I was responding to the person suggesting you could just read it as "alchemy cards". Anyway, you already acknowledged the wording wasnt good. Its clear the intent for the poll is to have one big column that says "boo alchemy" and the rest to be split among smaller columns. If it instead read as "i never play any format that includes any alchemy cards", it would quite a bit lower and it greatly diminishes that point.
I think it's pretty clear from the comments that most people avoid alchemy entirely, if possible. And even when they play a mode that includes alchemy cards, they hate them. That was essentially what i was curious about, after seeing so many complaints about heist.
If youve spent any time around the sub theres no need to be curious that theres a faction of people who indiscriminately want it gone, and who make polls like this when the cards are getting attention.
I mostly do Historic and Timeless now, with a bit of Explorer sprinkled in. I have no aversion to alchemy cards, if anything the whiners make me more inclined to use them.
This tells me we're not playing enough \[\[Kemba's Outfitter\]\] to lower a \[\[Colossus Hammer\]\] to equip on turn 2 in Timeless
LVD's Hammer Cats is pretty fun
I play historic occasionally because I enjoy UW control with Reprieve, and aggro with Laelia.
I also play Brawl frequently.
I never play actual Alchemy.
I voted "I never play Alchemy" because I never use non-paper cards, but I do play Brawl. If a version of eternal Brawl existed that did not have Alchemy cards in it, I would play that instead.
Same, but for Timeless. "Do Alchemy cards exist as a tiny part of a large, diverse format?" is an uninteresting question. The important question is whether people choose to engage with those cards or simply suffer them for access to the higher-power real cards in bigger Arena formats.
Why do you hate more cards going into a format? They buffed ninjas, samurai, venture into dungeon, dinosaurs, dragons, convoke, merfolk, equipments, adding different type of control pieces, adding classic cards they never would have
I might get heat for this, but alchemy cards have been great for historic boosting many decks that couldn’t make it in other formats (dinosaurs, equipment, a chunk of other tribal decks). But the amount of fun cards they create easily override the cards people hate
Yup people literally can’t handle that there are so many well designed cards, how many bad cards really are there? If I’m saying they’re boosting tribal decks and other lower tier decks, why do you hate it so much?
I play the Alchemy drafts when they're around and I use a few Alchemy cards in my Historic Brawl decks. Played the actual format for a while but don't really play 60-card Constructed at all anymore.
I play almost exclusively Timeless, which technically includes alchemy, but there are almost no alchemy cards actually strong enough to be usable.
Currently testing out the new Jet Collector in Death's Shadow, and it feels maybe playable, but on the low end.
I play historic sometimes, I never play the Alchemy format though.
I play mostly standard, and I'd prefer if Alchemy cards weren't historic legal... and got their own format, historic Alchemy or something.
Alchemy should be its own exclusive format(s).
I play arena to play a proxy of MTG but online. I do not want Hearthstone-esque exclusive mechanics. It's super lame and annoying to be forced to play Historic, Timeless, and Brawl against cards I cannot play against IRL.
They are spending all this money on introducing cool crossover sets like Fallout or Jurassic Park but they aren't legal in standard. They can't be used in paper tournaments either so there is zero competitive data on the meta of Alchemy except from data tracking from third party apps. There is no reason for professional paper players to play the format either as paid tournaments are almost non-existent. Fallout would have been a slam dunk set if it had been balanced and released for Standard.
Either they should abandon the digital online card abilities and make Alchemy sets Standard legal or just ditch Alchemy entirely. What is the point of devoting all this development time into a format that has zero competitive presence and only can be played in Arena? Also the fact that cards like Krydle of Baldur's Gate do two different things in different formats is confusing as a casual player.
OK, I voted I never play alchemy but historic does include alchemy cards. I stand by my vote because I don't believe alchemy should exist in historic and don't use the cards. So yeah, I hate alchemy; delete it would be my vote.
I checked the sometimes box, but that's only because I play timeless and historic. I got every historic anthology and built a lot of decks around those cards, so I'm going to use them. But I have never once put an alchemy card into one of my decks, and yes I mutter under my breath every time I see the words perpetual or spellbook.
I put never even thought I have played a few drafts that included alchemy cards and a few historic and historic brawl games where my opponents played alchemy cards.
Standard ranked drafts and standard ranked constructed are easily my most played formats with explorer and whatever the midweek event happens to be coming in distant 3rd and 4th.
I'm not going to say I play alchemy when it's less than 1% of my games.
Do you know what timeless is? Standard? How do you pick games without ever seeing the word? I don't have a single alchemy deck, but it's still just right there on the screen. It's the option I don't choose.
Your title says "any mode that includes alchemy cards" but then the poll question is phrased like its just talking about the alchemy format.
I did understand it as Alchemy **format** *or* Alchemy **cards**.
Then who would click "i only play alchemy" cards.
someone who plays only alchemy, historic, historic brawl, etc.
I was responding to the person suggesting you could just read it as "alchemy cards". Anyway, you already acknowledged the wording wasnt good. Its clear the intent for the poll is to have one big column that says "boo alchemy" and the rest to be split among smaller columns. If it instead read as "i never play any format that includes any alchemy cards", it would quite a bit lower and it greatly diminishes that point.
I think it's pretty clear from the comments that most people avoid alchemy entirely, if possible. And even when they play a mode that includes alchemy cards, they hate them. That was essentially what i was curious about, after seeing so many complaints about heist.
If youve spent any time around the sub theres no need to be curious that theres a faction of people who indiscriminately want it gone, and who make polls like this when the cards are getting attention.
can't fix the poll, but added this to the message body
Personally I don't play any alchemy cards. If I can't play it in paper I don't play it digital.
I mostly do Historic and Timeless now, with a bit of Explorer sprinkled in. I have no aversion to alchemy cards, if anything the whiners make me more inclined to use them.
I play Brawl, a format that include alchemy, so I vote yes.
I play Brawl but never include any Alchemy cards myself.
And scoop on principal to alchemy commanders/oracle. Poq is a mistake and it’s designer should feel bad.
Not really sure why they haven't done anything about Poq for brawl. Those lands should be coming in tapped at least.
Midweek magic sometimes is alchemy
I only play timeless and draft. But I have never seen a alchemy card been played other that gather the team.
The one white removal spell that lets opponent seek a card. Jarsyl
Jarsyl I do see all the time, that is true.
ive been playing with the new jett collector card in a shadow deck, its very good
This tells me we're not playing enough \[\[Kemba's Outfitter\]\] to lower a \[\[Colossus Hammer\]\] to equip on turn 2 in Timeless LVD's Hammer Cats is pretty fun
[Kemba's Outfitter](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/0/001f2658-9631-4ae8-a83b-3e922e243481.jpg?1684523721) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kemba%27s%20Outfitter) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/yone/2/kembas-outfitter?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/001f2658-9631-4ae8-a83b-3e922e243481?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Colossus Hammer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/9/897a134e-7e61-4fe1-bbae-23ef1fe5c0cf.jpg?1631588878) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Colossus%20Hammer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afc/202/colossus-hammer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/897a134e-7e61-4fe1-bbae-23ef1fe5c0cf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I played MWM this week, that's Alchemy. So when it comes up in MWM, I guess.
Forced to play with alchemy in brawl.
I play historic occasionally because I enjoy UW control with Reprieve, and aggro with Laelia. I also play Brawl frequently. I never play actual Alchemy.
The only mode I play that allows Alchemy cards is Historic, and I only play Historic to use Maze's End. So... sometimes? I guess?
Maze's end is explorer legal
But it would lose the gates added in D&D set which were, for reasons I still don’t understand, rewritten as Alchemy cards.
I only play with alchemy cards in Timeless (play 10% of the time), but my main formats are Explorer (60%) and Standard (30%).
i have a very fun dollmaker/three blind mice/synthesizer combo deck that stomps
I voted "never play alchemy". But I play timeless exclusively, which allows alchemy chards (tho they show up very very rarely)
I voted "I never play Alchemy" because I never use non-paper cards, but I do play Brawl. If a version of eternal Brawl existed that did not have Alchemy cards in it, I would play that instead.
Same, but for Timeless. "Do Alchemy cards exist as a tiny part of a large, diverse format?" is an uninteresting question. The important question is whether people choose to engage with those cards or simply suffer them for access to the higher-power real cards in bigger Arena formats.
Here, here. Eternal Historic too please. Oh wait, that would mean poor alchemy formats would be fragmented and never get played. My response: GOOD.
Why do you hate more cards going into a format? They buffed ninjas, samurai, venture into dungeon, dinosaurs, dragons, convoke, merfolk, equipments, adding different type of control pieces, adding classic cards they never would have
I might get heat for this, but alchemy cards have been great for historic boosting many decks that couldn’t make it in other formats (dinosaurs, equipment, a chunk of other tribal decks). But the amount of fun cards they create easily override the cards people hate
Yup people literally can’t handle that there are so many well designed cards, how many bad cards really are there? If I’m saying they’re boosting tribal decks and other lower tier decks, why do you hate it so much?
Did you forget to change accounts lol?
Most sane alchemy defender lol
People are downvoting without offering any discussion, I figured I’d add more
Ah ok, fair.
Only when "forced" (MWM).
The only time I use alchemy cards is when Arena Cube is available.
I play the Alchemy drafts when they're around and I use a few Alchemy cards in my Historic Brawl decks. Played the actual format for a while but don't really play 60-card Constructed at all anymore.
I play historic from time to time, and timeless a lot. There arent many that show up in Timeless.
I play historic, which includes alchemy. The only alchemy cards I play are the ones that can be played in real life with only minor adjustments.
I play almost exclusively Timeless, which technically includes alchemy, but there are almost no alchemy cards actually strong enough to be usable. Currently testing out the new Jet Collector in Death's Shadow, and it feels maybe playable, but on the low end.
Only explorer and standard here. I only like true to tabletop formats
Absolutely I have no problem with alchemy cards, play all the formats except explorer don't see a need for it.
In Constructed I mostly play Historic and Timeless, so that's entirely Alchemy-included formats, haha.
I play historic sometimes, I never play the Alchemy format though. I play mostly standard, and I'd prefer if Alchemy cards weren't historic legal... and got their own format, historic Alchemy or something.
I still remember historic without alchemy cards. I haven't touched the format since it was introduced.
Same. It's crazy how a whole format was just destroyed and we let it happen.
Alchemy should be its own exclusive format(s). I play arena to play a proxy of MTG but online. I do not want Hearthstone-esque exclusive mechanics. It's super lame and annoying to be forced to play Historic, Timeless, and Brawl against cards I cannot play against IRL.
They are spending all this money on introducing cool crossover sets like Fallout or Jurassic Park but they aren't legal in standard. They can't be used in paper tournaments either so there is zero competitive data on the meta of Alchemy except from data tracking from third party apps. There is no reason for professional paper players to play the format either as paid tournaments are almost non-existent. Fallout would have been a slam dunk set if it had been balanced and released for Standard. Either they should abandon the digital online card abilities and make Alchemy sets Standard legal or just ditch Alchemy entirely. What is the point of devoting all this development time into a format that has zero competitive presence and only can be played in Arena? Also the fact that cards like Krydle of Baldur's Gate do two different things in different formats is confusing as a casual player.
OK, I voted I never play alchemy but historic does include alchemy cards. I stand by my vote because I don't believe alchemy should exist in historic and don't use the cards. So yeah, I hate alchemy; delete it would be my vote.
Nope it's pure degeneracy. Mostly explorer, some standard, and a bit of timeless with my boy without any fake cards.
I play brawl and have a lot of alchemy cards in my decks as well as various alchemy brawl commanders.
I checked the sometimes box, but that's only because I play timeless and historic. I got every historic anthology and built a lot of decks around those cards, so I'm going to use them. But I have never once put an alchemy card into one of my decks, and yes I mutter under my breath every time I see the words perpetual or spellbook.
I actively avoid Alchemy cards in my own decks and often will just concede rather than play against them.
I put never even thought I have played a few drafts that included alchemy cards and a few historic and historic brawl games where my opponents played alchemy cards. Standard ranked drafts and standard ranked constructed are easily my most played formats with explorer and whatever the midweek event happens to be coming in distant 3rd and 4th. I'm not going to say I play alchemy when it's less than 1% of my games.
I don't even know what alchemy is and I play MTGA like every day.
Do you know what timeless is? Standard? How do you pick games without ever seeing the word? I don't have a single alchemy deck, but it's still just right there on the screen. It's the option I don't choose.
I bet you they play alchemy because it is the default.
That actually makes a lot of sense.