I don't love it. I don't think it's as uninteresting to me as Dragons and Origins were, but I'm also having more success than I did in those formats, so it's possible that plays into it. On the whole I actually like the energy mechanic a lot, and I think if it had more defensive applications (or if the thriving creatures were slightly less powerful) we'd be talking about a very different format. For example, if the thriving cycle worked like Voltaic Brawler I think you'd have fewer non-games right off the bat.
I do think that just for my own personal reference during future spoiler seasons I'm making a mental note about abilities that give a significant advantage to attackers. A few formats like this one and Zendikar have been designed to mitigate the inherent advantage that being the blocking player carries in Magic, and I think the consequences of that are pretty clear at this point.
I'm a little bummed to see so many people down on this format. I've been enjoying it a good bit, although maybe it's just because I've been crushing it so far (14-1 match record all together).
No offense, but 14 - 1 is luck. Nobody goes 14 - 1 because of some kind of super awesome skill. So this format is full of variance and you've been on the lucky side of that variance. I'm glad you've enjoyed your run but it's not going to last. You're going to lose tons of games to the punishing nature of the format, where a single missed land drop or more likely simply having lost the roll of the dice and finding out that 75% of wins go to the player that plays first, will determine the outcome without you really having any say in the matter.
One thing I've found is that while decisions do matter in this format, with the faster pace and more explosive starts it often just comes down to a single right or wrong call that determines the outcome of the game. For example, one game I chose not to pump my Thriving Ibex because I wanted to blink it with the angel and get more energy. But valuing the additional ability to pump later over that single point of immediate damage cost me the game and eventually the match when I came up one damage short of lethal a few turns down the line. This makes games less forgiving than some other recent formats where you could make a mistake but make up for it in a protracted battle. Overall I find this change of pace fun as each decision feels very high stakes, since you never know when you could make a slight blunder that could cost you the entire game.
Sorry, there is no way you could have known that not doing a single point of damage at one point in preference to wanting to use a trick to build resources, was going to be a game losing move, and trying attribute that decision to "skill" instead of happenstance indicates, to me, willfully playing down the shortcomings of the format.
Sure, there are going to be good games in Kaladesh. It would be ridiculous to suggest that every game is going to go down to whoever drew first, or whoever didn't get the exact sequence of land and spell cards in a format that gives very, very little opportunity for working your way back from a losing position. Good games will happen. For me though, it's just not worth putting my money down if I know that a certain percentage of the time, the games will be frustrating and pointless. Frustrating and pointless games are a big part of Magic already, but with Kaladesh, they've been taken way beyond the threshold of acceptability. I won't play this set any more.
No offense, but 14 - 1 is luck. Nobody goes 14 - 1 because of some kind of super awesome skill. So this format is full of variance and you've been on the lucky side of that variance. I'm glad you've enjoyed your run but it's not going to last. You're going to lose tons of games to the punishing nature of the format, where a single missed land drop or more likely simply having lost the roll of the dice and finding out that 75% of wins go to the player that plays first, will determine the outcome without you really having any say in the matter.
Nobody goes 14-1 based solely on luck either. Magic is a game of luck AND skill. That's not magically different because we're in a beatdown format. As for the play first thing, I've lost 9 out of 10 of my last die rolls (how's that for lucky?) and won all but one of those matches. And the one I lost was the one where I was on the play. Now, I could look at these results and say that the win rate is 100% when you are on the draw, but of course we both know this is BS, much like your made up 75% figure.
Sorry, there is no way you could have known that not doing a single point of damage at one point in preference to wanting to use a trick to build resources, was going to be a game losing move, and trying attribute that decision to "skill" instead of happenstance indicates, to me, willfully playing down the shortcomings of the format.
Nah, I absolutely could have figured out that the extra point mattered more. For one, this is a beatdown format, and most decks care more about getting in that damage than getting value (there are certainly exceptions though). For another, my opponent was playing a green dinosaur deck that had a bunch of junk like that 6/6 vanilla dude that can just brick wall the Ibex whether it's a 3/5 or a 4/6, which I knew because this was the second game of the match. My path to victory was getting him dead as quickly as possible, not giving up damage for the possibility of a slightly bigger, but still likely to be outclassed creature 2 turns down the line. I don't think there's many coin-flip plays in this game. There's nearly always an optimal line based on the information you have available at the time, and my Ibex play was sub-optimal. Chalking up too many losses to "variance" will keep you from learning from your mistakes and getting better.
I've been up against a lot of people who make mistakes because they don't know the right answer to the classic "Who's the beatdown?" question, which I think is super important in this format. People see that this is an aggressive format, and think they need to be attacking all the time. Blocking is being undervalued, and this is a weakness that can be exploited by a savvy player. Figuring out when you need to hold back, make smart trades and wait for your window to turn it around is absolutely critical in Kaladesh.
I will say that for competitive level of events, it would probably be ideal to just prohibit the masterpieces that are clearly better than any other card in the set (sol ring, the swords, etc) since those are the only cards that will greatly frustrate players as opening a Gearhulk masterpiece is the same as opening a normal gearhulk and maybe put the competitive integrity of the game in question. However, I get the logistical issues that arise from doing something like this, so I don't mind them just keeping the current solution as is since the odds of this happening are just so low.
For competitive level events, they could do it like they did Zendikar Treasures. They've done it successfully before. There shouldn't be logistical issues. Just make all the Masterpieces illegal in Limited. Players still get the excitement from cracking money cards. Wizards still gets to print new premium copies of cards for the $$. The price of Standard still goes down. All the same benefits apply, except you don't have some Limited games decided by the few OP Masterpieces.
If you open a Masterpiece, reveal it to the table, remove it from the pack (it's yours), and draft another card. Or like people did with foil Tarmogoyf + regular Tarmogoyf packs in Modern Masters, reveal it, buy the pack, replace the pack with a new one and draft with it instead.
I don't see why this is a difficult option. They've done it before. I really hope they revert to it again. I do love the idea of getting to crack a very valuable card with Eternal playability, and I see that as an overall win for the game. I just don't see why it needs to be part of Limited.
Formats where certain players win more consistently are by definition more skill intensive. Like you can't define it any differently.
I think this is an oversimplification.
Different people are looking for different things out of Magic games. I personally am not going for win-at-all-cost. I want to enjoy my games too. Trying to draft the deck that leads to the quickest least interactive win is not what I am trying to accomplish when I play Magic. A set that makes it easier for the win-at-all-cost crowd to increase their win percentage does not necessarily indicate a set that requires more skill; it just indicates a set that rewards a certain play style.
To me, the greatest 'skill' in Magic is the ability to play in a way that results in the most fun for the player. Because this is a GAME, its whole reason for existence is to provide enjoyment to its players. Players who are maximizing their FUN are *winning the game*.
Sure, if we play the game of redefining what words mean, then 'skill intensive' can mean anything. To me, skill mean finishing your soup even though you don't like the taste. KLD does not fit the bill, I tried it: put down a bowl of soup in front a KLD pack and watch it just refuse to eat the soup. KLD is a failure.
Formats where certain players win more consistently are by definition more skill intensive. Like you can't define it any differently.
I think this is an oversimplification.
Different people are looking for different things out of Magic games. I personally am not going for win-at-all-cost. I want to enjoy my games too. Trying to draft the deck that leads to the quickest least interactive win is not what I am trying to accomplish when I play Magic. A set that makes it easier for the win-at-all-cost crowd to increase their win percentage does not necessarily indicate a set that requires more skill; it just indicates a set that rewards a certain play style.
To me, the greatest 'skill' in Magic is the ability to play in a way that results in the most fun for the player. Because this is a GAME, its whole reason for existence is to provide enjoyment to its players. Players who are maximizing their FUN are *winning the game*.
The commonly accepted notion of what "skill" means in this context is "drafting and playing in such a way to maximize your chances of winning". While your viewpoint is a fine one to have, it's unrelated to the discussion of skill, and I don't think derailing the conversation with what it means for each of us to have fun playing magic is really conducive to the overall discussion (which granted, has devolved mostly to people complaining about the format being an aggro-fest).
I'm sort of torn on whether I like this format. There are games where you just get train-wrecked by the freighter and or energy cards, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the format is not skill intensive. One thing I appreciate with this format is that you consciously decide how many lands to play, and that based on your draft, anywhere from 15-17 is the right answer, which is something that I haven't thought too much about in modern formats. That aspect of deckbuilding is certainly more skill intensive than other formats, but is largely ignored by people here since the aspect that people care about most is having meaningful and interactive games, which this format has some amount less of. My guess is that this format is actually rather skill intensive, but rather than testing your ability to navigate long games with plentiful resources, it's more about getting as much out of incremental advantages found in drafting, deckbuilding, and deciding binary choices in fabricate and energy. You might argue, "hurr durr, these mechanics are super simple to use", but I've had many cases where I wasn't sure whether or not to scry with the Aether Theorist, or bank all my energy for a potential topdeck energy outlet. Even attacking with thriving creatures can be somewhat challenging, since it's hard to know whether or not it's actually putting the counter on the guy.
Now don't get me wrong, I hate getting freightered as much as the rest of you, but I'm not sure if this format is anywhere near as bad as some of the largest offenders in recent history such as Magic Origins, 3x Theros, or original Zendikar, which were actually just degenerate curve-out formats. I'm not 100% sold on Renegade Freighter and Thriving Rhino breaking the format (since honestly, the rhino is the only card in the cycle that's truly high impact) especially since the removal suite here is much better than those formats, but I suppose only time will tell.
Formats where certain players win more consistently are by definition more skill intensive. Like you can't define it any differently.
I think this is an oversimplification.
Different people are looking for different things out of Magic games. I personally am not going for win-at-all-cost. I want to enjoy my games too. Trying to draft the deck that leads to the quickest least interactive win is not what I am trying to accomplish when I play Magic. A set that makes it easier for the win-at-all-cost crowd to increase their win percentage does not necessarily indicate a set that requires more skill; it just indicates a set that rewards a certain play style.
To me, the greatest 'skill' in Magic is the ability to play in a way that results in the most fun for the player. Because this is a GAME, its whole reason for existence is to provide enjoyment to its players. Players who are maximizing their FUN are *winning the game*.
The commonly accepted notion of what "skill" means in this context is "drafting and playing in such a way to maximize your chances of winning". While your viewpoint is a fine one to have, it's unrelated to the discussion of skill, and I don't think derailing the conversation with what it means for each of us to have fun playing magic is really conducive to the overall discussion (which granted, has devolved mostly to people complaining about the format being an aggro-fest).
although i agree that there is an agreed-upon (in this forum) notion of skill, i don't think it's derailing the thread to talk about why a person has fun with Kaladesh in ways that have nothing to do with skill? the forum topic of "Kaladesh is terrible (or not)" isn't the same as "does Kaladesh reward high skill levels?", after all!
personally, i welcome hearing people who actually like this format. it makes for something interesting to read (ie beccause it is a different opinion than my own). maybe i can expand what i enjoy by hearing other people's positive feelings, that is.
(p.s. thank you for your analysis on draft choices and deckbuilding as potentially being unusually skill-rewarding in this format)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----------------------------
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul "no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
personally, i welcome hearing people who actually like this format. it makes for something interesting to read (ie beccause it is a different opinion than my own). maybe i can expand what i enjoy by hearing other people's positive feelings, that is.
Well, as someone who normally hates aggro formats, I have liked this one. I've lost my share of games to mana flood and that's never fun, but I've also had a lot of games that really made me think, and vehicles and energy change the way I think about the game and sequence things enough that it still feels fresh to me even several weeks in.
SOI was a surprisingly aggressive format and I ended up not liking it nearly as well as I like this one, mostly because all the fun things I wanted to do in that format were exercises in frustration. In this format, there's a ton of baloney you can pull off pretty reliably that actually matches up well with the pace of the format, and I'm pretty happy as a result.
The complete lack of manasinks and the fact that creatures are FAR better at attacking than at blocking makes it almost as dumb as triple Gatecrash.
Don't joke about these things. Yes, triple Gatecrash was dumb. All the Boros and 2 drops. But it got REALLY DUMB you could 3-0 8-4s with ridiculousness like 5 Spire Tracer + 4 Forced Adaptation + 4 Madcap Skills. Opponents would just ragequit telling me how awful a player I was by outracing them with bad cards. Until any other format spawns a 1-drop.dec, it has not reached GTC territory.
As an update to my earlier post, I am warming up to this format, though I'm still not sure. As I draft I am focusing on getting at least one or two cards which can help slightly recover from mana flood such as a mana sink (there are not many) or Cathartic Reunion, and I am also playing 16 lands for many of my decks unless I have a couple of mana sinks or high-drops.
In watching early streams and reading comments from pros I thought I would see plenty of board stalls but somehow I have avoided that altogether, with aggressive trading in combat.
I am enjoying the Fabricate mechanic quite a bit as it provides a legit strategy decision based upon the game situation and the deck.
My guess is that this format is actually rather skill intensive, but rather than testing your ability to navigate long games with plentiful resources, it's more about getting as much out of incremental advantages found in drafting, deckbuilding, and deciding binary choices in fabricate and energy.
But are Kaladesh drafts skill-intensive because of the set's design or because of the inherent fundamentals of Limited Magic?
I've played many a "bad" format, whether they be WotC design flubs or formats with no real thought whatsoever put into them (Winston drafting Fallen Empires and Homelands jank), and have never found a format in which showing skill and playing the correct lines was not rewarded.
As such, the mere presence of skill-testing elements is a rather low hurdle for a Magic set, design with draft in mind, to clear. It's pretty much a given and has been for a decade or more now. Rattling off examples of how Kaladesh can reward tight play is all well and good, but the set compares poorly, in terms of the returns to skill, to a lot of previous fare.
It's a general truism among competitive Magic players that longer games mean more opportunity to outplay an opponent. This is doubly true in Limited, where longer games mean that a skilled drafter will be advantaged due to higher average card quality or the ability to assemble powerful synergies. But shorter games, typical of beatdown formats like Kaladesh, reward winning the die roll and curving out, blunting the ability of better drafters to eke out more victories on the margins. It's all well and good to trumpet the merits of Fabricate and Energy, but it is hard to glean advantages from careful play with these mechanics if you're dead on board or critically behind before one has any opportunity to make meaningful plays with them.
Again, I'm not saying there's no skill involved; proper deckbuilding, sequencing and resource management are still key. And I've had some decent games of Kaladesh. But I think these stem from (Limited) Magic's core design, with the set detracting from it (at least in many ways).
You might argue, "hurr durr, these mechanics are super simple to use",
I'm not certain they're simple to use, but they aren't developed all that much.
In most cases Fabricate is an easy decision. Make an appraisal of the board state and deploy whichever power/toughness distribution work best. The mechanic feels fun and plays well, but isn't particularly difficult in the majority of cases.
As for Energy and Vehicles, my issue with these mechanics are how slanted they are towards beating down. Every Common energy-consumer besides Die Young and Aether Theorist requires an attack to trigger. Uncommon energy-sinks are a little more varied, but not by much. And most Vehicles are extremely slanted towards attacking as well, being stacked with passive abilities that down nothing on block (Menance, Trample), and abilities that trigger only on attacks (e.g. Ballista Charger, Freighter). Where's the reward for blocking?
Landfall in Zendikar seemed like an honest mistake, wherein the inability to play lands on opponent's turns (in most cases) resulted in many creatures being far better at attacking than blocking. But Kaladesh, like Origins beforehand, thoughtlessly staples a bunch of bonuses for attacking across numerous cards, with few strong defensive cards available at lower rarities.
These are really cool mechanics, but why don't they do more than just reward aggression? Seems like a huge design/development failure, one at the core of why I don't find this format particularly interesting.
I really don't think they do just reward aggression. Cards like Consulate Skygate and Thriving Turtle exist in the format and are completely playable. The trick is actually realizing that you need to play towards stabilizing the board, rather than controlling the board. It works, it really does, I promise. Control is a viable strategy in this environment.
I've played with a fair few walls in this format to good effect. Why so resistant?
Yes, it's true, Freighter is hard to block. But not every game devolves into getting attacked by a turn 3 Freighter, and those cards are plenty good when your goal is to get to the late game, rather than to answer threats. I am generally very happy to draw the Skygate, despite the fact that it blocks one specific common poorly. For all everyone says this is an aggro format (and it is) I have no trouble getting games to go turn 20 and drawing through my whole deck.
To be fair, you aren't putting a 0/4 in your deck for the possibility of running into a pushed rare. (Sideboard maybe.) I have maindecked the Skygate before but I usually feel bad when I have to.
Consulate Skygate seems rather underrated in this thread. It doesn't block the paintrain, but it deals with every single common flier in the format, blocks most creatures that cost 4 or less, and is one of the best 2 drops for defensive decks in this format. I'm not sure what people are expecting out of their 2 drop in this format, since they can't all be cards like Dhund Operative: it tends to "trade" upwards for mana, and forces tricks out of your opponent for 2 mana. Reach is a big deal for pushing this card over the edge compared to the W 0/4 because fliers are real threats in this format, and being able to block all of the common ones is pretty important for defensive decks that generally have weak air defenses.
I expect the cynical response to be that there aren't any defensive decks in the format, but that seems a bit over the top as the tools do exist, compared to a format like Zendikar where there were far fewer defensive options available. As crazy as it sounds, there will be times where the best option in your position of the draft is to draft a control deck, and when that time comes, you'll be pretty happy picking up and playing a skygate.
I've drafted a lot of 3+ color control decks that were very happy to play 2-3 Skygates. Also, between the uncommon modules, Whirlermakermaker, and self-assembler you can usually find plenty of manasinks -- unless you're deliberately trading good manasinks for aggression, which is a very different thing than there not being enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
For sure Choo Choo is the defining card of the format. But most decks will only get 1, and if you don't have one you just have to plot your game around them having one. Note that the 5/2 for 4 in red blocks it. There are some beat down games, but there are also lots of grind fests.
Anecdotal I know, but most of my games lately have been going past turn 10, including a match I won against an opponent with 2 pain trains. I've been averaging two drafts a week in leagues since the format debuted. I have drafted W/U twice, G/U twice, R/W and R/B often, U/R 3 times, W/G once, G/B once, and W/B twice.
W/B is super grindy and slow, and good. W/U neither time I lived the dream of blinking for value. I've played against it and it was good, but both times I ended up in a fairly generic skies build, once leaning heavily on energy aggro and once relying on tempo and control, and both times I went 2-1 in terms of matches. U/G I've done as both energy aggro and energy control, and both were good. U/R the same. B/R I've done as energy aggro, artifacts aggro, vehicles, and simple aggro, and its definitely aggro or bust here, with a larger vehicle route backed by some light artifact synergy and control being more midrangey. R/W is just aggro, flat out, ranging from go wide to fast vehicles to slower vehicles. I'm prone to draft R/W anyway in most formats, and I find vehicles particularly strong and fun to play, so I gravitate toward this, and have had both my best and worst performances with it. G/W is midrangy tokens, and seems ok. B/G is terrible and should be avoided, not enough synergy and not enough payoff. Its counters theme is too slow and isn't good enough when it works. I've never drafted U/B, but I've played against some very good U/B decks. U/B artifact aggro, when pulled off, is hard to beat even with two pain trains. Its as fast as any other aggro with tempo plays and evasion as back up, the best of all worlds. U/B control is also a thing and can handle even fast aggro decks. That scry unsummon is very, very strong.
The format aggro friendly due to aggro decks being able to get quicker kills than usual AND being able to win if games go long, both due to vehicles. Closing games faster and having reach in the same format is pretty amazing for aggro. That said, going a legit control route is not only possible, but effective. The thing i think is throwing people is that mid range in this format is pretty bad unless its midrange that leans aggro incorporating vehicles, which is basically just big aggro. You can't rely on midrange to simply out class and shut down aggro decks, and midrange gets stomped by actual control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Kaladesh is not terrible. If you think THIS set is terrible, I'm sorry, but... this is just wrong. Not THIS one. This format is very well balanced. At first blush, blue seems poor, but it CAN indeed be played. That freighter, I don't think, if you give due consideration to the speed of the format, is even all that great. I think you're just counting it wrong. Not 5/4, but 3/4. You can't race a 3/4, or deal with it? I would not be HAPPY to play this card. I would not be super-unhappy, it's a nice middle-power level card. I have played the format, and I think it's only all right. If someone gets the 5 out of 5 power level interactions of the Freighter of R/W, that's perhaps a small misstep. However, there are a huge amount of things that slaughter that dead, massive amount of removal for 2 toughness creatures, and leave the Freighter as a dead card sitting on the board. I think both Inventor's Goggles and Eager Construct are legitimately better cards as early picks. This format can punish you for stumbling, but, pretty much any set since Mirage or Ice Age will punish you for stumbling in limited. It's even a little bit better in this set because of the presence of Eager Construct as a common. Very well designed set. Hovering around spot of ten in all time sets. What truly is good is defending yourself against losing quickly, playing through a bunch of Eager Constructs and Prophetic Prisms, and having a correct pick order, where, indeed, the mana sinks... you want them. Whirlermaker is barely passable on this account, and Fabrication Module and Decoction Module blank removal effects, are things that you want. Awful lot of Torch Gauntlets going around; equipments win you the game in limited and this hasn't changed. As part of the overall correct "artifacts" pick order, barring truly stupid rares of maximally premium removal that doesn't leave you open to sending a wrong signal. The final thing to note is not even remotely get run over by stuff like that with NO chance whatsoever, but the ACTUAL slight developmental "mistake" (that I like going for), if you take this and get the support for it you have a won draft; a clear 4-0, and that is, Dukhara Scavenger as a 2 of. Which is EMINENTLY obtainable. This is truly, truly good. Restoration Gearsmith is centered in Black/White, and is plainly "the better thing". If you play and access the appropriate number of lands, it is very hard to lose whilst having a pseudo-Genesis effect in limited. Revoke Privileges and Malfunction are good against it (but poor overall), and Morbid Plunder is always going to be available in the sideboard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Warning: Um, warning. This is going to be a game state violation. And a taking extra turns and drawing extra cards violation, pretty much, a whole bunch of violations. Look at me, I'm the DCI."
I do think that just for my own personal reference during future spoiler seasons I'm making a mental note about abilities that give a significant advantage to attackers. A few formats like this one and Zendikar have been designed to mitigate the inherent advantage that being the blocking player carries in Magic, and I think the consequences of that are pretty clear at this point.
No offense, but 14 - 1 is luck. Nobody goes 14 - 1 because of some kind of super awesome skill. So this format is full of variance and you've been on the lucky side of that variance. I'm glad you've enjoyed your run but it's not going to last. You're going to lose tons of games to the punishing nature of the format, where a single missed land drop or more likely simply having lost the roll of the dice and finding out that 75% of wins go to the player that plays first, will determine the outcome without you really having any say in the matter.
Sorry, there is no way you could have known that not doing a single point of damage at one point in preference to wanting to use a trick to build resources, was going to be a game losing move, and trying attribute that decision to "skill" instead of happenstance indicates, to me, willfully playing down the shortcomings of the format.
Sure, there are going to be good games in Kaladesh. It would be ridiculous to suggest that every game is going to go down to whoever drew first, or whoever didn't get the exact sequence of land and spell cards in a format that gives very, very little opportunity for working your way back from a losing position. Good games will happen. For me though, it's just not worth putting my money down if I know that a certain percentage of the time, the games will be frustrating and pointless. Frustrating and pointless games are a big part of Magic already, but with Kaladesh, they've been taken way beyond the threshold of acceptability. I won't play this set any more.
Nobody goes 14-1 based solely on luck either. Magic is a game of luck AND skill. That's not magically different because we're in a beatdown format. As for the play first thing, I've lost 9 out of 10 of my last die rolls (how's that for lucky?) and won all but one of those matches. And the one I lost was the one where I was on the play. Now, I could look at these results and say that the win rate is 100% when you are on the draw, but of course we both know this is BS, much like your made up 75% figure.
Nah, I absolutely could have figured out that the extra point mattered more. For one, this is a beatdown format, and most decks care more about getting in that damage than getting value (there are certainly exceptions though). For another, my opponent was playing a green dinosaur deck that had a bunch of junk like that 6/6 vanilla dude that can just brick wall the Ibex whether it's a 3/5 or a 4/6, which I knew because this was the second game of the match. My path to victory was getting him dead as quickly as possible, not giving up damage for the possibility of a slightly bigger, but still likely to be outclassed creature 2 turns down the line. I don't think there's many coin-flip plays in this game. There's nearly always an optimal line based on the information you have available at the time, and my Ibex play was sub-optimal. Chalking up too many losses to "variance" will keep you from learning from your mistakes and getting better.
I've been up against a lot of people who make mistakes because they don't know the right answer to the classic "Who's the beatdown?" question, which I think is super important in this format. People see that this is an aggressive format, and think they need to be attacking all the time. Blocking is being undervalued, and this is a weakness that can be exploited by a savvy player. Figuring out when you need to hold back, make smart trades and wait for your window to turn it around is absolutely critical in Kaladesh.
For competitive level events, they could do it like they did Zendikar Treasures. They've done it successfully before. There shouldn't be logistical issues. Just make all the Masterpieces illegal in Limited. Players still get the excitement from cracking money cards. Wizards still gets to print new premium copies of cards for the $$. The price of Standard still goes down. All the same benefits apply, except you don't have some Limited games decided by the few OP Masterpieces.
If you open a Masterpiece, reveal it to the table, remove it from the pack (it's yours), and draft another card. Or like people did with foil Tarmogoyf + regular Tarmogoyf packs in Modern Masters, reveal it, buy the pack, replace the pack with a new one and draft with it instead.
I don't see why this is a difficult option. They've done it before. I really hope they revert to it again. I do love the idea of getting to crack a very valuable card with Eternal playability, and I see that as an overall win for the game. I just don't see why it needs to be part of Limited.
I think this is an oversimplification.
Different people are looking for different things out of Magic games. I personally am not going for win-at-all-cost. I want to enjoy my games too. Trying to draft the deck that leads to the quickest least interactive win is not what I am trying to accomplish when I play Magic. A set that makes it easier for the win-at-all-cost crowd to increase their win percentage does not necessarily indicate a set that requires more skill; it just indicates a set that rewards a certain play style.
To me, the greatest 'skill' in Magic is the ability to play in a way that results in the most fun for the player. Because this is a GAME, its whole reason for existence is to provide enjoyment to its players. Players who are maximizing their FUN are *winning the game*.
The commonly accepted notion of what "skill" means in this context is "drafting and playing in such a way to maximize your chances of winning". While your viewpoint is a fine one to have, it's unrelated to the discussion of skill, and I don't think derailing the conversation with what it means for each of us to have fun playing magic is really conducive to the overall discussion (which granted, has devolved mostly to people complaining about the format being an aggro-fest).
I'm sort of torn on whether I like this format. There are games where you just get train-wrecked by the freighter and or energy cards, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the format is not skill intensive. One thing I appreciate with this format is that you consciously decide how many lands to play, and that based on your draft, anywhere from 15-17 is the right answer, which is something that I haven't thought too much about in modern formats. That aspect of deckbuilding is certainly more skill intensive than other formats, but is largely ignored by people here since the aspect that people care about most is having meaningful and interactive games, which this format has some amount less of. My guess is that this format is actually rather skill intensive, but rather than testing your ability to navigate long games with plentiful resources, it's more about getting as much out of incremental advantages found in drafting, deckbuilding, and deciding binary choices in fabricate and energy. You might argue, "hurr durr, these mechanics are super simple to use", but I've had many cases where I wasn't sure whether or not to scry with the Aether Theorist, or bank all my energy for a potential topdeck energy outlet. Even attacking with thriving creatures can be somewhat challenging, since it's hard to know whether or not it's actually putting the counter on the guy.
Now don't get me wrong, I hate getting freightered as much as the rest of you, but I'm not sure if this format is anywhere near as bad as some of the largest offenders in recent history such as Magic Origins, 3x Theros, or original Zendikar, which were actually just degenerate curve-out formats. I'm not 100% sold on Renegade Freighter and Thriving Rhino breaking the format (since honestly, the rhino is the only card in the cycle that's truly high impact) especially since the removal suite here is much better than those formats, but I suppose only time will tell.
although i agree that there is an agreed-upon (in this forum) notion of skill, i don't think it's derailing the thread to talk about why a person has fun with Kaladesh in ways that have nothing to do with skill? the forum topic of "Kaladesh is terrible (or not)" isn't the same as "does Kaladesh reward high skill levels?", after all!
personally, i welcome hearing people who actually like this format. it makes for something interesting to read (ie beccause it is a different opinion than my own). maybe i can expand what i enjoy by hearing other people's positive feelings, that is.
(p.s. thank you for your analysis on draft choices and deckbuilding as potentially being unusually skill-rewarding in this format)
Goblins have poor impulse control. Don't click this link!!
some of my favourite flavour text:
Wayward Soul
"no home no heart no hope"
—Stronghold graffito
Raging Goblin
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
Well, as someone who normally hates aggro formats, I have liked this one. I've lost my share of games to mana flood and that's never fun, but I've also had a lot of games that really made me think, and vehicles and energy change the way I think about the game and sequence things enough that it still feels fresh to me even several weeks in.
SOI was a surprisingly aggressive format and I ended up not liking it nearly as well as I like this one, mostly because all the fun things I wanted to do in that format were exercises in frustration. In this format, there's a ton of baloney you can pull off pretty reliably that actually matches up well with the pace of the format, and I'm pretty happy as a result.
Don't joke about these things. Yes, triple Gatecrash was dumb. All the Boros and 2 drops. But it got REALLY DUMB you could 3-0 8-4s with ridiculousness like 5 Spire Tracer + 4 Forced Adaptation + 4 Madcap Skills. Opponents would just ragequit telling me how awful a player I was by outracing them with bad cards. Until any other format spawns a 1-drop.dec, it has not reached GTC territory.
In watching early streams and reading comments from pros I thought I would see plenty of board stalls but somehow I have avoided that altogether, with aggressive trading in combat.
I am enjoying the Fabricate mechanic quite a bit as it provides a legit strategy decision based upon the game situation and the deck.
But are Kaladesh drafts skill-intensive because of the set's design or because of the inherent fundamentals of Limited Magic?
I've played many a "bad" format, whether they be WotC design flubs or formats with no real thought whatsoever put into them (Winston drafting Fallen Empires and Homelands jank), and have never found a format in which showing skill and playing the correct lines was not rewarded.
As such, the mere presence of skill-testing elements is a rather low hurdle for a Magic set, design with draft in mind, to clear. It's pretty much a given and has been for a decade or more now. Rattling off examples of how Kaladesh can reward tight play is all well and good, but the set compares poorly, in terms of the returns to skill, to a lot of previous fare.
It's a general truism among competitive Magic players that longer games mean more opportunity to outplay an opponent. This is doubly true in Limited, where longer games mean that a skilled drafter will be advantaged due to higher average card quality or the ability to assemble powerful synergies. But shorter games, typical of beatdown formats like Kaladesh, reward winning the die roll and curving out, blunting the ability of better drafters to eke out more victories on the margins. It's all well and good to trumpet the merits of Fabricate and Energy, but it is hard to glean advantages from careful play with these mechanics if you're dead on board or critically behind before one has any opportunity to make meaningful plays with them.
Again, I'm not saying there's no skill involved; proper deckbuilding, sequencing and resource management are still key. And I've had some decent games of Kaladesh. But I think these stem from (Limited) Magic's core design, with the set detracting from it (at least in many ways).
I'm not certain they're simple to use, but they aren't developed all that much.
In most cases Fabricate is an easy decision. Make an appraisal of the board state and deploy whichever power/toughness distribution work best. The mechanic feels fun and plays well, but isn't particularly difficult in the majority of cases.
As for Energy and Vehicles, my issue with these mechanics are how slanted they are towards beating down. Every Common energy-consumer besides Die Young and Aether Theorist requires an attack to trigger. Uncommon energy-sinks are a little more varied, but not by much. And most Vehicles are extremely slanted towards attacking as well, being stacked with passive abilities that down nothing on block (Menance, Trample), and abilities that trigger only on attacks (e.g. Ballista Charger, Freighter). Where's the reward for blocking?
Landfall in Zendikar seemed like an honest mistake, wherein the inability to play lands on opponent's turns (in most cases) resulted in many creatures being far better at attacking than blocking. But Kaladesh, like Origins beforehand, thoughtlessly staples a bunch of bonuses for attacking across numerous cards, with few strong defensive cards available at lower rarities.
These are really cool mechanics, but why don't they do more than just reward aggression? Seems like a huge design/development failure, one at the core of why I don't find this format particularly interesting.
Yes, it's true, Freighter is hard to block. But not every game devolves into getting attacked by a turn 3 Freighter, and those cards are plenty good when your goal is to get to the late game, rather than to answer threats. I am generally very happy to draw the Skygate, despite the fact that it blocks one specific common poorly. For all everyone says this is an aggro format (and it is) I have no trouble getting games to go turn 20 and drawing through my whole deck.
I expect the cynical response to be that there aren't any defensive decks in the format, but that seems a bit over the top as the tools do exist, compared to a format like Zendikar where there were far fewer defensive options available. As crazy as it sounds, there will be times where the best option in your position of the draft is to draft a control deck, and when that time comes, you'll be pretty happy picking up and playing a skygate.
I really enjoyed the 2 drafts I did
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
I recently played a match where I drew 5 cards off of two Armorcraft Judge... and lost to Demon of Dark Schemes!
W/B is super grindy and slow, and good. W/U neither time I lived the dream of blinking for value. I've played against it and it was good, but both times I ended up in a fairly generic skies build, once leaning heavily on energy aggro and once relying on tempo and control, and both times I went 2-1 in terms of matches. U/G I've done as both energy aggro and energy control, and both were good. U/R the same. B/R I've done as energy aggro, artifacts aggro, vehicles, and simple aggro, and its definitely aggro or bust here, with a larger vehicle route backed by some light artifact synergy and control being more midrangey. R/W is just aggro, flat out, ranging from go wide to fast vehicles to slower vehicles. I'm prone to draft R/W anyway in most formats, and I find vehicles particularly strong and fun to play, so I gravitate toward this, and have had both my best and worst performances with it. G/W is midrangy tokens, and seems ok. B/G is terrible and should be avoided, not enough synergy and not enough payoff. Its counters theme is too slow and isn't good enough when it works. I've never drafted U/B, but I've played against some very good U/B decks. U/B artifact aggro, when pulled off, is hard to beat even with two pain trains. Its as fast as any other aggro with tempo plays and evasion as back up, the best of all worlds. U/B control is also a thing and can handle even fast aggro decks. That scry unsummon is very, very strong.
The format aggro friendly due to aggro decks being able to get quicker kills than usual AND being able to win if games go long, both due to vehicles. Closing games faster and having reach in the same format is pretty amazing for aggro. That said, going a legit control route is not only possible, but effective. The thing i think is throwing people is that mid range in this format is pretty bad unless its midrange that leans aggro incorporating vehicles, which is basically just big aggro. You can't rely on midrange to simply out class and shut down aggro decks, and midrange gets stomped by actual control.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!