Community

Aug 26, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Chiisairamen wrote:

Because I do NOT think avacyn restored is successfull only because of the reasons listed in the article. Heck I think its not even MAJORLY because of them.

Bonfire is 42
Caverns is 18
Restoration Angels are  10

These are the reasons a lot of people in my LGS buy tons and tons of packs. When they win FNM, they pick AVR, when Me and my friends buy each other packs for each others bday its AVR. The casuals, and I play both casually and tournament since the casuals do some fun EDHing when I need a competetive break, they look for EDH viables and AVR has very little outside Griselbrand.
(...)
So sorry but I would like to voice my opinion to maybe bring you guys back down to earth and realize that like the poster above said, the price to make a deck is a barrier of entry. Avacyn Restored is not helping here. I stopped FNMing as often as I used to because my choices are limited heavily because most viable decks require a bonfire in it.

I agree whole heartedily with what you, as well as many others, have stated regarding this. From a business stand point, sales from any cause is great. But, since Magic is a more complicated business where the social and competitive aspect must also be seriously considered, having the cause of your sales due to an overpriced Secondary Market doesn't help keep the social or competitive side alive.

I have planned on jumping in Standard play after the previous Mirrodin blocked shifted out. I just got back in with Dark Ascension and didn't want to have to buy the sets about to shift out. Also, I knew some of the ridiculous equipment (particularly the Swords) existed which killed the game for me. I knew I'd have to deal with a few over-priced cards (seeing Snapcaster, Huntmaster, etc.), but I was hoping they would be minimal and strong, competitive decks could be built without having to buy barely any $20.00+ cards. And then AVR came out and two things happened that really broke my dreams here: Bonfire of the Damned and the Miracles in general. I was hoping to try to assemble a strong red deck without having to shellout a lot of money. I had already gotten lucky and pulled four Hellrider s. Even then, they aren't too expensive to access. But now, to play red competively, you must have Bonfire of the Damned . I'm not a fan of Miracles in general because I don't think adding such a broken layer of luck to the game helps it. But then some of them are just broken cards at their miracle cost (particularly Bonfire or Entreat the Angels ). And then another card was released that made playing red even more expensive, Thundermaw Hellkite . I don't believe this card is necessarily broken, but it is very powerful.

Honestly, I enjoyed AVR limited due to the minimal removal. I liked how more creatures stayed out and the game became more tactical. Trying to find ways to maneuver your creatures in and waiting for the perfect time to strike. But, like what I'm seeing in all curret limited environments now, bomb cards destroy the fun of the game. I've played in many games where I was winning with an obviously superior deck, easily dropping my opponent's life, using basic cards, and then my opponent top-decks and drops that one Mythic/Rare card that ends the game because by that point, the answers are out. With AVR, I lost two games in a row, getting my opponent to 3 life twice and then him top-decking Gisela, Blade of Goldnight . I had a few answers to that in my deck, but unfortunately I was not able to draw them and Gisela could only be directly answered with a few cards (i.e. Eaten By Spiders ).  Due to the cards I've seen released in the past few sets, I do often wonder if the designers in Wizards have any clue on how to balance cards. I know they are trying to make creatures matter more, but I think they completely jumped over that line (starting with the Titans). In the past, a 6/6 for 6 was already a semi-balanced card. A little underpowered, but okay. Throw on a keyword and the power grew quite a bit. An ETB affect always makes creatures exceptionally stronger (pretty much making them two spells in one). But then a Whenever [cardname] Attacks ability? Abilities like that were always very rare and I think for good reason. Getting what is essentially a free spell every turn is extremely powerful. Cards like this used to at least have a drawback. Not anymore. Instead, I keep seeing cards that instead of a drawback where one should be, instead another advantageous ability is added.

Honestly, when I see myself rant on what I dislike about the current game of Magic, I wonder why I got back into it. I guess I keep thinking there is a fun, deep game underneath all this mess. I also really love the artwork and 'story' [which isn't like it used to be either due to the lack of novels]. I was honestly quite ecstatic to see the current Infect deck gain some power in Standard, due to its overall lack of expensive cards. But, doesn't have the win percentage that the other really expensive decks have. If Magic decks build were instead limited every time they're built beyond the 4 of limit, maybe bomb rares wouldn't nearly break the game. I've been wondering what it would be like to play decks built with more required limitations (such as rares can only be played one of, with only six total rares in a deck, or something like that).

I realized I've gone on a bit of a rant. But after someone mentioned why AVR really sold (and Coreset 2013 could have the same following), it shows another glaring flaw of the game. Rosewater talks a about the steep learning curve to get into the game as the biggest barrier. But why is it, as another poster has mentioned, that the true biggest barrier (that of a high entry cost to play) isn't rethought of and considered when making the game. Duels of the Planeswalkers is relatively cheap, but it pales in comparison to the true, deep game that Magic is and can be. As blasphemous as this may be to Wizards or Hasbro, maybe Magic should be turned into an LCG to allow more people to play it without being too constricted. I don't think Fantasy Flight made a bad decision when they made the change. In fact, it has been so successful, they have been able to continue to add onto such a large list of existing LCGs (Game of Thrones, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Invasion, Lord of the Rings, and now Netrunner [which is funny since it was originally designed by Magic's designer Richard Garfield]).

And I think I'm done for now. This has turned into already too long of a post.

Aug 26, 2012 -- 11:58PM, bateleur_ wrote:

You missed one of the biggest successes of the year: Magic 2013.

This.  I think it's no coincidence that the current run of success of Magic also coincides with the transformation of the Core Set.  (Yes, I know you mention that, but I think it's a little underplayed.)  The Expert sets are where the state of the art is found, but the Core Set is where the game lives.  
And in conjunction with that is the excellence of DotP.  Yes it is flawed, yes it has a ridiclously over the top graphic interface, but for what it is intended to do - teach someone magic in a safe environment - it couldn't be much better.  About the only thing it doesn't have is an "obnoxious" mode to simulate what playing in the real world is sometimes like...

But Innistrad?  I'm in a distinct minority here.  The theme turned me off (although to be fair it was brilliantly executed).  The disconnect between the blocks was jarring, although much less so than with Zendikar.  And I'm still not a fan of double-faced cards: the idea is fantastic, the cards themselves (well, except for Delver perhaps) were mostly balanced,  they implement well in on-line, but they still don't really work in cardboard.  The checklists were the main problem, although drafting was unpleasant sometimes as well.  I realise they will be back, but I will not be looking forward to them.

For me it's two thumbs up and one thumb down.