Originally, my plan for this week was to sit down and talk at length about upgrading the second of the Edge of Eternities Commander decks. However, when I poked into my BlueSky feed on Monday, I quickly decided to change course.

Why, you may ask? Well, because of this post from the folks at EDHREC.com:

These are the top 10 worst Magic sets of all time, as voted by YOU. Aetherdrift was the clear winner (loser?) with 16% of the vote. After that was a general disdain for all things Universes Beyond. Check out the graphic for the rest of your worst Magic sets of all time. #EDH #Commander #EDHREC #CMDR

[image or embed]

— EDHREC (@edhrec.com) August 25, 2025 at 1:30 PM

If you can't tell from the link for some reason, the website polled the Magic community and asked for the community sentiment on what the worst sets ever were. All I can say is, uh, wow is this list laughable.

This is not to say anything bad about the EDHREC team, they do fantastic work. They merely polled players and shared the results. To suggest that the worst sets of all time are either Universes Beyond sets of any kind or the more lackluster releases in the past two years is simply unbelievable. It displays a tremendous amount of recency bias, a lack of understanding in what makes a set good or bad, and even counts sets that haven't been released or even fully previewed yet.

Reading this simply baffled me. I could not believe what I was seeing. So today, I'm going to take a real, critical eye at what makes a bad set and then talk about what some of the worst sets of all time are and, more importantly, discuss why. Why are sets bad? What even makes a set bad? Can a bad set have good cards? How do you determine if a set is a failure or not? Is the set a failure or is it a failure of the product and, yes, there is a difference there.

Let's look into that last element first, starting with a set listed on the EDHREC list: March of the Machine: The Aftermath.

Players hated this set, and I mean HATED it. It's hard to exaggerate just how bad this set was. It was the lowest rated set Wizards ever put out per their internal metrics and it wasn't even close. This caused them to hastily change course on multiple releases the company had in the works, abandoning the idea of "Epilogue Boosters" and similar going forward.

But was this a problem with the set itself or an issue more with the product? People like to act as though the set had nothing worth a damn, and in terms of value, I'd say they're probably right. Most of the cards in the set aren't worth anything aside from about 7 of the set's 50 cards.

I'd argue that this analysis of the set is somewhat disingenuous, though. I took a look back through MTG Top 8 to see what cards from the set made a splash somewhere in competitive play and I came up with this list of cards. Each saw modest to heavy amounts of play, from the lower tiers to the most competitive options, mainly in Standard and Pioneer:

• Blot Out
• Calix, Guided by Fate
• Coppercoat Vanguard
• Cosmic Rebirth
• Filter Out
• Jirina, Dauntless General
• Metropolis Reformer
• Nissa, Resurgent Animist
• Niv-Mizzet, Supreme
• Ob Nixilis, Captive Kingpin
• Pia Nalaar, Consul of Revival
• Samut, Vizier of Naktamun
• Sigarda, Font of Blessings
• Tranquil Frillback
• Urborg Scavengers

That's 15 of the 50 cards in the set - a whole 30% of the release! How many sets can say 30% of the cards in that set have seen real competitive play?

Additionally, cards like Nahiri, Forged in Fury; Karn, Legacy Reforged; Narset, Enlightened Exile; and the sweet reprint Training Grounds are all coveted among casual players. Other less notable cards still fill the set with the likes of Drannith Ruins, Vesuvan Drifter, Markov Baron, and Deification doing interesting things.

Given this, I'd personally argue that this is less a failing as a set and more a failure as a product. The cards here are by and large quite cool and there's a lot to love. If they found their way into actual sets or Commander preconstructed decks, players would hardly bat an eye. As the set landed with a tremendous thud, though, it instead resembled a black eye with many acting like it offered nothing worth the players' time.

I feel like this logic can also be applied to something like Innistrad: Double Feature and the infamous 30th Anniversary Edition set. Both of these releases are notorious products that were monstrous flops. However, are they really so bad that they can be considered the worst sets of all time?

I suppose an argument could perhaps be made for Double Feature seeing as how it was a unique release, but in reality it was just two other full sets smashed together. I'll be the first to admit that Midnight Hunt and Crimson Vow were both underwhelming sets but they were at least playable. You could get some fun out of those sets and that's still present here. It's merely a failure as a product since it could've been far more, namely in terms of offering a richer, more curated experience.

With 30th Anniversary Edition, though, I mean... it's quite literally little more than a reprint of Collector's Edition minus a few cards. Which is in turn a reprint of Beta in a non-sanctioned form. That's cool and exciting, and even allows players to have real cards for non-sanctioned play! The problem was the way it was packaged with an incredibly high price point that soured a lot of people on the concept. But as far as being a set of cards, Beta is still just as much of a 10/10 as it ever was and potentially opening a piece of power feels unreal no matter how you slice it.

Each of these releases fails as a product. The cards inside, though? Pretty cool!

Now let's compare this to some sets that are - like Double Feature and 30th Anniversary - essentially made up of reprints. Here, I want to look at Chronicles and Fifth Edition specifically. Both of these sets are 100% reprint releases, with the former being a unique release and the latter representing the latest in the game's Core Sets as of 1997.

Each of these sets has been lambasted for their low quality. Where they differ from the previously covered sets, though, is that they have a unique curation specifically designed for their releases and they are pitiful. Chronicles reprints mainly the most mediocre cards from Magic's first few expansions with only a handful of notable highlights. Fifth Edition rips away many of the things that made Alpha, Beta, and Unlimited so iconic, dilutes them with awful cards from some of the game's worst sets, and bloats it to become the largest Standard release ever.

Despite being made up wholly of reprints, they represent a set more than a product. These were designed and put together to have a direct impact on how the game is played and experienced. Chronicles in particular was so bad that it led to the creation of the reserved list - a move that haunts the game to this day. Not only that, but thanks to that set, Wizards didn't release a non-Core Set, non-preconstructed reprint-only release for 18 years until Modern Masters 2013! Even then, they did so extremely hesitantly, with low print runs heavily impacting availability.

Personally, I love Chronicles. It was a huge influence on me growing up and for many my age, it introduced us to the coolness of cards like Nicol Bolas, Dakkon Blackblade, and Sol'kanar the Swamp King. I can - and eventually will - talk about why I love the set, but that's just me personally. When you take off the rose-tinted glasses, though, Chronicles represents a black eye on the game's history and instead the real cool factor comes from the sets those cards originate from.

As we've taken a look at defining a product vs. a set, let's then approach what's really a problem with EDHREC's list. That is to say, recency bias - and it is huge.

Let's talk about the two non-Universes Beyond releases in the mix first: Murders at Karlov Manor and Aetherdrift. These sets were highly disliked by much of the player base. They felt disjointed and missed the mark on the flavor for many - particularly in how they revisited beloved planes like Ravnica, Avishkar (formerly Kaladesh), and Amonkhet. There was also the fact that for many, they didn't play all that great which led to an immense dislike treating them as some of the worst sets of all time.

In reality, though, the sets aren't even close to the worst experiences you could have as a player. I know numerous people who enjoyed the Murders at Karlov Manor play experience - myself included - even if the flavor felt universally like a flop. Similarly, many players also heavily disliked the play of Aetherdrift, particularly the challenge of trying to utilize vehicles as a core concept. The idea was commendable, but I'd definitely argue they missed the mark on that one, but it was still a set you could play and get some amount of enjoyment out of.

It feels quite wrong to list them as the worst of all time, though. They're simply the ones players - particularly newer ones - have disliked for one reason or another and voiced their opinion accordingly. However, if you go back and play something like Avacyn Restored, Mercadian Masques Block draft (and really most drafts before that), Battle for Zendikar, Coldsnap, and more - wow are you going to have a bad time! Not only that, but it will be a markedly less enjoyable experience than either Aetherdrift or Murders at Karlov Manor.

Sure most of these sets have great cards. I mean, just look at Avacyn Restored in particular. Griselbrand, Craterhoof Behemoth, Cavern of Souls, Deadeye Navigator, Avacyn, Angel of Hope, and more. It's a who's who of awesome individual card designs. Playing with the set in isolation as its own card pool is another story entirely. It's widely considered among the worst Limited formats of all time despite having a certain charm about it all the same.

I would much rather take Murders of Karlov Manor and Aetherdrift over going back in time and drafting that set again any day. Even then, though, I'd still consider it to be a fairly average set. The highs were high and the lows were really, really low. Aetherdrift - the set ranked the worst - also falls somewhat in this range. It offers some cool designs, a ho-hum Limited environment, and expands on the game's lore settings while simultaneously cheapening it. You have to take the good with the bad and in each of these cases, you end up with something that's more average than a problem.

So, what about those Universes Beyond sets, then? Here, I think it's just people being mad that these exist full stop, never mind how they play. One of them - Marvel's Spider-Man - hasn't even been fully previewed yet, never mind released! The debut stream for that is this Friday with a one-week preview season taking place all of next week.

I'll admit, I'm a bit more accepting of these than most are. I think these releases can co-exist fine with in-universe sets, though I certainly agree we could maybe give a bit more of a shine to said in-universe releases. I also happen to be quite the fan of some of them. It's no secret after all that I'm probably one of the biggest Final Fantasy fans out there and the Final Fantasy Magic expansion is one of my favorites of all time.

However, I'd also argue you don't need to be a lifelong fan like me to enjoy the set either. Even non-fans of the franchise could find a lot to love in the largely balanced gameplay behind the set's draft environment. This isn't just Final Fantasy either. The Lord of the Rings: Tales of Middle-earth had many players lauding the Limited play experience. Similarly, the Commander decks of properties like Fallout and Warhammer 40,000 were also found to be fun experiences, even for those who didn't know anything about those properties.

Is this a universal sentiment? Far from it, as this poll shows, but it also feels silly ranking these sorts of sets as being worse than the likes of Fallen Empires or Homelands. Even Dragon's Maze being placed over those two feels like a bit of a head scratcher when you consider how that one at least has a lot of interesting designs that feel fun to play with. Fallen Empires and Homelands simply feel like you're sifting through the dregs of what Magic has to offer by comparison.

The fact that it doesn't include sets like Prophecy or Battle for Zendikar is especially telling. Prophecy is well known for being a set focusing heavily on mana denial on top of the majority of card designs just being bad. Battle for Zendikar reads like a much more competent set, but is weak overall with poor mechanical design, an awful Limited environment, and misunderstanding what players hoped for with a return to Zendikar. Mark Rosewater considers the latter to be the worse of the two, claiming that by then they should've known better. At least with Fallen Empires, Homelands, and Prophecy you can chalk them up to simple learning experiences.

So, with all this in mind, yes, the list that inspired this piece feels rather silly. Player sentiment is certainly a valuable tool, but there's a very marked lack of understanding in what makes a set simply bad and what makes something "the worst of all time." Most of the sets on the list aren't even in the ballpark of the all-time worst and are likely more middle-of-the-road instead.

If you're interested in my thoughts on what the worst sets in Magic are and why, don't worry. I'll tackle my top ten worst sets next week and go into detail as to what made them so bad. I'd hoped I could have the chance here, but this piece is already running long enough as is.

In the meantime, though, check out some of the game's earlier releases and see just how stark the difference is between then and now. You may find yourself tremendously surprised at what you find.

Paige Smith

Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/themaverickgirl.bsky.social

Twitch: twitch.tv/themaverickgirl

YouTube: TheMaverickGal