@Barinellos: I actually find it fascinating and perhaps slightly confusing that we always seemed to have a lot of common ground in what we like and dislike about Magic, and yet we also engage with deckbuilding and the cardgame as a whole in completely different ways. From what I know about your preferences, you seem to be building mostly (or even only?) theme decks
Yep, pretty much exclusively. I can't think of anything that I've built for myself would qualify as less than that.
Quote:
and I guess you only play 60 card casual Magic?
By technicality, I cannot say exclusively, as I do have several decks built to commander specs, though that was born primarily of costs analysis or a way key cards pushed me towards that.
I do not like Commander. It is an
invasive species that has strangled out basically every other mode of the game, made worse by Wizards catering to it to push the power level up to more easily monetize it. (As evidenced by recent bans and the bottoming out of the market)
Quote:
I can certainly see how your attitude towards Universes Beyond would fit with that.
funny thing about it too, if they released a UB for something I've already built in without it, even though it would give me new tech for the deck, I would despise it. If I've put together a deck that flavorfully works while in the constraints of not using cards made for that purpose, I'd view it as too easy to use the new options.
Quote:
My approach is completely different... Even though I'm a diehard Vorthos (or used to be one or whatever), I'm pretty sure I've never consciously built a theme deck in my entire life. And in addition to Cube, I also used to play 60 card casual Magic, Commander, Oathbreaker and Tiny Leaders (as far as constructed formats are concerned). Sure, some of my decks are more "thematic" than others, e.g. tribal decks or the ones that only use cards from a certain set or block, and I've had the occasional deck where flavour and functionality happened to go beautifully hand in hand (especially that Assembly Worker deck with
Mishra, Artificer Prodigy). But I've never built anything centered around a certain character for example. I'd say I'm just more concerned with how each individual card at the table resonates with me on its own, so I largely separate that experience from my deckbuilding projects and just try to make decks that are functional and fun to play. I'm not looking for "immersion" when playing the game (hence, no theme decks required), but I'm certainly looking for the connection that Magic as a cardgame makes me feel with Magic as an IP.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that I don't count very nearly anything* with the post 8th edition frames as being true to Magic as an IP. It was at the zenith with the Urza-Weatherlight saga and more than anything, it is that aesthetic that I hold as being the crystalization of the game. When Magic had a unique defined identity visually.
I was a card collector during those periods, getting a glimpse into a mystery world, but it wasn't until well after that I started playing the game, ironically when I started reading the books, so it isn't even a lore connection.
*I make a huge exception for Alara. Something about Alara scratches that itch just right.
Quote:
I've built a lot of investment in that IP over the course of more than two decades, and I want to experience a connection to that IP when playing the game. This is also why it irks me when individual cards misrepresent an aspect of the IP or when I'm exposed to cards from a completely different IP. You can think of it like some kind of Vorthos synaesthesia, or maybe some kind of augmented reality.
See, I do understand your perspective, but in a fashion, I'm even more stringent in it's application. Take my goblin deck, for example: it's a Krenko deck. It isn't just the best goblin cards in a stack though, it's a Krenko's Gang deck. Either cards explicitly associated, Ravnican, or Flavor Neutral with appropriate art. Krenko can't associate with a goblin from Skirk Ridge, or bump into Squee, they don't belong in the deck.
So, by rights, then, Universe Beyond should drive me insane. And it does. Unless I like the property (honestly more excited for Final Fantasy than anything first party Magic is coughing up in the next year)
In those situations, Magic becomes a
mechanical framework only and any card mixing is going to be flavor neutral. Lara Croft isn't meeting Gandalf on Ravnica to fight Astarion and Ezio over the Phyrexians. Not in my decks.
It's honestly probably because of my layer of immersion that I can segment the outside influences enough to continue to build even with them. Hell, I can't even mix time periods from the same place in a deck of they aren't lore accurate. If someone across from me is mixing Lorwyn and Argoth elves, it's not really any different to me than them mixing Tarkir and Mordor Orcs in my brain in the first place.
The absolute only exceptions I make are really in my 3rd party IP decks where a legendary creature can be used as a proxy for an in world character. Sar'kuar as a stand in for Guldan in my Horde deck, for example.