Latest feedback on Zendikar vs Eldrazi. (a.k.a., what the hell, Oktagon?)

2»

Comments

  • Magagumo
    Magagumo Posts: 38 Just Dropped In
    edited November 2018
     I think one of the biggest issue is that it's not clearly established that decks are editable (as others have mentioned).

    The second is its unclear if the winning side is being judged by total wins or Win %... the former seems utterly foolish, given the voluntary nature of choosing a side...

    In general, Nissa has better mana bonuses and  more potent abilities then TED, and with GRN you have access to Knight of Autumn and Status/Statue for support/creature control.. if you run some trample-giving cards then TED's ability to Scion-wall becomes far less important.

    That being said, I do think set restrictions would make for more interesting play, with the (potential) downside that newer players without BFZ cards would be forced to rely more heavily on the start deck.

    To anyone who had to face the shenanigans of Devestator/Emerakul, Summoner Pact/ Hazoret's Fury.. I'm sorry :( Some of our community hate fun.
  • Azerack
    Azerack Posts: 501 Critical Contributor
    Guilty as charged.  I've played Nissa all but once  and now I have the Eld mythic and all of the Zen rares. Now i can go back to playing Eld and get the mythic dupe orbs and the other gems, etc...  ;)
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited December 2018
    Magagumo said:
     I think one of the biggest issue is that it's not clearly established that decks are editable (as others have mentioned).

    The second is its unclear if the winning side is being judged by total wins or Win %... the former seems utterly foolish, given the voluntary nature of choosing a side...

    In general, Nissa has better mana bonuses and  more potent abilities then TED, and with GRN you have access to Knight of Autumn and Status/Statue for support/creature control.. if you run some trample-giving cards then TED's ability to Scion-wall becomes far less important.

    That being said, I do think set restrictions would make for more interesting play, with the (potential) downside that newer players without BFZ cards would be forced to rely more heavily on the start deck.

    To anyone who had to face the shenanigans of Devestator/Emerakul, Summoner Pact/ Hazoret's Fury.. I'm sorry :( Some of our community hate fun.
    I wouldn't say so much that it's community members who hate fun.  Let's be honest here, if you have access to those powerful cards, and there's a mythic on the line...you're telling me you'd intentionally pick weaker cards?

    I think TED should have had different rules applying to it than the "Event access to all colors," advantage that it shares with Karn.

    TED should have access to only colorless and devoid cards.  To compensate for the severe restriction it gets an additional mana gains so at level 60 it's +6 red, +6 blue, +6 black, +2 green, +0 white.  The mana gains sound extreme at first, but it's balancing because TED will no longer have access to the mana ramp that Nissa can run.

    That way, TED players can only win with artifact or Eldrazi cards:

    1) not horrible restrictive because it's legacy

    2) would give newer players a reason to invest in Zendikar block packs

    3) would which is in theme with the event

    :)
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    Probably too restrictive to _just_ have colourless and devoid (of which a bunch more need that marker!), how about adding ONLY Commons of every colour too.

    So they can add bits and pieces from everywhere, but the really broken stuff will be gone.
  • Thuran
    Thuran Posts: 456 Mover and Shaker
    How I thought it would work:

    Duel phase - only duel decks, with whatever cards you obtained from the event, maybe with bfz thrown in, to also make it feel like earning those event rewards progress you.

    Final phase - the 3rd phase where both sides can go completely nuts with any cards from legacy.

    Would give the phases very different feels to them


    Instead, the 2nd and 3rd phase distinction is utterly pointless, the 3rd phase has NO reason to exsist! 

    Or just make it so only 3rd phase wins contribute to winning, making it different, and more vital, than the 2nd phase.
  • Szamsziel
    Szamsziel Posts: 463 Mover and Shaker
    For me one of the most stupid design in the event is common / uncommon objective . Generally I like this objective, but as duel set has ONLY rare+ cards - it is just pure bad design as I shouldn't play the cards in the flavor. 
    Its like forcing to play garruk with restriction - cannot summon token. Its doable but why?

Categories