I am toying with the concept of a constructed format to be named "Simple Magic" or "Budget Magic" or perhaps "Affordable Magic."
Most of you have much more experience and skill than I do, so before I make a website pushing this concept, I need to get your opinions first.
THE FORMAT:
Would the following constructed format work?
45 cards minimum
1 copy of any single rare, maximum
2 copies of any single uncommon, maximum
3 copies of any single common, maximum
gold-bordered cards OK as long as the entire deck is sleeved (non-transparent)
A card restricted or banned in ANY format--even block constructed--is banned in ALL versions of this format (for example, Arcbound Ravager--normally banned in Mirrodin Block only--would be banned in the Legacy version of this format as well)
THE REASONING:
The motivation for this format is similar to that of Pauper Magic. Yet with this format, by contrast, nearly every possibility remains open, since all unbanned rares are available for strategies, combinations, etc.
In constructed games, rares are functionally no more "rare" than common cards, since there can be four of any one rare as well as four of any one common. With this format, rares really are rare.
In regular constructed Magic, the minimum is 60 cards, leaving, at maximum, one of any single card for every 15 cards. With this format--three maximum of any single common in a 45-card deck--the 1/15 ratio is preserved.
99% of games do not end with the opponent being "decked." This format increases the odds of that happening.
Many (if not most?) games end before the players have made it through even half of their decks. This format will ensure that players get to experience a much greater percentage of their cards during any given game.
The potential for mana screw is sharply reduced. This is because the fewer the cards, the greater percentage of a deck is drawn in the same amount of turns. So, rather than c. 20-24 lands, the range would be c. 15-18 lands.
This format saves money. Rather than having to have four copies of a necessary rare, only one is needed.
This format saves time. It takes much less time to find one trading partner for a given rare than up to four trading partners.
With gold-bordered cards being legal, it will be easier to obtain the good rares (as long as one is willing to buy the appropriate world championship deck).
So, what do you think? Is this a viable constructed deck format? Could/would it work?
Its definetly interesting. Have you built any decks or played any games?
I like the idea of the rarity limiting the quantity...feels a bit like more of a proprer resource management kind of model...is a rare so good that its worth taking up a slot?
What about rarity changes? Loxodon Warhammer was uncommon in Mirrodin, but was most recently released as a rare.
It seems like you're glad that milling is easier in this format. Considering most people don't like to lose that way (that's especially true of casual players, in my experience, and this is obv a casual format), why encourage milling decks? Even with the 1-2-3 limits, there are plenty of milling cards out there, and with library size at -15 to normal, there seems little reason NOT to play that kind of strategy.
Also, while I'm certainly no probability expert, wouldn't the chances of drawing lands be about the same? 18:45 :: 24:60, after all. I mean, the odds might be slightly skewed one way or the other, but it doesn't seem like they would be to a statistically significant degree.
the 1 rare rule kind of breaks down when you add in Transmute since it effectively means 4 rares (or potentially more depending on the rare you use and the available transmute cards).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
Its definetly interesting. Have you built any decks or played any games?
Thanks! No, I haven't built any decks or played any games with it yet, but I've been contemplating this for quite some time. I wanted to get y'alls opinions before I went all-out.
What about rarity changes? Loxodon Warhammer was uncommon in Mirrodin, but was most recently released as a rare.
Oops! I forgot to mention that. Players would have to choose one set type and stick with it. With your Loxodon Warhammer example, a player would have to choose either two copies of it from Mirrodin or one copy of it in Ninth Edition, but not both.
Quote from "Dr. Tom" »
It seems like you're glad that milling is easier in this format. Considering most people don't like to lose that way (that's especially true of casual players, in my experience, and this is obv a casual format), why encourage milling decks?
It's not so much the mill deck archetype I'm trying to promote; it's the greater chance of generically losing to a non-mill deck I'm pushing for. Or, in other words, the adrenalin will be a little higher knowing that one has to worry a little bit more about running out of cards before winning.
Even with the 1-2-3 limits, there are plenty of milling cards out there, and with library size at -15 to normal, there seems little reason NOT to play that kind of strategy.
Yes, it will be a little more viable in this format, but I hope that not everyone will automatically want to play a mill deck based on that alone.
Also, while I'm certainly no probability expert, wouldn't the chances of drawing lands be about the same? 18:45 :: 24:60, after all. I mean, the odds might be slightly skewed one way or the other, but it doesn't seem like they would be to a statistically significant degree.
You're absolutely right! The difference, however, lies in the chances of "beating" the odds and getting mana screwed. At the beginning of the game, drawing seven cards out of a 45 card deck gets you 15.5% of your card total, whereas drawing seven cards out of a 60 card deck gets you 11.6% of your card total. That's a difference of 3.9% of your deck. Since, when playing a 60-card deck, a single card is 1.6% of your deck, your chances of getting mana hosed in a seven-card opening hand of a 45-card deck is roughly equivalent to your chances of getting mana hosed in a nine card opening hand of a 60-card deck.
So, with the 60-card constructed decks we usually play, imagine drawing nine cards in your opening hand instead of the normal seven: Yes, it's possible to get mana screwed, but the odds are much less that you'll need to mulligan, right? So it goes with this new format.
Quote from "pokerbob1" »
the 1 rare rule kind of breaks down when you add in Transmute since it effectively means 4 rares (or potentially more depending on the rare you use and the available transmute cards).
I hear what you're saying, but I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. With your Glimpse the Unthinkable and Dimir Infiltrator example, there can only be oneGlimpse the Unthinkable card in the entire deck (and only three Dimir Infiltrators), so Transmute will give you three chances to retrieve one rare, not three chances to retrieve three rares.
In Pauper, the highest rarity of a card is used to determine its actual rarity. Forcing people to only pick their playset from one set rather than allowing a mix of printings is counter-productive to what you are trying to produce.
Since 50% of the casual players have trouble keeping decks to 60 cards, making the deck size 45 actually is a bad idea since it does even more to drive a wedge between good deck builders and poor ones. This also defeats the purpose of your intentions.
If you want to decrease the odds of mana screw, you need to come up with a better idea. Maybe have people start the game with a shuffled pile of land and a shuffled pile of non-land. Draw 4 non-land and 3 land for an openning hand, then shuffle the two piles together. For this idea to not be broken, "same as land" cards need to go in the land pile...such as Chrome Mox, Lotus Petal or Land Grant. I would force a minimum land % rule then as well (around 15) to prevent someone from building a 2 land belcher variant or 2-4 land goblin or stompy. I say 15 because it is easy to build a deck that runs on 3 lands and doesn't want to draw anymore.
Ultimately, people just need to learn how to mana balance their decks, maybe just allow the "Big deck mulligan" rule used in casual on MTGO or allow 1 free mulligan every game.
You could also allow Un-cards. Some earlier Pauper formats allowed them and they worked fine.
Another idea to force some diversity is to recall the old DCI rule that required a certain number of cards from each set. Concidering how many sets there are, I would say minimum of one card representing each set except Chrocles (since it was a reprint set) and core sets (same reason) accept the original (counting A/B and Unlimited as one set)
The actual printing of the card does not matter, just that the card is available in that set. Someone could put 2 Counterspell in their deck..one for ABU, one for Ice Age for instance.
It's not so much the mill deck archetype I'm trying to promote; it's the greater chance of generically losing to a non-mill deck I'm pushing for. Or, in other words, the adrenalin will be a little higher knowing that one has to worry a little bit more about running out of cards before winning.
Do you find most games end with 15 or less cards in regular magic? Because I don't. I mean, there is the occasional game that goes long and maybe we both get down to 20 cards. But having 15 less cards in the deck would do little more than involve a little more sweating and probably encourage defensive play. To be blunt, I don't like the idea.
Now, it is just the minimum and there is no inherent reason to play the least amount of cards you can, except by limiting the number of rares people will play the least to see their best cards most often. So, as the above poster points out, you're working against yourself.
Also, while this seems to be a budget friendly option, what is to stop someone from making a highly-efficient deck utilizing different bomb rares. OK, we can't have 4x Meloku, so we play a Morphling, Keiga, Meloku, and Mahamotti in their place. Or maybe only 3 threats because the decks are smaller. The point is, since people can still play rares, they will, and if you have better cards you'll have better rares. If anything, by limiting the common element you are hurting budget players.
A format I'd like to see would simply be "No Rares". Min 60 deck, same restricted list as Legacy for uncommons and commons (heya Skullclamp). An alternate could be "1 Rare" where each deck has 1 slot that could be devoted to a rare. While you could go the transmute route and "play 5", you still only get to cast it once.
In Pauper, the highest rarity of a card is used to determine its actual rarity. Forcing people to only pick their playset from one set rather than allowing a mix of printings is counter-productive to what you are trying to produce.
Yeah, perhaps it's better to go by highest rarity. My original intent, though, was to obviate the need to go looking online or otherwise having to memorize which cards have been reprinted in different rarities. The visual indicators (color of expansion symbol) should be enough, ideally (although I realize it doesn't help with any set before Stronghold).
Since 50% of the casual players have trouble keeping decks to 60 cards, making the deck size 45 actually is a bad idea since it does even more to drive a wedge between good deck builders and poor ones. This also defeats the purpose of your intentions.
Are you sure? This format will only require 45 cards minimum, not minimum and maximum, so players could still play with 60 cards if they so desire.
If you want to decrease the odds of mana screw, you need to come up with a better idea.
Decreasing the odds of mana screw was only intended to be a nice side effect; it wasn't the entire goal of the format. The major goal of the format is to reduce the cost, time, and hassle required to assemble a competitive deck.
Another idea to force some diversity is to recall the old DCI rule that required a certain number of cards from each set. Concidering how many sets there are, I would say minimum of one card representing each set except Chrocles (since it was a reprint set) and core sets (same reason) accept the original (counting A/B and Unlimited as one set)
I don't think that would be necessary for this format. I'd rather not force people to play with cards they'd otherwise choose not to. Plus, the less memorization of what's included in earlier expansions, the better.
Quote from "technik4" »
Do you find most games end with 15 or less cards in regular magic?
No, not at all. In fact, I find that most of my games end with easily 30+ cards remaining--50% or more of the deck.
Because I don't. I mean, there is the occasional game that goes long and maybe we both get down to 20 cards. But having 15 less cards in the deck would do little more than involve a little more sweating and probably encourage defensive play.
In my opinion, sweating is good. But as for your comment about encouraging defensive play, I admit that I don't see how. With defensive playing, one is more likely to delay the ending of the game and risking a loss due to being "decked." This risk would encourage one to play more offensively, in my opinion--but I'm open for correction.
Now, it is just the minimum and there is no inherent reason to play the least amount of cards you can, except by limiting the number of rares people will play the least to see their best cards most often. So, as the above poster points out, you're working against yourself.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here, since nobody has to play a rare if they don't want to.
Also, while this seems to be a budget friendly option, what is to stop someone from making a highly-efficient deck utilizing different bomb rares. OK, we can't have 4x Meloku, so we play a Morphling, Keiga, Meloku, and Mahamotti in their place.
That's where the Type 2, Block Constructed, Extended, etc. formats do their work. In a Type 2 format, for example, Morphling (and others) aren't a threat.
Or maybe only 3 threats because the decks are smaller. The point is, since people can still play rares, they will, and if you have better cards you'll have better rares. If anything, by limiting the common element you are hurting budget players.
When you say "limiting the common element," are you referring to limiting the number of any given common card, or do you mean "common element" as in "universal" or "standardized" element? Either way, I fail to see how I'm hurting budget players, since as soon as they get their first necessary rare they don't need to buy, trade, or "chase" for any more copies of it. A poor (forgive me) player with one copy of, say, Temple Garden would be on equal footing with a rich player with four copies of Temple Garden, since the rich player could only have one copy of it in any given deck anyway.
A format I'd like to see would simply be "No Rares".
I can see the advantage of that. Although I admire the concept of Pauper Magic, I don't think uncommons--even the better ones--are all that hard to come by.
Good ideas though
Thank you!
HERE'S WHAT THIS FORMAT IS ALL ABOUT:
Way back in the early part of Magic's history, when Wizards made the choice to limit individual cards to four copies each, notice what else they did? They increased the minimum deck size from 40 to 60! In this way, they increased the amount of card slots that players would need to fill, thus also increasing their bottom line.
I can see their point in doing this, since they're a business that exists to make money. But my point with this new format is to start a grassroots uprising among Magic players who are willing to say "NO!" to Wizards. Who are willing to put their feet down and declare, "We're sick of having to buy and chase while you crank out set after set. We want to be able to finish constructing our decks after pulling our first rare, not our fourth."
All the other advantages--less mana screw, rares really are rare, etc.--are just details. Icing on the cake, if you will.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. With your Glimpse the Unthinkable and Dimir Infiltrator example, there can only be oneGlimpse the Unthinkable card in the entire deck (and only three Dimir Infiltrators), so Transmute will give you three chances to retrieve one rare, not three chances to retrieve three rares.
but you could still do silly things with Junktroller so you can transmute for rares more often. And with transmute you can have 4 times the chance of pulling your game breaking rare. So there are ways to break the spirit of the format.
Also, time shifted cards. Do they count as the rarity they were originally printed as?
I really like this idea, and plan on testing it out some this week... I can post some decklists and how it went if you're interested...
Also... I think mill will be a viable strategy, but I don't think it will be the be all to end all in this format... cards like junktroller can be used to work with mill (in the glimpse idea) or against mill... I mean you will always have the draw of your choice if you do get your junktroller right?
but you could still do silly things with Junktroller so you can transmute for rares more often. And with transmute you can have 4 times the chance of pulling your game breaking rare. So there are ways to break the spirit of the format.
Yes, that's true. There might be ways to "break" the spirit of the format, but let's face it: Your transmute/Junktroller scenario would be just as true even with a typical 60 card/4 copy deck.
So even though this format is "breakable," is that a good enough reason to abandon it entirely? That's more or less the question I'd like feedback to.
Also, time shifted cards. Do they count as the rarity they were originally printed as?
That's a GREAT question. I certainly don't have all the original rarities memorized, so perhaps that's yet another reason to institute the "rarest rarity takes precedent" rule, as another poster mentioned. In this case, the purple symbol would qualify timeshifted cards as rares.
I really like this idea, and plan on testing it out some this week... I can post some decklists and how it went if you're interested...
Yes, PLEASE! I would LOVE to get your feedback, since I probably won't have a chance to properly test it myself for a couple of weeks.
Also... I think mill will be a viable strategy, but I don't think it will be the be all to end all in this format... cards like junktroller can be used to work with mill (in the glimpse idea) or against mill... I mean you will always have the draw of your choice if you do get your junktroller right?
That's an excellent point. A mill player would draw his mill cards no sooner than his/her opponent would draw his/her anti-mill cards (like Junktroller, Tel-Jilad Stylus, etc.).
Originally Posted by pokerbob1 but you could still do silly things with Junktroller so you can transmute for rares more often. And with transmute you can have 4 times the chance of pulling your game breaking rare. So there are ways to break the spirit of the format.
But that also requires you to run a deck based around junktroller and transmuters just to perpetuate the chance that you might be able to mill them off of one card. This also assumes that your opponent is running absolutely no disruption.
Anyways, this looks pretty kewl, I'll have to try it out! I take it gold-bordered cards count as whatever rarity they actually are?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I U Dio GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
But in type II i have no idea of what deck can emerge in your 1/2/3 format. (Maybe burn [:mad1::mad1:]?)
Burn, by default I think, is the standard against which all other decks must be judged when testing new formats. It seems it can almost always race and win.
I had a simmilar format idea that I made a couple of my friends build decks for. Precon Rules:
2 Rares no more than x1
13 Uncomons no more than x2
Rest Commons no more than x3
Real Simple
But in type II i have no idea of what deck can emerge in your 1/2/3 format. (Maybe burn? 2 helix, 3 shock, 3 rift bolt, 1 demonfire, 3 desintegrate - yep it's a common - 3 volcanic hammer, 3 seal of fire, 1 char, 2 browbeat, 1 solifuge, 2 sudden shock and say 16 mountain? yep miss 5 cards... oh 1 blaze :))
If the rules of "all timeshifted cards are rare" and "rarist rarity trumps" went into effect, disintegrate would take up the rare spot.
Would the non-restricted Wishes be allowed in the format as your rare? They could be all kinds of different rares.
As for a milling strategy, something based off of solidarty would probably work best since Reset is uncommon and the majority of the deck is commons and uncommons (High Tide, Brain Freeze, etc).
It could be interesting to see if a viable Mesmeric Orb deck could be built. The deck would need protection against burn...like Ivory Mask or sime kind of circle of protection. And then you can just make your deck slightly bigger so you don't deck yourself to the Orb.
I wont have results untill sometime in 2007 as I've decided to take this a bit more seriously, and I'm going to work on the decks to make some higher tier things...
I will have burn and mill, but I dont know what else yet
I take it gold-bordered cards count as whatever rarity they actually are?
That's correct. The gold border would mean absolutely nothing other than the fact that it must be sleeved (since their card backs are different from those of regular Magic cards).
Quote from "Ouizzeul" »
Well madness will win, again and again, like in all "peasant" format... That is the problem with "low cost" format.
Why is that? Remember, the opponent will have access to rares too, just less of any single rare.
Quote from "Wry" »
I had a simmilar format idea that I made a couple of my friends build decks for. Precon Rules:
2 Rares no more than x1
13 Uncomons no more than x2
Rest Commons no more than x3
How did it work out?
With this new "Budget Magic" system, you could play with all your favorite rares--just one of them per deck.
Quote from "pokerbob1" »
Would the non-restricted Wishes be allowed in the format as your rare? They could be all kinds of different rares.
Yes. Of course, the nomal rules of Standard/Extended/Legacy would apply here with a Budget Magic deck, so a matchup between Standard decks wouldn't have to worry about the "wishes."
Remember: This format is a way of saying "NO!" to Wizards of the Coast. It's also a way of narrowing the gap between those who purchase multiple boxes of each new set and those who have neither the money nor the inclination to do so. It's also a way of making preconstructed decks a bit more competitive than they'd otherwise be fresh-out-of-the-box. It's also a way to finish building a competitive deck sooner--less time and money need be spent chasing rares.
And that's only a few of the many other advantages.
Last night I was able to play some games using this format. It worked great!
We played with 15 lands out of 45 cards, or 1/3 lands. This is equivalent to 20 lands in a 60 card deck, of course, as I've explained.
Mulligans, mana screw, etc. weren't any more of a problem than with 60-card decks. If anything, it was less of a problem, on average, than would've been expected from 60-card decks.
A good time was had by all. Yes, this is a format that provides the same experience, but requires much, much less rare chasing and monetary investment.
Well, here's some disadvantages.
It's harder to build decks around cool rares.
You can still build a deck with lots of rares, they just have to all be different.
You have to build new decks for it, you can't use the same decks that you use in tournaments.
And I'm pretty sure it doesn't decrease the odds of mana screw. If you run 15 lands in a 45-card deck, that's the same as running 20 in a 60-card deck.
And I'm pretty sure it doesn't decrease the odds of mana screw. If you run 15 lands in a 45-card deck, that's the same as running 20 in a 60-card deck.
I understand what you're saying, but with a 45-card deck, you draw a greater % of your deck in your opening hand (and every card thereafter), causing you to get to your lands quicker, thus reducing the possibility of mana screw by that amount.
I am toying with the concept of a constructed format to be named "Simple Magic" or "Budget Magic" or perhaps "Affordable Magic."
Most of you have much more experience and skill than I do, so before I make a website pushing this concept, I need to get your opinions first.
THE FORMAT:
Would the following constructed format work?
Thanks in advance!
The Great Creature Token Project
I like the idea of the rarity limiting the quantity...feels a bit like more of a proprer resource management kind of model...is a rare so good that its worth taking up a slot?
What about rarity changes? Loxodon Warhammer was uncommon in Mirrodin, but was most recently released as a rare.
Magic scoresheet for download
Turn reference chart for download
Also, while I'm certainly no probability expert, wouldn't the chances of drawing lands be about the same? 18:45 :: 24:60, after all. I mean, the odds might be slightly skewed one way or the other, but it doesn't seem like they would be to a statistically significant degree.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
the 1 rare rule kind of breaks down when you add in Transmute since it effectively means 4 rares (or potentially more depending on the rare you use and the available transmute cards).
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
Thanks! No, I haven't built any decks or played any games with it yet, but I've been contemplating this for quite some time. I wanted to get y'alls opinions before I went all-out.
Oops! I forgot to mention that. Players would have to choose one set type and stick with it. With your Loxodon Warhammer example, a player would have to choose either two copies of it from Mirrodin or one copy of it in Ninth Edition, but not both.
It's not so much the mill deck archetype I'm trying to promote; it's the greater chance of generically losing to a non-mill deck I'm pushing for. Or, in other words, the adrenalin will be a little higher knowing that one has to worry a little bit more about running out of cards before winning.
Yes, it will be a little more viable in this format, but I hope that not everyone will automatically want to play a mill deck based on that alone.
You're absolutely right! The difference, however, lies in the chances of "beating" the odds and getting mana screwed. At the beginning of the game, drawing seven cards out of a 45 card deck gets you 15.5% of your card total, whereas drawing seven cards out of a 60 card deck gets you 11.6% of your card total. That's a difference of 3.9% of your deck. Since, when playing a 60-card deck, a single card is 1.6% of your deck, your chances of getting mana hosed in a seven-card opening hand of a 45-card deck is roughly equivalent to your chances of getting mana hosed in a nine card opening hand of a 60-card deck.
So, with the 60-card constructed decks we usually play, imagine drawing nine cards in your opening hand instead of the normal seven: Yes, it's possible to get mana screwed, but the odds are much less that you'll need to mulligan, right? So it goes with this new format.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. With your Glimpse the Unthinkable and Dimir Infiltrator example, there can only be one Glimpse the Unthinkable card in the entire deck (and only three Dimir Infiltrators), so Transmute will give you three chances to retrieve one rare, not three chances to retrieve three rares.
Am I still on the right track?
The Great Creature Token Project
In Pauper, the highest rarity of a card is used to determine its actual rarity. Forcing people to only pick their playset from one set rather than allowing a mix of printings is counter-productive to what you are trying to produce.
Since 50% of the casual players have trouble keeping decks to 60 cards, making the deck size 45 actually is a bad idea since it does even more to drive a wedge between good deck builders and poor ones. This also defeats the purpose of your intentions.
If you want to decrease the odds of mana screw, you need to come up with a better idea. Maybe have people start the game with a shuffled pile of land and a shuffled pile of non-land. Draw 4 non-land and 3 land for an openning hand, then shuffle the two piles together. For this idea to not be broken, "same as land" cards need to go in the land pile...such as Chrome Mox, Lotus Petal or Land Grant. I would force a minimum land % rule then as well (around 15) to prevent someone from building a 2 land belcher variant or 2-4 land goblin or stompy. I say 15 because it is easy to build a deck that runs on 3 lands and doesn't want to draw anymore.
Ultimately, people just need to learn how to mana balance their decks, maybe just allow the "Big deck mulligan" rule used in casual on MTGO or allow 1 free mulligan every game.
You could also allow Un-cards. Some earlier Pauper formats allowed them and they worked fine.
Another idea to force some diversity is to recall the old DCI rule that required a certain number of cards from each set. Concidering how many sets there are, I would say minimum of one card representing each set except Chrocles (since it was a reprint set) and core sets (same reason) accept the original (counting A/B and Unlimited as one set)
The actual printing of the card does not matter, just that the card is available in that set. Someone could put 2 Counterspell in their deck..one for ABU, one for Ice Age for instance.
Do you find most games end with 15 or less cards in regular magic? Because I don't. I mean, there is the occasional game that goes long and maybe we both get down to 20 cards. But having 15 less cards in the deck would do little more than involve a little more sweating and probably encourage defensive play. To be blunt, I don't like the idea.
Now, it is just the minimum and there is no inherent reason to play the least amount of cards you can, except by limiting the number of rares people will play the least to see their best cards most often. So, as the above poster points out, you're working against yourself.
Also, while this seems to be a budget friendly option, what is to stop someone from making a highly-efficient deck utilizing different bomb rares. OK, we can't have 4x Meloku, so we play a Morphling, Keiga, Meloku, and Mahamotti in their place. Or maybe only 3 threats because the decks are smaller. The point is, since people can still play rares, they will, and if you have better cards you'll have better rares. If anything, by limiting the common element you are hurting budget players.
A format I'd like to see would simply be "No Rares". Min 60 deck, same restricted list as Legacy for uncommons and commons (heya Skullclamp). An alternate could be "1 Rare" where each deck has 1 slot that could be devoted to a rare. While you could go the transmute route and "play 5", you still only get to cast it once.
Good ideas though
Thank you!
Yeah, perhaps it's better to go by highest rarity. My original intent, though, was to obviate the need to go looking online or otherwise having to memorize which cards have been reprinted in different rarities. The visual indicators (color of expansion symbol) should be enough, ideally (although I realize it doesn't help with any set before Stronghold).
Are you sure? This format will only require 45 cards minimum, not minimum and maximum, so players could still play with 60 cards if they so desire.
Decreasing the odds of mana screw was only intended to be a nice side effect; it wasn't the entire goal of the format. The major goal of the format is to reduce the cost, time, and hassle required to assemble a competitive deck.
I don't think that would be necessary for this format. I'd rather not force people to play with cards they'd otherwise choose not to. Plus, the less memorization of what's included in earlier expansions, the better.
No, not at all. In fact, I find that most of my games end with easily 30+ cards remaining--50% or more of the deck.
In my opinion, sweating is good. But as for your comment about encouraging defensive play, I admit that I don't see how. With defensive playing, one is more likely to delay the ending of the game and risking a loss due to being "decked." This risk would encourage one to play more offensively, in my opinion--but I'm open for correction.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow you here, since nobody has to play a rare if they don't want to.
That's where the Type 2, Block Constructed, Extended, etc. formats do their work. In a Type 2 format, for example, Morphling (and others) aren't a threat.
When you say "limiting the common element," are you referring to limiting the number of any given common card, or do you mean "common element" as in "universal" or "standardized" element? Either way, I fail to see how I'm hurting budget players, since as soon as they get their first necessary rare they don't need to buy, trade, or "chase" for any more copies of it. A poor (forgive me) player with one copy of, say, Temple Garden would be on equal footing with a rich player with four copies of Temple Garden, since the rich player could only have one copy of it in any given deck anyway.
I can see the advantage of that. Although I admire the concept of Pauper Magic, I don't think uncommons--even the better ones--are all that hard to come by.
Thank you!
HERE'S WHAT THIS FORMAT IS ALL ABOUT:
Way back in the early part of Magic's history, when Wizards made the choice to limit individual cards to four copies each, notice what else they did? They increased the minimum deck size from 40 to 60! In this way, they increased the amount of card slots that players would need to fill, thus also increasing their bottom line.
I can see their point in doing this, since they're a business that exists to make money. But my point with this new format is to start a grassroots uprising among Magic players who are willing to say "NO!" to Wizards. Who are willing to put their feet down and declare, "We're sick of having to buy and chase while you crank out set after set. We want to be able to finish constructing our decks after pulling our first rare, not our fourth."
All the other advantages--less mana screw, rares really are rare, etc.--are just details. Icing on the cake, if you will.
The Great Creature Token Project
but you could still do silly things with Junktroller so you can transmute for rares more often. And with transmute you can have 4 times the chance of pulling your game breaking rare. So there are ways to break the spirit of the format.
Also, time shifted cards. Do they count as the rarity they were originally printed as?
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
Also... I think mill will be a viable strategy, but I don't think it will be the be all to end all in this format... cards like junktroller can be used to work with mill (in the glimpse idea) or against mill... I mean you will always have the draw of your choice if you do get your junktroller right?
Yes, that's true. There might be ways to "break" the spirit of the format, but let's face it: Your transmute/Junktroller scenario would be just as true even with a typical 60 card/4 copy deck.
So even though this format is "breakable," is that a good enough reason to abandon it entirely? That's more or less the question I'd like feedback to.
That's a GREAT question. I certainly don't have all the original rarities memorized, so perhaps that's yet another reason to institute the "rarest rarity takes precedent" rule, as another poster mentioned. In this case, the purple symbol would qualify timeshifted cards as rares.
The Great Creature Token Project
Yes, PLEASE! I would LOVE to get your feedback, since I probably won't have a chance to properly test it myself for a couple of weeks.
That's an excellent point. A mill player would draw his mill cards no sooner than his/her opponent would draw his/her anti-mill cards (like Junktroller, Tel-Jilad Stylus, etc.).
The Great Creature Token Project
I'd like to see how T2 stuff would look with this format.
Magic scoresheet for download
Turn reference chart for download
But that also requires you to run a deck based around junktroller and transmuters just to perpetuate the chance that you might be able to mill them off of one card. This also assumes that your opponent is running absolutely no disruption.
Anyways, this looks pretty kewl, I'll have to try it out! I take it gold-bordered cards count as whatever rarity they actually are?
GAYMERS, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
Burn, by default I think, is the standard against which all other decks must be judged when testing new formats. It seems it can almost always race and win.
Magic scoresheet for download
Turn reference chart for download
2 Rares no more than x1
13 Uncomons no more than x2
Rest Commons no more than x3
Real Simple
If the rules of "all timeshifted cards are rare" and "rarist rarity trumps" went into effect, disintegrate would take up the rare spot.
Would the non-restricted Wishes be allowed in the format as your rare? They could be all kinds of different rares.
As for a milling strategy, something based off of solidarty would probably work best since Reset is uncommon and the majority of the deck is commons and uncommons (High Tide, Brain Freeze, etc).
It could be interesting to see if a viable Mesmeric Orb deck could be built. The deck would need protection against burn...like Ivory Mask or sime kind of circle of protection. And then you can just make your deck slightly bigger so you don't deck yourself to the Orb.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
I will have burn and mill, but I dont know what else yet
That's correct. The gold border would mean absolutely nothing other than the fact that it must be sleeved (since their card backs are different from those of regular Magic cards).
Why is that? Remember, the opponent will have access to rares too, just less of any single rare.
How did it work out?
With this new "Budget Magic" system, you could play with all your favorite rares--just one of them per deck.
Yes. Of course, the nomal rules of Standard/Extended/Legacy would apply here with a Budget Magic deck, so a matchup between Standard decks wouldn't have to worry about the "wishes."
Remember: This format is a way of saying "NO!" to Wizards of the Coast. It's also a way of narrowing the gap between those who purchase multiple boxes of each new set and those who have neither the money nor the inclination to do so. It's also a way of making preconstructed decks a bit more competitive than they'd otherwise be fresh-out-of-the-box. It's also a way to finish building a competitive deck sooner--less time and money need be spent chasing rares.
And that's only a few of the many other advantages.
The Great Creature Token Project
Last night I was able to play some games using this format. It worked great!
We played with 15 lands out of 45 cards, or 1/3 lands. This is equivalent to 20 lands in a 60 card deck, of course, as I've explained.
Mulligans, mana screw, etc. weren't any more of a problem than with 60-card decks. If anything, it was less of a problem, on average, than would've been expected from 60-card decks.
A good time was had by all. Yes, this is a format that provides the same experience, but requires much, much less rare chasing and monetary investment.
The Great Creature Token Project
It's harder to build decks around cool rares.
You can still build a deck with lots of rares, they just have to all be different.
You have to build new decks for it, you can't use the same decks that you use in tournaments.
And I'm pretty sure it doesn't decrease the odds of mana screw. If you run 15 lands in a 45-card deck, that's the same as running 20 in a 60-card deck.
I understand what you're saying, but with a 45-card deck, you draw a greater % of your deck in your opening hand (and every card thereafter), causing you to get to your lands quicker, thus reducing the possibility of mana screw by that amount.
The Great Creature Token Project