Warhammer 40K Update
- Thread starter newbrak
- Start date
First_Revenge
New member
Seconded. Please give me my triumphs, its pretty irritating not being able to play my paper deck on mtgo.
MTGO_TonyM
Developer
We are still waiting on WotC and Games Workshop to come to an agreement to let us implement the 40K set into MTGO. That is the only hold-up now.
I was going to create a new thread but I suppose I might as well use this one since it illustrates that this is a concern for the community. For Legacy and potentially Commander players, at least. I suppose there are many threads on this topic, I may come back and update this post with links to any such posts.
Many players are looking forward to some of the Warhammer40K cards. Apparently there are licensing issues preventing these cards from being released on MTGO. I think the community would be overwhelmingly positive (maybe a 95:5 ratio pro-against) to having the key cards implemented with a different image and a different name, for the names affacted by the license, as an interim solution, until the licensing situation is solved (if it ever will be). You could use old images from cards that see little or no play, which would avoid any confusion, and the names if they need to be changed could be similar names with the same starting letters. There could be a symbol on the card indicating that it's an interim solution. You could even add "-interim" to the card name to be clear (that may be too much though). And you could have a web page listing temporary versions so players can easily find them, or just add it to a weekly update letter. Just a suggestion on how to bring the hightly anticipated cards to the platform with a relatively low effort.
N.b. I'm assuming that the licensing issue only relates to names, images and symbols on the cards, not to the actual game mechanical elements which I doubt Warhammer will have patented, otherwise protected, or been involved in creating.
On August 10th I suggested this in the MTGO discord and got this reply from MTGO_Torbin, which I appreciate btw:
I wish it was that easy friend but it is not. Just from a coding standpoint what you are suggesting while seems like a good idea would require a massive amount of dev hours to create and sustain. Nevertheless I will bring this up to the team but would encourage you to create a forums post about this so the entire dev team can see it.
My reply to this: I don't know the details of layout or architecture of your solutions, but once you move on to the full set release I expect you just change the name and image which I imagine will be relatively easily done. You'll have to implement the code at some point anyway, so doing it earlier will not be extra work. Add to that 1-3 hours for managing the images of these cards, I'm guessing, and maybe 1-2 hours for considering card names and other visual tweeks. You can add a list of these cards in the weekly announcements blog and I think that's all the archive you'll need, if you want to keep it simple. I'd like to think this could be done in less than 5 hours extra work in total, but naturally I can't say and could be very wrong.
A few practical suggestions
- Images: Maybe make the images greyscale to indicate to players visually that it it is a special version, or use a special color on the border which isn't too upsetting (grey, just don't make it blink.
- Names: Maybe keep the first 2-3 letters of every word in the title, and the last letter, and change the rest. There's research showing that people identify words this way so it might make it cognitively smooth for players to identify the cards.
- Symbol: You could use a unique set symbol to indicate transit cards waiting for correct version.
- If you want help chasing suitable old images, ask in this thread and I'll help and potentially some other players who are interested in this as well. Crowdsourcing. We can suggest names too, if this is a plausible approach for you.
List of cards affected for the Legacy format
- Triumph of Saint Katherine (high priority)
- Chaos Defiler (high priority)
- Mawloc (high priority)
- Exocrine (low priority)
- Atalan Jackal (low priority)
- You could ask for more if you want to implement more, you'll probably get another 5-6 card suggestions
- You could ask specifically Commander players which cards they are interested in. If you ask me I'll try to find a way to collect this information for you.
Here's a list from this post: https://forums.mtgo.com/index.php?threads/competitive-format-wishlist-add-to-mtgo.98/post-1156
1) Chaos Defiler (40K)
2) Mawloc (40K)
4) Triumph of Saint Katherine (40K)
9) Poxwalkers (40K)
10) Canoptek Scarab Swarm (40K)
13) Zephyrim (40K)
14) Scorpekh Lord (40K)
17) Toxicrene (40K)
Advantages of this approach
- Happier players: Some amount of current players are discontent with the difference between paper play and digital play, with the digital experience not representing the real state of the game.
- Low hanging fruit: It seems like a very low effort way for you to add some value to the platform and make players happy, even excited.
- Goodwill: You get to show again that you are close to the community, listening to it, serving it, this may give you a little extra goodwill.
- More players: It's possible that some players avoid MTGO because these cards don't exist, however I wouldn't expect this to be significant.
Disadvantages of this approach
- Less effect from full set implementation: When you get to release the full set with real names and images, there will be less value created on the platform and so you will have to spend time on work that is less valuable. However, it's only because you already added that value earlier, so you're not actually losing out on value. Actually, by releasing the cards later, the cards could have become irrelevant to players at that time, meaning you could miss out on their value entirely.
- Visual clash between paper and digital: Creates a temporary difference in visual appearance between paper and digital play
- Lower impression: Could be perceived that the digital environment is of lower quality, I mean these ad hoc-versions might perhaps give a bad impression to some
Last edited:
Oh, I can't edit the post anymore. Anyway here's one more post, mentioning Mawloc: https://forums.mtgo.com/index.php?threads/requested-vintage-cube-updates.477/post-1144
I realized that an important point I made in the disadvantages section should actually be added to advantages. So I've added that point below, last among the advantages. I also wonder if I should repost in another section of the forum, the one for suggestions, instead of replying to an existing thread on the topic in the area general discussion.
Advantages of this approach
- Happier players: Some amount of current players are discontent with the difference between paper play and digital play, with the digital experience not representing the real state of the game.
- Low hanging fruit: It seems like a very low effort way for you to add some value to the platform and make players happy, even excited.
- Goodwill: You get to show again that you are close to the community, listening to it, serving it, this may give you a little extra goodwill.
- More players: It's possible that some players avoid MTGO because these cards don't exist, however I wouldn't expect this to be significant (well actually there is one in this thread already, see previous comments).
- Catch the value of powerful cards before they lose relevance and/or are power-crept: it's well-known that power creep is eroding the value of old cards. Power creep refers to the slowly increasing power level of new cards, making older cards worse. Not all, but some of them. So, by delaying the release of powerful new cards, you risk having their value eroded before they are released, meaning you miss out on some of the value you could be releasing onto the platform. A slow release means potential for lost value. There's also a potential for the overal metagame of a format to move in a way that makes cards less relevant, which also means they lose value, so I think we have at least two mechanisms by which cards lose value over time here to consider.
Disadvantages of this approach
- Less effect from full set implementation: When you get to release the full set with real names and images, there will be less value created on the platform and so you will have to spend time on work that is less valuable. However, it's only because you already added that value earlier, so you're not actually losing out on value. Actually, by releasing the cards later, the cards could have become irrelevant to players at that time, meaning you could miss out on their value entirely.
- Visual clash between paper and digital: Creates a temporary difference in visual appearance between paper and digital play
- Lower impression: Could be perceived that the digital environment is of lower quality, I mean these ad hoc-versions might perhaps give a bad impression to some players. Gaining in functionality, losing in visual coherence.
Advantages of this approach
- Happier players: Some amount of current players are discontent with the difference between paper play and digital play, with the digital experience not representing the real state of the game.
- Low hanging fruit: It seems like a very low effort way for you to add some value to the platform and make players happy, even excited.
- Goodwill: You get to show again that you are close to the community, listening to it, serving it, this may give you a little extra goodwill.
- More players: It's possible that some players avoid MTGO because these cards don't exist, however I wouldn't expect this to be significant (well actually there is one in this thread already, see previous comments).
- Catch the value of powerful cards before they lose relevance and/or are power-crept: it's well-known that power creep is eroding the value of old cards. Power creep refers to the slowly increasing power level of new cards, making older cards worse. Not all, but some of them. So, by delaying the release of powerful new cards, you risk having their value eroded before they are released, meaning you miss out on some of the value you could be releasing onto the platform. A slow release means potential for lost value. There's also a potential for the overal metagame of a format to move in a way that makes cards less relevant, which also means they lose value, so I think we have at least two mechanisms by which cards lose value over time here to consider.
Disadvantages of this approach
- Less effect from full set implementation: When you get to release the full set with real names and images, there will be less value created on the platform and so you will have to spend time on work that is less valuable. However, it's only because you already added that value earlier, so you're not actually losing out on value. Actually, by releasing the cards later, the cards could have become irrelevant to players at that time, meaning you could miss out on their value entirely.
- Visual clash between paper and digital: Creates a temporary difference in visual appearance between paper and digital play
- Lower impression: Could be perceived that the digital environment is of lower quality, I mean these ad hoc-versions might perhaps give a bad impression to some players. Gaining in functionality, losing in visual coherence.
Last edited:
MTGO_TonyM
Developer
Thank you for your considered thoughts on trying to find a faster solution for the 40K cards.
While there are intriguing ideas in there (greyscale images, alternate set symbol, etc), there are a couple of hurdles that are not worth the dev time to explore this angle for 40K specifically:
1) Creating new cards as 1:1 alternates is out, as the soonest we could get those into our system now is with Murders at Karlov Manor in February. Same for creating a bundle in the store to sell the handful of cards needed for Legacy/Commander.
2) Some pieces of the greyscale/rename are interesting, but issues arise when it comes to changing names of objects in the system - especially temporarily
3) There's the business angle to this as well - we want to sell the full decks when they're able to be sold once we are able to do so. Putting alternate versions into Treasure Chests to true up the short-term metagame undercuts the market for the decks later.
We are relying on our partners to get the deal done so we can get the cards into the community.
While there are intriguing ideas in there (greyscale images, alternate set symbol, etc), there are a couple of hurdles that are not worth the dev time to explore this angle for 40K specifically:
1) Creating new cards as 1:1 alternates is out, as the soonest we could get those into our system now is with Murders at Karlov Manor in February. Same for creating a bundle in the store to sell the handful of cards needed for Legacy/Commander.
2) Some pieces of the greyscale/rename are interesting, but issues arise when it comes to changing names of objects in the system - especially temporarily
3) There's the business angle to this as well - we want to sell the full decks when they're able to be sold once we are able to do so. Putting alternate versions into Treasure Chests to true up the short-term metagame undercuts the market for the decks later.
We are relying on our partners to get the deal done so we can get the cards into the community.
I see, ok thanks Tony for your clear answer explaning these perspectives!
SDBobPlissken
New member
If the soonest to get those interim cards in the system is February I think most people would be okay with that. I don’t believe that corporate will have this resolved by February given the amount of time it has taken thus far (set was released almost two months ago) and the fact that work kind of slows down during the upcoming looming holidays. I hope I am wrong. It’s frustrating that the online legacy meta has a different card pool than the online meta. If this can’t be resolved then I don’t think 40K should be legacy legal until it is. While the Universes Beyond and collaborations are nice, a card makes it into a player’s deck specifically for the mechanic, so as to PettDan’s suggestion can’t some interim cards be made and put into people’s accounts until it is resolved. Maybe even make them like cards during a phantom event where you can’t trade and don’t get to keep them, you just have them until this licensing issue is resolved?
I'm aware this isn't a Daybreak issue - February as stated above would be a perfectly fine release date! But I'm not sure where else to vent the frustration - watching the Eternal Weekend Legacy top 8 with several 40k cards present - including in the winning list - was great, but not being able to test online for that event with those cards sucks. Legacy online and offline should be as close as possible.
Thanks for the comments, SDBobPlissken and FGC! I agree with both of your comments.
I have two suggestions for dealing with the business issue of reduced value, due to the interim solution, during the full WH40K set release. Perhaps a combination would work even.
As MTGO_Tony described the business issue:
Building on SDBobPlissken's suggestion: offer a token in the store for using these cards temporarily, say 5-10 tix per month for the set of them. That's attractive for players and doesn't erode the value of a potential future set release. You can then also include them in treasure chests whenever you decide to.
Another approach would be to handle it by delaying (I believe the accounting term is to defer) the revenue of these cards to when the full set is released. This won't be perfect, but this solution should work well enough. Calculate the percentage of the treasure chest value that is attributed to the interim cards from WH40K. Deter that percentage of revenue directly from tickets sales and I'd say maybe 20-50% of that percentage from the revenue from events that pay out in treasure chests (someone with more insight into this will need to come up with a more refined calculation). This way, once the full set is released, you get the revenue from the previously released cards.
A combination of both approaches could be to defer the revenue from the temporary solution, selling a token in the MTGO store for temporary use.
So, I suggest you consider asking players for input on card names soon, then include those card names in the February release. Then I suppose you need a script for transferring those cards to the new cards for accounts that own them as the license issue is solved and the real cards can be released.
Also, if you're not sure if this is a problem, you could perhaps set up a poll in the weekly announcements thread or in the Discord, perhaps also post about it on Twitter and Reddit. That way you could get an indication of how many players consider this a problem, and to which extent. Probably, the most annoyed players may not be around, but you would at least get an indication from the active player base.
I have two suggestions for dealing with the business issue of reduced value, due to the interim solution, during the full WH40K set release. Perhaps a combination would work even.
As MTGO_Tony described the business issue:
Building on SDBobPlissken's suggestion: offer a token in the store for using these cards temporarily, say 5-10 tix per month for the set of them. That's attractive for players and doesn't erode the value of a potential future set release. You can then also include them in treasure chests whenever you decide to.
Another approach would be to handle it by delaying (I believe the accounting term is to defer) the revenue of these cards to when the full set is released. This won't be perfect, but this solution should work well enough. Calculate the percentage of the treasure chest value that is attributed to the interim cards from WH40K. Deter that percentage of revenue directly from tickets sales and I'd say maybe 20-50% of that percentage from the revenue from events that pay out in treasure chests (someone with more insight into this will need to come up with a more refined calculation). This way, once the full set is released, you get the revenue from the previously released cards.
A combination of both approaches could be to defer the revenue from the temporary solution, selling a token in the MTGO store for temporary use.
So, I suggest you consider asking players for input on card names soon, then include those card names in the February release. Then I suppose you need a script for transferring those cards to the new cards for accounts that own them as the license issue is solved and the real cards can be released.
Also, if you're not sure if this is a problem, you could perhaps set up a poll in the weekly announcements thread or in the Discord, perhaps also post about it on Twitter and Reddit. That way you could get an indication of how many players consider this a problem, and to which extent. Probably, the most annoyed players may not be around, but you would at least get an indication from the active player base.
ManaDrainThis
Well-known member
As much as I admire your enthusiasm and share your passion to see the Warhammer 40K cards implemented on Mtgo as soon as is humanly possible, I think any suggestion along the lines you propose is a total nonstarter. Daybreak is not going to change their financial accounting methods and introduce temporary cards to solve the unfortunate disparity between the physical & MTGO constructed metas.
You may be right that they won't do it. I just explain how they could do it with just a couple of hours of extra work. And I don't see a fundamental challenge with introducing temporary cards, it's just a pragmatic solution to the problem. Then, what seems to be simple often turns out not to be simple, I'll agree to that much.
To defer revenue, I wouldn't say that's a change of accounting methods. That's just applying accounting methods, but I could be wrong there. Furthermore, it seems like it could be fairly easy to implement. Anyway that's not necessary for the solution, that's just something they could choose to do if they find that aspect important.
Anyway, I appreciate you adding your perspective!
Last edited:
It occurs to me that this may never happen, especially if GW sees MTGO as a lame duck product that's soon to be phased out in favor of Arena.
I'm not building decks with vaporware and my fingers crossed just yet.
SDBobPlissken
New member
We are nearly at the release of Murders at Karlov Manor, and Chaos Defiler and Triumph still aren’t on MTGO with no update. I know it’s not a daybreak issue but if alternate cards that do the same thing but with different names and art can’t be implemented can WotC make these cards not legacy legal for the time being?
Lets Eat People
New member
I bought the precon IRL and immediately came to mtgo to buy it so i could play it here too. boy was I upset at first lol
MahfuzVanGogh
Member
Hello. Do you have any prediction, any at all, of when the Warhammer cards might be available on MTGO? Thanks.