"This seems to be a format that’s really about just drafting a solid 2-color deck. Sure you might get an absurd Kalastria Healer Ally deck. And sure, you want a good mix of ingest and processors, but I don’t know if I really think of that as meaningful synergy. In general, drafting Battle for Zendikar like a core set is the right way to go."
"Just to clarify, my contention isn’t that the best synergy deck can be amazing—it certainly can, but it’s more the exception rather than the rule. While your best “good card” decks will never be as good as Dan’s deck, on average just playing the best cards in Battle for Zendikar is a better strategy than taking synergy cards over cards with a higher raw power level. I’m sure the comments below will not entirely agree."
It is Jon Finkel, which does carry weight, but it sounds like he hasn't played a ton of BFZ draft, he didn't 3-0 either of his pods, and he wound up losing to synergy, so all that combined with the fact that his assertion is a heavy outlier to what others have experienced makes me inclined to say that his estimation is off in this instance.
I, too, logged on to my unused MTGO account for the first time in over a year because I'm enjoying the format that much. Diverse, rewarding, balanced, entertaining.
I had no idea ROE was disliked by players. I always took it to be commonly accepted as one of the best ever Limited formats. Hopefully players are enjoying BFZ now.
"This seems to be a format that’s really about just drafting a solid 2-color deck. Sure you might get an absurd Kalastria Healer Ally deck. And sure, you want a good mix of ingest and processors, but I don’t know if I really think of that as meaningful synergy. In general, drafting Battle for Zendikar like a core set is the right way to go."
"Just to clarify, my contention isn’t that the best synergy deck can be amazing—it certainly can, but it’s more the exception rather than the rule. While your best “good card” decks will never be as good as Dan’s deck, on average just playing the best cards in Battle for Zendikar is a better strategy than taking synergy cards over cards with a higher raw power level. I’m sure the comments below will not entirely agree."
I think that is fair. The nice thing is that a lot of the good synergy cards are still ok sans much synergy. A few are very niche and borderline unplayable outside of their specific archetype, but I like having 1-2 cards like that per archetype as they reward the drafter who works to read signals and get into the right seat.
But generally yeah, card quality and just drafting a solid deck is king. My last 3 drafts have all been like that, mostly goodstuff with minor synergies. One was even BRu devoid, and it had a lot of potential synergies, but in practice they rarely came up. In fact my strongest synergy in the actual games ended up being Zulaport Cutthroat plus Scions (Spawning Bed in particular). That helped me finish 2 very close games and go 3-0 in an 8-4, and it isn't an interaction that I'm really even looking for in the grixis/devoid decks, it just happened to be there between two good cards. In my latest draft I did well (2-1 in an 8-4) with BR control deck that was just loaded with removal and card advantage. Break up their synergy with tons of removal/discard then close it out with Invokers and awakened land. Not glamorous, but very effective. Lost in the finals to a URw deck using a similar strategy. The middle draft that didn't go well, 0-1, I got great blue but ended up in GU goodstuff. The deck was ok, nice curve and creature base, but the lack of good removal in those colors really hurts that strategy. When I've done well with GU (2 3-0's) it has been by going hard in the ramp/converge direction so that I could just be doing bigger/better things than the opponent, not playing fair/goodstuff, but I never saw the tools to go that way and just got stuck in the middle. Probably a draft where I would have done well to heed Owen's "no green" strategy, but no way of knowing that going in.
I had no idea ROE was disliked by players. I always took it to be commonly accepted as one of the best ever Limited formats. Hopefully players are enjoying BFZ now.
ROE is considered one of the best draft formats by hardcore drafters. However for more casual players it was full of traps and vastly changing priorities compared to most formats.
This is part of why Innistrad is usually considered a better draft format overall as its deep for less hardcore players while still maintaining the depth to play 50+ drafts of the format easily.
I like BFZ draft but it's either very hard or extremely high variance (I cannot tell which) It seems that sometimes you just get a very bad seat and end up in "no archetype" or a mix of two and your deck is awful. Other times, you jump the the correct lane early and have a finely tuned machine. Very often it's clear late pack 1/ early pack 2 that you are in the wrong deck, but it's extremely hard to switch because you can't just jump a single and take what's open. What's open might be a mix of 2 colors.
This has been my experience, I think for extremely experienced drafters this set is really fun, but for more casual drafters this set can be a real challenge to get things to line up. I think there are almost too many synergies in the set and this can lead to too many half-complete decks, especially as people learn what to hate draft. I have drafted 4 times for the set and my deck just always seems to be missing one or two more pieces and the decks I face seemed to have gotten that one extra piece that just barely beats me. I don't think this is a bad draft format, just a very hard and sometimes frustrating format; and not quite as "oh so good" for casuals as it is for pros.
I was hopeful for the format early on, but the format decided to pummel me hard. Now, this should probably a "venting" thread post, but since it's BfZ draft related, I might as well post it here. Some things are not the fault of BfZ per-se.
1. Open only crap. Sure, that's just luck, but I can only take so much crap. In about 36 boosters so far, I got zero worthy mythics (i.e worth more than $2) and only two duals. I'm not asking for money-cards, but I just keep opening duds: entro-deck rares or unplayables. I've opened 4 defiant bloodlord in 4 drafts (never playing lifegain), multiple angelic captains, gruesome slaughter, nissa's renewal, ...
2. Whatever I draft, I often won't get the good commons or uncommons passed to me later on. I'm trying to stay open, read the signal, but I never get the rewards. In my last draft, on a 6-man pod, I was drafted Ur. Got nothing exciting for uncommons, ended up with a flyers deck. The guy sitting accross me drafted RB. He got 3 vile aggregate, 2 rolling thunder, 2 grip of desolation, 2 forerunner of slaughter, akoum hellkite, and more... how did he open / got passed so many great uncommons that I never saw?!?
3. When I drafted an OK deck nonetheless, then I lose to mana screws and super-lucker opponents. I had a nice RW allies deck two drafts ago (angelic captain, blademaster, all the allies (trample, menace, first strike, haste) and combat tricks. (I got passed the captain p2p1 and opened the blademaster. For once!) I mulliganed to oblivion twice. One time, after winning game one, I kept a reasonable 2-lands hand on the draw with three drops. My opponent mulliganed into a 1-land hand. She top decked two lands, played scion makers and played a plated crusher on turn 5, to which I had no answer. While I drew one land, then no more. Then she did it again game 3. (This time not off a one-lander, at least, but early plate crusher FTW.)
I like the complexities on principles. But the drafts or games have been awful so far.
I had difficulty winning in the first few weeks but lately I have had a lot of success. Part of it is due to my opponents either seemingly trying to build a nut synergy deck and I run over their 1/2 flyer-intruders or 1/2 healers with just better creatures, or they are playing too many 3-color decks and experiencing mana color issues. Sometimes their nut synergy draw completely wipes me out without much of a game regardless of my draw but if it does not come together in a game, then they can be in trouble if they are including cards which are sub-par without the synergy.
One other issue with some BFZ synergies -- such as allies and landfall -- is that some of them are no good on defense so if the draw in a game is not good then it can be run over. I believe it's important to have a decent amount of removal in most any deck.
I am not anti-synergy, though. Once a synergy seems to be coming together I will certainly pick up some otherwise sub-par cards such as intruder or healer if they fit the synergy well.
I have to say I've lost more often than in most formats from mulligans into oblivion or mana screw. Sometimes opponent curves out a 6 drop on turn 6 while you're stuck on 2-3 lands until turn 8, and in this format that tends to be an auto-loss because there are just too many high-cost bombs and effective manasinks that reward you if you have a ton of lands. The format seems highly dependant on hitting your mana sources early. 18 lands helps but doesn't guarantee. I'm reconsidering the value of cards like Seek the Wilds and Anticipate merely to help you hit those land drops.
I agree. I have even had a couple of entire drafts (6+ games) without a particularly competitive game due to mana issues on either side, though usually it's not nearly that extreme. When there is a competitive game it is much more often down to the wire than in other sets so I think that balances it out.
I like Anticipate a lot more than others I've seen comment on it, it can really help with mana screw, flood, or just searching for an important card not to mention cantrip'ing to thin out the deck and slightly increase the chances of hitting your own bomb. I probably wouldn't even play Anticipate in 2-drop-important Magic Origins but in BFZ I am very glad to have one or sometimes even two. I would probably want to try Seek the Wilds except that I am almost always able to avoid playing green.
I agree. I have even had a couple of entire drafts (6+ games) without a particularly competitive game due to mana issues on either side, though usually it's not nearly that extreme. When there is a competitive game it is much more often down to the wire than in other sets so I think that balances it out.
I like Anticipate a lot more than others I've seen comment on it, it can really help with mana screw, flood, or just searching for an important card not to mention cantrip'ing to thin out the deck and slightly increase the chances of hitting your own bomb. I probably wouldn't even play Anticipate in 2-drop-important Magic Origins but in BFZ I am very glad to have one or sometimes even two. I would probably want to try Seek the Wilds except that I am almost always able to avoid playing green.
I hope you guys realize that your running into mana issues is not a symptom of a set problem, just a result of small sample sizes (and if it is you that is suffering from the mana problems then probably some mistakes in that regard on your parts). I can't recall a set in recent memory that has been FRIENDLIER when it comes to lands/mana-issues. There are a ton of good non-basics, a ton of ways to make use of extra mana in the late game, and relatively light mana requirements (i.e. almost all of the cards that require two of one mana color cost 5+). It is a mostly 2-color format in which playing 18 lands is the right call the majority of the time. Heck 19 is probably right as often as 17 is, if not moreso. Put all of that together and I'd say that if you or your opponents are seeing more mana problems than usual...then you are doing something fundamentally wrong. Getting too greedy in some area maybe, splashing too often or trying to run a land shorter than you should.
You're talking about different types of mana issues: color screw (which can be avoided by not being greedy or using duals/fixing, since double costs are low) and flood (avoided in the format thanks to mana sinks). Where I think this format is more unforgiving is in not drawing enough lands period, i.e. getting stuck at 2-3 or missing key land drops and hitting them late.
True, that should be even less likely in this format running 18 lands. Just bricking on lands (on either side) can be chalked up to variance. What I have noticed though is that when variance strikes, the consequences are more unforgiving than in many formats. In many 2-drop centric formats, you either run so much low-curve stuff or the curve toppers are relatively weak, such that missing early land drops isn't that big a deal and you can reasonably recover. In BFZ, if both players have good decks but one player bricks on lands and the other hits every land drop, the player hitting their big drops earlier is usually way ahead. The reward from having more mana is higher than usual while the penalty for having less mana is worse than usual. Or so I seem to be observing anyway.
An extreme example is when you can't cast anything bigger than an X/3 due to mana issues but the opponent has a Valakut Invoker and 8 mana. If you don't have the right removal, you can't win this game. It's happened to me a few times, which is admittedly variance, but you don't see such one-sidedness in other formats when one player hits 8 and the other is on 3-4.
IMO it's not that it happens more often, but that it's much harder to win when it does happen.
Maybe the answer is to run 19 more often (i.e. with heavy awaken, Eldrazi decks, or spell lands).
You're talking about different types of mana issues: color screw (which can be avoided by not being greedy or using duals/fixing, since double costs are low) and flood (mana sinks). Where I think this format is more unforgiving is in not drawing enough lands period, i.e. getting stuck at 2-3 or missing key land drops.
True, that should be even less likely in this format running 18 lands. Just bricking on lands (on either side) can be chalked up to variance. What I have noticed though is that when variance strikes, the consequences are more unforgiving than in many formats. In many 2-drop centric formats, you either run so much low-curve stuff or the curve toppers are relatively weak, such that missing early land drops isn't that big a deal and you can reasonably recover. In BFZ, if both players have good decks but one player bricks on lands and the other hits every land drop, the player hitting their big drops earlier is usually way ahead. The reward from having more mana is higher than usual while the penalty for having less mana is worse than usual. Or so I seem to be observing anyway.
Maybe the answer is to run 19 more often (i.e. with heavy awaken, Eldrazi decks, or spell lands).
That just hasn't been my experience. If anything I find mana stumbles to be less punishing here than in say Origins, where the aggressive decks were common and good enough to really punish you for missing even one beat.
It sounds like you may be trying to run curves that are a little too high. Personally most of my non-green curves look typical of any curve you would see in any normal format. Mostly 2-4's, a few 5's, a couple of 6's.
I think that there are many more synergies in the format than the straight 2-color ones, or even converge. There are a ton of cards that go in decks that aren't obvious at first, but look at what Pathway Arrows can do in a deck with Nirkana Assassin and life gain synergies. Two C- cards cards that can become a machine gun. Or a Vampiric Rites in a deck with Retreat to Emeria/From Beyond. Crazy card advantage isn't just for Blue any longer! Roil Spout and Benthic Infiltrator. Build your own Swords to Plowshares!
IMHO, it's not 100% archetype synergies, but what cards that I have in my pool synergize with cards in this pack. A good example is a mistake I made at this past weekend's FNM draft. I P1P1 a From Beyond and followed it up with a Brood Monitor and Carrier Thrall. So I am in Black/Green. And I get passed a Zulaport Cutthroat. I 100% should have taken that card. It synergized perfectly with my cards. I ended up taking a Complete Disregard because it was a better card in my colors. I also got a Pathway Arrows late in pack 1, and then passed Malakir Familiar for Ruinous Path early in Pack 2. Again, the more powerful removal spell was taken over a card that synergized with my pool. I think that one is more defensible, but I could go either way on that one even now.
Another lesson is that you need to take fixing highly. If you can't easily splash for something, you shouldn't play it. I drafted an Evolving Wilds and Pilgrim's Eye within the first 4 picks of their respective packs, and I never had mana issues in my full 3 color deck, in which I ended up with 8 sources of Blue, 8 sources of Green, and 7 sources of Black (got a Sunken Hollow and a pair of Lifespring Druids)
I agree. I have even had a couple of entire drafts (6+ games) without a particularly competitive game due to mana issues on either side, though usually it's not nearly that extreme. When there is a competitive game it is much more often down to the wire than in other sets so I think that balances it out.
I like Anticipate a lot more than others I've seen comment on it, it can really help with mana screw, flood, or just searching for an important card not to mention cantrip'ing to thin out the deck and slightly increase the chances of hitting your own bomb. I probably wouldn't even play Anticipate in 2-drop-important Magic Origins but in BFZ I am very glad to have one or sometimes even two. I would probably want to try Seek the Wilds except that I am almost always able to avoid playing green.
I hope you guys realize that your running into mana issues is not a symptom of a set problem, just a result of small sample sizes (and if it is you that is suffering from the mana problems then probably some mistakes in that regard on your parts). I can't recall a set in recent memory that has been FRIENDLIER when it comes to lands/mana-issues. There are a ton of good non-basics, a ton of ways to make use of extra mana in the late game, and relatively light mana requirements (i.e. almost all of the cards that require two of one mana color cost 5+). It is a mostly 2-color format in which playing 18 lands is the right call the majority of the time. Heck 19 is probably right as often as 17 is, if not moreso. Put all of that together and I'd say that if you or your opponents are seeing more mana problems than usual...then you are doing something fundamentally wrong. Getting too greedy in some area maybe, splashing too often or trying to run a land shorter than you should.
I agree with not basing conclusions on small sample sizes. I have played in a couple of dozen drafts which is not a small number when it comes to seeing patterns in a format, but it is too small to make conclusions. Also, I watch a lot of draft videos including last night's post by Numot in which he won the first two matches with a mediocre deck just because his opponents weren't doing much of anything of the early turns (they were very unfun one-sided games).
Small sample size is why I consider my remarks to just be my own observations. However, I believe that mana issues are more prevalent in BFZ than in other recent sets due to the issues I mentioned earlier.
I also agree that mana issues are in part caused by greed in building 3-color decks without enough fixing, or in trying to put in too many high casting cost spells. The mana issues I mention that I have experienced have usually been from my opponents, and I think that they are just not building their decks that well (I play only swiss but I also watch plenty of 8-4 draft videos). I believe that part of it is due to the complexity of the format as a whole, but I also believe that drafting is more luck-based in BFZ than in other recent formats due to the value of synergy -- there are haves and have nots at the end of the draft, more so than in other recent sets in my view.
Another area of greed is the blighted lands. I like those lands in general but people seem to cram them into 3-color decks or put as many of them as they can in a deck, and this can often cause color mana issues. I also do not like almost all of the common lands which come into play tapped, other than Fertile Thicket which I like a whole lot, and sometimes games are decided by someone playing one of these tap lands for no value on turn 4 when they are getting behind on board, and they do not cast anything because they do not have another 3 or 2 drop.
I am not on any soapbox here. I am enjoying BFZ a whole lot (partly because I'm doing well in it) and would not want to see anything in particular designed in a different way. These are just random observations.
While I disagree that BFZ is any more luck based, I do think it would be fair to say that there are a lot of traps for the less experienced drafter here, especially wrt to mana but also on the haves/have-nots luck subject:
- Colorless lands that are very tempting
- Splashes that are very tempting due to synergies (Very tempting to play that Vile Aggregate in your UB devoid deck, or splash for a strong off color ally)
- Awaken leading to your lands dying in combat
- 18 lands being correct most of the time, when we know that many less experienced players have a very hard time with the discipline needed to cut non-lands for lands (i.e. they were already likely to be playing 16 when they should have been playing 17).
- On the have's/have nots - I think this is another area where a skilled drafter is not going to have issues (well no moreso than a normal set) but maybe the less skilled drafter does due to making/chasing early synergy picks too far. I know from discussions with some people here that it is a common problem, with them getting tunnel vision as to what deck they are in far too early in a draft. A LOT of players approach formats like this that way, going all-in on archetypes early and just hoping that they get there. When you draft like that then yeah, it will feel very all-or-nothing. But better drafters know better, don't get that tunnel vision so early, and keep their options open so that they can end up in an open deck.
To clarify the "small sample size issue":
I 100% agree that even 20-30 drafts isn't enough to draw statistical conclusions. Variance can have a huge effect. That's why I said not that I think that manascrew happens more often (hard to conclude from personal anecdotal experience), just that in those rare variance-driven cases the manascrewed player seems heavily disadvantaged, even in 2-color decks with good curves and stable manabases.
It's possible that I may just be observing variance in the variance... that there may be an equal number of games where the manascrewed player still wins over the player with good mana draws, and I've just observed the ones where the manascrewed player got short-changed. It's also possible that the losing player just built a worse deck. However, since the format has more you can do with mana than most formats, I think the theory does back that the player that can't match that mana utility is going to be disadvantaged over the player maximizing mana utility.
Now I'm talking about a minority of games here (< 10%?). Terrible manascrew doesn't happen regularly. Overall I find the format extremely fun, rich, deep and exciting. This is just an observation about the greater importance of maximizing mana utility, since this format has so many more rewards for hitting more mana (mana sinks, awaken, Blighted lands, Landfall, Eldrazi).
Is 5 5+ cost too much top end? I don't think so. To avoid mana issues, I cut the higher curve stuff and avoided the green splash (even though it wouldn't be that much of a strain with Evolving Wilds and Fertile Thicket), boarding in specific cards depending on the matchup.
Round 1 I stomped.
Round 2 variance strikes. Opponent mulls to 4 on the play and I curve out T1 Sludge Crawler T2 Culling Drone. Seems good, right? But then I stumble on the 3rd land, so I'm just attacking with dorks, and he gets ground blockers up early. I drop Mist Intruder and eventually Benthic Infiltrator when I finally hit 3 mana, but those hit for only a small amount, and I cannot process or drop big threats, so I cannot capitalize on my card advantage. Eventually opponent hits card drawing engines, hits 7+ lands, and drops Ruin Processor and another fatty on me while I'm still on 3 lands. I have my own fatty in hand, but cannot cast it. I quickly lose. This is not a matter of a curve being too greedy or manabase being too weak.
Now this is obviously just anecdotal variance. I'm not saying this is evidence that this sort of thing happens more often. It's not. The observation is that being behind on lands had a bigger impact on the game than opponent being behind on cards.
Again, this is one game, so maybe that's just bad luck. I have observed similar things (disadvantaging opponents or friends) in other games too.
One player is stuck on 3 and can play stuff, but nothing bigger than X/3s. The other has walls, removal, and eventually hits 8 mana for Valakut Invoker. Even if the player on 3 mana is still casting stuff, how can X/3s possibly beat an active Valakut Invoker? And sometimes you just don't draw the right type of removal. In another game, a UW control deck is facing a deck that mulls to 4. The player who mulls keeps a 1-lander but then just draws a land every turn into a 5-drop bomb, stabilizing the game. The UW player cannot get above 3 mana. He can still cast things, but he can't play his big flyers or awaken spells, so his deck is playing at a handicap compared to the opponent.
All of this is variance, and it doesn't happen often. My observation is just that when variance strikes, the handicap seems more severe than in other formats. In other formats you can win with just 2 drops and 3 drops. In this format, 2-drops and 3-drops are too easily stopped by walls, Scion tokens, cheap removal, and bombs. The issue is not being manascrewed and not being able to play anything, but being manascrewed and not being able to play things that would matter.
This is still anecdotal though. Others disagreeing may have different anecdotal experiences. However, I think there is some theory supporting the observation (mainly that the format has more reward for the player that hits higher mana first, due to mana sinks, awaken, Blighted lands, Landfall, Eldrazi, etc).
I just think most of the examples you are giving would apply to virtually every limited format. Getting stuck at 2/3 land for more than a turn or two will lose you the game more often than not. That is far from unique to BFZ, in fact like I said my anecdotal feeling about it is that it is less punishing than say Origins, where even missing one drop for one turn could be game over because the aggro decks snowballed.
I am seeing the effect a lot more in BFZ draft (my own games and in many draft videos) than in any other recent set, games which are not competitive due to mana or synergy issues whether that is color or amount of mana or just not getting the synergy going.
Yes that statement is anecdotal and it is dangerous to base conclusions on that, but beyond just evidence I believe that because of the strong synergies in BFZ draft (compared to other recent sets) there is more greed in building decks -- not only mana bases but the decks themselves -- and when a draw is worse than average it can be terrible due to trying to build a synergy. For example, Kalastria Healer is a great card in BW lifegain but if the deck's draw is poor then it does a terrible job of keeping the game close while the opponent either curves out decently or just gets a decent synergy going.
I just think that there is more opportunity and reward for greed in BFZ draft deck building compared to other recent formats, and that leads to some non-competitive games when draws are sub-standard, more so than in other recent sets. It is based upon my opinions, not on (anecdotal) evidence.
I've now done about twice as many drafts as when I posted this thread (I'm at 37), and I'm still not at all seeing what you're seeing re: this format being more sensitive to mana issues than most. It is what I would have predicted before playing the format, and it is also what I'm seeing in the matches. 110 matches in, and this is still easily among the formats with the highest % of real games for me. Note that my average number of lands played sits somewhere around 18.5.
Interesting. I should probably run 19 lands more often. I almost always run 18. But unless the pool is really strong, the 19th land is probably better than the 22nd filler, especially if it is a "spell land".
I've now done about twice as many drafts as when I posted this thread (I'm at 37), and I'm still not at all seeing what you're seeing re: this format being more sensitive to mana issues than most. It is what I would have predicted before playing the format, and it is also what I'm seeing in the matches. 110 matches in, and this is still easily among the formats with the highest % of real games for me. Note that Faimy average number of lands played sits somewhere around 18.5.
Fair enough. That is good information from someone who has been thinking about the issue.
I keep experiencing the issue, and usually it's my opponent who really isn't doing anything meaningful until turn 4 or 5, if at all, and the game is a walk. It happens quite a bit more in BFZ for me than in other formats. It happened a bit more than normal in ORI but that is because it was a fast format unforgiving of early stumbles, whereas BFZ is slower than average (but not glacial). I am also seeing it in plenty of BFZ draft videos I watch.
I think it has to do with greed. Maybe some are trying to go with only 17 lands, often trying for 3 colors (not just a splash), or going for synergies and not connecting (so their early plays do not do much meaningful). Also the awaken spells seem to fool people in deck-building into thinking that they are early plays when they are best played for 5+ mana. In my couple of dozen drafts so far I always play 18 lands except once 17 and once 19, or sometimes 19 on the play in game 2 or 3.
Another factor may be that some of the synergies are offensive-minded such as landfall and allies, and if those decks are having to play defense they can come up short or even extremely short which can make for a non-competitive game.
I play only swiss drafts on MtGO (to ensure that I get to play 3 games for my entry), so that may be a factor, but in the past recent sets I have not encountered this nearly as much. BFZ is more complex, especially from a draft and deck-building standpoint, so maybe that's the main issue here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"This seems to be a format that’s really about just drafting a solid 2-color deck. Sure you might get an absurd Kalastria Healer Ally deck. And sure, you want a good mix of ingest and processors, but I don’t know if I really think of that as meaningful synergy. In general, drafting Battle for Zendikar like a core set is the right way to go."
"Just to clarify, my contention isn’t that the best synergy deck can be amazing—it certainly can, but it’s more the exception rather than the rule. While your best “good card” decks will never be as good as Dan’s deck, on average just playing the best cards in Battle for Zendikar is a better strategy than taking synergy cards over cards with a higher raw power level. I’m sure the comments below will not entirely agree."
I, too, logged on to my unused MTGO account for the first time in over a year because I'm enjoying the format that much. Diverse, rewarding, balanced, entertaining.
I had no idea ROE was disliked by players. I always took it to be commonly accepted as one of the best ever Limited formats. Hopefully players are enjoying BFZ now.
I think that is fair. The nice thing is that a lot of the good synergy cards are still ok sans much synergy. A few are very niche and borderline unplayable outside of their specific archetype, but I like having 1-2 cards like that per archetype as they reward the drafter who works to read signals and get into the right seat.
But generally yeah, card quality and just drafting a solid deck is king. My last 3 drafts have all been like that, mostly goodstuff with minor synergies. One was even BRu devoid, and it had a lot of potential synergies, but in practice they rarely came up. In fact my strongest synergy in the actual games ended up being Zulaport Cutthroat plus Scions (Spawning Bed in particular). That helped me finish 2 very close games and go 3-0 in an 8-4, and it isn't an interaction that I'm really even looking for in the grixis/devoid decks, it just happened to be there between two good cards. In my latest draft I did well (2-1 in an 8-4) with BR control deck that was just loaded with removal and card advantage. Break up their synergy with tons of removal/discard then close it out with Invokers and awakened land. Not glamorous, but very effective. Lost in the finals to a URw deck using a similar strategy. The middle draft that didn't go well, 0-1, I got great blue but ended up in GU goodstuff. The deck was ok, nice curve and creature base, but the lack of good removal in those colors really hurts that strategy. When I've done well with GU (2 3-0's) it has been by going hard in the ramp/converge direction so that I could just be doing bigger/better things than the opponent, not playing fair/goodstuff, but I never saw the tools to go that way and just got stuck in the middle. Probably a draft where I would have done well to heed Owen's "no green" strategy, but no way of knowing that going in.
ROE is considered one of the best draft formats by hardcore drafters. However for more casual players it was full of traps and vastly changing priorities compared to most formats.
This is part of why Innistrad is usually considered a better draft format overall as its deep for less hardcore players while still maintaining the depth to play 50+ drafts of the format easily.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
This has been my experience, I think for extremely experienced drafters this set is really fun, but for more casual drafters this set can be a real challenge to get things to line up. I think there are almost too many synergies in the set and this can lead to too many half-complete decks, especially as people learn what to hate draft. I have drafted 4 times for the set and my deck just always seems to be missing one or two more pieces and the decks I face seemed to have gotten that one extra piece that just barely beats me. I don't think this is a bad draft format, just a very hard and sometimes frustrating format; and not quite as "oh so good" for casuals as it is for pros.
I Stream MTGO on Twitch: broodwarjc
I also post recordings of those streams on Youtube: broodwarjcavidgamer
Standard Deck:
BUPirates
Modern Deck:
B8-Rack
1. Open only crap. Sure, that's just luck, but I can only take so much crap. In about 36 boosters so far, I got zero worthy mythics (i.e worth more than $2) and only two duals. I'm not asking for money-cards, but I just keep opening duds: entro-deck rares or unplayables. I've opened 4 defiant bloodlord in 4 drafts (never playing lifegain), multiple angelic captains, gruesome slaughter, nissa's renewal, ...
2. Whatever I draft, I often won't get the good commons or uncommons passed to me later on. I'm trying to stay open, read the signal, but I never get the rewards. In my last draft, on a 6-man pod, I was drafted Ur. Got nothing exciting for uncommons, ended up with a flyers deck. The guy sitting accross me drafted RB. He got 3 vile aggregate, 2 rolling thunder, 2 grip of desolation, 2 forerunner of slaughter, akoum hellkite, and more... how did he open / got passed so many great uncommons that I never saw?!?
3. When I drafted an OK deck nonetheless, then I lose to mana screws and super-lucker opponents. I had a nice RW allies deck two drafts ago (angelic captain, blademaster, all the allies (trample, menace, first strike, haste) and combat tricks. (I got passed the captain p2p1 and opened the blademaster. For once!) I mulliganed to oblivion twice. One time, after winning game one, I kept a reasonable 2-lands hand on the draw with three drops. My opponent mulliganed into a 1-land hand. She top decked two lands, played scion makers and played a plated crusher on turn 5, to which I had no answer. While I drew one land, then no more. Then she did it again game 3. (This time not off a one-lander, at least, but early plate crusher FTW.)
I like the complexities on principles. But the drafts or games have been awful so far.
One other issue with some BFZ synergies -- such as allies and landfall -- is that some of them are no good on defense so if the draw in a game is not good then it can be run over. I believe it's important to have a decent amount of removal in most any deck.
I am not anti-synergy, though. Once a synergy seems to be coming together I will certainly pick up some otherwise sub-par cards such as intruder or healer if they fit the synergy well.
I like Anticipate a lot more than others I've seen comment on it, it can really help with mana screw, flood, or just searching for an important card not to mention cantrip'ing to thin out the deck and slightly increase the chances of hitting your own bomb. I probably wouldn't even play Anticipate in 2-drop-important Magic Origins but in BFZ I am very glad to have one or sometimes even two. I would probably want to try Seek the Wilds except that I am almost always able to avoid playing green.
I hope you guys realize that your running into mana issues is not a symptom of a set problem, just a result of small sample sizes (and if it is you that is suffering from the mana problems then probably some mistakes in that regard on your parts). I can't recall a set in recent memory that has been FRIENDLIER when it comes to lands/mana-issues. There are a ton of good non-basics, a ton of ways to make use of extra mana in the late game, and relatively light mana requirements (i.e. almost all of the cards that require two of one mana color cost 5+). It is a mostly 2-color format in which playing 18 lands is the right call the majority of the time. Heck 19 is probably right as often as 17 is, if not moreso. Put all of that together and I'd say that if you or your opponents are seeing more mana problems than usual...then you are doing something fundamentally wrong. Getting too greedy in some area maybe, splashing too often or trying to run a land shorter than you should.
True, that should be even less likely in this format running 18 lands. Just bricking on lands (on either side) can be chalked up to variance. What I have noticed though is that when variance strikes, the consequences are more unforgiving than in many formats. In many 2-drop centric formats, you either run so much low-curve stuff or the curve toppers are relatively weak, such that missing early land drops isn't that big a deal and you can reasonably recover. In BFZ, if both players have good decks but one player bricks on lands and the other hits every land drop, the player hitting their big drops earlier is usually way ahead. The reward from having more mana is higher than usual while the penalty for having less mana is worse than usual. Or so I seem to be observing anyway.
An extreme example is when you can't cast anything bigger than an X/3 due to mana issues but the opponent has a Valakut Invoker and 8 mana. If you don't have the right removal, you can't win this game. It's happened to me a few times, which is admittedly variance, but you don't see such one-sidedness in other formats when one player hits 8 and the other is on 3-4.
IMO it's not that it happens more often, but that it's much harder to win when it does happen.
Maybe the answer is to run 19 more often (i.e. with heavy awaken, Eldrazi decks, or spell lands).
That just hasn't been my experience. If anything I find mana stumbles to be less punishing here than in say Origins, where the aggressive decks were common and good enough to really punish you for missing even one beat.
It sounds like you may be trying to run curves that are a little too high. Personally most of my non-green curves look typical of any curve you would see in any normal format. Mostly 2-4's, a few 5's, a couple of 6's.
IMHO, it's not 100% archetype synergies, but what cards that I have in my pool synergize with cards in this pack. A good example is a mistake I made at this past weekend's FNM draft. I P1P1 a From Beyond and followed it up with a Brood Monitor and Carrier Thrall. So I am in Black/Green. And I get passed a Zulaport Cutthroat. I 100% should have taken that card. It synergized perfectly with my cards. I ended up taking a Complete Disregard because it was a better card in my colors. I also got a Pathway Arrows late in pack 1, and then passed Malakir Familiar for Ruinous Path early in Pack 2. Again, the more powerful removal spell was taken over a card that synergized with my pool. I think that one is more defensible, but I could go either way on that one even now.
Another lesson is that you need to take fixing highly. If you can't easily splash for something, you shouldn't play it. I drafted an Evolving Wilds and Pilgrim's Eye within the first 4 picks of their respective packs, and I never had mana issues in my full 3 color deck, in which I ended up with 8 sources of Blue, 8 sources of Green, and 7 sources of Black (got a Sunken Hollow and a pair of Lifespring Druids)
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
I agree with not basing conclusions on small sample sizes. I have played in a couple of dozen drafts which is not a small number when it comes to seeing patterns in a format, but it is too small to make conclusions. Also, I watch a lot of draft videos including last night's post by Numot in which he won the first two matches with a mediocre deck just because his opponents weren't doing much of anything of the early turns (they were very unfun one-sided games).
Small sample size is why I consider my remarks to just be my own observations. However, I believe that mana issues are more prevalent in BFZ than in other recent sets due to the issues I mentioned earlier.
I also agree that mana issues are in part caused by greed in building 3-color decks without enough fixing, or in trying to put in too many high casting cost spells. The mana issues I mention that I have experienced have usually been from my opponents, and I think that they are just not building their decks that well (I play only swiss but I also watch plenty of 8-4 draft videos). I believe that part of it is due to the complexity of the format as a whole, but I also believe that drafting is more luck-based in BFZ than in other recent formats due to the value of synergy -- there are haves and have nots at the end of the draft, more so than in other recent sets in my view.
Another area of greed is the blighted lands. I like those lands in general but people seem to cram them into 3-color decks or put as many of them as they can in a deck, and this can often cause color mana issues. I also do not like almost all of the common lands which come into play tapped, other than Fertile Thicket which I like a whole lot, and sometimes games are decided by someone playing one of these tap lands for no value on turn 4 when they are getting behind on board, and they do not cast anything because they do not have another 3 or 2 drop.
I am not on any soapbox here. I am enjoying BFZ a whole lot (partly because I'm doing well in it) and would not want to see anything in particular designed in a different way. These are just random observations.
- Colorless lands that are very tempting
- Splashes that are very tempting due to synergies (Very tempting to play that Vile Aggregate in your UB devoid deck, or splash for a strong off color ally)
- Awaken leading to your lands dying in combat
- 18 lands being correct most of the time, when we know that many less experienced players have a very hard time with the discipline needed to cut non-lands for lands (i.e. they were already likely to be playing 16 when they should have been playing 17).
- On the have's/have nots - I think this is another area where a skilled drafter is not going to have issues (well no moreso than a normal set) but maybe the less skilled drafter does due to making/chasing early synergy picks too far. I know from discussions with some people here that it is a common problem, with them getting tunnel vision as to what deck they are in far too early in a draft. A LOT of players approach formats like this that way, going all-in on archetypes early and just hoping that they get there. When you draft like that then yeah, it will feel very all-or-nothing. But better drafters know better, don't get that tunnel vision so early, and keep their options open so that they can end up in an open deck.
I 100% agree that even 20-30 drafts isn't enough to draw statistical conclusions. Variance can have a huge effect. That's why I said not that I think that manascrew happens more often (hard to conclude from personal anecdotal experience), just that in those rare variance-driven cases the manascrewed player seems heavily disadvantaged, even in 2-color decks with good curves and stable manabases.
It's possible that I may just be observing variance in the variance... that there may be an equal number of games where the manascrewed player still wins over the player with good mana draws, and I've just observed the ones where the manascrewed player got short-changed. It's also possible that the losing player just built a worse deck. However, since the format has more you can do with mana than most formats, I think the theory does back that the player that can't match that mana utility is going to be disadvantaged over the player maximizing mana utility.
Now I'm talking about a minority of games here (< 10%?). Terrible manascrew doesn't happen regularly. Overall I find the format extremely fun, rich, deep and exciting. This is just an observation about the greater importance of maximizing mana utility, since this format has so many more rewards for hitting more mana (mana sinks, awaken, Blighted lands, Landfall, Eldrazi).
Here's an example:
1 Salvage Drone
1 Sludge Crawler
2 Culling Drone
1 Mist Intruder
1 Tide Drifter
1 Benthic Infiltrator
1 Ruination Guide
2 Dominator Drone
1 Murk Strider
1 Mind Raker
1 Ulamog's Reclaimer
1 Oracle of Dust
1 Kozilek's Channeler
1 Sire of Stagnation
1 Ruin Processor
1 Tightening Coils
2 Spell Shrivel
2 Complete Disregard
//Lands: 18
1 Blighted Fen
1 Evolving Wilds
8 Island
8 Swamp
1 Pathway Arrows
1 Demon's Grasp
1 Mire's Malice
1 Grave Birthing
1 Eldrazi Devastator
1 Scour from Existence
2 From Beyond
1 Fertile Thicket
Is 5 5+ cost too much top end? I don't think so. To avoid mana issues, I cut the higher curve stuff and avoided the green splash (even though it wouldn't be that much of a strain with Evolving Wilds and Fertile Thicket), boarding in specific cards depending on the matchup.
Round 1 I stomped.
Round 2 variance strikes. Opponent mulls to 4 on the play and I curve out T1 Sludge Crawler T2 Culling Drone. Seems good, right? But then I stumble on the 3rd land, so I'm just attacking with dorks, and he gets ground blockers up early. I drop Mist Intruder and eventually Benthic Infiltrator when I finally hit 3 mana, but those hit for only a small amount, and I cannot process or drop big threats, so I cannot capitalize on my card advantage. Eventually opponent hits card drawing engines, hits 7+ lands, and drops Ruin Processor and another fatty on me while I'm still on 3 lands. I have my own fatty in hand, but cannot cast it. I quickly lose. This is not a matter of a curve being too greedy or manabase being too weak.
Now this is obviously just anecdotal variance. I'm not saying this is evidence that this sort of thing happens more often. It's not. The observation is that being behind on lands had a bigger impact on the game than opponent being behind on cards.
Again, this is one game, so maybe that's just bad luck. I have observed similar things (disadvantaging opponents or friends) in other games too.
One player is stuck on 3 and can play stuff, but nothing bigger than X/3s. The other has walls, removal, and eventually hits 8 mana for Valakut Invoker. Even if the player on 3 mana is still casting stuff, how can X/3s possibly beat an active Valakut Invoker? And sometimes you just don't draw the right type of removal. In another game, a UW control deck is facing a deck that mulls to 4. The player who mulls keeps a 1-lander but then just draws a land every turn into a 5-drop bomb, stabilizing the game. The UW player cannot get above 3 mana. He can still cast things, but he can't play his big flyers or awaken spells, so his deck is playing at a handicap compared to the opponent.
All of this is variance, and it doesn't happen often. My observation is just that when variance strikes, the handicap seems more severe than in other formats. In other formats you can win with just 2 drops and 3 drops. In this format, 2-drops and 3-drops are too easily stopped by walls, Scion tokens, cheap removal, and bombs. The issue is not being manascrewed and not being able to play anything, but being manascrewed and not being able to play things that would matter.
This is still anecdotal though. Others disagreeing may have different anecdotal experiences. However, I think there is some theory supporting the observation (mainly that the format has more reward for the player that hits higher mana first, due to mana sinks, awaken, Blighted lands, Landfall, Eldrazi, etc).
Yes that statement is anecdotal and it is dangerous to base conclusions on that, but beyond just evidence I believe that because of the strong synergies in BFZ draft (compared to other recent sets) there is more greed in building decks -- not only mana bases but the decks themselves -- and when a draw is worse than average it can be terrible due to trying to build a synergy. For example, Kalastria Healer is a great card in BW lifegain but if the deck's draw is poor then it does a terrible job of keeping the game close while the opponent either curves out decently or just gets a decent synergy going.
I just think that there is more opportunity and reward for greed in BFZ draft deck building compared to other recent formats, and that leads to some non-competitive games when draws are sub-standard, more so than in other recent sets. It is based upon my opinions, not on (anecdotal) evidence.
The vast majority of BFZ drafts have been 18 though.
Whenever I run 19, I usually cut down to 18 when on the draw.
Fair enough. That is good information from someone who has been thinking about the issue.
I keep experiencing the issue, and usually it's my opponent who really isn't doing anything meaningful until turn 4 or 5, if at all, and the game is a walk. It happens quite a bit more in BFZ for me than in other formats. It happened a bit more than normal in ORI but that is because it was a fast format unforgiving of early stumbles, whereas BFZ is slower than average (but not glacial). I am also seeing it in plenty of BFZ draft videos I watch.
I think it has to do with greed. Maybe some are trying to go with only 17 lands, often trying for 3 colors (not just a splash), or going for synergies and not connecting (so their early plays do not do much meaningful). Also the awaken spells seem to fool people in deck-building into thinking that they are early plays when they are best played for 5+ mana. In my couple of dozen drafts so far I always play 18 lands except once 17 and once 19, or sometimes 19 on the play in game 2 or 3.
Another factor may be that some of the synergies are offensive-minded such as landfall and allies, and if those decks are having to play defense they can come up short or even extremely short which can make for a non-competitive game.
I play only swiss drafts on MtGO (to ensure that I get to play 3 games for my entry), so that may be a factor, but in the past recent sets I have not encountered this nearly as much. BFZ is more complex, especially from a draft and deck-building standpoint, so maybe that's the main issue here.