added subsequently: I've spent some time looking over the spoiler & thinking about the draft archetypes, & while I'm still disappointed in the set in terms of the cards it makes available, I have to say that it does look like it is going to be pretty fun to draft. Around 1/3 or more of the cards have made it to one of the official cubes or another, & when you consider that quite a few of these are common or uncommons, so available in multiples, it does look pretty high-powered & with some fun archetypes to draft.

The point was that people get hung up on what other people are winning with. So ban the thing they win with until some time later and make it hard to game around. Unambiguity. And according to Kuma's post below the changeling keyword does not (ugh fingers) make them part of the banned group so that settles that question. Not so ludicrous now but still unambiguous. In any event, it is moot since the rule's been stated as done for now. *shrugs*

I have to agree with you, Pete, regarding Eternal Masters. I understand that satisfying both the paper and online audiences makes it a difficult prospect, as does creating a set that intervenes in a useful way into the eternal format secondary market, while also making those formats more playable. But I am clearly not alone in having been very excited at first, only to greet the full spoiler with disappointment. These sets have gone up and down, though I think in general, since these sets aren't redeemable anyway, the sets that have been online-only have fared better than the paper/online ones--with the exception of MM1, which set a high bar.

As it is, except for the efficiency in product development, I'm not sure I see the value in doing these as joint paper/online releases if they are going to be so generally useless for online play due to paper considerations (and less so, though still a bit, the reverse). Not sure I know what the solution to that is, though.

So you would ban any Human winner from playing with Cockatrices (or any of 13 other sucky tribes) since that would require Changelings with the Human type in it. This rule is getting ludicrous.

For what it's worth this was my preferred suggestion that I had sent (slightly edited to avoid ambiguity): 1) that we should define Primary and Secondary Tribes, using his rules f1-f3 on the main rules page (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gFKhJtWCl6Yo82Ez0d_N4Iq58ruqfQWY...), and then appropriately blocking usage of humans as a Primary or Secondary Tribe during the lockout.

To do this, I would first add a new rule f4 on the main rules page under Tribal Identity. It would state: "Once a tribe has been identified as the Primary Tribe under rules f1-f3 above, for any registered deck that contains additional creature types that comprise at least half (50%) of the number of creature types of the Primary Tribe, the most common additional creature type is designated as the Secondary Tribe."

[Players Lockout rule]: "Whenever a Top Player ends undefeated with a deck featuring Humans as the Primary or Secondary Tribe, that player may not use Humans as a Primary or Secondary Tribe for the remainder of the lockout period. This rule does not apply to Underdog events."

The player lockout rule would be short and simple, but if he wants to use 10 instead of 50% for ease of hosting purposes, I have no problem with that.

Thanks for the heads up! I'll take a look into it.

Two other thoughts:

1) Could you please give a quick note as to the rule's retroactivity regarding current lockouts?
2) Under the rule, given either interpretation (lockout or full ban) any person who wins with Humans (and maybe 50% humans) is prohibited from playing the following three tribes in Underdog - Mystic, Pirate, and Werewolf - since those do not have 3+ non-human members online. Other tribes, such as Advisor, are severely compromised as well (Advisors only as 4 non-humans, all-legends, and if Changelings count as Humans, Advisors would also be eliminated under the ban theory).

So, as written, if I win with Humans one week, according to this rule, I can still use Wizards (etc.) next week. But not vice-versa. Also, if I win with Wizards one week, I can still play Clerics next week, as long as there are more Clerics than Humans in my deck. Both situations seem counterintuitive to your stated goals. Is that what you want? Perhaps the rule could be rewritten more clearly. Edit: unless by "lockout" and "banned," you mean different things; in that case, you're saying that a decklist during the lockout period must contain exactly ZERO humans.

Planeswalker Decks are confirmed, Commander is almost guaranteed (whether it'll be the decks themselves or something else like the LCPPs is unconfirmed at this point), and if anything relevant to Constructed (like Council's Judgement) is in Conspiracy it needs to get on MTGO somehow. Given infinite time I say they should put Conspiracy 1, Conspiracy 2, and Commander 2016 stuff in the new LCPP equivalent around C16's release, then use Stifle/Exploration/Misdirection to sell it.

You say overworking the MTGO developers isn't a problem, but in addition to all the cardsets they're working on, they also need to make new features (Leagues have been in development while they were coding all of this), and there's whatever that new Digital Initiative is supposed to be. That's a lot, and since Wizards/Hasbro refuses to spend (enough) money in that area, that's a concern.

Yeah, it really is two sets: the Modern commons/uncommons and the Eternal rares/mythics. I talk about that a lot in my EMA article (which will hopefully go up early next week, as it's finally done on my end).

I'm not happy by the lack of focus towards MTGO reprints either (though they weren't completely ignored: Xantid Swarm, Winter Orb, and Ashnod's Altar at uncommon are all relevant, as are all the Pauper reprints). The problem is that they can't control supply on MTGO for Eternal Masters (though presumably they'll communicate "it's only 3 weeks, minus when it'll come back for Worlds testing purposes" a lot more clearly than they did for Vintage Masters--that's a lot of the reason why a lot of these cards are as low as they are), and they clearly don't want a Doomsday or Rishadan Port to lose 50%+ of its value. Everything else that was high-priced had already taken a hit on MTGO (through Vintage Masters, Tempest Remastered, or the LCPPs). There's also the lack of new-to-MTGO cards (only Extract Into Darkness), though that might be partially excused by not wanting to overwork MTGO developers (four expansion sets, the Planeswalker decks have more new cards, Commander 2016 will have a bunch of new cards, and presumably something related to Conspiracy 2 will be printed on MTGO).

However, a lot of the things you're asking for are just plain unrealistic. Sure, something like Fyndhorn Elves over Llanowar Elves is an easy change, but let's look at some of the other things you're complaining about:
Pacifism: What other white removal spell *at common* that's an enchantment do you want (as Faith's Fetters is already at uncommon)? Recumbent Bliss is the only realistic option you listed that is both reasonable for common, fits with the set, and doesn't overlap with Faith's Fetters (and they still overlap a bit with lifegain). Kirtar's Desire is close, but white doesn't have a Threshold theme.

Duress: Again, you're filling a slot at common--Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek are too powerful for the slot (and Inquisition is a Modern-staple anyway, something Wizards wasn't focusing on here). However, there are more options here. I had Deception in the "black common discard" slot in my design (a new-to-MTGO card), but how about a Blackmail downshift, or even Tendrils of Despair to go with BR Sacrifice?

Fog: This is one I agree with you with--Moment's Peace might be too strong in GU Threshold, but Lull is an obvious choice, even if you don't want to get adventurous with Deep Wood or Undergrowth.

Serra Angel: As bad as this reprint looks, it's one that's hard to replace if you want a premium white uncommon (as shown by you suggesting Avenging Angel, a card on the Reserved List). Of your other choices, Shepard of the Lost is probably too good in GW Enchantments (and with all the pump like Thunderclap Wyvern in WU Fliers), and other choices either don't fit the set or are too weak for uncommmon.

For them not supporting the conventions I think cuts in spending have been coming. People screamed when they were cutting things for the pros so those cuts went elsewhere if they were not already going to be cut. If they were going to already be cut then expect more someplace else. Also the law suits over the judges will probably cause other cuts and changes.

For me it seems they are repeating mistakes made before. With MM1, which was an amazing draft set, they did most things correct except for having so many worthless mythics and having such a small print run. They seemed to learn those two lessons in MM2 but made the mistake of basically no value in anything but mythics, and especially no value in commons and uncommons. Also personally MM2 was not that fun of a format. With this they seem to follow MM1 more showing they forgot the two lessons. I also loved Vintage Masters and for a while this set seemed like it was going to follow that set closely except for the obvious reserved list cards. They even had some nice pauper inclusions this time too. Then the final spoiler deviated from VM hard and I was sad. We shall see how this set drafts out but I felt they had a really great blueprint in Vintage Masters to follow and should have followed it.

I also have a feeling a lot of the reprints people were hoping for are going to be in the conspiracy set as well. That had a lot of good reprints last time. Sadly it will not be online so expect to see some of those highly expensive online cards in that set.

I have been liking the flash back drafting this year but I find I really wish it was swiss rather than single elimination. Not sure if I have gotten worst or everyone else have gotten better, probably both, but I have had a lot of first round bounces in those and it feels kind of bad. Especially on sets I never played before and if I happen to draw all my lands and lose I don't get a feel for the format or know if I drafted really wrong or just had bad draws. Hopefully next year they have more but include the Masters Edition sets, Vintage Masters, and possibly some new Masters set which can bring more cards online that are not there already and boost up some of the cards that get reprinted in other products which are not online.

RE: Reprints...I suspect this is all about nostalgia and branding. I don't like it either but hey it's WOTC.

About 'saltmining' ...Mill is one of the archetypes that generates more than average salt because even though it is generally fair (and unaggressive at that) it keeps people from playing their favorite cards. And it is an alternative win-con that negates removal strategies and such. Extractions, etc heighten the feeling of helplessness involved in fighting such decks. So even when a person WINS against such a deck they feel it was unfair to have to face it. Your opponent was definitely a poor sport and probably not a nice/good person to begin with. But, he had some small provocation.

I thought WotC ran Gen Con. Who is running it now?