I know that nobody cares about my opinion, but after WAR, I am burnt out on PW. I am ready to go back to them being mythic rarity and hard to get in packs.
I guess they are pushing Chandra since she is looking like she will be the face of the new Netflix show, at least that's my guess.
I am just waiting for the rare and mythic rare versions of Davriel.
i feel the same way, which is why im a little surprised they are pushing the PW button again so soon. perhaps it was just done out of convenience, since it IS a pretty flavorful way to showcase chandra. also WAR expanded PW design space, which is fine in moderation, but still..
playing UWx control in modern myself and basically being forced into superfriends, then playing standard on arena; im pretty tired of planeswalkers atm. to be frank the walkers from WAR seeing play beyond standard arent very engaging to play with or against, but i digress.
edit: though i will say i think wren and six is a pretty sweet design. however im completely cool if we get 3-4 sets with the typical 4-5 cmc not-quite-good-enough walkers we are used to
OK, I think these cards are going to get stupid, hopefully I'm wrong but since there was no way to catch these at 'low' prices, whens the optimal time for Force of Negation and Fiery Islet?
i think you should definitely wait on fiery islet. its holding the highest price tag among the horizon lands, but URx decks will be playing 1-2 copies at most (or none at all cause the lifeloss is too big a downside).
force of negation is more of a wildcard. before i would have said that it was on track to go down to at least 15ish in the first few weeks after release. unfortunately hype/fomo caught on from a minimal showing in the mtgo challenge, and with the 8% kickback on tcgplayer the rush to buy made it look like there was a supply shortage when really only qualified sellers can post preorders; so it spiked $10 overnight. so now the card has an even higher starting point.
id think its fairly low risk to at least wait until after release when real competition/undercutting kicks in
just gotta say wizards missed an opportunity with force of despair. could have easily tagged on an exile clause to give it applications against GY creature decks.
the 3 cmc rare version might be pushed enough to show up in modern. spawning some hasty dorks seems pretty good for containing opposing walkers. im down with the cutsie art, but i cant tell if chandra is winking or if she is having a stroke.
mama chandra has my least favorite clause in mtg 'cannot be countered', but then i read the card again and all i saw was 'we're sorry about teferi hod, but we had to do it'.
kidding aside im not surprised chandra is in the spotlight. she is a strong female character with a relatively clean backstory at a time when wizards is trying to broaden their appeal. though i do wonder how the core set will connect with the overarching story; if at all. they are a good spot to showcase past events to give characters more depth, however with core 2019 the origins and events around bolas tied directly into the stuff on ravnica. as far as i know chandra's story is pretty much tied up right? reunited with her mom, fought for her plane, reconnected with her mentor jaya, and even dealt with dovin.
Welp, I disregarded my own better judgement and decided to check in late Sunday to see if my LGS had any boxes following pre-release. They did and I caved. I'll list the notable pulls, but long story short is I find it highly unlikely that stores will be able to continue selling packs/boxes at the going rate once the set is officially released. Considering pre-release was essentially a "soft launch" in that boxes could actually be sold early, allowing a higher than normal supply to enter the market before official release, prices are trending down despite there being actual supply of singles. Granted, all it would take is one or two cards finding their way into a solid T1 deck or $1-$2 rares to find homes to raise the value of a box, but I'd just caution anyone about pulling the trigger on any non-foil until some trends emerge. I rarely crack packs, but I've always enjoyed picking up a box of each Masters set and MH1 feels like a spiritual successor. Anyway, here we go:
+ handful foil tokens, X rares currently <$3, solid stack of sweet slivers, & 5-6 uncommons I'll use in EDH
Solid box in terms of personal and entertainment value; Urza + sliver were both on my list of singles to eventually pick up for edh and a foil canopy land was pretty killer. If I opened this box without knowing what it cost, I'd say it was a fantastic above average box. And while I normally don't expect to get more value out of a box vs retail cost, this seemed like one which probably came close. I'm just curious to see where the market is at two weeks from now as supply/demand suggests single prices won't magically spike once more supply is available to the masses.
Tl;Dr: Wasn't thrilled about the set after spoilers, but picked up a box and had a good time. Lucked out finding a foil horizon land + quite a few cards I planned on picking up as singles (albeit mostly for edh). However, the odds of your foil rare being a horizon land are slim and I'm skeptical of the market's ability to sustain single prices enough to keep boxes/boosters propped up at their current price points.
yeah at first blush that looks to be an above average box.
tbh im not sure how prices are going to pan out in the next few weeks. box prices are somewhat set by the distributors, so we should see box EV trend towards the 180-200 range. the only way i see horizon packs/boxes going down from their current point is if stores went too deep on the product, its moving slowly, and they cant afford to have that capital tied up so they sell at a loss. certainly plausible, especially if core 2020 spoilers really wow people.
as for singles for most of the rares and mythics i expect a holding pattern of the 'obvious' cards like the horizons lands, FoN, etc being inflated until any in the 5-10 range show up in competitive play. what this means though is that plenty of cards are currently being overshadowed, so you might end up in a worse position if you wait for a card to be discovered.
the way i think we should be hoping it will turn out is where there are twice as many rares/mythics that are sought after with prices more typical to a standard set, rather than the rares/mythics just costing twice as much. time will tell if that turns out being the case.
i highly doubt the show is targeting the long enfranchised players (ie the people posting here). id temper any expectations based on that. it pretty much has to be a shallow representation of the mtg universe by necessity because people who have never heard of the game will need to be able to watch it and know what the hell is going on.
for me looking at the london mulligan rule comes down to a simple question: is it a better system for determining opening hands than what we had? probably id say. it reads better at least imo, and by many accounts ive read it has gotten a positive reception.
the thing is that the rules set the foundation for the game. wizards cant or shouldnt be constrained on iterations and improvements to them because of specific decks or cards. it would just be short sighted to do so. forward progress for the game, even if it means it exposes flaws in some areas, is still forward progress.
i mean just look at what wizards is trying to address; they want to make consecutive mulliganning due to variance less punishing and reduce the number of 'non-games'. from a top-down perspective of the game itself there isnt any argument that i can think of where accomplishing this isnt an improvement.
yeah i have my reservations about what it might do for modern, the decks i personally play or would like to see more of across the table, and the decks to put it frankly i wish were less prominently featured. if the format shifts more towards a direction that i personally think isnt good gameplay, for my own enjoyment or what i think constitutes a healthy/engaging format (ie longevity), then yeah ill be annoyed. any grievances are and would be aimed at the decks and the texture of the gameplay itself, which is a function of the card pool.
for instance if 'unfair' decks gain more, and thus rise up further, thus making interplay and decisions within games seem less important to the outcome; then that is a strike against the responsive tools in the format that inject more decision points, slow down games, and or force more resource exchanges. the london mulligan would just be indirectly causing these flaws to surface. i know this because if it does happen im not going to be wishing the rule change was reversed but instead wish cards were banned, unbanned, or newly designed - just as i always have.
How much will the cantrip lands (e.g. Fiery Islet) encourage mono-coloured decks? From my testing of Mono-Red Phoenix with 8 cantrip lands, 8 (on-colour) cantrip lands produce insanely more gas than 4, but as seen by the lack of Horizon Canopy in BG/UG/RG decks, the colour un-fixing 2-coloured decks would need to do to fit these lands in (in enemy-coloured and GW decks' cases, more than 4 of these lands in) comes at a real cost.
not much. youd have to presume that the benefits of some added consistency points outweighs the benefits of a strategy having access to another color. a good number of strategies wouldnt even function on one color, meaning their is no mono-colored version to be pushed to in the first place.
the horizon lands also cant be leveraged to the same extent in every type of strategy, and each additional copy put into the deck increases the chances the life loss could impact the outcome of a game or match. i get that the lands are good, but it is most assuredly incorrect to play the full set of any of the on-color versions in any and all decks that can. for intents and purposes the lands are worse versions of pain lands until the moment you sac them for the effect in a game. in essence they make existing decks better, rather than being the basis for the deck itself or enabling anything in it (sans things specifically leveraging lands in the GY and putting them there).
as for limitations of the horizon lands; life-loss is the obvious drawback, but there is also the cost of stunting your mana development as the game progresses. where horizon canopy has primarily showcased its strength, and where more copies are typically seen, is in decks that have some sort of mana acceleration and or have a low enough average cmc.
for example think of some mono blue deck with thing in the ice, snapcasters, and the relevant blue control spells up through to cryptic command (maybe even including the new archmage charm). is the payoff of adding 8 blue horizon lands worth it? hardly, because the deck has powerful things to be doing even at 6 mana with snapcaster + cryptic command.
it comes up every so often that people offer the argument about different modern play experiences based on the environment, usually revolving around the format being better than the harshest criticisms imply for the average player at the local level. the implication being that its what the majority of modern players experience therefore it is a better representation of the format.
for anyone who thinks this: ask yourself why you are settling for mediocrity. why cant the format be that enjoyable in ALL environments? if the local level, or whatever scope, is generally agreed upon as being better/more fun/whatever than some other level or scope within the same format isnt it wizards prerogative, as game designers and peddlers of 'fun', to take steps and align the two?
How, then, would you propose an upgrade to the "fun" level of competitive modern? If the tiny slice of players represented on MTGS is at all indicative of the larger population, then modern would be an intensely personal experience to many. Many players base their personal views about the format on the state of a favored deck or archetype, and some attempt to generalize personal experiences to the entire format/playerbase. Where the LGS comes in, then, would be as a means of personal expression. That players use the decks they enjoy and/or own is a common mantra on this forum, and it's something that can be applied more easily to the LGS level than highly competitive tournaments, for which the metagame holds more sway, barring the odd rogue deck. If the real gap is between what is dictated by one's own whims and what is dictated by results and statistics (not mutually exclusive of one another, of course), then what would the best approach to attain your alignment?
sry didnt notice your response. to answer your question: i have no clue the best way to.
the point i was trying to make was an abstraction. the 'better/worse' or 'more fun/less fun' qualifications arent clear cut or anything, and the set of iterations or potential improvements might as well be limitless. rather i was objecting to the notion that, as you pointed out, the 'gap' between what is experiences at the local level and what is experienced in highly competitive settings is some absolute or inevitability, that it cant be helped; which is nonsense.
for example you mentioned elements such as a level of personal expression and the metagame. its not as if these concepts are entirely mutually exclusive. when people play to compete, or in other words win, it stands to reason you choose among the best methods to do so; however among that set of options could include an outlet you identify with (ie personal expression) and enjoy.
now im not saying that everyone needs to be satisfied, or have their pet decks lifted up, because that is impossible. however can anyone honestly say that modern in the most competitive settings cant be balanced to include more options of play styles, or that the balance of options right now is even particularly good?
for example the seemingly never ending bemoaning of (blue) control players. others are quick to come to the defense of the format, especially recently, saying stuff like 'UW control is one of the best decks, quit whining'. wtf? its one variation of a control deck when other strategies have multiple distinct options. im not gonna give wizards a pat on the back for that.
so in short, the format can be better in the abstract, and that probably involves identifying and translating what is happening at the local level to the competitive one. how that is done, or what it involves; i dont know. that is for wizards to figure out.
i mean i can understand and even get behind wizards experimenting with this kind of stuff to see how the market/buyers respond. this though...just seems poorly executed. like who is going to go out of their way to collect tiny art prints from seemingly randomly chosen cards?
for instance they could have done something like chosen art pieces from the set of most iconic/played cards throughout the history of modern as a nod to how long the format has been around and the things its gone through, leading into the whole new 'horizons' theme. or...just anything other than 'yo here is some the art from the set' lol
Super disappointed in the showing of Slivers and Snow.
This set felt super safe, and not in a good way at all. I hope when we make it to Kaldheim, there will be some interesting snow cards. Maybe we can get Slivers again in a Core set a year or two from now, who knows. A lot of this set felt not efficient enough for Modern, despite the powerful cards, hence the Commander Masters moniker, and it definitely holds true. Will there be cards that see play in Modern? Absolutely, and quite a few at that. At the same time, a few knobs turned on a bunch of cards and they’d see play in Modern too.
I feel a bit let down. Maybe my hopes were unrealistic. I feel like if all the archetypes got the kind of love and playability the RG lands cards did, the set would be better. As it is, I consider this set to be a bit of a letdown.
The only way you could really be let down by this set is if your expectations were unrealistic. It will change every format it's legal in to some degree. There's solid cards at all rarities, creative and interesting cards to explore, and it brings back a ton of mechanics with new twists. It may not make every archetype in Modern better, but if it did we'd be back at where we started. Any set that doesn't immediately break a format will be seen as safe, right? This thing is fine.
i disagree, another way you can be let down is by looking at the price tag
I like Lead better, but don't currently use it. My strategy currently involves CoCo and powering out quick Genesis Waves for big. Winding Way is cool, but isn't going to do anything to make Elves more relevant.
yeh im still using chords + coco in elves. i do think Winding Way has the potential to be an upgrade for the lead builds. shaman of the pack wants a critical mass so maybe the extra shot at another hit matters more, or maybe being able to deploy them quicker with the extra mana wins out. i dont think going to the GY vs bottoming will matter much, and the mulch mode would be a very fringe use case if it came up ever (like digging for a westvale abbey as an out? i dunno).
Didn't understand really the lack of a Quirion Ranger type effect on the set. Slivers and snow have shown up to be mediocre, indeed. And the most important: too much EDH focused cards, honestly.
yeah i also thought ranger was one of those slam dunk easy-includes right in the strike zone of empowering a modern deck without disrupting anything. could say that about a bunch of other cards as well, however its clear wizards had something else in mind that wasnt communicated very well when the set was announced/marketed.
that doesnt seem bad at all. this is of course assuming archmage charm is only worthy of an inclusion when leveraging its best use cases (cast on curve). using the card optimally is important, but cards can also be defined by their performance in the average to poor use cases. thats what im banking on. maybe that means UW only wants 1 copy /shrug
playing UWx control in modern myself and basically being forced into superfriends, then playing standard on arena; im pretty tired of planeswalkers atm. to be frank the walkers from WAR seeing play beyond standard arent very engaging to play with or against, but i digress.
edit: though i will say i think wren and six is a pretty sweet design. however im completely cool if we get 3-4 sets with the typical 4-5 cmc not-quite-good-enough walkers we are used to
force of negation is more of a wildcard. before i would have said that it was on track to go down to at least 15ish in the first few weeks after release. unfortunately hype/fomo caught on from a minimal showing in the mtgo challenge, and with the 8% kickback on tcgplayer the rush to buy made it look like there was a supply shortage when really only qualified sellers can post preorders; so it spiked $10 overnight. so now the card has an even higher starting point.
id think its fairly low risk to at least wait until after release when real competition/undercutting kicks in
mama chandra has my least favorite clause in mtg 'cannot be countered', but then i read the card again and all i saw was 'we're sorry about teferi hod, but we had to do it'.
kidding aside im not surprised chandra is in the spotlight. she is a strong female character with a relatively clean backstory at a time when wizards is trying to broaden their appeal. though i do wonder how the core set will connect with the overarching story; if at all. they are a good spot to showcase past events to give characters more depth, however with core 2019 the origins and events around bolas tied directly into the stuff on ravnica. as far as i know chandra's story is pretty much tied up right? reunited with her mom, fought for her plane, reconnected with her mentor jaya, and even dealt with dovin.
tbh im not sure how prices are going to pan out in the next few weeks. box prices are somewhat set by the distributors, so we should see box EV trend towards the 180-200 range. the only way i see horizon packs/boxes going down from their current point is if stores went too deep on the product, its moving slowly, and they cant afford to have that capital tied up so they sell at a loss. certainly plausible, especially if core 2020 spoilers really wow people.
as for singles for most of the rares and mythics i expect a holding pattern of the 'obvious' cards like the horizons lands, FoN, etc being inflated until any in the 5-10 range show up in competitive play. what this means though is that plenty of cards are currently being overshadowed, so you might end up in a worse position if you wait for a card to be discovered.
the way i think we should be hoping it will turn out is where there are twice as many rares/mythics that are sought after with prices more typical to a standard set, rather than the rares/mythics just costing twice as much. time will tell if that turns out being the case.
the thing is that the rules set the foundation for the game. wizards cant or shouldnt be constrained on iterations and improvements to them because of specific decks or cards. it would just be short sighted to do so. forward progress for the game, even if it means it exposes flaws in some areas, is still forward progress.
i mean just look at what wizards is trying to address; they want to make consecutive mulliganning due to variance less punishing and reduce the number of 'non-games'. from a top-down perspective of the game itself there isnt any argument that i can think of where accomplishing this isnt an improvement.
yeah i have my reservations about what it might do for modern, the decks i personally play or would like to see more of across the table, and the decks to put it frankly i wish were less prominently featured. if the format shifts more towards a direction that i personally think isnt good gameplay, for my own enjoyment or what i think constitutes a healthy/engaging format (ie longevity), then yeah ill be annoyed. any grievances are and would be aimed at the decks and the texture of the gameplay itself, which is a function of the card pool.
for instance if 'unfair' decks gain more, and thus rise up further, thus making interplay and decisions within games seem less important to the outcome; then that is a strike against the responsive tools in the format that inject more decision points, slow down games, and or force more resource exchanges. the london mulligan would just be indirectly causing these flaws to surface. i know this because if it does happen im not going to be wishing the rule change was reversed but instead wish cards were banned, unbanned, or newly designed - just as i always have.
the horizon lands also cant be leveraged to the same extent in every type of strategy, and each additional copy put into the deck increases the chances the life loss could impact the outcome of a game or match. i get that the lands are good, but it is most assuredly incorrect to play the full set of any of the on-color versions in any and all decks that can. for intents and purposes the lands are worse versions of pain lands until the moment you sac them for the effect in a game. in essence they make existing decks better, rather than being the basis for the deck itself or enabling anything in it (sans things specifically leveraging lands in the GY and putting them there).
as for limitations of the horizon lands; life-loss is the obvious drawback, but there is also the cost of stunting your mana development as the game progresses. where horizon canopy has primarily showcased its strength, and where more copies are typically seen, is in decks that have some sort of mana acceleration and or have a low enough average cmc.
for example think of some mono blue deck with thing in the ice, snapcasters, and the relevant blue control spells up through to cryptic command (maybe even including the new archmage charm). is the payoff of adding 8 blue horizon lands worth it? hardly, because the deck has powerful things to be doing even at 6 mana with snapcaster + cryptic command.
the point i was trying to make was an abstraction. the 'better/worse' or 'more fun/less fun' qualifications arent clear cut or anything, and the set of iterations or potential improvements might as well be limitless. rather i was objecting to the notion that, as you pointed out, the 'gap' between what is experiences at the local level and what is experienced in highly competitive settings is some absolute or inevitability, that it cant be helped; which is nonsense.
for example you mentioned elements such as a level of personal expression and the metagame. its not as if these concepts are entirely mutually exclusive. when people play to compete, or in other words win, it stands to reason you choose among the best methods to do so; however among that set of options could include an outlet you identify with (ie personal expression) and enjoy.
now im not saying that everyone needs to be satisfied, or have their pet decks lifted up, because that is impossible. however can anyone honestly say that modern in the most competitive settings cant be balanced to include more options of play styles, or that the balance of options right now is even particularly good?
for example the seemingly never ending bemoaning of (blue) control players. others are quick to come to the defense of the format, especially recently, saying stuff like 'UW control is one of the best decks, quit whining'. wtf? its one variation of a control deck when other strategies have multiple distinct options. im not gonna give wizards a pat on the back for that.
so in short, the format can be better in the abstract, and that probably involves identifying and translating what is happening at the local level to the competitive one. how that is done, or what it involves; i dont know. that is for wizards to figure out.
for instance they could have done something like chosen art pieces from the set of most iconic/played cards throughout the history of modern as a nod to how long the format has been around and the things its gone through, leading into the whole new 'horizons' theme. or...just anything other than 'yo here is some the art from the set' lol