Quote from DodyShiratori »My first question for you is... Have you tried playing this way?
It's hard to say exactly what without trying myself, but I feel like there are a lot more pros and cons than what you listed there. This kind of major rules change would have a significant impact on how decks get built. You say it would encourage longer games with more interaction, but I could see the opposite happening. For example, you could build burn decks that don't get any dead draws because most of them don't need more than 3 lands to work.
Maybe if people start playing this way, it could become a new format, but I think I've seen people propose similar things in the past.
Quote from frozenfeenx »
"There's three ways to do things. The right way, the wrong way, and the R way!"
"Isn't that the wrong way?"
"Yeah, but faster!"
Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »You can absolutely change the game around playing like that and it works, its just VERY different kind of game, as many MANY cards change in nature and functionality.
Randomness in itself is a good and bad thing for magic.
If you want to eliminate randomness from lands entirely you would simply allow players to choose like 10 lands and play them at will from the sideboard, so you are guaranteed to have all the colors and quantity of mana you want.
However you need to errata a ton of cards and change the entire game around that fact, which is not something that is really "worth" doing these changes as the game functions pretty well as it is and the games you lose for being mana screwed give mechanics that fix and help with finding lands a much bigger appeal (like land-cycling, scry, fetchlands and so on).
Lands are also utility cards, which is a problem as they are not "just" mana sources.
If you want to make a deck full of lands, you would need to change the game to ensure they are actually only mana sources, or even go as far and only allow basic lands in them, so nobody can mess with it.
If you want utility lands, you have to play them as "spells", not in the land deck.
Simply having 2 decks to shuffle is also annoying, if you are able to tutor in both libraries its an extra level of handling them.
Always separating them would require like 2 different colors of sleeves or something, which is also a problem.
Many issues with the approach, but it CAN work.
In Limited for example , like a Draft playing like this is really great, as you can put basic lands in a land deck and ensure nobody is screwed over, they can always play lands, and if a set is designed to take that in account, it would be good (you cant really do stuff like "landfall" etc.).
With magics vast card pool radical changes to the games mechanics come at a pretty heavy cost, which is often the biggest argument against any changes, as they need to have tremendous upsides to counteract these costs.
Quote from Xeruh »Many have been looking to uproot Magic for ages. Many have also experimented with other systems for "fixing" the mana system, and I would argue those fixes have not really improved those games. Made them different sure, but better not at all. You could go give Kaijudo a try if you'd like and see how it goes, it has a different land system. Or any number of other games. None of them have really lasted for any length of time.
As well calling it a design flaw is not really accurate. It's a design that has pros and cons, it isn't 100% bad, or even majorly so.