Cool. And if it turns out we're right and the cards suck, will Wizards be offering us refunds on that? Because if not, then your suggestion to "buy before you try" is completely bass-ackwards. Why should anyone have to spend money on this set just to win an internet argument about whether it's balanced? We are capable of reading what the cards do on the spoilers just fine and it's not particularly hard to see that GW/Bant decks are going to continue dominating the format.
That's ridiculous. No one is telling you to spend money to win Internet arguments. You spend money to play a game and have fun. If you think the set is unbalanced, play GW as that is assured to be powerful. If you have philosophical or moral qualms about playing GW, and are positive that you are so incredibly insightful that your first impressions trump empirical testing, then don't buy. It's your money and it's just a game so you are in your right to do as you will. However, you may be missing out. Knee-jerk opinions and reactions after a set is first released are wrong or at least exaggerated more often than not. Again, it's your prerogative.
My advice works if you believe that the people that have been working at this game for up to decades are at all competent and capable of delivering a fun product. If you don't, then keep your money and your belief of being right (without risking obtaining any pesky "evidence" to tell you otherwise), but know that your opinions will matter nothing next to the ones of the people who actually gave it a go.
Your opinion boils down to "If you didn't spend money on these cards, you cannot disprove my argument that they're good." It's a great tactic to ensure that anything you say is infallible because any response a person gives to you can be countered by "You just need to buy more cards and keep playing".
Except I haven't said that "the cards are good". What's "good" anyway? For some people, it means constructed playable, for others exclusively eternal constructed playable, for others, flavourful and interesting, for others, part of a fun limited gameplay, funny combos, tribal unity, commander-worthy, pauper-worthy, etc, etc, etc. I'm sorry that the "goodness" that you expect from cards is not there in your un-empirical opinion. I argue that it may be there but you cannot know for sure until you try it. Yes, there's a financial risk to it, but this is not endemic of this set. Every set is like that. Every entertainment investment, in fact, is like that. Movies, videogames, concerts, etc. Anything can end being a disappointment from an initial positive impression, or a pleasant surprise from a negative one, and again, it is up to you to assess the risk.
Or just do what you were perhaps planning to do from the beginning: wait until the first reports of people actually playing the cards start trickling into the open, quickly buy the singles, and when eventually you are "pwning n00bs" with those cards, claim that you knew from the beginning that they were awesome and anybody who believed otherwise was an idiot.
So in 3 months from now, when the format continues to be dominated by GW / Bant decks, can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone that this set was just as unbalanced as I said?
Good, btw, means cards that show up in winning decklists. I don't give a ***** about whether a card fits into your casual tribal cat deck; if I'm spending hundreds of dollars on cards, they should at least allow me win some of that cost back in prizes.
Those cards won't make you good at Magic on their own.
This set is alright, nothing special. Getting some cards for Commander only and thats it.
Hopefully in Karladesh that Wizards are used to the 2 set per block shfit and actually balances things out because BFZ-EMN hass been a mess so i can forgive them for making the cards abit udnerwhelming.
I for one like the set. It's fun with interesting mechanics. I would of liked a better lili and better mythic werewolf but all in all we got some fun stuff that we might not of been expecting. I def. will be play testing some of the cards in modern and adding some to my commander decks.
I like a lot of the designs in Eldritch moon, but limited looks like crap. (well, it looks like crap in comparison to SOI) It's obviously hard to tell without playing the format first, but there are things we can say.
Oops-All-Spells is gone as an archetype. Without a rise from the tides equivalent and only 1 pack of shadows at the end of the draft, you can't afford to make the picks you need to get into Oops-All-Spells. Its just too dangerous in a world where you aren't even likely to get a Rise from the tides.
The new UG mechanic/deck has little to no synergy with any of the UG cards in SOI. Clues decks are now impossible to make. UG will likely just not work that well as a deck.
The new madness cards are just boring. I don't know what else to say about them. None of the commons or uncommons look like they will even remotely approach the power level of fiery temper. Hell, they all seem worse than Twins of Maurer Estate.
Zombies still aren't being meaningfully rewarded as a tribe in limited.
For the most part, there aren't build arounds at all in this set. There is a lot of synergy and I expect synergistic decks to be good, but there are no build arounds at the level of Rise from the tides, or Call the bloodline, or fleeting memories, or...
The new werewolves are awkward. The fact that the old werewolves were also human went along way towards making the human tribal decks work.
Just about the only thing that Eldritch moon looks like its going to improve from SOI is UW spirits. UW spirits looks like it is now a well defined archetype, as opposed to in SOI, where it was basically just UW fliers.
TLDR - Eldritch moon limited looks to be a less diverse and less focussed version of SOI with generally weaker cards.
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
Cool. And if it turns out we're right and the cards suck, will Wizards be offering us refunds on that? Because if not, then your suggestion to "buy before you try" is completely bass-ackwards. Why should anyone have to spend money on this set just to win an internet argument about whether it's balanced? We are capable of reading what the cards do on the spoilers just fine and it's not particularly hard to see that GW/Bant decks are going to continue dominating the format.
That's ridiculous. No one is telling you to spend money to win Internet arguments. You spend money to play a game and have fun. If you think the set is unbalanced, play GW as that is assured to be powerful. If you have philosophical or moral qualms about playing GW, and are positive that you are so incredibly insightful that your first impressions trump empirical testing, then don't buy. It's your money and it's just a game so you are in your right to do as you will. However, you may be missing out. Knee-jerk opinions and reactions after a set is first released are wrong or at least exaggerated more often than not. Again, it's your prerogative.
My advice works if you believe that the people that have been working at this game for up to decades are at all competent and capable of delivering a fun product. If you don't, then keep your money and your belief of being right (without risking obtaining any pesky "evidence" to tell you otherwise), but know that your opinions will matter nothing next to the ones of the people who actually gave it a go.
Your opinion boils down to "If you didn't spend money on these cards, you cannot disprove my argument that they're good." It's a great tactic to ensure that anything you say is infallible because any response a person gives to you can be countered by "You just need to buy more cards and keep playing".
Except I haven't said that "the cards are good". What's "good" anyway? For some people, it means constructed playable, for others exclusively eternal constructed playable, for others, flavourful and interesting, for others, part of a fun limited gameplay, funny combos, tribal unity, commander-worthy, pauper-worthy, etc, etc, etc. I'm sorry that the "goodness" that you expect from cards is not there in your un-empirical opinion. I argue that it may be there but you cannot know for sure until you try it. Yes, there's a financial risk to it, but this is not endemic of this set. Every set is like that. Every entertainment investment, in fact, is like that. Movies, videogames, concerts, etc. Anything can end being a disappointment from an initial positive impression, or a pleasant surprise from a negative one, and again, it is up to you to assess the risk.
Or just do what you were perhaps planning to do from the beginning: wait until the first reports of people actually playing the cards start trickling into the open, quickly buy the singles, and when eventually you are "pwning n00bs" with those cards, claim that you knew from the beginning that they were awesome and anybody who believed otherwise was an idiot.
So in 3 months from now, when the format continues to be dominated by GW / Bant decks, can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone that this set was just as unbalanced as I said?
Good, btw, means cards that show up in winning decklists. I don't give a ***** about whether a card fits into your casual tribal cat deck; if I'm spending hundreds of dollars on cards, they should at least allow me win some of that cost back in prizes.
But your initial argument was not that colours were unbalanced but that, and I quote, "the cards suck". At no point I have tried to contest that GW seems to be the strongest archetype, so I have little crow to eat in the future.
And I hope you understand that's YOUR definition of "good" and that some happy tribal players don't give a crap either about players who treat Magic as a sort of investment and neither group is more right than the other.
Nevertheless, you seem to be implying that no Eldritch Moon cards will ever be part of competitive tournament decks. So how is it, again? "can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone" in three months that you were knee-jerky wrong abut saying so when EM cards start appearing in pro-players' deck and commanding good prices?
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
The rest is a bunch of silly gimmicks like Meld and Emerakul.
Tournament wise its like they looted odyssey block but didn't want to bring back cards people would actually play like Wonder and Circular Logic and Roar of the Wurm and remade Wild Mongrel without adjusting his stats to match a world with much better creatures. There is a hard to cast Werebear at mythic for some reason.
Some of the spirits seem good which i think is a bright spot on an otherwise dull and dreary set.
Commander wise you get a couple niche commanders in a wear-wolf and a spider a mediocre zombie general and some expensive ones... not very exciting.
If i were a grade school teacher this set would get a D-
The rest is a bunch of silly gimmicks like Meld and Emerakul.
Tournament wise its like they looted odyssey block but didn't want to bring back cards people would actually play like Wonder and Circular Logic and Roar of the Wurm and remade Wild Mongrel without adjusting his stats to match a world with much better creatures. There is a hard to cast Werebear at mythic for some reason.
Some of the spirits seem good which i think is a bright spot on an otherwise dull and dreary set.
Commander wise you get a couple niche commanders in a wear-wolf and a spider a mediocre zombie general and some expensive ones... not very exciting.
If i were a grade school teacher this set would get a D-
You actually expected them to reprint circular logic? With Jace around?
You actually expected them to reprint circular logic? With Jace around?
It's not like jace is doing anything these days anyway. (if you aren't GW, just stay home this season) Hell, in a proper madness deck, Jace probably just worse than a merfolk looter due to having the drawback of becoming a powerful walker in the midgame turning off your madness spells.
In any case, the problem isn't the lack of reprints, its the lack of strong madness cards. What cards does a madness deck have to use right now, Fiery Temper and ...........
...Basically that's it. Stromkirk Occultist is fine, but it trades with everything for no value. Even if you could guarantee you always cast Occultist for its madness cost, its arguable whether it would be better than Abbot of Keral Keep. No one is interesting in working hard to make cards maybe slightly better than cards they could just be playing anyway. Bloodhall Priest is fine, but no evasion means it will just get eaten by Sylvan Advocates. I'm not interested in working hard to turn a 4 drop into a 3 drop that is still outclassed by a 2 drop. Avacyn's judgement is decent, but its front end is quite bad, and fireball effects are rarely good enough in standard. Just the wind is just unsummon, a decent card but rarely a driving force in standard. The simple truth is that wizards didn't push madness cards, so why bother to build a madness deck.
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
Your opinion boils down to "If you didn't spend money on these cards, you cannot disprove my argument that they're good." It's a great tactic to ensure that anything you say is infallible because any response a person gives to you can be countered by "You just need to buy more cards and keep playing".
Except I haven't said that "the cards are good". What's "good" anyway? For some people, it means constructed playable, for others exclusively eternal constructed playable, for others, flavourful and interesting, for others, part of a fun limited gameplay, funny combos, tribal unity, commander-worthy, pauper-worthy, etc, etc, etc. I'm sorry that the "goodness" that you expect from cards is not there in your un-empirical opinion. I argue that it may be there but you cannot know for sure until you try it. Yes, there's a financial risk to it, but this is not endemic of this set. Every set is like that. Every entertainment investment, in fact, is like that. Movies, videogames, concerts, etc. Anything can end being a disappointment from an initial positive impression, or a pleasant surprise from a negative one, and again, it is up to you to assess the risk.
Or just do what you were perhaps planning to do from the beginning: wait until the first reports of people actually playing the cards start trickling into the open, quickly buy the singles, and when eventually you are "pwning n00bs" with those cards, claim that you knew from the beginning that they were awesome and anybody who believed otherwise was an idiot.
So in 3 months from now, when the format continues to be dominated by GW / Bant decks, can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone that this set was just as unbalanced as I said?
Good, btw, means cards that show up in winning decklists. I don't give a ***** about whether a card fits into your casual tribal cat deck; if I'm spending hundreds of dollars on cards, they should at least allow me win some of that cost back in prizes.
But your initial argument was not that colours were unbalanced but that, and I quote, "the cards suck". At no point I have tried to contest that GW seems to be the strongest archetype, so I have little crow to eat in the future.
And I hope you understand that's YOUR definition of "good" and that some happy tribal players don't give a crap either about players who treat Magic as a sort of investment and neither group is more right than the other.
Nevertheless, you seem to be implying that no Eldritch Moon cards will ever be part of competitive tournament decks. So how is it, again? "can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone" in three months that you were knee-jerky wrong abut saying so when EM cards start appearing in pro-players' deck and commanding good prices?
The cards that aren't green or white suck for Standard, and if they can't cut it in Standard, they are worthless. There are like 1 or 2 cards that might see some fringe play after they rotate, but that's about it. There's nothing terribly exciting about this set, and buying into it is a waste of money. The complete failure of BRU to pose any sort of meaningful threat to GW's dominance of Standard means that the set is unlikely to significantly impact ANY format.
Your argument for "causal play = good" is meaningless because ANY card is subjectively "good" in causal, thus, it's not really an objective measure of a card's strength. I could sing the praises of Gray Ogre for my tribal ogre deck, but we both know that doesn't make it a good card. Good cards show up in winning decklists because they are objectively good. The pros will play some of the EM cards in their decks for Standard until they rotate because despite sucking, Wizards made sure the rest of Standard sucks just as bad, so a few GW cards will be played, maybe splashing a few of the blue spirits in Bant, until they rotate and then they'll be shelved forever.
Heh, well done. Now you have basically insured yourself against ever being wrong. If EM cards ever make it to pros' decks or are raved about, it's just because "the whole of standard sucks". You'll be safe up in the gilded tower of the money you didn't spend in the set, hearing the laughter and joy of the ignorant peasants playing with the pieces of crap they are blind to see as such, believing that they are having "fun". But you will know better, know that their fun is fake and their prized possessions but colourful glass pebbles peddled to them by unscrupulous merchants.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I don't disagree with much of your post, but I do have to disagree with you about madness. Madness is a powerful mechanic that I was very excited for. Wizards just decided not to print any strong madness cards for some reason. Once upon a time, madness spells gave you evasive 4/4s for 3 and free Rootwallas. Now it gives us bad bolts and weak creatures and cantrips.
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 actually expected them to reprint circular logic? With Jace around?
It's not like jace is doing anything these days anyway. (if you aren't GW, just stay home this season) Hell, in a proper madness deck, Jace probably just worse than a merfolk looter due to having the drawback of becoming a powerful walker in the midgame turning off your madness spells.
In any case, the problem isn't the lack of reprints, its the lack of strong madness cards. What cards does a madness deck have to use right now, Fiery Temper and ...........
...Basically that's it. Stromkirk Occultist is fine, but it trades with everything for no value. Even if you could guarantee you always cast Occultist for its madness cost, its arguable whether it would be better than Abbot of Keral Keep. No one is interesting in working hard to make cards maybe slightly better than cards they could just be playing anyway. Bloodhall Priest is fine, but no evasion means it will just get eaten by Sylvan Advocates. I'm not interested in working hard to turn a 4 drop into a 3 drop that is still outclassed by a 2 drop. Avacyn's judgement is decent, but its front end is quite bad, and fireball effects are rarely good enough in standard. Just the wind is just unsummon, a decent card but rarely a driving force in standard. The simple truth is that wizards didn't push madness cards, so why bother to build a madness deck.
Same reason you'd build a colorless deck I guess....
Except I haven't said that "the cards are good". What's "good" anyway? For some people, it means constructed playable, for others exclusively eternal constructed playable, for others, flavourful and interesting, for others, part of a fun limited gameplay, funny combos, tribal unity, commander-worthy, pauper-worthy, etc, etc, etc. I'm sorry that the "goodness" that you expect from cards is not there in your un-empirical opinion. I argue that it may be there but you cannot know for sure until you try it. Yes, there's a financial risk to it, but this is not endemic of this set. Every set is like that. Every entertainment investment, in fact, is like that. Movies, videogames, concerts, etc. Anything can end being a disappointment from an initial positive impression, or a pleasant surprise from a negative one, and again, it is up to you to assess the risk.
Or just do what you were perhaps planning to do from the beginning: wait until the first reports of people actually playing the cards start trickling into the open, quickly buy the singles, and when eventually you are "pwning n00bs" with those cards, claim that you knew from the beginning that they were awesome and anybody who believed otherwise was an idiot.
So in 3 months from now, when the format continues to be dominated by GW / Bant decks, can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone that this set was just as unbalanced as I said?
Good, btw, means cards that show up in winning decklists. I don't give a ***** about whether a card fits into your casual tribal cat deck; if I'm spending hundreds of dollars on cards, they should at least allow me win some of that cost back in prizes.
But your initial argument was not that colours were unbalanced but that, and I quote, "the cards suck". At no point I have tried to contest that GW seems to be the strongest archetype, so I have little crow to eat in the future.
And I hope you understand that's YOUR definition of "good" and that some happy tribal players don't give a crap either about players who treat Magic as a sort of investment and neither group is more right than the other.
Nevertheless, you seem to be implying that no Eldritch Moon cards will ever be part of competitive tournament decks. So how is it, again? "can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone" in three months that you were knee-jerky wrong abut saying so when EM cards start appearing in pro-players' deck and commanding good prices?
The cards that aren't green or white suck for Standard, and if they can't cut it in Standard, they are worthless. There are like 1 or 2 cards that might see some fringe play after they rotate, but that's about it. There's nothing terribly exciting about this set, and buying into it is a waste of money. The complete failure of BRU to pose any sort of meaningful threat to GW's dominance of Standard means that the set is unlikely to significantly impact ANY format.
Your argument for "causal play = good" is meaningless because ANY card is subjectively "good" in causal, thus, it's not really an objective measure of a card's strength. I could sing the praises of Gray Ogre for my tribal ogre deck, but we both know that doesn't make it a good card. Good cards show up in winning decklists because they are objectively good. The pros will play some of the EM cards in their decks for Standard until they rotate because despite sucking, Wizards made sure the rest of Standard sucks just as bad, so a few GW cards will be played, maybe splashing a few of the blue spirits in Bant, until they rotate and then they'll be shelved forever.
Heh, well done. Now you have basically insured yourself against ever being wrong. If EM cards ever make it to pros' decks or are raved about, it's just because "the whole of standard sucks". You'll be safe up in the gilded tower of the money you didn't spend in the set, hearing the laughter and joy of the ignorant peasants playing with the pieces of crap they are blind to see as such, believing that they are having "fun". But you will know better, know that their fun is fake and their prized possessions but colourful glass pebbles peddled to them by unscrupulous merchants.
The cards that aren't green or white suck for Standard, and if they can't cut it in Standard, they are worthless.
Errr nope? A card can see no play in Standard but be powerful in older formats. Treasure Cruise and Mental Misstep were far from overpowered in Standard yet broke Modern and Eternal formats, and I'm pretty sure that Bedlam Reveler will see Modern play even if it can't compete against GW decks in Standard.
Except I haven't said that "the cards are good". What's "good" anyway? For some people, it means constructed playable, for others exclusively eternal constructed playable, for others, flavourful and interesting, for others, part of a fun limited gameplay, funny combos, tribal unity, commander-worthy, pauper-worthy, etc, etc, etc. I'm sorry that the "goodness" that you expect from cards is not there in your un-empirical opinion. I argue that it may be there but you cannot know for sure until you try it. Yes, there's a financial risk to it, but this is not endemic of this set. Every set is like that. Every entertainment investment, in fact, is like that. Movies, videogames, concerts, etc. Anything can end being a disappointment from an initial positive impression, or a pleasant surprise from a negative one, and again, it is up to you to assess the risk.
Or just do what you were perhaps planning to do from the beginning: wait until the first reports of people actually playing the cards start trickling into the open, quickly buy the singles, and when eventually you are "pwning n00bs" with those cards, claim that you knew from the beginning that they were awesome and anybody who believed otherwise was an idiot.
So in 3 months from now, when the format continues to be dominated by GW / Bant decks, can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone that this set was just as unbalanced as I said?
Good, btw, means cards that show up in winning decklists. I don't give a ***** about whether a card fits into your casual tribal cat deck; if I'm spending hundreds of dollars on cards, they should at least allow me win some of that cost back in prizes.
But your initial argument was not that colours were unbalanced but that, and I quote, "the cards suck". At no point I have tried to contest that GW seems to be the strongest archetype, so I have little crow to eat in the future.
And I hope you understand that's YOUR definition of "good" and that some happy tribal players don't give a crap either about players who treat Magic as a sort of investment and neither group is more right than the other.
Nevertheless, you seem to be implying that no Eldritch Moon cards will ever be part of competitive tournament decks. So how is it, again? "can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone" in three months that you were knee-jerky wrong abut saying so when EM cards start appearing in pro-players' deck and commanding good prices?
The cards that aren't green or white suck for Standard, and if they can't cut it in Standard, they are worthless. There are like 1 or 2 cards that might see some fringe play after they rotate, but that's about it. There's nothing terribly exciting about this set, and buying into it is a waste of money. The complete failure of BRU to pose any sort of meaningful threat to GW's dominance of Standard means that the set is unlikely to significantly impact ANY format.
Your argument for "causal play = good" is meaningless because ANY card is subjectively "good" in causal, thus, it's not really an objective measure of a card's strength. I could sing the praises of Gray Ogre for my tribal ogre deck, but we both know that doesn't make it a good card. Good cards show up in winning decklists because they are objectively good. The pros will play some of the EM cards in their decks for Standard until they rotate because despite sucking, Wizards made sure the rest of Standard sucks just as bad, so a few GW cards will be played, maybe splashing a few of the blue spirits in Bant, until they rotate and then they'll be shelved forever.
Heh, well done. Now you have basically insured yourself against ever being wrong. If EM cards ever make it to pros' decks or are raved about, it's just because "the whole of standard sucks". You'll be safe up in the gilded tower of the money you didn't spend in the set, hearing the laughter and joy of the ignorant peasants playing with the pieces of crap they are blind to see as such, believing that they are having "fun". But you will know better, know that their fun is fake and their prized possessions but colourful glass pebbles peddled to them by unscrupulous merchants.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind of the bad magic player who only netdeck and act like it makes them good at the game.
Not a fan of this set. I do not play Standard so it is not based on that. I dabble in Modern and Legacy and there is little to nothing for those formats. I do love EDH and have 25 decks. There is only a handful of cards I will even think about putting in a deck. This will be the 1st set I will not buy a box for since returning to MTG almost 4 years ago.
Not a fan of this set. I do not play Standard so it is not based on that. I dabble in Modern and Legacy and there is little to nothing for those formats. I do love EDH and have 25 decks. There is only a handful of cards I will even think about putting in a deck. This will be the 1st set I will not buy a box for since returning to MTG almost 4 years ago.
I wouldn't buy a box either but Prerelease prices on singles are really high for this set for some reason.
I see plenty of frustration here about GW being overpowered and I am one who contributed, but let's give a practical example. Foul emissary: 1/1 for 3cmc (bad so far) but looks at your top 4 cards to grab another creature (getting better) and if you sac him for an emerge creature he replaces himself with a 3/2 (okay now I'm asking why this is uncommon and not rare). So he filters to find a big emerge creature, offer a decent cmc to sac to it, then replaces himself!? The best red has for replacing itself is gambling by exiling the top card .Doesn't sound overpowered until you do a red card version. Or a blue card version. Red card: etb look at top four cards and get an instant or sorcery, when sacced for emerge do 3 damage to creature or player. Blue card: same as red, but when sacced draw 2 cards. So why does green get to filter on so many cards now to grab more creatures (supporting creatures) plus have another relevant ability (like this guy and dusk watch) and the cards go on bottom of library, and all of that on a stick. But the best red and blue get is a sorcery 3cmc that looks at top 5 cards and grabs one instant/sorcery and drops the rest in the GY. You can't possibly out tempo simple creature decks anymore making any non creature strategy significantly weaker than creature ones. And if only two colors get efficient creatures and one of those colors also gets to play creatures ahead of time like the cards mentioned or CoCo, please tell me, how is GW supposed to be even competed with in standard without adding GW to your deck?
I have to say I've done a complete 180 on this set. From a draft perspective it is really good, and very synergistic with SOI. There are a lot of bombs and a variety of archetypes. As far as theme goes I too hated the eldrazi at first mainly because of BFZ (drafted it maybe twice) but here it kinda worked. I've really been into Eldrich Horror lately so this was scratching a lot of that itch. It's not my favorite ever, but it's definitely a great set. Had they just done this instead of BFZ I would've been much happier.
I played the prerelease and have built a deck and modified another since the set came out. There are cards from this set in it but neither of them are standard legal. One is a modern mono white humans and the other is a casual u/w spirits. The spirits work extremely well but not completely because of the new stuff. Yes spell queller is a nice add to the deck but most of it revolves around Geist of Saint traft and karmic guide. And my humans is built around Thalia's lieutenant but has some key support pieces from older sets like mikaeus and archetype of courage to pretty much guarantee the damage. Standard werewolves is garbage but modern werewolves got some huge adds with ulrich and arlinn kord from soi. There's next to nothing for a lot of other decks out there. Overall not just the set but the whole block is kind of a disappointment for everything standard except humans. It has taken away the creativity of the game. Hence why I play mostly casual but I dabble in modern occasionally. There's decks that are better than others but it opens up creativity because of the card options.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm looking forward to the set even if the flavour, while spot on, doesn't do it for me.
Those cards won't make you good at Magic on their own.
Hopefully in Karladesh that Wizards are used to the 2 set per block shfit and actually balances things out because BFZ-EMN hass been a mess so i can forgive them for making the cards abit udnerwhelming.
Just about the only thing that Eldritch moon looks like its going to improve from SOI is UW spirits. UW spirits looks like it is now a well defined archetype, as opposed to in SOI, where it was basically just UW fliers.
TLDR - Eldritch moon limited looks to be a less diverse and less focussed version of SOI with generally weaker cards.
- Manite
But your initial argument was not that colours were unbalanced but that, and I quote, "the cards suck". At no point I have tried to contest that GW seems to be the strongest archetype, so I have little crow to eat in the future.
And I hope you understand that's YOUR definition of "good" and that some happy tribal players don't give a crap either about players who treat Magic as a sort of investment and neither group is more right than the other.
Nevertheless, you seem to be implying that no Eldritch Moon cards will ever be part of competitive tournament decks. So how is it, again? "can I count on you to come back here and admit to everyone" in three months that you were knee-jerky wrong abut saying so when EM cards start appearing in pro-players' deck and commanding good prices?
The rest is a bunch of silly gimmicks like Meld and Emerakul.
Tournament wise its like they looted odyssey block but didn't want to bring back cards people would actually play like Wonder and Circular Logic and Roar of the Wurm and remade Wild Mongrel without adjusting his stats to match a world with much better creatures. There is a hard to cast Werebear at mythic for some reason.
Some of the spirits seem good which i think is a bright spot on an otherwise dull and dreary set.
Commander wise you get a couple niche commanders in a wear-wolf and a spider a mediocre zombie general and some expensive ones... not very exciting.
If i were a grade school teacher this set would get a D-
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
You actually expected them to reprint circular logic? With Jace around?
It's not like jace is doing anything these days anyway. (if you aren't GW, just stay home this season) Hell, in a proper madness deck, Jace probably just worse than a merfolk looter due to having the drawback of becoming a powerful walker in the midgame turning off your madness spells.
In any case, the problem isn't the lack of reprints, its the lack of strong madness cards. What cards does a madness deck have to use right now, Fiery Temper and ...........
...Basically that's it. Stromkirk Occultist is fine, but it trades with everything for no value. Even if you could guarantee you always cast Occultist for its madness cost, its arguable whether it would be better than Abbot of Keral Keep. No one is interesting in working hard to make cards maybe slightly better than cards they could just be playing anyway. Bloodhall Priest is fine, but no evasion means it will just get eaten by Sylvan Advocates. I'm not interested in working hard to turn a 4 drop into a 3 drop that is still outclassed by a 2 drop. Avacyn's judgement is decent, but its front end is quite bad, and fireball effects are rarely good enough in standard. Just the wind is just unsummon, a decent card but rarely a driving force in standard. The simple truth is that wizards didn't push madness cards, so why bother to build a madness deck.
- Manite
Heh, well done. Now you have basically insured yourself against ever being wrong. If EM cards ever make it to pros' decks or are raved about, it's just because "the whole of standard sucks". You'll be safe up in the gilded tower of the money you didn't spend in the set, hearing the laughter and joy of the ignorant peasants playing with the pieces of crap they are blind to see as such, believing that they are having "fun". But you will know better, know that their fun is fake and their prized possessions but colourful glass pebbles peddled to them by unscrupulous merchants.
I don't disagree with much of your post, but I do have to disagree with you about madness. Madness is a powerful mechanic that I was very excited for. Wizards just decided not to print any strong madness cards for some reason. Once upon a time, madness spells gave you evasive 4/4s for 3 and free Rootwallas. Now it gives us bad bolts and weak creatures and cantrips.
- Manite
Same reason you'd build a colorless deck I guess....
Poetic post of the month
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind of the bad magic player who only netdeck and act like it makes them good at the game.