The game is ideal for the kitchen table experience. Specifically it tries to emulate the experience of having shitty MTG decks in the 90s and enjoying all the fun flavor interactions that come from it. It takes up a decent amount of table space and IMO the game is a little unwieldly due to having 20 tiles + multiple cards on those tiles on different layers (underground and above ground), but this is fine if you're just fucking around and playing a thematic deck that you think sounds cool. This game is very good at that if you're looking for this sort of experience.

As a competitive game, it's pretty mid or worse. That's not to say its unbalanced or anything, but the yearly set releases and the relatively low player count means that you'll struggle to find games, and struggle to maintain a playgroup in anywhere but an at-home setting. They do have occasional tournaments and whatnot, but they're not particularly popular.

The finance side is whatever. Decks are about as an expensive as a standard MTG deck, with the number of copies allowed of each card in deck determined by the rarity of the card. Product is a bit annoying to acquire, especially promos, which do contain unique cards. Getting a full set is quite difficult due to how big sets are, but it's a once-a-year ask if you're that sort of player that likes having everything at their disposal.

Overall like 4-5/10. I'm a big gameplay guy and I can play a few games just fine, but it gets kinda samey and you do feel kinda starved for cards in the midgame without a tightly constructed deck.

>>96765137
BEGONE FABGOT

>>96764844
I've played the precon decks and they're fun

>>96765144
???

>>96765145
Cool.
I'll look into this at my LGS tomorrow.

>>96767996
presumably anon doesn't believe people are capable of writing this much text anymore, probably because he himself can't
for what's it worth, I thought yours was a good review

>>96768157
i didn't write the review, i was just wondering why he reacted like that to the review.

bump.

This game is about 3 years old now.
I wonder if FaB was in the same beginner-state as this game, 3 years in?

>>96764844
I've had a look at the art and while I like it and, IIRC, this is the 'physical, non-digital art' TCG, it still doesn't strike me as much as even say- 2010 MtG art on like Innistrad.

>>96770130
>I've had a look at the art and while I like it and, IIRC, this is the 'physical, non-digital art' TCG, it still doesn't strike me as much as even say- 2010 MtG art on like Innistrad.
interesting. could you elaborate?

>>96769873
>year 3 FaB
That's 2022, and yes they were in a beginner state. FaB didn't hit pace (3 full draft sets per year) until 2024 - year 5.
2022 itself was actually a pretty bad year with a lot of early excitement draining and long stretches of stale draft.
On the other hand, the competitive scene was already fairly well developed by then and that was always FaB's focus. Even now with the better product pipeline the current player numbers aren't mindblowing. Niche games are niche and all that.

To bring it back to Sorcery. No, I don't think the current state is necessarily a doom and gloom scenario. However, it's important to adjust one's expectations.

>>96770301
Nah. It's just the difference in nostalgia I guess.
~2010 was when I was biggest into MtG so that stuff is what I think of when I think old Magic. Looking over it on Scryfall there's actually quite a bit of not great looking digital fantasy art the likes of which were splattered all over D&D at the time.
Looking at SCR's art it probably looks a lot more like early MtG than the 2000s cards I was looking at this weekend in my Cube do.

>>96771200
Is there something wrong with digital art, or is it just the art direction that MtG went in?

To be clear I'm not against digital art; there is a lot of digital art I like.

File: m21-74-sublime-epiphany.png (1.57 MB, 745x1040)

1.57 MB PNG

MtG still does abstract stuff or unique art but its not as common.