My impression from the people who are disappointed with the set is different from yours though. I think people are complaining that buying a low number of boosters is much more risky than in regular sets, which you point out in the end:
This means that for people not to lose when buying masters 25 they have to cash out on a box (or something close to that), which is already a high entry barrier for what is supposed to be a celebration set.Buying individual packs is much more of a gamble, given the higher price, but booster boxes will pay out their expected value.
I don't know, just leaves a bad taste in your mouth knowing that WoTC is basically forcing you to spend a lot of money for you to get a decent return on your investment. Not to mention that I'm a bit skeptical about the value retention capacity of many cards from the mythic and rare list after the market gets flooded with more copies. Anyway, I think the conclusion is that if you have the money to buy a box and wants to, there is no harm in doing that, but don't try to gamble on individual packs.
Banned cards are banned because they make a particular strategy too powerful, and make the format unbalanced. What I'm arguing in my previous posts is that, in a balanced format, you should expect to see linear decks taking the cake at big events. You may want to unban particular cards to give a greater edge to "fair" decks. However, what happens afterwards? Are they going to keep in check just the linear strategies? Twin was powerful because it was a fair deck that had a combo out. It can certainly tangle with fair decks. What if you release twin into the wild and the meta becomes unbalanced again?
Now, I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, neither for twin nor for SFM or other particular cards in the banlist. That said, I can understand if WoTC doesn't want risk that happening with their current best format for showcasing competitive play. The only way to safely know the effects of such unbans is with lots of playtesting, which is a thing I'm not sure they're willing or have the resources to pursue.
What I wanna add is that, even if you disagree with all my points from before, you could agree with the following statement: linear aggro/combo decks have a higher ceiling and lower floor than non-linear midrange/control decks.
If you agree with that, then it follows, necessarily, that big events like SCG opens and GPs will have more linear decks at the top tables at the end of the day. It HAS to follow from that. The more players playing games, the greater the chance that you will find a deck with higher variance at the top tables, simply because that deck reached its higher ceiling that day. Where you should expect to find more control/midrange decks in a balanced format is at fnms and other small-prize events (probably mtgo leagues as well), where the smaller number of games favors the consistency of non-linear strategies.
That is simply the way the cookie crumbles, statisically speaking (and please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong and I will edit this post with any caveat or correction necessary).
1. Even if that is true, you shouldn't expect hate game 1, and your opponent can't play that many hate cards against your deck specifically, so even post-sideboard they might not find it and you wouldn't need to play around it (once again, it is better if you know, but just talking about general rules).
2. I don't think that is true. Most linear decks have enough redundant copies of the particular effects that make their decks tick that I would argue they have fewer dead hands than control/non-linear decks that play higher CMC spells. Yeah, hollow one without discard spells is an auto-mull. How many discard spells they play? At least 10 right?
3. I agree, with a caveat. The best linear strategies are the most efficient ones, mana-cost wise. The caveat is that some linear decks like Hollow One and Grishoalbrand play higher CMC cards because they plan on cheating them into play. Regardless, the point still stands that linear decks need fewer lands to operate than non-linear ones.
4. That I also can agree with, but with a caveat. Sometimes the horrible matchups for a deck are metagame dependant. Back when probe was legal and infect was a thing, people played lots of spellskites, which hurt bogles a lot. Now that spellskites are nowhere to be seen, bogles can dodge a good chunk of horrible matchups. The long and short is that, in a tournament, it is better to be the linear deck and hope to dodge bad matchups than being the non-linear one with not-so-horrible matchups, because after many many rounds even a good pilot will probably pick up some losses with the non-linear deck, while the pilot of the linear deck that dodged the hate is gonna get into top 8.
5. No, they don't. The point is exactly that they are doing something fundamentally unfair, therefore they can hope to achieve their gameplan faster than their opponent and win the game. Of course that after SB things change for both decks, but game 1 the linear decks have the out of being more degenerate than their opponent, while the non-linear decks do not.
Here is what I have to say: this is exactly what you should expect to happen in Magic, especially in a format as diverse as modern. Here are my arguments to justify that:
1. Non-linear decks are, by their very nature, harder to play overall. Of course that, for you to be a good magic player, you should know the ins and outs of every matchup. That said, if your strategy is 'play a bogle and go to town', you can win games even if you don't know exactly what your opponent is doing. However, if you're on jeskai control, full of reactive spells in your hand, you necessarily need to know well each deck and how to assess your opponent's threats and what is important to deal with in the matchup.
2. Non-linear decks rarely, if ever, have a nut draw. What is your god-hand with jeskai control? Bunch of lightning bolts, a counterspell and a jace? (With an adequate number of lands?). That is not a nut draw, that is just a decent hand. Look at the nut draw of eldrazi decks - something like t1 chalice, t2 TKS and t3 Smasher. Now that is a nut draw. Decks without these types of draws inevitably lose percentage points when compared to their linear counterparts. Sometimes the linear deck just draws the crazy, insane hand that gives them a game almost for free.
3. Non-linear decks need a good balance of lands and spells, and are more prone to mana screw. How many lands does Dredge need to operate with? 3? What about Bogles and Hollow One? 2 and 3? Burn is at its happiest if it never draws past 3 lands. Elves too. Of couse there are some exceptions. Ad Nauseam and KCI are linear, but need mana, while Death's Shadow is a type of control/midrange archetype that operates on very low amounts of mana. That said, as a general rule, Jund, Jeskai, Abzan and the like all need to consistently hit this good balance of lands and spells to play their game, while most linear decks do not need that.
4. Non-linear decks have fewer good matchups than linear decks. What are the good matchups for, say, mardu pyromancer? The deck, even though plays with its graveyard, is fundamentally trying a 'fair' game-play (let's ignore blood moon for a moment). It needs to deal its points of damage fair and square, and usually does so populating the board with tokens. I remember, playing shadow, that pyromancer didn't seem good to face because they could make chump blockers all day. That said, I bet you that bogles has many many many better good matchups. So do affinity and infect, at least game 1. What is a good matchup for a jund and jeskai deck? Probably something like humans or elves, where they can kill all the opponent's creatures and break their game plan. Do you think the humans' and elves' opponents have no chance? Do you think this is as lopsided as, say, jeskai vs bogles game 1? Probably not.
5. Non-linear decks rely more heavily on sideboard cards to beat decks doing unfair things, which necessarily reduces their chances of winning a match, since they're almost always unfavored game 1. Do you think Grishoalbrand cares about what Bogles is doing? The deck's goal is to put a griselbrand into play turn 2 and follow that up with a Borborygmos Enraged. By turn 2 the Bogles opponent, if he was on the play, has a bogle with a couple of auras in it. The same argument actually applies to bogles, but also to dredge, affinity, elves... they are trying to do something fundamentally unfair by the rules of magic - putting a big scary fatty into play, adding 12 power to the board by turn 2, generating insane amounts of mana by turn 3. They don't need sideboard cards to beat decks doing unfair things if they can do their unfair thing first. Midrange and control decks don't have this luxury. If they can't interact properly with what the opponent is doing (lack graveyard, artifact or enchantment hate, for example), they are toasted. There is no 'I win' button for them. They have to concede on game 1 and trust that their sideboard cards will carry them home.
So, this is my contribution to thread, and something I hope people think about. The conclusion is: as long as a format in Magic is diverse, it will always favor unfair/linear strategies, for all the reasons stated above. The exceptions to this rule that I can think of are miracles and delver decks in legacy. Miracles was playing such a powerful interaction (top/counterbalance) that it could neuter unfair strategies as early as turn 3, forever. Delver decks are the quintessencial tempo decks, something we don't often see in modern, simply because modern does not have the combinations of tools needed to build such decks in their available card pool (a combination of good free spells and disruptive spells, such as fow, daze, wasteland and stifle).
What do you guys think of this? Makes sense or I'm just making things up?
I like my list a lot, I have playtest a bunch with it and I'm confident it looks quite good.
Added some of the cards that I wanted and remove the 'top-end'. I will create a changelong to register the changes.
1 Spidersilk Net
1 Sigil of Distinction
1 Paradise Mantle
1 Cathar's Shield
1 Bone Saw
1 Kite Shield
1 Accorder's Shield
Get a jump start
1 Mox Opal
1 Lotus Petal
1 Mox Amber
1 Springleaf Drum
1 Jeweled Amulet
Cheap Aggression
1 Shuko
1 Sai of the Shinobi
1 Neglected Heirloom
1 Leonin Scimitar
1 Honed Khopesh
1 Golem-Skin Gauntlets
1 Bonesplitter
1 Civic Saber
1 Shard of Broken Glass
1 Short Sword
1 O-Naginata
1 Gryff's Boon
Beat burn decks
1 Umezawa's Jitte
1 Sylvok Lifestaff
1 Basilisk Collar
1 Fiendslayer Paladin
1 Burrenton Forge-Tender
1 Auriok Champion
1 Kor Firewalker
1 Dauntless Bodyguard
1 Benevolent Bodyguard
1 Mother of Runes
1 Grand Abolisher
1 Lightning Greaves
1 Selfless Spirit
1 Hope of Ghirapur
1 Vigilant Martyr
1 Hyena Umbra
1 Flickering Ward
Tutor package
1 Stoneforge Mystic
1 Relic Seeker
1 Steelshaper's Gift
1 Open the Armory
1 Enlightened Tutor
More card advantage
1 Skullclamp
1 Puresteel Paladin
1 Stone Haven Outfitter
1 Knight of the White Orchid
1 Kor Skyfisher
1 Glint Hawk
We probably have to interact
1 Tangle Wire
1 Ethersworn Canonist
1 Phyrexian Revoker
1 Unexpectedly Absent
1 Swords to Plowshares
1 Path to Exile
1 Dispatch
1 Oust
1 Sunlance
1 Mana Tithe
1 Seal of Cleansing
1 Masterwork of Ingenuity
1 Auriok Steelshaper
1 Danitha Capashen, Paragon
1 Sigarda's Aid
Lands to cast spells
22 Plains
1 Wasteland
1 Mishra's Factory
1 Inventors' Fair
1 Gemstone Caverns
1 Mutavault
1 Flagstones of Trokair
1 Blinkmoth Nexus
1 Ancient Den
1 Eiganjo Castle
1 Cavern of Souls
The big boss
1 Sram, Senior Edificer
Mirran Crusader -> Seal of Cleansing
Monastery Mentor -> Jeweled Amulet
Etched Champion -> Dauntless Bodyguard
The recent changes mostly reflect the addition of redundant pieces, to sure up the strategy.
I will move past this discussion. My opinions are stated.
One or two more things that I will add regarding Dominaria is that I'm excited to see if goblins becomes a real deck in modern now (besides 8-whack, which is cool, but not really the same). The problem here is the lack of Goblin Ringleader and Matron. Maybe that can be overcome, not sure.
Also, I'm curious to see who is going to play the new Karn and for what end. I saw just recently a new take on a monoblue deck with an artifact theme, and this new planeswalker feels like it could be a nice fit, but maybe I'm wrong. Let's see.
You didn't say if you agreed with my list, you didn't tell me which are the broken cards from Dominaria that are ruining eternal formats, and you're taking this discussion as if I had a dog on this fight. I don't. I just directed my post towards you because I think your assessment about the overall quality of the set is wrong. If you're including modern,legacy and vintage in the list of formats that Dominaria is NOT going to impact very much, what else is left besides standard? EDH? EVERY single set impacts EDH, though I agree that this set in particular is probably going to impact more due to the sheer number of legendaries. Pauper? I'm not familiar enough with pauper as a format to know what from this particular set could be playable there, but you didn't point anything out, so you're giving me basically nothing. Let me correct your initial statement then: There you go.
My criteria for playable is MUCH more lenient than 5% play across all decks, I think that is actually a particularly restrictive criteria. If you go for that, I would be shocked if Dominaria contributes with just one single card. My criteria was 'a card that could see play in a particular deck or archetype, becoming an integral part of such deck/archetype'. For most of these cards, no, I wouldn't. But I would have said for other cards that would end up not seeing play. It is questionable if these two things cancel themselves out, but what you asked me was what is a reference point for a set with good eternal impact, and that's what I gave to you. Of course I did it in hindsight, that's the safest way to do it.
2. This set has the same value and playability of original Innistrad? The set of Liliana of the Veil, Olivia Voldaren, Geist of Saint Traft, Delver of Secrets, Unburial Rites, etc? That's a tall claim. Let's see if truly comes up to be true.
3. What are the cards from OG Dominaria that are breaking eternal formats? What are you calling OG Dominaria, for that matter?
4. You're putting your case to rest too soon. Your math doesn't work quite so well, because new cards that are printed often replace old cards in similar strategies, not to mention that I was being overly generous with my account for Dominaria and most of the cards that I mentioned are not going to be core cards of new strategies.
5. If you wanna make a point in a forum to get upset when someone replies to you, why bother making that point?
Also please notice that MOST of the cards in my list are creatures. That is a tendecy that has repeated itself for a while now: strong creatures are printed, and no good spells to be seen, with some exceptions here and there, of course. I think this set power level is, at best, average, and that is not terrible. However, it is not even close to be as exciting as it could have been, and I think nostalgia is the main reason why people are so hyped atm.
My favorites from this batch are the white 2/2 knight (that looks like a stained glass picture), the black 0/1 cleric and the black */* nightmare horror, which could ALMOST work for flesh carver and spoils of blood if it didn't have the nightmare subtype.
I second the opinion that the basic lands look spetacular. I wish wizards would just make basics full-art by default.
As for the story, I didn't know Nissa was leaving the Gatewatch. About time. I guess after she went blue in Amonketh they needed to find a green planeswalker more true to its colors
I think the overall powerlevel of the set is what we have come to expect from a standard set - not high. There are some cards that I can see porting into eternal formats, like the new Karn, Cast Down, etc. However, overall, this set biggest impact is going to be in EDH, flushing the format with tons of new legends to build around.
The positive note I see is how the rarity is distributed in this set. Uncommons feel like uncommons again, mythics are not carrying the whole pricetag of the set, and rares and commons are okay.
Thank you.
The art does feel more fitting when compared to the other members of the cycle. However, the original art was very much a classic in my mind, and this one, while artistically not bad, feels very generic and uninteresting. I like the old art better, and wish they had improved upon that concept, not abandoned it altogether.
P.S.: don't do what I did and type 'scurf' on google images.