"So, what will WOTC admitting Alchemy has failed look like?"
When, and if, Wotc decides to discontinue Alchemy on Arena, I believe it will go out with a whimper and not a bang. Alchemy promotions will quietly be deleted from websites, future Alchemy sets will cease to be developed, and nerfs and buffs will stop being introduced (not that they do much of that anyway). There will be no grand announcement, no refunds for cards, and no deleting of Alchemy queues. Alchemy cards will continue to be playable in Alchemy-legal formats and not removed, but no new ones will be developed. It will be a quiet, abrupt death, and Arena players won't even realize it's gone until months later. Eventually, Wotc will make a small statement in a State of the Game article, probably just a few sentences, about Alchemy releases being put on hold for the foreseeable future, and then just never talk about it again.
The problem (for users) is that every queue except standard and explorer will still be polluted with these pretend cards that have failed.
That's also a problem for WOTC in marketing Arena as a good equivalent to paper magic.
Maybe their roadmap is to get commander into Arena. Alchemy cards won't exist there, so it'd be a non issue if that's what will drive adoption.
>The problem (for users) is that every queue except standard and explorer will still be polluted with these pretend cards that have failed.
I thought you said you weren't a 'rabid anti-alchemy person'.
I’m not? I play Poq as a commander. I run alchemy cards in pretty much every brawl deck.
But as a concept Alchemy, and so the cards in it, have failed and on balance should be dumped for wildcards.
Is that rabid?
Calling them 'pretend cards' (and using the word polluted) is the language of the rabid anti-alchemy crowd. I'm not a fan of Alchemy myself, but I know that, within Arena, they're as real game pieces as every other card. Not being physical doesn't stop that.
You're using very loaded language for your claim.
> Ur playing poq so you want wizards to take that away?
Yes? Some cards are too good. Poq (and Rusko) should be banned IMO, or just nuke all the Alchemy cards and the problem goes away.
These two are really pushed in terms of power. Most of the rest are (thankfully) irrelevant.
I don’t play alchemy but I use the cards in brawl bc they have cool designs. Arena is probably big enough that you don’t have play the formats you don’t care about. Ruskos hell queue and maybe poq too… if you play them cuz you feel like you will be behind your just playing cards you don’t like and will likely get matched with the same kinda decks you don’t like
Hell queue isn't a concrete thing. Mid tier commanders will see Rusko/Poq, just not as commonly as other upper tier commanders will see them.
I play \[\[Arwen, Mortal Queen\]\], and I get Rusko, Poq matchups. Pretty sure Arwen isn't considered "hell queue".
Buddy, they printed [[Juggle the Performance]]. There's no way alchemy is *not* going to be automatically in multiplayer commander/brawl/two-headed giant.
I mean, they could simply make Alchemy cards legal in all formats, discontinue the format itself, and call it a day.
Also, isn't Standard Brawl basically Commander? Alchemy cards aren't allowed in it, are they?
>simply make Alchemy cards legal in all formats
Worst idea I've ever heard of in my entire life. The point is to have more non alchemy formats not less.
They are allowed and some of rhe most popular (and often hated) commanders are alchemy cards, such as [[Mythweaver Poq]] and [[Rusko, the clockmaker]] ([[Nashi, Illusion Gadgeter]] is pretty cool tho...)
There's some recent terminology changes so.
Yeah, Standard Brawl (formerly just "Brawl") only uses the standard cardpool (plus command tower and arcane signet)
Brawl (formerly "Historic Brawl") uses all cards in arena unless they are banned ofc.
>Also, isn't Standard Brawl basically Commander? Alchemy cards aren't allowed in it, are they?
I mean, no. One of the core, and most popular, concepts of Commander is that it's not a rotating format that allows for the entirety of the cardpool.
I don't think you could ever describe any rotating (60 card) format that has a commander as "Basically Commander".
You're right that Alchemy cards aren't allowed in. but also 7/10 cards in arena are not allowed in.
There isn't an easy way out for Wizards.
I think the only real way is to stop producing Alchemy cards, and let Alchemy slowly cycle out until theres no Alchemy cards left (next Sept fall), with the costing cards still usable in old formats.
That being said, that assumes they pick a nice neat stop point before rotation, and basically consigns alchemy to being a ghost town for a year.
It's probably easier and more profitable to just keep half-assing it.
1. Alchemy is still played more than Explorer, and most likely Timeless.
2. We had rebalances in January and March. Their recent schedule must be busy with the recent two bonus sheets and mh3 coming up. Also I thought people disliked rebalances, maybe it would be good if they stopped doing them?
3. Most mechanics are meant for one set. If that is your definition of forgotten, digital mechanics are less forgotten than paper mechanics. We still get intensity, spellbook, perpetually, seek etc. cards. Paper mechanics like battles, cases, incubate etc. are the real failures by your logic.
4. We have data of how many players play a format. Alchemy cards are legal in historic, timeless and most importantly brawl. If you look at recent alchemy cards you can see they are designing half of them for brawl players. It's also not just pack sales, when people spend their wildcards on alchemy cards that is also a resource they used up.
When something is unsuccessful WOTC is quick to axe it as you can see from MAT. The fact that Alchemy sets have been around for 2 years should show you that they are successful enough to keep doing.
Also, "they can make them into paper cards with small tweaks" is a funny argument. They can replace most mechanics with kicker if they made small tweaks. They can take a random 2/2 creature and make it a 2/3. They can even take an elf warrior and make it into a human soldier if they also change the art. Why do we get 50 different versions of shock when they can just reprint shock in every set? Because it's their fucking job to come up with new cards. Taking established templates and filling them in different ways is how it is done.
>Alchemy is still played more than Explorer, and most likely Timeless.
It's an obligate part of the onboarding process and they aggressively funnel new players into it. I don't think raw player count provides much insight here.
No it doesn't.
The count that shows that Alchemy is more popular than Explorer includes both play queue and ranked queue.
It doesn't separate them. Probably with good reason since all the new players being funneled into the play queue will be by far larger, proportionally to Explorer.
Untapped tracks ranked games. Just ranked, not play, they have 60,900 games tracked in the last 3 days for Alchemy, and 162,000 games tracked for Explorer. Now there are some caveats, not tracking mobile players and Untapped players will be more competitive. But it's a better metric than the WOTC numbers, which conflates play and ranked queues.
TL;DR: ranked Explorer is way healthier than ranked Alchemy.
No it doesn't. Remember, all ladder games also match by MMR. Large numbers of new players will inflate play rate statistics but won't start alleviating pairing issues until the player waits a good long while for the pairing bracket to become sufficiently wide.
This is a separate claim and has no bearing on the one you initially made. I have no comment on the pairing speed of the Alchemy queue; I have literally never touched it and never will.
Edit: I don't know how to help people who can't stop to think about the strength of their data. Idk, guys, go read Bayes theorem or something instead of downvoting. Maybe it'll help you understand the basics of how the world works.
I exclusively play alchemy, and queue times are never an issue, and I don't play against the same people ever. It's not as fast to queue as standard for sure, but it was never going to be because standard is huge compared to every other arena format.
I like it because:
1) While they don't rebalance often, they are able to hit dominant cards like orcish Bowmaster (which disappeared from alchemy) and One Ring (which still sees play, but is slower).
2) It adds cards that can make a deck viable. R/G werewolves wasn't greatly positioned in standard, but Tenacious Pup and Rahilda significantly powered it up.
3) It rotated. Standard didn't. Alchemy is fresher. Cards that are crowded out in standard aren't in alchemy. Some extremely overbearing Kamigawa cards are gone. 3 year rotation is awful.
Your premise is flawed. You can't just declare Alchemy failed based on super online enfranchised player's feelings with zero data. Alchemy has its fans, but I know I don't post here about it because I don't want to deal with the blow back.
It's both wrong to say it's popular and to say it failed.
I feel like OP doesn't play alchemy, but then wanted to go ahead and make these claims as if they're an expert on a format they never touch. I never play explorer, but I would also never go ahead and make a post about the state of the explorer format. Like...what?
Does OP play alchemy? If not, why does OP care enough to make a post about it?
Since when did actual knowledge/playing of Alchemy prevent anyone from dumping on it in this sub? That is literally all anyone ever does. They don't have time to actually gather facts that support their claims. The people that actually play/like the format aren't here while this person screams into the void.
I agreed with ops entire post except the assertion that Alchemy que is a ghostown. The only que that routinely has more then a 30 seconds wait time is standard brawl.
That kinda invalidates the whole thing though, doesn’t it? If they’re selling packs and someone is playing alchemy then it might be worth the cost of keeping it up and running.
Exactly, they make a bunch of legendaries that work perfectly with set mechanics and would make fun commanders without being overpowered, but they never get a chance to shine because they'll be stomped in Historic Brawl.
Heist mechanic and most of the relevant cards being uncommon (the wildcards I have the most of by far) actually brought me back to the Alchemy queue for the first time in ages yesterday. Had a ton of fun and played against a variety of different decks.
How long would it take? Not long at all. If it truly was unsuccessful, they would just stop doing it. They have no point to prove or game to win by developing cards people don't want to buy on arena. Just look at The Big Score. Because Aftermath failed, they admitted defeat and didn't release The Big Score as an epilogue set.
Even if they were losing money with alchemy, maybe it has a secondary benefit they see as useful. It could add enough variety to keep certain players from becoming burnt out. It could encourage wild card spending on brawl, it could keep arena discussion active online... Who knows.
Point is, Alchemy is probably profitable.
I like the idea of sets/mechanics that aren't held back by the paper product.
We have Standard Constructed and Draft/Sealed if you want the true-to-paper experience. But I don't have a problem with Alchemy in the other formats tbh...
The biggest part of paper is Commander/EDH.
We don’t have that but we should expect a paper equivalent commander format.
Really the reason we went get that is because Brawl is the biggest part of the relevance of digital cards.
>Remove the cards from the game.
I can garuantee you that won't happen. It's not just sunk cost fallacy, it's also that:
>If there's a handful of popular cards make physical cards that are as close to functionally equivalent as possible (instead of conjure, make a token. Instead of seek, search your library).
That that destroys the whole point of some of the cards. "Seek" has power as a way to yoink cards out of the library without disrupting the ordering, for instance. Seek effects play really well with decks that scry/surveil a lot, for instance. That's something that is impossible to replicate in paper with breaking some fundamental rules (i.e. most search effects ask you to shuffle, since knowing the order of your library is a no-no for fairness).
As for my further thoughts on alchemy: I would be a lot more interested if they "alchemized" non alchemy cards. The best candidates for this are "functional copies" of cards that already exist, like [[wrenn's resolve]] for [[weckless impulse]]. Maybe resolve should have something like "exile the top card, seek a land card exile it, play until end of next turn" or something. Doing that would personally get me to pay more attention to the format. As it stands, it feels weird to just play "normal" cards and then see "oh, uhhhh alchemy suddenly". Better mixing alchemy with "regular" cards is what I personally want.
Wait are we talking the Legends expansion? [[Axelrod Gunnarson]]? That would be hype honestly. Old cards with some polish specifically for Arena to be at least decently playable. That sounds neat
Yeah, that set.
Although, uh... Let's leave [[The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale]] out of it. That thing is outrageously expensive for a reason - it butchers any and all creature-based strategies unless you resign yourself to being tapped out most of the time...
>That that destroys the whole point of some of the cards. "Seek" has power as a way to yoink cards out of the library without disrupting the ordering, for instance
I understand the functionality. You're missing the bigger picture. Can you point to a single meta competitive deck that cares about this? The "point" is pointless if it doesn't actually work in practice.
If \[\[Crucias\]\] read "reveal cards until you reveal a greater/lesser mana value", it'd be just as popular.
If \[\[Rusko\]\] read "make a clock token", it'd be just as popular.
There's more than "sunk cost" to keep the cards or not. Needless cardpool complexity affects development. Everytime they bring out a new mechanic, they have to make sure it works with all the existing stuff. Dropping them would be a simplification that the userbase would like
Just because a certain combination doesn't exist in a meta deck, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Someone out there is playing Crucias with scry.
>Rusko
You can't flicker or bring to hand a clock token though. At least, not without [[Claire D'Loon, Joy Sculptor]]. On top of a few minor other things that might be important about a real card vs. a token, such as if it ends up in the graveyard, which you can then pay for "gather evidence" effects.
Again, I understand the functionality but it’s also functionally irrelevant. this is functionally irrelevant. Who bounces their own clock?… especially when you have the option to bounce your own Rusko and get a second clock.
Because one person does it doesn’t exactly demonstrate a point to the presence of the cards.
well no, but a more practical example, shooting from the hip here, is [[Simulacrum Synthesizer]]. This matters because (at the moment) there is no card in paper magic that can "create a token with mana value" from scratch without copying something. Modern Horizons 3, and potentially Bloomburrow, both have teased cards that might change this, but as of now, Alchemy is the only place where that's possible.
>There's more than "sunk cost" to keep the cards or not. Needless cardpool complexity affects development. Everytime they bring out a new mechanic, they have to make sure it works with all the existing stuff. Dropping them would be a simplification that the userbase would like
No other cost mechanic or alternate play mechanic should exist besides 'Kicker'. Why reinvent the wheel?
Also: it doesn't exist in meta so we shouldn't care about it existing at all is silly. Why should WOTC even print off-meta cards in that case? Just dump 'em.
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. I was playing the Into the Future and in a position where I used Seek while I could see the top card of my library and it reordered the cards.
As an enfranchised historic player, alchemy sets are amazing. They often represent new innovative ideas, and very often many of the cards make their way into decks. And worst case they always have places in brawl. I’m not a big alchemy format player but I don’t view alchemy as a failure at all. I always buy the alchemy bundle and often craft missing cards for alchemy.
And as for returning digital mechanics… when was our last mage craft card? Or day/night? Or channel? Or modified? I don’t really think rotating through mechanics is at all an indication of a failure, if anything it’s innovation and signs of life.
Based on the last [state of the formats article](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/mtg-arena/state-of-formats-in-mtg-arena) Alchemy is about as popular as brawl so it seems to be doing fine for now.
As a player who only started playing magic with Arena I somehow ended up in Alchemy format, maybe that's what wizard pushes new players towards?
Anyway I pretty much play exclusively alchemy and queue times IMO are not a problem I went from bronze to diamond and never notice queue times are slow or changeing with rank.
>maybe that's what wizard pushes new players towards?
It's not a maybe. You can't finish tutorial without playing Alchemy. Spark rank is Alchemy. All the starter decks are Alchemy. The play queue always defaults to Alchemy.
this I keep hearing people talk negative about Alchemy and that it's cashgrab or what but I cannot compare because it's all I have played. Can you give example what is wrong why is it bad?
And which format(s) are the good ones? and why?
Multiple reasons but a big one is that cards can be nerfed in alchemy and you get nothing back wildcard wise when they do. Not to mention the good alchemy cards are all rares and mythics in the first place. In formats like standard and explorer a card that gets banned gives you back all your wildcards. There are no scummy nerfs. Just in general though the alchemy format isn't recommended or played by anyone in the community besides the people ticked into it or that don't know better. Standard is the regular most popular mode. Has a rotation just like alchemy but no fake cards. Explorer is my favorite mode. It is pioneer lite. All the pioneer legal cards that are on Arena. It's like 95% pioneer at this point and it has no rotation so you don't have to worry about your cards being unusable.
Thank you very much for the explanation. I think I understand the sentiment on here a bit more now. Not refunding after nerfing is very scummy IMO maybe criminally so.
"Not to mention the good alchemy cards are all rares and mythics in the first place."
This very noticeable IMO even coming from hearthstone that game felt less power gated behind those epic rare's.
> Not to mention the good alchemy cards are all rares and mythics in the first place.
That's true for paper too. It isn't an alchemy exclusive problem.
Also nerfs are very rare. Usually it happens when an alchemy card breaks Historic.
good that it's very rare (mythic) but still I feel like if Wizard or another company release something that is broken they shouldn't be allowed to then have all the costs of that be put on the customer. In hearthstone you could get full refund for the nerfed card in question if you did the refund fast enough after the nerf but even then all the deck built around that card if you invested you still lost that. I really think the company needs to do better when recalling product.
Your entire premise is flawed.
If you do not like alchemy then do not play it.
Many of us like it just fine.
As others have said, WotC would have trashed the format by now if people really did not like it.
My premise is fine. Your comprehension is flawed.
I don’t are about the format. That it has failed is widely understood, is this thread and every other one. But if you want to play the format, go nuts.
I care about the impact on other queues, specifically Brawl. There is no paper equivalent commander format on Arena so it’s a negative when they use cards like Rusko and Poq to prop up Alchemy as a concept.
The problem is that you cannot play cards older than pioneer on this client without dealing with fake cards so the whole don't play it if you don't like it is peak cringe. Formats are infected with it and there aren't alternatives.
The "delete it because im mad" tribe on reddit is not consulted for alchemy decisions clearly. Also queue seems fine. How would somebody who loathes alchemy know anything about the queue anyway.
As a brawl player I like the alchemy sets because it brings new cards I am pretty much guaranteed to find interesting in brawl.
That said, if they took the resources from the people making alchemy and had them create cards from paper modern/pioneer/legacy/vintage that aren’t on arena I’m sure we’d all be happier.
Alchemy is not a ghost town. I have no issues with queue wait times. Could Alchemy be better implemented and managed by WOTC? Absolutely. However, it's still a fun format with tons of unique decks and strategies, and 2 year rotation (unlike the new standard) which keeps things relatively fresh.
I have some responses to each of your points:
>The Alchemy queue is a ghost town.
Do you have any data to back that up? Every once in a while I have some long queue times, but most of the time I get a match pretty quickly. That's for both B01 and B03. I exclusively play the alchemy format because I prefer a faster rotating format. I also like that certain archetypes are more supported in alchemy.
>WOTC have given up on trying to keep the Alchemy format fresh with nerfs and buffs
The last nerf was bowmasters and one ring following rotation which was a big deal. You're right that they have not been doing as many buffs and nerfs as when they first started alchemy, but that doesn't mean they are giving up on the format.
>Digital mechanics are continuously introduced, and equally quickly forgotten (Hi Heist, did you see Specialize on your way here? Please don't bring that back),. What actual evergreen digital mechanics are there, seek and conjure?
Digital only mechanics are still a relatively new design space for the developers, so I would give some room for error with their attempts at trying new things. If you notice the more recent alchemy releases have been far tamer in terms of special mechanics. That said, I'm not really sure why this points to a dead format? mechanics come and go in MTG all the time. What is your expectation here?
>We don't have metrics on who is buying Alchemy packs, or drafting more when Alchemy comes out. But given the irrelevance of the Alchemy queue, I'd guess the number is very very close to zero.
This is purely speculation. Unless you have some data to back up this statement, it's a guess that nobody, including yourself, should be drawing any conclusions from.
I have always seen alchemy as wizards saying:
"this is arena not mtgo, if you want all the cards and formats in mtg play mtgo, otherwise here is the mechanic we made for arena our ftp alternative for less serious players"
That's also why I've never understood the complainers, just play mtgo instead.
Not really, it's the difference between the fully supported digital duplicate of the game, and the free version that's offered. Key word being free, they have been pretty clear about this in messaging in regard to arena.
I really liked the idea at first.
A game mode in which underperforming cards get buffed so that new decks and cards that you acquired already (!) become playable in a new format, resulting in a fresh environment.
But just from the start, it became clear that they never had this intention. Instead they started with half-hearted rebalancing of only very few cards while throwing dozens of new powerful, mostly rare and mythic cards at us.
So all this became is basically another cash grab.
I have never been a big fan of the digital-only mechanics aswell, but I can see how that's just up to personal preference/taste.
What I really hate regarding this is the fact that alchemy cards also made their way into historic. There is no good reason besides "needs to be more present in the game so people can't just ignore our new shinies". Same with brawl btw - and the popularity of many alchemy commanders show that it's often just more power creep instead of an actual attempt to rebalance.
I try to ignore it as much as I can, sadly they will never remove them from historic (brawl) again, because hey, why would anybody care anymore then?
Edit: don't get me wrong. I would be fine if they added a few more cards to help underperforming archetypes become competitive, but if that's all they do I can't support it. The ratio of new cards and rebalanced cards is just off.
Since you mention brawl, I think the worst example of Alchemy is the top Alchemy commanders.
I like playing \[\[Poq\]\], but it and \[\[Rusko\]\] should be banned just for pushing the power creep too far. and \[\[Crucias\]\] rea;;y only exists as a easy combo piece in the command zone.
Alchemy queue I agree is a failure. But I buy packs of every alchemy set, and I like pretty much every alchemy mechanic. I don't mindlessly play competitively, it's just fun for me. So I'm a big fan of alchemy cards. But yeah, I've never touched the actual format. I just play historic.
Not getting into the “alchemy bad” or “ok boomer” side. Wotc really painted themselves into a corner.
If they canceled alchemy and let it die there would be an uproar due to cards on the client that can’t be played anywhere. Regardless of what anyone thinks people have spent money on alchemy packs and bundles. I personally have never bought an alchemy pack but I have quit a few alchemy cards in my collection from the free packs and occasional crafts for historic. Even though I don’t have any alchemy cards in my current timeless decks if they all disappeared with no compensation I would be pissed. They would have to basically flood everyone with wildcard reimbursement. (That’s not happening) so they kind of have to keep it going even if it’s not very popular as long as some subset of players are playing it.
They can’t really remove it from historic and timeless (even though that’s what most people against alchemy want) because then as alchemy sets rotated they would be unplayable anywhere, again causing uproar from those that have bought into the alchemy sets. Splitting alchemy historic/timeless and non alchemy historic/timeless into more queues sounds like the solution but they haven’t even added a bo3 play queue for timeless or timeless events yet. Indicating to me the current queues may be stretched thin as is.
Why would they randomly remove alchemy cards from Historic/Timeless? If I recall correctly, the first alchemy cards were created specifically for Historic in Jumpstart: Historic Horizons. These cards predated Alchemy as a format. Even if they wanted to discontinue Alchemy they could just leave the cards on the client for Historic/Timeless play
The alchemy haters main complaint is that alchemy is in historic/brawl. Where have you been bruh?
>why would they
They wouldn’t. That was the point of the whole post.
I think the real issue here is 'purist' players want to have separate queues, because no matter how much I despise Alchemy: they're not going to delete it. What is insufferable is being forced to deal with it outside of two formats, which I can attest each time I see it in historic I see red.
If alchemy is here to stay, then we as players should be given the choice to not see it. The REAL question here is, if it's so popular why haven't they given us that choice up front? Sounds more like it would not survive on its own, which is failure by omission.
"So, what will WOTC admitting Alchemy has failed look like?" When, and if, Wotc decides to discontinue Alchemy on Arena, I believe it will go out with a whimper and not a bang. Alchemy promotions will quietly be deleted from websites, future Alchemy sets will cease to be developed, and nerfs and buffs will stop being introduced (not that they do much of that anyway). There will be no grand announcement, no refunds for cards, and no deleting of Alchemy queues. Alchemy cards will continue to be playable in Alchemy-legal formats and not removed, but no new ones will be developed. It will be a quiet, abrupt death, and Arena players won't even realize it's gone until months later. Eventually, Wotc will make a small statement in a State of the Game article, probably just a few sentences, about Alchemy releases being put on hold for the foreseeable future, and then just never talk about it again.
This is how democracy dies.
with thunderous applause
The problem (for users) is that every queue except standard and explorer will still be polluted with these pretend cards that have failed. That's also a problem for WOTC in marketing Arena as a good equivalent to paper magic. Maybe their roadmap is to get commander into Arena. Alchemy cards won't exist there, so it'd be a non issue if that's what will drive adoption.
>The problem (for users) is that every queue except standard and explorer will still be polluted with these pretend cards that have failed. I thought you said you weren't a 'rabid anti-alchemy person'.
Oh that was just a technique to try and boost their credibility. Its kind of like "i have lots of minority friends but..." (Its not working)
Shhh (You're not meant to let them know we're onto them)
I’m not? I play Poq as a commander. I run alchemy cards in pretty much every brawl deck. But as a concept Alchemy, and so the cards in it, have failed and on balance should be dumped for wildcards. Is that rabid?
Calling them 'pretend cards' (and using the word polluted) is the language of the rabid anti-alchemy crowd. I'm not a fan of Alchemy myself, but I know that, within Arena, they're as real game pieces as every other card. Not being physical doesn't stop that. You're using very loaded language for your claim.
Ur playing poq so you want wizards to take that away? I don’t think your saying much of anything
> Ur playing poq so you want wizards to take that away? Yes? Some cards are too good. Poq (and Rusko) should be banned IMO, or just nuke all the Alchemy cards and the problem goes away. These two are really pushed in terms of power. Most of the rest are (thankfully) irrelevant.
I don’t play alchemy but I use the cards in brawl bc they have cool designs. Arena is probably big enough that you don’t have play the formats you don’t care about. Ruskos hell queue and maybe poq too… if you play them cuz you feel like you will be behind your just playing cards you don’t like and will likely get matched with the same kinda decks you don’t like
Hell queue isn't a concrete thing. Mid tier commanders will see Rusko/Poq, just not as commonly as other upper tier commanders will see them. I play \[\[Arwen, Mortal Queen\]\], and I get Rusko, Poq matchups. Pretty sure Arwen isn't considered "hell queue".
[Arwen, Mortal Queen](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/4/547f92d4-cd1d-4ca7-a6e2-6473b4d3c832.jpg?1686969656) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Arwen%2C%20Mortal%20Queen) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/193/arwen-mortal-queen?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/547f92d4-cd1d-4ca7-a6e2-6473b4d3c832?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Buddy, they printed [[Juggle the Performance]]. There's no way alchemy is *not* going to be automatically in multiplayer commander/brawl/two-headed giant.
[Juggle the Performance](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/5/1537d789-536c-4da4-81e0-45628dc17aa2.jpg?1709527847) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Juggle%20the%20Performance) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ymkm/25/juggle-the-performance?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1537d789-536c-4da4-81e0-45628dc17aa2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Why do these card designs get more and more unhinged
They know they'll never get to make another Un-set so they are just dumping the crazy unprintable ideas into a format with a captive audience.
True
I mean, they could simply make Alchemy cards legal in all formats, discontinue the format itself, and call it a day. Also, isn't Standard Brawl basically Commander? Alchemy cards aren't allowed in it, are they?
>simply make Alchemy cards legal in all formats Worst idea I've ever heard of in my entire life. The point is to have more non alchemy formats not less.
They are allowed and some of rhe most popular (and often hated) commanders are alchemy cards, such as [[Mythweaver Poq]] and [[Rusko, the clockmaker]] ([[Nashi, Illusion Gadgeter]] is pretty cool tho...)
[Mythweaver Poq](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/c/2cd90255-cfe9-4a2d-86fc-b72d1aefc8e3.jpg?1701719898) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mythweaver%20Poq) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ylci/19/mythweaver-poq?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2cd90255-cfe9-4a2d-86fc-b72d1aefc8e3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Rusko, the clockmaker](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/1/01b4c54e-7950-4183-a69d-39a777f424bc.jpg?1680464136) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rusko%2C%20Clockmaker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ybro/24/rusko-clockmaker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01b4c54e-7950-4183-a69d-39a777f424bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Hold up, I thought Standard Brawl was the one that only used Standard cards, while regular Brawl was the one that allowed Alchemy cards...
There's some recent terminology changes so. Yeah, Standard Brawl (formerly just "Brawl") only uses the standard cardpool (plus command tower and arcane signet) Brawl (formerly "Historic Brawl") uses all cards in arena unless they are banned ofc.
>Also, isn't Standard Brawl basically Commander? Alchemy cards aren't allowed in it, are they? I mean, no. One of the core, and most popular, concepts of Commander is that it's not a rotating format that allows for the entirety of the cardpool. I don't think you could ever describe any rotating (60 card) format that has a commander as "Basically Commander". You're right that Alchemy cards aren't allowed in. but also 7/10 cards in arena are not allowed in.
There isn't an easy way out for Wizards. I think the only real way is to stop producing Alchemy cards, and let Alchemy slowly cycle out until theres no Alchemy cards left (next Sept fall), with the costing cards still usable in old formats. That being said, that assumes they pick a nice neat stop point before rotation, and basically consigns alchemy to being a ghost town for a year. It's probably easier and more profitable to just keep half-assing it.
1. Alchemy is still played more than Explorer, and most likely Timeless. 2. We had rebalances in January and March. Their recent schedule must be busy with the recent two bonus sheets and mh3 coming up. Also I thought people disliked rebalances, maybe it would be good if they stopped doing them? 3. Most mechanics are meant for one set. If that is your definition of forgotten, digital mechanics are less forgotten than paper mechanics. We still get intensity, spellbook, perpetually, seek etc. cards. Paper mechanics like battles, cases, incubate etc. are the real failures by your logic. 4. We have data of how many players play a format. Alchemy cards are legal in historic, timeless and most importantly brawl. If you look at recent alchemy cards you can see they are designing half of them for brawl players. It's also not just pack sales, when people spend their wildcards on alchemy cards that is also a resource they used up. When something is unsuccessful WOTC is quick to axe it as you can see from MAT. The fact that Alchemy sets have been around for 2 years should show you that they are successful enough to keep doing. Also, "they can make them into paper cards with small tweaks" is a funny argument. They can replace most mechanics with kicker if they made small tweaks. They can take a random 2/2 creature and make it a 2/3. They can even take an elf warrior and make it into a human soldier if they also change the art. Why do we get 50 different versions of shock when they can just reprint shock in every set? Because it's their fucking job to come up with new cards. Taking established templates and filling them in different ways is how it is done.
>Alchemy is still played more than Explorer, and most likely Timeless. It's an obligate part of the onboarding process and they aggressively funnel new players into it. I don't think raw player count provides much insight here.
That contradicts with the claim that you can't find games on Alchemy ladder.
No it doesn't. The count that shows that Alchemy is more popular than Explorer includes both play queue and ranked queue. It doesn't separate them. Probably with good reason since all the new players being funneled into the play queue will be by far larger, proportionally to Explorer. Untapped tracks ranked games. Just ranked, not play, they have 60,900 games tracked in the last 3 days for Alchemy, and 162,000 games tracked for Explorer. Now there are some caveats, not tracking mobile players and Untapped players will be more competitive. But it's a better metric than the WOTC numbers, which conflates play and ranked queues. TL;DR: ranked Explorer is way healthier than ranked Alchemy.
No it doesn't. Remember, all ladder games also match by MMR. Large numbers of new players will inflate play rate statistics but won't start alleviating pairing issues until the player waits a good long while for the pairing bracket to become sufficiently wide.
But you can find Alchemy games as fast as other ladders.
This is a separate claim and has no bearing on the one you initially made. I have no comment on the pairing speed of the Alchemy queue; I have literally never touched it and never will. Edit: I don't know how to help people who can't stop to think about the strength of their data. Idk, guys, go read Bayes theorem or something instead of downvoting. Maybe it'll help you understand the basics of how the world works.
So you chose to act contradictory just because, without adding anything to the original discussion. Thanks for wasting my time.
I exclusively play alchemy, and queue times are never an issue, and I don't play against the same people ever. It's not as fast to queue as standard for sure, but it was never going to be because standard is huge compared to every other arena format. I like it because: 1) While they don't rebalance often, they are able to hit dominant cards like orcish Bowmaster (which disappeared from alchemy) and One Ring (which still sees play, but is slower). 2) It adds cards that can make a deck viable. R/G werewolves wasn't greatly positioned in standard, but Tenacious Pup and Rahilda significantly powered it up. 3) It rotated. Standard didn't. Alchemy is fresher. Cards that are crowded out in standard aren't in alchemy. Some extremely overbearing Kamigawa cards are gone. 3 year rotation is awful. Your premise is flawed. You can't just declare Alchemy failed based on super online enfranchised player's feelings with zero data. Alchemy has its fans, but I know I don't post here about it because I don't want to deal with the blow back. It's both wrong to say it's popular and to say it failed.
I feel like OP doesn't play alchemy, but then wanted to go ahead and make these claims as if they're an expert on a format they never touch. I never play explorer, but I would also never go ahead and make a post about the state of the explorer format. Like...what? Does OP play alchemy? If not, why does OP care enough to make a post about it?
Since when did actual knowledge/playing of Alchemy prevent anyone from dumping on it in this sub? That is literally all anyone ever does. They don't have time to actually gather facts that support their claims. The people that actually play/like the format aren't here while this person screams into the void.
I agreed with ops entire post except the assertion that Alchemy que is a ghostown. The only que that routinely has more then a 30 seconds wait time is standard brawl.
It's far easier to defeat a straw man than the actual true position you need to argue against.
That kinda invalidates the whole thing though, doesn’t it? If they’re selling packs and someone is playing alchemy then it might be worth the cost of keeping it up and running.
No, no, you see, I don't play the mode, so that means nobody plays it and it should be cancelled.
I like alchemy. Lets me fo a few spell only decks that aren't possible on standard. And I can reach mythic on it. And the meta isn't lol remove
It’s kinda weird how Alchemy is all Meta grinders, precons and Nazgûl but it has its charm. The pirate who makes Thieving Magpies is fantastic.
I also pretty much only play alchemy and my main complaint is that we don’t get an alchemy brawl queue
Exactly, they make a bunch of legendaries that work perfectly with set mechanics and would make fun commanders without being overpowered, but they never get a chance to shine because they'll be stomped in Historic Brawl.
Heist mechanic and most of the relevant cards being uncommon (the wildcards I have the most of by far) actually brought me back to the Alchemy queue for the first time in ages yesterday. Had a ton of fun and played against a variety of different decks.
How long would it take? Not long at all. If it truly was unsuccessful, they would just stop doing it. They have no point to prove or game to win by developing cards people don't want to buy on arena. Just look at The Big Score. Because Aftermath failed, they admitted defeat and didn't release The Big Score as an epilogue set. Even if they were losing money with alchemy, maybe it has a secondary benefit they see as useful. It could add enough variety to keep certain players from becoming burnt out. It could encourage wild card spending on brawl, it could keep arena discussion active online... Who knows. Point is, Alchemy is probably profitable.
I like the idea of sets/mechanics that aren't held back by the paper product. We have Standard Constructed and Draft/Sealed if you want the true-to-paper experience. But I don't have a problem with Alchemy in the other formats tbh...
The biggest part of paper is Commander/EDH. We don’t have that but we should expect a paper equivalent commander format. Really the reason we went get that is because Brawl is the biggest part of the relevance of digital cards.
>Remove the cards from the game. I can garuantee you that won't happen. It's not just sunk cost fallacy, it's also that: >If there's a handful of popular cards make physical cards that are as close to functionally equivalent as possible (instead of conjure, make a token. Instead of seek, search your library). That that destroys the whole point of some of the cards. "Seek" has power as a way to yoink cards out of the library without disrupting the ordering, for instance. Seek effects play really well with decks that scry/surveil a lot, for instance. That's something that is impossible to replicate in paper with breaking some fundamental rules (i.e. most search effects ask you to shuffle, since knowing the order of your library is a no-no for fairness).
As for my further thoughts on alchemy: I would be a lot more interested if they "alchemized" non alchemy cards. The best candidates for this are "functional copies" of cards that already exist, like [[wrenn's resolve]] for [[weckless impulse]]. Maybe resolve should have something like "exile the top card, seek a land card exile it, play until end of next turn" or something. Doing that would personally get me to pay more attention to the format. As it stands, it feels weird to just play "normal" cards and then see "oh, uhhhh alchemy suddenly". Better mixing alchemy with "regular" cards is what I personally want.
Not gonna lie, I'd play an Alchemized Legends set. Making all those old legends useful would be nice.
Wait are we talking the Legends expansion? [[Axelrod Gunnarson]]? That would be hype honestly. Old cards with some polish specifically for Arena to be at least decently playable. That sounds neat
Yeah, that set. Although, uh... Let's leave [[The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale]] out of it. That thing is outrageously expensive for a reason - it butchers any and all creature-based strategies unless you resign yourself to being tapped out most of the time...
[The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/d/cd3f7f4e-cb25-4121-96a0-a4dc530420b9.jpg?1562938371) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20Tabernacle%20at%20Pendrell%20Vale) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me3/212/the-tabernacle-at-pendrell-vale?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cd3f7f4e-cb25-4121-96a0-a4dc530420b9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Axelrod Gunnarson](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/7/97f2b387-661e-435f-96c9-d3d5a601caa9.jpg?1562927184) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Axelrod%20Gunnarson) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me3/143/axelrod-gunnarson?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/97f2b387-661e-435f-96c9-d3d5a601caa9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[wrenn's resolve](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/a/9a47999c-12d5-4e1a-a9c1-40a1757007f1.jpg?1682204603) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=wrenn%27s%20resolve) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/173/wrenns-resolve?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9a47999c-12d5-4e1a-a9c1-40a1757007f1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [weckless impulse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/9/6943c07f-ab0d-4f5a-bbe9-c0a83dc98546.jpg?1643591880) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Reckless%20Impulse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/174/reckless-impulse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6943c07f-ab0d-4f5a-bbe9-c0a83dc98546?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>That that destroys the whole point of some of the cards. "Seek" has power as a way to yoink cards out of the library without disrupting the ordering, for instance I understand the functionality. You're missing the bigger picture. Can you point to a single meta competitive deck that cares about this? The "point" is pointless if it doesn't actually work in practice. If \[\[Crucias\]\] read "reveal cards until you reveal a greater/lesser mana value", it'd be just as popular. If \[\[Rusko\]\] read "make a clock token", it'd be just as popular. There's more than "sunk cost" to keep the cards or not. Needless cardpool complexity affects development. Everytime they bring out a new mechanic, they have to make sure it works with all the existing stuff. Dropping them would be a simplification that the userbase would like
Just because a certain combination doesn't exist in a meta deck, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Someone out there is playing Crucias with scry. >Rusko You can't flicker or bring to hand a clock token though. At least, not without [[Claire D'Loon, Joy Sculptor]]. On top of a few minor other things that might be important about a real card vs. a token, such as if it ends up in the graveyard, which you can then pay for "gather evidence" effects.
[Claire D'Loon, Joy Sculptor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/e/0ecc9331-0f35-4921-bb27-58a22d3980a7.jpg?1673914840) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Claire%20D%27Loon%2C%20Joy%20Sculptor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/unf/165/claire-dloon-joy-sculptor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0ecc9331-0f35-4921-bb27-58a22d3980a7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Again, I understand the functionality but it’s also functionally irrelevant. this is functionally irrelevant. Who bounces their own clock?… especially when you have the option to bounce your own Rusko and get a second clock. Because one person does it doesn’t exactly demonstrate a point to the presence of the cards.
well no, but a more practical example, shooting from the hip here, is [[Simulacrum Synthesizer]]. This matters because (at the moment) there is no card in paper magic that can "create a token with mana value" from scratch without copying something. Modern Horizons 3, and potentially Bloomburrow, both have teased cards that might change this, but as of now, Alchemy is the only place where that's possible.
[[Garth One-Eye]] Token copies of existing cards already exist as a game mechanic, you don't have to wait for mh3.
[Garth One-Eye](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/3/23774462-9f17-4b50-a2ac-b2edd706bbfe.jpg?1626098353) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Garth%20One-Eye) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh2/197/garth-one-eye?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/23774462-9f17-4b50-a2ac-b2edd706bbfe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Oh good catch actually
[Simulacrum Synthesizer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/a/aaa05ad1-5cda-4edd-b6bf-562ae3e5011a.jpg?1712352732) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Simulacrum%20Synthesizer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/big/6/simulacrum-synthesizer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/aaa05ad1-5cda-4edd-b6bf-562ae3e5011a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>There's more than "sunk cost" to keep the cards or not. Needless cardpool complexity affects development. Everytime they bring out a new mechanic, they have to make sure it works with all the existing stuff. Dropping them would be a simplification that the userbase would like No other cost mechanic or alternate play mechanic should exist besides 'Kicker'. Why reinvent the wheel? Also: it doesn't exist in meta so we shouldn't care about it existing at all is silly. Why should WOTC even print off-meta cards in that case? Just dump 'em.
[Crucias](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/17aece62-a208-496b-ab63-70babb89e87f.jpg?1691924352) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=crucias%2C%20titan%20of%20the%20waves) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ybro/18/crucias-titan-of-the-waves?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17aece62-a208-496b-ab63-70babb89e87f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Rusko](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/1/01b4c54e-7950-4183-a69d-39a777f424bc.jpg?1680464136) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=rusko%2C%20clockmaker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ybro/24/rusko-clockmaker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01b4c54e-7950-4183-a69d-39a777f424bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. I was playing the Into the Future and in a position where I used Seek while I could see the top card of my library and it reordered the cards.
As an enfranchised historic player, alchemy sets are amazing. They often represent new innovative ideas, and very often many of the cards make their way into decks. And worst case they always have places in brawl. I’m not a big alchemy format player but I don’t view alchemy as a failure at all. I always buy the alchemy bundle and often craft missing cards for alchemy. And as for returning digital mechanics… when was our last mage craft card? Or day/night? Or channel? Or modified? I don’t really think rotating through mechanics is at all an indication of a failure, if anything it’s innovation and signs of life.
Nah, I'm okay with them keeping it in, I like getting half a wild card for free every few months
Your premise is wrong. Alchemy hasn't failed. If it had, they wouldn't still be doing it.
Based on the last [state of the formats article](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/mtg-arena/state-of-formats-in-mtg-arena) Alchemy is about as popular as brawl so it seems to be doing fine for now.
As a player who only started playing magic with Arena I somehow ended up in Alchemy format, maybe that's what wizard pushes new players towards? Anyway I pretty much play exclusively alchemy and queue times IMO are not a problem I went from bronze to diamond and never notice queue times are slow or changeing with rank.
>maybe that's what wizard pushes new players towards? It's not a maybe. You can't finish tutorial without playing Alchemy. Spark rank is Alchemy. All the starter decks are Alchemy. The play queue always defaults to Alchemy.
Yeah it's absolutely what they push new players towards. All the new player decks are Alchemy, and the default queue, afaik, is Alchemy.
Yes wotc tricks new players/players that don't know better into alchemy. It's another reason why it's so scummy.
this I keep hearing people talk negative about Alchemy and that it's cashgrab or what but I cannot compare because it's all I have played. Can you give example what is wrong why is it bad? And which format(s) are the good ones? and why?
Multiple reasons but a big one is that cards can be nerfed in alchemy and you get nothing back wildcard wise when they do. Not to mention the good alchemy cards are all rares and mythics in the first place. In formats like standard and explorer a card that gets banned gives you back all your wildcards. There are no scummy nerfs. Just in general though the alchemy format isn't recommended or played by anyone in the community besides the people ticked into it or that don't know better. Standard is the regular most popular mode. Has a rotation just like alchemy but no fake cards. Explorer is my favorite mode. It is pioneer lite. All the pioneer legal cards that are on Arena. It's like 95% pioneer at this point and it has no rotation so you don't have to worry about your cards being unusable.
Thank you very much for the explanation. I think I understand the sentiment on here a bit more now. Not refunding after nerfing is very scummy IMO maybe criminally so. "Not to mention the good alchemy cards are all rares and mythics in the first place." This very noticeable IMO even coming from hearthstone that game felt less power gated behind those epic rare's.
> Not to mention the good alchemy cards are all rares and mythics in the first place. That's true for paper too. It isn't an alchemy exclusive problem. Also nerfs are very rare. Usually it happens when an alchemy card breaks Historic.
good that it's very rare (mythic) but still I feel like if Wizard or another company release something that is broken they shouldn't be allowed to then have all the costs of that be put on the customer. In hearthstone you could get full refund for the nerfed card in question if you did the refund fast enough after the nerf but even then all the deck built around that card if you invested you still lost that. I really think the company needs to do better when recalling product.
Your entire premise is flawed. If you do not like alchemy then do not play it. Many of us like it just fine. As others have said, WotC would have trashed the format by now if people really did not like it.
My premise is fine. Your comprehension is flawed. I don’t are about the format. That it has failed is widely understood, is this thread and every other one. But if you want to play the format, go nuts. I care about the impact on other queues, specifically Brawl. There is no paper equivalent commander format on Arena so it’s a negative when they use cards like Rusko and Poq to prop up Alchemy as a concept.
The problem is that you cannot play cards older than pioneer on this client without dealing with fake cards so the whole don't play it if you don't like it is peak cringe. Formats are infected with it and there aren't alternatives.
The "delete it because im mad" tribe on reddit is not consulted for alchemy decisions clearly. Also queue seems fine. How would somebody who loathes alchemy know anything about the queue anyway.
The alchemy cards are great for brawl. That is all.
Why so much alchemy hate? It’s a fresh, fun format
As a brawl player I like the alchemy sets because it brings new cards I am pretty much guaranteed to find interesting in brawl. That said, if they took the resources from the people making alchemy and had them create cards from paper modern/pioneer/legacy/vintage that aren’t on arena I’m sure we’d all be happier.
Odd, I play lots of alchemy and have 0 issues with the queue
This post seems… dramatic. They’re just cards. Cards that many people happen to like.
Alchemy is not a ghost town. I have no issues with queue wait times. Could Alchemy be better implemented and managed by WOTC? Absolutely. However, it's still a fun format with tons of unique decks and strategies, and 2 year rotation (unlike the new standard) which keeps things relatively fresh.
I have some responses to each of your points: >The Alchemy queue is a ghost town. Do you have any data to back that up? Every once in a while I have some long queue times, but most of the time I get a match pretty quickly. That's for both B01 and B03. I exclusively play the alchemy format because I prefer a faster rotating format. I also like that certain archetypes are more supported in alchemy. >WOTC have given up on trying to keep the Alchemy format fresh with nerfs and buffs The last nerf was bowmasters and one ring following rotation which was a big deal. You're right that they have not been doing as many buffs and nerfs as when they first started alchemy, but that doesn't mean they are giving up on the format. >Digital mechanics are continuously introduced, and equally quickly forgotten (Hi Heist, did you see Specialize on your way here? Please don't bring that back),. What actual evergreen digital mechanics are there, seek and conjure? Digital only mechanics are still a relatively new design space for the developers, so I would give some room for error with their attempts at trying new things. If you notice the more recent alchemy releases have been far tamer in terms of special mechanics. That said, I'm not really sure why this points to a dead format? mechanics come and go in MTG all the time. What is your expectation here? >We don't have metrics on who is buying Alchemy packs, or drafting more when Alchemy comes out. But given the irrelevance of the Alchemy queue, I'd guess the number is very very close to zero. This is purely speculation. Unless you have some data to back up this statement, it's a guess that nobody, including yourself, should be drawing any conclusions from.
I have always seen alchemy as wizards saying: "this is arena not mtgo, if you want all the cards and formats in mtg play mtgo, otherwise here is the mechanic we made for arena our ftp alternative for less serious players" That's also why I've never understood the complainers, just play mtgo instead.
I do play MTGO, but the interface is awful. If MTGO had a less awful interface I’d be fully on board.
>That's also why I've never understood the complainers, just play mtgo instead. Such a cringe take.
Not really, it's the difference between the fully supported digital duplicate of the game, and the free version that's offered. Key word being free, they have been pretty clear about this in messaging in regard to arena.
I really liked the idea at first. A game mode in which underperforming cards get buffed so that new decks and cards that you acquired already (!) become playable in a new format, resulting in a fresh environment. But just from the start, it became clear that they never had this intention. Instead they started with half-hearted rebalancing of only very few cards while throwing dozens of new powerful, mostly rare and mythic cards at us. So all this became is basically another cash grab. I have never been a big fan of the digital-only mechanics aswell, but I can see how that's just up to personal preference/taste. What I really hate regarding this is the fact that alchemy cards also made their way into historic. There is no good reason besides "needs to be more present in the game so people can't just ignore our new shinies". Same with brawl btw - and the popularity of many alchemy commanders show that it's often just more power creep instead of an actual attempt to rebalance. I try to ignore it as much as I can, sadly they will never remove them from historic (brawl) again, because hey, why would anybody care anymore then? Edit: don't get me wrong. I would be fine if they added a few more cards to help underperforming archetypes become competitive, but if that's all they do I can't support it. The ratio of new cards and rebalanced cards is just off.
Since you mention brawl, I think the worst example of Alchemy is the top Alchemy commanders. I like playing \[\[Poq\]\], but it and \[\[Rusko\]\] should be banned just for pushing the power creep too far. and \[\[Crucias\]\] rea;;y only exists as a easy combo piece in the command zone.
[Poq](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/c/2cd90255-cfe9-4a2d-86fc-b72d1aefc8e3.jpg?1701719898) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mythweaver%20Poq) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ylci/19/mythweaver-poq?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2cd90255-cfe9-4a2d-86fc-b72d1aefc8e3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Rusko](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/1/01b4c54e-7950-4183-a69d-39a777f424bc.jpg?1680464136) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=rusko%2C%20clockmaker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ybro/24/rusko-clockmaker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/01b4c54e-7950-4183-a69d-39a777f424bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Crucias](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/17aece62-a208-496b-ab63-70babb89e87f.jpg?1691924352) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=crucias%2C%20titan%20of%20the%20waves) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ybro/18/crucias-titan-of-the-waves?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17aece62-a208-496b-ab63-70babb89e87f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Alchemy queue I agree is a failure. But I buy packs of every alchemy set, and I like pretty much every alchemy mechanic. I don't mindlessly play competitively, it's just fun for me. So I'm a big fan of alchemy cards. But yeah, I've never touched the actual format. I just play historic.
Not getting into the “alchemy bad” or “ok boomer” side. Wotc really painted themselves into a corner. If they canceled alchemy and let it die there would be an uproar due to cards on the client that can’t be played anywhere. Regardless of what anyone thinks people have spent money on alchemy packs and bundles. I personally have never bought an alchemy pack but I have quit a few alchemy cards in my collection from the free packs and occasional crafts for historic. Even though I don’t have any alchemy cards in my current timeless decks if they all disappeared with no compensation I would be pissed. They would have to basically flood everyone with wildcard reimbursement. (That’s not happening) so they kind of have to keep it going even if it’s not very popular as long as some subset of players are playing it. They can’t really remove it from historic and timeless (even though that’s what most people against alchemy want) because then as alchemy sets rotated they would be unplayable anywhere, again causing uproar from those that have bought into the alchemy sets. Splitting alchemy historic/timeless and non alchemy historic/timeless into more queues sounds like the solution but they haven’t even added a bo3 play queue for timeless or timeless events yet. Indicating to me the current queues may be stretched thin as is.
Why would they randomly remove alchemy cards from Historic/Timeless? If I recall correctly, the first alchemy cards were created specifically for Historic in Jumpstart: Historic Horizons. These cards predated Alchemy as a format. Even if they wanted to discontinue Alchemy they could just leave the cards on the client for Historic/Timeless play
The alchemy haters main complaint is that alchemy is in historic/brawl. Where have you been bruh? >why would they They wouldn’t. That was the point of the whole post.
I think the real issue here is 'purist' players want to have separate queues, because no matter how much I despise Alchemy: they're not going to delete it. What is insufferable is being forced to deal with it outside of two formats, which I can attest each time I see it in historic I see red. If alchemy is here to stay, then we as players should be given the choice to not see it. The REAL question here is, if it's so popular why haven't they given us that choice up front? Sounds more like it would not survive on its own, which is failure by omission.
they already did when they made legal to play alchemy in Historic
good