That's a pretty nice deck list off the top of the head Spooky. I think some Thought Scour would be nice in there for Tombstalker and Ghastly Demise, not sure about what to cut though. I would try it out, but I'm already experimenting with 2 of your other brews : )
To be honest, xyz, I think your sort of off here (and overall a tiny bit contrarian). If you look at pauper, which is all commons, red is certainly not the best color and is not at all dominant. White also has a lot of fairly redundant commons and isn't that strong on its own either. Blue is pretty dominant but all colors are playable. Mono red is always a thing in every constructed format because WotC continues to make it a priority in every set. No biggie, it's a nice budget option and a good litanist test for any deck.
That being said, this isn't pauper, having access to some uncommons and rares changes things dramatically in terms of answers. The limiting of number of copies makes games diverse, though tutors would have to be controlled in someway.
The Jace, the Mind Sculptor argument is the one I disagree with the most. As a singleton, their is less chance it will be drawn, and if it is drawn you only have to deal with it once (not counting recursion obviously). Brainstorming isn't that great without a lot of shuffling. As a 4-of and in the right deck and in the right format (ie standard), Jace, the Mind Sculptor is busted. In this format it can be great but I don't think it would be broken. But who knows? Only playing the format will show. Also, couldn't you make the JtMS argument in any format it's legal? And those formats are allowed to play 4 copies.
I know wizards disagrees about removal at common, that's why I mentioned it when talking about rarity shifting. The reason I like a lot of removal options is because I don't like not having answers to these haymaker type cards that get printed. I like games that can go back and forth. I personally have never felt oppressed by Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt. I love having them around actually, whether it's the kitchen table or a tournament.
Limiting the number of copies of any given bomb rare/mythic you can put in your deck combined with a plethora of answers has the potential for a fun play environment (possibly). Once again, it's just speculation until games are played. Besides, limited is an entirely different animal anyway.
Basically, I love pauper, but I like to be able to play all cards, without the best and most expensive cards taking over every game. I'm surprised this idea hasn't been established already.
Sorry for not using quotes in my reply, I typed this on my ipad, and I'm just getting used to writing in a forum (I've lurked practically forever). Next time I will. Also, sorry for the wall of text.
I would say the lowest rarity counts. So if a card was printed as an uncommon and a common, it counts as a common. But this would have to be experimented with. The opposite could possibly be better, but generally if a card get get rarity shifted its because of power creep, so it's not too big a deal. Their is a few examples of the inverse, like Oblivion Ring, or Doom Blade, usually it seems to be removal nowadays. I think it's good for a format to have access to lots of good removal.
I'm sure people could think of lots of examples that say the opposite though, mtg has a lot of cards/sets.
I've been mulling this type of format around in my head as well lastly. I was thinking something like this:
Mythics have to be singleton, and you could play 2, maybe 3 total in the deck.
Rares are singleton
Uncommons are 2-of
Commons are 3-of
Kind of like a modified pauper. The thing is I have no play group, none of my friends play mtg. So I just mostly play online these days, so it's hard for me to experiment with these types of ideas. I could build a deck with these restrictions and play in the casual room, but the opponent will be playing by normal constructed rules.
Their is a nice card shop by me with a lot of players, but I rarely have large chunks of time to go there due to my job and 2 kids.
Everyone is all "omg it's the greatest thing ever simic 4 life" or "totally unplayable 2/3, 5 mana should win me the game and make me breakfast".
It's somewhere in the middle. Decent playable card, looks fun, is very answerable but can do some big things in the right situations. I'm talking about standard btw, never played EDH (hope to rectify that soon).
I recently got back to magic after a long hiatus, I started playing when Mirage came out, then stopped between Exodus and Urza's. Since I started playing again I've been toying with this EXACT same idea in my head, right down to starting at Ice Age. I was going to make the post but decided to google first to see if it already existed or if someone already posted about it and ended up right here. Glad I'm not alone.
The main reason I like this idea is because it let's you use older cards that you like and are good but are not strong enough to be played in the insanely powerful eternal formats. Many cards that were once staples are banished to casual magic once they rotate from standard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the strength of cards is usually determined by comparison within a particular card pool. "Sectioning off" the strongest cards could lead to a fascinating format. Just picking up a once successful standard netdeck might not work, because that deck could bomb against a much wider selection of potential opposition then it originally faced.
Yes, it would require some ban list IMHO. But perhaps some of the decks people think would automatically dominate might not be as strong as people would initially think. There would be such a huge diversity because most strong decks will have some kind of foil somewhere along the line.
This is awesome, I wish there was more content like this on the web. I have to say, you are my favorite mtg writer by far, and I frequent virtually all the known mtg sites (I often like to read/talk about mtg more than play it nowadays for some reason). I'm looking forward to more of these articles, as well as more squandered resources or whatever else you come up with. Thanks.
That being said, this isn't pauper, having access to some uncommons and rares changes things dramatically in terms of answers. The limiting of number of copies makes games diverse, though tutors would have to be controlled in someway.
The Jace, the Mind Sculptor argument is the one I disagree with the most. As a singleton, their is less chance it will be drawn, and if it is drawn you only have to deal with it once (not counting recursion obviously). Brainstorming isn't that great without a lot of shuffling. As a 4-of and in the right deck and in the right format (ie standard), Jace, the Mind Sculptor is busted. In this format it can be great but I don't think it would be broken. But who knows? Only playing the format will show. Also, couldn't you make the JtMS argument in any format it's legal? And those formats are allowed to play 4 copies.
I know wizards disagrees about removal at common, that's why I mentioned it when talking about rarity shifting. The reason I like a lot of removal options is because I don't like not having answers to these haymaker type cards that get printed. I like games that can go back and forth. I personally have never felt oppressed by Swords to Plowshares or Lightning Bolt. I love having them around actually, whether it's the kitchen table or a tournament.
Limiting the number of copies of any given bomb rare/mythic you can put in your deck combined with a plethora of answers has the potential for a fun play environment (possibly). Once again, it's just speculation until games are played. Besides, limited is an entirely different animal anyway.
Basically, I love pauper, but I like to be able to play all cards, without the best and most expensive cards taking over every game. I'm surprised this idea hasn't been established already.
Sorry for not using quotes in my reply, I typed this on my ipad, and I'm just getting used to writing in a forum (I've lurked practically forever). Next time I will. Also, sorry for the wall of text.
I'm sure people could think of lots of examples that say the opposite though, mtg has a lot of cards/sets.
Mythics have to be singleton, and you could play 2, maybe 3 total in the deck.
Rares are singleton
Uncommons are 2-of
Commons are 3-of
Kind of like a modified pauper. The thing is I have no play group, none of my friends play mtg. So I just mostly play online these days, so it's hard for me to experiment with these types of ideas. I could build a deck with these restrictions and play in the casual room, but the opponent will be playing by normal constructed rules.
Their is a nice card shop by me with a lot of players, but I rarely have large chunks of time to go there due to my job and 2 kids.
It's somewhere in the middle. Decent playable card, looks fun, is very answerable but can do some big things in the right situations. I'm talking about standard btw, never played EDH (hope to rectify that soon).
The main reason I like this idea is because it let's you use older cards that you like and are good but are not strong enough to be played in the insanely powerful eternal formats. Many cards that were once staples are banished to casual magic once they rotate from standard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the strength of cards is usually determined by comparison within a particular card pool. "Sectioning off" the strongest cards could lead to a fascinating format. Just picking up a once successful standard netdeck might not work, because that deck could bomb against a much wider selection of potential opposition then it originally faced.
Yes, it would require some ban list IMHO. But perhaps some of the decks people think would automatically dominate might not be as strong as people would initially think. There would be such a huge diversity because most strong decks will have some kind of foil somewhere along the line.
Bottom line, let's make it happen!