[Community Discussion]: What do you look for in a set's Limited experience?
Limited forum
Posted on Oct. 3, 2015, 11:32 p.m. by Epochalyptik
With BFZ launch weekend going on as we speak, I felt this would be an appropriate time to ask what everyone looks for in a Limited experience.
So what do you like to see in a set that you're planning to draft or play sealed with? What kinds of dynamics, mechanics, and design choices make a set appealing to you? Do you look for subtle interactions between different cards, or do you focus on bombs? What about the balance between colors?
asasinater13 says... #3
I've been playing for a while but never been very into draft. I've been a big fan of BFZ limited so far though, I like the amount of variation in deck options, and the synergies across strategies (like running a one-of ally because it can just be a one-turn anthem + body, or the indestructible ally was great as my only ally to break boards without good attacks from either side). I think cross-strategy synergy is important to me.
October 4, 2015 2:26 a.m.
JohnnyBaggins says... #4
I wouldnt call myself a limited veteran or anything, I'm back into the game for too short time to do so, but I love limited and I play a couple of online drafts and at least one online sealed a week, plus at least 1-2 paper drafts a week.
First of all, drafting the set it self has to be a lot of fun. I loved drafting Fate-Khans-Khans. Why? You have to draft two-colour and then draft into one of the clans. That's actually interesting. That makes the drafting process very interesting and I just loved it all the time. The new set seems awesome to draft for the simple reason that it actually rewards you for picking a straight strategy and then for the sake of the synergy pick cards that would usually be sub-par. Like Mist Intruder is just a very unimpressive card for most decks but if you got all your Devoid triggers and Processors going, man the card is a serious hay maker.
Yeah so... the drafting experiences. I like when drafting disciplined will pay off. When you get passed that third Unholy Hunger after you went into Black and you just know "I drafted this seat so right" - that's a feeling not depending on the set though.
October 4, 2015 3:10 a.m.
buildingadeck says... #5
After spending about a month designing a cube, I realized a lot of what things I enjoy in a limited environment.
First, I enjoy an environment in which things are balanced, in which I can play a range of different archetypes of equal power. With that in mind, I enjoy being able to play multicolored decks effectively and have combinations of colors be balanced as well.
Second, I enjoy environments with a lot of interaction. Gameplay should require high-level decision-making both in combat and in spells. One thing I enjoyed about BFZ sealed was that control was a viable archetype. It was not as effective in say, FRF, unless you pulled Ugin, and even then, you might still die to a fast Gruul deck (I refuse to conform to the new names) or some other aggressive deck.
Third, I like to have creatures with interactive abilities. Blazing Hellhound + Priest of the Blood Rite won me a game at 1 life during an Origins draft because my opponent did not realize that I could sac the Priest to the Hellhound and win. I like abilities like that or like those of Lotleth Troll or Azorius Guildmage that do powerful things. On the other hand, I like having interactions that can deal with the Troll's regenerate, such as Devouring Light, Devour Flesh, Condemn, or some -x/-x spell.
As for mechanics, there aren't any in particular that I really like, excepting perhaps scry. In general, I prefer synergies between cards over particular mechanics, like the Priest/Hellhound synergy I spoke of before, or Lotleth Troll + Slitherhead .
October 4, 2015 3:22 a.m.
For draft I like when the multi-colored cards are the best in the set like Siege Rhino or Butcher of the Horde because they are harder to cast. This means players who focus on 1 or 2 colors and skip some of the "bombs" because of it still have a chance even if the opponent does manage to assemble a T5 or T6 Siege Rhino, because other parts of their deck might not have worked so well.
I also hate seeing hate cards. If a combo or string of cards is so strong that hate cards had to be put into the set those combos or strings of cards should have not been printed as they were. Whenever I am not pulling hate cards it means I can be proactive. In some sets though hate cards are to good to pass up on because of how OP certain strategies are relative to everything else.
Also I hate mechanics that are ok in draft but horrible in standard such as outlast.
I remember hating Innistrad and Scars draft as a newbie. Although draft isn't my favorite format, I can say for sure drafting Khans+Dragons is a ton of fun.
October 4, 2015 3:24 a.m.
wakawakawaka says... #7
variety (seeing the same decks every week isn't fun) and balanced rares (aka the best (limited) rares and uncommons being multicolored, no super unplayable rares in limited like Animist's Awakening or Aggressive Mining, and the most broken limited cards being mythic).
October 4, 2015 4:06 a.m.
JexInfinite says... #8
Synergy within a lot of archetypes, and the ability to draft pretty much whatever. BFZ is a great limited set because there are a heap of different strats you can draft, and all are equally viable. I didn't like MM2, because there were very few archetypes you could go into: metalcraft, aggro, or 5 colour rubbish.
October 4, 2015 4:11 a.m.
JohnnyBaggins says... #9
Yeah, I hate both versions of Rares, those who are just plain stupid and those who are just plain unplayable. I mean, sure, you have to have some cards for constructed, but opening cards like Infinite Obliteration just feels plain rude. And then again, there's cards like Citadel Siege which basically read "If this ever gets to resolved, you're very unlikely to lose this game if you weren't losing it by a landslide already." And yeah, there's rares and good rares, but out of all the annoyingly annoying rares that I've seen in a while, Siege easily takes the first place.
October 4, 2015 4:12 a.m.
I haven't been enjoying the latest drafting formats because the signals for archetypes are the equivalent of a very large man grabbing you by the collar and screaming in your face 'YOU SHOULD PLAY THIS IF YOU'RE IN THOSE COLOURS'. This is my primary concern. Yes I want formats to be complex but not necessarily in the number of viable archetypes, more so in how hard they are to discover. These days they're super overt and it's really dull.
There was a draft archetype in innistrad that took months to discover. Self mill with Spider Spawning. These days we've found out roughly what we should be playing before the set is even released. It's just not academically engaging.
October 4, 2015 6:12 a.m.
I am trying really hard to go into it with some kind of plan for how cards will find a home after the draft. I'm trying to have some idea about 2 or 3 decks based on commons that could get added to to make something standard playable - or that use cards that could have a place in something edh, pdh, or modern (less likely).
This is slowing my entry a lo right now!
October 4, 2015 6:29 a.m.
Hmm.... I don't know, really. I've never really sat down and thought about what makes limited enjoyable for me. I think things like balance between the colors and the viability of different strategies feels nice. Now that I think about it, I feel exceedingly happy whenever I successfully build a synergistic deck. I suppose having cards that mesh well together in a set is nice. On the other hand, I hate when Wizards essentially makes decisions for you. Origins U/W? I guess you're playing tempo today. That's not cool. I feel like I don't have enough freedom of choice. Yes, I'm aware of how paradoxical these demands are. I suppose this illustrates how difficult making a good limited set is.
October 4, 2015 9:05 a.m.
@TheDevicer Maybe there is some consolation in that you can choose up origins or bfz? Which seem to vary somewhat? It still isn't the same, I feel.
I am also struggling with "choice" because instead of what I'm used to:
"this is a fun looking card - what shell could it go in? What have others done with it and what else could I try?"
I am feeling like: "Ok new rotation, what are "the decks"?"
There isn't quite enough variety to just try whatever. Only certain things "are a deck" it seems. For example I was like - hey goblins! Now I just need bolts and that should make "a deck" ... Someone else was like "nope, not in this set" and I am like .... Awww ...
I intend to make this adjustment though ... Really trying to get a grip before opening my wallet, though. Right now I feel like:
Draft - look for (1) azorius awaken (2) gr stomps aggro landfall (3) still don't know what to do with black
Then by rares / uncommons as singles or try to trade for them
October 4, 2015 10:03 a.m.
One of the things that's really impressed me with BFZ is that they've taken Evolving Wilds and added enough landfall triggers that just playing a land becomes a combat trick. It even eases deck consistency problems; if you're mana-hosed, it feels more like you're drawing a ton combat tricks with a mana cost of negative one than anything else. It inspired me to redesign my cube with a ton of landfall and the Karoos/ lairs to make an indefinite landfall archetype. I'm still sorely tempted to throw Fastbond in just to see "I have as much landfall as I have life" go off.
Generally, I like sets which emphasize clever gameplay over deckbuilding. If you're going to have archetypes (and you should) they should be pretty high-concept and feel closer to a constructed deck in how they play out, but also flexible about what colors or creatures can wind up in the EA parts of the BREAD. Well, ideally, anyway.
October 4, 2015 10:56 a.m.
With BFZ, I just enjoyed being the only drafter in my pod playing the BW vampire allys deck. Soooo insane
October 4, 2015 2:34 p.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #16
The play of a limited format is what determines how much I like it. If I can reliably draft a decent deck despite people not knowing how to read a draft or draft in general (ie Silent Skimmers are still floating around with three cards left in pack one despite someone very near my immediate right being very solidly in black) then I will enjoy it.
October 4, 2015 10:35 p.m.
TheRedMage says... #17
Variety is what makes limited enjoyable for me. Sitting down and having no idea which particular pile of 40 cards I will be playing with half a hour later is the fun part for me, and that is enhanced by how different the various decks in the format are.
As far as BFZ goes, my personal preference is not to have ramping cards in my deck, so I am going to let my opponents play all of their Natural Connections and be content being the guy that goes 2-drop, 3-drop, 4-drop, Resolute Blademaster, you are dead with your stupid 8-drop still in hand :)
October 5, 2015 11:54 a.m.
I really like BFZ's limited environment, even more than I thought. I was sure that I was going to like the variance of play styles and splashability, but I was blindsided by how fun I've had in the format. Even during pre-release, I felt like I didn't have a great pool (I never do), but I found something that I liked and it performed admirably. I had way more fun than my record of 1-4 would suggest. That's what I want in a limited format.
October 6, 2015 7:26 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #19
I've been making my own cube, and been making my own sets, so my limited experience is different from most (I've only really drafted once).
Basically, my goal is to make sure that all the archetypes can be combined with another archetype to make hybrids. Take my cube Entry Enjoyment for example (don't forget to set the category to custom categories). The most easily transferable archetype is the mono-white equipment deck. This deck can be transferred to a BW voltron infect deck, a UW voltron fliers deck, a GW voltron beasties deck, or even a GW voltron hatebears deck. I didn't even realize that this could be done when I was making the cube, but from gathering the draft sim data that others send me, it made me realize that it is very important to have archetypes that meld well together, otherwise people are stuck drafting set archetypes and if they don't get those cards they lose.
October 8, 2015 6:24 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #20
I am the drafter that everyone hates. I exclusively value draft. Because of limited finances, I can maybe scrape enough money to draft once- maybe twice- each time a new set comes out. I consider a draft a bust if I don't at least draft enough value to cover my entrance fee. Even though this often means I end up building subpar decks (most of the time). I see drafting as a way to play Magic with friends, as I really give less than two you know whats if I win or lose, and as a chance to improve my trade binder.
October 11, 2015 7:07 p.m.
canterlotguardian consider this. Even if you don't "draft" enough value cards, if you can improve yourself as a drafter and your limited game-play overall, than you could drastically improve your chances of getting better cards for your binder out of prizing (whether in LGS credit or packs, typically around 8 packs for 1st place)Think of getting your value out of prizing and not just out of what you pull. You have so much better chance with 6-11 total packs instead of just the 3 you open in a draft.
October 11, 2015 8:01 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #22
JTetris11 that is true. even when I go for value, I try to build the best possible deck out of what's left over after the value is gone. take the Conspiracy draft I did on release day, for instance. I value drafted a Edric, Spymaster of Trest
because that by itself made up my entrance fee. after that, I found that (especially because our games were made up of 4-player pods instead of 1v1 games) I had a lot of BUG stuff that synched well with Edric, I ran a BUG politics-style deck and actually took 2nd overall in that draft. so basically what you're describing is what I already try to do, e.g. value draft and then build the best possible deck around the "value" cards I get out of it. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
October 11, 2015 9:07 p.m.
LittleBlueHero says... #23
Not draft related but I am currently involved in a Fat Pack League. We started off opening a fat pack and building the best deck we could then playing 3 games.
Each week we bring three packs (one for league prize, one for weekly prize and one to add to the deck) open one of them and then play 3 or 4 games. Prizes are awarded each week and again at the end of the whole thing.
I was not terribly fortunate with my pulls (3 rare lands) which left me with no obvious direction to go in. I built Green Red Black and and went 4-3-0. Boiling Earth was an all-star for me since most of my opponents were running a lot of scion makers.
Has anyone else done this kind of limited pool with BFZ? I love the concept and its getting more and more interesting each week. Just wondering what types of deck you were attempting to build with this "extended limited" format?
October 16, 2015 2:29 p.m.
BorosBattalion23 says... #25
I usually go for the multicolored cards in a set, as well as the $OR1N$.
October 22, 2015 7:29 p.m.
I've drafted quite a bit, in prereleases, with a box with friends, conspiracy, and I've done a fantasy cube draft probably about 6 times. I'd have to say I always have the most fun with cards that have a very unique vibe, and when colors make sense together. For example, I know the value of vanilla cards in a set, but it just makes me bored. Also, while chaos can be fun, I like it when every card in a color points to one major play style. For example, black has a focus on graveyard manipulation, and white has a focus on high-creature aggro. basically, archetypes are laid out. Granted, it's true that vanilla cards and chaos between the color chart are parts of MTG like anything else, I just find drafts more fun when I can see combos happening between cards.
October 23, 2015 7:42 p.m.
I like it when the set has interesting synergy-based decks and well-defined archetypes that require you to think more about the strategy you will take when drafting rather than just the colors you want to play. I don't like mechanics that have little strategic nuance, such as battalion or heroic. These are pretty dull and they basically just give you a little something extra for doing what you are already doing (attacking with creatures or targeting them with spells). Rise of the Eldrazi was a fantastic limited set for me because of all the interesting decks you could make in draft ("tribal" walls, eldrazi spawn synergy decks with things like raid bombardment, levelers, kiln fiend decks, heavy ramp into eldrazi or Pelakka Wurm, the aura synergy deck with Aura Gnarlids, etc.). Innistrad also had some neat draft archetypes like the self-mill strategy that required commitment from early on in the draft but could be super powerful. I thought that Conspiracy was a lot of fun, as were both Modern Masters sets, but particularly the first one. I found some recent sets such as Theros block and Scars block to be very boring to play in limited. Scars block was particularly bad in that most decks were really uninteresting and weak (Snapsail Glider could be a first pick) and yet it had cards like Steel Hellkite that were absurdly op in limited. RTR/gatecrash limited had its bad parts as well with extort and battalion decks being pretty dull and requiring little thought. Basically I like mechanics and interactions that feel less vanilla and require strategy and thought while drafting, deckbuilding, and playing limited.
-Fulcrum says... #2
I'm relatively new to draft. I've done a grand total of three in my life, tonight being the first in more than a year. But I can say landfall is incredibly fun. Tonight was my first successful draft, and I played UR aggro. The closest to a bomb I had was Windrider Patrol. My main threats were Valakut Predator.
October 4, 2015 1:06 a.m.