a 4-player format or more can have each player get afew of them. But with that said, I had fun opening the boxes, and nothing is always going to be perfect.
One last thing I agree with what you said about Eric's team coming out in advance and communicating a bit more upfront.
Its a game folks!! Calm down
This was a great video and a very good point!
I wonder if the “elite” uniques will be easier to pull in foil or similar to unique rarity??
The sirs dont affect othe "true unique pull rates" chdck Wizards Den video... its all explained there qith evidences and number so please stop make anyone guilty for fake uniques.
Lord of Itza please check Haines video and comment.
I have seen his video, and he confirms that the pull rate for truly unique cards is slightly less in Arthurian Legends than Alpha and Beta. However, that is not what I am trying to address in this video. I am focusing on the designation of cards as Unique when they are printed as much as an Elite, which is different from Alpha and Beta. The fake unique moniker may not be fair, but it is the first thing that came to my mind. If the community establishes another term for these cards, I would be happy to use it.
I think they made a poor design choice in this regard. Should have labeled them elite with a keyword that represents only one of these cards can be in play on your side. If you end up with two sac one of them. This way a unique stays truly unique.
I don't know what the fuss is about. It didn't take long for everyone to discover what's what. Sorcery has never disclosed pull rate information so why should they clarify that some uniques are printed at elite rarity.
I agree. Who cares. Why announce pull rates. What difference would it have made if they did.....none
Only timmys care
Don't piss on the parade bud...your too early and thinking too much. Maybe this is how we will get more uniques into our decks in the future as it grows. Might be a change to 5 uniques in a deck when we go to 60/40...be patient be diligent and keep on CONTESTING THE REALM...!!!
Instead of being “fake” lets just call them “elite” uniques.
That's not a bad terminology. I could get behind that, though it is a bit of a mouthful.
"Fake" feels negative, like a lie. For game-play purposes the cards function as unique. So let's call them "functional" uniques vs something like print-count uniques.
That is pretty solid as well.
Josh, I think Sorcery isn't the game for you. Nearly every monologue from you is very negative and primarily only about collecting. It comes off that you hate the game.
Maybe try to focus on gameplay strategy and deck building in future content?
Constructed criticism isn't hate. The Sorcery community seems to want blind consumerism. That's not healthy.
I do enjoy the collecting aspect of Sorcery as much as playing. However, I don’t feel I have the necessary video editing skills to make game play videos, so I don’t really intend to break into the space unless I can improve in that regard.
I also question your indication that nearly every video is negative. I was very clear that everyone should wait for the new set before judging the 50/30 change. I congratulated EC for a mostly successful delivery of AL. This video certainly has some criticism, but only regarding the lack of communication from EC regarding major changes. But, you certainly have the right to your opinion, and I will ponder it for future videos. However, I will always call a spade what it is.