Deck size limit & Banned lists

  • #1
    What would happen if Wizards removed the 60 cards limit for a deck ? Would Mill strategie be enough to keep tiny deck over efficient in check ? Should Wizards add Mill on the other color ? Would it bring some new fun into magic ?

    Why DCI do ban only cards and not combination ? By example the Modern infect deck that played Blazing Shoal and Progenitus/ Reaper King have lead to the banning of Blazing Shoal. But that cards don't seems that strong by itself, it's more the combination of fast infect, free spell and huge powerup. So the DCI could have said we ban decks that use at the same time BBlazing Shoal ,Progenitus and Reaper King. With this the restricted list could be played around without totaly removing cards.

    But maybe the restricted list would be much to complicated to understand. And the check of decklist would be also too long too handle maybe.

    What do you think ?
  • #2
    Quote from Trystan
    What would happen if Wizards removed the 60 cards limit for a deck ? Would Mill strategie be enough to keep tiny deck over efficient in check ? Should Wizards add Mill on the other color ? Would it bring some new fun into magic ?
    The best decks would be somewhere in the 7-10 card range, period. Possibly smaller if you were allowed to have a deck smaller than a starting hand (and if you're on the draw, you just mulligan once). The extra buffer would be in case the format's got Ancestral Recall or similar that could force a mill on T1. Then, everything would be over by turn 2. The game would be exceedingly boring with no minimum deck size.

    Quote from Trystan
    Why DCI do ban only cards and not combination ? By example the Modern infect deck that played Blazing Shoal and Progenitus/ Reaper King have lead to the banning of Blazing Shoal. But that cards don't seems that strong by itself, it's more the combination of fast infect, free spell and huge powerup. So the DCI could have said we ban decks that use at the same time BBlazing Shoal ,Progenitus and Reaper King. With this the restricted list could be played around without totaly removing cards.

    But maybe the restricted list would be much to complicated to understand. And the check of decklist would be also too long too handle maybe.

    What do you think ?
    As you speculated, trying to ban combinations of cards requires a lot of extra effort and time when performing a deck check than banning specific cards. If you can just ban the card that enables multiple degenerate strategies, banning the single card is as effective as banning 5 combos. Trying to deck check at a tournament would take hours even for a small tournament, which is not something anybody wants, and many players would have a lot of trouble trying to figure out whether their deck was legal. It you try to expand to 3-card combos as well as 2-card combos, the problem becomes exponentially worse.

    Also, not everything that's banned/restricted is there simply because it fuels some combo; many are straight up overpowered cards, such as Channel or Sol Ring.
  • #3
    It would be insane. Pretty much every deck would be 9 cards, and win on the first turn. If you have played doomsday or seen it played, it would be like that.
    Koth of the Hammer + Bludgeon Brawl + Mycosynth Lattice

    =
    "Sup dawg! I herd u like mountains so I equipped a mountain on your mountain so your can swing with land while you swing with land!"
  • #4
    Quote from Trystan
    What would happen if Wizards removed the 60 cards limit for a deck ?


    Less cards=more consistent decks=more powerful decks.

    Would Mill strategie be enough to keep tiny deck over efficient in check ?
    No. Combo will still be faster. If mill strategies become so fast as to outrun combo decks (likely because they're combo decks themselves), what hope does aggro have?


    Should Wizards add Mill on the other color ? Would it bring some new fun into magic ?
    A lot of people hate milling, like land destruction. They hate seeing their cards "wasted" (even though, mathematically, it might as well have been in the bottom of the deck). "I needed that!"

    Personally I have no problem with mill, but its too unpopular to be mainstream.

    Why DCI do ban only cards and not combination ? By example the Modern infect deck that played Blazing Shoal and Progenitus/ Reaper King have lead to the banning of Blazing Shoal. But that cards don't seems that strong by itself, it's more the combination of fast infect, free spell and huge powerup. So the DCI could have said we ban decks that use at the same time BBlazing Shoal ,Progenitus and Reaper King. With this the restricted list could be played around without totaly removing cards.
    1) Take a look at the first banned and restricted lists. channel was on that list, because of stuff like channel+fireball. Let's say you ban channel + fireball. There's also channel + disintegrate. Are you going to ban that, too? The various interactions of cards with channel alone are going to make such a list exponentially longer.
    2) Not every card is banned/restricted due to combos. Some are just plain too good. Some are banned for making the game too annoying or unfun (sensei's divining top in extended, shahrazad in all formats, trinisphere in vintage, etc). Some are banned for being too expensive (mana drain in legacy). Some are banned because of legal issues and lack of support in the rules (ante). Some are banned because physical prowess is necessary (falling star, chaos orb).
    Last edited by mondu_the_fat: 6/22/2012 5:03:13 AM

    "Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn

  • #5
    Quote from mondu_the_fat
    [...]Some are banned for being too expensive (mana drain in legacy)[...]


    Drain isn't banned because it is too expensive, simply because tabernalce is more expensive. It's banned because the card is too strong for legacy.
    OMG
  • #6
    Quote from Trystan
    But maybe the restricted list would be much to complicated to understand. And the check of decklist would be also too long too handle maybe.


    This would be far too complex.

    Imagine someone just starting out bought a collection of random stuff off of a car-boot sale. He finds Progenitus, Glistner Elf, 2 Copperline Gorge and Blazing Shoal and realizes the synergy. A few weeks later he goes to a modern PTQ (not beyond chance, I went to my first Nats Qualifier less than a month after I started) with his blazing infect deck. He's misunderstood the hyper complex synergy ban list, gets DQ'd and quits magic in frustration.

    Equally, as things stand, a judge can recognize an illegal card pretty quickly, and if he thinks it might be banned, he can check in a few seconds, so 2 judges can deckcheck 2 decks in about 5 minutes, because all they're doing is counting cards and checking for banned cards. If they had to check for banned synergies, they'd have to lay it all out and consult what would be a pretty complex list, especially in formats like legacy and vintage. Most cards there are banned because they have one or two powerful synergies (for instance the Survival of the Fittest would have to be banned with Vengevine, Cloudpost would have to be banned with the legendary Eldrazi and Blightsteel, Bazaar would be banned in dredge, etc).

    It would also make events like FNM much harder. As things stand, its a case of a banned card = no. This would make things much harder on stores running small events.


    Also, no card is banned for value reasons. They're banned for 5 reasons - power, negative impact on a format (like the time when people would top in response to everything and games would take forever because people were topping 3 times a turn), ante, manual dexterity, or non-black-non-white borders.
    Rules Adviser
  • #7
    Deck size restrictions could work the opposite way: allowing problem cards only in very large decks, e.g. one copy allowed above 100 cards.
    The added "filler" cannot be all as good as the restricted card, but there could be enough tutors and cantrips to reduce the dilution effect. In most cases, either small or large versions of the same deck type would be strictly better.
    Nicholas Cage, planeswalker
  • #8
    With no deck minimum size, the game would get boring and cause allot of people to leave.
    Just Started EDH Again.
  • #9
    Quote from mondu_the_fat

    A lot of people hate milling, like land destruction. They hate seeing their cards "wasted" (even though, mathematically, it might as well have been in the bottom of the deck). "I needed that!"


    I hate it because I don't like having my time wasted. Mill is rarely a good deck, but I still have to sit there counting cards into my graveyard just so my opponent can feel like they're thinking outside the box with their deck design.
    Currently playing:
    Standard
    No idea.

    EDH
    BWR Kaalia
    U Teferi

    Cube
    360 Unpowered
    450 Powered
  • #10
    Every single deck starts with its god hand. There will be WAY more metagaming than deck construction. The player who goes first would win pretty much all the time.

    The game would become seriously boring since it'd be possible to predict the outcome of the match immediately. There's no chance of mana screw/flood, or topdecks.

    Sig by DNCDeal with it.
    | white mana blue mana Eggs - So good, it's banned.
    | blue mana red mana Storm
    | white mana blue mana black mana Ad Nauseam
    | blue mana green mana Amulet
    | blue mana black mana green mana Infect
    | white mana red mana green mana Kiki Pod
    | white mana blue mana black mana green mana Gifts Control
    Modern Staples | Modern Rulings
  • #11
    Quote from mondu_the_fat

    Personally I have no problem with mill, but its too unpopular to be mainstream.


    Too unpopular?

    It's not a mainstream tournament strategy if that's what you mean, but I'd say it's definitely mainstream at the kitchen table. Cards like Glimpse the Unthinkable are popular for a reason. I would imagine that Traumatize would be a much more valuable card if it hadn't been reprinted in four recent core sets.
    Check out my Sales and Trade threads!

    Quote from quixotegut »
    If I see an Azami on the board I go for it... don't care if it was my Grandma playing her... that ho (Azami not my Grandma) is toast.
  • #12
    There was an interesting discussion a few months ago about what a format with no 4-card limit would look like (I'd link it but the search function still isn't working.) What happened was that the format very quickly devolved into "turn 0 coinflip wins." I'd imagine a format with no minium deck size would devolve in a similar way...

    Sig by Rivenor

    Cube. The best way to play Magic. PERIOD. Come over and check it out. Also, check out my Peasant Split Card Cube. I Love It When A Plan Comes Together

    The World of Pokemon RPG has been rebooted. Come over and check it out. Psyshiro Duckezawa

    Set Creation Projects: We Can Do ItArchester: Frontier of Steam Yar! Come over and check out our AWESOME Steampunk set.

    (W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)(U/R)(R/W)(W/U)
  • #13
    Quote from Raptor1210
    There was an interesting discussion a few months ago about what a format with no 4-card limit would look like (I'd link it but the search function still isn't working.) What happened was that the format very quickly devolved into "turn 0 coinflip wins." I'd imagine a format with no minium deck size would devolve in a similar way...


    Actually, from what I remember of the thread it turned into a 3 deck metagame. Each deck beat a deck and lost to a deck regardless of who went first.
  • #14
    Quote from Aazadan
    Actually, from what I remember of the thread it turned into a 3 deck metagame. Each deck beat a deck and lost to a deck regardless of who went first.
    Leyline had the best matchups, since it stomped Surging Flame, and you could easily sideboard to beat Chancellor. Surging Flame beat Chancellor 90% of the time, and Chancellor was the naive solution, but could beat Leyline game 1 and might get lucky after the sideboard against Leyline.

    And, depending on how you interpreted "Super Haste", Turbo Slug either lost to everything or beat everything. But that's Unhinged for you.

    There were a few rogue decks posted in that thread, but none could beat all three of the core meta, many didn't quite understand the meta that had been created and so could barely beat one of the core three, and most that could beat Leyline were countered by the same sideboarding strategy that Leyline used against Chancellor.
  • #15
    Quote from Sophomoros
    Too unpopular?

    It's not a mainstream tournament strategy if that's what you mean, but I'd say it's definitely mainstream at the kitchen table. Cards like Glimpse the Unthinkable are popular for a reason.


    Yes, it certainly is fun. Especially against life gain decks or within team games. Its not as powerful as other deck designs of course, but the fun factor is great to some people.

    I would imagine that Traumatize would be a much more valuable card if it hadn't been reprinted in four recent core sets.


    I play a lot of mill; traumatize is extremely lacking. It might have been more than .50c yes, but I dont even run with a single copy.

    After the first couple mill cards come out, it underperforms glimpse or funeral. Thus I'd rather draw glimpse or funeral (not to forget sanity grinding). Or a twincast for any of the above.

    It also costs 5 mana instead of 2 & 3 respectively.

    Therefore, now it will almost always underperform, unless you failed to glimpse/funeral your first 4-5 turns. And even then, now your mana is tied up - can't counter.

    Biggest flaw - It can't finish an opponent =(

    Any card you'd draw and be dissapointed with as badly, doesn't belong in deck.

    Anyway, not to go too far off on a tangent, sorry
  • #16
    Banning combos would drive judges insane with the constant calling of things like "Judge! This guy has Fireball in his deck! Check it to make sure he doesn't have Channel too!"
    Retrodrome!
    Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
    M'saion ulé hraka vair.
  • #17
    Quote from UsaSatsui
    Banning combos would drive judges insane with the constant calling of things like "Judge! This guy has Fireball in his deck! Check it to make sure he doesn't have Channel too!"


    QFT. Such a tournament would take forever, as the number of judgecalls would be enormous and, logistically, such a tournament couldn't function in a reasonable amount of time.

    With no minimum deck size, magic as a game would quickly devolve into a handful of decks that each won on turn 1. Really, such a format would be terrible. I'm glad we have the 60 card deck size minimum, as anything less would lead to decks that were far too consistent for their own good. Also, the game isn't broken right now so why fix it?
    "Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."

    -Freyalise

    Currently Playing:
    Legacy:
    UBWRGAll manner of storm comboGRWBU
    Dark Ritual on The Source and Storm Boards
    Notable finishes:
    Top 16 SCG Kansas City Legacy Open 2012 with Burning ANT
    Top 32 SCG Minneapolis Legacy Open 2012 with Burning ANT
  • #18
    But, hey, if both rules were done in conjunction those deck checks would not take very long.

    Neither of these ideas is very good, but I can certainly understand the desire to run something despite it being deemed "too good" in other decks.

    Sig by Dark Night Cavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios!
  • #19
    Quote from Lithl
    Leyline had the best matchups, since it stomped Surging Flame, and you could easily sideboard to beat Chancellor. Surging Flame beat Chancellor 90% of the time, and Chancellor was the naive solution, but could beat Leyline game 1 and might get lucky after the sideboard against Leyline.

    And, depending on how you interpreted "Super Haste", Turbo Slug either lost to everything or beat everything. But that's Unhinged for you.

    There were a few rogue decks posted in that thread, but none could beat all three of the core meta, many didn't quite understand the meta that had been created and so could barely beat one of the core three, and most that could beat Leyline were countered by the same sideboarding strategy that Leyline used against Chancellor.


    There were two other decks that looked like they would work; there was a Leyline of Anticipation/Wheel of Fortune/Black Lotus/Surgical Extraction/Extirpate deck that won by milling and a control deck packed with Mindbreak Trap/Surgical Extraction/Soul Spike that looked like it had reasonable chances vs. the meta.

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if you removed the 60 card limit. You probably get very interesting metagame interactions like the removal of the 4 of limit would cause, because I believe 9 card combo decks would autolose to 20-card control decks packed with free disruption, which are not really set up to deal with "normal" decks. I have no idea how everything would shake out in the end.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes