|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Jun 21, 2004 0:36:26 GMT -6
I have heard from many sources that Wizards intentionally made the Masques block weak sets because they followed the Urza sets, which were filled with broken cards ( Tolarian Academy is just one example), and lots of other cards that were very powerful ( Greater Good, for example). However, when I look at Mercadian Masques, it doesn't seem like a bad set to me. What is everybody else's opinions on this? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron Sengir on Jun 21, 2004 21:19:44 GMT -6
I definitely think it is weaker than the Urza's blocks, but I still have found a lot of useful cards in the block. It is not garbage by any means, just not the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Volrath, the Fallen on Jun 21, 2004 22:52:30 GMT -6
There's a lot in there that i like. I don't know the sets too well, but i use most of the things i have from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Jun 21, 2004 23:14:08 GMT -6
I think it was powered just right. Urza block had too many game-breaking cards, and I actually like lower-powered games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron Sengir on Jul 23, 2004 10:12:07 GMT -6
I do think that they did that on purpose, b/c Urza's was so powerful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Jul 23, 2004 16:33:07 GMT -6
Even in Masques though, there were a couple cards that got banned, like Rishadan Port. |
|
|
|
Post by Butcher Orgg(s) on Sept 20, 2004 19:54:29 GMT -6
Oh, I'm certain it was intentional. Personally, I'm fond of the set, despite the fact I know little about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sugar Plum Fairy on Oct 31, 2004 23:32:31 GMT -6
Masques is a great set. Its got a lot of cool cards like Cho Manno, Revolutionary for example. Its kinda like a white Uncle Istvan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butcher Orgg(s) on Nov 10, 2004 7:45:21 GMT -6
... Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
|
|
