Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2018
Magic Market Index for Dec 28th, 2018
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    Quote from idSurge »
    Ashiok, thats totally fine, and I think we have touched on this before with the 'free wins' topic.

    If that is the case (and I do think you are right) then just unban Twin. If these linear decks are the easiest/most effective way forward, how is it wrong to release a card that does punish them?
    I'm not arguing about bans and unbans in particular, just about the phenomenon that is being observed. This is what I have to say about unbanning things like SFM, birthing pod, GSZ, twin, Dark Depths, jitte, etc.:

    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.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 16/04/2018)
    I'm afraid people are asking for a mathematical impossibility. It is a shame that this thread went up right after I made a long post in the old thread explaining why I believe a prevalence of linear decks is a feature, not a bug, of a diverse Magic the Gathering format. Oh well, I will leave it linked in this post in case people wanna read it.

    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).
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Quote from pierrebai »
    1. Linear deck are easier to play initially, but knowing to play against hate is harder.

    2. Most linear decks also have more dead hands. Hollow one without it's discard spells is an auto-mulligan. Non-linear deck tend to be more resilient.

    3. I think this is not tied to linearity per-see. It's about average mana cost. Many non-linear decks have low curves too. It's just that linear decks tend to all be about winning quickly, so they do not play high CMC cards. Modern always has been a low-to-the-ground format, with a few obvious ramp exceptions.

    4. Non-linear decks also tend to have fewer horrible match-up. Linear decks have unwinnable matchups.

    5. This is the same of linear deck. The only difference is about which player drew better or won the die roll. They also need a good SB to beat the other linear decks. Linear deck also tend to have effective hate cards played against them in SB.

    I agree that there is a kind of SB lottery, where what you decide to bring can put you down in a given meta-game. But I tend to favor versatile open-ended SB. I always have a few GY hate, I always have EE, I always have a few shattertorm-like cards.

    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.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on The State of Modern Thread (B&R 10/02/18)
    Hey. I wanted to share my 2 cents after seeing the discussion around this last GP. I wanna preface this discussion by saying that one tournament alone, even if it is a GP, is not enough data to reasonabl conclude something for a format as wide as modern. That said, let's assume that the conclusion that many are reaching here is true: linear, aggro/combo decks are having significantly greater success than non-linear control/midrange decks.

    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?
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • posted a message on Sram, Equipment Extravaganza
    Hey, just wanted to share my list here for Sram, Senior Edificer, specially after the new Dominaria update where the deck got new toys. I particularly think this deck is highly competitive after you learn how to play it well. I guess if I would define bad matchups it would be something like incredibly fast ramp (like an all-in prossh or wanderer deck) and/or incredibly fast combo, especially if it is some sort of storm combo.

    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.

    Mono-white ExtravaganzaMagic OnlineOCTGN2ApprenticeBuy These Cards
    Draw for free
    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

    Protect your strategy
    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

    Equipments matter
    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

    Fetchlands -> Plains
    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.
    Posted in: 1 vs 1 Commander
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up

    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.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up
    Quote from Buffsam89 »
    Bunch of stuff.
    I mean, clearly you're taking this way more personal than I am. I'm not being negative. Read my posts. I said the set was following the trend of recent standard sets, without a high power level. I like the rarity distribution. I replied to you only because you're inaccurately judging this set based solely on your feelings towards it (and yes, that is my opinion, otherwise I wouldn't be expressing it). There are some good cards, some mediocre cards and some okay cards, like in every set. I wish the overall quality and power was higher, for sure, but I'm not surprised that it isn't.

    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:
    Not sure how anybody can arrive at the conclusion that this set isn’t powerful outside of eternal formats. There is the possibility that we find a ton of playable stuff here, in standard.
    There you go.

    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up
    Quote from Ashiok »
    These are all the cards that I see eternal format potential outside of EDH. I tried to be very generous and speculated on some cards. 18 cards from 269, which is around 7%. Do you think that is a ton? I don't.
    Then you have massively unrealistic expectations. Average power level for a set is about 6 Eternal-playable cards.

    Here's the stats to back that up. A reasonable proxy for "playable" is "shows up in at least 5% of decks". MTGGoldfish has stats on the top 50 Modern-played cards overall, as well as a breakdown to top 50 lands, creatures and noncreature spells. Each of those goes down to 5% played or lower (as low as 3% for some). So there are no more than 150 playable cards in Modern. There are also 59 sets legal in Modern. Let's be generous and exclude the mostly-reprint Core sets, bringing it down to 50 sets. Assuming the playable cards are evenly distributed, a set of average power level contributes three playable cards to Modern. Let's be extra-generous, ignore all the extra sets in Legacy and ignore any overlap between Modern and Legacy, and say that adding Legacy as a format doubles the number of playable cards per set; then the average is six playable cards per set.

    If Dominaria adds 18 Eternal-playable cards, it is three times as powerful as the average set.

    This is a common error: people just don't realize how incredibly high the "Eternal playable" threshold is. 99% of Magic cards have not been and will not be Eternal playable at any competitive level. And as more sets are added, by definition the threshold gets higher and higher. If they keep Eternal formats truly eternal and don't create a new subdivision, as they did with Modern, there will come a time when Eternal players will be lucky to get two playable cars in a set.
    Here you're clearing cheating on your argument. You established that the particular criteria for playable is seeing 5% of modern play, and then went to my list, that I did with a different criteria, and said that Dominaria would be 3 times as powerful. Of course. You just changed criteria mid-argument.

    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'.
    Quote from Pouncing Kavu »
    Hold on there. Would anyone have said Codex Shredder would be a proven, competitive card when the set was released? What about Shrieking Affliction, Pack Rat, or Ethereal Armor? It's easy to tell how good a card is in retrospect. I think this is kind of a silly exercise.

    I think the most we can do right now is ask ourselves, how do we feel about this set, right now, compared to how we felt about other sets upon seeing the full spoiler? For me at least, this set is definitely above average. It's actually hard for me to understand how this set wouldn't wow someone.

    (When was Nivmagus Elemental ever good, though?)
    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.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up
    Quote from Janky_Jay »
    I'm not saying the set is full of strong cards, but simply stating 7% without context doesn't seem right. Most cards in a set are draft chaff. @hat is the percentage of other sets?
    Sure. Let's do it for Return to Ravnica, one of the most celebrated standard sets of the modern era, that had a good power level for their cards. Notice that I will not include the shocklands in my list, and I will mention cards that have spots in ACTUAL eternal format decks, ranging from fringe to tier, so there is no speculation here. The list:

    That is 22 proven cards of 254. Note that I let all the shocklands out, didn't include cards that are played mostly as one-ofs (like Cyclonic Rift in mono U tron) and that some cards that could have seen play back when the set was spoiled have fallen out of favor due to new printings of better cards or changes in metagame (Slaughter Games in an example). Despite all that, this is around 9% of guaranteed impact in eternal formats. That could be your reference point.
    Quote from Buffsam89 »
    Legacy-type formats may not have gotten a ton of new toys, but there are over a dozen cards that will upgrade/spawn modern decks, and of course create a diverse standard environment for once.

    To follow up with a quote of my own ”Reading is hard only when you fail to do so”-Buffsam89

    This set will create a foundation of a solid standard environment until it rotates. Congrats, you proved my point of A dozen or so playable cards outside of standard.
    I see, you're going to apply 'misinterpreation no jutsu' to justify your points. First, neither you nor I know how standard is gonna break down, so saying that there will be tons of cards from Dominaria being played is certainly a stretch. Second, you said 'legacy-type formats' without defining it as eternal formats. What do you mean by that? Does it include modern? Modern is smaller than legacy, so I assume you were talking about legacy/vintage.
    Quote from Buffsam89 »
    I know for you, personally, no set lives up to your expectations, we’ve been down this road before. But, you literally just asked a question that was answered in the post you quoted, seeming as if you just want to stir the pot and entice a reaction. So I don’t know where you want to go with this.

    It’s a return to form for magic. Not sure why people want to compare powerlevel to Kaladesh. It was either broken or weak, not much in between. The overall value, and playability of this set is as high as it’s been in some time, dating back to original Innistrad as another user mentioned.

    Also, I believe it’s reversed when you throw out nostalgia. Most eternal formats are rooted in broken cards printed during the OG Dominaria. I don’t want to have cards like that printed today. So, really, hose not “hyped” for this only feel that way because it doesn’t live up to the original, broken, version. Which is a good thing, not a bad one.

    And just to put your math in perspective. Let’s just use 200 cards as a baseline for # of new card per set. Roughly 3 per year over 25 years. Using your 7% playability metric, that gives an eternal pool ~1312 playable singles. I rest my case.
    1. No, sets do live to my expectations, just not the most recent standard sets after khans of tarkir.

    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?
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up
    Quote from Buffsam89 »
    Not sure how anybody can arrive at the conclusion that this set isn’t powerful. There is a ton of playable stuff here, across all formats. Legacy-type formats may not have gotten a ton of new toys, but there are over a dozen cards that will upgrade/spawn modern decks, and of course create a diverse standard environment for once.

    What I find amusing is the people who say “this set sux” are the same people waiting for that pro to break cards in said sucky set so they can hop on the train and play those cards. What’s the fun of you let somebody else do the work for you? Eh, it’s par for the course nowadays, though.
    These are all the cards that I see eternal format potential outside of EDH. I tried to be very generous and speculated on some cards. 18 cards from 269, which is around 7%. Do you think that is a ton? I don't. Of course, you may think that my list is too restrictive (I didn't include Mox Amber because I don't think people will break the card, but I might be wrong), but what is your list? Is it much bigger? I honestly don't think it can get much bigger than that.

    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.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Dominaria tokens
    Cool arts overall.

    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.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up
    Quote from boombox_smk »
    Lavarunner was spoiled in the first leak.
    That being the case, I like none of the new cards then, except for my very particular purposes. For instance, Short Sword is exactly the kinda of card I was hoping to get for my Sram EDH build. The more functional copies of Leonin Scimitar the merrier.

    I second the opinion that the basic lands look spetacular. I wish wizards would just make basics full-art by default.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Full spoiler is up
    The only not-already-spoiled card that called my attention was Ghitu Lavarunner. It is no goblin guide, but maybe in the correct shell it can shine.

    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 Rofl

    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.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Kazarov, Sengir Pureblood - Aether Hub preview
    Quote from Ashiok »
    So, what's up with the sengir vampires looking like stuff from B class horror movies, while other vampires in Dominaria look just like A-list celebrities?
    Sengir Vampires do technically have their origins coming from another plane because to my knowledge Baron Sengir is from Ulgrotha, not Dominaria, but was able to travel planes via the portal in this castle.

    There's probably someone more versed in Homelands lore who could correct me/expound on this but I'm pretty sure that's mostly it.
    Ahh, that makes sense. Their vampirism comes from another place.

    Thank you.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Verdant Force - MTG Mint Card
    I actually agree with both Manite and Silver_Spellthief.

    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.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.