I hope that they don't! It certainly would be interesting data but it would lessen the gap between the better and worse players.
I'm pretty shocked that U/G is winning such a high % - I wouldn't expect ANY combo in ANY format to win over 60%. Not surprising that white and black are the last two. I noticed along with some posters on this board that Seraph is a trap common. White's card pool in common simply isn't that deep, while Blue's is insane. I think Black is probably better than the stats show, but it's *overdrafted* at the moment - once people stop trying to make it work all the Blood Artists/Butcher Ghouls/Bone Splinters/Seclusions flow to the same guy, the win % will rise.
As for Red - some good observations there - but in the drafts I've done, the Thatcher deck is pretty underused. The interaction with Goldnight is sick and that singlehandedly will win you games. You really don't need anything more!
I get where your backgammon analogy is coming from but it's not like the lack of removal is killing things to the extent where it doesn't feel like Magic anymore. In my online drafts I've had plenty of games that lasted 10+ turns. It doesn't have the Zendikar feel - it's okay to block in this format
If you play 4 Mist Ravens, you do have the lock about 75% of the time when you draw Closet. This is actually what happens when you have four of a copy of a card in a 40-card deck. I'd be more than happy to see how your "real world" strategies. I love how you claim we all draft in "xmasland" when apparently your strategy includes picking up solid playables on pick 9 and beyond. What I'm reading here is "I lack the creativity to play cards that are anything other than straightforward because I can think of situations where they don't help you much"
I think the most creatures I've ever played in a deck was 16. 19 is ridiculous.
I don't think that a lack of 'interactivity' is bad for "high-level Magic". It turns the focus towards "can I get a good hand and curve out" rather than "is my opponent lucky enough to have the right removal spell at the right time". There's plenty of interactivity in other areas of the game once you look around a bit.
Well one thing that's definitely important in AVR is curving out, as many of the cards were made to work together. This goes for everything from Tribal Forcemage helping you create a big threat early with Wandering Wolf to Wingcrafter/Tandem Lookout to Feverant Cathar letting you get Kruin Striker through. So if you don't have a good hand you can easily get blown out of the water. I don't think DKA/INN was like that - there were more 'catch-up' mechanisms. I think this is why so many people refer to this as a 'blowout' format, because when your opponent curves out and you don't, things can get ugly fast.
The removal *IS* weak, not because people say so, but because it is. The only "destroy target creature" cards live in the weakest color, and they are either mana disadvantage (Death Wind) or card disadvantage (Bone Splinters). The rest is either conditional (mostly limited to small guys) or sub-optimal (Spectral Prison, Defang). As drafters its up to us to figure out how to get around/take advantage of this set-up. Just because it's not like other formats doesn't mean it's not skill-intensive. Though I do think the lack of real removal makes Druid's Familiar a little *too* good (should AT LEAST have been 2GG)
Right on, I think most of the "it's non-interactive!" cries are due to the lack of quality, instant speed removal. I've been doing some drafts online and have won a few games that I would have lost had I not thought out every interaction correctly. I think a lot of the backlash is because DKA/INN/INN was one of the best draft formats ever.
Hence why I'm advocating doing it with 7 or so ETB effects. You're saying this is unplayable even with 4 Mist Ravens - you do realize that your chances of having a Raven out by turn 5 is super high, don't you? Like 75%+? I'd take a 75% chance of a soft lock on turn 5 over a 3/3 anyday, especially in this format!
lol @ only looking at the "best case" scenario; c'mon, you're better than this. The card has positive interactions with a big chunk of commons and uncommons and has several more uses besides. You don't need "X+Y+Z" to make this work. You used this same argument with Butcher Ghoul and it was stupid then. Also we are in a format where the average common power is low and you're usually forced to play a few subpar cards in the 20th-23rd slots. I don't think anyone is advocating this as a first-pick "build around" card, but if you've got enough ETB effects then you certainly don't have to work very hard to make this profitable for you.
I agree completely. What's skill intensive about a set with little removal and a few combat tricks? It's called "drop bigger creatures than the opponent and swing".
It's called "be creative and find a way to counteract big creatures"
I'd probably want about 7 or so but yeah I disagree that the Closet is no good. The fact that you get one trigger right away is excellent. If you have 4 Mist Ravens then turn 4 Raven turn 5 Closet pretty much is a win isn't it?
I think you do. TBH the only card that's really bothered me is Druid's Familiar because so few decks really have a way to deal with it. I don't think having more removal would necessarily make things better. I think they made a conscious decision to not make this a format where you can get blown out by a combat trick (other than Joint Assault, which is ridiculous) or good removal. Instead, you really need a plan of attack and a way to make those last few cards count. One of the truths in draft is that you need to play some 9th-12th pick type cards because you may take something off color early because you didn't know where you'd end up, or you get a pack that simply has nothing playable in your color. I do think having to find synergy in bad cards is fun. I loved blocks like TPF (for example) but yeah the whole "draft 30 playables, agonize over what to cut" wasn't as fun.
Agreed that this format isn't as good as DII, but few limited formats are.
xp I guess we differ on that - the 8 mana flashback was something I rarely used (and rarely had it used against me). Just as the 3 life you gain is rarely going to be the difference between life and death. Maybe not the best example but it was the first card that came to mind when an effect or ability that many pros said was irrelevant wound up being what pushed the card over the top. You are right, 1/1 for W is not worth a card. Gain 3 life is not worth a card. But they are essentially half a card each.
Dunno who you draft with that you never have to play marginal or undesirable cards due to a pool being shallow or having colors cut later in a draft. Compared to the one-drops in most limited formats, Sanctifier is fine as it can easily buy you a turn (or even two) and interacts well with a few cards. I never claimed it's ideal - only that it's not as bad as it looks - especially as generating card advantage is one thing the U/W deck does fairly well
Hence why I'd never want more than one in a deck. As I've mentioned the ideal number is 0 because your deck is so solid but I still think he's decent deck filler.
The comparison was not, in fact "bouncing a creature to top of library = 1/1 gain 3 life". Try to follow this. The comparison was to say how adding on small bonuses to a card (in this case, the 8 mana flashback) can greatly increase the card's value. I say this because your argument is the same thing over and over "life gain is not very relevant" "a 1/1 is not very relevant", and I don't really disagree with that, I'm saying that *together*, in a one-mana package with synergy w/ many U/W commons and uncommons, it's far better than "unplayable".
Yes, and you take all three over it. Farbog usually trades as well (and doesn't give you the life). "If you are looking to do X, play Y" logic is useless in Limited because you can't guarantee you'll see many of those cards. I would think a good U/W strategy could have room for a Farbog, a Wall, an Alchemist, and a Santicifier. Forcing an opponent to hold back a Striker while you develop your board is huge. U/W has plenty of card advantage and mana-intensive effects so having some cheap guys isn't going to kill you.
Also - I hate to say this again but try not to be so literal when I compare two cards. I'm talking about *concepts* not *exact cards*.
Again, you can use 1/1s for things other than chumping. I agree that neither effect of the card is really relevant in most games but I feel there's just enough there to make him good vs. certain types of decks and playable overall in a slow build. If you're not throwing him in against decks with Feverant Cathars and Kruin Strikers then you're doing it wrong.
People already know that strict lifegain is bad. Hence why most people do not play Angel's Mercy (I do see a lot of people trying to run Exquisite Blood though, sigh). This card is not strict lifegain. Things of little value do not, in fact, equal no value. 8-mana psuedo removal (such as Gasp of Phantasms) have little value but it ups the power level of the card a decent amount doesn't it?
I'm pretty shocked that U/G is winning such a high % - I wouldn't expect ANY combo in ANY format to win over 60%. Not surprising that white and black are the last two. I noticed along with some posters on this board that Seraph is a trap common. White's card pool in common simply isn't that deep, while Blue's is insane. I think Black is probably better than the stats show, but it's *overdrafted* at the moment - once people stop trying to make it work all the Blood Artists/Butcher Ghouls/Bone Splinters/Seclusions flow to the same guy, the win % will rise.
As for Red - some good observations there - but in the drafts I've done, the Thatcher deck is pretty underused. The interaction with Goldnight is sick and that singlehandedly will win you games. You really don't need anything more!
I don't think that a lack of 'interactivity' is bad for "high-level Magic". It turns the focus towards "can I get a good hand and curve out" rather than "is my opponent lucky enough to have the right removal spell at the right time". There's plenty of interactivity in other areas of the game once you look around a bit.
The removal *IS* weak, not because people say so, but because it is. The only "destroy target creature" cards live in the weakest color, and they are either mana disadvantage (Death Wind) or card disadvantage (Bone Splinters). The rest is either conditional (mostly limited to small guys) or sub-optimal (Spectral Prison, Defang). As drafters its up to us to figure out how to get around/take advantage of this set-up. Just because it's not like other formats doesn't mean it's not skill-intensive. Though I do think the lack of real removal makes Druid's Familiar a little *too* good (should AT LEAST have been 2GG)
lol @ only looking at the "best case" scenario; c'mon, you're better than this. The card has positive interactions with a big chunk of commons and uncommons and has several more uses besides. You don't need "X+Y+Z" to make this work. You used this same argument with Butcher Ghoul and it was stupid then. Also we are in a format where the average common power is low and you're usually forced to play a few subpar cards in the 20th-23rd slots. I don't think anyone is advocating this as a first-pick "build around" card, but if you've got enough ETB effects then you certainly don't have to work very hard to make this profitable for you.
It's called "be creative and find a way to counteract big creatures"
Agreed that this format isn't as good as DII, but few limited formats are.
Dunno who you draft with that you never have to play marginal or undesirable cards due to a pool being shallow or having colors cut later in a draft. Compared to the one-drops in most limited formats, Sanctifier is fine as it can easily buy you a turn (or even two) and interacts well with a few cards. I never claimed it's ideal - only that it's not as bad as it looks - especially as generating card advantage is one thing the U/W deck does fairly well
The comparison was not, in fact "bouncing a creature to top of library = 1/1 gain 3 life". Try to follow this. The comparison was to say how adding on small bonuses to a card (in this case, the 8 mana flashback) can greatly increase the card's value. I say this because your argument is the same thing over and over "life gain is not very relevant" "a 1/1 is not very relevant", and I don't really disagree with that, I'm saying that *together*, in a one-mana package with synergy w/ many U/W commons and uncommons, it's far better than "unplayable".
Also - I hate to say this again but try not to be so literal when I compare two cards. I'm talking about *concepts* not *exact cards*.
People already know that strict lifegain is bad. Hence why most people do not play Angel's Mercy (I do see a lot of people trying to run Exquisite Blood though, sigh). This card is not strict lifegain. Things of little value do not, in fact, equal no value. 8-mana psuedo removal (such as Gasp of Phantasms) have little value but it ups the power level of the card a decent amount doesn't it?