Modern Horizons Announced
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Feb. 28, 2019, 8:33 p.m. by CastleSiege
A new Modern-legal set, skipping Standard.
Official previews start at the end of May.
Releases June 14, 2019.
Draft pre-release weekend: June 8-9.
254 card set, all of which are new to the Modern format. All reprints are of cards that are not currently Modern-legal.
Buy-a-Box promo will be a reprint.
MTGO price will be $6.99 per pack.
Many new cards will be throwbacks to old cards or characters from the lore (see the two spoilers from today).
Sources:
Official Modern Horizons Announcement
Magic | WeeklyMTG - Modern Horizons
February 28 Spoilers:
What character do you think is featured here?
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #2
PlatinumOne Shivan Wumpus is legal in modern and is Argothian Wurm color-shifted.
I don't know if I would play Dust Bowl over Field of Ruin . You can't use Dust Bowl until turn 4, which is really late vs tron.
March 7, 2019 11:47 a.m.
I'm a Land Destruction fan too, and hoping for something like ...
As an aside, Shivan Wumpus is terrible in Modern. When ahead, it's just a win-more, and when behind, our opponent is more than happy to sac' a land, ruin out next draw, and keep beating face.
March 7, 2019 12:37 p.m.
APPLE01DOJ says... #4
A card I'd really like to see brought to modern is Planar Void . With both Leyline & Surgical Extraction around 50$ a pop we really need some accessible grave hate.
I can't imagine it would stir too much commotion balance-wise.
March 7, 2019 6 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #5
then its time to abolish the reserved list. i see no valid reason for keeping it when there are cards on it that would be perfectly healthy for the Modern format.
March 7, 2019 7:42 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #6
ToolmasterOfBrainerd: yes i realize this already, but i want to use both.
clayperce: Shivan Wumpus is actually pretty sweet when you're playing it turn 2 or 3.
March 7, 2019 7:45 p.m.
PlatinumOne - I do not think Wizards' lawyers will allow them to remove the Reserve List. There are legal implications to making promises if others rely upon said promises. In this case, a large number of people have made investment purchases in reliance on Wizards' promise that the cards would never be reprinted.
Removing the Reserve List would open Wizards to a lawsuit. They may win the suit (I practice a different area of law, so I am not clear on the specific nuances of this legal principle or on what defenses Wizards would have at their disposal), but, even with a victory, there would likely be high litigation costs and brand tarnishment.
There might be some advantages to the game for removing the Reserve List, but the overall risks and costs are not worth the potential profit. A much better, and legally safer, option is to print substantially similar or slightly better cards that preserve the sanctity of the Reserve List, but provide access to some of the unique abilities found on these old cards.
March 7, 2019 7:59 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #8
cdkime: wotc is under no legal obligation to keep the reserved list. the value of a "collectors" cards just arent relevant if they don't plan to sell those cards. doesn't matter if its $1 or $1,000, its cardboard either way. wotc has the rights to their cards, not the collectors. and considering how pretty much nobody wants the reserve list, i really think there would be zero "brand tarnishment". if anything it'd be the opposite. the value of cards will always fluctuate. thats just the nature of the game. wotc can't just cave to every player who gets a bit upset because a card is now worth less than what they paid for it.
March 7, 2019 8:05 p.m.
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts (the restatements are basically summaries of different aspects of law, so they're not legally binding, but give a general idea of the "average" law for various U.S. jurisdictions) defines promissory estoppel as follows:
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.
Applying that here:
-
The reserve list is clearly a promise.
-
Wizards should reasonably expect people will purchase cards specifically to collect them due to the lack of reprints.
-
While the promise was not directly to another person, players would still count as "third persons" under the rule set forth in the Restatement.
-
Action was induced.
-
Removing the Reserve List would result in damages (drop in costs would be a damage, despite what you think--that's a fundamental principle in a wide range of legal issues). Now, the person might have to actualize the damage--i.e. sell the card and show they had a drop in value as a result of Wizards' breaking the promise.
-
Monetary damages would be the appropriate remedy in such a situation.
Now, that's just a general rule, and does not go into the nitty gritty issues that come with the interpretation and application of such a rule. As I stated earlier, Wizards probably has some form of defense, but that does not mean they are going to risk a potential lawsuit.
However, the last time I had to do anything with promissory estoppel was before I passed the Bar Exam, so I could very well be applying the rule incorrectly. I would welcome a real citation, such as a case or statute, that proves me wrong--your mere conjecture, on the other hand, I find unconvincing.
March 7, 2019 8:38 p.m.
I want Form of the Squirrel . If I can't have that, I want Baleful Strix . If I can't have either... I wanna say I won't buy anything from the set... but I'm sure at least one commander bomb will be in there that I just HAVE to have.
March 7, 2019 9:27 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #11
cdkime: that doesn't actually mean anything. the value of a card dropping isn't an "injustice" or "damage". i wouldn't call it "conjecture" to say that wotc owns the rights to their products. thats not conjecture, thats fact. value for the sake of value is meaningless. i think any judge that actually respects the time of any person who works in the legal field in any capacity, would laugh a case like this right out of court. someone comes into a courtroom saying "(insert company name) promised not to make any more (insert product they never intended to sell anyway) so that its value would stay high, then they did it anyway" would just be wasting everyones time and money. i really don't think a bunch of average joe collectors could hope to afford the same kind of lawyers wotc could, and wotc knows this.
March 7, 2019 10:37 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #12
Stifle would be interesting in modern. Probably too powerful, but wow how I'd love to have it. I think I just want it because of how good it is against Tron.
A friend of mine pointed out that Portent might be balanced enough for modern. It doesn't draw on the same turn so it's not very good for storm. It really just helps control (miracles) and delver. Given storm is the usual reason people don't want better blue cantrips, I think it's a possibility.
March 8, 2019 12:45 a.m.
PlatinumOne there's a big difference between "legal" and "sensible". Courts follow laws and uphold them, whether the laws seem fair and "just" or not. If there are legal grounds for the secondary card market to leverage a law suit against WotC, a law-suit will be had. And unless you can show me that there is NO way at all that violating the reserve list could be a considered a legal infringement, someone WILL sue, regardless of whether or not it seems dumb to sue because "the big bad company broke a promise, wah wah wah".
March 8, 2019 1:29 p.m. Edited.
PlatinumOne says... #14
DuTogira: they can sue all they want, but they'd have no grounds. if people could sue because something they bought went down in value, stock holders would be suing companies every day.
March 8, 2019 3:21 p.m.
PlatinumOne not quite. Stock is a %share of a company, and the value of the company is relative to how consumers view that company. Magic cards are static entities, (not %shares), although their value IS relative to supply/demand like any consumer good.
Here’s the difference: companies never promise their stock won’t go down. They never even promise that the value of their product will never depreciate. Why? Because breaking that promise could get them in legal trouble.
WotC is one of only a few companies that have ever made a promise to its consumers with massive financial ramifications.
Again, please, if I’m wrong, show me one, just one instance of a company promising that it’s product will retain a certain value, violating that promise, and not getting sued into the shadow realm.
March 8, 2019 9:31 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #16
DuTogira: i'd argue that the burden of proof is on you, to show me a company that has.
March 8, 2019 9:41 p.m.
As an example: I have a package of bacon, which I bought from Walmart. Based on their ingredient list, they are promising that the bacon contains ONLY bacon and some mild preservatives.
Unknown to me, an AIDS afflicted employee bled on that bacon. Before I eat the bacon, you express an interest in it, but it from me, and eat it. You now have AIDS.
Do you sue me, or Walmart? Walmart of course, they sourced the bacon, and they made the original promise that it would only have bacon in it. But that’s all they did. Promise it’s just bacon (and not AIDS)... and then they broke that promise.
You could argue for the financial hardship the disease will cause, but a secondary card vendor like Star City Games could argue financial hardship if wizards violated the reserve list.
Here’s my point: company/consumer interactions are all promises, because consumers can’t be expected to double check companies on every single thing. Therefore, corporate lawsuits are, at their core, punishments for violating promises to consumers. You can’t just say “that claim is baseless because it’s dumb”. In Ohio it’s illegal to push goats out of consumer class planes, and you can bet your ass that if you push a goat out of a plane in Ohio and it hits someone, you’re getting sued. Dumb? Yes. Legal? Also yes. Those two concepts live in entirely different realms. For your own safety, get it out of your head that people can’t sue you for the absolute dumbest stuff. They can and they will.
March 8, 2019 9:42 p.m.
PlatinumOne here, from a quick google search:
A California mother sued Nutella, stating that she felt misled by the company and had been serving the sugary tidbit to her child without realizing its unhealthy ingredients. Apparently, rather than simply reading the nutritional label, she decided to put all her faith in the company’s advertisements, a decision that ended up costing Nutella over $3 million.
Nutella losing over $3 million for promising Nutella is healthy even though they also provide a nutritional label which proves otherwise. And Nutella didn’t even promise. They just advertised it in a way that suggested it was healthy.
March 8, 2019 9:44 p.m. Edited.
PlatinumOne says... #19
DuTogira: "secondary card vendor could argue financial hardship". thats not right. they just couldn't. no card vendor is relying on reserve list cards to make ends meet. and im not sure where you got the idea that people "couldn't sue". i actually said the opposite. i'm saying that nothing will come of it.
March 8, 2019 9:46 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #20
DuTogira: there are obviously vital details you are leaving out of your nutella story. the fact you acknowledge "nutella didn't even promise" is proof the comparison isn't even close to resembling the reserve list situation if the company that makes nutella actually lost 3 mill in that case, it was because of false advertising, not breaking a promise. its not the same.
bottom line, the reserve list needs abolished period. its just stupid to have a "reserve list" to "preserve the high value of cards" when most of those cards don't even have a high value to begin with. i can get an Argothian Wurm for $2.
March 8, 2019 9:51 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #21
mtggoldfish did an article about the legal implications of removing the reserved list. The article mostly explains the legal system and the laws in question, but it makes it pretty clear that there is legitimate legal risk for Wizards. It does imply that it would be a tough case for the suing party, but not downright silly. Bluster all you want about what you think about the reserved list and the legal implications, but I'm far more inclined to accept this legal expert's opinion on the matter.
March 9, 2019 12:58 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #22
I think that it is nonsensical that WotC will not be reprinting any cards that are already legal in modern in this set; that was such an arbitrary decision, in my mind, because reprints of the allied-colored filter lands, or any of the fetch lands, would be very nice (in addition to the cards that I previously mentioned).
March 9, 2019 1:32 a.m.
Slow Fetches, like Rocky Tar Pit aren't Modern Legal, but are still Fetches, or the old filter lands, like Darkwater Catacombs that are in the same boat, could help the colour fixing in modern without reprinting Fetches or Shocks.
March 9, 2019 9:02 a.m.
PlatinumOne says... #24
DemonDragonJ: so new things are bad because you want certain reprints? that doesn't make any sense. they can do reprints later. this is the first set of its kind so let it all be new.
March 9, 2019 1 p.m.
skittles541 says... #25
Is it just me, or does the back part of the artwork look like multani?
March 13, 2019 9:09 p.m.
skittles541 says... #26
It would be pretty neat if they introduced eldrazi multani
March 13, 2019 9:09 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #27
Ancient Spider would be a great reprint, preferably demoted to an uncommon.
Fire Covenant is a card that has been forgotten, but I feel that it would be great with new artwork.
March 16, 2019 1:55 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #28
Two other old cards that I would like to see reprinted are Cromat and Ertai, the Corrupted , as I am certain that they would look great in the new frame style.
March 26, 2019 9:18 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #29
I also think that Tempest Drake , Fungal Shambler , Sky Spirit , and Prophetic Bolt would be great to see in this set, as well.
March 28, 2019 8:50 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #30
DemonDragonJ: as fun as all of those cards may be in a casual setting, im not sure that they're quite on par with the power level of modern. the reprints they choose will need to be powerful cards if they want to sell packs that will have an impact on modern.
that being said, i think Spiritmonger could be strong enough to see modern play. cmc 5 dodges Fatal Push while being easy to ramp into, and its in the perfect color combo for mana ramp and interaction until you can cast it. at the very least, it would be an excellent addition to Heartless Summoning decks.
March 28, 2019 9:20 p.m.
Hi_diddly_ho_neighbor says... #31
PlatinumOne - Now that would be a blast from the past, but only if they bring back the O.G. Spiritmonger artwork.
March 28, 2019 9:40 p.m.
PlatinumOne says... #32
Hi_diddly_ho_neighbor: i already own a playset of Spiritmonger , all old artwork. i like the new artwork, but i started with 3 of the old artwork and found a vendor who had both new and old art. i like my stuff to match lol. i'll take that beast (pun intended) to FNM in a heartbeat if its reprinted.
March 28, 2019 11:47 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #33
PlatinumOne, I believe that Spiritmonger is too powerful for modern, since I highly doubt that WotC wishes for modern to become too similar to legacy.
I do, however, think that both Bind and Phyrexian Tyranny would be nice in this set, although WotC may be hesitant to introduce bind to modern, since it is a strong bend of the current color pie.
March 29, 2019 5 p.m.
The art is of Sorin presumably on Zendikar and thing he is in seems to be an elemental, so my guess is the Nissa finds and frees him from the stone Nahiri put him in.
March 29, 2019 7:32 p.m.
mymanpotsandpans says... #35
DemonDragonJ could you please explain why Spiritmonger is too prowerful for modern and would make it more like legacy?
March 30, 2019 12:38 a.m.
PlatinumOne says... #36
DemonDragonJ: looking at the list of top 50 most used creatures in legacy, Spiritmonger isn't on the list. can you show me a legacy deck that uses Spiritmonger ?
March 30, 2019 1:25 a.m.
Hi_diddly_ho_neighbor says... #37
WotC just spoiled a new squirrel lord that will be in this set AND there will be snow covered full-art lands...now I am interested.
May 19, 2019 6:01 p.m.
And they made a version of force of will they felt was okay for modern: 
May 19, 2019 6:43 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #39
Can't counter creatures. I'm pretty annoyed by that. Please let me counter Primeval Titan and Wurmcoil Engine . With Flusterstorm and this, I'm losing hope on getting Counterspell , which is what modern actually needs.
May 19, 2019 6:58 p.m.
Can we take a moment to discuss the name “force of negation”? RND literally combined
Force of Will
and
Negate
and just went “hey... force of negation!”
What a lazy name! And who picked that over “negation of will” given that this seems almost exclusively designed for counter wars
May 19, 2019 7:35 p.m. Edited.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #41
Heh, so true. Expect a lot of that from this set. Like Cabal Therapist.
I do appreciate that it's easy to hardcast. It's totally playable in a tempo deck. You can slam threats on your first 2 turns while keeping up permission, then switch over to hardcasting it and keeping up on card advantage. I don't know if tempo is actually playable in modern, but this will help.
May 19, 2019 7:56 p.m. Edited.
DemonDragonJ says... #42
Some of the new cards that have been revealed are quite nice, and I am glad that most of them are not too powerful, to avoid upsetting modern as a format, except for Flusterstorm , which I definitely believe should have been kept only for eternal formats.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd, I would prefer that the original Counterspell be kept only in eternal formats, so that they still feel special; I would rather not have modern become too similar to legacy.
Also, is it safe to call this set a spiritual successor to the Masters sets? It certainly looks and feels akin to that series.
May 19, 2019 9:12 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #43
I also am disappointed that the lands in this set are reprints of the snow-covered lands. Their artwork is very nice, but I really had been hoping for either enemy-colored versions of the "battle lands" from Battle for Zendikar or a complete cycle based off Nimbus Maze .
Seeing the artwork on those lands makes me wish that WotC could make a single exception to the reserved list to print full art textless promo versions of the original dual lands, likely as judge promos, because those would be amazing.
Also, the return of entwine and kicker make me very happy, because those are some of my favorite non-evergreen mechanics in this game.
May 19, 2019 9:30 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #44
I would have been fine leaving Flusterstorm in Eternal. Modern doesn't need it. It's good in Legacy because there are counter wars and combo decks which play counterspells to protect their combo. In modern there aren't enough instants or sorceries for it to matter.
My problem is that the counterspells in modern all suck. Creatures define the format, so a counterspell needs to be able to counter creatures. And the 2 most playable counterspells, Mana Leak and Logic Knot , are way too fragile. Tron and Titan can easily pay for their costs. Wurmcoil Engine , Thragtusk , and Primeval Titan are the threats which midrange decks struggle the most to deal with. And, from a color balance perspective, these cards are supposed to be soft to countermagic. Greedy expensive bombs should be balanced by their vulnerability to tempo plays. Counterspell would fix that problem instantly. Heck, counterspell still gets blown out of the water by Aether Vial and Cavern of Souls . It wouldn't be broken. It'd help balance.
Counterspell sees play in legacy, but not much. I'd say they are pushing the uniqueness of legacy with Force of Negation way more than they would with Counterspell . Force of Will and Brainstorm are the flavor of legacy.
May 19, 2019 9:33 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #45
On the flip side, it is really nice that Force of Negation can be used to aggressively counter Expedition Map and Sylvan Scrying . Who knows if it'll be enough for a tempo deck to actually beat tron, but at least it's something.
Tron is also running fewer creatures so they can play more Karns. From a tempo perspective, this is a very good thing.
May 20, 2019 12:56 a.m.
The new ice fang coatl l makes me think
Baleful Strix
is out of the running for a reprint...
May 20, 2019 8:46 a.m.
Hi_diddly_ho_neighbor says... #47
I have to say, while I love the fact that we are getting "snow covered lands matters" in this set, I am still a little bummed. I was really hoping they would've brought that mechanic back for the Viking themed plane that we are rumored to be going to in the future. I fear that seeing the mechanic here means we won't be getting it on that plane.
May 20, 2019 9:59 a.m.
ZendikariWol says... #48
That or it means the plane won’t be visited for a while.
May 20, 2019 10:54 a.m.
LittleBlueHero says... #49
I can finally make a Skeleton/Crocodile/Other obscure type commander deck!
May 20, 2019 11:29 a.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #50
saj0219 crap. Although, this card looks totally playable. It may not be in black, but maybe it can work? This, tarmogoyf, Snow-covered basics, force of negation, delver of secrets... It has only the snake for removal spells. And it probably can't be 3-color if it needs to procure 3 snow basics on turn 3. But maybe playing without removal spells is an opportunity in disguise. Cryptic command certainly thinks that you can hold off creatures without removal.
clayperce says... #1
cdkime,
Just for completeness: Pauper is another that could easily make the jump to "official" Eternal format
March 7, 2019 11:25 a.m.