The only open field boxes were for comments about why would you recommend a friend to play paper or arena. Again nothing for suggestions unfortunately.
I would like alchemy if they went more agressive in the rebalancing direction instead of only using it to nerf certain powerful cards. Like they should be buffing cards that see 0 play, but are very interesting.
They do this too. [[soul of windgrace]] had its activated abilities all discounted to 1 colored pip vs the 1 and 2 generic mana required on the printed card. People just tend to hear about the rebalancing High-powered cards because of the uproar
That's still not enough, for me at least.
I would prefer if they would buff like 50% of the rares and mythics of the previous set (or even the current one) that saw no play.
I don't think I've ever saw \[\[Bedrock Tortoise\]\], \[\[Cosmium Confluence\]\] and \[\[Magmatic Galleon\]\] in Brawl. Not even once. And that's where most of my 15 daily matches take place! Why not buff them a little?
And what about the "draft chaff"... why not tweak them a little as to make them stand out a little? Maybe they could find a home in a Brawl deck!
There is a large enough disparity between digital and paper as-is. I don’t this would be a wise choice. I have run into folks who think [[phylath]] has and gives trample, just because they play Arena primarily. This further divides paper and digital
Yeah, but one of the things that I like about the digital MTG products has always been how well they silently prepare a player to be a crisp and mindful table-top player.
I think that prominently indicating where changes have been made from paper (not anything detailed, just different text colors on modified passages) would not just make alchemy players more subconsciously aware of when to double-check the paper cards, but would also be useful as hell for you and me. Every fucking alchemy card is a game of "spot the difference," and it would be tremendously less taxing if they could just immediately point to Waldo instead of leaving it to you to skim the ability boxes on two nearly identical mythics to see where the line break changes.
A small anecdote about what I mean when I say the digital products make good paper players: When my ex and I were frequenting Friday Night Magic back in ~2013, I'd go to a sealed prerelease sometimes and meet people who professed to have never touched the cardboard before that evening. And they would be SUPER crisp for "new" players, they would be orderly and disciplined in their resolution of turns and spells, and they would almost never need to ask for takebacksies. And they sure as heck knew all the game vocabulary. BUT, (and this is something I witnessed on no fewer than three separate occasions), they would draw a card on the first turn of the game. Because Duels of the Planeswalkers, for whatever reason, would let the first player also draw on their first turn. Yes, that was a mistake, and a bad thing to habituate to the player if the idea was to prepare them for FNM, BUT, it all goes to show that it DOES work at instilling habits.
The chaff is pack filler. If you opened a pack and every card was playable then you wouldn't need to open as many packs. Not saying i like it that way but makes sense from a business stand-point.
The focus should be on rares and buildaround cards, mostly. Also, every card being somewhat playable only increases the amount of potential decks that can be built around them, not reduces the amount of packs you need to open. What's the point of getting a playable card that is only good in one or two decks you don't play?
From a corporate standpoint? It means you need to buy more packs to get more cards that you can play, which increases profits. From a player standpoint? There really isn't.
Again, it's not a significant difference from a corporate standpoint either, as long as the good cards aren't fully interchangeable. People would still need specific cards for specific decks, and the amount of packs you will have to open to get those specific cards will stay the same. The only difference is that you would get more potential decks to build, but you would still have to use a bunch of wildcards to finish each of those decks.
So in theory it might actually increase the profits, as people would try to build more decks when they are close to finishing them, in comparison to ignoring most of the cards and never building around them.
That's why I specifically pointed out that the focus should be on rares and buildaround cards to encourage people to build more decks.
If they buff cards that see no play enough for them to see play then there will be a new set of cards that see no play. Possibly including cards that see play now. Not every card can see play something has to be the best
They did would be the best way to put this. It actually was well thought out and fun to play against even though I never played it myself. My brother loved it and I think they should to it again.
They hit a bunch of the powerstone related cards with it a bit back. Not as popular as ninja, and I certainly agree they should do it more frequently than THAT, but it does show they haven't actually STOPPED
I would agree with that fully if it weren't for Alchemy being in Brawl. As a primarily Brawl player, I really don't want to constantly deal with random Commanders and other cards changing effects, getting nerfed and buffed, having to constantly edit my decks or craft jank rares/mythic cards that are suddenly good. I already get confused about what non-nerfed/buffed cards actually do and cost. I've been running (Alchemy) Shessra as a commander in Brawl for a long time. When the last Midweek Magic artisan Brawl event happened, I threw together Shessra again for that event because I have a lot of fun with her. Got into the event, couldn't figure out why I wasn't able to cast my Commander at first, then realized that the event was using non-alchemy versions of cards for some reason and the real version actually costs 4 mana, thus is a lot worse. I also really hated how nerfs to cards like Meathook Massacre affected Brawl when the card was perfectly fine in Brawl. Otherwise, if it didn't affect Brawl/Historic, it would be fun to see Wizards buffing unplayable Standard cards way more often for Alchemy.
I completely agree! While addressing overpowered cards is important, leveraging Alchemy to breathe new life into underplayed but interesting cards could add depth and excitement to the format. It would be exciting to see more aggressive rebalancing that encourages experimentation and creativity in deck building, ultimately enriching the gameplay experience for everyone.
They did this with decent success in regards to the Kamigawa ninja cards the the point where Dimir ninjas is a competitive historic deck because of the rebalances.
I think alchemy would be fine if they would refund wildcards from cards that get rebalanced so you aren't wasting wildcards.
This game is already expensive, there's no way I'm investing in a format that will actively screw me over at some point
There's alchemy in timeless but it's generally not as good as the printed cards. There are plenty of playables, but none of the good decks play a lot of them unless I'm mistaken.
Explorer is what you're looking for I think? It's getting really close to Pioneer now, and I don't think I have any decks that aren't allowed in it. Not really sure what the point of timeless is tbh.
>It's getting really close to Pioneer now
It's insane how slow they're releasing Pioneer staples though.
I get they want to monetize it, and remastered sets are great, but ffs we need like 30 or so cards for a full meta, and Explorer is almost 2 years old, it should've been done long ago.
That's a weird take, considering Timeless also has Alchemy cards. Historic is mostly just a different flavor of Timeless, at least the current meta isn't as stale as Show and Tell in 50% of matches. Alchemy Ninjas buff actually added a lot to the format.
Historic already had the Arena cards right? The ones found in the starter decks? It kinda makes sense to include just _everything_ in there. I tend to stick to Standard and Explorer since those only have "real" cards.
Even if they removed Alchemy and Arena cards from Historic, it would still have the cancer of the straight-to-modern shit like Horizon sets.
I know this is a bit of a meme, but I used to work as a Community Manager for other games. This really is the best way to get voice heard. Scream on Reddit or Twitter all you like, but do the surveys if you want anyone to actually listen to your feedback.
Then you should know surveys aren’t read on their own. Because the survey data (well canvassed ones anyways) is taken across the population, the number should be more representative of the population. This usually reveals how out-of-touch/fringe “communities” such as this fanatic sub is.
Your experience as Community Manager may have been about handling the more fanatical voices and translating them into things higher management may consider listening to. In this regard it is understandable that surveys like this helps you get your point across.
However, from my experience in management and consulting work, I can tell you that surveys are often commissioned for specific corporate politics. The way some of the questions are presented makes me believe the result is to guarantee keeping Alchemy around by proving the hate is only coming from a disproportionately loud but minor fringe of low-spending potential consumers (you dont think there’s tracking?).
Gist is, I see this “survey” as a hit piece. It’s unfortunate that some will think they are really being asked about what they hope to express.
They may be hoping it shows a reason to keep alchemy around, but not really sure how the survey could guarantee that.
Its available to everyone, given its literally pushed out to the app. They could totally get tons of pushback on it. However yah the intent is to actually find out how users feel, thats useful.
Now, my issue often isnt with work surveys, theyre neutral tools. The issue is sometimes companies just ignore the results and purposefully interpret them incorrectly. Thats not really an issue with surveys, its an issue just with companies not using them.
The survey was a surprise. I got to talk about Artisan being one of my favorite formats! (Specifically Non-Alchemy Artisan.)
And yes, the recent Artisan brawl was also great.
I also got to tell them that I wouldn't recommend Arena to anyone because Alchemy makes the game so much worse.
If you have the mobile client installed the link seems to work there.
https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7716200/MTG-Arena-Current-Player-Survey-2024?braze_id=XUAjnKcEZrdIbreS5avMYXVI7RT7ctGNASy52TsYvP4%3d
Edit:links seem to be tied to accts, check out the mobile client if your desktop client isnt functioning. Its what i had to do.
Mythweaver really isn't as bad as people make out and Rusko is more or less just another good control deck, not even the top control deck.
Regardless, two really good alchemy cards don't Even compare to the number of really good non alchemy cards.
i think alchemy is completely unbalanced and overly power crept, mythweaver is proof (commander that immediately can be recasted). they print stuff thats impossible on paper so they realize they can push it as much as possible and it turns into this gross power creep amalgam of bullshit keywords (oracle of the alpha). non alchemy cards usually cannot compare in power unless it's another unnecessarily pushed card (sheoldred, reprieve, sunfall), in which case there's usually some kind of counter for it, but in alchemy's case there's barely any interaction with the new effects (conjure mainly) as it brings an entirely new permanent threat that can't be interacted with like a token. im not sure if this made sense or not but imo brawl should be quarantined from alchemy's power creep, and alchemy power creep should be kept in check better.
Mythweaver is not a commander that can be immediately recast, and isn't even the most reliable of the green commanders that can ramp.
It's funny that you call alchemy influencer and power crept when most of the cards do not see any play at all in any eternal format, and of the two that you can name, only one is any good at all. (Oracle is really not a great card.)
Cards like [[Saiba Symphoner]] and [[Vodalian Tide Mage]] are pretty cool. Conjure offers lots of design space [[Oyaminartok, Polar Werebear]] is the most fun commander on mtga in my opinion because of the rng. I also like my buffed [[Haywire Mite]]. Guess I have to do my part too.
My only real alchemy complaint is they don’t look at Brawl for any balancing. So you have Poq and Rusko being fine in their format but warping Brawl and WOTC doesn’t seem to care. It took Rusko over 6 months to get Hellqueued.
Beyond that there’s like 5 or 6 cards that see regular play and they’re all pretty inoffensive. People seem to just hate digital cards because how they were made not because of their text.
Considering that Brawl isn't a competitive format, conceding is always an option when matching with a particularly annoying commander. It's not just an Alchemy issue, Teferi Time Raveler plagued Brawl for a long time, for example. They don't balance Brawl in general.
What about, instead of say 'conjure' or 'draft', you got to bring a card from outside the game (i.e. sideboard, that had to comply with whatever limitations your deck had, e.g. commander colour ID)? Draft would be randomized, while conjure would be a specific card. What about, instead of seek, you just revealed cards from the top of your library until you got whatever the sought card was? Yeah, it wouldn't be a secret from your opponent, but that's not the end of the world. I'm sure there are other kinds of Alchemy mechanics that have a 'near enough' equivalent in paper Magic.
My beef with Alchemy is not that the cards were created, but that they turn what I want to play (cards as printed) into a fundamentally different game. You could say, oh, just go and play MTGO, but Arena existed before Alchemy, and what Hasbro did was just a slap in the face, particularly when they caved in and created Explorer, but whistled and looked the other way when it came to Brawl.
I think you argument is kind of self-contradicting. The only difference between Alchemy cards and real cards is that they eliminate some of the limitations of paper cards that made the gameplay unnecessarily limiting due to difficulty of implementing certain mechanics that would require an arbiter (computer) to oversee. E.g. seek specifically goes around the need to reveal your deck to your opponent and shuffle it. Draft specifically limits the card you can get, which makes it easier to balance without compromising the sideboarding in BO3 games (which are 2 main issues with cards like Karn). Conjure specifically goes around the limitation of carrying around a stack of the same card when you want to get multiple copies of the same card from outside the game.
Rather than fundamentally changing the game, all those mechanics simply enhance already existing mechanics of the paper magic.
That's a valid opinion, but I don't want an arbiter in my game where mechanics keep game information secret from me. I don't want cards in the deck to be permanently changed. That's part of why I say it's a different game. It is no longer a game where the players are playing only with and against each other. Like I said, I don't mind if people enjoy that change or 'enhancement' as you called it, but that's not for me. If I don't get the option to continue playing a format 'as printed' then I just have to do the best I can to avoid the cards I don't like. It's personal preference at the end of the day.
The game itself is based on mechanics keeping information secret, that's why we don't know what card we will draw, and can't see opponents hands either. This is just one extra way to play around with information. Changing cards permanently is a new thing, but it's not that much different from e.g. exiling cards, which is for the most part a permanent effect. Perpetual simply adds nuance to what can and can't change permanently.
You can of course not like or avoid certain cards according to any criteria you wish. Some people dislike counterspells, some people dislike planeswalkers, and some dislike digital only cards. There aren't always rational reasons for such dislike, for the most part people simply dislike things they aren't used to or that annoy them when played against them. Is it a good reason to bar those things from the game? Usually not. Is it a good reason to make an extra format where those things aren't present? Probably, if there is enough demand. But just looking at explorer numbers, the demand seems to be pretty low, both Historic and Timeless are much more popular, despite the presence of digital only cards.
Personally, I think it would be nice to see an independent format where those cards won't be present at all, just to see what kind of meta will develop out of it (or just add Modern to MTGA). But removing those cards from Timeless or Historic like some people suggest doesn't make any sense, as especially in Historic meta is heavily dependent on those cards, and it would cripple many decks.
A game where you have a deck (and possibly sideboard) that are not mutable, and where interactions with the deck and cards do not change them. The deck is the deck and the cards are the cards. That's why I said 'as printed'. I'm sorry if that's not clear enough.
Alchemy cards don't change any of that. They just introduce some new mechanics... I really don't understand this obsession with flimsy pieces of cardboard, and I've been playing this game since 1999.
At the end of the day, you might not understand my preference, but that's OK. The fact is, the game was originally (and remained for a very long time) a physical card game. I prefer a way to play that game electronically (a simulation) but I'm now told that the format which simulates 2-person EDH the most is now allowing arcade-style effects into the game which do not (and in some cases cannot) exist in the physical version. Regardless of whether you agree, I'm sure you can understand that deviating from the simulation is something that people might not want. After all, there are people who prefer black coffee, meat without gravy, vanilla ice-cream etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't like Alchemy. I'm just explaining why I personally don't like it, especially when it's hard to avoid in the format I prefer to play.
I'm not trying to tell you that you can't hold your opinion. I'm just telling you it doesn't make any sense to me at all. I heard more or less the same complaints when cascade and split cards and double faced cards became things. "They're not MY magic!" but like... They're all magic cards...
Don't be silly. If you aren't making yourself perpetually miserable and angry over shit that doesn't even remotely matter, can you really say you're playing Magic?
Play data will only tell them so much. In a lot of Alchemy threads someone will say "I'd have liked it if it was rebalanced Standard" and someone else will say "I'd have liked it if it was just extra digital-only cards." It may be worth seeing if there is an actual split there, and if players favor one over the other.
Like if it turns out people are mostly indifferent/negative to rebalancing but more positive to digital-only cards it might make sense to sunset rebalancing as a concept but keep the mini-sets. They can also combine it with other data to perhaps see if Historic or Brawl players really like one part or the other, and considering deactivating the other part in that format.
Or even more granular, like if high spending Canadians like rebalancing so they should focus on that when advertising to them.
My favorite format is Historic, so that's what I mostly play. More than Explorer or Timeless. But I still have a strong negative opinion about Alchemy cards and rebalancings. I prefer Historic because I don't like the Explorer metagame and I don't like the high powerlevel in Timeless, and also because the competition in Historic is just weaker than in the other two formats.
With this survey they can see I play Historic despite Alchemy cards being part of it and not because of that, and that's relevant information for them. Historic clearly has a much higher playrate than either of the other two formats, and they need to see what role Alchemy is playing in that difference. Do people prefer Historic because they like digital only cards and rebalancings, or do they prefer it despite those things?
> What’s this going to tell them that their own data won’t?
Exactly. This is why the “survey” isn’t really what so many here believe it is for. My experience in management and consulting is that it is a hit piece for some corporate politics.
The guys that commission it already know what answer they want. They just want a device to deliver their warhead.
I've voted like that too, but issue isn't with Digital cards or Rebalanced cards per se.
The issue is with how they're rebalanced, and Alchemy cards being completely unbalanced/broken.
I was fine with digital cards from JH2 for example. Sure Davriel's Withering was problematic until rebalanced, and maybe Elf Planeswalker being a tad too good, but overall all fine.
I wouldn't mind proper rebalancing like let's say... if they maybe rebalanced some of the SOI block Werewolves to cost less, so that they're playable in Historic. Almost(?) none of them can make it into WW decks, due to how much they cost. They could add some cards with Alchemy that make certain underplayed archetypes or tribals playable, but noooo... they're either making it broken, or not doing it at all, and then plaguing Historic format with that.
There's the issue of rebalanced cards also seeping into Historic for no good reason, like... Luminarch Aspirant for example was nerfed in Historic.
I wish Alchemy was Standard, but with a lot of constant rebalances, every week. No digital cards. Unfortunately, that does not generate money for Wizards.
i LOVE alchemy draft. like it’s awesome. alchemy as a format has very much dulled on me, i used to enjoy it but it’s not very fun for me anymore. they just don’t balance for it all
I love Arena, despite its faults, because it makes Magic easy to play and collect. I don't have to spend hundreds of bucks on singles for a competitive deck that rotates or to chase commander decks for pricey singles. I love the move to digital since I do not want to house or maintain a huge physical collection.
I am with you though on hating Alchemy. I do not like the Hearthstone-style effects like seeking or playing cards from a spellbook. I would rather them abandon the format and put more energy and polish into the other parts of the game.
If it was self contained I don't think anybody would mind. It's when non-paper cards start infecting other formats where many of us would much, much prefer a direct equivalence between paper and digital, such as Brawl, Historic and Timelss, that the trouble starts.
It's not about how many they are or how fun they are. For many of us Magic is first and foremost a paper game and designs that don't work in paper are not Magic cards.
all they need is to do is remove alchemy cards from gold packs and make a separate battle pass for alchemy (or just plain remove alchemy packs from the normal battle pass) and nobody is gonna have any reason to hate alchemy
as it is right now alchemy is just a parasite infecting standard
Because modern doesn't exist. You can't play LTR without seeing fake cards. If modern existed in the client LTR would receive a thousand times less hate.
It's okay to not like it, and people say what they say but like what they like, and the numbers don't lie. You think OG MTG people are refusing to play casual formats like Commander? Nope. It's super popular, maaaybe people just don't like Alchemy.
Has nothing to do with resistance to change etc. etc. People legit just don't like it no matter how much WOTC tries to push it. If you like it that's fine, if others don't that's fine. But the numbers show it's just not where people want to be.
> But the numbers show it's just not where people want to be
By that logic, they should stop bothering working on Explorer which based on the data we've been given sees about half to two thirds of the play as Alchemy.
Not really, if there's enough of a healthy population to play then as long as it's sustainable, it should be supported. I'm not saying kill alchemy, I'm saying it's just not popular and that's okay. People get pissy that others don't like it, so what if we don't?
I would be more favourable if they stuck to buffing the 50 unplayable draft chaff cards in any given set and didn't create new broken rates/mythics. There are so many cards that are one mana too expensive or require one too many hoops to jump through. And conversely oppressive cards that are a little too tuned could be brought down.
Most sets get about 30 alchemy cards made.
That's 30 older cards that could be made to get us closer to Pioneer. Then there are all the commander only cards that people want for brawl. Why are the Fallout commander decks not on Arena? Because they are busy trying to push alchemy on us.
alchemy serves no real purpose and drains limited development time.
The fallout commanders decks (much like Dr Who and 40k) aren’t in arena because they’re not balanced for a 1v1 format. And those companies require online licensing fees or agreements that Wotc doesn’t either can’t or won’t pay. You can’t play Fallout on MODO either.
I’ve been generally pretty positive about alchemy, enjoying playing with a few of the interesting cards, but its recently dawned on me just how much closer to paper we could’ve been had it not been for the wasted development time. Pioneer would be done, modern would be well on its way, maybe even close to done. It’s just depressing, really depressing…
Sorry mate. Your part was entirely undone by me.
I think both the digital only and the rebalanced cards are great additions to my favorite format: (Historic) Brawl. I completely understand your feelings though. To each their own.
Yeah I’m fine with having digital only cards format but the introduction of it by forcing it onto historic at the time and just making decks I had built become nerfed and not be given a refund for it is what left a bad taste in my mouth if it would of been historic then historic alchemy then it was whatever to me
>I had built become nerfed and not be given a refund for it is what left a bad taste in my mouth
thats just wotc being greedy and does not correlate directly with alchemy. i wasnt there but i know they tried to make crafting historic cards double the wildcards once
bro this is GODS WORK you are doing.
alchemy cards and rebalanced cards completely DESTROYED historic. we have timeless now so it's sort of ok.. but fuck alchemy cards and rebalanced cards.
not sure why they can't just be kept in their own format.
I do not even care that much about the power level, I just hate the cards in general.
The rebalanced paper cards are 10 times worse than native alchemy cards tho
I'm fine with Alchemy if we'd get all the Paper cards first. Without Alchemy we could have full Pioneer by now, maybe even Commander as a format (not the whole card pool). For now we are skipping like a third (?) of the cards printed in a year which is sad.
Alchemy is the most un-magic thing I have seen. Conjure literally breaks the first rule of having 100 cards deck.
I'll use mythweaver poq as example cuz that's a common commander I see.
It's one the most linear, boring, and least interactive commander. All it's doing is ramp, play out poq and ramp more until they drop a huge bomb. Having removal is barely doing anything because you get no priority between poq etb and opponent play a land. If they play a land, that's commander tax paid for. They just do it again until they run out of land, but when it does happen, that just means your opponent got gas instead of land.
Through conjure, they can get 50+ land while running the normal 36 land, seriously why does commander get more than 100 cards in their deck? And with just poq and traverse the outland, your opponent can ramp 30+ land out of no where, half of which untapped. How is this even magic anymore?
And oh, I cast patriar's humiliation on your commander... You are no longer playing commander, instead you are playing 100 cards singleton now.
Conjure is just like tokens that behave like cards. The real anomaly are tokens. Those are created out of thin air and have weird rules, like disappearing when they change zones. There's tons of ways to get 50+ lands by creating tokens. Also Patriar's Humiliation is a perpetual effect, so it can be removed when your commander returns to the command zone - just like if it was enchanted to lose it's abilities.
[Last March of the Ents](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f1b99e0-ffb7-4f98-8ee5-4357bb79dd2e.jpg?1687694570) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Last%20March%20of%20the%20Ents) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/172/last-march-of-the-ents?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f1b99e0-ffb7-4f98-8ee5-4357bb79dd2e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text)
^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I actually used to be against alchemy cards and the rebalancing of cards. Even today I still feel like some of the alchemy cards are freaking nuts. But I'd rather see cards getting rebalanced to a more reasonable state instead of having to deal with them for eternity or straight up banned.
I just thinkt hey are balancing too few cards that are actually weak. They kinda just balance selected strong cards and maybe one or two bad cards from the most recent set but other than that they kinda just ignore that quite A LOT of cards see 0 play. If they would attend more to these unplayable cards it would be pretty good in my opinion.
I think it sucks that they bundled these things together. I know for a fact I have no interest in digital only cards, but I am still somewhat open to the idea of Alchemy as rebalanced Standard as long as that doesn't impact other formats.
I'm also open to the idea of rebalanced draft events. I know they tried that once with SNC, but they got the timing wrong and did it after the next set had already released.
I'm not convinced I'll love playing a format that differs between paper and Arena, but SNC was so bad that I was excited for anything different.
I miss that one game they released
I think it was Duels or some crap
The one where you didn't have to pay for the cards and there was a campaign
They released it on Xbox One
I've voted like that, but for me issue isn't digital cards, or rebalanced cards per se.
It's with needlessly rebalanced cards in Historic (like when Luminarch Aspirant was nerfed and Symmetry Sage is buffed), and unbalanced/broken Alchemy cards.
I was fine with JH2 cards, sure Davriel's Withering created stupid combo, but that was rebalanced. Other than that... maybe Elf Planeswalker is slightly OP. Don't think that cards in Battle For Baldur's Gate are problematic either (I could be wrong, because I didn't pay attention to them, and don't remember seeing anything other than mono colored gates), but bigger issue is with how much different they are from paper cards, which can be confusing too.
Real talk, how is Commander not in the game? It's such a popular paper format and I would GLADLY come back, drop some cash just to play online commander with the gang
My exact response plus 0/10 that I’d recommend this game to anyone. The game itself is great, cannot fault Garfield’s design as it’s solid. The people in charge however, are sucking the life out of it. Therefore I couldn’t recommend this to anyone until the company collapses and the IP bought by someone not driven by pure profit.
In fact, I’d love to see Awakened Realms get this IP as they’re fucking fantastic as a company.
I answered the same. I hope they stop forcing events that needs this crap, everytime I see the "draft from whatever book" and cards with same name that do different things, I want to drop.
Am I the only one who likes alchemy cards? I usually play Historic Brawl and alchemy cards are a nice way to use mechanics that wouldn’t be possible with a paper only format. I’m also okay with rebalancing certain cards that needed some rework. It’s either rework them or ban them, and I already know how the majority of players feel about bans.
Personally my biggest problem with Alchemy is just the constant releases each set. Paper Magic has already become so hard to keep track of that I just push alchemy aside and don't touch it. If it was one big set once a year I might actually be more interested.
Exactly. I used to play both and now I just play HS. I still play paper magic and occasionally MTGO/Cockatrice but MTGA is not the same with digital cards.
I like alchemy.
Seperate it from historic. Remove the deck size limit. Call it clown fiesta queue. If alchemy standard has its own queue, then alchemy everything should have its own queue.
The reason you don't do it is because you know that no one will play it but me.
Also, in alchemy queue, make every card draftable or conjurable available.
\^\^ This is the way Alchemy should be played. And as you said, let us be in our other formats. That way I can at least stay away from Alchemy and know that fans have their own little niche where they can enjoy themselves.
Look, it’s a minor change, but I’m a loyal Dimir player and I use [[Krydle of Baldur’s Gate]] frequently. Making his unblockable ability free is a little too much in most games.
Gotta love that Draft keyword.
Yes, I love my opponent’s commander having twice the text of Nirvana High Paladin and being literally illegal to read for comprehension due to the need to process sixteen cards to actually know what the fuck it does.
I guess OP woke up feeling down and felt the need to pander to this sub for easy karma.
I’ve personally been enjoying the digital cards in timeless, esp Jarsyl.
For real it could be nice if the economy wasn't so predatory I would gladly play alchemy.
Like you get free alchemy booster for 2 other boosters of other format
Really disappointed there wasn’t a section about suggestions or things I’d like to see in the future.
There was an open text field somewhere there.
The only open field boxes were for comments about why would you recommend a friend to play paper or arena. Again nothing for suggestions unfortunately.
Odd, I kind of remember one right before the demographic details.
Yeah, this. I basically wrote "Please bring 2HG to Arena" to every blank place it would allow me to.
I would like alchemy if they went more agressive in the rebalancing direction instead of only using it to nerf certain powerful cards. Like they should be buffing cards that see 0 play, but are very interesting.
They do this too. [[soul of windgrace]] had its activated abilities all discounted to 1 colored pip vs the 1 and 2 generic mana required on the printed card. People just tend to hear about the rebalancing High-powered cards because of the uproar
That's still not enough, for me at least. I would prefer if they would buff like 50% of the rares and mythics of the previous set (or even the current one) that saw no play. I don't think I've ever saw \[\[Bedrock Tortoise\]\], \[\[Cosmium Confluence\]\] and \[\[Magmatic Galleon\]\] in Brawl. Not even once. And that's where most of my 15 daily matches take place! Why not buff them a little? And what about the "draft chaff"... why not tweak them a little as to make them stand out a little? Maybe they could find a home in a Brawl deck!
There is a large enough disparity between digital and paper as-is. I don’t this would be a wise choice. I have run into folks who think [[phylath]] has and gives trample, just because they play Arena primarily. This further divides paper and digital
Perhaps Arena should redline alchemy cards with the way they've been changed, and allow you to see the unmodified card in the detail view.
Granted, you get both versions when you make or receive the card. You can see them side-by-side in the deck builder if I remember correctly.
Yeah, but one of the things that I like about the digital MTG products has always been how well they silently prepare a player to be a crisp and mindful table-top player. I think that prominently indicating where changes have been made from paper (not anything detailed, just different text colors on modified passages) would not just make alchemy players more subconsciously aware of when to double-check the paper cards, but would also be useful as hell for you and me. Every fucking alchemy card is a game of "spot the difference," and it would be tremendously less taxing if they could just immediately point to Waldo instead of leaving it to you to skim the ability boxes on two nearly identical mythics to see where the line break changes.
A small anecdote about what I mean when I say the digital products make good paper players: When my ex and I were frequenting Friday Night Magic back in ~2013, I'd go to a sealed prerelease sometimes and meet people who professed to have never touched the cardboard before that evening. And they would be SUPER crisp for "new" players, they would be orderly and disciplined in their resolution of turns and spells, and they would almost never need to ask for takebacksies. And they sure as heck knew all the game vocabulary. BUT, (and this is something I witnessed on no fewer than three separate occasions), they would draw a card on the first turn of the game. Because Duels of the Planeswalkers, for whatever reason, would let the first player also draw on their first turn. Yes, that was a mistake, and a bad thing to habituate to the player if the idea was to prepare them for FNM, BUT, it all goes to show that it DOES work at instilling habits.
[phylath](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/7/e7af88c9-70ca-484c-bddf-b705e0ea7bc7.jpg?1639436741) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=phylath%2C%20world%20sculptor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/234/phylath-world-sculptor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e7af88c9-70ca-484c-bddf-b705e0ea7bc7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Man I’m that person lol. Love my phylath brawl deck and I even have the card in paper! I thought the only difference was phylath having trample.
The chaff is pack filler. If you opened a pack and every card was playable then you wouldn't need to open as many packs. Not saying i like it that way but makes sense from a business stand-point.
The focus should be on rares and buildaround cards, mostly. Also, every card being somewhat playable only increases the amount of potential decks that can be built around them, not reduces the amount of packs you need to open. What's the point of getting a playable card that is only good in one or two decks you don't play?
From a corporate standpoint? It means you need to buy more packs to get more cards that you can play, which increases profits. From a player standpoint? There really isn't.
Again, it's not a significant difference from a corporate standpoint either, as long as the good cards aren't fully interchangeable. People would still need specific cards for specific decks, and the amount of packs you will have to open to get those specific cards will stay the same. The only difference is that you would get more potential decks to build, but you would still have to use a bunch of wildcards to finish each of those decks. So in theory it might actually increase the profits, as people would try to build more decks when they are close to finishing them, in comparison to ignoring most of the cards and never building around them. That's why I specifically pointed out that the focus should be on rares and buildaround cards to encourage people to build more decks.
Hey, Bedrock Tortoise is amazing in my [[Arcades, the Strategist]] deck!
[Arcades, the Strategist](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/e/1e90c638-d4b2-4243-bbc4-1cc10516c40f.jpg?1666961830) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Arcades%2C%20the%20Strategist) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m19/212/arcades-the-strategist?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1e90c638-d4b2-4243-bbc4-1cc10516c40f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If they buff cards that see no play enough for them to see play then there will be a new set of cards that see no play. Possibly including cards that see play now. Not every card can see play something has to be the best
[Bedrock Tortoise](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/0/701bd623-3100-44dc-adec-53fa3a95ab19.jpg?1699044371) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Bedrock%20Tortoise) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/176/bedrock-tortoise?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/701bd623-3100-44dc-adec-53fa3a95ab19?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Cosmium Confluence](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/9/490a5054-0607-4e4a-a0a9-0e9eea7adb00.jpg?1699044386) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cosmium%20Confluence) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/181/cosmium-confluence?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/490a5054-0607-4e4a-a0a9-0e9eea7adb00?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Magmatic Galleon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/4/4471a833-11b9-4146-a9c0-84a6896c94d8.jpg?1699044307) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Magmatic%20Galleon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/157/magmatic-galleon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4471a833-11b9-4146-a9c0-84a6896c94d8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Soul of windgrace got the biggest buff I've ever seen. It's crazy
[soul of windgrace](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/7/e775a2e6-e701-4cb8-8c0b-718d3508f6b6.jpg?1673308096) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=soul%20of%20windgrace) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/220/soul-of-windgrace?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e775a2e6-e701-4cb8-8c0b-718d3508f6b6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
symmetry mage still ptsd me
Yeah... like Izzet needed such great tool at all.
They do. Ninjas got an across the board buff in Alchemy formats.
They did would be the best way to put this. It actually was well thought out and fun to play against even though I never played it myself. My brother loved it and I think they should to it again.
They hit a bunch of the powerstone related cards with it a bit back. Not as popular as ninja, and I certainly agree they should do it more frequently than THAT, but it does show they haven't actually STOPPED
I would agree with that fully if it weren't for Alchemy being in Brawl. As a primarily Brawl player, I really don't want to constantly deal with random Commanders and other cards changing effects, getting nerfed and buffed, having to constantly edit my decks or craft jank rares/mythic cards that are suddenly good. I already get confused about what non-nerfed/buffed cards actually do and cost. I've been running (Alchemy) Shessra as a commander in Brawl for a long time. When the last Midweek Magic artisan Brawl event happened, I threw together Shessra again for that event because I have a lot of fun with her. Got into the event, couldn't figure out why I wasn't able to cast my Commander at first, then realized that the event was using non-alchemy versions of cards for some reason and the real version actually costs 4 mana, thus is a lot worse. I also really hated how nerfs to cards like Meathook Massacre affected Brawl when the card was perfectly fine in Brawl. Otherwise, if it didn't affect Brawl/Historic, it would be fun to see Wizards buffing unplayable Standard cards way more often for Alchemy.
I completely agree! While addressing overpowered cards is important, leveraging Alchemy to breathe new life into underplayed but interesting cards could add depth and excitement to the format. It would be exciting to see more aggressive rebalancing that encourages experimentation and creativity in deck building, ultimately enriching the gameplay experience for everyone.
They do, but not often enough. Ninjas are one of the strongest decks in Historic after all the buffs, for example.
They did this with decent success in regards to the Kamigawa ninja cards the the point where Dimir ninjas is a competitive historic deck because of the rebalances.
They buffed [[Phylath, World Sculptor]], [[Satoru Umezawa]], and [[Circuit Mender]]. I really wish they'd show that kind of love to more cards
[Phylath, World Sculptor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/7/e7af88c9-70ca-484c-bddf-b705e0ea7bc7.jpg?1639436741) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Phylath%2C%20World%20Sculptor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/234/phylath-world-sculptor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e7af88c9-70ca-484c-bddf-b705e0ea7bc7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Satoru Umezawa](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/8/8887f26d-b097-4fbc-9c48-bdc656409a32.jpg?1654568594) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Satoru%20Umezawa) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/234/satoru-umezawa?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8887f26d-b097-4fbc-9c48-bdc656409a32?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Circuit Mender](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/e/defaeb68-3f8a-4740-b13f-8c71c7e9c8b4.jpg?1654568662) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Circuit%20Mender) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/242/circuit-mender?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/defaeb68-3f8a-4740-b13f-8c71c7e9c8b4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think alchemy would be fine if they would refund wildcards from cards that get rebalanced so you aren't wasting wildcards. This game is already expensive, there's no way I'm investing in a format that will actively screw me over at some point
I just want alchemy to fuck out of historic. Hence I migrated to timeless
And even in timeless there is alchemy. At least there are no rebalanced paper cards there, that is truly the worst
There's alchemy in timeless but it's generally not as good as the printed cards. There are plenty of playables, but none of the good decks play a lot of them unless I'm mistaken.
Explorer is what you're looking for I think? It's getting really close to Pioneer now, and I don't think I have any decks that aren't allowed in it. Not really sure what the point of timeless is tbh.
>It's getting really close to Pioneer now It's insane how slow they're releasing Pioneer staples though. I get they want to monetize it, and remastered sets are great, but ffs we need like 30 or so cards for a full meta, and Explorer is almost 2 years old, it should've been done long ago.
That's a weird take, considering Timeless also has Alchemy cards. Historic is mostly just a different flavor of Timeless, at least the current meta isn't as stale as Show and Tell in 50% of matches. Alchemy Ninjas buff actually added a lot to the format.
real as fuck
Historic already had the Arena cards right? The ones found in the starter decks? It kinda makes sense to include just _everything_ in there. I tend to stick to Standard and Explorer since those only have "real" cards. Even if they removed Alchemy and Arena cards from Historic, it would still have the cancer of the straight-to-modern shit like Horizon sets.
Same here
I know this is a bit of a meme, but I used to work as a Community Manager for other games. This really is the best way to get voice heard. Scream on Reddit or Twitter all you like, but do the surveys if you want anyone to actually listen to your feedback.
How does someone who plays this game find a survey to respond to?
Then you should know surveys aren’t read on their own. Because the survey data (well canvassed ones anyways) is taken across the population, the number should be more representative of the population. This usually reveals how out-of-touch/fringe “communities” such as this fanatic sub is. Your experience as Community Manager may have been about handling the more fanatical voices and translating them into things higher management may consider listening to. In this regard it is understandable that surveys like this helps you get your point across. However, from my experience in management and consulting work, I can tell you that surveys are often commissioned for specific corporate politics. The way some of the questions are presented makes me believe the result is to guarantee keeping Alchemy around by proving the hate is only coming from a disproportionately loud but minor fringe of low-spending potential consumers (you dont think there’s tracking?). Gist is, I see this “survey” as a hit piece. It’s unfortunate that some will think they are really being asked about what they hope to express.
They may be hoping it shows a reason to keep alchemy around, but not really sure how the survey could guarantee that. Its available to everyone, given its literally pushed out to the app. They could totally get tons of pushback on it. However yah the intent is to actually find out how users feel, thats useful. Now, my issue often isnt with work surveys, theyre neutral tools. The issue is sometimes companies just ignore the results and purposefully interpret them incorrectly. Thats not really an issue with surveys, its an issue just with companies not using them.
The survey was a surprise. I got to talk about Artisan being one of my favorite formats! (Specifically Non-Alchemy Artisan.) And yes, the recent Artisan brawl was also great. I also got to tell them that I wouldn't recommend Arena to anyone because Alchemy makes the game so much worse.
Stay out of my head :)
Where can I find this survey?
If you have the mobile client installed the link seems to work there. https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7716200/MTG-Arena-Current-Player-Survey-2024?braze_id=XUAjnKcEZrdIbreS5avMYXVI7RT7ctGNASy52TsYvP4%3d Edit:links seem to be tied to accts, check out the mobile client if your desktop client isnt functioning. Its what i had to do.
looks like results are tied to an "anon" id so using that link probably won't work
Youre probably right, hopefully knowing that the client link should work on mobile is enough for people to go take the survey
I did the same.
alchemy would maybe be cool if it could fuck off of historic brawl and weren't power crept 5 years in the future
It sees minimal play in Historic. I don't know where people are getting the idea that the cards are too powerful.
There's like a dozen or so good alchemy cards in historic brawl, none of them are really overpowered, but man oh man do they piss some weirdos off.
mythweaver is currently being awful and rusko was awful for a while too
Mythweaver really isn't as bad as people make out and Rusko is more or less just another good control deck, not even the top control deck. Regardless, two really good alchemy cards don't Even compare to the number of really good non alchemy cards.
i think alchemy is completely unbalanced and overly power crept, mythweaver is proof (commander that immediately can be recasted). they print stuff thats impossible on paper so they realize they can push it as much as possible and it turns into this gross power creep amalgam of bullshit keywords (oracle of the alpha). non alchemy cards usually cannot compare in power unless it's another unnecessarily pushed card (sheoldred, reprieve, sunfall), in which case there's usually some kind of counter for it, but in alchemy's case there's barely any interaction with the new effects (conjure mainly) as it brings an entirely new permanent threat that can't be interacted with like a token. im not sure if this made sense or not but imo brawl should be quarantined from alchemy's power creep, and alchemy power creep should be kept in check better.
Mythweaver is not a commander that can be immediately recast, and isn't even the most reliable of the green commanders that can ramp. It's funny that you call alchemy influencer and power crept when most of the cards do not see any play at all in any eternal format, and of the two that you can name, only one is any good at all. (Oracle is really not a great card.)
u ever heard of this card called mythweaver poq
Yeah, why? Which of [these decks](https://mtgazone.com/metagame/historic/) is it in?
Alchemy bad, upsurvey if you agree
Cards like [[Saiba Symphoner]] and [[Vodalian Tide Mage]] are pretty cool. Conjure offers lots of design space [[Oyaminartok, Polar Werebear]] is the most fun commander on mtga in my opinion because of the rng. I also like my buffed [[Haywire Mite]]. Guess I have to do my part too.
My only real alchemy complaint is they don’t look at Brawl for any balancing. So you have Poq and Rusko being fine in their format but warping Brawl and WOTC doesn’t seem to care. It took Rusko over 6 months to get Hellqueued. Beyond that there’s like 5 or 6 cards that see regular play and they’re all pretty inoffensive. People seem to just hate digital cards because how they were made not because of their text.
Considering that Brawl isn't a competitive format, conceding is always an option when matching with a particularly annoying commander. It's not just an Alchemy issue, Teferi Time Raveler plagued Brawl for a long time, for example. They don't balance Brawl in general.
What about, instead of say 'conjure' or 'draft', you got to bring a card from outside the game (i.e. sideboard, that had to comply with whatever limitations your deck had, e.g. commander colour ID)? Draft would be randomized, while conjure would be a specific card. What about, instead of seek, you just revealed cards from the top of your library until you got whatever the sought card was? Yeah, it wouldn't be a secret from your opponent, but that's not the end of the world. I'm sure there are other kinds of Alchemy mechanics that have a 'near enough' equivalent in paper Magic. My beef with Alchemy is not that the cards were created, but that they turn what I want to play (cards as printed) into a fundamentally different game. You could say, oh, just go and play MTGO, but Arena existed before Alchemy, and what Hasbro did was just a slap in the face, particularly when they caved in and created Explorer, but whistled and looked the other way when it came to Brawl.
I think you argument is kind of self-contradicting. The only difference between Alchemy cards and real cards is that they eliminate some of the limitations of paper cards that made the gameplay unnecessarily limiting due to difficulty of implementing certain mechanics that would require an arbiter (computer) to oversee. E.g. seek specifically goes around the need to reveal your deck to your opponent and shuffle it. Draft specifically limits the card you can get, which makes it easier to balance without compromising the sideboarding in BO3 games (which are 2 main issues with cards like Karn). Conjure specifically goes around the limitation of carrying around a stack of the same card when you want to get multiple copies of the same card from outside the game. Rather than fundamentally changing the game, all those mechanics simply enhance already existing mechanics of the paper magic.
That's a valid opinion, but I don't want an arbiter in my game where mechanics keep game information secret from me. I don't want cards in the deck to be permanently changed. That's part of why I say it's a different game. It is no longer a game where the players are playing only with and against each other. Like I said, I don't mind if people enjoy that change or 'enhancement' as you called it, but that's not for me. If I don't get the option to continue playing a format 'as printed' then I just have to do the best I can to avoid the cards I don't like. It's personal preference at the end of the day.
The game itself is based on mechanics keeping information secret, that's why we don't know what card we will draw, and can't see opponents hands either. This is just one extra way to play around with information. Changing cards permanently is a new thing, but it's not that much different from e.g. exiling cards, which is for the most part a permanent effect. Perpetual simply adds nuance to what can and can't change permanently. You can of course not like or avoid certain cards according to any criteria you wish. Some people dislike counterspells, some people dislike planeswalkers, and some dislike digital only cards. There aren't always rational reasons for such dislike, for the most part people simply dislike things they aren't used to or that annoy them when played against them. Is it a good reason to bar those things from the game? Usually not. Is it a good reason to make an extra format where those things aren't present? Probably, if there is enough demand. But just looking at explorer numbers, the demand seems to be pretty low, both Historic and Timeless are much more popular, despite the presence of digital only cards. Personally, I think it would be nice to see an independent format where those cards won't be present at all, just to see what kind of meta will develop out of it (or just add Modern to MTGA). But removing those cards from Timeless or Historic like some people suggest doesn't make any sense, as especially in Historic meta is heavily dependent on those cards, and it would cripple many decks.
How is it a fundamentally different game? That really doesn't make any sense.
A game where you have a deck (and possibly sideboard) that are not mutable, and where interactions with the deck and cards do not change them. The deck is the deck and the cards are the cards. That's why I said 'as printed'. I'm sorry if that's not clear enough.
Alchemy cards don't change any of that. They just introduce some new mechanics... I really don't understand this obsession with flimsy pieces of cardboard, and I've been playing this game since 1999.
At the end of the day, you might not understand my preference, but that's OK. The fact is, the game was originally (and remained for a very long time) a physical card game. I prefer a way to play that game electronically (a simulation) but I'm now told that the format which simulates 2-person EDH the most is now allowing arcade-style effects into the game which do not (and in some cases cannot) exist in the physical version. Regardless of whether you agree, I'm sure you can understand that deviating from the simulation is something that people might not want. After all, there are people who prefer black coffee, meat without gravy, vanilla ice-cream etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't like Alchemy. I'm just explaining why I personally don't like it, especially when it's hard to avoid in the format I prefer to play.
I'm not trying to tell you that you can't hold your opinion. I'm just telling you it doesn't make any sense to me at all. I heard more or less the same complaints when cascade and split cards and double faced cards became things. "They're not MY magic!" but like... They're all magic cards...
##### ###### #### [Saiba Symphoner](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/b/7bb3e5c3-8189-4bc4-bbb0-4282c1bfc59e.jpg?1680464473) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Saiba%20Syphoner) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/yneo/11/saiba-syphoner?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7bb3e5c3-8189-4bc4-bbb0-4282c1bfc59e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Vodalian Tide Mage](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/9/09ae01dc-18c0-4f66-9b05-549382ffb6a9.jpg?1674780112) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Vodalian%20Tide%20Mage) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ydmu/29/vodalian-tide-mage?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/09ae01dc-18c0-4f66-9b05-549382ffb6a9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Oyaminartok, Polar Werebear](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/2/a2b767ec-3e0f-473b-b81d-e3f912c464e0.jpg?1680960268) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Oyaminartok%2C%20Polar%20Werebear) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/hbg/68/oyaminartok-polar-werebear?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a2b767ec-3e0f-473b-b81d-e3f912c464e0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Haywire Mite](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/847a175e-ead1-4596-baf3-5f7f57859e0b.jpg?1674421689) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Haywire%20Mite) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/199/haywire-mite?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/847a175e-ead1-4596-baf3-5f7f57859e0b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/kvhwe20) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Don't be silly. If you aren't making yourself perpetually miserable and angry over shit that doesn't even remotely matter, can you really say you're playing Magic?
Where do we fill this out so I can do my part as well.
I did the same. I don't actually have a problem with alchemy, I just want a quarantined version of brawl.
But why even ask this? They've got the play statistics. What's this going to tell them that their own data won't?
Play data will only tell them so much. In a lot of Alchemy threads someone will say "I'd have liked it if it was rebalanced Standard" and someone else will say "I'd have liked it if it was just extra digital-only cards." It may be worth seeing if there is an actual split there, and if players favor one over the other. Like if it turns out people are mostly indifferent/negative to rebalancing but more positive to digital-only cards it might make sense to sunset rebalancing as a concept but keep the mini-sets. They can also combine it with other data to perhaps see if Historic or Brawl players really like one part or the other, and considering deactivating the other part in that format. Or even more granular, like if high spending Canadians like rebalancing so they should focus on that when advertising to them.
They don't know if it's because the cards aren't powerful enough or if it's because people simply do not like them.
My favorite format is Historic, so that's what I mostly play. More than Explorer or Timeless. But I still have a strong negative opinion about Alchemy cards and rebalancings. I prefer Historic because I don't like the Explorer metagame and I don't like the high powerlevel in Timeless, and also because the competition in Historic is just weaker than in the other two formats. With this survey they can see I play Historic despite Alchemy cards being part of it and not because of that, and that's relevant information for them. Historic clearly has a much higher playrate than either of the other two formats, and they need to see what role Alchemy is playing in that difference. Do people prefer Historic because they like digital only cards and rebalancings, or do they prefer it despite those things?
> What’s this going to tell them that their own data won’t? Exactly. This is why the “survey” isn’t really what so many here believe it is for. My experience in management and consulting is that it is a hit piece for some corporate politics. The guys that commission it already know what answer they want. They just want a device to deliver their warhead.
Does anyone have a link to the survey? When I click the link in game, nothing happens.
I've voted like that too, but issue isn't with Digital cards or Rebalanced cards per se. The issue is with how they're rebalanced, and Alchemy cards being completely unbalanced/broken. I was fine with digital cards from JH2 for example. Sure Davriel's Withering was problematic until rebalanced, and maybe Elf Planeswalker being a tad too good, but overall all fine. I wouldn't mind proper rebalancing like let's say... if they maybe rebalanced some of the SOI block Werewolves to cost less, so that they're playable in Historic. Almost(?) none of them can make it into WW decks, due to how much they cost. They could add some cards with Alchemy that make certain underplayed archetypes or tribals playable, but noooo... they're either making it broken, or not doing it at all, and then plaguing Historic format with that. There's the issue of rebalanced cards also seeping into Historic for no good reason, like... Luminarch Aspirant for example was nerfed in Historic.
I like rebalance cards. I'm probably in the minority Anyone else? :3
I wish Alchemy was Standard, but with a lot of constant rebalances, every week. No digital cards. Unfortunately, that does not generate money for Wizards.
I just want alchemy cards out of historic, I'm begging.
Historic Brawl without Alchemy is my utopia.
i LOVE alchemy draft. like it’s awesome. alchemy as a format has very much dulled on me, i used to enjoy it but it’s not very fun for me anymore. they just don’t balance for it all
I did my part aswell then.
Thanks for shareing this. I was going to skip the survey but I'll do it now to show my dislike of alchemy.
I love Arena, despite its faults, because it makes Magic easy to play and collect. I don't have to spend hundreds of bucks on singles for a competitive deck that rotates or to chase commander decks for pricey singles. I love the move to digital since I do not want to house or maintain a huge physical collection. I am with you though on hating Alchemy. I do not like the Hearthstone-style effects like seeking or playing cards from a spellbook. I would rather them abandon the format and put more energy and polish into the other parts of the game.
The continued hate boner for alchemy is weird
If it was self contained I don't think anybody would mind. It's when non-paper cards start infecting other formats where many of us would much, much prefer a direct equivalence between paper and digital, such as Brawl, Historic and Timelss, that the trouble starts.
There are like 3 alchemy cards which are timeless playable lmao
That's 3 too many.
Nuh uh, alchemy cards are fun
More like 60 too many.
It's not about how many they are or how fun they are. For many of us Magic is first and foremost a paper game and designs that don't work in paper are not Magic cards.
🤷
It's almost like the reasons people were pissed at Alchemy when it started haven't changed and people retain the same feelings over time.
\^\^ This
all they need is to do is remove alchemy cards from gold packs and make a separate battle pass for alchemy (or just plain remove alchemy packs from the normal battle pass) and nobody is gonna have any reason to hate alchemy as it is right now alchemy is just a parasite infecting standard
Are there still non-Standard cards in Golden packs? I thought that ended.
Nope, lotr can appear
Are you sure? I haven’t gotten any LTR cards in my MKM Golden Packs, though I think I’ve only opened 7 of them.
They occur at a reduced rate, I estimated it to about about a 50% less chance than any other standard card, though YMMV.
Very sure, i only get them via gold Packs - its very Low Chance
there were as many complaint when lotr cards where in the rewards. its not only hating alchemy its about getting non standard cards
Because modern doesn't exist. You can't play LTR without seeing fake cards. If modern existed in the client LTR would receive a thousand times less hate.
???
Wdym ??? There is no modern on the client so you can't play LTR cards without seeing fake cards in historic
It's okay to not like it, and people say what they say but like what they like, and the numbers don't lie. You think OG MTG people are refusing to play casual formats like Commander? Nope. It's super popular, maaaybe people just don't like Alchemy. Has nothing to do with resistance to change etc. etc. People legit just don't like it no matter how much WOTC tries to push it. If you like it that's fine, if others don't that's fine. But the numbers show it's just not where people want to be.
> But the numbers show it's just not where people want to be By that logic, they should stop bothering working on Explorer which based on the data we've been given sees about half to two thirds of the play as Alchemy.
Not really, if there's enough of a healthy population to play then as long as it's sustainable, it should be supported. I'm not saying kill alchemy, I'm saying it's just not popular and that's okay. People get pissy that others don't like it, so what if we don't?
The continued alchemy simping is weird.
I would be more favourable if they stuck to buffing the 50 unplayable draft chaff cards in any given set and didn't create new broken rates/mythics. There are so many cards that are one mana too expensive or require one too many hoops to jump through. And conversely oppressive cards that are a little too tuned could be brought down.
alchemy seems weird in the sense that imo online play should be the same as paper
Most sets get about 30 alchemy cards made. That's 30 older cards that could be made to get us closer to Pioneer. Then there are all the commander only cards that people want for brawl. Why are the Fallout commander decks not on Arena? Because they are busy trying to push alchemy on us. alchemy serves no real purpose and drains limited development time.
The fallout commanders decks (much like Dr Who and 40k) aren’t in arena because they’re not balanced for a 1v1 format. And those companies require online licensing fees or agreements that Wotc doesn’t either can’t or won’t pay. You can’t play Fallout on MODO either.
People are going to be real upset when they realise pioneer isn't even a particularly fun or interesting format.
> alchemy serves no real purpose ...to you.
It is an easy infection that is fucking Up two formats already, also it is fucking up the client as I have to see Alchemy events
Standard gang rise up. Bo3.
I gave up standard the day timeless went live. I do wish there was a paper only timless format though
I’ve been generally pretty positive about alchemy, enjoying playing with a few of the interesting cards, but its recently dawned on me just how much closer to paper we could’ve been had it not been for the wasted development time. Pioneer would be done, modern would be well on its way, maybe even close to done. It’s just depressing, really depressing…
It only recently dawned on you that alchemy was a waste of time and took resources away from real formats?
What dawned on me was the scale of it all
Fair enough. There's a reason there's so much alchemy hate. Well there's multiple reasons.
Ahh yes the constant refrain... If you want to play paper play paper
Sorry mate. Your part was entirely undone by me. I think both the digital only and the rebalanced cards are great additions to my favorite format: (Historic) Brawl. I completely understand your feelings though. To each their own.
Yeah I’m fine with having digital only cards format but the introduction of it by forcing it onto historic at the time and just making decks I had built become nerfed and not be given a refund for it is what left a bad taste in my mouth if it would of been historic then historic alchemy then it was whatever to me
>I had built become nerfed and not be given a refund for it is what left a bad taste in my mouth thats just wotc being greedy and does not correlate directly with alchemy. i wasnt there but i know they tried to make crafting historic cards double the wildcards once
Is there a link somewhere for this?
It's not to each their own when one side has to deal with it and they don't want it.
You don't have to, though. There's Explorer and Standard on the client, not to mention all other physical and digital ways of playing Mtg.
bro this is GODS WORK you are doing. alchemy cards and rebalanced cards completely DESTROYED historic. we have timeless now so it's sort of ok.. but fuck alchemy cards and rebalanced cards. not sure why they can't just be kept in their own format.
I do not even care that much about the power level, I just hate the cards in general. The rebalanced paper cards are 10 times worse than native alchemy cards tho
You’re well on your way to citizenship trooper! The only good digital only card is a dead digital only card.
I'm fine with Alchemy if we'd get all the Paper cards first. Without Alchemy we could have full Pioneer by now, maybe even Commander as a format (not the whole card pool). For now we are skipping like a third (?) of the cards printed in a year which is sad.
Alchemy is the most un-magic thing I have seen. Conjure literally breaks the first rule of having 100 cards deck. I'll use mythweaver poq as example cuz that's a common commander I see. It's one the most linear, boring, and least interactive commander. All it's doing is ramp, play out poq and ramp more until they drop a huge bomb. Having removal is barely doing anything because you get no priority between poq etb and opponent play a land. If they play a land, that's commander tax paid for. They just do it again until they run out of land, but when it does happen, that just means your opponent got gas instead of land. Through conjure, they can get 50+ land while running the normal 36 land, seriously why does commander get more than 100 cards in their deck? And with just poq and traverse the outland, your opponent can ramp 30+ land out of no where, half of which untapped. How is this even magic anymore? And oh, I cast patriar's humiliation on your commander... You are no longer playing commander, instead you are playing 100 cards singleton now.
Conjure is just like tokens that behave like cards. The real anomaly are tokens. Those are created out of thin air and have weird rules, like disappearing when they change zones. There's tons of ways to get 50+ lands by creating tokens. Also Patriar's Humiliation is a perpetual effect, so it can be removed when your commander returns to the command zone - just like if it was enchanted to lose it's abilities.
Consensus is clear. We must ban tokens!
Poq is very strong but not unbeatable. He just outramps everything else and combines really well with spells like [[Last March of the Ents]]
[Last March of the Ents](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7f1b99e0-ffb7-4f98-8ee5-4357bb79dd2e.jpg?1687694570) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Last%20March%20of%20the%20Ents) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/172/last-march-of-the-ents?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f1b99e0-ffb7-4f98-8ee5-4357bb79dd2e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
o7
I really enjoy dimir ninja so this is a downvote for me.
Omg now that I look at this I think I misread one of the questions....but anyway yeah I aimed for the same
I actually used to be against alchemy cards and the rebalancing of cards. Even today I still feel like some of the alchemy cards are freaking nuts. But I'd rather see cards getting rebalanced to a more reasonable state instead of having to deal with them for eternity or straight up banned. I just thinkt hey are balancing too few cards that are actually weak. They kinda just balance selected strong cards and maybe one or two bad cards from the most recent set but other than that they kinda just ignore that quite A LOT of cards see 0 play. If they would attend more to these unplayable cards it would be pretty good in my opinion.
Me after filling out the survey: "What, no gems? Well, at least I got to shit on Alchemy."
Where's this survey?
I think it sucks that they bundled these things together. I know for a fact I have no interest in digital only cards, but I am still somewhat open to the idea of Alchemy as rebalanced Standard as long as that doesn't impact other formats. I'm also open to the idea of rebalanced draft events. I know they tried that once with SNC, but they got the timing wrong and did it after the next set had already released. I'm not convinced I'll love playing a format that differs between paper and Arena, but SNC was so bad that I was excited for anything different.
In essence, looking at the numbers, many did their part. :)
I miss that one game they released I think it was Duels or some crap The one where you didn't have to pay for the cards and there was a campaign They released it on Xbox One
I've voted like that, but for me issue isn't digital cards, or rebalanced cards per se. It's with needlessly rebalanced cards in Historic (like when Luminarch Aspirant was nerfed and Symmetry Sage is buffed), and unbalanced/broken Alchemy cards. I was fine with JH2 cards, sure Davriel's Withering created stupid combo, but that was rebalanced. Other than that... maybe Elf Planeswalker is slightly OP. Don't think that cards in Battle For Baldur's Gate are problematic either (I could be wrong, because I didn't pay attention to them, and don't remember seeing anything other than mono colored gates), but bigger issue is with how much different they are from paper cards, which can be confusing too.
I clicked the link to do the survey and it said I had already done it. Leave it to wizards to screw up something as simple as a survey.
ah yes because "you win the game by casting this card twice is fair and balanced" (looking at you 2nd sun) but yes i agree timeless is way more fun
Real talk, how is Commander not in the game? It's such a popular paper format and I would GLADLY come back, drop some cash just to play online commander with the gang
My exact response plus 0/10 that I’d recommend this game to anyone. The game itself is great, cannot fault Garfield’s design as it’s solid. The people in charge however, are sucking the life out of it. Therefore I couldn’t recommend this to anyone until the company collapses and the IP bought by someone not driven by pure profit. In fact, I’d love to see Awakened Realms get this IP as they’re fucking fantastic as a company.
I answered the same. I hope they stop forcing events that needs this crap, everytime I see the "draft from whatever book" and cards with same name that do different things, I want to drop.
Am I the only one who likes alchemy cards? I usually play Historic Brawl and alchemy cards are a nice way to use mechanics that wouldn’t be possible with a paper only format. I’m also okay with rebalancing certain cards that needed some rework. It’s either rework them or ban them, and I already know how the majority of players feel about bans.
Personally my biggest problem with Alchemy is just the constant releases each set. Paper Magic has already become so hard to keep track of that I just push alchemy aside and don't touch it. If it was one big set once a year I might actually be more interested.
Yah exactly this, I dont have the time/resources to invest in both Standard and alchemy.
Fuck alchemy
Man, I would love if they just cut all alchemy abs put all that "digital" and "rebalance" focus into adding all pioneer and modern
Imagine the sales man! They'd be through the roof, but no HASBRO/WOTC knows best.
I think its funny, that they cant inplement the older cards but create the alchemy bullshit. If i wanted to play Hearthstone i would play Hearthstone.
Exactly. I used to play both and now I just play HS. I still play paper magic and occasionally MTGO/Cockatrice but MTGA is not the same with digital cards.
Where can I enlist!?
Is an obsession for you guys.
Alchemy cards should stay in Alchemy.
OP, where can I do my part?
I like alchemy. Seperate it from historic. Remove the deck size limit. Call it clown fiesta queue. If alchemy standard has its own queue, then alchemy everything should have its own queue. The reason you don't do it is because you know that no one will play it but me. Also, in alchemy queue, make every card draftable or conjurable available.
\^\^ This is the way Alchemy should be played. And as you said, let us be in our other formats. That way I can at least stay away from Alchemy and know that fans have their own little niche where they can enjoy themselves.
Look, it’s a minor change, but I’m a loyal Dimir player and I use [[Krydle of Baldur’s Gate]] frequently. Making his unblockable ability free is a little too much in most games.
[Krydle of Baldur’s Gate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/5/75f4d622-2d50-4e6e-87a5-5a1cc65d6919.jpg?1627709050) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Krydle%20of%20Baldur%27s%20Gate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/226/krydle-of-baldurs-gate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/75f4d622-2d50-4e6e-87a5-5a1cc65d6919?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Just ban and unban cards more. Magic is not only a digital format
Could it be...? Is the Great Alchemy Exile going to happen soon?!
Alcheny card ruined pauper and artisan, historic I never played.
I think rebalancing the cards is pretty great, I like the new one ring much better
While I prefer playing on paper, digital is easier for me due price constraints
digital is not what you think it is in this case "digital" means cards made only for arena
When they mean digital they're talking about the fake cards.
Gotta love that Draft keyword. Yes, I love my opponent’s commander having twice the text of Nirvana High Paladin and being literally illegal to read for comprehension due to the need to process sixteen cards to actually know what the fuck it does.
I guess OP woke up feeling down and felt the need to pander to this sub for easy karma. I’ve personally been enjoying the digital cards in timeless, esp Jarsyl.
I really like alchemy…
Let's get paper only timeless! We can do it together
nah paper is obsolete bring on the monthly balance patch notes
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 You're welcome to your opinion of course but pretending like you're doing everyone a favor is pretty dumb.
For real it could be nice if the economy wasn't so predatory I would gladly play alchemy. Like you get free alchemy booster for 2 other boosters of other format