Oath of the Gatewatch Pack Opening!
Economics forum
Posted on June 21, 2016, midnight by Atony1400
Hey guys! I wanted to try something different, so I decided to buy a booster pack, and share the results with you, along with my opinions of the cards. So, here we go!
Commons Show
. Not constructed playable, but a good option for casual players.
Uncommons Show
Rare/Mythic Show
Foils/Expeditions Show
Basic Lands Show
Token Show
So, what did you think of my pack? Do you think I should do more of these? Leave your thoughts below!
@Boza,
I just opened the pack for fun, and I just shared the contents with you guys just for fun. Are you suggesting I shift totally to an economic standpoint of the pack rather than stating my opinions of the cards I opened?
June 21, 2016 3:05 a.m.
I definitely like the idea here, just Kozilek's Translator without the once a turn clause would be a Channel... restricted in vintage... you get the point.
June 21, 2016 3:50 a.m.
No, I just did not understand what the vantage point was, but now I do! But a piece of advice:
- In general, everybody's opinion on a card will be different. For example, I do not think that Containment Membrane is a better Claustrophobia, since it does not tap the creature.
- Be consistent - you cannot comment on what you think one card does only in draft, while commenting what constructed applications. The message becomes unclear.
- Maybe come out with a general message - if I opened this in draft, I would pick card A, but the mosst constructed playable card is card B, while the card I think is most fun is card C.
June 21, 2016 4:04 a.m.
@Boza,
Yeah, I think next time I'll focus more (if not solely) on the constructed standpoint, as I don't draft much.
June 21, 2016 4:13 a.m.
Also, try to focus on giving useful info - Isolation Zone is a worse Oblivion Ring, yes, but what else besides the obvious? I imagine you seeing the card, thinking that about it and throwing it away, dismissing it completely, but that is not really a useful or entertaining thing to read. In fact, it serves no purpose and probably anyone that has played even a bit of Magic can tell you that. Go beyond the obvious.
For example, a worse oblivion ring is still a useful effect in an Enchantress EDH deck and you would play as many of those as possible.
June 21, 2016 4:18 a.m. Edited.
Like the fact that I was thinking of using it in my new mono 
Commander brew
June 21, 2016 4:24 a.m.
Ok, but also provide some reasoning for that. For example:
"Consuming Sinkhole - Hmmmmm, exile an awoken land, or double-Shock your opponent for , Meh."
While this is highly opinionated (nothing bad with that), it gives no information (this is the bad thing) - you are basically spelling out the text of the card and giving it a Meh. Why though? This is the knee-jerk reaction of card evaluation that serves no purpose.
Ultimate point - make me want to read your pack openings somehow. What you have done here in 250 words, I could probably do 250 milliseconds when I open a pack myself. Give me, or anybody else reading this, a reason to read through this.
June 21, 2016 4:45 a.m.
Eternal Masters, Pauper, And You Not to toot my own horn, but some shameless advertising - in the article above that I wrote I give my opinion on how these cards will affect pauper. Check how some of these are written and compare.
Also, there are various other community members that have opinionated pack openings. Check what they are doing and emulate them and/or take what they are doing and modify it to make it your own thing.
Boza says... #2
The problem is that this exercise does not serve a purpose. Where is your vantage point - why are you opening the pack and telling us about the contents? Is it to pick a card in draft? Is it to brag about a cool rare that was opened? Why are you commenting on how good some cards are in draft, while commenting only on constructed capabilities for other cards.
Also, most of the card analysis is not really on point - elemental uprising has flopped in draft, while comparing Containment Membrane to Unsummon is not really accurate.
June 21, 2016 3 a.m.