At this point, it’s pretty well-known that March of the Machine: The Aftermath was one of the least successful sets in MTG’s history. In fact, according to head designer Mark Rosewater, Aftermath boosters are the lowest-scoring product since the team started doing market research where players rank products.
It’s undeniable March of the Machine: The Aftermath had many flaws. From the size of the booster packs to the quality of the story portrayed, this set was a flop by every metric. In spite of this, though, there’s a strong argument that Aftermath-style sets can actually be a good thing.
While we’re unlikely to see something similar to March of the Machine: The Aftermath in the near future, there are some unique benefits to crafting a set in this manner. Today, we’re going to discuss why Aftermath sets can actually be worthwhile every now and again. To kick things off, we need to take a look at exactly how Aftermath sets differ from traditional premier sets in the first place.
A Non-Draftable Group of Cards
March of the Machine: The Aftermath was unlike any past Magic set in a variety of different metrics. The set’s Epilogue Boosters, for example, were a stark change that many players despised. Unsuaul pack size and construction, however, were hardly the only elements making this set unique.
In total, March of the Machine: The Aftermath only contained 50 unique cards. Due to this, the set had no Limited environment at all. For Draft and Sealed fans, this is obviously a major downside. At the same time, however, this feature presented an interesting opportunity for other formats.
Without having to worry about curating a Limited environment, Aftermath sets have the opportunity to add some powerful options directly into Standard. The goal would be to give specific archetypes a buff where needed to help balance out the format.
March of the Machine: The Aftermath did bring some elite cards to Standard, such as Nissa, Resurgent Animist. The majority of the set’s cards, however, are unmemorable and didn’t fit with the format at large. It would take some careful planning from Wizards of the Coast, but adding some strong options, even if narrow, could help Standard over time.
For example, Pro Tour March of the Machine was dominated by Rakdos Fable decks, with Esper Raffine shells waiting in the wings. Both decks had been elite for quite a while, making the format feel a bit stale at times. While Fable of the Mirror-Breaker ended up getting banned, of course, it would have been nice to see March of the Machine: The Aftermath helping other strategies become competitive.
Ultimately, so many strong cards felt out of place. As good as Coppercoat Vanguard is, there wasn’t enough Human support to make it a real Standard threat most of the time. Having a more focused approach could be a major improvement for Aftermath sets, allowing them to flourish when appropriate in ways that typical premier sets couldn’t do.
Offering More to the Story
Another area where March of the Machine: The Aftermath fell short was with the story. In theory, the concept of splitting the story up into two parts makes a lot of sense. The Phyrexian invasion and the desparking of Planeswalkers can easily be spread across multiple sets. Without the existence of blocks, creating an Aftermath set to showcase the results of the invasion is a neat idea.
The problem this time around was with execution. Many players felt like the story lent itself to being two full sets. One should focus on the invasion, and the other the resolution. The Aftermath set was so small, and largely failed to highlight exactly how the events of the invasion affected the multiverse going forward.
Once again, though, there are a few ways to fix things to make an Aftermath set in the future be more intriguing. First things first, Wizards could delve more into the story in the primary premier set. Then, you can leave a cliffhanger that later gets resolved when the Aftermath set releases.
Imagine making an Aftermath set for Murders at Karlov Manor. The main set could easily set everything up, but leave us hanging about who the killer actually is. From there, an Aftermath set can serve as an epilogue that reveals the missing information.
It’s easy, in this instance, to then make cards that tie directly to this portion of the storyline. March of the Machine: The Aftermath fell short here, too. With a disjointed story, the new cards simply felt out of place to a lot of players.
Even something as simple as giving all the new cards flavor text would’ve been a nice step in the right direction. It’s unfortunate to see how poorly March of the Machine: The Aftermath performed because there’s still a lot of potential for an epilogue set to deliver on its promise.
Adjusting Additional Problems
At the end of the day, we’d be remiss if we didn’t talk about the biggest problem with March of the Machine: The Aftermath. This is, of course, the price of the Epilogue Boosters. Costing more than a typical booster while providing way fewer cards is a recipe for disaster.
It’s easy to say there should simply be more cards in each pack and more cards in the set. That takes extra time and resources in design, though, which may drive the price up further. Still, there are lessons to be learned from how the MTG Assassin’s Creed set was handled.
Having Aftermath sets would also mess with the number of Standard releases per year. That being said, having only one Aftermath set or so a year isn’t too outrageous. The objective would be to use an Aftermath set as a follow-up to a premier set where the story is both important to MTG lore and difficult to cram all at once.
Rather than feeling forced to split things into two full Standard sets, Wizards of the Coast can throw in an Aftermath set as a neat twist. From there, they can jump to another set with an entirely different design and range of mechanics without as much risk of backlash.
It may be a stretch, but we really feel like Aftermath sets can serve an important role moving forward. We’d love to see Wizards give things another shot with some improvements on the backend.
