There's also the fact that a lot of people play commander for fun and not to minimax efficiency, so will knowingly play big splashy mediocre card simply because they feel like it.
The look on that guy's face when I flipped over my Thousand Winds against his zillion attacking tokens...
thats... not really true.
we like to think its true, but it isn't
most of the time we worked with what we had and ran crappy cards because there was no other option available. over time we find those better cards, or we become frustrated that the cards we're running aren't working as we need/want them to. its why almost every (especially almost every bad set) you see ZOMG EDH ALLSTAR for some terribly costed inefficient card, and a month later you NEVER see it anywhere
regardless of your feelings on the matter, EDH should not be the justification for a set being saturated with bad, inefficient, over costed or lackluster cards.
honestly, in playing this game for years, when a set is bad i see two different excuses pop up: this is a limited set, and this is an edh set. its always just an excuse to accept garbage design, and every single time without fail i've seen interest wane quickly.
Actually, this has been a pattern with wizards for a while now. Since they don't power creep sets they instead try to shift the design space into new areas to keep the game interesting. This sounds like a great idea, except that shift in design space can make the new set of cards completely unplayable in existing non-rotating formats. That is what has happened to some degree with Amonkhet: They made a new design space and then tried to put silver bullets in the new set that kill the older one.
Also, this particular set most likely was designed with commander being the eternal format of choice as a way to have cards hold value. Big mana strategies work far better in multiplayer games than one vs one, which is what Torment of Hailfire is about. The god cards conveniently have an ability that lets them dodge commander tax. Also, they have Cat Tribal and a horse lord when they actively said the next commander set will be about tribal and one of the decks will be something no one is expecting. On top of which, this is all following the release of Commander Anthology with some of the most popular decks getting reprinted again along with mind vs might, which contains legendaries that slot into two known archetypes.
However, the above should be taken in knowing that I still believe the number of playable cards for EDH is limited in HOU and Amonkhet, just like how it has been for modern and legacy. BFZ and Oath have a ton of good cards in EDH and I don't think I have to mention Kaladesh and Aether Revolt. Not saying anything about SoI and EMN, though. Mostly because as a person who double sleeves cards I absolutely hate flip cards and I don't even want to get started on Merge.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Ugh, the thought just passed me by that if wizards figures out how to pull players strings with commander we'll probably see them give the same treatment to that format they have given modern. Put all the best EDH cards at mythic and rare, then put chaff in the uncommon and common slots outside of a few outliers. Then they will say it's because of draft and limited when people ask why they did it.
These are not cards for Standard or Modern (with the possible exception of Scarab God)- they are for EDH.
There are still decent EDH cards at Rare, like Hour of Promise and Bontu's Last Reckoning,
but most of the lower rarity stuff is not so great for the format.
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
They are getting close, that is for sure. We're in the summer of EDH at the moment so this is probably as close as they've gotten in a while to trying to make an EDH standard set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
What bugs me about sets like HOU and Amonkhet is that when they make a weaker set like this it hurts everyone in some way or form. If there isn't anything long term playable in the set (which includes reprinting older cards that are interesting / high demand), people will go elsewhere and draft older sets that may still be lingering around. Then the price on the few cards that are playable go up because fewer copies are out in the wild, which hurts constructed players. That is what happened in Dragons Maze with Voice of Resurgence. Also, because there is less interest in HOU, that leaves distributors with excess boxes of product and cancelled orders as stores try to minimize their losses from a bad set release.
The pre-order prices on cards right now from HOU are mostly from the sellers trying to recoup the box value day one right now, and that is even more so than usual as even Kaladesh was not as bad as this in terms of singles sales.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
They are getting close, that is for sure. We're in the summer of EDH at the moment so this is probably as close as they've gotten in a while to trying to make an EDH standard set.
I disagree. Looking at my like 12 edh decks, and what i see on a weekly basis in my opponents decks
Zendikar was an edh set
Innistrad was an edh set
Return to ravnica was an edh set
Kaladesh was an edh set
The sets that provide a large amount of good edh cards are also good in their designs. The sets that are badly designed people just claim are edh sets. I heard the same nonsense claim in regard to theros block, dragons of tarkir, and dragons maze. The vast vast majority of cards from those sets failed to see substantial edh play, and ive had this exact same argument every time a mediocre set comes out and people have trouble accepting it.
Its okay to admit a set is bad, or mediocre, or poorly designed.
High mana costs and over costed abilities dont immediately make anything "good for edh"
A huge part of the definition of EDH is a legendary creature that defines the colors for your deck and is always available to you to cast. And that's quite likely why those specific sets have been named by others as EDH sets (and why you're not grasping why others have that view, and adamant that their opinion is wrong). Dragon's Maze had a legendary for every color pair. Theros block had a legendary God for each color pair and monocolor. Dragons of Tarkir had an Elder Dragon Legend for each adjacent color pair. Wizards is clearly printing legendaries in balanced cycles primarily to provide commander options.
I think you just keep on arguing the "But only competitive EDH play matters and nobody plays noncompetitive" point that is, flatly, wrong. Some people play a Pharika EDH deck just because they want to play a Pharika EDH deck. And they don't care when you tell them it's inefficient or there are better cards they could be using.
I think you just keep on arguing the "But only competitive EDH play matters and nobody plays noncompetitive" point that is, flatly, wrong. Some people play a Pharika EDH deck just because they want to play a Pharika EDH deck. And they don't care when you tell them it's inefficient or there are better cards they could be using.
This. Some people will build Unesh, Criosphinx Sovereign sphinx tribal decks although there are "better" (= more powerful) mono-U commanders out there, like Azami or Teferi. And I don't think it's a bad thing that EDH is largely defined by its huge casual appeal. Obviously that shouldn't be used as an excuse to print bad cards, but as long as the cards are at least somewhat interesting and/or offer new deckbuilding possibilities, they're fine in my book.
They are getting close, that is for sure. We're in the summer of EDH at the moment so this is probably as close as they've gotten in a while to trying to make an EDH standard set.
I disagree. Looking at my like 12 edh decks, and what i see on a weekly basis in my opponents decks
Zendikar was an edh set
Innistrad was an edh set
Return to ravnica was an edh set
Kaladesh was an edh set
The sets that provide a large amount of good edh cards are also good in their designs. The sets that are badly designed people just claim are edh sets. I heard the same nonsense claim in regard to theros block, dragons of tarkir, and dragons maze. The vast vast majority of cards from those sets failed to see substantial edh play, and ive had this exact same argument every time a mediocre set comes out and people have trouble accepting it.
Its okay to admit a set is bad, or mediocre, or poorly designed.
High mana costs and over costed abilities dont immediately make anything "good for edh"
Right, you keep on thinking that. When a set fails to be good at 60 card competitive the one thing left it is good for is casual play, and EDH isn't by nature a competitive format. That might be changing since EDHREC is causing net decking to increase in Commander and sellers are often using the data there to adjust prices, which in turn put more attention on edh specific cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Blue is looking pretty well loaded for draw-go. between Censor, Supreme Will, Nimble Obstructionist, etc, there are a lot of ways to stop things on the opponents turn. I still feel like splashing for white is the right thing to do for spell queller, but those slots are getting kind of full and there's probably some kind of cycling synergy that could be used.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
They are getting close, that is for sure. We're in the summer of EDH at the moment so this is probably as close as they've gotten in a while to trying to make an EDH standard set.
I disagree. Looking at my like 12 edh decks, and what i see on a weekly basis in my opponents decks
Zendikar was an edh set
Innistrad was an edh set
Return to ravnica was an edh set
Kaladesh was an edh set
The sets that provide a large amount of good edh cards are also good in their designs. The sets that are badly designed people just claim are edh sets. I heard the same nonsense claim in regard to theros block, dragons of tarkir, and dragons maze. The vast vast majority of cards from those sets failed to see substantial edh play, and ive had this exact same argument every time a mediocre set comes out and people have trouble accepting it.
Its okay to admit a set is bad, or mediocre, or poorly designed.
High mana costs and over costed abilities dont immediately make anything "good for edh"
Right, you keep on thinking that. When a set fails to be good at 60 card competitive the one thing left it is good for is casual play, and EDH isn't by nature a competitive format. That might be changing since EDHREC is causing net decking to increase in Commander and sellers are often using the data there to adjust prices, which in turn put more attention on edh specific cards.
you can blame the internet all you'd like for changes to your edh group, it doesn't necessarily make them true. as we play games we realize and figure out more strategies just from those interactions. we like to say edh isn't a competitive format, and that high cost or garbage cards thrive there, but thats never been true. the more you use a deck, the more you start to find/see replacements for cards. so unless you're actively trying to keep your deck from becoming better, its competitive even if you don't want to believe that. this is why you also see most casual groups begin to evolve or divide as some people change their decks and some don't. this is also why casual doesn't have to mean bad.
regardless, yes, when a set fails to be good at 60 card formats, it MIGHT be good for edh, but that doesn't automatically make it so. take a look at this set and then ask yourself how many cards you're excited to pick up and try for just one of your decks. is the list long? how much of the list is experimental and how much has a solid spot right off the bat? how much of that list has value? how many of those cards even feel like they'd be fun? do they do something thats already being done, but more powerfully? less powerfully? generally, if a set is good for 60 card formats, its also good for edh. if you look at the breakdown for most decks this becomes really clear.
in the vast sea of cards that edh has to choose from, the majority of this set is forgettable, and will quickly be replaced in even the most casual of casual decks.
They are getting close, that is for sure. We're in the summer of EDH at the moment so this is probably as close as they've gotten in a while to trying to make an EDH standard set.
I disagree. Looking at my like 12 edh decks, and what i see on a weekly basis in my opponents decks
Zendikar was an edh set
Innistrad was an edh set
Return to ravnica was an edh set
Kaladesh was an edh set
The sets that provide a large amount of good edh cards are also good in their designs. The sets that are badly designed people just claim are edh sets. I heard the same nonsense claim in regard to theros block, dragons of tarkir, and dragons maze. The vast vast majority of cards from those sets failed to see substantial edh play, and ive had this exact same argument every time a mediocre set comes out and people have trouble accepting it.
Its okay to admit a set is bad, or mediocre, or poorly designed.
High mana costs and over costed abilities dont immediately make anything "good for edh"
Right, you keep on thinking that. When a set fails to be good at 60 card competitive the one thing left it is good for is casual play, and EDH isn't by nature a competitive format. That might be changing since EDHREC is causing net decking to increase in Commander and sellers are often using the data there to adjust prices, which in turn put more attention on edh specific cards.
you can blame the internet all you'd like for changes to your edh group, it doesn't necessarily make them true. as we play games we realize and figure out more strategies just from those interactions. we like to say edh isn't a competitive format, and that high cost or garbage cards thrive there, but thats never been true. the more you use a deck, the more you start to find/see replacements for cards. so unless you're actively trying to keep your deck from becoming better, its competitive even if you don't want to believe that. this is why you also see most casual groups begin to evolve or divide as some people change their decks and some don't. this is also why casual doesn't have to mean bad.
regardless, yes, when a set fails to be good at 60 card formats, it MIGHT be good for edh, but that doesn't automatically make it so. take a look at this set and then ask yourself how many cards you're excited to pick up and try for just one of your decks. is the list long? how much of the list is experimental and how much has a solid spot right off the bat? how much of that list has value? how many of those cards even feel like they'd be fun? do they do something thats already being done, but more powerfully? less powerfully? generally, if a set is good for 60 card formats, its also good for edh. if you look at the breakdown for most decks this becomes really clear.
in the vast sea of cards that edh has to choose from, the majority of this set is forgettable, and will quickly be replaced in even the most casual of casual decks.
this is not an edh set.
I think you are misunderstanding my point of perspective on this. I am not casting judgement on how you prefer to play EDH by saying this set is an EDH set. The reason this set is an EDH set is because the majority of players play the game casually. They don't play this game like spikes or even competitive players and they tend to look at sets for flavor and abilities. CMC doesn't matter: What matters is if the cards themselves are matching a theme or flavor that the casual players of today who just kitchen table have been missing. The god cards, the desert theme, etc, are all unique and the artwork has been fantastic on all of the cards in the set. In a multiplayer match up it's very likely players will get to see and use a lot of the cards in HOU if they are playing a slower game format. That is why this is an EDH set.
Now if you primarily play one vs one or are more of a Johnny / Competitive EDH player, this set may not be an EDH set to you and that is the feeling I'm getting from your posts. On that front, however, you're basically constrained by the same limitations modern and other non-rotating competitive players are so Atlus kind of shrugs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
The reason this set is an EDH set is because the majority of players play the game casually. They don't play this game like spikes or even competitive players and they tend to look at sets for flavor and abilities. CMC doesn't matter: What matters is if the cards themselves are matching a theme or flavor that the casual players of today who just kitchen table have been missing. The god cards, the desert theme, etc, are all unique and the artwork has been fantastic on all of the cards in the set. In a multiplayer match up it's very likely players will get to see and use a lot of the cards in HOU if they are playing a slower game format. That is why this is an EDH set.
I think your definition of EDH set sounds a bit silly. Competitive cards aren't limited from seeing play casually (the opposite is not true). Every set has casual appeal, so literally every set could be labelled an EDH set, rendering the definition worthless.
Furthermore, I think you're making the same mistake as the above poster by implicitly claiming that EDH is either inherently a casual or a competitive format. It's a mixture of both, you can choose to play it casually or you can choose to play it competitively (whether that be competitive multiplayer, Commander 1v1, or French EDH). There's no reason to call EDH a casual format, it's just a format. You can play any format casually. A better term might just be "casual set".
Also worth noting that I more or less agree with Xcric on this topic. I'm not particularly interested in letting WOTC off the hook for bland sets with a poor limited environment and minimal-to-no play in competitive formats (standard, modern, edh, whatever). Kitchen table magic is fine, but it's not what sells boxes, it's not what drives attendance at LGS events. It's not what keeps eternal formats from stagnating. I think competitive play is a much bigger part of this game than you give it credit for, and I'd rather be overly critical and be pleasantly surprised that I was wrong later than be complacent and risk the community giving up on the game because of mediocre set after mediocre set (not saying that's where we're at, but also not saying that that's NOT where we're at either).
Are you really suggesting that casual players don't buy boxes? I'm really not sure that's correct. By definition, we have no idea what people are doing in their own houses/cafeterias/whatever.
And besides, Wizards of the Coast let slip a statistic a couple of years ago to the effect that less than 15% of Magic players have ever been to a tournament. That's ever, in their entire life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching.
The reason this set is an EDH set is because the majority of players play the game casually. They don't play this game like spikes or even competitive players and they tend to look at sets for flavor and abilities. CMC doesn't matter: What matters is if the cards themselves are matching a theme or flavor that the casual players of today who just kitchen table have been missing. The god cards, the desert theme, etc, are all unique and the artwork has been fantastic on all of the cards in the set. In a multiplayer match up it's very likely players will get to see and use a lot of the cards in HOU if they are playing a slower game format. That is why this is an EDH set.
I think your definition of EDH set sounds a bit silly. Competitive cards aren't limited from seeing play casually (the opposite is not true). Every set has casual appeal, so literally every set could be labelled an EDH set, rendering the definition worthless.
Furthermore, I think you're making the same mistake as the above poster by implicitly claiming that EDH is either inherently a casual or a competitive format. It's a mixture of both, you can choose to play it casually or you can choose to play it competitively (whether that be competitive multiplayer, Commander 1v1, or French EDH). There's no reason to call EDH a casual format, it's just a format. You can play any format casually. A better term might just be "casual set".
Also worth noting that I more or less agree with Xcric on this topic. I'm not particularly interested in letting WOTC off the hook for bland sets with a poor limited environment and minimal-to-no play in competitive formats (standard, modern, edh, whatever). Kitchen table magic is fine, but it's not what sells boxes, it's not what drives attendance at LGS events. It's not what keeps eternal formats from stagnating. I think competitive play is a much bigger part of this game than you give it credit for, and I'd rather be overly critical and be pleasantly surprised that I was wrong later than be complacent and risk the community giving up on the game because of mediocre set after mediocre set (not saying that's where we're at, but also not saying that that's NOT where we're at either).
You seem to have missed the entire second half of the post and just cherry picked. I said you may have a different way of looking at it and even admitted that there is more than one way of playing the game. You just cut and pasted the first half of the post without the second half.
Here it is for reference since you didn't seem to read it...
Now if you primarily play one vs one or are more of a Johnny / Competitive EDH player, this set may not be an EDH set to you and that is the feeling I'm getting from your posts. On that front, however, you're basically constrained by the same limitations modern and other non-rotating competitive players are so Atlus kind of shrugs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Are you really suggesting that casual players don't buy boxes? I'm really not sure that's correct. By definition, we have no idea what people are doing in their own houses/cafeterias/whatever.
And besides, Wizards of the Coast let slip a statistic a couple of years ago to the effect that less than 15% of Magic players have ever been to a tournament. That's ever, in their entire life.
Didn't meant to imply that casual players don't buy boxes, although admittedly it does blow my mind that anyone would spend $100s on boxes of intrinsically worthless cardboard just to play casual kitchen table magic with. Then again I'm not exactly the arbiter of reality, and people are free to spend their money however they want, so it is what it is I guess. I still think this game would cease to exist without a competitive scene and WOTC needs to do a better job of nurturing that, but I'd be fine with you disagreeing with me on that topic since I don't have any strong data either way.
Thanks for the WOTC data, I wasn't aware of that. That number seems surprisingly low to me, I would have expected it to be more in the 30-40% range. I'll try to use that to adjust my opinion on future matters.
The reason this set is an EDH set is because the majority of players play the game casually. They don't play this game like spikes or even competitive players and they tend to look at sets for flavor and abilities. CMC doesn't matter: What matters is if the cards themselves are matching a theme or flavor that the casual players of today who just kitchen table have been missing. The god cards, the desert theme, etc, are all unique and the artwork has been fantastic on all of the cards in the set. In a multiplayer match up it's very likely players will get to see and use a lot of the cards in HOU if they are playing a slower game format. That is why this is an EDH set.
I think your definition of EDH set sounds a bit silly. Competitive cards aren't limited from seeing play casually (the opposite is not true). Every set has casual appeal, so literally every set could be labelled an EDH set, rendering the definition worthless.
Furthermore, I think you're making the same mistake as the above poster by implicitly claiming that EDH is either inherently a casual or a competitive format. It's a mixture of both, you can choose to play it casually or you can choose to play it competitively (whether that be competitive multiplayer, Commander 1v1, or French EDH). There's no reason to call EDH a casual format, it's just a format. You can play any format casually. A better term might just be "casual set".
Also worth noting that I more or less agree with Xcric on this topic. I'm not particularly interested in letting WOTC off the hook for bland sets with a poor limited environment and minimal-to-no play in competitive formats (standard, modern, edh, whatever). Kitchen table magic is fine, but it's not what sells boxes, it's not what drives attendance at LGS events. It's not what keeps eternal formats from stagnating. I think competitive play is a much bigger part of this game than you give it credit for, and I'd rather be overly critical and be pleasantly surprised that I was wrong later than be complacent and risk the community giving up on the game because of mediocre set after mediocre set (not saying that's where we're at, but also not saying that that's NOT where we're at either).
You seem to have missed the entire second half of the post and just cherry picked. I said you may have a different way of looking at it and even admitted that there is more than one way of playing the game. You just cut and pasted the first half of the post without the second half.
Here it is for reference since you didn't seem to read it...
Now if you primarily play one vs one or are more of a Johnny / Competitive EDH player, this set may not be an EDH set to you and that is the feeling I'm getting from your posts. On that front, however, you're basically constrained by the same limitations modern and other non-rotating competitive players are so Atlus kind of shrugs.
I left off the second part because it felt superfluous to your main point, but if you're telling me it's relevant then it must be. I'm a little confused, because it reads to me as if you're saying "EDH set means whatever you want it to mean" which doesn't jive with your previous paragraph, and (again) is a bit of a non-definition. Could you elaborate on your point a bit more, because I feel like I'm missing something and mischaracterizing your stance.
Are you really suggesting that casual players don't buy boxes? I'm really not sure that's correct. By definition, we have no idea what people are doing in their own houses/cafeterias/whatever.
And besides, Wizards of the Coast let slip a statistic a couple of years ago to the effect that less than 15% of Magic players have ever been to a tournament. That's ever, in their entire life.
Didn't meant to imply that casual players don't buy boxes, although admittedly it does blow my mind that anyone would spend $100s on boxes of intrinsically worthless cardboard just to play casual kitchen table magic with. Then again I'm not exactly the arbiter of reality, and people are free to spend their money however they want, so it is what it is I guess. I still think this game would cease to exist without a competitive scene and WOTC needs to do a better job of nurturing that, but I'd be fine with you disagreeing with me on that topic since I don't have any strong data either way.
Thanks for the WOTC data, I wasn't aware of that. That number seems surprisingly low to me, I would have expected it to be more in the 30-40% range. I'll try to use that to adjust my opinion on future matters.
The reason this set is an EDH set is because the majority of players play the game casually. They don't play this game like spikes or even competitive players and they tend to look at sets for flavor and abilities. CMC doesn't matter: What matters is if the cards themselves are matching a theme or flavor that the casual players of today who just kitchen table have been missing. The god cards, the desert theme, etc, are all unique and the artwork has been fantastic on all of the cards in the set. In a multiplayer match up it's very likely players will get to see and use a lot of the cards in HOU if they are playing a slower game format. That is why this is an EDH set.
I think your definition of EDH set sounds a bit silly. Competitive cards aren't limited from seeing play casually (the opposite is not true). Every set has casual appeal, so literally every set could be labelled an EDH set, rendering the definition worthless.
Furthermore, I think you're making the same mistake as the above poster by implicitly claiming that EDH is either inherently a casual or a competitive format. It's a mixture of both, you can choose to play it casually or you can choose to play it competitively (whether that be competitive multiplayer, Commander 1v1, or French EDH). There's no reason to call EDH a casual format, it's just a format. You can play any format casually. A better term might just be "casual set".
Also worth noting that I more or less agree with Xcric on this topic. I'm not particularly interested in letting WOTC off the hook for bland sets with a poor limited environment and minimal-to-no play in competitive formats (standard, modern, edh, whatever). Kitchen table magic is fine, but it's not what sells boxes, it's not what drives attendance at LGS events. It's not what keeps eternal formats from stagnating. I think competitive play is a much bigger part of this game than you give it credit for, and I'd rather be overly critical and be pleasantly surprised that I was wrong later than be complacent and risk the community giving up on the game because of mediocre set after mediocre set (not saying that's where we're at, but also not saying that that's NOT where we're at either).
You seem to have missed the entire second half of the post and just cherry picked. I said you may have a different way of looking at it and even admitted that there is more than one way of playing the game. You just cut and pasted the first half of the post without the second half.
Here it is for reference since you didn't seem to read it...
Now if you primarily play one vs one or are more of a Johnny / Competitive EDH player, this set may not be an EDH set to you and that is the feeling I'm getting from your posts. On that front, however, you're basically constrained by the same limitations modern and other non-rotating competitive players are so Atlus kind of shrugs.
I left off the second part because it felt superfluous to your main point, but if you're telling me it's relevant then it must be. I'm a little confused, because it reads to me as if you're saying "EDH set means whatever you want it to mean" which doesn't jive with your previous paragraph, and (again) is a bit of a non-definition. Could you elaborate on your point a bit more, because I feel like I'm missing something and mischaracterizing your stance.
The point is simple. Arguing about if a set is an edh set without saying if you are playing one Vs one, multi-player, casual or competitively, is a complete waste of time.
From a casual edh player perspective this set looks okay. It's not the best one out there, but I see lots of cards I'd stick in a deck. That's all that really matters in the end.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually, this has been a pattern with wizards for a while now. Since they don't power creep sets they instead try to shift the design space into new areas to keep the game interesting. This sounds like a great idea, except that shift in design space can make the new set of cards completely unplayable in existing non-rotating formats. That is what has happened to some degree with Amonkhet: They made a new design space and then tried to put silver bullets in the new set that kill the older one.
Also, this particular set most likely was designed with commander being the eternal format of choice as a way to have cards hold value. Big mana strategies work far better in multiplayer games than one vs one, which is what Torment of Hailfire is about. The god cards conveniently have an ability that lets them dodge commander tax. Also, they have Cat Tribal and a horse lord when they actively said the next commander set will be about tribal and one of the decks will be something no one is expecting. On top of which, this is all following the release of Commander Anthology with some of the most popular decks getting reprinted again along with mind vs might, which contains legendaries that slot into two known archetypes.
However, the above should be taken in knowing that I still believe the number of playable cards for EDH is limited in HOU and Amonkhet, just like how it has been for modern and legacy. BFZ and Oath have a ton of good cards in EDH and I don't think I have to mention Kaladesh and Aether Revolt. Not saying anything about SoI and EMN, though. Mostly because as a person who double sleeves cards I absolutely hate flip cards and I don't even want to get started on Merge.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
That's cute that you think this isn't already the case.
The Scarab God? The Locust God? The Scorpion God? Crested Sunmare? Nicol Bolas, God-Pharaoh? Razaketh, the Foulblooded?
These are not cards for Standard or Modern (with the possible exception of Scarab God)- they are for EDH.
There are still decent EDH cards at Rare, like Hour of Promise and Bontu's Last Reckoning,
but most of the lower rarity stuff is not so great for the format.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
The pre-order prices on cards right now from HOU are mostly from the sellers trying to recoup the box value day one right now, and that is even more so than usual as even Kaladesh was not as bad as this in terms of singles sales.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I disagree. Looking at my like 12 edh decks, and what i see on a weekly basis in my opponents decks
Zendikar was an edh set
Innistrad was an edh set
Return to ravnica was an edh set
Kaladesh was an edh set
The sets that provide a large amount of good edh cards are also good in their designs. The sets that are badly designed people just claim are edh sets. I heard the same nonsense claim in regard to theros block, dragons of tarkir, and dragons maze. The vast vast majority of cards from those sets failed to see substantial edh play, and ive had this exact same argument every time a mediocre set comes out and people have trouble accepting it.
Its okay to admit a set is bad, or mediocre, or poorly designed.
High mana costs and over costed abilities dont immediately make anything "good for edh"
I think you just keep on arguing the "But only competitive EDH play matters and nobody plays noncompetitive" point that is, flatly, wrong. Some people play a Pharika EDH deck just because they want to play a Pharika EDH deck. And they don't care when you tell them it's inefficient or there are better cards they could be using.
Right, you keep on thinking that. When a set fails to be good at 60 card competitive the one thing left it is good for is casual play, and EDH isn't by nature a competitive format. That might be changing since EDHREC is causing net decking to increase in Commander and sellers are often using the data there to adjust prices, which in turn put more attention on edh specific cards.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I'm half tempted to try a mono-U control deck for the first time in ages.
Kefnet's Last Word, Disallow, Baral, Chief of Compliance, Nimble Obstructionist, Supreme Will, and the upcoming Evaporating Melody should all play well together.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Blue is looking pretty well loaded for draw-go. between Censor, Supreme Will, Nimble Obstructionist, etc, there are a lot of ways to stop things on the opponents turn. I still feel like splashing for white is the right thing to do for spell queller, but those slots are getting kind of full and there's probably some kind of cycling synergy that could be used.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
you can blame the internet all you'd like for changes to your edh group, it doesn't necessarily make them true. as we play games we realize and figure out more strategies just from those interactions. we like to say edh isn't a competitive format, and that high cost or garbage cards thrive there, but thats never been true. the more you use a deck, the more you start to find/see replacements for cards. so unless you're actively trying to keep your deck from becoming better, its competitive even if you don't want to believe that. this is why you also see most casual groups begin to evolve or divide as some people change their decks and some don't. this is also why casual doesn't have to mean bad.
regardless, yes, when a set fails to be good at 60 card formats, it MIGHT be good for edh, but that doesn't automatically make it so. take a look at this set and then ask yourself how many cards you're excited to pick up and try for just one of your decks. is the list long? how much of the list is experimental and how much has a solid spot right off the bat? how much of that list has value? how many of those cards even feel like they'd be fun? do they do something thats already being done, but more powerfully? less powerfully? generally, if a set is good for 60 card formats, its also good for edh. if you look at the breakdown for most decks this becomes really clear.
in the vast sea of cards that edh has to choose from, the majority of this set is forgettable, and will quickly be replaced in even the most casual of casual decks.
this is not an edh set.
I think you are misunderstanding my point of perspective on this. I am not casting judgement on how you prefer to play EDH by saying this set is an EDH set. The reason this set is an EDH set is because the majority of players play the game casually. They don't play this game like spikes or even competitive players and they tend to look at sets for flavor and abilities. CMC doesn't matter: What matters is if the cards themselves are matching a theme or flavor that the casual players of today who just kitchen table have been missing. The god cards, the desert theme, etc, are all unique and the artwork has been fantastic on all of the cards in the set. In a multiplayer match up it's very likely players will get to see and use a lot of the cards in HOU if they are playing a slower game format. That is why this is an EDH set.
Now if you primarily play one vs one or are more of a Johnny / Competitive EDH player, this set may not be an EDH set to you and that is the feeling I'm getting from your posts. On that front, however, you're basically constrained by the same limitations modern and other non-rotating competitive players are so Atlus kind of shrugs.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I think your definition of EDH set sounds a bit silly. Competitive cards aren't limited from seeing play casually (the opposite is not true). Every set has casual appeal, so literally every set could be labelled an EDH set, rendering the definition worthless.
Furthermore, I think you're making the same mistake as the above poster by implicitly claiming that EDH is either inherently a casual or a competitive format. It's a mixture of both, you can choose to play it casually or you can choose to play it competitively (whether that be competitive multiplayer, Commander 1v1, or French EDH). There's no reason to call EDH a casual format, it's just a format. You can play any format casually. A better term might just be "casual set".
Also worth noting that I more or less agree with Xcric on this topic. I'm not particularly interested in letting WOTC off the hook for bland sets with a poor limited environment and minimal-to-no play in competitive formats (standard, modern, edh, whatever). Kitchen table magic is fine, but it's not what sells boxes, it's not what drives attendance at LGS events. It's not what keeps eternal formats from stagnating. I think competitive play is a much bigger part of this game than you give it credit for, and I'd rather be overly critical and be pleasantly surprised that I was wrong later than be complacent and risk the community giving up on the game because of mediocre set after mediocre set (not saying that's where we're at, but also not saying that that's NOT where we're at either).
And besides, Wizards of the Coast let slip a statistic a couple of years ago to the effect that less than 15% of Magic players have ever been to a tournament. That's ever, in their entire life.
You seem to have missed the entire second half of the post and just cherry picked. I said you may have a different way of looking at it and even admitted that there is more than one way of playing the game. You just cut and pasted the first half of the post without the second half.
Here it is for reference since you didn't seem to read it...
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Didn't meant to imply that casual players don't buy boxes, although admittedly it does blow my mind that anyone would spend $100s on boxes of intrinsically worthless cardboard just to play casual kitchen table magic with. Then again I'm not exactly the arbiter of reality, and people are free to spend their money however they want, so it is what it is I guess. I still think this game would cease to exist without a competitive scene and WOTC needs to do a better job of nurturing that, but I'd be fine with you disagreeing with me on that topic since I don't have any strong data either way.
Thanks for the WOTC data, I wasn't aware of that. That number seems surprisingly low to me, I would have expected it to be more in the 30-40% range. I'll try to use that to adjust my opinion on future matters.
I left off the second part because it felt superfluous to your main point, but if you're telling me it's relevant then it must be. I'm a little confused, because it reads to me as if you're saying "EDH set means whatever you want it to mean" which doesn't jive with your previous paragraph, and (again) is a bit of a non-definition. Could you elaborate on your point a bit more, because I feel like I'm missing something and mischaracterizing your stance.
The point is simple. Arguing about if a set is an edh set without saying if you are playing one Vs one, multi-player, casual or competitively, is a complete waste of time.
From a casual edh player perspective this set looks okay. It's not the best one out there, but I see lots of cards I'd stick in a deck. That's all that really matters in the end.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!