Hangry Hoppin Hugs
I recommend pink sleeves for this deck and a heavy dose of coy politics :) Sit b...
Is Universe Beyond good or bad for MTG?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 8, 2026, 5:14 p.m. by theNeroTurtle
I want to know your thoughts in the comments.
I personally think that it is bad for MTG to be partnering with other brands like Star Trek long term. It harms the lore, the overarching game theme, and creates useless mechanics with less cards that utilize them. Gone are the days of story telling within MTG.
At this rate, they might as well make a Pokémon set, muddying the waters of what this card game really is. This is why One Piece is doing so well, other than being something new. You don't see it partnering with Bugs Bunny.
Note: I posted a "change my mind" thread, but I feel that it has been misunderstood along with a few other issues, such as my lack of correct verbiage in the opening post and responses.
So, you tell me... longterm, is UB helping or harming this game. Yes, I use some UB cards. Yes, I play with and have fun with people that play UB. This game is about fun. Despite that, UB to me is harming the brand. How can it be a brand all its own, when it has just become a brand pot.
I think the "appearance of the cards" suffered greatly as well, I mean just look at the incredibly lazy screen-grabbed treatments of cards like Blasphemous Act and Cruel Tutor, eeughh. I always disliked the inconsistency and greed of the newer sorts of art treatments but this is a new low by far. I'd argue the gameplay mechanics have suffered too via fire design and the homogenization of so many diverse and boundary pushing mechanics into some flavor of the week boring keyword that typically to just "draw a card, put a +1/+1," in so many extra words. Their biggest toe over the line for me was when they made UB legal in all eternal formats, so now nobody can fucking avoid it. I don't see how dropping all pretense of substance in the mechanics and lore of your game in favor of EZ fanboy $$$ can possibly be good for ANYONE besides the shareholders and baby players whose only reason for even wanting to play our game is so they can fondle their waifu in a new way? No fucking thankyou.
January 8, 2026 6:39 p.m. Edited.
legendofa -
Good stuff. You could totally repackage that as a TEDtalk, and the room would be packed.
Cheers!
January 8, 2026 6:46 p.m.
legendofa UB is about making money, whether or not it brings in new players, whether or not it's well liked, it's part of their pattern of corner cutting and prioritizing profit over the integrity of the game. There's a reason most of these sets look awful and the design has fallen off. They are rushing to pump out as many of these IPs as possible to milk these fandoms.
It makes no sense to me how you can welcome UB in one breath, then in the next lament the loss of blocks and in-universe lore and non-gimmicky sets. The focus on UB, accessibility, gimmicks/fire design and other changes in design philosophy, and the greed driving these decisions, is precisely why everything you just said you used to love about magic was left by the wayside. The real problem is not really the UB itself, it's corporate greed driving the degradation of our game.
January 8, 2026 7:02 p.m.
I think that, to HASBRO, "Magic: the Gathering" is just the mechanics of the game. They don't really see an issue with re-skinning the game with outside IPs in the same way that they have repackaged Monopoly a million times over. The game is making a ton of money doing what they are doing so they have no real motivation to stop.
It does feel like the MtG lore sets have been sidelined. It comes across to me as though WotC doesn't know what to do with the story anymore. The theme sets that have come out since the latest Phyrexian invasion arc ended have been novelties in the same pattern that the UB sets are. I think that Edge of Eternities and the robots in Aetherdrift were designed to be exposure to foster the MtG player base to be more familiar and excepting of hard Sci-Fi themes in the game, probably to reduce resistance to the upcoming Star Trek set that will be coming out.
My personal preference would have been for the UB set to have stayed silver border products, but WotC knew that Commander didn't usually accept silver border cards and they really wanted an easy transition for people who came for the spotlight IP to then move over to Commander as the the primary casual format. So they ditched the silver borders instead of maybe making a separate "Ultimate Showdown" style product line for the game.
I was ok with the D&D sets WotC did because they were also WotC IPs and I could see how the D&D settings could maybe fit in some corner of the MtG multiverse. They were also a more novel thing at the time. LotR I was less happy with but at least it was still high fantasy. If the original MtG sets were still going strong in their support and concepts then maybe I wouldn't be quite as despondent with the breakdown in the cohesive image of the game that the UB sets have brought. As it stands now though, I find the original MtG sets to be pretty hit or miss and I don't really know what's going on with the Jace and Loot storyline.
I'm sure that WOtC still has people on staff that still love MtG's own IP. I just don't know how much support they are given from the corporate side these days to really build MtG's own world.
January 8, 2026 7:25 p.m.
capwner M:tG is, essentially, a luxury entertainment product. If a luxury entertainment product doesn't build broad interest, it won't get a consumer base. If it doesn't have a consumer base, it doesn't sell. If it doesn't sell, it doesn't make money. If it doesn't make money, it gets canceled. WotC has canceled or hugely reduced tons of M:tG products because they weren't selling: Duel Decks, Planeswalker Decks, Archenemy Schemes, Planechase Planes, the block structure, core sets, and that's just off the top of my head. People spoke with their wallets; the didn't want those. People are speaking with their wallets now; they do want UB.
The integrity of the game is their profit, as I see it. They can't force people to buy Magic cards. Nobody relies on Magic cards to physically survive another day. They don't provide shelter, transportation, or nutrition. If it's bad product, people won't buy it in enough numbers to be sustainable, and profit falls. If it's good product, people will buy it, and profit rises. Corporate greed is absolutely a thing, but in this case, profits are driven directly by demand. How many people are buying cards only because it has That Guy/Thing (apologies to KamSandwich) on it, with no regard to quality? I don't think Final Fantasy and LotR became the best selling sets ever on the strength of basement dwellers alone, and I don't think Assassin's Creed was forced into the hands of anyone who didn't want it.
I don't really welcome UB. I don't know enough about the franchises they tend to pick to get super excited about them, and they haven't yet hit anything I would get super excited about. But I can appreciate them as game pieces, and as representatives of a world I haven't taken the time to learn about. Further, I dislike UB when it references actual, real-world specific people and places like Leonardo da Vinci or Pompeii. So I'm far from a diehard UB freak. I'm a UB accepter.
For why they look awful, that's an art problem, not a UB problem. There's plenty of subpar, poorly made, off-putting, and controversial art in the M:tG IP. For the mechanics, there are people who want every counterspell and every discard effect banned everywhere, because they make the game impossible to play. What's the point of even starting a game when the control player's just going to say no to everything? How is that any fun?
And for one detail that I haven't been able to find anywhere, could you please provide the percentage of UB sales that greedy collectors and waifu-hunting baby players provide, compared to the number of real players? Or, more directly, could you please provide a breakdown of UB sales metrics? I've legitimately, if casually, been looking for soemthing publicly available for a while.
January 8, 2026 7:34 p.m. Edited.
TypicalTimmy says... #8
Y'all read my previous comment about the economic sustainability on the matter, but that didn't express my actual enjoyment of it.
My personal feelings?
Burnout.
It's one of the reasons I left MTG fully, except for this website.
I no longer play, buy, collect, build or theorycraft. I don't read lore, I don't watch releases, I don't look at promotions.
To be honest, I don't even know what set is currently being printed in Standard. I know Lorwyn is coming back but I don't know what the current one is right now.
My local Walmart and Target stopped stocking MTG due to rampant theft. Even our LGS deals primarily online for most products.
The cost is too expensive. The time is too limited. The constant shift in mechanics is too abrupt.
To me, personally, it killed the game. It was fun for a while but now everything is so daunting that it simply isn't worth the time.
And even if I wanted to spend well over $1,000 on a Commander deck, with barely playable mechanics and chase cards, I don't even have the time to play.
I am exhausted from spending my hard earned money to sit down at a table and be insulted and screamed at for not "optimizing" my deck, or not having foils, or not having specific art, or for having a Universes Beyond card that "Isn't legal", or keeping up with ban lists, or listening to people fight over identity.
I'm done. I've been done. I haven't played in basically two years, if not more.
Universes Beyond wasn't the final nail in the coffin. It was the six feet of dirt that buried it for me. All of these problems existed before UB and SL, but the widespread arguing and fighting over UB cards killed it for me.
It's a game. At the end of the day, it's a f---ing game. And people scream and yell and curse and throw things in person over it. I've seen fights. Arguments. Frustration.
I've seen decks thrown off the table. I've seen grown ass men pick fights with literal highschool teenagers. I've seen police involved.
And then, reports trying to tell officers that their deck cost $1,600 and the damage makes it a felony and officers scoff at it because "it's just cardboard".
Even my most beloved set of all time, Tarkir, I didn't even buy a single booster pack for.
It's just simply too much.
I'm done.
January 8, 2026 9:27 p.m. Edited.
legendofa Yes I think in this case there is a balance to be tread between running a profitable business and commitment to a creative vision. Don't forget that magic was a massive success almost from its inception, and at that time they could do (and did) pretty much whatever they wanted creatively. The original CEO and team cared a great deal about the integrity of the game not just as a product but foremost as a game. At the same time they weren't afraid to take bold design risks and put a lot of personality into the cards. I think it was in large part this creative freedom along with the personal investment the designers had in their work that gave us such a compelling and high quality game.
When you say "the integrity of the game is profit" well that's exactly right, profit has always mattered but when maximizing profit means cutting corners/selling out that puts it in tension with the creators' vision of delivering a high quality and cohesive fantasy card game, to make the best card game ever made and nothing less. Lately hasboro/wotc have tipped the balance way towards profit with NO holds barred when it comes to respecting the OG vision or quality benchmark. When the current regime makes choices that betray the vision of the creators, you have to ask: Was this necessary for them to keep MTG afloat? Sure making a little extra money is great, but I think that UB and the related design and aesthetic shifts are particularly egregious marks against what Richard Garfield originally intended for Magic. And I don't think any of it was necessary whatsoever to keep what was already the world's most popular card game afloat.
So if you aren't full heartedly for it, I don't think you should be a "UB accepter." Like you said, players vote with their wallets and there are tons of players out there just sluuurping up the nu-mtg koolaid, so I think it's important for those of us who loved what mtg was to be vocal about it, stop buying new cards, abstain from events, and so forth so that the company might actually feel some of the negative impacts of their choices. Because there are negative impacts, even if their pocket book doesn't say so, printing unending bland and unaesthetic cards into every format makes all our formats bland and unaesthetic. People get fed up bored and burnt out. Play with proxies, play online for free, never give hasboro money or otherwise legitimize their greedy decision making blah blah etc. etc. thanks love ya muah
January 8, 2026 9:34 p.m.
capwner Here I venture into speculation, but I don't think Richard Garfield's really been involved, or much cares about the current state of the game. He made it, he sold it, he showed up to help develop a few sets, he moved on. And I do know for sure that the "original vision" didn't include netdecking, rarity markers, sales of single cards, set previews, or anything else that would reveal information about a card before you see it in action. The "original vision" was that you learn about cards from playing the game, and cards like Black Lotus would be basically urban legends. Keyforge, a more recent game from Dr. Garfield, literally assigns you a deck and prohibits any modifications to that deck, because he considered the ready availability of copiable tournament deck lists and an established meta to be against his "original vision".
I'm pretty much boycotting other divisions of WotC; I have completely and actively ignored D&D 2024 and found alternatives, because it's gone in directions I don't agree with. And I've dialed my M:tG purchases way back; I'm buying maybe a few singles and draft entries a year, and I'm pro-proxy.
What, specifically, did you love about M:tG before UB? You describe the effects of everything post-UB as bland and low quality. What do you consider as exciting and high quality from the past? Do you consider players who have joined the game in the UB era, or because of UB, to be serious and knowledgeable players?
January 8, 2026 11:18 p.m.
Re: What, specifically, did you love about M:tG before UB? You describe the effects of everything post-UB as bland and low quality. What do you consider as exciting and high quality from the past?
Not everything new has been bland/low quality but there has been a strong trend in that direction. There are individual cards and pieces of design from recent times I really loved, MH3 was a high point and even LOTR I thought was mostly well done the only thing I wasn't really into was the race swapping, which felt to me like putting corporate interests and virtue signaling over the sanctity of the source material.
What do I love about magic? What do I miss? Well I just love the design of the game and how it enables our own creativity and expression as deckbuilders and players. This is all still here and that's why I still play. I miss how clean and consistent the aesthetic used to be. I miss it looking/feeling like actual fantasy not fortnite. And I miss how diverse and full of interesting strats the metas were. I think gameplay suffers as the "fire design" philosophy continues, as cards get more efficient and curves get lower players basically have to run more of the new cards to stay competitive. Decks that don't want generic, valuey cards (read: more wacky synergy or combo based decks) lose their edge as goodstuff/midrange strats that do want generic bodies and removal continue to improve with better selection every set, leading to homogenization of metas into these modern horizons goodstuff piles. Especially in EDH where builders have access to every staple ever. Today I see a lot fewer crazy sleeper cards that make me go 'woah, wtf is that card,' because a lot of the cool deck specific tech we used to have room for is now just filled up with rhystic, t pro, jeska's, one ring, and only room for a handful of your own spice on top. That's what I mean when I say bland, I'm mostly talking about fire design.
And idk what I can tell you about new players I would assume there are very many of them who are all very different and it sure seems like they like the UB. I hope some will get deeper into the game try 60 card formats and look for cool old legends and build interesting decks out of them.
January 9, 2026 12:52 a.m.
When UB first started, I was not a fan - it probably did not help that the first UB release was for The Walking Dead, a franchise whose popularity I find inexplicable.
But then Warhammer came out, and I started out skeptical. But then I got to talking with some of my friends and fellow folks at the game store. Their excitement for the product was infectious and started to change my mind.
That was followed by Lord of the Rings, the first UB set for a property I was a fan of (talking “full set of first editions of the core five books” level of fan). Wizards knocked it out of the park and created one of the best designed sets in the game’s history. Mechanically fun, both for draft and constructed (and though it had its broken cards, so did every other set designed as a Modern Horizons product). Fantastic art direction with some beautiful cards. Great adaptation of the characters and story.
And it was pretty clear going to the game store I was not the only person excited - the game store was packed with players, many of whom were either new or drawn back into the game (some after a decade or more) because of LotR. At which point I realized “okay, maybe fantasy-based UB products like 40k and LotR are not so bad at all.”
Marvel again raised my suspicions, given its distinctly different vibe than traditional fantasy (though I would posture that superheroes are still a fantasy genera). But one of my best friends and his toddler were extremely excited about seeing cards (or at least art for the younger one), of characters like Black Panther and Miles Morales. It is pretty hard to stay mad at something that is bringing a big smile to a toddler’s face.
After my own journey, I’ve sort of come to the conclusion that “purity of the game” is just another form of gatekeeping the hobby. At this point, the near totality of players I interact with who are militantly anti-UB are the worse members of our community - the kind of player who only cares for their own happiness and often is exclusionary, both of other players and, far too often, in other aspects of life. Conversely, nearly every person I have seen who is excited about a particular UB product is radiating warmth and delight. I would much rather have that second kind of player in the hobby than many of the first. This is a game, and the primary purpose is having fun - not gatekeeping, not respecting some esoteric concept of “purity”, having fun.
——
That is my personal journey into acceptance of UB, and realization that maybe I was kind of being a jerk when I was more adamantly against it. But let us now talk about some realities.
Magic is doing better than ever. More people are playing than at any point in the game’s history. Sets continue to set records. Game stores have largely gotten out of the financial slump they had been in for well over a decade. And the data heavily indicates that UB is a major driver of this - the best selling sets of all time have been things like Final Fantasy and LotR.
Contrary to assertions, the data seems to show UB is doing exactly what it should be - bringing people into the game who are interested in that property, and then showing them the game is enjoyable enough that they stick around.
Next, let us address the “UB is mechanically bad” argument - an argument I would suggest is complete fiction. LotR and Final Fantasy are both regarded as some of the most mechanically interesting and fun sets in the game’s history - it is not just the IP that drove the sales, but the fact they were legitimately a blast to play in draft and had interesting cards to build around.
And, sure, Spider-Man was a mechanical mess - but that is not because it is UB, but because it was originally a smaller set they pivoted on design to a larger one, resulting in some messy and rushed card designs.
And it is not like universes within are immune to flops. Innistrad Midnight Hunt. Thunder Junction. Murders at Karlov Manor. Aetherdrift. Sets failing is not a universes beyond problem - the best sets recently have been UB sets, and some of the worst have been UW. Sometimes designs just do not work out.
——
To conclude, is UB destroying the game in the short term? No. The overwhelming data suggests it is not only popular and helping drive the game’s sales, but that it is actually driving an interest in the Universes Within lore.
Is it resulting in poorly designed sets? Not anymore than Universes Within, particularly with the string of UW flops we have had recently.
Will it destroy the game long term? I do not have a crystal ball, but there is no indication it will, and even some indication it will result in greater interest in the game and its lore long-term.
And did it take me a while to reach a stage of acceptance where I realized maybe there are more important things in the world than telling people “your way of having fun is polluting the purity of my fun?” Sure - and I am much happier for it. Magic is a game, a hobby, a distraction from some of the truly horrific things I see at work. I can either choose to get upset about something silly like “the game’s purity” or I can go out with my friends, turn some cards sideways, and have a laugh.
I know what I see as the clear right answer.
January 9, 2026 9:46 a.m.
hyalopterouslemur says... #13
Honestly? Short term, good. More money for WotC. Long term, bad. What happens if a deal falls through?
January 9, 2026 10:12 a.m.
I think people always forget what Maro always says about the people that actually buy MTG products regularly, that 75% of these people almost exclusively play kitchen table MTG.
Do I like/want to play UB? No it's really not my jam, even with IPs I like like ATLA. But my opinion, like a lot of the people on this site, is just a very small drop in the bucket. A lot of people are buying these products and taking them home to play. ALTA and Final Fantasy were the two best selling sets of the year. I understand the bummer of a feeling that the game you love is changing into something else, but it's popular and making them a lot of money so that means it is here to stay. And that means MTG can continue, even if it looks different.
To those who don't like UB - I can't recommend proxying and making your own "in universe" cards enough, it's actually pretty fun.
That being said, I hope they are learning from the spiderman set cause OOF that was bad.
January 9, 2026 11:01 a.m.
ork_mcgork says... #15
Toothpast is out of the tube as it were, for better or worse. It does lead to the "fortnite-ification" of the game and that hurts but it's selling. Even Spiderman has sold even though it was a spider-flop. They'd need several stinkers in a row to slow down on it.
Best bet is to just ignore it and find linke-minded folks to play with who also ignore it. Not the best answer but only so much you can do!
January 9, 2026 11:24 a.m.
theNeroTurtle says... #16
hyalopterouslemur, it isn't even about a deal falling through. My thought is that creating new cards with new mechanics and stories over time will become watered down by the UB sets, making care creatures lazy. And when it comes to IU sets, over time, due to laziness, the sets will digress downward in quality.
January 10, 2026 1:16 a.m.
theNeroTurtle says... #17
SaberTech, when it comes to sideling "lore", they used to print books that told stories about what was happening IU between each tribe and what Urza was doing among all of that. That is gone forever. Now, we just glean story from looking at the flavor text for the most part.
January 10, 2026 1:19 a.m.
theNeroTurtle says... #18
capwner, appearance in MtG is over. The amount of Ai flaws found in the Ninja Turtle set was pathetic.
January 10, 2026 1:21 a.m.
Crow_Umbra says... #19
Theres a book that connects to the upcoming Strixhaven set. Although the books have been gone for a while, there are still digital stories with each premier set that's Universes Within. The story isn't mostly in flavor texts.
January 10, 2026 1:39 a.m.
theNeroTurtle - The rumors of TMNT having AI are false - the artist came out and provided information showing their work and design process, confirming that they were not created by AI. This was firmly a case of some people didn’t like the art, so they just lazily accused it of being AI without any actual evidence.
TappedOut will not tolerate misinformation on this point - it is not fair to slander an artist just because you do not like their style. That kind of misinformation that could hurt another’s career is against the site’s terms and conditions and could result in action being taken against you account.
——
Moving on to your substantive point about the game’s modern art not caring about appearance, we are literally in the middle of a spoiler season that has been absolutely full of gorgeous art, much of which is a clear callback to early Magic artists like Rebecca Guay. Every single day this past week, Wizards disproved this argument.
Between this and the fact that you missed the fact Wizards got a big name author to publish an upcoming Magic book, I am questioning whether your issue might be that you are not paying that much attention to the game? Or are only paying attention to the negatives, while ignoring the fact that Wizards keeps churning out the very things you profess you like about the old school game.
January 10, 2026 2:17 a.m. Edited.
@theNeroTurtle I actually own a number of those older MtG novels. I enjoyed seeing how the authors tried to interpret the mechanics of the game into a more traditional magic system that worked better for a written story. I think that my favourite one is Arena by William R. Forstchen.
Like others have mentioned, after WotC stopped regularly publishing novels they did start posting short story chapters on the main MtG website. They helped to fill the void of the missing novels a bit but in my view the stories were often a little lacking. The stories about the New Phyrexia invasion of the multiverse were pretty rough to go through. They read like the whole writing project was rushed and that there wasn't much creative oversight. You could see it in how the corruptive power of the Phyrexian oil varied between the different stories, as though all the different authors weren't on the same page as to how it worked.
I haven't really read the stories that have come out since the invasion, so that's on me. Perhaps I would have a better appreciation of the underlying story connections between the sets if I did. I've picked up snippets of the lore here and there, and there is what is shown on the cards too, but I still think that from what I have read the story is meandering a lot.
Thunder Junction got the ball rolling with Jace and Loot but you can't really tell what the whole deal is from the cards alone. Murders at Karlov Manor seemed like a weird detour. Bloomburrow didn't really seem to link up its story (I still liked the set though). Duskmourn kind of started to get things on track with more recognizable characters playing bigger roles. Aetherdrift got focus back on Chandra and Loot pops up again. Tarkir apparently sees the return of Nicol Bolas (who's missing his memory) but that doesn't really get explored in the cards. Edge of Eternities was mostly its own thing except that Tezzeret also happened to be there. If there has been a unifying story connecting the sets then it has been told mostly through the online short stories because you don't really see it through the cards of the various sets.
I'm just not sure what the plan is for the game's story once this current story arc concludes. The planeswalker characters seem to be getting phased out of being the main narrative focus of the game. I'm not sure how WotC is going to center the story again.
January 10, 2026 3:46 a.m.
theNeroTurtle says... #22
Crow_Umbra, was totally unaware of the digital content IU. Awesome.
January 10, 2026 12:10 p.m.
theNeroTurtle says... #23
Caerwyn would love to see said art. please, do share.
January 10, 2026 12:12 p.m.
Here is a Reddit post made by the artist showing the various stages of their creation of the art alleged to be AI. The artist explicitly requested this information be shared as widely as possible to clear their name of the malicious attacks against them.
January 10, 2026 12:42 p.m.
KermitWizard says... #25
too many comments to read at the momemt, but if not said already, my opinion is that UB is really good for bringing in new players, but there is not enough control criteria for which IPs that will be included as UB.
There should be clearer inclusion criteria to maintain a clear match between the theme of the UB IP and the broader theme of Magic. Star Trek doesnt make sense, and neither does TMNT. LOTR made lots of sense, and was a natural partnership. Game of Thrones, that would be cool. I think Star Wars actually would be a better fit than Star Trek, because Star Wars is essentially space fantasy.
But, there should be implementation guidelines, for when an UB IP stretches the inclusion criteria, to at least make an attempt to make sense of how a UB connects to Magic's multiverse. If they worked hard to showcase the magic aspects of the Star Trek universe, which can be found, that would be helpful.
There seems to be no control and no attempt to connect UB IPs and Magic in a logical sense. It is jarring sometimes.
January 10, 2026 2:57 p.m.
theNeroTurtle says... #26
KermitWizard, exactly my take away (no attempt)
legendofa says... #2
Pretty much copying my last post from the other thread, and adding some more thoughts. This is a discussion I've been having with some other people. TL;DR: Different people want different things from the game, and UB runs against some of the things people want, but I believe it's a net positive.
Ultimately, it comes down to what someone's priorities are. If you hold the integrity of the story as more important than the appearance of the cards, you probably won't like UB. And that's not really a bad thing by itself. But if you like the idea of your favorite franchises interacting within a comprehensive game framework, or even simply seeing your favorite franchise in your favorite game, UB could be the best thing ever. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that either. And if you don't care about what the cards represent, and see most of their value as mechanical elements in a strategy game with no deeper story than a game of poker, you probably won't care one way or another about UB. And again, that's a valid perspective. The point is that there are different ways to enjoy the game, and everyone will have a different idea of what's important and worth protecting.
Universes Beyond won't destroy the game. WotC is still committed to creating their own material. On the idealistic side, creative teams want to create, not adapt. That's why they joined the company. On a more cynical side, WotC wants to control its own M:tG IP and finances, and have a product line that doesn't involve losing profits on licensing fees or having another company watching over their shoulder. Corporations like making money and independence and don't like supervision and giving away money.
This next section is taking some official and semi-official WotC and designer statements as face value, since I don't have any easy way to fact-check it. Apparently UB is bringing in more people, who then stay to learn about the in-universe stuff, than it's driving away. By, like, orders of magnitude. M:tG is growing faster than ever, and has a larger player base than ever. I don't like that Universes Beyond sets outnumbered in-universe sets this year, but I accept that it's a one-time emergency occurrence. If Star Trek tanks in comparison to Edge of Eternities, UB will probably start to pull back a little bit. If it doesn't tank, there's no reason to stop, since that's A. what the consumer base wants and B. what's making them money.
Some people see the aesthetics as clashing. In some cases, I agree, but that's subjective taste, not objective fact.
For my part, I think the removal of blocks hurt the game. Planes are now underdeveloped and shallow, serving only as backdrops for whoever the plane-hopping protagonist of the moment is. I don't dislike Thunder Junction because "everyone's playing cowboy". I dislike it because it doesn't make sense to me. There's a plane that all the villains of the multiverse somehow know about, with literally no history or relevance, and they turn it into a resort for evil with full infrastructure, legal system, unique culture, etc. within a few months of finding it. They cowboy aesthetic doesn't bother me. The lack of context and story does. The block system allowed planes to breathe and feel like they had a real history and sense of place. And now that's gone, because the player base at large rejected it. For me, the game lost something.
I mention that because how people feel about UB, that's the way I feel about single set planes. It makes it less interesting, less cohesive, less like M:tG. And to wrap up this overly long post, what I think is important, what anyone else thinks is important, and what the player base at large thinks is important all differ. And you can either work to change it within your group, accept that it's not exactly how you want it, or take a step away and work on a different hobby for a while.
January 8, 2026 5:59 p.m. Edited.