the set is a constructed dud. the usual "apologists" wont own up to being wrong though.
Must be that "apologist" are providing numbers and not mere insults?
As I wrote, people will read what they want. I'm reading again that people totally ignore and shrug off Sam Black deck because even though 3 of its 4 pilots went 8-2 (AKA, the best standard records except for one person going 9-1), because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Sorry sir, your numbers are bad.
Of the 25 different cards that you mentioned: 9 are lands. Lands, in general, don't count. Every set offers new lands and you WILL play with them, no matter what (temples from theros, shocklands from RTR, checklands from Innistrad, fastlands from Scars). Let me repeat that: Y-o-u w-i-l-l p-l-a-y w-i-t-h t-h-e-m. Now, shockingly, fetch lands and duals to fetches usually make up for a good mana base. Yeah, so do shocklands and checklands, that is what we had back in Ravnica + Innistrad and the number of archetypes was MUCH higher back them (even with tusk being everywhere for a while, we had plenty of different decks). The blighted lands could be said to be innovative, but Innistrad also had their cycle of lands (desolated lighthouse, nephalia drownyard, etc.) that saw even more play than these blighted cycle (one was actually a win-condition of a deck). So, yeah, the 'set of lands' is being outclassed. Manlands are nice though.
Alright, 16 cards left. Dragonmaster outcast and dispel are reprints. I know, lightning bolt from last Zendikar was also a reprint, but I'm just saying this is not innovative. We had plenty of sets with dispel, it would come back one day, and Dragonmaster outcast is only so good now because removal is so bad.
14 cards. 2 of the 3 planeswalkers. That is a failure to me. If you are not seeing 3 out of the 3 means something is off. Planeswalker is the strongest card type in magic, with plenty of unique effects to be had. Not having all 3 is bad. And, honestly, Gideon is the only real excellent card from BFZ.
12 cards. Ruinous path, scatter to the winds, complete disregard, planar outburst. These are the cards filling holes left from theros. That is all they are, Khans cannot possibly contain every single type of card, so BFZ would of course have some of these cards played. From these cards, complete disregard is probably the one more original due to exiling. Still an overcosted removal spell.
8 cards. The landfall aggro creatures, all 3 of them. They are cute and I think the archetype is cute. It is apparent that the non-landfall version is better in the current meta, putting up better results. People will most likely stay with it until Oath, and this is another failure.
5 cards. Bring to light, Quarantine Field, Retreat to Emeria, Stasis Snare and Painful Truths. Bring to Light and Painful Truths are good cards. I like them both, and although I don't think they are excellent, they are good. The white enchantment package you mentioned is deceiving. There was only 1 quarantine field in Sam Black's list and 2 stasis snare. Though they are not terrible cards, they are not great. The flash on stasis snare is barely worth it, the double white is actually harder to splash then if it was white/blue for instance, and there are lots of Dromoka's commands floating around on megamorph/abzan decks. People probably won't move in hard to the enchantments, but I can give them some credit.
So we have more or less a plethora of 10 cards (I'm counting 2 planeswalkers, the 5 last cards and 3 landfall creatures) that are different from BFZ. The rest is filling holes, are reprints or are lands. This is a terrible number. No, I am not kidding. It sucks. I'm not 'discounting' anything without explaning it why, and EVEN IF we increase the number to all the cards you want to have, the archetypes are practically all from Khans. Sam Black's deck and the landfall one must be the decks with more cards from BFZ (saving the control decks using the 'more expensive cancel' and the 'worse hero's downfall'). These deck are still mainly fringe and/or have better options than them being played. You are also not counting the individual ability of the pilots that are using the deck and the fact that it is hard to play correctly against a deck when you don't know what is doing. Sam's deck had an edge in being unknown, now it doesn't have it anymore, can it put up the same results? (The same is valid for the aristocrats deck).
You are blind. You are blindly defending a bad set, one that a lot of people said from the beggining it was bad and people that were on the fence are now just realizing it was terrible. You will probably keep defending it out of pride, but don't say we didn't present arguments, you are just seeing them and choosing to ignore. Check the previous protour lists. Protour Khans was defined with Khans cards, so was Theros, etc. This protour came to show how bad BFZ is, ignoring that is naive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
That's not really true. You're making a fallacy that introducing new archetypes meant pushing the power up. We just had Theros rotate which contributed decks to the last format that did not rely on those three color creatures you talk of. You had heroic which was filled with small creatures that saw no play elsewhere take down SCGs and even do well in GPs. You had devotion which pushed out green giant fatties. Where was Atarka this last pro tour? Oh yeah nowhere to be found, too slow now since no mana ramp. You had constellation/reanimator which was generally the same deck that ran a bunch of mediocre synergy creatures to get constellation triggers. None of these decks won pro tours. But they won a GP or two and did well on the SCG open. And if Theros was still around those decks would still be viable, if not as good as Abzan or Jeskai. Good enough to top 8 events though.
So no this set could have contributed to standard. But they made a format for draft and put barely anything worth playing in it. Rally could be a constructed mechanic, but it's too centered around five drops and condemned to limited. Eldrazi is dead for the same reason Atarka is. They killed meaningful ramp. Ingest/processors is a limited mechanic and devoid lacks any support. So all you have is cards that are good enough to stand on their own, of which there are painfully few. The biggest issue is this set has is they made no archetype good enough for constructed.
All I see is a plethora of excuses why every card should be ignored. Excuses that can be applied to every set. Rhino is just a big trampler. Den protector is just a bad eternal witness. Mantis rider is just a tweaked lightning angel.
See? It's possible to have bad faith about any card, any set.
What I see is people desperate to deny that BfZ cards are being played. First it was "no BfZ card are getting played". Then it was "Cards getting played are not /really/ good", and now it's "cards don't fit various criteria I'm setting".
I don't want to argue every card individually, because as you plainly write, you will argue anything away. The case was that BfZ had no playable. Now that its card get played, the argument shifted. Again, I dont' care if you think A or B. What I'm bewildered about is why nay-sayers think it's absolutely necessary to deny that BfZ card did make it in decks that did well. Why? What are people gaining from denying it?
Like you said, it's must just be pride talking. Card did get played, but, go ahead, do stay in your denial defensive force field.
Sorry dude this set sucks. No new archetypes added to the format, barely any cards. (And yes most being replacement for previous better cards) Why couldn't Rally or ingest/processors be a mechanic that carried over to constructed like heroic did? Oh yeah because the power level is so low. And those numbers he gave are pretty telling. Sub 10 for meaningful cards added to the format, sub 20 if you include lands. Have we ever had a set affect standard so little?
1. There is an Ally deck. It was ally/rally the ancestor. It did not do well enough. Oh, like heroic didn't do well in Khans PT. (Go see the results here: it's a sea of abzan vs jeskai, with one UB control deck thrown in. Where is heroic again? EDIT: brainfart THS/Khans. Theros result here. Still no heroic.)
2. There is Calcano's new UB zulaport deck. But it doesn't have enough BfZ card in it, so it "doesn't count".
3. Gabriel Nassif had a BGr zulaport deck. It had more BfZ cards in it, but it was played by few. Plays smothering abomination, catacomb sifter, etc, too.
4. Sam black deck. I guess it doesn't count as a new archetype, because because.
I'm pretty sure some people will play these decks a bit. Like Heroic, they will probably not win much unless the deck can be streamlined. Like heroic, it may win some SCG or even a GP down the line. But yeah, Rhino and Mantis are still winning. (I guess that means Origins was also a failure, if I understand the argument correctly.)
Points 1-3 aren't on the rally mechanic, its all on a single card, Zulaport. An individually powerful card that enabled an archetype. Probably not good enough though but its probably the only new archetype the set enabled.
I don't view Sam Black's deck as terribly innovative, since Jeskai Ascendency does much the same thing. But Retreat is a good card and I think it and Ascendency can go in the same deck. But tokens is no not a new archetype. Didn't Jeskai tokens make top 8?
Not to mention that from the MTGOGoldfish article the new set didn't just enable new archetypes it also killed some. Esper Dragons was awful, although Control might be okay with Reid Duke's list. Green ramp is dead, no Atarka to be seen.
So we have a format change that killed a handful of decks because all the cards rotated, killed a few decks because wizards cut the support out from under them or made the mana too easy for decks to suppress them and added one new fringe deck in Zulaport aristrocrat style decks? And that is a good rotation? I hope you really enjoyed RTR/Theros standard when there were only 3-4 viable decks, because it looks like we're returning to that.
What I see is people desperate to deny that BfZ cards are being played. First it was "no BfZ card are getting played". Then it was "Cards getting played are not /really/ good", and now it's "cards don't fit various criteria I'm setting".
I see where you're coming from, and your argument makes sense. In fact, you're right as long as you take the opposing viewpoint literally. However, please consider that when people say things like, "no BFZ cards are getting played," they were very likely using hyperbole. It's a pretty common thing for people to overstate things. If you really want to understand the root of the complaint, you have to look a little deeper.
Every set has a certain number of staple effects: burn, counters, ramp, creature kill, dual lands, etc. One set might have Cancel while the next set has Dissipate or Dissolve or Scatter to the Winds. Sometimes we get pain lands, while other times we get the buddy lands or fast lands. Players have come to expect these kinds of variations with each and every set. And because we expect them, they are less exciting and more easily ignored than a card with a unique or unusual mechanic.
Can you see how it would be very boring if new sets ONLY contained small variations on past cards? Going from Dissolve to Scatter to the Winds is acceptable, but it is just not that interesting by itself.
So the other half of the problem is that there are few cards with unique or unusual effects seeing play. Gideon made a huge splash, but that's the only stand-out card so far out of three big tournaments. There are four or so landfall cards seeing play, but they are still trying to prove themselves. And there might be a playable ally or two, but again, they have yet to be proven. Without many playable unique or unusual effects, people just feel underwhelmed.
So, again, if you take the argument literally that "NO" BFZ cards are being played, you're right. But I don't think that shows a real understanding of why people are actually complaining.
That's not really true. You're making a fallacy that introducing new archetypes meant pushing the power up. We just had Theros rotate which contributed decks to the last format that did not rely on those three color creatures you talk of. You had heroic which was filled with small creatures that saw no play elsewhere take down SCGs and even do well in GPs. You had devotion which pushed out green giant fatties. Where was Atarka this last pro tour? Oh yeah nowhere to be found, too slow now since no mana ramp. You had constellation/reanimator which was generally the same deck that ran a bunch of mediocre synergy creatures to get constellation triggers. None of these decks won pro tours. But they won a GP or two and did well on the SCG open. And if Theros was still around those decks would still be viable, if not as good as Abzan or Jeskai. Good enough to top 8 events though.
So no this set could have contributed to standard. But they made a format for draft and put barely anything worth playing in it. Rally could be a constructed mechanic, but it's too centered around five drops and condemned to limited. Eldrazi is dead for the same reason Atarka is. They killed meaningful ramp. Ingest/processors is a limited mechanic and devoid lacks any support. So all you have is cards that are good enough to stand on their own, of which there are painfully few. The biggest issue is this set has is they made no archetype good enough for constructed.
No, I'm not. That's you, Ashiok and many others that do this fallacy. The main point is that for introducing new archetype, you MUST do at least one of these things:
1) making powerlevel of new archetype at least on same high as powerlevel of existing tier-one archetypes (which, again, should NOT be possible in "multicolor->monocolor" enviroment - else hello powercreep)
2) weakening existing tier-one archetypes (by rotation) enough to make space for new ones
In BFZ they correctly didn't thing 1) and by printing dual lands also failed to achieve 2)
EDIT: accidentaly deleted: "but it doesn't make BFZ bad set as many suggest in this forums."
Wait, you set out your own criteria for creating deck archetypes, said BFZ failed on both counts, and it's still not a bad set? What on God's green earth qualifies for a 'bad set' with you?
I thought It was pro tour BFZ ? It turn out to be Pro tour Khans 2.0. There's no comparison in power level of Khans and BfZ. Khans cards dominated the pro tour BFZ barely scratched the surface. BFZ is a bad set. I hope the next set of the block can right the ship. Gideon, ally of Zendikar is the best card from the set and it did see a lot of play in the tourney.
Its a relative thing. BfZ cards are not being played (compared to the amount of cards played in previous large sets, or even small middle sets). This set has a dearth of playable non-land cards, only gideon is truly pushed, and even those staple cards like removal and sweepers have themselves been removed and swept. Hell, this set even does back looking at playable reprints. Theros was a weak set, and it had thoughtseize driving it.
That's not really true. You're making a fallacy that introducing new archetypes meant pushing the power up. We just had Theros rotate which contributed decks to the last format that did not rely on those three color creatures you talk of. You had heroic which was filled with small creatures that saw no play elsewhere take down SCGs and even do well in GPs. You had devotion which pushed out green giant fatties. Where was Atarka this last pro tour? Oh yeah nowhere to be found, too slow now since no mana ramp. You had constellation/reanimator which was generally the same deck that ran a bunch of mediocre synergy creatures to get constellation triggers. None of these decks won pro tours. But they won a GP or two and did well on the SCG open. And if Theros was still around those decks would still be viable, if not as good as Abzan or Jeskai. Good enough to top 8 events though.
So no this set could have contributed to standard. But they made a format for draft and put barely anything worth playing in it. Rally could be a constructed mechanic, but it's too centered around five drops and condemned to limited. Eldrazi is dead for the same reason Atarka is. They killed meaningful ramp. Ingest/processors is a limited mechanic and devoid lacks any support. So all you have is cards that are good enough to stand on their own, of which there are painfully few. The biggest issue is this set has is they made no archetype good enough for constructed.
No, I'm not. That's you, Ashiok and many others that do this fallacy. The main point is that for introducing new archetype, you MUST do at least one of these things:
1) making powerlevel of new archetype at least on same high as powerlevel of existing tier-one archetypes (which, again, should NOT be possible in "multicolor->monocolor" enviroment - else hello powercreep)
2) weakening existing tier-one archetypes (by rotation) enough to make space for new ones
In BFZ they correctly didn't thing 1) and by printing dual lands also failed to achieve 2)
EDIT: accidentaly deleted: "but it doesn't make BFZ bad set as many suggest in this forums."
I don't think you're right on this. Abzan control which is now pretty dead since it lost a lot from this rotation. They lost Courser, Elspeth, Scry Lands, two reliable instant kill spells in Downfall and Bile Blight as well as their best two drop in Fleecemane. Not to mention Thoughtsieze. Basically the deck got gutted except for Rhinos and only really got Gideon, who while good is no Elspeth. But if that deck was around it would have just done fine this Pro Tour. I disagree with your emphasis that 3 color decks have gotten universally stronger. Jeskai did because turn 3 Mantis Rider is more reliable and there aren't as many cheap spells that kill it. Abzan despite winning the PT is still down, it's just that Anafenza into Siege Rhino into Roc is still very good.
And in a format that saw such a powerful deck Heroic, Sultai Whip and R/G Devotion all saw a lot of play and could beat Abzan. Those cards and decks were nowhere near as powerful as Abzan, but they saw play. The shining star of the new decks from this format though, can't even beat a resolved Anafenza.
The only thing you need to do to make a new archetype is to make a card or two that you can build around or a bunch of cards that really synergize. Reanimator worked because of Whip and Wayfinder. Ramp worked because of a couple early mana creatures and Nykthos. Heroic worked because a limited mechanic turned out to be good enough for constructed since making a giant unkillable monster worked pretty well in a set that Crackling Doom was the only good answer for it. BFZ lacks those cards other than 3 cards. Retreat from Emeria, Zulaport Enforcer and Bring to Light. Retreat seems to be the only deck there that really has legs, but I guess we'll see. I don't think any of them will ever approach the power of whip decks or R/G Monsters, which weren't even top tier decks last rotation.
On one side we have people pointing out the few new cards/decks that saw play and pretending that those few new cards/decks that saw play mean anything in a vacuum. On the other side, we have people somehow trying to argue that the new cards/decks that saw play shouldn't count because "BFZ is bad" and the new cards/decks seeing play don't fit into their narrative. It's very amusing.
I don' plan on offering my own opinions of this set here, instead I will just point out some things.
Low power not equal to bad : You should all avoid calling BFZ bad because the claim is poorly defined and inherently subjective. For the sake of clarity, you should all be arguing about "power level" not "set quality".
K cards saw play is not a good argument : In the absence of data to compare K to from other fall sets, we have no idea whether or not K is low or high. Regardless of what metric of power level you want to use, you should be looking both at data from BFZ tournaments and from equivalent tournaments for other sets. Be careful that you are not giving cards more credit than they themselves got during the first pro tour of their standard rotation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
You people can complain all you want but as soon as some pro makes a winning deck using a new archetype everyone is going to net deck it and pretend they always had faith in bfz. I personally still run Narset EM, and Brutal Expulsion was the best thing to happen to my deck. It's literally the only counterspell that isn't useless exiled with Narset. Noyan Dar + Jeskai Ascendancy is also most definitely going to be a thing
Edit: lol also Gideon is ******* sweet in my Narset Token deck
You people can complain all you want but as soon as some pro makes a winning deck using a new archetype everyone is going to net deck it and pretend they always had faith in bfz. I personally still run Narset EM, and Brutal Expulsion was the best thing to happen to my deck. It's literally the only counterspell that isn't useless exiled with Narset. Noyan Dar + Jeskai Ascendancy is also most definitely going to be a thing
Edit: lol also Gideon is ******* sweet in my Narset Token deck
The pros had a chance to showcase or break BfZ and didn't. Did you not see that Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa was playing Atarks Red? That says something about BFZ.
Hooray!!! Locking "BFZ is worst set" thread can't stop this debate. Banning Skullfer does stop him from speaking the truth. Oh happy day!!!
Bottom line: BFZ is not a bad set. Currently lackluster for Standard. Sure. Brings little to eternal formats. Okay, I'll buy that. But bad? The word is too subjective and too many people want too many things from this game. An objectively bad set wouldn't have people defending it. An objectively bad set wouldn't be selling like hot cakes. This set is only bad by the definitions of a division of the player base, namely Standard and Modern players. I've heard very little complaints about the set in Draft, even from people that hate the set in regards to other formats. Face it people, the set isn't objectively bad. Deal with it.
Hooray!!! Locking "BFZ is worst set" thread can't stop this debate. Banning Skullfer does stop him from speaking the truth. Oh happy day!!!
Bottom line: BFZ is not a bad set. Currently lackluster for Standard. Sure. Brings little to eternal formats. Okay, I'll buy that. But bad? The word is too subjective and too many people want too many things from this game. An objectively bad set wouldn't have people defending it. An objectively bad set wouldn't be selling like hot cakes. This set is only bad by the definitions of a division of the player base, namely Standard and Modern players. I've heard very little complaints about the set in Draft, even from people that hate the set in regards to other formats. Face it people, the set isn't objectively bad. Deal with it.
But a bad set with three hundred dollar lottery lands will sell good even if it's a bad set. That's not the point of this thread though. BFZ didn't show up in the numbers that a very large first set of a block should have had at the pro tour. Pros are pretty good deck builders if any good decks from BFZ were possible they would have been on it.
BFZ didn't show up in the numbers that a very large first set of a block should have had at the pro tour. Pros are pretty good deck builders if any good decks from BFZ were possible they would have been on it.
I love when people make claims without providing documented evidence to support there claims.
Honestly, you say BFZ didn't show up in numbers the way previous fall sets did without saying how much BFZ showed up, how much a fall set should show up, or saying how you established these figures.
Remember that I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm simply critiquing the common habit of people making claims without justifying their claims.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
BFZ didn't show up in the numbers that a very large first set of a block should have had at the pro tour. Pros are pretty good deck builders if any good decks from BFZ were possible they would have been on it.
I love when people make claims without providing documented evidence to support there claims.
Honestly, you say BFZ didn't show up in numbers the way previous fall sets did without saying how much BFZ showed up, how much a fall set should show up, or saying how you established these figures.
Remember that I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm simply critiquing the common habit of people making claims without justifying their claims.
Only half of what I requested is there. That article does a pretty good job of analyzing how much impact BFZ had on standard, but what still needs to be established is how much impact the set 'should' have had on standard. The only reasonably objective measure of this is to analyze the impact of other fall sets on their respective pro tours. In the absence of the that data, we still don't know whether or not BFZ is under-powered in standard relative to other fall sets because we have nothing to compare to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
BFZ didn't show up in the numbers that a very large first set of a block should have had at the pro tour. Pros are pretty good deck builders if any good decks from BFZ were possible they would have been on it.
I love when people make claims without providing documented evidence to support there claims.
Honestly, you say BFZ didn't show up in numbers the way previous fall sets did without saying how much BFZ showed up, how much a fall set should show up, or saying how you established these figures.
Remember that I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm simply critiquing the common habit of people making claims without justifying their claims.
BFZ didn't show up in the numbers that a very large first set of a block should have had at the pro tour. Pros are pretty good deck builders if any good decks from BFZ were possible they would have been on it.
I love when people make claims without providing documented evidence to support there claims.
Honestly, you say BFZ didn't show up in numbers the way previous fall sets did without saying how much BFZ showed up, how much a fall set should show up, or saying how you established these figures.
Remember that I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm simply critiquing the common habit of people making claims without justifying their claims.
It's more work than it's worth. I specifically and directly asked veXlaMtg what qualifies as a bad set, he dodged the question. Skullfer brings his incessant argument back here, trying to change the semantics from 'bad set' to 'low power level', despite the fact that there are even people that will say dumb crap like, 'I don't think the power level is low in BFZ, it's just because you're looking at competitive constructed formats', you know, the ones everyone is playing, watching on twitch, netdecking, emulating, discussing, and filling seats at events.
We're all MtG players, the fact that none of the mechanics carried over from BFZ at the Pro Tour was the final telling account there is no 'breaking' BFZ, or even breaking much new ground. Anyone that has a longer memory than a goldfish should be able to recall past Pro Tours and how much new blocks drastically altered the Standard landscape. Percentages, while the information is out there to crunch, is pointless. Numbers, facts, statistics, none of these arguments have swayed what few rabid defenders of this set remain, so why bother?
I think the issue is BfZ is a bad standard set. It may be ok in other formats like limited but I only play in Standard and Modern so do most players I know so that's were my opinion of the set is based from.
Only half of what I requested is there. That article does a pretty good job of analyzing how much impact BFZ had on standard, but what still needs to be established is how much impact the set 'should' have had on standard. The only reasonably objective measure of this is to analyze the impact of other fall sets on their respective pro tours. In the absence of the that data, we still don't know whether or not BFZ is under-powered in standard relative to other fall sets because we have nothing to compare to.
Well looking at recent rotations quite a bit. Khans had Abzan win the thing, Theros had Blue Devotion win the thing. I would imagine that when new sets rotate in that Wizards wants to see top decks using new cards. I suppose it could be a valid design that this new set only exists to make the previous set better, but that imo is a pretty crappy design. the set needs to both work with the previous sets and provide new archetypes and playstyles. BFZ succeeded on the first but failed on the second.
I don' plan on offering my own opinions of this set here, instead I will just point out some things.
Low power not equal to bad : You should all avoid calling BFZ bad because the claim is poorly defined and inherently subjective. For the sake of clarity, you should all be arguing about "power level" not "set quality".
This is a thread specific to power level rather than set quality, so thats the topic at hand and I think people can figure out the difference based on context. But the other discussion, the one this threads not about- the set quality- has been elaborated in some depth before. This set blows chunks design wise, we've had lots of other threads on that, like the big one that got locked.
This set could have tons of cards in the pro tours and still be poorly designed, if those badly designed cards just happened to be overpowered. Being strong power level and strong design are independent, but this set failed in both departments. Even design beyond the mechanics- the flavor, worldbuilding and art- was pathetic or nonexistant. I couldn't give a fig over strength of cards, but weak design matters to me
But for some people, what they care about is pushed cards and power material, and cards showing up in the PT is a good indicator of that or lack thereof. From what we've seen, this set can accurately be summed up as "lands, gideon and a bone or two for modern/edh". Its even lacking the quota of boring staple utility cards, largely due to wizards taking power shrivel to a new level by applying it to sweepers/ramp.
I don' plan on offering my own opinions of this set here, instead I will just point out some things.
Low power not equal to bad : You should all avoid calling BFZ bad because the claim is poorly defined and inherently subjective. For the sake of clarity, you should all be arguing about "power level" not "set quality".
This is a thread specific to power level rather than set quality, so thats the topic at hand and I think people can figure out the difference based on context. But the other discussion, the one this threads not about- the set quality- has been elaborated in some depth before. This set blows chunks design wise, we've had lots of other threads on that, like the big one that got locked.
This set could have tons of cards in the pro tours and still be poorly designed, if those badly designed cards just happened to be overpowered. Being strong power level and strong design are independent, but this set failed in both departments. Even design beyond the mechanics- the flavor, worldbuilding and art- was pathetic or nonexistant. I couldn't give a fig over strength of cards, but weak design matters to me
But for some people, what they care about is pushed cards and power material, and cards showing up in the PT is a good indicator of that or lack thereof. From what we've seen, this set can accurately be summed up as "lands, gideon and a bone or two for modern/edh". Its even lacking the quota of boring staple utility cards, largely due to wizards taking power shrivel to a new level by applying it to sweepers/ramp.
I'm not sure it's fair comparison though. Throughout magic's history a powerful block is followed by a major power shrivel.
Return to Ravnica was followed by Theos (a huge slump in power). It's not the first time in Magic's history of eb and flowing of power levels. And it won't be the last.
I still feel like BFZ is still a better set than Theos... so there is that.
Sorry sir, your numbers are bad.
Of the 25 different cards that you mentioned: 9 are lands. Lands, in general, don't count. Every set offers new lands and you WILL play with them, no matter what (temples from theros, shocklands from RTR, checklands from Innistrad, fastlands from Scars). Let me repeat that: Y-o-u w-i-l-l p-l-a-y w-i-t-h t-h-e-m. Now, shockingly, fetch lands and duals to fetches usually make up for a good mana base. Yeah, so do shocklands and checklands, that is what we had back in Ravnica + Innistrad and the number of archetypes was MUCH higher back them (even with tusk being everywhere for a while, we had plenty of different decks). The blighted lands could be said to be innovative, but Innistrad also had their cycle of lands (desolated lighthouse, nephalia drownyard, etc.) that saw even more play than these blighted cycle (one was actually a win-condition of a deck). So, yeah, the 'set of lands' is being outclassed. Manlands are nice though.
Alright, 16 cards left. Dragonmaster outcast and dispel are reprints. I know, lightning bolt from last Zendikar was also a reprint, but I'm just saying this is not innovative. We had plenty of sets with dispel, it would come back one day, and Dragonmaster outcast is only so good now because removal is so bad.
14 cards. 2 of the 3 planeswalkers. That is a failure to me. If you are not seeing 3 out of the 3 means something is off. Planeswalker is the strongest card type in magic, with plenty of unique effects to be had. Not having all 3 is bad. And, honestly, Gideon is the only real excellent card from BFZ.
12 cards. Ruinous path, scatter to the winds, complete disregard, planar outburst. These are the cards filling holes left from theros. That is all they are, Khans cannot possibly contain every single type of card, so BFZ would of course have some of these cards played. From these cards, complete disregard is probably the one more original due to exiling. Still an overcosted removal spell.
8 cards. The landfall aggro creatures, all 3 of them. They are cute and I think the archetype is cute. It is apparent that the non-landfall version is better in the current meta, putting up better results. People will most likely stay with it until Oath, and this is another failure.
5 cards. Bring to light, Quarantine Field, Retreat to Emeria, Stasis Snare and Painful Truths. Bring to Light and Painful Truths are good cards. I like them both, and although I don't think they are excellent, they are good. The white enchantment package you mentioned is deceiving. There was only 1 quarantine field in Sam Black's list and 2 stasis snare. Though they are not terrible cards, they are not great. The flash on stasis snare is barely worth it, the double white is actually harder to splash then if it was white/blue for instance, and there are lots of Dromoka's commands floating around on megamorph/abzan decks. People probably won't move in hard to the enchantments, but I can give them some credit.
So we have more or less a plethora of 10 cards (I'm counting 2 planeswalkers, the 5 last cards and 3 landfall creatures) that are different from BFZ. The rest is filling holes, are reprints or are lands. This is a terrible number. No, I am not kidding. It sucks. I'm not 'discounting' anything without explaning it why, and EVEN IF we increase the number to all the cards you want to have, the archetypes are practically all from Khans. Sam Black's deck and the landfall one must be the decks with more cards from BFZ (saving the control decks using the 'more expensive cancel' and the 'worse hero's downfall'). These deck are still mainly fringe and/or have better options than them being played. You are also not counting the individual ability of the pilots that are using the deck and the fact that it is hard to play correctly against a deck when you don't know what is doing. Sam's deck had an edge in being unknown, now it doesn't have it anymore, can it put up the same results? (The same is valid for the aristocrats deck).
You are blind. You are blindly defending a bad set, one that a lot of people said from the beggining it was bad and people that were on the fence are now just realizing it was terrible. You will probably keep defending it out of pride, but don't say we didn't present arguments, you are just seeing them and choosing to ignore. Check the previous protour lists. Protour Khans was defined with Khans cards, so was Theros, etc. This protour came to show how bad BFZ is, ignoring that is naive.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
So no this set could have contributed to standard. But they made a format for draft and put barely anything worth playing in it. Rally could be a constructed mechanic, but it's too centered around five drops and condemned to limited. Eldrazi is dead for the same reason Atarka is. They killed meaningful ramp. Ingest/processors is a limited mechanic and devoid lacks any support. So all you have is cards that are good enough to stand on their own, of which there are painfully few. The biggest issue is this set has is they made no archetype good enough for constructed.
All I see is a plethora of excuses why every card should be ignored. Excuses that can be applied to every set. Rhino is just a big trampler. Den protector is just a bad eternal witness. Mantis rider is just a tweaked lightning angel.
See? It's possible to have bad faith about any card, any set.
What I see is people desperate to deny that BfZ cards are being played. First it was "no BfZ card are getting played". Then it was "Cards getting played are not /really/ good", and now it's "cards don't fit various criteria I'm setting".
I don't want to argue every card individually, because as you plainly write, you will argue anything away. The case was that BfZ had no playable. Now that its card get played, the argument shifted. Again, I dont' care if you think A or B. What I'm bewildered about is why nay-sayers think it's absolutely necessary to deny that BfZ card did make it in decks that did well. Why? What are people gaining from denying it?
Like you said, it's must just be pride talking. Card did get played, but, go ahead, do stay in your denial defensive force field.
1. There is an Ally deck. It was ally/rally the ancestor. It did not do well enough. Oh, like heroic didn't do well in Khans PT. (Go see the results here: it's a sea of abzan vs jeskai, with one UB control deck thrown in. Where is heroic again? EDIT: brainfart THS/Khans. Theros result here. Still no heroic.)
2. There is Calcano's new UB zulaport deck. But it doesn't have enough BfZ card in it, so it "doesn't count".
3. Gabriel Nassif had a BGr zulaport deck. It had more BfZ cards in it, but it was played by few. Plays smothering abomination, catacomb sifter, etc, too.
4. Sam black deck. I guess it doesn't count as a new archetype, because because.
I'm pretty sure some people will play these decks a bit. Like Heroic, they will probably not win much unless the deck can be streamlined. Like heroic, it may win some SCG or even a GP down the line. But yeah, Rhino and Mantis are still winning. (I guess that means Origins was also a failure, if I understand the argument correctly.)
I don't view Sam Black's deck as terribly innovative, since Jeskai Ascendency does much the same thing. But Retreat is a good card and I think it and Ascendency can go in the same deck. But tokens is no not a new archetype. Didn't Jeskai tokens make top 8?
Not to mention that from the MTGOGoldfish article the new set didn't just enable new archetypes it also killed some. Esper Dragons was awful, although Control might be okay with Reid Duke's list. Green ramp is dead, no Atarka to be seen.
So we have a format change that killed a handful of decks because all the cards rotated, killed a few decks because wizards cut the support out from under them or made the mana too easy for decks to suppress them and added one new fringe deck in Zulaport aristrocrat style decks? And that is a good rotation? I hope you really enjoyed RTR/Theros standard when there were only 3-4 viable decks, because it looks like we're returning to that.
I see where you're coming from, and your argument makes sense. In fact, you're right as long as you take the opposing viewpoint literally. However, please consider that when people say things like, "no BFZ cards are getting played," they were very likely using hyperbole. It's a pretty common thing for people to overstate things. If you really want to understand the root of the complaint, you have to look a little deeper.
Every set has a certain number of staple effects: burn, counters, ramp, creature kill, dual lands, etc. One set might have Cancel while the next set has Dissipate or Dissolve or Scatter to the Winds. Sometimes we get pain lands, while other times we get the buddy lands or fast lands. Players have come to expect these kinds of variations with each and every set. And because we expect them, they are less exciting and more easily ignored than a card with a unique or unusual mechanic.
Can you see how it would be very boring if new sets ONLY contained small variations on past cards? Going from Dissolve to Scatter to the Winds is acceptable, but it is just not that interesting by itself.
So the other half of the problem is that there are few cards with unique or unusual effects seeing play. Gideon made a huge splash, but that's the only stand-out card so far out of three big tournaments. There are four or so landfall cards seeing play, but they are still trying to prove themselves. And there might be a playable ally or two, but again, they have yet to be proven. Without many playable unique or unusual effects, people just feel underwhelmed.
So, again, if you take the argument literally that "NO" BFZ cards are being played, you're right. But I don't think that shows a real understanding of why people are actually complaining.
Wait, you set out your own criteria for creating deck archetypes, said BFZ failed on both counts, and it's still not a bad set? What on God's green earth qualifies for a 'bad set' with you?
I don't think you're right on this. Abzan control which is now pretty dead since it lost a lot from this rotation. They lost Courser, Elspeth, Scry Lands, two reliable instant kill spells in Downfall and Bile Blight as well as their best two drop in Fleecemane. Not to mention Thoughtsieze. Basically the deck got gutted except for Rhinos and only really got Gideon, who while good is no Elspeth. But if that deck was around it would have just done fine this Pro Tour. I disagree with your emphasis that 3 color decks have gotten universally stronger. Jeskai did because turn 3 Mantis Rider is more reliable and there aren't as many cheap spells that kill it. Abzan despite winning the PT is still down, it's just that Anafenza into Siege Rhino into Roc is still very good.
And in a format that saw such a powerful deck Heroic, Sultai Whip and R/G Devotion all saw a lot of play and could beat Abzan. Those cards and decks were nowhere near as powerful as Abzan, but they saw play. The shining star of the new decks from this format though, can't even beat a resolved Anafenza.
The only thing you need to do to make a new archetype is to make a card or two that you can build around or a bunch of cards that really synergize. Reanimator worked because of Whip and Wayfinder. Ramp worked because of a couple early mana creatures and Nykthos. Heroic worked because a limited mechanic turned out to be good enough for constructed since making a giant unkillable monster worked pretty well in a set that Crackling Doom was the only good answer for it. BFZ lacks those cards other than 3 cards. Retreat from Emeria, Zulaport Enforcer and Bring to Light. Retreat seems to be the only deck there that really has legs, but I guess we'll see. I don't think any of them will ever approach the power of whip decks or R/G Monsters, which weren't even top tier decks last rotation.
On one side we have people pointing out the few new cards/decks that saw play and pretending that those few new cards/decks that saw play mean anything in a vacuum. On the other side, we have people somehow trying to argue that the new cards/decks that saw play shouldn't count because "BFZ is bad" and the new cards/decks seeing play don't fit into their narrative. It's very amusing.
I don' plan on offering my own opinions of this set here, instead I will just point out some things.
- Manite
Edit: lol also Gideon is ******* sweet in my Narset Token deck
Bottom line: BFZ is not a bad set. Currently lackluster for Standard. Sure. Brings little to eternal formats. Okay, I'll buy that. But bad? The word is too subjective and too many people want too many things from this game. An objectively bad set wouldn't have people defending it. An objectively bad set wouldn't be selling like hot cakes. This set is only bad by the definitions of a division of the player base, namely Standard and Modern players. I've heard very little complaints about the set in Draft, even from people that hate the set in regards to other formats. Face it people, the set isn't objectively bad. Deal with it.
I love when people make claims without providing documented evidence to support there claims.
Honestly, you say BFZ didn't show up in numbers the way previous fall sets did without saying how much BFZ showed up, how much a fall set should show up, or saying how you established these figures.
Remember that I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm simply critiquing the common habit of people making claims without justifying their claims.
- Manite
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/pro-tour-battle-for-zendikar-by-the-numbers
The numbers you requested are here.
Only half of what I requested is there. That article does a pretty good job of analyzing how much impact BFZ had on standard, but what still needs to be established is how much impact the set 'should' have had on standard. The only reasonably objective measure of this is to analyze the impact of other fall sets on their respective pro tours. In the absence of the that data, we still don't know whether or not BFZ is under-powered in standard relative to other fall sets because we have nothing to compare to.
- Manite
It's more work than it's worth. I specifically and directly asked veXlaMtg what qualifies as a bad set, he dodged the question. Skullfer brings his incessant argument back here, trying to change the semantics from 'bad set' to 'low power level', despite the fact that there are even people that will say dumb crap like, 'I don't think the power level is low in BFZ, it's just because you're looking at competitive constructed formats', you know, the ones everyone is playing, watching on twitch, netdecking, emulating, discussing, and filling seats at events.
We're all MtG players, the fact that none of the mechanics carried over from BFZ at the Pro Tour was the final telling account there is no 'breaking' BFZ, or even breaking much new ground. Anyone that has a longer memory than a goldfish should be able to recall past Pro Tours and how much new blocks drastically altered the Standard landscape. Percentages, while the information is out there to crunch, is pointless. Numbers, facts, statistics, none of these arguments have swayed what few rabid defenders of this set remain, so why bother?
Well looking at recent rotations quite a bit. Khans had Abzan win the thing, Theros had Blue Devotion win the thing. I would imagine that when new sets rotate in that Wizards wants to see top decks using new cards. I suppose it could be a valid design that this new set only exists to make the previous set better, but that imo is a pretty crappy design. the set needs to both work with the previous sets and provide new archetypes and playstyles. BFZ succeeded on the first but failed on the second.
This is a thread specific to power level rather than set quality, so thats the topic at hand and I think people can figure out the difference based on context. But the other discussion, the one this threads not about- the set quality- has been elaborated in some depth before. This set blows chunks design wise, we've had lots of other threads on that, like the big one that got locked.
This set could have tons of cards in the pro tours and still be poorly designed, if those badly designed cards just happened to be overpowered. Being strong power level and strong design are independent, but this set failed in both departments. Even design beyond the mechanics- the flavor, worldbuilding and art- was pathetic or nonexistant. I couldn't give a fig over strength of cards, but weak design matters to me
But for some people, what they care about is pushed cards and power material, and cards showing up in the PT is a good indicator of that or lack thereof. From what we've seen, this set can accurately be summed up as "lands, gideon and a bone or two for modern/edh". Its even lacking the quota of boring staple utility cards, largely due to wizards taking power shrivel to a new level by applying it to sweepers/ramp.
I'm not sure it's fair comparison though. Throughout magic's history a powerful block is followed by a major power shrivel.
Return to Ravnica was followed by Theos (a huge slump in power). It's not the first time in Magic's history of eb and flowing of power levels. And it won't be the last.
I still feel like BFZ is still a better set than Theos... so there is that.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA