You know, it's true. Funny how this was written so long ago, but feels even more on-point now. I've been feeling a real detachment from MtG since Ixalan. Not even the previews for Ravnica have me excited. It just feels so much the same when I watch draft videos. I know a lot of people are having a blast, because I hear that through the local community, but it hasn't been clicking with me - I'd much rather be doing my D&D and my 40k. I don't think the creature-centric focus of MtG is to blame, but the overall design philosophy is bugging me. Each set feels the same. It's hard to put my finger on, because it's not the same, but I feel like the philosophy behind it is always the same. Hmmm... how to describe it? Okay, let's try this.
The last set where I felt things were truly different in the design philosophy was during Rise of the Eldrazi. I know people sing high praises about this draft format being good, but aside from that, it was well and truly different. You could try for a rush, but it was often unsuccessful, and you had to make it to some big things, or to level up a cool creature, or you could go real ballsy and try and make Keening Stone work. The point is, when playing that set in draft, I felt like what I wanted to do was different than during any other set. My end-goal was the same; win by dropping my opponent to 0, but the path there was totally different. Now, when I see a set being played, it feels like I already know the way, but am just using different technology to get there. This set, I want to drop treasures and go fast or big or have a bomb. That set, I want to crew vehicles and go fast or big or have a bomb. This set, I want to play Trials and Cartouches and go fast or big or have a bomb. That set, I want to just straight up go fast or big or have a bomb. It's always the same style. Not so with Rise of the Eldrazi, which was "go big, or go big, or win without attacking".
|
for approach of the second sun, but the idea is still there.
