The only problem there is that you can't play against people who are also playing their own limited decks; I would like to play against people who have decks of roughly the same power level, and of the same format, and the easiest way to guarantee that is to play in a sealed event like a league or a swiss sealed.
However, my point was mostly about the argument that leagues were bad because you had to play alot of tiebreakers if you wanted to increase your chance of getting the best possible prize...
This is why I don't think it makes much sense to talk about extra tiebreaker rounds as a bad thing...
You have a very good point. The old leagues were very suited for the type of play experience you seek. There is nothing available from Wizards today that gives you an unlimited number of matches using a closed card pool at a fixed cost. I'm not in touch with what's happening with player run events, but maybe there's something there for you?
My play choices for limited have also diminished because of the new leagues. I used to play 4-3-2-2 single elimination drafts. These were replaced with 6-2-2-2 swiss drafts, which was kind of ok for me. However, draft leagues replaced these after a couple of months. If I want to draft the current set and only play those from my draft pod, my only option is 8-4.
OK so having played a decent number of leagues now with Kaladesh I have to say that there are some distinct advantages. Having the deck build time take exactly as long as it takes me saves five to 10 minutes of my time, which is valuable. And being able to get a game fairly immediately whenever I want it is very good. No dead time between rounds, unless I have something to do, and then I can wait as long as I want.
These are distinct advantages over normal queues and are so valuable from a time management perspective that I don't even play normal queues anymore.
However, the game is still too expensive per unit play time.
I would be happy with phantom leagues. 60 play points/6 tickets to play a phantom league, with payouts similar to current phantom queues, would be much more attractive than the current cost structure, although true leagues like the Days Of Old would be better still (but never going to happen, apparently).
Formats where certain players win more consistently are by definition more skill intensive. Like you can't define it any differently.
I think this is an oversimplification.
Different people are looking for different things out of Magic games. I personally am not going for win-at-all-cost. I want to enjoy my games too. Trying to draft the deck that leads to the quickest least interactive win is not what I am trying to accomplish when I play Magic. A set that makes it easier for the win-at-all-cost crowd to increase their win percentage does not necessarily indicate a set that requires more skill; it just indicates a set that rewards a certain play style.
To me, the greatest 'skill' in Magic is the ability to play in a way that results in the most fun for the player. Because this is a GAME, its whole reason for existence is to provide enjoyment to its players. Players who are maximizing their FUN are *winning the game*.
I've never played a format where "who goes first wins" is true a larger percentage of the time though. It's so common for an entire game to pass with the player who went second constantly trying to stabilize and never getting there.
I have seen some interesting decks though, some people really know how to put stuff together. I'm too scared to go out on a limb and try wacky things, but last night I played a dude who dropped 2x Ovalchase Dragster, 2x Aradara Express, and then built up a defensive board while he waited for his 2x Start Your Engines. That sort of thing isn't always going to work, but it got him a 2-1 against me (guess which two he won? The two where he went first, of course!).
I've been playing sealed queues on Magic Online. Oh my oh my this format is just terrible. Way, way too many games are completely one sided, mostly due to vehicles or creatures that grow without bounds every turn. You're either blown out early or you enter a holding pattern while you want to see who draws their bomb. Kaladesh is easily the worst set I've ever played. This is after about 30 limited matches, so I have had some experience now. I'll be quitting Magic until the next set.
Example: I just won a game drawing only three lands, and playing exactly three spells:
In fact, if you replace your 23rd card with Razor Boomerang, the effect is mostly psychological. Half the time, it will be in the bottom half of your deck, which you're not going to get to most of the time anyway.
That makes some sense; except that a land is more useful more often than Razor Boomerang.
Since it doesn't have any impact at all
What follows is funny, but of course makes no sense, because it's based on a false premise, which is that it "doesn't have any impact at all". Even marginal effects accumulate.
Literally nothing you said has anything to do with the Kaladesh format.
That is true. Regardless of set, drawing exactly 6 lands will win you most games.
Also, the difference between 16 and 17 lands is much more a psychological effect than a practical effect on the game. Take a 16 land deck. Replace your worst spell, wherever it is in the deck, with a land. The difference in how the games play out in one versus the other scenario is marginal. Sometimes the extra land will be early when you need it; sometimes it will be late when you don't. Half the time, it would be in the bottom half of your deck, which you're not going to get to most of the time anyway.
I wouldn't. In my experience, the sweet spot is 6 lands on turn 6. You want to get to 6 lands by turn 6 and then draw few or no lands beyond that. You'll win most games just by drawing exactly 6 lands. That's Magic.
I am not going to do the math, but I suspect that the effect of going from 17 to 16 is disproportionately likely to hurt your chances of hitting 6 lands by turn 6, versus help your chances of drawing fewer lands after turn 6. I think the overall effect is likely to be small though, so if it gives you a psychological boost to believe that your deck is better tuned that way, then go for it.
If I played 16 lands I think I would tend towards choosing to draw first instead of play first. I would think that the benefit of getting one more card to ensure that I hit my land drops is more important than being a turn earlier on the attack.
Why not take Eliminate the Competition? I can totally see that card blowing out opponents over and over again as you sacrifice your weakest creatures to kill their best. And it's much more splashable than Demon of Dark Schemes, which, if you take, is going to be a dead pick unless black is open, or you force it and then have a poor deck that is just waiting to draw its huge bomb. And I've been through three rounds without ever drawing my bomb enough times to know that that is a very risky proposition.
Eliminate the Competition is one of the best board wipers I have ever seen in fact. So much better than a wrath effect because you don't have to hold creatures in your hand to make most effective use of it.
Welding Sparks looks like a great card to me. It's very likely to be 4 or more damage for 3. It's an instant which for red damage spells is a very big deal. Only downside is that it can't target a player so you can't burn your opponent out with it. In this set, being able to target a player would probably lead to this card being far too good though. Imagine pumping out 4 or 5 thopters/servos and then being able to hit a player for 8 at instant speed with this. Would have been too good.
Every spell that you look forward to playing, you should also look forward to having played against you. This spell is I am sure going to wreck me from time to time when I have a slow opener, my opponent has fast and early beats, and pulls out a welding sparks on turn three to destroy the blocker I was hoping would let me stabilize. I hate being on the receiving end of that.
The deck ended up going 4-0 and winning the prerelease, mostly off the back of my efficient 2 drops hunting my opponent's smaller dudes and Aetherstorm Roc never looked so bad on turn 4 as my Kujar Seedsculptor ate it every single time.
I don't understand this. What do you mean your Kujar Seedsculptor ate an Aetherstorm Roc every single time? The Seedsculptor can't block the Roc. Do you mean that they chump blocked your Seedsculptor every time with a Roc? Or did you mean that you used Hunt the Weak to make your 2/3 Seedsculptor into a 3/4 and kill the Roc with it every time?
If it's the latter then ... yes, Hunt the Weak is good on turn 4, generally very good. You have to have it in hand on turn 4 though ... the Roc is clearly the better card but I guess your opponent felt pretty bad that you always had a Hunt at the ready.
EDIT: Oh yeah I see now, when you used the word "hunting" you meant via Hunt the Weak so ... yeah. Good card is good.
Energy is a miserable gimmick that doubles as pseudo special mana. I'm not eager to draft that set.
That's pretty off-topic.
Why? Op is asking about PR impressions and experiences.
My evaluation was the the Op didn't even attend a pre-release, and was just giving an opinion based on having read the card texts. If this person did attend a prerelease I'd expect them to have something with a little more substance to say.
Getting 2 potential chump blockers with your 5 drop certainly makes it easier to durdle around long enough to blink it.
So you're saying an upside to casting a 0/3 flyer for 5 is that you also get two chump blockers that can help you survive long enough to spend more mana and another spell on blinking the 0/3 so that you can get ... two more chump blockers?
I just can't see this card being good, even in decks that care about artifact ETB effects. You will be dead in the water against someone who creates an actual threat with their 5 mana instead of some little turds.
Reading LSV's limited set review for blue, he gives this card a 3.5.
What am I not understanding? You get a 0/3 flyer and two 1/1 flyers for 5. That's 2 flying power for 5. I guess if you bounce it then you could get 4 flying power for 10, which still doesn't seem impressive to me; flicker will give you 4 flying power for maybe 6 or 7 (can't remember what the cost of flicker cards in this set is).
I just don't get it. LSV has rated every single fabricate card highly, usually drooling over the prospect of using the "create a token" side of the equation. And now he's rating a card that costs 5 and creates two measly flying power at 3.5. This is so far removed from my own evaluation that I feel that I must be missing something. So what is it?
If I played this card, I can guarantee you, without fail, that I'd be facing a large green creature or two on the other side of the board, possibly with some trample involved, that would make my 5 mana investment on this card look downright pathetic.
OK so having played a decent number of leagues now with Kaladesh I have to say that there are some distinct advantages. Having the deck build time take exactly as long as it takes me saves five to 10 minutes of my time, which is valuable. And being able to get a game fairly immediately whenever I want it is very good. No dead time between rounds, unless I have something to do, and then I can wait as long as I want.
These are distinct advantages over normal queues and are so valuable from a time management perspective that I don't even play normal queues anymore.
However, the game is still too expensive per unit play time.
I would be happy with phantom leagues. 60 play points/6 tickets to play a phantom league, with payouts similar to current phantom queues, would be much more attractive than the current cost structure, although true leagues like the Days Of Old would be better still (but never going to happen, apparently).
I think this is an oversimplification.
Different people are looking for different things out of Magic games. I personally am not going for win-at-all-cost. I want to enjoy my games too. Trying to draft the deck that leads to the quickest least interactive win is not what I am trying to accomplish when I play Magic. A set that makes it easier for the win-at-all-cost crowd to increase their win percentage does not necessarily indicate a set that requires more skill; it just indicates a set that rewards a certain play style.
To me, the greatest 'skill' in Magic is the ability to play in a way that results in the most fun for the player. Because this is a GAME, its whole reason for existence is to provide enjoyment to its players. Players who are maximizing their FUN are *winning the game*.
It didn't do anything in the games I played against it. Not hyperbole, fact.
Balunu is my other account, BTW.
I have seen some interesting decks though, some people really know how to put stuff together. I'm too scared to go out on a limb and try wacky things, but last night I played a dude who dropped 2x Ovalchase Dragster, 2x Aradara Express, and then built up a defensive board while he waited for his 2x Start Your Engines. That sort of thing isn't always going to work, but it got him a 2-1 against me (guess which two he won? The two where he went first, of course!).
Example: I just won a game drawing only three lands, and playing exactly three spells:
- Turn 3 Renegade Freighter
- Turn 4 Chief of the Foundry
- Turn something Appetite for the Unnatural
That was it. My opponent happened to not be able to deal with a 6/5 trample attacker on turns 4 - 7. End of game. SO BORING.
Next game:
Opponent got:
- 3/3 flyer that grows with energy on turn 4
- Black 3/1 flyer
- An energy producer or two
And I could not possibly beat 7, then 8, then 9 flying power over the next three turns.
Kaladesh is, by far, the least fun Magic I have ever played. Totally non-interactive.
That makes some sense; except that a land is more useful more often than Razor Boomerang.
What follows is funny, but of course makes no sense, because it's based on a false premise, which is that it "doesn't have any impact at all". Even marginal effects accumulate.
That is true. Regardless of set, drawing exactly 6 lands will win you most games.
Also, the difference between 16 and 17 lands is much more a psychological effect than a practical effect on the game. Take a 16 land deck. Replace your worst spell, wherever it is in the deck, with a land. The difference in how the games play out in one versus the other scenario is marginal. Sometimes the extra land will be early when you need it; sometimes it will be late when you don't. Half the time, it would be in the bottom half of your deck, which you're not going to get to most of the time anyway.
I am not going to do the math, but I suspect that the effect of going from 17 to 16 is disproportionately likely to hurt your chances of hitting 6 lands by turn 6, versus help your chances of drawing fewer lands after turn 6. I think the overall effect is likely to be small though, so if it gives you a psychological boost to believe that your deck is better tuned that way, then go for it.
If I played 16 lands I think I would tend towards choosing to draw first instead of play first. I would think that the benefit of getting one more card to ensure that I hit my land drops is more important than being a turn earlier on the attack.
Eliminate the Competition is one of the best board wipers I have ever seen in fact. So much better than a wrath effect because you don't have to hold creatures in your hand to make most effective use of it.
Every spell that you look forward to playing, you should also look forward to having played against you. This spell is I am sure going to wreck me from time to time when I have a slow opener, my opponent has fast and early beats, and pulls out a welding sparks on turn three to destroy the blocker I was hoping would let me stabilize. I hate being on the receiving end of that.
I don't understand this. What do you mean your Kujar Seedsculptor ate an Aetherstorm Roc every single time? The Seedsculptor can't block the Roc. Do you mean that they chump blocked your Seedsculptor every time with a Roc? Or did you mean that you used Hunt the Weak to make your 2/3 Seedsculptor into a 3/4 and kill the Roc with it every time?
If it's the latter then ... yes, Hunt the Weak is good on turn 4, generally very good. You have to have it in hand on turn 4 though ... the Roc is clearly the better card but I guess your opponent felt pretty bad that you always had a Hunt at the ready.
EDIT: Oh yeah I see now, when you used the word "hunting" you meant via Hunt the Weak so ... yeah. Good card is good.
My evaluation was the the Op didn't even attend a pre-release, and was just giving an opinion based on having read the card texts. If this person did attend a prerelease I'd expect them to have something with a little more substance to say.
So you're saying an upside to casting a 0/3 flyer for 5 is that you also get two chump blockers that can help you survive long enough to spend more mana and another spell on blinking the 0/3 so that you can get ... two more chump blockers?
I just can't see this card being good, even in decks that care about artifact ETB effects. You will be dead in the water against someone who creates an actual threat with their 5 mana instead of some little turds.
Reading LSV's limited set review for blue, he gives this card a 3.5.
What am I not understanding? You get a 0/3 flyer and two 1/1 flyers for 5. That's 2 flying power for 5. I guess if you bounce it then you could get 4 flying power for 10, which still doesn't seem impressive to me; flicker will give you 4 flying power for maybe 6 or 7 (can't remember what the cost of flicker cards in this set is).
I just don't get it. LSV has rated every single fabricate card highly, usually drooling over the prospect of using the "create a token" side of the equation. And now he's rating a card that costs 5 and creates two measly flying power at 3.5. This is so far removed from my own evaluation that I feel that I must be missing something. So what is it?
If I played this card, I can guarantee you, without fail, that I'd be facing a large green creature or two on the other side of the board, possibly with some trample involved, that would make my 5 mana investment on this card look downright pathetic.