Wildcards in MTGA are extremely innovative and lightyears better than what we have, and Hearthstone’s system of cards really falls short because of it. I’d ADORE a system in Hearthstone alike the Wildcard system in MTGA.
That’s it.
1 Like
I can only imagine the overwhelming frustration of pure Hearthstone mechanics in a game where you can put four copies of a card in your deck. I’m not surprised MtGA had to come up with something to combat that.
2 Likes
MTG is also a very old game.
1 Like
I suppose you have a point. Lotsa cards.
Truth be told? Never recovered from getting only Hemet and 2 Umbra’s off 100 Un’goro packs.
Ah, the good old days. I opened two Gazlowes in a single pack back in GvG. It would’ve been better to open one legendary I would’ve actually used.
Two Gallywixes as well in that pile of packs. I’m really glad they implemented the “No Dupes” rule.
4 Likes
Aren’t wild cards and gold cards equivalent? You can swap any gold card for another of the same rarity just like how I thought it works with wild cards. Am I missing something?
2 Likes
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Wildcard system is light years better than the dust system.
It does make the concept of “finishing” a deck more visible: e.g I need 4 rares, 5 unc, 5 common, as opposed to 2200 dust.
Perhaps we should also take note that you can’t disenchant any cards in MTG:A.
I guess the uncommon and rare wildcards being guaranteed every 6th pack you open is nice (with every 5th Rare WC being a Mythic one).
2 Likes
Wildcards is like getting dust in discrete chunks rather than cumulatively over time. They’re functionally equivalent.
5 Likes
True enough however you only get a golden legendary around every 300 packs but you get on average 2 Mythic Wildcards every 30 packs in MTGA.
3 Likes
Not entirely since you only get dust for dupes so you get practically no dust if you only open a small amount of packs per set but in MTGA you always get wildcards at the same rate no matter how many packs you have opened.
The comparison would work better if they always gave you some dust with every pack even if there were no dupes.
If I opened 60 packs in HS I might get enough dust for a single legendary. If I open 60 packs in MTGA I will get at least 12 rare wild cards and 4 mythic wildcards
1 Like
But if you get a useless card in MTGA (or one that does not fit in your playstyle) you can’t disenchant it. So I guess for collectors MTGA has a better system, for people, who want good decks fast, hearthstone is better.
I play (and enjoy) both games by the way
1 Like
There’s a few other things to take into account in this apples and oranges comparison.
-
Deck size. If each HS and MTG card had the same cost, MTGA would be twice as expensive as a game since you have to factor a 2x value per HS card.
-
Lands. Don’t you open more and more useless basic lands in booster packs nowadays(I know it wasn’t the case in the physical game when I played over 20 years ago)? Is it one per pack?
Yeah, I’d consider myself more on the collecting side of the spectrum. So in Hearthstone, collecting across a wide range of sets is hard to do without spending $$$.
In MTG Arena, all Basic lands are free.
Booster Packs are different to Paper ones, Regular Packs contain 8 cards (5C, 2U, 1R/1M). The Draft/Sealed packs are 14/15 cards, with 1R/1M, and 3U)
1 Like
The wildcard system is not great cause your duplicates have 0 value, and it’s not possible to get any value out of useless cards.
MTGA has a lot of things going for it but not the wildcard system IMHO.
About 24 of those cards are lands though so a MTGA deck is only 36 cards or so which is only 6 cards more than HS.
What percentage of decks use Gucci lands? Rough estimates are OK.
About 24 of those cards are lands though so a MTGA deck is only 36 cards or so which is only 6 cards more than HS.
Only someone who has never played MTGA would say that.
Yeah the main problem with MTGA is that it is a very old design and the fundamentals haven’t changed much. MTGA will always be hampered by it’s land problem X% of games are decided by the land draw and not gameplay which makes it a bad experience IMHO.
I have played MTGA since open beta started. I mean yes there are the rare lands but I don’t really count those as the cost of a deck since they work over a large variety of decks. Maybe you could count them as like 1/4th of a card each as far as the cost of a deck goes? I mean once you have say the lands you need for a Jeskai deck you also then have all the lands you need for Azorius and Boros and Izzet as well.
I guess it’s not so bad for the digital game.
The paper copies of the Gucci lands are crazy expensive.