ETA: This thread provided answers to some open questions and through extensive testing, I was able to refine the M2.0 rules for positive effects. Look for lines marked "ETA" (edited to add) below. The discussion is not over though, your questions, experiences, and comments are still appreciated.
Preamble:
No matter how hard you try, mana problems still happen.
This variant is for those who are not particularly fond of said problems.
Motivation (my opinions):
It is bad design when the game won't let you play anything due to mana screw/flood or maybe just forces your decisions, for example due to being one land short or having one land too many.
It is also bad design if approx. 40% of your deck absolutely needs to consist of cards that do virtually nothing useful but at the same time are necessary to play anything at all.
Lands in Magic stack one luck factor, that is number of lands in your hand and on the top of your deck, on top of another, that is normal deck randomization. Consequently, even if you do nothing wrong during deck construction and mulligan decision, sometimes the game will simply not let you play.
Basic lands in the player's deck are not necessary in order to enjoy virtually all Magic mechanics, especially in casual Magic. Losing to mana problems (arguably with the exception of tournaments) is basically a waste of time and the cause of frustration for many players - this is completely unnecessary.
Not using basic lands in your deck opens up a lot more space for cards that are now almost never played, thus providing much greater variability for decks and gameplay in general.
Fun fact is that one way or another, R.Garfield himself realized most of this quite early after Magic first went into production as evidenced by the mechanics in his new games at the time: Vampire: the Eternal Struggle (V:tES) and NetRunner (reincarnated this year by FantasyFlight).
Let's quote him from his interview he gave to the V:tES community in LA back in 2001:
"I wanted no land - I didn't like that Magic had about 40% boring resource cards in the deck." [1]
* Some argue that losing to mana problems is useful to hone your skill, learn to accept defeat and whatnot. I argue that to do these things through obsolete game design is simply not necessary, especially for casual players.
* ETA: As a validation of these ideas, consider the Vancouver mulligan: http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptori/vancouver-mulligan-rule-2015-07-31 It is a very minor patch to the rules but it is an official acknowledgement that Magic rules can screw anyone from participating in the game which is especially frustrating and visible at big tournaments.
* R.Garfield once argued [2] that the randomness of lands in Magic creates kind of a leveling field for new players, as thay can sometimes "win" randomly if their opponent is unable to participate in the game. My comment is that while that is true, it does not take away the fact that the luck factor is in this case reflects the unfortunate design decision. Compare it to his quote above to see that when interviewed for a different audience, he was much more direct in his opinion. On the upside though, he also acknowledged that as a game matures and expands its base, it also tends to lower the luck factor, simplify the rules and generally make the games more accessible and enjoyable. I believe we can observe just that in Magic, hence my guess that basic lands might get targeted in this regard at some point in the future.
* I do still play original Magic (M1.0) but for casual events, I now always prefer Magic 2.0 (M2.0) in all formats.
The basic principle of Magic 2.0 is: Every card in a deck can be used as a source of mana.
The basic rule of M2.0 is: Any time you are allowed to play a land (or put it into play from any zone), you may choose a card in your hand (or in that zone), reveal it, and choose one of its colors, based on the card's color identity. Then, you exile that card (or put it into the command zone, just to be safe) and replace it with a basic land producing mana of the chosen color.
ETA: select the color based on the color identity of the card, that is, all mana symbols in the rules box and outside the reminder text count towards available colors. Color identity is universally more convenient and automatically covers multi lands, mana stones, as well as expands options for off-color activations on cards.
Additional rules:
a) If you want to convert a land card into a basic land, you choose one color of mana that land can produce.
ETA: a) If you want to convert a land card into a basic land, choose one color of that card's color identity.
b) If you want to convert an artifact card, a colorless card (such as an Eldrazi) or a land card that does not produce any colored mana, you will get a nonbasic land that produces one colorless mana and has no further abilities. If it existed, Barry's land would be quite a fit here... ETA: b) If you want to convert a card with no color identity (certain artifact cards, colorless cards such as Eldrazi, or land cards with no mana symbols in their rules boxes), you need to reveal one additional card from your hand that has a color identity in order to make the conversion. The colored card then determines which basic land types are available for the conversion. Additionally, the revealed colored card should remain revealed until you play/cast it and should not be used again to enable conversion of another colorless card - another copy of that card that has not been revealed in this way could be used though.
This updated rule removes the need for the artificially-added colorless non-basic land and balances back artifact cards with no color identity as they now cannot be converted without using a colored card.
b)If you want to convert a card with no color identity, reveal it and take Wastes instead one of the traditional basic lands.
c) If you're searching your library (or any other zone for that matter) for a basic land card that produces a specific color, you must choose a card of at least one color or a land card that can produce colored mana in order to use the M2.0 rule. Similarly, if you're searching for Plains specifically, the color has to be white, etc. However, you can search for a colorless card too and get Wastes.
ETA: d) Searching your library for a basic land is done by revealing cards from the bottom of your library and taking the first card of the color that matches the land type you are searching. Then shuffle your library.
This new rule removes the lengthy searches for lands because you no longer need to figure out which card in the deck is currently the least useful to be used as a land. That extra level of complexity and the time delays are not necessary, especially in Commander.
ETA: e) If you converted a multicolor-identity card using the M2.0 rule and want to play the basic land the same turn, it comes into play tapped. If the multicolored card was of 3 or more colors, the basic land type is determined at random out of those colors.
This new rule scales back the power of multicolored cards, which were previously too strong in M2.0 to the point that the best strategy for a constructed deck was to only use multicolored cards. Now, you need to be extra careful not to put too much gold cards into a deck as otherwise any dedicated monocolored deck will overrun you easily.
ETA: f) The converted/channeled lands (as a result of applying the M2.0 rule) cannot be used for Landfall or Retrace. Only use the actual land cards to benefit from these mechanics.
Mechanics heavily relying on lands should rather be scaled down than left semi-broken. There's enough extra variance that goes with M2.0 to make certain mechanics in it disproportionately better than others, even if it affects only a handful of cards (or maybe because of it).
ETA: g) Similarly, the exiled cards (as a result of applying the M2.0 rule) cannot be used for the Ulamog brood's Eldrazi cards such a Blight Herder. Only use the normally exiled cards to benefit from this mechanic.
M2.0 is supposed to help with mana problem, not to power up mechanics that happen to overlaps with its rules.
Notes:
i) Basic lands and M2.0 are still compatible. If you only want to remove early mana screw but let mana flood possible, apply the M2.0 rule but play with basic lands as normal.
ii) Artifacts in landless M2.0 are a little weaker and gold/hybrid cards tend to be more versatile. But be aware that if you recklessly put too many colors to your deck, the color screw will catch up with you sooner or later. ETA: ii) Through changes to the rules above, the power level of artifacts in landless M2.0 and of gold/hybrid cards has been balanced to better reflect the power level of these cards in M1.0.
iii) Explore, Azusa, etc. work. If you are allowed to play more than one land in a turn, you are also allowed to apply the M2.0 rule that many times.
Discussion:
Maybe except for the name "Magic 2.0", somewhat refined rulings, and some testing in different formats, this idea not really new. I remember playing Trash with friends more than 10 years ago where any card could be put into play face-down as a 5-color land.
I am also aware that others have been playing with the idea of landless Magic. When figuring out last nuances for M2.0, I actually found this:
In hindsight, I find the following quite amusing: For years and years I kept losing to mana problems despite refining my skills to build consistent and adequate mana bases. I've been also witness to countless outbursts of frustration when said problems struck my opponents. Yet not once have I realized that I can in fact remove the lands from the equation. It was like an elephant in the room - "everyone" saw it as something undesirable but no one made a move against it, even if just for their casual experience.
Only after I became involved with Magic variants a couple of years back, particularly with Commander, also started to explore other games, and bought my Core set of Call of Cthulhu LCG, I realized that Magic seems to be all but alone in using basic land cards as a one-purpose resource. (I know, there are some cards designed to repurpose lands to make them more useful but hopefully, my point is clear.) Please do let me know if you played a popular card game that is flawed in a similar fashion.
Anyway, considering many changes that occured in Magic in the past, some of them quite drastic for some players (introduction of playsets, different mulligan rule variants, ante, interrupts, damage and stack, mana burn, mythics and planeswalkers, phyrexian mana, double-faced cards), I'd go as far as to say that at some point in the future, the traditional role of basic lands in Magic might as well change. It might not be quite the same as M2.0 but IMHO it's coming :).
Formats:
Commander: From my experience, Commander decks have some downsides too, in addition to all mana problems that can occur and ruin someone's game. Namely:
The deck is "too big" to manipulate with - it is kind of a pain to shuffle it properly and it is definitely a pain to search through it repeatedly, which happens quite a lot.
Mana base for a good Commander deck is usually not cheap.
M2.0 is just one way to make playing Commander more enjoyable but it proved very effective in my testing. Consider that a rough average ratio or nonlands to lands in a deck is 60:40. Now, take out the lands, tweak the number of colorless cards, put some useful nonbasics back in and you've got a deck that is smaller and cheaper. It is no longer 99+1 cards but you are effectively playing the pool of nonland card that is equally big as in a normal Commander deck.
ETA: With the addition of the rule "d)" above, searching a deck for basic lands is now easier and more convenient.
I've also successfully tested a universal build style for a Commander deck that is compatible with M1.0, M2.0, and the Magic wildcards (see post #26):
Just prepare your deck as normal but instead of lands, select additional support/sideboard cards that couldn't make it to the original pool. The color distribution of these support cards should be as close as possible to the distribution of the basic lands you would normally use. Try to include only a limited number of multicolor support cards. Insert the support cards to the sleeves upside down, shuffle all the cards and you're set.
If you play M1.0 with someone, all the upside-down cards are simply lands. Arrange with your opponent how to handle multicolored support cards. The default would be to use the rules above but you might get a pass to always get dual taplands or basics that come into play untapped.
If you play M2.0 or wildcards, the added value of having support/sideboard cards upside down is that you more easily recognize, which cards belong to the default strategy of the deck (and thus should be mostly played as spells) and which are there to provide additional support and answer specific threats (and thus should be mostly played as lands). That is useful if you are new to the format or are lending the deck to someone who isn't yet familiar with M2.0/wildcards.
/ETA
Draft: As far as I can tell, drafting is golden with M2.0. It's very easy to set up: you draft 4 boosters instead of 3. It might be a good idea to use randomized repacks with no expensive cards in them for the 4th booster if you want to open new boosters and not make the M2.0 draft too costly. Then, you have roughly 60 cards to choose from for a 40-card deck. What's great is that drafting matters even at 10th pick or later. You try to pick as much cards in your colors as possible even if they are not very good. In fact, when you're picking a card, you know if you will be more likely to use it as a land or a as a regular spell. Thus, the nonland and "land" ratio in a M2.0 draft is roughly the same as in a regular draft. While playing, sometimes you will have to make a tough desicion to convert a good card into a land early on in the game. On the upside though, at other times, you will be able to use a relatively bad card to your advantage, usually later in the game. I remember winning once by playing Angel's Mercy after converting it into a land several times in previous games.
The advantages are quite clear: no more mana screw or mana flood, much more cards to play with, and not so many dead draws in the topdeck mode.
As I've discussed above, basic lands are still allowed. If you happen to draft a very strong card outside your draft colors very late in the draft and would like to splash it without having enough cards of the same color to support it, you can still add a couple of basic lands to make the splash possible. Splashing is always tricky though and from my experience it is more advisable to splash a few mediocre off-color cards with specific functions rather than to squeeze in a bomb such as Fireball with no other cards to support it.
Constructed: Again, transition from M1.0 to M2.0 in a constructed deck is quite simple: take out the basic lands, put in the sideboard, tweak the number of nonbasic lands and/or colorless cards and you're ready to go.
When building new decks, I propose to limit the deck size to 50 and the size of a playset to 3 as seen in other more modern card games and also to prevent too consistent draws for certain strategies.
Open question:
Should it be allowed to convert artifacts that produce colored mana into respective basic lands? ETA: Using the color identity covers this problem elegantly and consistently with other cards.
I think it is still possible that I've missed something in my design that needs further attention, be it wording of the rules, consequence of M2.0 in certain metagame environments, or impact on certain groups of cards.
Goblin Charbelcher and Mind Funeral are probably problem cards though.
What we've taken to doing when we want to play without flood or screw is to let everyone start play with any two basic lands of their choice.
It still leaves in some of the variance, but it makes it so that everyone gets to actually play and it tempers the advantage of getting to go first a bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I support WotC's goal of shaping Modern in favor of diversity.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Goblin Charbelcher and Mind Funeral are probably problem cards though.
Well, since everything can be a land, the easiest way to handle these effects might be just to put an erratum in place saying that if you're milling a deck looking for a land, you'll just stop at the first card, effectively nerfing these cards.
This erratum would also prevent Abundance from being abused in M2.0.
Another way might be to just ban these cards (in M2.0) as they're very few, right?
What we've taken to doing when we want to play without flood or screw is to let everyone start play with any two basic lands of their choice.
In play? And still drawing 7 cards?
It still leaves in some of the variance, but it makes it so that everyone gets to actually play and it tempers the advantage of getting to go first a bit.
Seems like this variant doesn't always protect against the mana flood though.
Also, what I've learned to like about M2.0 through testing is the point number 5 above: More space for previously unloved cards, far less completely dead topdecks.
Well, as I discussed above, the whole idea behind M2.0 is nothing groudbreakingly new and there are even more variants to tackle the secondary luck factor in Magic. I call one of them Magic 1.5 but that's for another thread.
Anyway, here are the main differences between the Dakkon Vanguard and M2.0:
Dakkon does not prevent mana flood and frequent dead topdecks
M2.0 lets you choose a color of the card you're converting into a land
Dakkon does not allow to convert non-colored cards
I have my own idea for a format where you never have mana screw. Basically each player chooses 3 basic lands from their deck and puts them in their starting hand. Then they shuffle and draw 4 cards to make up the 7 cards in their starting hand.
I have my own idea for a format where you never have mana screw. Basically each player chooses 3 basic lands from their deck and puts them in their starting hand. Then they shuffle and draw 4 cards to make up the 7 cards in their starting hand.
Yes, Eepop mentioned something similar above. While this surely helps to an extent, I believe losing to mana flood is just as bad as losing to mana screw.
M2.0 not only eliminates both but it also offers greater variety of cards to play with in what I hope is a straightforward and easily-adoptable approach.
My wife and I have been playing a variant for 4-5 years that uses a seperate deck for lands. We've found this a bit preferable to "any card is a land" because you can't "cycle" non-pertinent cards. In other words, drawing a land is a decision rather than "I don't need this card right now."
This shows that there are only so many ideas to go around. Your variant is actually pretty close to Magic 1.5 I mentioned. It has a little more to it but we tested it in our group as a compromise for people who had initially hard time to make the right choices in M2.0 (aka do the thinking) when suddenly so many options were open to them and there were no excuses on bad mana anymore.
For this reason alone, the two decks variant is worth playing. I've noticed that later in the game, people are very reluctant to draw mana lands at all. With no needless mana problem, the pacing is quicker so it is a little tougher to be dedicated to big spells and be able to play them too. It also shows (IMHO) that mana lands are just necessary evil in Magic and people just prefer to play something rather than waiting for their mana to accumulate.
As for the "drawing a land is a decision", that is also true in M2.0 even though it's not a draw, technically speaking. There is more flexibility to use your cards which perfectly matches Magic growing into maturity and thus lowering the luck factor in favor of skill, as Richard Garfield himself recently mentioned in his talk here:
BTW, Magic gaining maturity is quite literal since we'll be celebrating its 20th birthday in 2013, right?
That said, I personally prefer "screwless MTG", and encourage others to playtest with an open mind.
That's good to hear. In my area, many players are so conservative they wouldn't even try anything that is not "official" or would give their opponents a little more of a fighting chance. I'm optimistic, though.
I was think an easier approach would be to have your deck separated into two piles basic lands and everything else. You would shuffle both. non-basic's would go into the pile with all of your spells.
When ever you have to draw a card you can choose the card to draw from.
Doh seems like somebody else thought of the exact same thing.
I thought of something else. How about a mulligan variant.
Before you draw you hand, you may choose up to 4 basic lands from your deck reveal them to your opponents and then draw the rest of your hand.
You could use this in addition to the standard draw one less mulligan.
That seems simple and pretty elegant. Maybe lower the number to 3 basic lands?
Okay guys, you keep bringing that idea up so let me just go ahead and present the Magic 1.5 (M1.5) ; Again, it's nothing groundbreaking as the principle occurred to many people before me:
Construction:
You contruct the deck as usual but before a game, you separate the cards into two decks. In one deck, there can be only lands. In the other is the rest.
Notes:
1. In my testing, it proved useful to separate your lands into two groups where one is used solely for mana (basic lands, Seaside Citadel, Irrigation Ditch) while the other can be used for other purposes (Treetop Village, Riptide Laboratory). That's why players in M1.5 are free to choose which land goes where.
2. I will test if it's fair to include any cards to your "mana" deck. For example, it seems to make sense to draw cards such as Skycloud Egg or Wayfarer's Bauble as part of your board expansion plan rather than in the middle of a struggle. In Constructed, there probably is a way to abuse this but it seems that drafts and EDH/Commander should be safe.
Additional Rules:
a. If a card or ability instructs you to search your library, you choose one of your libraries.
b. If you are about to draw or reveal multiple cards from your library, you choose one library for the first card to draw/reveal and then alternate between two libraries until enough cards are drawn/revealed.
Reasoning: multiple draws are extra card advantage by itself and to be able dig through your nonland deck too quickly is unfair, think Fact or Fiction or even just Impaler Shrike. Let me know if some cards break this rule somehow.
c. If a card or ability instructs you to put one or more cards on top of your library (Academy Ruins, Brainstorm), you choose one of your libraries.
d. If a card or ability instructs a player to "mill" your library, for the first time in the game that player chooses one of your libraries and with each subsequent card to mill alternates between the two libraries. Use a "mill marker" to know where to proceed with milling further in the game. You only lose a game when both of your libraries are empty, i.e. you can't draw a card from anywhere.
As the name M1.5 suggest, this variant is a bridge from M1.0 to M2.0 in that it also eliminates both mana screw and mana flood and also makes searching for specific stuff in your card pool quicker and easier, especially in EDH/Commander.
But the two decks are still _somewhat_ cumbersome (not for me, mind you, and I always try to think of how new players react as I remember complaints, excuses, and arguments of those who already tested with me) and M2.0 is still superior because it allows you to play with a much larger pool of cards, offers greater challenge as to which card to convert, and in EDH/Commander makes your deck easier to handle.
Quote from agent8261 »
I thought of something else. How about a mulligan variant.
Before you draw you hand, you may choose up to 4 basic lands from your deck reveal them to your opponents and then draw the rest of your hand.
Please note that this rule is not necessary in M1.5 and when used separately in M1.0, it does not protect against mana flood, which is a big deal if you ask me.
In regards to the mill rule, you might get away with letting the controller of the effect decide which deck is affected. Most likely millers will pick the spell library.
Note that this decision is only made once in a game (per library) to prevent shenanigans but it makes sense the first player to mill anything from a particular library should make that decision, thanks for bringing that up.
BTW, our shared variant has one library for each color plus land decks. I think people will adapt to your version no problem.
The thing is that with Standard, Modern, Game Days, Prerelease tournaments etc. it's hard enough to play casual in my area, let alone nontraditional variants. Otherwise I agree.
Even though it's not easy to find time and players to play M1.5 and M2.0 with, I can report some tidbits from my recent testing:
M2.0 seems to be bullet-proof thus far
In M1.5, which is apparently also called "split deck", we tried to relax the rules of which card to put where. But without further limitations to this relaxation, some abuse is possible. For example, players could stack most of their cards into the resource deck along with lands, leaving their best removal spells and fatties in the other deck. Then, after stabilizing their board position, they could go into a super-topdeck mode and draw only from the best-of deck. Not to mention combo pieces. While vulnerable to mill strategies, this approach is not desirable in M1.5.
So, loosely, one way to fix it is:
Minimum of 40 cards per the whole split deck is unchanged. However, as minimum lands in a normal draft deck is 15 or 16, let's use the same number as a minimum number for cards for each of the split deck libraries (resource deck and spell deck)
To be safe, allow only mana-fixing and mana-accelerating cards into the resource deck. These cards should become even more sought-after because the more of them you have, the less basic lands are you required to put to your resource deck (provided you have enough playables for your spell deck).
I am aware that 2) is kind of a gray zone but let's assume that if it by itself makes mana, manipulates lands from library or into play, or can somehow re-color mana, it is allowed in the resource deck. Oh, and let's make it non-planeswalker (Sorry, Koth. Liliana's emblem wouldn't count as her emblem is not her):
Vague definition: if a non-planeswalker card can produce mana by itself, can re-color mana via an ability, can search for one or more lands in a library, or can put lands into play from the player's hand, it is called a "mana card" and can be played in the resource deck while playing M1.5.
Under the above assumption, you can play cards such as the following in your resource deck:
That's not to say that it would be always useful to play all of the above cards, but shows you the possibilities. Obvious picks for the resourse deck are for example Terrarion, Cultivate, Explore, or Bog Initiate.
Does M2.0 make land destruction strategies less onerous, because it is theoretically easier to recover from them?
Also, would the Mycosynth Lattice + Splinter trick effectively remove all cards of a certain color from a deck? After all, if any Black card is effectively a Swamp, that makes all Black cards Swamps, yes?
Just some corner-case questions for you.
Otherwise, this variant looks interesting.
Cheers!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If in the area, check out Gamers N Geeks and Mini War Games in Mobile, Alabama and Underhill's Games in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
Does M2.0 make land destruction strategies less onerous, because it is theoretically easier to recover from them?
Well yes, and I think it's a good thing too. Against a fast deck, LD in M2.0 has almost no chance of winning. And unlike in M1.0, you cannot just cheaply blow up a land and hope that you opponent gets screwed and never recovers. However, at a later stage in a game, players are usually reluctant to put cards as lands, as they need more relevant resources to play with. So, if you strategically destroy a land or two, your opponent might have a tough time to play their cards at the end of the deck's mana curve, say at 6 mana, when they have just a few cards in their hand and need to deal with your other threats.
On a related note, LD has always been so-called "griefer" strategy. You can check that in Garfield's talk for ChannelFireball linked above. LD and discard cards almost didn't make it to the original Magic. Later on though, Wizards themselves nerfed these two strategies pretty badly. The best discard spells nowadays are a one-for-one targeted sorcery such as Thoughtseize or Mind Rot if you want discard more than one card. And, since 8th edition, no 3-mana spell has been available to destroy a land...
Also, would the Mycosynth Lattice + Splinter trick effectively remove all cards of a certain color from a deck? After all, if any Black card is effectively a Swamp, that makes all Black cards Swamps, yes?
No, any black card _can_ be a Swamp but in fact is not until you decide to convert it from your hand or maybe by playing Cultivate etc.
I think perhaps a "only lands in the resource deck" rule might be preferable. In this approach, acceleration spells are a construction investment; You might draw them when you don't need them, but that makes them a strategic trade-off.
Well yes, lands-only resource decks are kind of a baseline for playing M1.5. But it also raises questions - Shall non-mana-producing lands go there too? Are man-lands and utility lands fair to be used solely as resources whereas man-artifacts, such as totems or keyrunes, must be in the spell deck?
I, for one, am testing mostly with experienced players who tend to like bigger flexibility and lands-only resource decks are a little of a boring restriction. It might be a little intimidating to adopt the concept of a "mana card" at first though.
My recommendation for playing/testing M1.5 is to start with land-only resource decks and maybe later move to adding mana cards to it.
We've found that acceleration and LD are both viable in our goofy shared deck format. If you are using x4 copies, LD might be very powerful. Highlander perhaps?
So far, I was only able to test M1.5 in drafts, but I see it very reasonable to cut down the size of a playset both in M2.0 and in M1.5. It's on my TODO list to be sure.
As for banning stuff like Oracle Mul Daya, she is absolutely bonkers in ours and yes she probably should be banned for a constructed version. That said, some stuff is harder to eyeball like Seismic Assault or retrace and will have to be tested.
In M1.5, it might work to make every new card that is revealed via Oracle of Mul Daya or Future Sight random between the two libraries. That way, you don't get what you want all the time and maybe don't have to ban effects like these. Retrace and Seismic Assault are clearly abusable but we need to test constructed format to find out.
In M2.0 though, you cannot play a revealed nonland card from the top of the library as a land card, so Oracle-like effect are probably not problematic. Future Sight effects are more of a concern. Under normal circumstances, you cannot convert more than one card into a land per turn, so Retrace spells and Seismic Assault don't feel particularly strong at first sight. And I'm quite positive the playset size in M2.0 is going down to at most 3 , making possible strategies abusing these cards in Constructed less of a problem immediately.
For those of you who are not yet completely on the M2.0 bandwagon, I've got a little gimmick for you:
M2.0 mode: Construct all your decks as usual, under traditional M1.0 rules, with adequate mana bases and everything. But to prevent unnecessary mana problems (while playing with like-minded players), use the M2.0 rule to kill mana screw. To prevent mana flood, just "cycle away" a basic land (by exiling it) from your hand for another draw whenever you have priority.
It's the simplest idea, really. I'm baffle-headed and discombobulated indeed why it hadn't occurred to me from the very start to facilitate transition from M1.0 to M2.0
By using the M2.0 mode, the deck might be more prone to lose against mill strategies but isn't it a small price to pay?
Another idea: to make sure that a deck is not rigged solely towards M2.0, randomly decide before a game whether the M2.0 mode will be in effect.
Thank you for this thread. I'm interested in the ideas here, and I intend to test them with my kitchen table group. (I've already e-mailed the thread to a couple of people, and since we already play in a non-standard way - basically Filth Casserole style decks with a somewhat larger card pool - we're not strangers to divergent styles).
I'm curious about something, which I suppose may not have been explicitly covered previously since this style has mainly been used in casual settings so far. Do any basic lands that you have brought for the purposes of the Magic 2.0 converting rule count towards your sideboard? I assumed they don't, but I wondered if you had given this any thought.
Thanks again. I'll be interested to see how this experiment goes!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching.
Thank you for this thread. I'm interested in the ideas here, and I intend to test them with my kitchen table group. (I've already e-mailed the thread to a couple of people, and since we already play in a non-standard way - basically Filth Casserole style decks with a somewhat larger card pool - we're not strangers to divergent styles).
Thank you for spreading the news!
On a side note, funny how the "Filth Casserole" contains all the best Modern cards in Magic
We are playing something similar though. Since EDH (Commander), especially in duels, became virtually a highlander Legacy format, we decided to step back and play PDH - Pauper's Dragon Highlander.
Basically, no card in a PDH deck should be over 1EURO/1$ or whatever other currency in high-enough supply and near-mint English printing on a secondary-market site or shop. I personally prefer MKM as there are thousands of sellers, so the prices are fair, reliable, and stable, thus it's easy to keep track.
I'm curious about something, which I suppose may not have been explicitly covered previously since this style has mainly been used in casual settings so far. Do any basic lands that you have brought for the purposes of the Magic 2.0 converting rule count towards your sideboard? I assumed they don't, but I wondered if you had given this any thought.
If I understand the question correctly, then no. The basic lands in this scenario are basically proxy cards that make it easier for everyone to follow how many lands of which type you've got in play. If I'm lazy though, I just flip the card I'm converting (face up, with the picture facing the opponent) and put it directly into play, annoucing its type. Usually it's not too hard to stack lands of the same type together and prevent confusion while playing.
On a side note, funny how the "Filth Casserole" contains all the best Modern cards in Magic
We are playing something similar though. Since EDH (Commander), especially in duels, became virtually a highlander Legacy format, we decided to step back and play PDH - Pauper's Dragon Highlander.
Basically, no card in a PDH deck should be over 1EURO/1$ or whatever other currency in high-enough supply and near-mint English printing on a secondary-market site or shop. I personally prefer MKM as there are thousands of sellers, so the prices are fair, reliable, and stable, thus it's easy to keep track.
We do something like this too, although probably in a less formal way than you. My group tends to be allergic to cards we consider "overpowered" and very stubborn when it comes to giving up cards that are widely considered "outclassed" (Canopy Spider for the win!), and we actively try to avoid the former and seek the latter. Personally, I thought Inkwell Looter's example decks were horrendous; what's the point of playing a different format or style, much less a casual singleton format, if you're just going to run all the same cards that you see in competitive constructed?
But that's a topic for a different thread, probably; I shouldn't derail the Magic 2.0 discussion too much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not watching.
We do something like this too, although probably in a less formal way than you. My group tends to be allergic to cards we consider "overpowered" and very stubborn when it comes to giving up cards that are widely considered "outclassed" (Canopy Spider for the win!), and we actively try to avoid the former and seek the latter.
While I like playing with subpar cards, I wouldn't probably pick cards like Canopy Spider simply because they don't "do" anything. Abilities matter if your aim is fun so I'd rather go for Silklash Spider in this instance - not overpoweved by any means but at the right moment, it can turn the tables
But that's a topic for a different thread, probably; I shouldn't derail the Magic 2.0 discussion too much.
This is actually where M2.0 comes in because you can get rid of boring lands, making more room for fun and subpar cards, and give these cards greater flexibility at the same time. Win-win
In the follow-up to the M2.0 mode (see above), I've got another little improvement.
For whatever reasons, some players consider even the M2.0 mode as cheating. As one of the goals of M2.0 is to eliminate mana problems, I've tried to come up with as least penetration of M2.0 into M1.0 as possible, while getting as much as possible out of it:
Three times in a game, you can use a wildcard - either convert a card into a basic land (the M2.0 rule) or exile a basic land in your hand to draw another card. Use a wildcard only once in a turn.
Alternatively, throw a six-sided die (with 1 = 0 wildcards, 2 = 1, ..., and 6 = 5 ) before a game to determine, how many wildcards will be available for each player. That way, you can work around potentially rigged mana bases, which count on the wildcards from the start... even though I see no point in cheating while playing casually.
Through my testing, I can tell that even just 3 wildcards help a lot to eliminate dead moments in a game, when you're unable to play anything due to being one land too few or too many and lose a turn or even the game because of it. At the same time, it's not too harsh intrusion to M1.0 so that more players might agree to use it for their benefit and everyone else's.
The wildcards do not remove mulligans (and are not supposed to either) but make mulliganing much more manageable.
Let's call the wildcards a foot in the door on the way towards full-fledged M2.0
Even in limited, it proved to be too abusable to just discard (=convert it into a land) any card and retrace a spell. I realized it especially with Call the Skybreaker, which was really unfair - or would be, had I not decided not to abuse it in the middle of the game
So the updated rule for Retrace is:
You cannot use a land card you converted from a nonland card using the M2.0 rule to pay the Retrace cost of a spell.
So, in effect, you can only retrace spells using the actual lands you put in your deck, like manlands, tri-lands and other mana fixing, which prevents the Retrace mechanic to be overpowered in M2.0.
I'm unsure whether I read something you wrote about this in the past or found it elsewhere, but I've heard of these same rules before. (playing spells as basics, cycling lands) In a lot of ways, they improve the game of Magic! However, I'm curious if you (or anyone here) has an established metagame using these rules. It seems to me that multicolored cards (and especially hybrid cards) become extremely powerful under these rules, even acknowledging color screw. Get a few good charms or other decent tri-colored cards together, and you can practically play anything. No?
As for your open question, I'll suggest using the color identity of cards instead of card color.
I'm unsure whether I read something you wrote about this in the past or found it elsewhere, but I've heard of these same rules before. (playing spells as basics, cycling lands) In a lot of ways, they improve the game of Magic! However, I'm curious if you (or anyone here) has an established metagame using these rules. It seems to me that multicolored cards (and especially hybrid cards) become extremely powerful under these rules, even acknowledging color screw. Get a few good charms or other decent tri-colored cards together, and you can practically play anything. No?
First of all, if you can do it, everyone can. As a result, better skill will eventually be revealed without everyone suffering from random mana problems all the time.
Secondly, as it's been mentioned above, if you go hogwild with colors, you _will_ run into color screw sooner or later. M2.0 gives you more options but for a price - you need to balance you maindeck wisely and use the M2.0 rule with care, lest you might lose due to a poor decision you've made earlier in the game. No mana screw/flood though.
Finally, the primary use for the M2.0 format is Limited. Many blocks do not have gold cards at all so if you're concerned with multicolored cards being too good and universal, you might want to adjust the edition you draft. Or custom-tune a cube for drafting with gold cards.
As for your open question, I'll suggest using the color identity of cards instead of card color.
Preamble:
No matter how hard you try, mana problems still happen.
This variant is for those who are not particularly fond of said problems.
Motivation (my opinions):
- It is bad design when the game won't let you play anything due to mana screw/flood or maybe just forces your decisions, for example due to being one land short or having one land too many.
- It is also bad design if approx. 40% of your deck absolutely needs to consist of cards that do virtually nothing useful but at the same time are necessary to play anything at all.
- Lands in Magic stack one luck factor, that is number of lands in your hand and on the top of your deck, on top of another, that is normal deck randomization. Consequently, even if you do nothing wrong during deck construction and mulligan decision, sometimes the game will simply not let you play.
- Basic lands in the player's deck are not necessary in order to enjoy virtually all Magic mechanics, especially in casual Magic. Losing to mana problems (arguably with the exception of tournaments) is basically a waste of time and the cause of frustration for many players - this is completely unnecessary.
- Not using basic lands in your deck opens up a lot more space for cards that are now almost never played, thus providing much greater variability for decks and gameplay in general.
Please note the following:* Some argue that losing to mana problems is useful to hone your skill, learn to accept defeat and whatnot. I argue that to do these things through obsolete game design is simply not necessary, especially for casual players.
* ETA: As a validation of these ideas, consider the Vancouver mulligan: http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/ptori/vancouver-mulligan-rule-2015-07-31 It is a very minor patch to the rules but it is an official acknowledgement that Magic rules can screw anyone from participating in the game which is especially frustrating and visible at big tournaments.
* R.Garfield once argued [2] that the randomness of lands in Magic creates kind of a leveling field for new players, as thay can sometimes "win" randomly if their opponent is unable to participate in the game. My comment is that while that is true, it does not take away the fact that the luck factor is in this case reflects the unfortunate design decision. Compare it to his quote above to see that when interviewed for a different audience, he was much more direct in his opinion. On the upside though, he also acknowledged that as a game matures and expands its base, it also tends to lower the luck factor, simplify the rules and generally make the games more accessible and enjoyable. I believe we can observe just that in Magic, hence my guess that basic lands might get targeted in this regard at some point in the future.
* I do still play original Magic (M1.0) but for casual events, I now always prefer Magic 2.0 (M2.0) in all formats.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering
Rules:
The basic principle of Magic 2.0 is: Every card in a deck can be used as a source of mana.
The basic rule of M2.0 is: Any time you are allowed to play a land (or put it into play from any zone), you may choose a card in your hand (or in that zone), reveal it, and choose one of its colors, based on the card's color identity. Then, you exile that card (or put it into the command zone, just to be safe) and replace it with a basic land producing mana of the chosen color.
ETA: select the color based on the color identity of the card, that is, all mana symbols in the rules box and outside the reminder text count towards available colors. Color identity is universally more convenient and automatically covers multi lands, mana stones, as well as expands options for off-color activations on cards.
Additional rules:
a) If you want to convert a land card into a basic land, you choose one color of mana that land can produce.ETA: a) If you want to convert a land card into a basic land, choose one color of that card's color identity.
b) If you want to convert an artifact card, a colorless card (such as an Eldrazi) or a land card that does not produce any colored mana, you will get a nonbasic land that produces one colorless mana and has no further abilities. If it existed, Barry's land would be quite a fit here...ETA: b) If you want to convert a card with no color identity (certain artifact cards, colorless cards such as Eldrazi, or land cards with no mana symbols in their rules boxes), you need to reveal one additional card from your hand that has a color identity in order to make the conversion. The colored card then determines which basic land types are available for the conversion. Additionally, the revealed colored card should remain revealed until you play/cast it and should not be used again to enable conversion of another colorless card - another copy of that card that has not been revealed in this way could be used though.
This updated rule removes the need for the artificially-added colorless non-basic land and balances back artifact cards with no color identity as they now cannot be converted without using a colored card.
b)If you want to convert a card with no color identity, reveal it and take Wastes instead one of the traditional basic lands.
c) If you're searching your library (or any other zone for that matter) for a basic land card that produces a specific color, you must choose a card of at least one color or a land card that can produce colored mana in order to use the M2.0 rule. Similarly, if you're searching for Plains specifically, the color has to be white, etc. However, you can search for a colorless card too and get Wastes.
ETA: d) Searching your library for a basic land is done by revealing cards from the bottom of your library and taking the first card of the color that matches the land type you are searching. Then shuffle your library.
This new rule removes the lengthy searches for lands because you no longer need to figure out which card in the deck is currently the least useful to be used as a land. That extra level of complexity and the time delays are not necessary, especially in Commander.
ETA: e) If you converted a multicolor-identity card using the M2.0 rule and want to play the basic land the same turn, it comes into play tapped. If the multicolored card was of 3 or more colors, the basic land type is determined at random out of those colors.
This new rule scales back the power of multicolored cards, which were previously too strong in M2.0 to the point that the best strategy for a constructed deck was to only use multicolored cards. Now, you need to be extra careful not to put too much gold cards into a deck as otherwise any dedicated monocolored deck will overrun you easily.
ETA: f) The converted/channeled lands (as a result of applying the M2.0 rule) cannot be used for Landfall or Retrace. Only use the actual land cards to benefit from these mechanics.
Mechanics heavily relying on lands should rather be scaled down than left semi-broken. There's enough extra variance that goes with M2.0 to make certain mechanics in it disproportionately better than others, even if it affects only a handful of cards (or maybe because of it).
ETA: g) Similarly, the exiled cards (as a result of applying the M2.0 rule) cannot be used for the Ulamog brood's Eldrazi cards such a Blight Herder. Only use the normally exiled cards to benefit from this mechanic.
M2.0 is supposed to help with mana problem, not to power up mechanics that happen to overlaps with its rules.
Notes:
i) Basic lands and M2.0 are still compatible. If you only want to remove early mana screw but let mana flood possible, apply the M2.0 rule but play with basic lands as normal.
ii) Artifacts in landless M2.0 are a little weaker and gold/hybrid cards tend to be more versatile. But be aware that if you recklessly put too many colors to your deck, the color screw will catch up with you sooner or later.ETA: ii) Through changes to the rules above, the power level of artifacts in landless M2.0 and of gold/hybrid cards has been balanced to better reflect the power level of these cards in M1.0.
iii) Explore, Azusa, etc. work. If you are allowed to play more than one land in a turn, you are also allowed to apply the M2.0 rule that many times.
Discussion:
Maybe except for the name "Magic 2.0", somewhat refined rulings, and some testing in different formats, this idea not really new. I remember playing Trash with friends more than 10 years ago where any card could be put into play face-down as a 5-color land.
I am also aware that others have been playing with the idea of landless Magic. When figuring out last nuances for M2.0, I actually found this:
http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands
http://santiago.mapache.org/games/magic/no-land.html
In hindsight, I find the following quite amusing: For years and years I kept losing to mana problems despite refining my skills to build consistent and adequate mana bases. I've been also witness to countless outbursts of frustration when said problems struck my opponents. Yet not once have I realized that I can in fact remove the lands from the equation. It was like an elephant in the room - "everyone" saw it as something undesirable but no one made a move against it, even if just for their casual experience.
Only after I became involved with Magic variants a couple of years back, particularly with Commander, also started to explore other games, and bought my Core set of Call of Cthulhu LCG, I realized that Magic seems to be all but alone in using basic land cards as a one-purpose resource. (I know, there are some cards designed to repurpose lands to make them more useful but hopefully, my point is clear.) Please do let me know if you played a popular card game that is flawed in a similar fashion.
Anyway, considering many changes that occured in Magic in the past, some of them quite drastic for some players (introduction of playsets, different mulligan rule variants, ante, interrupts, damage and stack, mana burn, mythics and planeswalkers, phyrexian mana, double-faced cards), I'd go as far as to say that at some point in the future, the traditional role of basic lands in Magic might as well change. It might not be quite the same as M2.0 but IMHO it's coming :).
Formats:
Commander: From my experience, Commander decks have some downsides too, in addition to all mana problems that can occur and ruin someone's game. Namely:
M2.0 is just one way to make playing Commander more enjoyable but it proved very effective in my testing. Consider that a rough average ratio or nonlands to lands in a deck is 60:40. Now, take out the lands, tweak the number of colorless cards, put some useful nonbasics back in and you've got a deck that is smaller and cheaper. It is no longer 99+1 cards but you are effectively playing the pool of nonland card that is equally big as in a normal Commander deck.
ETA: With the addition of the rule "d)" above, searching a deck for basic lands is now easier and more convenient.
I've also successfully tested a universal build style for a Commander deck that is compatible with M1.0, M2.0, and the Magic wildcards (see post #26):
Just prepare your deck as normal but instead of lands, select additional support/sideboard cards that couldn't make it to the original pool. The color distribution of these support cards should be as close as possible to the distribution of the basic lands you would normally use. Try to include only a limited number of multicolor support cards. Insert the support cards to the sleeves upside down, shuffle all the cards and you're set.
If you play M1.0 with someone, all the upside-down cards are simply lands. Arrange with your opponent how to handle multicolored support cards. The default would be to use the rules above but you might get a pass to always get dual taplands or basics that come into play untapped.
If you play M2.0 or wildcards, the added value of having support/sideboard cards upside down is that you more easily recognize, which cards belong to the default strategy of the deck (and thus should be mostly played as spells) and which are there to provide additional support and answer specific threats (and thus should be mostly played as lands). That is useful if you are new to the format or are lending the deck to someone who isn't yet familiar with M2.0/wildcards.
/ETA
Draft: As far as I can tell, drafting is golden with M2.0. It's very easy to set up: you draft 4 boosters instead of 3. It might be a good idea to use randomized repacks with no expensive cards in them for the 4th booster if you want to open new boosters and not make the M2.0 draft too costly. Then, you have roughly 60 cards to choose from for a 40-card deck. What's great is that drafting matters even at 10th pick or later. You try to pick as much cards in your colors as possible even if they are not very good. In fact, when you're picking a card, you know if you will be more likely to use it as a land or a as a regular spell. Thus, the nonland and "land" ratio in a M2.0 draft is roughly the same as in a regular draft. While playing, sometimes you will have to make a tough desicion to convert a good card into a land early on in the game. On the upside though, at other times, you will be able to use a relatively bad card to your advantage, usually later in the game. I remember winning once by playing Angel's Mercy after converting it into a land several times in previous games.
The advantages are quite clear: no more mana screw or mana flood, much more cards to play with, and not so many dead draws in the topdeck mode.
As I've discussed above, basic lands are still allowed. If you happen to draft a very strong card outside your draft colors very late in the draft and would like to splash it without having enough cards of the same color to support it, you can still add a couple of basic lands to make the splash possible. Splashing is always tricky though and from my experience it is more advisable to splash a few mediocre off-color cards with specific functions rather than to squeeze in a bomb such as Fireball with no other cards to support it.
Constructed: Again, transition from M1.0 to M2.0 in a constructed deck is quite simple: take out the basic lands, put in the sideboard, tweak the number of nonbasic lands and/or colorless cards and you're ready to go.
When building new decks, I propose to limit the deck size to 50 and the size of a playset to 3 as seen in other more modern card games and also to prevent too consistent draws for certain strategies.
Open question:
Should it be allowed to convert artifacts that produce colored mana into respective basic lands?
ETA: Using the color identity covers this problem elegantly and consistently with other cards.
I think it is still possible that I've missed something in my design that needs further attention, be it wording of the rules, consequence of M2.0 in certain metagame environments, or impact on certain groups of cards.
Please chip in with your feedback.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Goblin Charbelcher and Mind Funeral are probably problem cards though.
What we've taken to doing when we want to play without flood or screw is to let everyone start play with any two basic lands of their choice.
It still leaves in some of the variance, but it makes it so that everyone gets to actually play and it tempers the advantage of getting to go first a bit.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog
Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Well, since everything can be a land, the easiest way to handle these effects might be just to put an erratum in place saying that if you're milling a deck looking for a land, you'll just stop at the first card, effectively nerfing these cards.
This erratum would also prevent Abundance from being abused in M2.0.
Another way might be to just ban these cards (in M2.0) as they're very few, right?
In play? And still drawing 7 cards?
Seems like this variant doesn't always protect against the mana flood though.
Also, what I've learned to like about M2.0 through testing is the point number 5 above: More space for previously unloved cards, far less completely dead topdecks.
Thanks for your feedback.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Well, as I discussed above, the whole idea behind M2.0 is nothing groudbreakingly new and there are even more variants to tackle the secondary luck factor in Magic. I call one of them Magic 1.5 but that's for another thread.
Anyway, here are the main differences between the Dakkon Vanguard and M2.0:
But I didn't know this Dakkon Vanguard existed, thanks for letting me know!
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffYes, Eepop mentioned something similar above. While this surely helps to an extent, I believe losing to mana flood is just as bad as losing to mana screw.
M2.0 not only eliminates both but it also offers greater variety of cards to play with in what I hope is a straightforward and easily-adoptable approach.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
This shows that there are only so many ideas to go around. Your variant is actually pretty close to Magic 1.5 I mentioned. It has a little more to it but we tested it in our group as a compromise for people who had initially hard time to make the right choices in M2.0 (aka do the thinking) when suddenly so many options were open to them and there were no excuses on bad mana anymore.
For this reason alone, the two decks variant is worth playing. I've noticed that later in the game, people are very reluctant to draw mana lands at all. With no needless mana problem, the pacing is quicker so it is a little tougher to be dedicated to big spells and be able to play them too. It also shows (IMHO) that mana lands are just necessary evil in Magic and people just prefer to play something rather than waiting for their mana to accumulate.
As for the "drawing a land is a decision", that is also true in M2.0 even though it's not a draw, technically speaking. There is more flexibility to use your cards which perfectly matches Magic growing into maturity and thus lowering the luck factor in favor of skill, as Richard Garfield himself recently mentioned in his talk here:
http://www.channelfireball.com/home/magic-tv-extra-dr-richard-garfield-on-luck-versus-skill-magic-cruise-2012/
BTW, Magic gaining maturity is quite literal since we'll be celebrating its 20th birthday in 2013, right?
That's good to hear. In my area, many players are so conservative they wouldn't even try anything that is not "official" or would give their opponents a little more of a fighting chance. I'm optimistic, though.
Cheers.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
When ever you have to draw a card you can choose the card to draw from.
Doh seems like somebody else thought of the exact same thing.
I thought of something else. How about a mulligan variant.
Before you draw you hand, you may choose up to 4 basic lands from your deck reveal them to your opponents and then draw the rest of your hand.
You could use this in addition to the standard draw one less mulligan.
That seems simple and pretty elegant. Maybe lower the number to 3 basic lands?
Construction:
You contruct the deck as usual but before a game, you separate the cards into two decks. In one deck, there can be only lands. In the other is the rest.
Notes:
1. In my testing, it proved useful to separate your lands into two groups where one is used solely for mana (basic lands, Seaside Citadel, Irrigation Ditch) while the other can be used for other purposes (Treetop Village, Riptide Laboratory). That's why players in M1.5 are free to choose which land goes where.
2. I will test if it's fair to include any cards to your "mana" deck. For example, it seems to make sense to draw cards such as Skycloud Egg or Wayfarer's Bauble as part of your board expansion plan rather than in the middle of a struggle. In Constructed, there probably is a way to abuse this but it seems that drafts and EDH/Commander should be safe.
Additional Rules:
a. If a card or ability instructs you to search your library, you choose one of your libraries.
b. If you are about to draw or reveal multiple cards from your library, you choose one library for the first card to draw/reveal and then alternate between two libraries until enough cards are drawn/revealed.
Reasoning: multiple draws are extra card advantage by itself and to be able dig through your nonland deck too quickly is unfair, think Fact or Fiction or even just Impaler Shrike. Let me know if some cards break this rule somehow.
c. If a card or ability instructs you to put one or more cards on top of your library (Academy Ruins, Brainstorm), you choose one of your libraries.
d. If a card or ability instructs a player to "mill" your library, for the first time in the game that player chooses one of your libraries and with each subsequent card to mill alternates between the two libraries. Use a "mill marker" to know where to proceed with milling further in the game. You only lose a game when both of your libraries are empty, i.e. you can't draw a card from anywhere.
As the name M1.5 suggest, this variant is a bridge from M1.0 to M2.0 in that it also eliminates both mana screw and mana flood and also makes searching for specific stuff in your card pool quicker and easier, especially in EDH/Commander.
But the two decks are still _somewhat_ cumbersome (not for me, mind you, and I always try to think of how new players react as I remember complaints, excuses, and arguments of those who already tested with me) and M2.0 is still superior because it allows you to play with a much larger pool of cards, offers greater challenge as to which card to convert, and in EDH/Commander makes your deck easier to handle.
Please note that this rule is not necessary in M1.5 and when used separately in M1.0, it does not protect against mana flood, which is a big deal if you ask me.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Note that this decision is only made once in a game (per library) to prevent shenanigans but it makes sense the first player to mill anything from a particular library should make that decision, thanks for bringing that up.
The thing is that with Standard, Modern, Game Days, Prerelease tournaments etc. it's hard enough to play casual in my area, let alone nontraditional variants. Otherwise I agree.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
M2.0 seems to be bullet-proof thus far
In M1.5, which is apparently also called "split deck", we tried to relax the rules of which card to put where. But without further limitations to this relaxation, some abuse is possible. For example, players could stack most of their cards into the resource deck along with lands, leaving their best removal spells and fatties in the other deck. Then, after stabilizing their board position, they could go into a super-topdeck mode and draw only from the best-of deck. Not to mention combo pieces. While vulnerable to mill strategies, this approach is not desirable in M1.5.
So, loosely, one way to fix it is:
I am aware that 2) is kind of a gray zone but let's assume that if it by itself makes mana, manipulates lands from library or into play, or can somehow re-color mana, it is allowed in the resource deck. Oh, and let's make it non-planeswalker
Vague definition: if a non-planeswalker card can produce mana by itself, can re-color mana via an ability, can search for one or more lands in a library, or can put lands into play from the player's hand, it is called a "mana card" and can be played in the resource deck while playing M1.5.
Under the above assumption, you can play cards such as the following in your resource deck:
That's not to say that it would be always useful to play all of the above cards, but shows you the possibilities. Obvious picks for the resourse deck are for example Terrarion, Cultivate, Explore, or Bog Initiate.
But you cannot play:
Awakening Zone, Corpsehatch and friends
Peregrine Drake and friends
Mana Drain - I'd argue that since you get the mana delayed, Mana Drain can hardly be counted as a mana card
Veteran Explorer, Cathodion - you need more than itself to get the mana/lands
Black Market
Dark Depths and similar lands - no mana, no luck
Real gray zone (probably no to all of them as you need luck or opponent's resources to get the mana/land):
Let me know, if you find some cards that break this proposed rule for M1.5.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Also, would the Mycosynth Lattice + Splinter trick effectively remove all cards of a certain color from a deck? After all, if any Black card is effectively a Swamp, that makes all Black cards Swamps, yes?
Just some corner-case questions for you.
Otherwise, this variant looks interesting.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
Well yes, and I think it's a good thing too. Against a fast deck, LD in M2.0 has almost no chance of winning. And unlike in M1.0, you cannot just cheaply blow up a land and hope that you opponent gets screwed and never recovers. However, at a later stage in a game, players are usually reluctant to put cards as lands, as they need more relevant resources to play with. So, if you strategically destroy a land or two, your opponent might have a tough time to play their cards at the end of the deck's mana curve, say at 6 mana, when they have just a few cards in their hand and need to deal with your other threats.
On a related note, LD has always been so-called "griefer" strategy. You can check that in Garfield's talk for ChannelFireball linked above. LD and discard cards almost didn't make it to the original Magic. Later on though, Wizards themselves nerfed these two strategies pretty badly. The best discard spells nowadays are a one-for-one targeted sorcery such as Thoughtseize or Mind Rot if you want discard more than one card. And, since 8th edition, no 3-mana spell has been available to destroy a land...
No, any black card _can_ be a Swamp but in fact is not until you decide to convert it from your hand or maybe by playing Cultivate etc.
Thank you for your feedback!
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Well yes, lands-only resource decks are kind of a baseline for playing M1.5. But it also raises questions - Shall non-mana-producing lands go there too? Are man-lands and utility lands fair to be used solely as resources whereas man-artifacts, such as totems or keyrunes, must be in the spell deck?
I, for one, am testing mostly with experienced players who tend to like bigger flexibility and lands-only resource decks are a little of a boring restriction. It might be a little intimidating to adopt the concept of a "mana card" at first though.
My recommendation for playing/testing M1.5 is to start with land-only resource decks and maybe later move to adding mana cards to it.
So far, I was only able to test M1.5 in drafts, but I see it very reasonable to cut down the size of a playset both in M2.0 and in M1.5. It's on my TODO list to be sure.
In M1.5, it might work to make every new card that is revealed via Oracle of Mul Daya or Future Sight random between the two libraries. That way, you don't get what you want all the time and maybe don't have to ban effects like these. Retrace and Seismic Assault are clearly abusable but we need to test constructed format to find out.
In M2.0 though, you cannot play a revealed nonland card from the top of the library as a land card, so Oracle-like effect are probably not problematic. Future Sight effects are more of a concern. Under normal circumstances, you cannot convert more than one card into a land per turn, so Retrace spells and Seismic Assault don't feel particularly strong at first sight. And I'm quite positive the playset size in M2.0 is going down to at most 3 , making possible strategies abusing these cards in Constructed less of a problem immediately.
Thanks for the feedback!
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
For those of you who are not yet completely on the M2.0 bandwagon, I've got a little gimmick for you:
M2.0 mode:
Construct all your decks as usual, under traditional M1.0 rules, with adequate mana bases and everything. But to prevent unnecessary mana problems (while playing with like-minded players), use the M2.0 rule to kill mana screw. To prevent mana flood, just "cycle away" a basic land (by exiling it) from your hand for another draw whenever you have priority.
It's the simplest idea, really. I'm baffle-headed and discombobulated indeed why it hadn't occurred to me from the very start to facilitate transition from M1.0 to M2.0
By using the M2.0 mode, the deck might be more prone to lose against mill strategies but isn't it a small price to pay?
Another idea: to make sure that a deck is not rigged solely towards M2.0, randomly decide before a game whether the M2.0 mode will be in effect.
Let me know what you think.
Cheers!
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
I'm curious about something, which I suppose may not have been explicitly covered previously since this style has mainly been used in casual settings so far. Do any basic lands that you have brought for the purposes of the Magic 2.0 converting rule count towards your sideboard? I assumed they don't, but I wondered if you had given this any thought.
Thanks again. I'll be interested to see how this experiment goes!
Thank you for spreading the news!
On a side note, funny how the "Filth Casserole" contains all the best Modern cards in Magic
We are playing something similar though. Since EDH (Commander), especially in duels, became virtually a highlander Legacy format, we decided to step back and play PDH - Pauper's Dragon Highlander.
Basically, no card in a PDH deck should be over 1EURO/1$ or whatever other currency in high-enough supply and near-mint English printing on a secondary-market site or shop. I personally prefer MKM as there are thousands of sellers, so the prices are fair, reliable, and stable, thus it's easy to keep track.
If I understand the question correctly, then no. The basic lands in this scenario are basically proxy cards that make it easier for everyone to follow how many lands of which type you've got in play. If I'm lazy though, I just flip the card I'm converting (face up, with the picture facing the opponent) and put it directly into play, annoucing its type. Usually it's not too hard to stack lands of the same type together and prevent confusion while playing.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
We do something like this too, although probably in a less formal way than you. My group tends to be allergic to cards we consider "overpowered" and very stubborn when it comes to giving up cards that are widely considered "outclassed" (Canopy Spider for the win!), and we actively try to avoid the former and seek the latter. Personally, I thought Inkwell Looter's example decks were horrendous; what's the point of playing a different format or style, much less a casual singleton format, if you're just going to run all the same cards that you see in competitive constructed?
But that's a topic for a different thread, probably; I shouldn't derail the Magic 2.0 discussion too much.
While I like playing with subpar cards, I wouldn't probably pick cards like Canopy Spider simply because they don't "do" anything. Abilities matter if your aim is fun so I'd rather go for Silklash Spider in this instance - not overpoweved by any means but at the right moment, it can turn the tables
This is actually where M2.0 comes in because you can get rid of boring lands, making more room for fun and subpar cards, and give these cards greater flexibility at the same time. Win-win
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
In the follow-up to the M2.0 mode (see above), I've got another little improvement.
For whatever reasons, some players consider even the M2.0 mode as cheating. As one of the goals of M2.0 is to eliminate mana problems, I've tried to come up with as least penetration of M2.0 into M1.0 as possible, while getting as much as possible out of it:
Three times in a game, you can use a wildcard - either convert a card into a basic land (the M2.0 rule) or exile a basic land in your hand to draw another card. Use a wildcard only once in a turn.
Alternatively, throw a six-sided die (with 1 = 0 wildcards, 2 = 1, ..., and 6 = 5 ) before a game to determine, how many wildcards will be available for each player. That way, you can work around potentially rigged mana bases, which count on the wildcards from the start... even though I see no point in cheating while playing casually.
Through my testing, I can tell that even just 3 wildcards help a lot to eliminate dead moments in a game, when you're unable to play anything due to being one land too few or too many and lose a turn or even the game because of it. At the same time, it's not too harsh intrusion to M1.0 so that more players might agree to use it for their benefit and everyone else's.
The wildcards do not remove mulligans (and are not supposed to either) but make mulliganing much more manageable.
Let's call the wildcards a foot in the door on the way towards full-fledged M2.0
Happy brewing!
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Even in limited, it proved to be too abusable to just discard (=convert it into a land) any card and retrace a spell. I realized it especially with Call the Skybreaker, which was really unfair - or would be, had I not decided not to abuse it in the middle of the game
So the updated rule for Retrace is:
You cannot use a land card you converted from a nonland card using the M2.0 rule to pay the Retrace cost of a spell.
So, in effect, you can only retrace spells using the actual lands you put in your deck, like manlands, tri-lands and other mana fixing, which prevents the Retrace mechanic to be overpowered in M2.0.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
As for your open question, I'll suggest using the color identity of cards instead of card color.
First of all, if you can do it, everyone can. As a result, better skill will eventually be revealed without everyone suffering from random mana problems all the time.
Secondly, as it's been mentioned above, if you go hogwild with colors, you _will_ run into color screw sooner or later. M2.0 gives you more options but for a price - you need to balance you maindeck wisely and use the M2.0 rule with care, lest you might lose due to a poor decision you've made earlier in the game. No mana screw/flood though.
Finally, the primary use for the M2.0 format is Limited. Many blocks do not have gold cards at all so if you're concerned with multicolored cards being too good and universal, you might want to adjust the edition you draft. Or custom-tune a cube for drafting with gold cards.
That is actually a cool idea. Thank you
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?