I am aware of the existence of Pauper as a format in MTG, but I never paid too much attention to it before. A couple of weeks ago, a friend pointed out that I might enjoy playing the recent Jeskai Nuneca decks that had become popular recently. I checked out a sample decklist, and you bet I jumped at the chance to play Mulldrifters again lol. We set about to gather the cards. Since we almost never sell cards, even draft chaff, we had most of the cards available already. The only exception was red elemental blasts/pyroblasts for the sideboard
Magic Arena's community was in an uproar this past weekend over the latest state of the beta, mostly over the announced plans for Arena's eternal Historic format that will become relevant with the coming rotation. It's likely that Wizards will backpedal in some way in response to the community, but here are my thoughts for now: Historic cards to cost double wildcards to craft This is the universally-reviled bit and has been the target of much outrage, accursing Wizards of being greedy etc. On this point I am in agreement with the community that yes, this sucks. On the other
I've been playing MTG Arena for a good while now, a little bit during the closed beta, and now I think we're still in open beta (?) because things still keep changing around. But I figured I could put in a little commentary about how this thing is going so far. I'm coming off the POV of a long-time Magic the Gathering player of course, with a little bit of comparison to Eternal and Hearthstone, the two digital CCGs I'm most familiar with. Client, Ruleset, and Gameplay Unlike the earlier Duels of the Planeswalkers game, it looks MTG Arena is
I said in my previous Duelyst review that Eternal didn't really hook me. That was in Feb 2017. I stopped playing Duelyst after around six months. I started playing Eternal regularly July of that year, and have been playing regularly ever since. What changed my mind? I'm not sure, but once I got around to playing Eternal regularly, I found myself enjoying it. I think one of the main factors is that out of all the online ccgs I've tried, Eternal is the one that's closest to Magic the Gathering. That's not really surprising, since a number of Eternal's lead
After Hearthstone, I tried out a couple of other digital CCGs: Spellweaver and Eternal, but neither one hooked me. The one I enjoyed the most and did pick up to play regularly was Duelyst. So this review is written from the perspective of someone who has played both Magic the Gathering (MTG) and Hearthstone (HS). Hearthstone, Spellweaver and Eternal played like digital MTG with some advantages, as I outlined in the HS post linked above. Duelyst keeps many of the same elements and advantages, but adds an extra dimension. Besides being a card game, Duelyst is also a board game.
I am of course a long-time Magic the Gathering player. Over the past year or so I've also been playing Blizzard's digital CCG Hearthstone (limiting myself to free to play since who has money to spend on two CCGs?) and I've been thinking about the design parallels and differences between the two. If you're a Hearthstone player, you've probably read a lot of these things before, since many well-known pros play both MTG and HS. This is written more towards the Magic player in mind to get to know Hearthstone. Mana system and Mulligans Like most modern successors to MTG,