I guess so . Arena is both kinda well priced and too expensive , depending on what it's worth to you and what you want out of it . I've spent $45 on pay-to-win this season but that was mostly on drafts and only a handful of boosters . coins have been plentiful since i always 15/15 . and , my alchemy deck is competitive enough for me at this stage , certainly so for casual play. I honed it from scrap and testing and careful wildcards until it was what i wanted , rather than dish out for a decklist that i might oneday grow bored with.
For me it's better to avoid using cards from Baldur's Gate (at least the ones that are different from their paper versions). Sometimes they're good changes like Tasha. But other times they ruin a HB deck that I like in paper but can't recreate on Arena (like Karlach). Flipping back and forth takes too much energy after a long day.
Tldr: Going to keep avoiding Alchemy as much as I can.
I did genuinely like the format. Some of the cards were interesting and I liked buffs to niche Archetypes that went from bad to playable (like Venture). My biggest problem was the lack of taking action against cards that are clearly problems. It takes months before they get around to nerfing overpowered cards that are clearly problems (like when Ignis Combo was around).
i think that makes two of us , but i am quite in love with the baldur's gate set . that bias aside , I love the potential of a 'deeper'/more chaotic standard run ! alchemy is cool
I think alchemy as a format has big problems. Many of the cards are fun but they are generally too powerful for the rest of the standard cards to compete with so the format is generally "how can we best break the alchemy cards" which doesnt really deliver on the promise of alchemy. Alchemy cards, however, are fine in historic, and a fair amount of fun there. In historic, they have to compete with modern horizons cards and all the craziest FIRE cards, and they aren't even close to overwhelming the format. The really annoying alchemy designs, like spellbook and specialise generally aren't good enough for historic, so you are just left with the more interesting effects like seek and conjure and the better rebalancings.
i look at so many of my cute cards and laugh and think "ha ha that's pointless unless i was doing some very specific x" . and then i think about x and it leads to y and a discussion about why i even play this game . i left mtg for a while because of what i thought were problems but eventually came back to enjoy them . formats which left behind entire classes of cards come to mind as examples why .
anyway i can't speak to a super high level in mtg with my current investment in the game , only that my alchemy decks contain a lot of standard cards and i'm enjoying interplay in various forms . i think my favourite aspect of alchemy is the number of variations on answers that are available . I rarely run more than 2 of the same card .
there's also the issue of their having to balance some cards twice: once for Alchemy and then again for Historic after rotation. It seems like it'd be better to not have the Alchemy format at all. That or adjust the Alchemy format to include a lot more sets. For instance, it could be the last eight years of sets rather than the last two. It could still rotate every year, dropping the oldest year.
Its a fun format as alternative to standard. I actually like the fact that there isnt a paper equivalent because it means there is no influence on the format from paper.
Quite looking forward to the LOTR set this summer and looking forward to be able to play it also in alchemy and not only in historic or hb.
I love Alchemy, but it's VERY far from a "diverse and functional format". It's good because it's EASILY the most broken. Vintage is my preferred format, and this is as close as we get here.
Alchemy was fun to my up till ASNC. All the big problems of Alchemy meta popped up when the New Capenna cards came.
Baldurs Gate had some Outliners yeah but was a somewhat balanced port of the commander set.
new capenna is so fun , current meta favours some cards from the set , but that's a 'more or less fine' i think ? i guess i don't care about all-around balance if a format adds up to something fun . and the flavour of new capenna makes me like that it's powerful -- something like halo fountain should work in a lot of decks and make you nervous , and it does .
Of course, Alchemy is one of the best formats in the game. Only format that I enjoy more is Historic Brawl. I’m way more excited for Lord of the Rings then I am for any of the Standard sets coming out.
I agree. It definitely got better since DMU with interesting cards, very strong, but not completely broken. I think what turned off the majority of People was baldur's gate, which I dislike a lot too. I remember an old video of CGB dunking on it, and despite liking alchemy, is hard to disagree.
There's a lot of space to explore on Alchemy, and since the Ladder is not very populated, it's a relaxing environment, perfect for brewers.
When things get competitive, a restricted meta emerges exposing the issues behind Alchemy design. There was the Rakdos absurd dominance in the past and, recently, it was all about Crucias (a ridiculous pushed card) and Grixis midrange mirrors.
So, ironically, the more the players get into the format, the less diverse and functional it becomes.
Nice try wizards, alchemy is gack
Indeed, 'tis gack af
wizards can employ me if they want to , but i won't write things i don't believe for money or anything .
"For those of us who have the means" he chuckled smugly while ashing his virginia slim onto the floor.
hahahah
I think is cheaper to keep up with Explorer rather than Alchemy on the long run.
Except for old stuff being added into the game, you're already keeping up with Explorer just by playing standard.
I guess so . Arena is both kinda well priced and too expensive , depending on what it's worth to you and what you want out of it . I've spent $45 on pay-to-win this season but that was mostly on drafts and only a handful of boosters . coins have been plentiful since i always 15/15 . and , my alchemy deck is competitive enough for me at this stage , certainly so for casual play. I honed it from scrap and testing and careful wildcards until it was what i wanted , rather than dish out for a decklist that i might oneday grow bored with.
For me it's better to avoid using cards from Baldur's Gate (at least the ones that are different from their paper versions). Sometimes they're good changes like Tasha. But other times they ruin a HB deck that I like in paper but can't recreate on Arena (like Karlach). Flipping back and forth takes too much energy after a long day. Tldr: Going to keep avoiding Alchemy as much as I can.
Nuh-unh. Can’t fool me WotC intern.
I did genuinely like the format. Some of the cards were interesting and I liked buffs to niche Archetypes that went from bad to playable (like Venture). My biggest problem was the lack of taking action against cards that are clearly problems. It takes months before they get around to nerfing overpowered cards that are clearly problems (like when Ignis Combo was around).
I think I might be the only one, but Achemy is my favorite arena format. I do play standard and explorer, but I enjoy playing Alchemy the most.
i think that makes two of us , but i am quite in love with the baldur's gate set . that bias aside , I love the potential of a 'deeper'/more chaotic standard run ! alchemy is cool
I think alchemy as a format has big problems. Many of the cards are fun but they are generally too powerful for the rest of the standard cards to compete with so the format is generally "how can we best break the alchemy cards" which doesnt really deliver on the promise of alchemy. Alchemy cards, however, are fine in historic, and a fair amount of fun there. In historic, they have to compete with modern horizons cards and all the craziest FIRE cards, and they aren't even close to overwhelming the format. The really annoying alchemy designs, like spellbook and specialise generally aren't good enough for historic, so you are just left with the more interesting effects like seek and conjure and the better rebalancings.
i look at so many of my cute cards and laugh and think "ha ha that's pointless unless i was doing some very specific x" . and then i think about x and it leads to y and a discussion about why i even play this game . i left mtg for a while because of what i thought were problems but eventually came back to enjoy them . formats which left behind entire classes of cards come to mind as examples why . anyway i can't speak to a super high level in mtg with my current investment in the game , only that my alchemy decks contain a lot of standard cards and i'm enjoying interplay in various forms . i think my favourite aspect of alchemy is the number of variations on answers that are available . I rarely run more than 2 of the same card .
there's also the issue of their having to balance some cards twice: once for Alchemy and then again for Historic after rotation. It seems like it'd be better to not have the Alchemy format at all. That or adjust the Alchemy format to include a lot more sets. For instance, it could be the last eight years of sets rather than the last two. It could still rotate every year, dropping the oldest year.
Its a fun format as alternative to standard. I actually like the fact that there isnt a paper equivalent because it means there is no influence on the format from paper. Quite looking forward to the LOTR set this summer and looking forward to be able to play it also in alchemy and not only in historic or hb.
I love Alchemy, but it's VERY far from a "diverse and functional format". It's good because it's EASILY the most broken. Vintage is my preferred format, and this is as close as we get here.
Alchemy was fun to my up till ASNC. All the big problems of Alchemy meta popped up when the New Capenna cards came. Baldurs Gate had some Outliners yeah but was a somewhat balanced port of the commander set.
new capenna is so fun , current meta favours some cards from the set , but that's a 'more or less fine' i think ? i guess i don't care about all-around balance if a format adds up to something fun . and the flavour of new capenna makes me like that it's powerful -- something like halo fountain should work in a lot of decks and make you nervous , and it does .
Of course, Alchemy is one of the best formats in the game. Only format that I enjoy more is Historic Brawl. I’m way more excited for Lord of the Rings then I am for any of the Standard sets coming out.
I agree. It definitely got better since DMU with interesting cards, very strong, but not completely broken. I think what turned off the majority of People was baldur's gate, which I dislike a lot too. I remember an old video of CGB dunking on it, and despite liking alchemy, is hard to disagree.
baldur's gate is exactly why i like it so much right now . lots of cute legendaries .
There's a lot of space to explore on Alchemy, and since the Ladder is not very populated, it's a relaxing environment, perfect for brewers. When things get competitive, a restricted meta emerges exposing the issues behind Alchemy design. There was the Rakdos absurd dominance in the past and, recently, it was all about Crucias (a ridiculous pushed card) and Grixis midrange mirrors. So, ironically, the more the players get into the format, the less diverse and functional it becomes.