Zendikar 2.0 failed to be the 'Eldrazi matters block' we thought it should be, and yet the very next block was (to my mind) the best possible iteration of that theme. Zendikar 2.0 also failed to be the 'plane of adventures' that, again, everyone expected and hope for - just 3 blocks later we got Ixalan, a spectacular adventure plane. This tells me three things: one that yes, we should absolutely be optimistic about having our expectations met further down the road; two, that we should judge a set based on its own merits; and three, the name of a plane / set is ultimately meaningless as long as we realize that our expectations are actually being met.
Were people expecting a return to adventuring in a world being attacked by space abominations? Where did they think that would fit in exactly? "Oh that spaghetti monster just ate that mountain. Oh well, I'm off to go see if there's a goblet in that cave over there." It was pretty obvious BFZ was not going to be the Zendikar we knew. You had mentioned growth before and seems like people just wanted more of the same.
In Zen 3 we were promised the feel of adventuring to return and while we got part of it, with Party, you didn't really experience the other parts of adventuring. Feels like they only got about a third of the adventuring.
1.Make a party.
2.Go out and adventure while facing various trials and tribulations.
3.Reward
We really didn't get #2 one bit or #3, unless maybe WotC thinks the "Reward" is the Masterpieces in boxes this time. "You young adventurers have grouped together, risking life and limb against the plague, and now your reward is this shiny trinket (for $100)."
Seems like if people were upset about the lack of adventure in BFZ then I can't see how they'd be all that accepting of only getting part of it now.
I guess I would need a more robust definition of what you (or anyone else) thinks adventuring should be fully comprised of in order to respond with efficacy here. Looking at the spoilers again, I see represented: class roles (party), phat loots (equipment), wild beasties of every imaginable size (from jerboas to a giant crab), and exotic locales (MDFC lands). That's a lot more dynamic than people are giving it credit for, and really the only thing getting in the way of recognizing it as such is our preconception about what Zendikar should be - something that will always be personal and, ultimately, subjective.
An aside: I had to learn how to either come to terms of what being a Star Wars fan meant to me, or give it up entirely. The franchise has grown wildly since I was first exposed to it in the '80s: there's the prequel trilogy, the liminal one-offs (Rogue One, Solo), the 'kiddie stuff' (Clone Wars, Rebels), and then mostly recently The Mandalorian and sequel trilogy. Not even accounting for all of the Legends material I grew up with, that's a lot of material dragging the franchise in separate directions, with varying degrees of palatability. To be perfectly honest, I hate most of it; the original trilogy represents the definitive Star Wars experience, and anything which doesn't jibe with that is generally too far afield to be enjoyable for me. When the brand first started to grow in the mid-late '90s, it was easy to be dismissive - this old part was good, this new part part was bad, and despite some contrary opinions my perspective seemed to align with the general consensus. Fast forward a couple of decades and now there's simply too much material for a consensus to even be possible. The prequels haven't aged well, but for a particular generation they're highly nostalgic; the Disney acquisition invalidated a huge body of former canon that some people adored; Rogue One was well received by more traditional Star Wars fans, but I hated it; I enjoyed Solo, a movie that was critically panned by the greater fandom; the 'kiddie stuff' absolutely grates on my nerves, and while it ultimately drove me out of almost every licensed board, card, or miniatures game, I recognize that it's generally well received by the larger audience; The Mandalorian is objectively great, let's not kid ourselves; and while the sequel trilogy is hit or miss (Rian Johnson deserves his own ring special ring in the Inferno), it generally resonates with what I appreciate about the franchise as a whole.
Coming back to my original thought: at a certain point I had to either accept that there was simply too much content to categorize Star Wars as being either good or bad - based on my prescribed criteria - or adhere to what has eventually come to be a very narrow definition and, since Star Wars would accordingly be 'bad,' walk away from something I've loved from adolescence through most of my adulthood. It took some serious introspection, but I eventually decided that it was okay to recognize that what I loved about Star Wars need not define it as a whole - I can take what I like, discard the rest, and not pass judgment on others for the mere existence of disagreeable content, let alone their enjoyment of it. Applying this to Magic, I think it would be wise to find ways to grow as both individuals and as a playerbase. When a given set or block doesn't meet our expectations, sometimes that blame can be placed on Wizards, but for better or worse the onus is on us to determine our own enjoyment of the game as a whole. Take things as they are, not for what you think they should be, and you'll be a lot happier with the things you're passionate about.
Zendikar 2.0 failed to be the 'Eldrazi matters block' we thought it should be, and yet the very next block was (to my mind) the best possible iteration of that theme. Zendikar 2.0 also failed to be the 'plane of adventures' that, again, everyone expected and hope for - just 3 blocks later we got Ixalan, a spectacular adventure plane. This tells me three things: one that yes, we should absolutely be optimistic about having our expectations met further down the road; two, that we should judge a set based on its own merits; and three, the name of a plane / set is ultimately meaningless as long as we realize that our expectations are actually being met.
If your expectation was that they were just going to reprint original Zendikar, almost verbatim, then you set yourself up for disappointment. This set is... fine. Not amazing, but there are enough interesting cards to capture my attention.
Party wasn't executed well, but mechanically and flavorfully it's better than ally. Expect it to get even mo' better after D&D: The Gathering drops later next year.
Fetches are OP, time for us all to get over them. If you really want to hold Wizards to a higher standard, we should stop asking them to promote basic resources as chase cards instead of what they actually are: crutches and limitations for a card game in 2020.
Again, quest, level up, and traps were all distinctively tied to Zendikar 1.0. Should Magic grow as a brand, or just do the same old things every time we revisit a plane?
Would you like me to list all of the cards that have me excited?
I get that it's not a high powered standard set - and that's fine, considering all the complaining that we've had about balance recently - but there's a lot in here for other formats. I'd rate it at least 7/10 for my interests.
Anyone care to discuss all the implications for EDH?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
✊🏿 Justice for George Floyd ✊🏿
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We should revisit this subject a year from now.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
I guess I would need a more robust definition of what you (or anyone else) thinks adventuring should be fully comprised of in order to respond with efficacy here. Looking at the spoilers again, I see represented: class roles (party), phat loots (equipment), wild beasties of every imaginable size (from jerboas to a giant crab), and exotic locales (MDFC lands). That's a lot more dynamic than people are giving it credit for, and really the only thing getting in the way of recognizing it as such is our preconception about what Zendikar should be - something that will always be personal and, ultimately, subjective.
An aside: I had to learn how to either come to terms of what being a Star Wars fan meant to me, or give it up entirely. The franchise has grown wildly since I was first exposed to it in the '80s: there's the prequel trilogy, the liminal one-offs (Rogue One, Solo), the 'kiddie stuff' (Clone Wars, Rebels), and then mostly recently The Mandalorian and sequel trilogy. Not even accounting for all of the Legends material I grew up with, that's a lot of material dragging the franchise in separate directions, with varying degrees of palatability. To be perfectly honest, I hate most of it; the original trilogy represents the definitive Star Wars experience, and anything which doesn't jibe with that is generally too far afield to be enjoyable for me. When the brand first started to grow in the mid-late '90s, it was easy to be dismissive - this old part was good, this new part part was bad, and despite some contrary opinions my perspective seemed to align with the general consensus. Fast forward a couple of decades and now there's simply too much material for a consensus to even be possible. The prequels haven't aged well, but for a particular generation they're highly nostalgic; the Disney acquisition invalidated a huge body of former canon that some people adored; Rogue One was well received by more traditional Star Wars fans, but I hated it; I enjoyed Solo, a movie that was critically panned by the greater fandom; the 'kiddie stuff' absolutely grates on my nerves, and while it ultimately drove me out of almost every licensed board, card, or miniatures game, I recognize that it's generally well received by the larger audience; The Mandalorian is objectively great, let's not kid ourselves; and while the sequel trilogy is hit or miss (Rian Johnson deserves his own ring special ring in the Inferno), it generally resonates with what I appreciate about the franchise as a whole.
Coming back to my original thought: at a certain point I had to either accept that there was simply too much content to categorize Star Wars as being either good or bad - based on my prescribed criteria - or adhere to what has eventually come to be a very narrow definition and, since Star Wars would accordingly be 'bad,' walk away from something I've loved from adolescence through most of my adulthood. It took some serious introspection, but I eventually decided that it was okay to recognize that what I loved about Star Wars need not define it as a whole - I can take what I like, discard the rest, and not pass judgment on others for the mere existence of disagreeable content, let alone their enjoyment of it. Applying this to Magic, I think it would be wise to find ways to grow as both individuals and as a playerbase. When a given set or block doesn't meet our expectations, sometimes that blame can be placed on Wizards, but for better or worse the onus is on us to determine our own enjoyment of the game as a whole. Take things as they are, not for what you think they should be, and you'll be a lot happier with the things you're passionate about.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Zendikar 2.0 failed to be the 'Eldrazi matters block' we thought it should be, and yet the very next block was (to my mind) the best possible iteration of that theme. Zendikar 2.0 also failed to be the 'plane of adventures' that, again, everyone expected and hope for - just 3 blocks later we got Ixalan, a spectacular adventure plane. This tells me three things: one that yes, we should absolutely be optimistic about having our expectations met further down the road; two, that we should judge a set based on its own merits; and three, the name of a plane / set is ultimately meaningless as long as we realize that our expectations are actually being met.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
If your expectation was that they were just going to reprint original Zendikar, almost verbatim, then you set yourself up for disappointment. This set is... fine. Not amazing, but there are enough interesting cards to capture my attention.
Party wasn't executed well, but mechanically and flavorfully it's better than ally. Expect it to get even mo' better after D&D: The Gathering drops later next year.
Fetches are OP, time for us all to get over them. If you really want to hold Wizards to a higher standard, we should stop asking them to promote basic resources as chase cards instead of what they actually are: crutches and limitations for a card game in 2020.
Again, quest, level up, and traps were all distinctively tied to Zendikar 1.0. Should Magic grow as a brand, or just do the same old things every time we revisit a plane?
Would you like me to list all of the cards that have me excited?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Anyone care to discuss all the implications for EDH?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice