Article New Magic Block Structure

[CML]

Onderzeebot is right that the problem is the middle set, which almost always sucks. Historically this seems to be a recent phenomenon:

Alliances -- this will always be one of the best and most innovative sets of all time, and is of great historical significance because it "saved" Magic (or so goes the MaRo pabulum).
Visions -- also awesome, arguably the first modern MTG set.
Stronghold -- great
Urza's Legacy -- decent (Mother of Runes and Rancor and some other stuff like Rebuild)
Nemesis -- shitty set in a shitty block

And then this happened:

Planeshift -- yeah, pretty lame compared to Invasion and Apocalypse (unless bouncelands that tap for 1 are your thing). Also fucked with the whole fixing balance of the set.
Torment -- this was a good set, even if you're like me and don't particularly like Black cards.
Legions -- awful
Darksteel -- ugh
Betrayers -- pretty good compared to the rest of the block
Guildpact -- fine, but the weakest of the block
Planar Chaos -- see Guildpact
Conflux -- shit
Worldwake -- enormously influential and probably badly designed. I think the three-set-block structure made them rush JTMS and SFM out the door, so there might even be direct causation here.
Mirrodin Besieged -- gross
DKA, GTC, BNG -- terrible

I agree with "three sets, not third set" being the problem. Somewhere on page 29378 of this forum I posted our grab-bag-draft format jokes and one of them is Conflux - DKA - Legions, the "uninspired middle-set draft" format.

 

[Lucre]

Betrayers I thought was weaker than saviors, but I just hated that draft format so I'm probz missing something and I love Celestial Kirin, Pithing Needle, Channel in general, Miren, the Moaning Well, Descendant of Kiyomaro, Hail of arrows and Ghost-lit Stalker to death.

I don't think we agree at all about Darksteel. I think it had a lot of dumb inclusions but it totally fit with the block and really added something to the draft format. (Especially because it way way harder to get double loxodon hammer without 3 packs of mirrodin lol)

Torment was great

Most of these newer ones I didn't play during. How were the second sets in Lorwyn and Shadow Moore again?

Is the conclusion that we all get so sick of triple draft formats that we give the 2nd set rose coloured glasses but the rosiness doesn't last till the third set so it gets to be the container we pour our dissatisfaction into?

 

[CML]

MOR is great, I wonder if I wrote an EVE article once. Can't even remember

 

[anotak]

agree on 3 sets, not 3rd set being the problem. i'm all for the change but Journey into Nyx was so much better than BNG and i'd argue it was better than Theros itself.

a lot of people dislike DGM but i liked it. that might just be how much i like split cards talking. i really want to see hybrid split cards one day.

future sight is cool, but it's too skewed toward one target audience imo, which would be cool if magic was like, a whole genre with 20 sets coming out per year instead of just like 6 or whatever the number is

i wasn't around for ROE but i dislike the eldrazi themselves. actually, i think i just dislike emrakul, i'm vaguely fine with the others. i also think sorcery-speed level up was a failure, i've never seen a mechanic so consistently misunderstood other than really obtuse shit like haunt. on the other hand, joraga treespeaker and enclave cryptologist are two of my favorite cards, and the set tons and tons of other neat stuff.

Don't forget how bad Conflux was, though, not unlike Journey into Nyx and Born of the Gods. The real question should be, what third sets were worthwhile where the second sets didn't suck?

i don't forget, conflux is my least favorite set that i actually played with.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I think level-up is a mechanic that becomes a lot worse once you take it out of its specific environment. It was designed as an aggro mechanic for a limited battle cruiser format, where mass mana management was the central theme; and as such, is a bit narrow and specialized. When you take a mere handful of the most powerful cards, remove the support pieces, and toss them into fast formats or formats with powerful removal, they start to look pretty bad.

 

[anotak]

my problem with it isn't about power level, but about the fact that something like 90% of my experiences with level up cards happen with my opponent trying to level them up at the end of my turn

 

[Eric Chan]

what does it say that I'm the only one in my playgroup who still makes the mistake of trying to level up Treespeaker end of turn and then having to be corrected

 

[BennyD]

I like that the frequency of commons/uncommons from each set is more balanced in a two-set draft format than in a three-set format.

 

[CML]

Between mana management and the constraint of sorcery speed, I think level-up is just a fucking great mechanic

 

[Jason Waddell]

what does it say that I'm the only one in my playgroup who still makes the mistake of trying to level up Treespeaker end of turn and then having to be corrected

Blowing up treespeaker in response to the level up activation is one of the most satisfying plays. Sometimes I hold up mana to represent a kill spell just so they won't activate him.

 

[Chris Taylor]

Blowing up treespeaker in response to the level up activation is one of the most satisfying plays. Sometimes I hold up mana to represent a kill spell just so they won't activate him.

The latter half of that sentance doesn't usually apply to my drafters, but damn that is awesome

 

[ahadabans]

Blowing up treespeaker in response to the level up activation is one of the most satisfying plays. Sometimes I hold up mana to represent a kill spell just so they won't activate him.

I generally see that as a worth while trade though (I pay 3 mana and lose a dude, you lose a kill spell). I would pretty much never not level tree speaker if my opponent had mana open unless I have a much better play. If you have the kill spell, good for you. Yes, I lose a little tempo when someone blows up my level dude after I level him, but then again that is one less kill spell you have to kill my better dudes with. At the end of the day, you wasted a valuable kill spell on my one drop.

It's like how I feel about Keldon Vandal. If I play him and blow up your artifact and then I pay the echo and you kill him in response, I really am not all that bummed out. You lost two cards and I only lost one and some mana. The tempo loss only really matters if it causes me to lose the game (and in this example it really shouldn't unless I was already losing anyway).

 

[CML]

I generally see that as a worth while trade though (I pay 3 mana and lose a dude, you lose a kill spell). I would pretty much never not level tree speaker if my opponent had mana open unless I have a much better play. If you have the kill spell, good for you. Yes, I lose a little tempo when someone blows up my level dude after I level him, but then again that is one less kill spell you have to kill my better dudes with. At the end of the day, you wasted a valuable kill spell on my one drop.

It's like how I feel about Keldon Vandal. If I play him and blow up your artifact and then I pay the echo and you kill him in response, I really am not all that bummed out. You lost two cards and I only lost one and some mana. The tempo loss only really matters if it causes me to lose the game (and in this example it really shouldn't unless I was already losing anyway).

killing mana dorks is great and will make you lose a lot

[two extraneous paragraphs]

 

[ahadabans]

killing mana dorks is great and will make you lose a lot
[two extraneous paragraphs]

I'm not disagreeing. It's the right play 95% of the time probably.

I'm just arguing that not leveling up just because your opponent might have bolt or something is usually not the right play. Make him use it.

If I built a deck that requires treespeaker to live in order for me to have any chance to win, my deck sucks or my opponents deck is completely broken (in which case I need to fix my meta by removing cards from the cube).

 

[CML]

Man it'd be nice to have green decks that weren't dependent on little dorks, it's a major challenge for Cubers too

I usually go for it too and often regret it

 

[ahadabans]

Man it'd be nice to have green decks that weren't dependent on little dorks, it's a major challenge for Cubers too

I usually go for it too and often regret it

This is primarily why I try to split my green ramp between mana dudes and things like Utopia Sprawl, Search for Tomorrow, Cultivate, et. al, or even dudes like Wood Elves (since them living is not important for the ramp piece - they are just a speed bump or natural order sac fodder).

I agree though that typical green ramp deck is heavily reliant on mana dudes and so has a pretty major weakness to removal in general. And therefore killing mana dudes is pretty much always the right move.

 

[CML]

Agreed, with that non-creature ramp sometimes you get Jund-type decks which are delightful. I also enjoy the Zoo decks that crop up pretty frequently, and this deck diversity is a function of diversity in the 1-drops (e.g., Experiment One, who is an underrated thing to double up on, alongside Wild Nacatl and Joraga Treespeaker).

 

[Lucre]

If it means going back to dominaria or wherever homelands was set sooner count me in!

 

[BennyD]

If you were to design a cube within this new block format (i.e. a smaller cube to create the first pack and a larger cube to create the second and third packs), what types of things would you put in each of the packs? Would the "small set" be filled with build-around cards? Would all of the mana fixing be in the "large set"? I think there's a good amount of cube design room around pack order.

 

[Lucre]

If you were to design a cube within this new block format (i.e. a smaller cube to create the first pack and a larger cube to create the second and third packs), what types of things would you put in each of the packs? Would the "small set" be filled with build-around cards? Would all of the mana fixing be in the "large set"? I think there's a good amount of cube design room around pack order.

I really like this question and I wana put some thought into this. What do we look to? Lorwyn / Shadow blocks?

 

[BennyD]

Even DKA-INN-INN or other sets drafted with each other in a small-large-large fashion makes sense. But we have the luxury of designing specifically for limited, rather than balancing needs of constructed. So, making an entire small set of archetypal build-around cards could work where it doesn't in retail sets.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

The most interesting implication is that you can have the consistency of a 360 cube (the themes and cornerstones you want to be there are always there) and the variance of a larger cube (boosters 2 and 3 can be build from a larger pool of cards).

 

[Lucre]

I think it'd be great to put some thought into archetype based draft dynamics. What goes late, what cards are only there to support certain decks and what are cards you wish there were more of in the cube so that archetypes that felt safe wheeling things didn't always get the first pick of them.

Another idea is to have a modular cube, where the parts can be swapped in or out to create a different environment. Staples integrating differently with niche strategies.

This is all very fascinating and too much for me to think about while working.

 

[Jason Waddell]

Not that this is ideal, but traditionally you find a lot of build-arounds in the large set.

 

[BennyD]

I'm guessing that has to do with the order they come out, so that there are draftable build-arounds from the beginning of the block.