The problem with the mulligan rule is not just that it is a rule. The problem is that it's a bad, ineffective rule. This one, by contrast, should be very effective, reducing the odds precisely to Magic 1.0 standards and interfacing almost exactly the same way with tutor/draw strategies, regular turn draw steps, etc.
From my perspective, you took the two-deck variant, and tried to simplify it by merging the two decks into one. So, before, you could just split your deck to land/nonland and start playing. Now, you need to split the deck, cleverly find a good ratio of cards to create two equally big decks, and sleeve them in two different colors.
For me, after months of testing and tuning M2.0, that seems like a step back. But I do encourage you to build some decks for your variant and test it in your community. Maybe you'll encounter less resistance than I did with M2.0.
This is also a very intuitive rule, as it flows quite naturally from "4 of a card in a 60 card deck, to 2x2 of a card in your 30 card halves"
Well sure, but was it the point to preserve the playset size or create this symmetry? Again, the point for me was to remove the mana screw and flood. I've learned, there are simpler ways to do it than to split the deck. I've also learned that trying to persuade others to play a Magic variant that is too divorced from the original gameplay (that is the decks for that variant are not compatible with decks casual players carry around) is almost the same as to persuade them to play a different game altogether.
That is not happening in my circles and therefore I'm aiming at simplicity and compatibility as much as I can. I wish you luck finding a few players for your two-deck variant but if losing to mana problems bothers you, also try out the wildcards, M2.0, or the universal decks with upside-down cards, as they might perhaps get better reception.
This is the casual forum, dude. You do deck checks with your friends at the kitchen table?
No, I mentioned that as another thing to point out the extra complexity of the variant. Anyway, please be sure to tell us how your community responded to ideas from this threat, including your own.
Unfortunately, I don't get a chance to play magic in diverse groups often enough (couple times a month) to convince my playgroup to set aside whole days to testing out random non-magic ideas. The rest is just like, playing with my girlfriend mostly, who isn't very useful as a testing group for "stuff acquaintances are willing to put up with."
So I'm mainly just throwing out possible ideas more so than being able to contribute too much to testing.
Another option, by the way, was brought up in GD a day or two ago. Something along the lines of:
"All colorless mana is Phyrexian mana" or
"Up to one colorless mana for each card is phyrexian mana." or
"All colored mana is phyrexian, except for the first mana of each color in a card's cost (so 2BBGGG would become 2BG:sympg::sympg:]"
or similar. Details are fuzzy, but just in general, the idea of making more things phyrexian-type mana as a solution to mana screw.
(Should pretty much keep decks the same as vanilla magic, except for possibly a little less dual lands being played, which makes things cheaper and is probably a means of ATTRACTING players to the format)
@ Crimeo: We've never had problems with lands and spells being in different sleeves. We don't mix spells and lands. Been playing our variant for years, works great.
Unfortunately, I don't get a chance to play magic in diverse groups often enough (couple times a month) to convince my playgroup to set aside whole days to testing out random non-magic ideas. The rest is just like, playing with my girlfriend mostly, who isn't very useful as a testing group for "stuff acquaintances are willing to put up with."
So I'm mainly just throwing out possible ideas more so than being able to contribute too much to testing.
I understand but without testing, you can't truly evaluate your own ideas, yet you're compelled to defend them...
I suggest you build at least two decks that are largely different (for example, RG agro and WU control), on a tight budget (maybe entirely without rare cards) and test them over time and on occasion, before or after a tournament, etc.
Another option, by the way, was brought up in GD a day or two ago. Something along the lines of:
"All colorless mana is Phyrexian mana" or
"Up to one colorless mana for each card is phyrexian mana." or
"All colored mana is phyrexian, except for the first mana of each color in a card's cost (so 2BBGGG would become 2BG:sympg::sympg:]"
or similar. Details are fuzzy, but just in general, the idea of making more things phyrexian-type mana as a solution to mana screw.
(Should pretty much keep decks the same as vanilla magic, except for possibly a little less dual lands being played, which makes things cheaper and is probably a means of ATTRACTING players to the format)
I think I heard about this variant before but right from the start it seems problematic:
1) does not deal with mana flood at all
2) only provides temporary reprieve - you can maybe drop an early blocker on low mana but if you opp is able to deal with it and/or you're still forced to trade life for mana the next turn, you'll be quickly losing the damage race and most of the time just delaying the inevitable.
3) to phyrexianize some mana is quite compatible with M1.0 but not so much with chanelling cards into lands, so considering how limited options phy mana provides, it is quite unclear how would it sway players to later convert to a more comprehensive approach to mana issues, which is M2.0
@ Crimeo: We've never had problems with lands and spells being in different sleeves. We don't mix spells and lands. Been playing our variant for years, works great.
Cool, good to hear! Maybe I will try then to make it a little simpler re: some of the observations above, and then actually wheedle my friends into trying it out.
Finally, I've updated the OP with refined rules that came from this thread and my testing:
------------
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 expanding 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 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.
c) If you're searching your library (or any other zone for that matter) for a basic land card, 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.
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 try hard and 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 that 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.
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 to a deck as otherwise, any dedicated monocolored deck will overrun you easily.
---------
Check out the OP for other tweaks. And as always, feedback is welcome.
Has anyone played competitively with any of these mana changes, and does it favour Aggressive decks (because of consistant mana) or control decks (because card draw is generally more powerful)?
I haven't really gone past the testing of constructed decks built of non-rare Modern cards and using 3-card playsets. Even with the latest changes to the rules which mainly balance the power level of multicolored cards (see the above post), it seems that Aggro has the upper hand due to its ability to get there more quickly and consistently.
However, the balancing of colorless and multicolored cards moved the M2.0 metagame closer to the M1.0 metagame, suggesting that the consistency in mana also favors midrange and control strategies.
If my time allows, I'll start posting decklists for you to consider. I've already got several weenie decks to test and I'll be now focusing on burn, stompy, monoB control and other significant archetypes.
I read the thread through and found it very interesting. I'm in the process of tweaking my cubes to be a bit more quick start. Less time spent drafting and deckbuilding and more time playing. At first I was thinking of doing some sort of big stack/danger room pile where everyone shares the same library, but that basically forces everyone into five colour random. Then I was thinking that maybe Commie Box is the way to go, but it has shortcomings when it comes to gold and hybrid cards.
M2.0 has caused me to rethink that though. If I do a Commie Box with 6 shared libraries (one of each colour and one of gold, hybrid and artifacts) and then use M2.0, it gets rid of the dead draw if you get a gold card that isn't in your normal mana base. You can always just channel it away for a land and use that for colourless mana. Or it might suddenly open up a colour and you'll start drawing from that shared library.
As for milling where you reveal until you show so many lands, what about just doubling the number. So Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker hitting you means 8 cards go into your graveyard. As would being the target of Mind Funeral. I really like the M1.5 roll between libraries idea though.
However I end up doing things M2.0 cuts out part of the deck building phase when I want to do a cube with friends and have it be more like a board game where we jump right in.
As for milling where you reveal until you show so many lands, what about just doubling the number. So Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker hitting you means 8 cards go into your graveyard. As would being the target of Mind Funeral.
That's a good idea - even though that way these cards might seem a little less efficient overall, on the other hand, you're milling away only the playables. I like the simplicity of the rule that mimics the original mechanic quite well.
However I end up doing things M2.0 cuts out part of the deck building phase when I want to do a cube with friends and have it be more like a board game where we jump right in.
The amount of deckbuilding really depends on the preferred drafting style, if you're even drafting the cards - drafting is not even necessary if you're playing the "trash" format with one or more common libraries as you've mentioned.
Anyway, you can draft just 3 boosters even with M2.0 - that way, you end up with 45 cards. If you then remove 5 worst cards and maybe replace a couple of others with basic lands so that you don't have to play 4 colors, for example, then you are done very quickly.
Or, you can draft 4 boosters and tune your deck some more, preferrably cutting the number of colors in the deck to 2.
Or, you can really get into it and split the drafted cards into two groups: "mostly spells" and "mostly lands". That way, you can employ your regular deck building skills to curve out the most efficient cards in the pool, then tune the remaining cards to get an adequate "land" pool. If you then put your "mostly lands" into your sleeves upside down, you'll be always reminded which cards were supposed to be the core of the deck and which were meant to be channelled most of the times. If a mana problem hits or you get into the topdeck mode, the roles of the cards might change so that you don't get stuck needlessly and can continue participating in the game.
Since I read this thread, I've watched a few draft videos on youtube and really started noticing how often mana or colour screw happens. It's a shocking amount. Maybe this thread has just really pointed it out and now I'm paying attention, but it seems to decide an awful lot of games in MTGO draft vids. I guess I just assumed it was a normal part of the game and never noticed just how often it happens.
What I meant about the deck building is that I'm trying to get closer and closer to an MTG self contained board game style box with a cube inside that you just immediately dive into playing rather than first drafting and deckbuilding. M2.0 cuts out the phase of deckbuilding where you're counting mana symbols and figuring out ratios and whatnot and replaces it with just needing enough cards that you like casting that you're willing to turn some of them into land. So instead of going for a splash into a colour and hoping that 5 swamps is enough to get one before you'll need it, you instead will need enough black cards that you get two before you want to cast one.
And if it's pretty casual play where people tend to build mono coloured or two coloured decks with roughly equal numbers of colours, they can just jump right into playing without even thinking about the mana base.
It looks like M2.0 will support really strategic mana base building as well as casual "jump right in" play.
I tried to streamline to rules a bit, attempting to follow the formalism of the comprehensive rules, to use as a reference in case of disagreement and to still introduce the players to the rules quickly.
==================================================== Magic 2.0 Principle: Every card in a deck can be used as a source of mana.
2.0. New Special Action: Land Channel - Exile this card, replace it with a basic land card from outside the game producing a color within the exiled card color identity. (The color identity of a card is made of its color plus any color of mana symbol in its text except in reminder text) (Special Actions don't use the stack and thus cannot be responded to)
2.0.1. (From hand) Anytime you can play a land, you may Land Channel a card from your hand. You may then put that land on the battlefield. If the exiled card color identity is multicolored, that land enters the battlefield tapped. Using this special action counts as playing a land. (Even if you don't put the land into play) (Reminder: You can only play lands on your turn when you have priority and the stack is empty: Sorcery speed)
2.0.2. (From library) When an effect searches your library for a basic land card, instead, choose a valid basic land type and reveal cards from the bottom of your library (or the part of library searched) until you reveal a card that can be Land Channeled for the searched basic land. You can Land Channel that card or end the search. (Exile that card and put the land where instructed) (Then shuffle your library as usually instructed) (Ending the search without finding a card simply ends the effect)
2.0.3. (Artifacts) When you Land Channel a card with a colorless color identity from your hand, you must also reveal a colored card from your hand. The revealed card is used for color identity purposes in place of the exiled card.
2.0.4. When an effect checks specifically for a “land card” or a “[basic land type]” on the top of a library, an opponent of the player controlling the effect (priority to the owner of the library) chooses whether each card is Land Channeled or not.
====================================================
Explanations:
2.0 Rule:
(…may then put that land…): This allows you to use the land for other purposes such as Retrace or Trade Routes.
(…multicolored, that land enters the battlefield tapped…): This is for balance purposes. Mana of multiple colors is easier to manage in 2.0 and multicolored cards giving more mana options was shifting the balance too far from usual Magic.
(…counts as playing a land…): Otherwise you could use it too many times.
2.0.1:
(…reveal cards from the bottom of your library…): This is to prevent people exiling the least useful card. Saves time. Up to debate if it messes with combo too much (might exile critical cards at time). I guess you can opt out and say you don’t find a land if it would exile a critical card.
(or the part of library searched): Aven Mindsensor and similar effects
2.0.2: This rule exists to make every card able to produce mana. Also makes artifacts a little better, opposite of multicolored cards.
2.0.3: To fix Mind Funeral and similar cards. Will probably still need bannings.
Note: Channeled lands enter the battlefield tapped only when played from hand immediately from channeling a multicolored card from hand or an artifact when a multicolored card is revealed.
I'm not sure about the wording to make every rule follow the same conditions without repeating myself. I should include the "Channel" term to this to make it clearer instead of "exiling a card for a land".
I tried to cover all bases concisely, so that nothing is ambiguous. Tell me what could be improved in this regard.
Edit 17 Feb 2014: Coined the term Land Channel to be more specific + Many clarifications for corner-cases in all rules to make choices more obvious.
I tried to streamline to rules a bit, attempting to follow the formalism of the comprehensive rules.
Cool idea. Let me address some glitches I found in your write-up:
Magic 2.0 Principle: Every card in a deck can be used as a source of mana.
2.0 Rule. Anytime you can play a land, you may exile a card from your hand and replace it with a basic land card within the exiled card color identity. You may then play that land. If the exiled card color identity is multicolored, that land enters the battlefield tapped. Using this special action counts as playing a land. (Even if you don't play it)
- Note: Not sure if the "You may then play that land." bit is necessary. You can mostly do anything you want with the land other than playing it. Come to think of it, if you were playing the wildcards, you could even cycle that land away for another card.
Reminder: Wildcards are a way to simulate M2.0 while playing with traditional M1.0 decks. You can either use the M2.0 rule if you need mana or, usually later in the game, you can cycle away a land card to draw another card. Only use one wildcard in this way per turn. Usually, there's a limited number of wildcards (3 for drafts, 5 for EDH) but you can also play unlimited number of wildcards, which is called the "M2.0 mode".
- Missing: The land channeled from a multicolored card only comes into play tapped if you play it the same turn you channeled it.
- Missing: To further balance multicolored cards with 3 or more colors in their identity, if you channel such a card, the basic land type is determined at random out of possible types for that card.
- ETA: Note: Just noticed the "Using this special action counts as playing a land." bit. That seems just confusing and unnecessary. Channeling a card is not the same as playing a land. You could channel a card, pass the turn, and in your next one play Summer Bloom, play an actual land card from your hand, then play the already-channeled land, and finally channel a card for a third land and play that one too. Or, you can cast Explore, channel two cards but not play any land that turn. So, the limit for playing a land is the same as the one for using the M2.0 rule but that's it.
2.0.2. When you exile a card with a colorless color identity from your hand, you may reveal a card from your hand. This card is used for color identity purposes in place of the exiled card.
- Error: With the recent update I made (also see the OP), you can no longer channel a colorless card into a basic land, unless you reveal a colored card. This is to prevent the existence of the Barry's land which is still outside the rules of Magic, and also to scale down the power level of colorless artifacts.
2.0.3. When an effect checks specifically for a “land card” or a “[basic land type] card” on the top of a library, an opponent of the player controlling the effect (priority to the owner of the library) chooses whether each card is exiled for a land or not.
- Comment: Ha, you're thinking ahead, aren't you :)? I don't remember discussing or testing this. Worded like this though, wouldn't the rule just allow your opponent to deck you every time they are hit by the Avenging Druid, for example? The number of affected cards is very low, so my default position has always been to treat every (colored) card as a land for these checks if the alternative is the instant decking.
Explanations:
2.0 Rule:
(…may then play that land…): This allows you to use the land for other purposes such as Retrace or Trade Routes.
- Oh, here's the clarification. Again, I'm not sure if it is needed but there's a twist to it, read on
(…multicolored, that land enters the battlefield tapped…): This is for balance purposes. Mana of multiple colors is easier to manage in 2.0 and multicolored cards giving more mana options was shifting the balance too far from usual Magic.
(…counts as playing a land…): Otherwise you could use it too many times.
- Again, cards of 3 or more colors are not mentioned.
2.0.1:
(…reveal cards from the bottom of your library…): This is to prevent people exiling the least useful card. Saves time. Up to debate if it messes with combo too much (might exile critical cards at time). I guess you can opt out and say you don’t find a land if it would exile a critical card.
- Um, the purpose of the rule is to facilitate the gameplay. Specific deck strategies IMHO should not be a part of the comprehensive-rules kind of text. But as for the debate, I don't think combo decks need any kind of special protection in this regard. In fact, since there are no lands anymore, allowing you to dig through the deck more efficiently, I find it only fair to have the added risk, which even only applies if you're comboing AND ramping/manafixing. So, I say, either take the risk or limit the number of landsearching cards, and you should be fine. After all, combo is supposed to be risky, remember Demonic Consultation ;)?
2.0.2: This rule exists to make every card able to produce mana. Also makes artifacts a little better, opposite of multicolored cards.
- Since I've taken out the Barry's land loophole out of the rules, the power level of colorless artifacts has also gone down a little because you no longer can channel them without a colored card in your hand.
2.0.3: To fix Mind Funeral and similar cards. Will probably still need bannings.
- Not necessarily, NathanIW recently proposed that if a card counts for a specific number of land cards to be revealed, the easiest way to handle them (without breaking or nerfing them) could be just double the number and reveal that number of cards of any type instead.
- And now the twist: one concern I've had was Landfall - seems quite broken in M2.0. Since using the lands in M2.0 is perfectly okay, I'd rather nerf the mechanic rather than to leave it broken. The same with Retrace actually - I once drafted Call the Skybreaker in an M2.0 draft. My opponents were not happy and understandably so, I might add. So my rationale is this: if you want to play a dedicated Landfall or Retrace strategy, invest in it by actually including some lands into your decks rather than abusing the M2.0 rule. Thus, the new rule:
The channeled lands (as a result of appliying the M2.0 rule) cannot be used for Landfall or Retrace. Only use the actual land cards to benefit from these mechanics.
I'm not sure about the wording to make every rule follow the same conditions without repeating myself. I should include the "Channel" term to this to make it clearer instead of "exiling a card for a land".
Well, "Channel" already has its pseudo-keyword in Magic, so we should make it clear by defining it properly for the context of M2.0 as a shortcut.
About the "you may play that land" and "counts as playing a land" part:
It's clunky to say "you can channel as many times as you can play lands" (actually I'm not sure whether you stance on this right now is this or "unlimited channels per turn" or "once per turn", both of which break certain cards like Explore and Trade Routes). So instead, I prefer to include the channeling action into the land playing action. Also makes it easier to keep track of which land ETB tapped since you have to play it immediately.
Also, I'm note sure that 3 color cards need to be nerfed further, there are not that many and they are color intensive. Color intensiveness makes them hard to cast in 2.0 because you usually don't have dual lands. I'm leaving them alone for now.
Seems you missed the point of 2.0.2, it's doing exactly what you are talking about. I'll edit it to make it clearer:
From:
2.0.2. When you exile a card with a colorless color identity from your hand, you may reveal a card from your hand. This card (ambiguous reference) is used for color identity purposes in place of the exiled card.
to:
2.0.2. When you exile a card with a colorless color identity from your hand, you may reveal a card from your hand. The revealed card is used for color identity purposes in place of the exiled card.
Meaning: you can exile colorless cards for lands, when you do, you can reveal a colored card. Otherwise, you channel wiffs because no land corresponds to colorless mana identity (so you don't do it, unless you really want to get rid of an artifact for a cornercase scenario)
2.0.3: Just don't play Avenging Druid. Or play it in a deck with Donate and Mindslaver. A few cards have the same problem but that just means they won't be played.
Exiling critical cards from the bottom of your library with land search: I'm talking about exiling the 1-of Aetherling when you flip the bottom card, making the game unwinnable. There are many cases like this that can be easily avoided by simply using the fact that you don't have to find a card when you search. If you flip Aetherling, you can opt to not channel it but the land search wiffs.
About Retrace and Landfall: these might get too good, but I suspect only a very small number of them (and not many card have that mechanic). Landfall is a bit counterbalanced by the fact that fetchlands are usually absent. I don't want mana flood to be a thing and forcing mana flood on people using Retrace and Landfall sucks. Call the Skybreaker is way too good obviously in 2.0 draft so I'd opt with only banning this one card instead of making a rule case.
About the "you may play that land" and "counts as playing a land" part:
It's clunky to say "you can channel as many times as you can play lands" (actually I'm not sure whether you stance on this right now is this or "unlimited channels per turn" or "once per turn", both of which break certain cards like Explore and Trade Routes). So instead, I prefer to include the channeling action into the land playing action. Also makes it easier to keep track of which land ETB tapped since you have to play it immediately.
As I state in the OP: "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."
So, if you play Explore, your limit to play lands goes up by one and you can also channel two cards in that turn. But you can play lands you didn't channel for in that turn and you can also keep the channeled lands in your hand. I fail to see the clunkiness.
Also, I'm note sure that 3 color cards need to be nerfed further, there are not that many and they are color intensive. Color intensiveness makes them hard to cast in 2.0 because you usually don't have dual lands. I'm leaving them alone for now.
It's about universality. 3-color cards combine powers of 3 colors (charms, battlemages), thus being more powerful and/or universal. Therefore, there should be a trade-off to using them for mana, compared to 2-color cards. If there's no such trade-off, 3-color cards become more attractive for deckbuilding and certainly for drafting. To make M2.0 a viable alternative, I'm trying to keep the power level of individual cards as close as possible to what it is in M1.0 - in this case, 3-color cards are still more powerful but less viable for manafixing.
Seems you missed the point of 2.0.2, it's doing exactly what you are talking about. I'll edit it to make it clearer:
From:
2.0.2. When you exile a card with a colorless color identity from your hand, you may reveal a card from your hand. This card (ambiguous reference) is used for color identity purposes in place of the exiled card.
to:
2.0.2. When you exile a card with a colorless color identity from your hand, you may reveal a card from your hand. The revealed card is used for color identity purposes in place of the exiled card.
Meaning: you can exile colorless cards for lands, when you do, you can reveal a colored card. Otherwise, you channel wiffs because no land corresponds to colorless mana identity (so you don't do it, unless you really want to get rid of an artifact for a cornercase scenario)
I just pointed out that "you may reveal a card" should be "you must reveal a colored card". Otherwise, you're either creating a Barry's Land, which doesn't work (see https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25 ), or a no-type colorless land, which doesn't exist. To me, allowing a channeling attempt that leads to a dead end is counter-intuitive, I'd rather stick the additional cost to it.
2.0.3: Just don't play Avenging Druid. Or play it in a deck with Donate and Mindslaver. A few cards have the same problem but that just means they won't be played.
Which can be achieved just as well by nerfing those cards instead and prevent unexpected scenarios by allowing opponents to call land/nonland. Or do you have some particular justification for 2.0.3. got through testing or other research?
Exiling critical cards from the bottom of your library with land search: I'm talking about exiling the 1-of Aetherling when you flip the bottom card, making the game unwinnable. There are many cases like this that can be easily avoided by simply using the fact that you don't have to find a card when you search. If you flip Aetherling, you can opt to not channel it but the land search wiffs.
Well, there's no way constructed metagame in M2.0 would look anything like metagame in M1.0. So, I don't see a reason to accomodate scenarios from M1.0 (1-of AEtherling) to influence M2.0 rules. I see it as a balancing factor - on one hand, no mana screw/flood. On the other hand, if you search too much for lands, you might accidentally lose access to some cards. But it's ultimately your choice - if you want to search a lot, don't set up your strategy on winning through a 1-of.
However, allowing players to let their land search fizzle in exchange of not losing whatever card they flip seems like a reasonable trade-off because then it doesn't seem to be hand-tailored for combo decks only. Let's go with it.
About Retrace and Landfall: these might get too good, but I suspect only a very small number of them (and not many card have that mechanic). Landfall is a bit counterbalanced by the fact that fetchlands are usually absent. I don't want mana flood to be a thing and forcing mana flood on people using Retrace and Landfall sucks. Call the Skybreaker is way too good obviously in 2.0 draft so I'd opt with only banning this one card instead of making a rule case.
Again, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything. It's a trade-off anyone can do. A landfall/retrace might be a reasonable winning strategy, especially in Limited. So if someone drafts 2-3 Windrider Eels, they might take the risk of a little flood by including some lands/fetches in exchange for a 4/4 flyer, which we know is very powerful in Zen drafts. The alternative is that landfall/retrace cards become close to broken in their respective drafts... Needless to say that this needs more testing so I'm leaving this an open question for now.
As I state in the OP: "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."
So, if you play Explore, your limit to play lands goes up by one and you can also channel two cards in that turn. But you can play lands you didn't channel for in that turn and you can also keep the channeled lands in your hand. I fail to see the clunkiness.
I just prefer to combine it in the land-playing action. It's lighter on words easier to integrate to the rules. Also easier for lands that come into play tapped (multicolored cards). The only thing I (potentially) don't like about my version is that it might make cards like Exploration too good by channeling a multicolored card and playing it untapped as the second "play land" action. I don't mind this being counter-intuitive because that's bound to happen in MtG (Jace, the Mind Sculptor avoiding Lightning Bolt), but it might just be too good.
It's about universality. 3-color cards combine powers of 3 colors (charms, battlemages), thus being more powerful and/or universal. Therefore, there should be a trade-off to using them for mana, compared to 2-color cards. If there's no such trade-off, 3-color cards become more attractive for deckbuilding and certainly for drafting. To make M2.0 a viable alternative, I'm trying to keep the power level of individual cards as close as possible to what it is in M1.0 - in this case, 3-color cards are still more powerful but less viable for manafixing.
I have 2 objections here: first, I dislike random lands. It's against the spirit of M 2.0 in my opinion (less random). Second, when you compare 2 color cards to 3-4-5 color cards you must consider that 3-4-5 colored cards will be very hard to cast in 2.0 because the prevalence of basic lands makes casting cost very rigid. In 1.0, using fetches and shocklands allows you to play a T1 Wild Nacalt followed by 2 T2 Lightning Bolt and T3 Geist of Saint Traft. 3+ color cards naturally force you to get these 3 lands when you might also need multiple Plains for example. Basically, I haven't been able to test anything yet, but I would not initially suspect 3 color cards to be that good and needing more nerf then entering tapped. If the meta is full of 3 color cards because they are that good then I'll reconsider this.
I just pointed out that "you may reveal a card" should be "you must reveal a colored card". Otherwise, you're either creating a Barry's Land, which doesn't work (see https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25 ), or a no-type colorless land, which doesn't exist. To me, allowing a channeling attempt that leads to a dead end is counter-intuitive, I'd rather stick the additional cost to it.
Yeah, the possibility of fizzle was not needed, fixed.
Which can be achieved just as well by nerfing those cards instead and prevent unexpected scenarios by allowing opponents to call land/nonland. Or do you have some particular justification for 2.0.3. got through testing or other research?
What kind of nerf are you proposing? My nerf seems pretty full proof (though some cards that check for creatures/colors/other are still too probably too good). Since the controller is usually the one owning the card, if giving control to the opponent is dangerous you can just play other cards. This effectively bans problematic cards (I checked my list on page 2) by rendering them unplayable without the need of a banlist. Unexpected scenarios are bound to happen when you agree to play with other rules, people will figure out fast enough what not to play. (for draft I would recommend removing all these problematic cards from the pool)
Well, there's no way constructed metagame in M2.0 would look anything like metagame in M1.0. So, I don't see a reason to accomodate scenarios from M1.0 (1-of AEtherling) to influence M2.0 rules. I see it as a balancing factor - on one hand, no mana screw/flood. On the other hand, if you search too much for lands, you might accidentally lose access to some cards. But it's ultimately your choice - if you want to search a lot, don't set up your strategy on winning through a 1-of.
However, allowing players to let their land search fizzle in exchange of not losing whatever card they flip seems like a reasonable trade-off because then it doesn't seem to be hand-tailored for combo decks only. Let's go with it.
Again, I don't want more randomness to mess up the game. This would have been a side-effect not present in 1.0 and I don't see why it should be added to 2.0. Glad you agree on this.
Again, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything. It's a trade-off anyone can do. A landfall/retrace might be a reasonable winning strategy, especially in Limited. So if someone drafts 2-3 Windrider Eels, they might take the risk of a little flood by including some lands/fetches in exchange for a 4/4 flyer, which we know is very powerful in Zen drafts. The alternative is that landfall/retrace cards become close to broken in their respective drafts... Needless to say that this needs more testing so I'm leaving this an open question for now.
2 things to consider: Referring to the Retrace and Landfall mechanic in the rules feels like patchwork. Also, I'm sure many cards aren't broken, a short banlist should suffice.
Keep in mind that the idea with these rules is to make them as short and elegant as possible.
On an other topic, I keep talking about about 2.0 but I still haven't played it. I want to play it badly because of all the bad games where lands screw a player over (I feel like almost all best-of-3 have a game like that). Does anyone have experience with a system to know when others are available to play online on Cockatrice or something similar?
I almost forgot! I edited the concise rules a bit, and add the term Land Channel. This sounds very bad, I really need a term more resonant. Ideas?
I just prefer to combine it in the land-playing action. It's lighter on words easier to integrate to the rules. Also easier for lands that come into play tapped (multicolored cards).
From my perspective, the M2.0 rule is just something that is on top of normal rules - it defines the variant after all. Therefore, I see no need to merge it with existing rules too much. In fact, by saying that the landchanneling _counts_ as playing a land, you create confusion, as it is unclear whether the landchanneling itself takes from your limit for playing lands. It almost seems than the channeling replaces the land drop if it _counts_ as one... To make it clear, you should rephrase it to something like "channeling a card implies playing the resulting land". Then again, you mentioned that you wanted to keep the option not to play the land. Confusing...
The only thing I (potentially) don't like about my version is that it might make cards like Exploration too good by channeling a multicolored card and playing it untapped as the second "play land" action.
Shouldn't work anyway. IMHO, Every multicolored card channeled into a land should come into play tapped if you play it the same turn you channeled it in.
I have 2 objections here: first, I dislike random lands. It's against the spirit of M 2.0 in my opinion (less random).
If M2.0 has a spirit, it's definitely to remove mana screw and mana flood - something that you cannot influence when it happens. Channeling a 3-color card, while not knowing what land are you getting, falls under the category of color screw at best, something that existed in M2.0 the whole time, however diminished. Plus, you are still getting a land. This additional rule should only discourage you to use (3+)-colored cards for mana/color fixing, because such an ability combined with the power level of these cards would make them too good. See below.
Second, when you compare 2 color cards to 3-4-5 color cards you must consider that 3-4-5 colored cards will be very hard to cast in 2.0 because the prevalence of basic lands makes casting cost very rigid. In 1.0, using fetches and shocklands allows you to play a T1 Wild Nacalt followed by 2 T2 Lightning Bolt and T3 Geist of Saint Traft. 3+ color cards naturally force you to get these 3 lands when you might also need multiple Plains for example. Basically, I haven't been able to test anything yet, but I would not initially suspect 3 color cards to be that good and needing more nerf then entering tapped. If the meta is full of 3 color cards because they are that good then I'll reconsider this.
In theory, you're talking a good talk but without testing it's just that - talk. I tested with gold cards and while building the decks, I eventually spammed with them like crazy - to the point that all the cards in the deck were multicolored. That's why I introduced the limitations for gold cards much later, after seeing the evidence. The point of testing is genuinely trying to break the rules you consider sound. Try it. You would be in a different situation though since you already accept the gold-channeled lands should enter tapped. I haven't had that...
What kind of nerf are you proposing?
As I've already mentioned - if an ability could deck someone instantly in M2.0 (Charbelcher, Avenging Druid), then the check would stop at the first colored card that could be channeled. Problem solved. Or we can go with NathanIW's proposal for all cards that mill until a land by just doubling the number and mill that amount instead.
My nerf seems pretty full proof (though some cards that check for creatures/colors/other are still too probably too good). Since the controller is usually the one owning the card, if giving control to the opponent is dangerous you can just play other cards. This effectively bans problematic cards (I checked my list on page 2) by rendering them unplayable without the need of a banlist. Unexpected scenarios are bound to happen when you agree to play with other rules, people will figure out fast enough what not to play. (for draft I would recommend removing all these problematic cards from the pool)
Your list is much broader though and contains cards that don't seem problematic at all. For example, Mirko and friends could just mill the fixed amount of cards as outlines above. Cards like Duskmantle Seer or Compulsive Research would just become somewhat worse under the existing M2.0 rules. Cards like Bloodline Shaman or Zoologist would just become somewhat better but that's why I proposed a smaller playset size of 3 cards for M2.0 Constructed to balance out some synergies and combos...
In effect, I see only a very limited number of truly problematic cards right now. Needless to say that Constructed isn't really the primary focus of M2.0. We can use all the testing we can get but without a good deal of M2.0 decks out there, some unforseen strategies aren't a dealbreaker for me. We are still talking a casual variant here after all.
2 things to consider: Referring to the Retrace and Landfall mechanic in the rules feels like patchwork. Also, I'm sure many cards aren't broken, a short banlist should suffice.
Okay, let's try not to be too purist. The reality of M1.0 is that it has a very land-centric setup while M2.0 is very anti-land. That's just how things are. If the old game has a land-centric mechanic, I see no problem in singleing it out in a clearly anti-land rule framework.
It almost seems like a no-brainer to me now that having cheap access to landfall every turn in Zen drafts is simply unfair. And for the very reason that the amount of affected cards is very small, I'd rather nerf them all than make them chase cards (sometimes broken) in those drafts or even pondering which of them really warrants a ban and which does not. That would be patchwork in my book.
Keep in mind that the idea with these rules is to make them as short and elegant as possible.
And in that also lies the danger of trying too hard to cling to purity, regardless of the real-world circumstances - check my sig
On an other topic, I keep talking about about 2.0 but I still haven't played it. I want to play it badly because of all the bad games where lands screw a player over (I feel like almost all best-of-3 have a game like that). Does anyone have experience with a system to know when others are available to play online on Cockatrice or something similar?
I don't play online in any form but to start testing, the best way is to have everything ready in advance. Put together some repacks for a draft (ZEN for landfall, SHA/EVE for retrace, ALA for 3-colored cards). Create a cube with no problematic cards in it. Build some constructed decks in advance for the testing. I'd suggest one aggro monocolored deck (RDW, WW), one guild midrange deck, and one gold-heavy control, for example Grixis. Universal builds for Commander decks, compatible with M1.0, M2.0, and wildcards, play very well too (see OP for more details).
Then just go out there to find players willing to try something new. It worked for me and still does.
I almost forgot! I edited the concise rules a bit, and add the term Land Channel. This sounds very bad, I really need a term more resonant. Ideas?
We have landcycling, we can just as well have landchanneling. But I wouldn't worry too much about it - we can always ask some nice folks over at the Rules forum to help us out.
To add to Charmer's comment, random land gives gameplay more personality. It gives incentive to play mono/2-color and makes CC matter. Otherwise everyone ends up playing a mishmash of 5-color.
Just as a thought, have you experimented with the timing that you can lay a land? Why not keep lands as is, but if you need to play a card from your hand as a resource, you can only do it during your end step or some such (meaning that you can't use it that turn to cast anything with). Lands would then still be useful as they can enter that turn untapped (unless otherwise specified).
Just as a thought, have you experimented with the timing that you can lay a land? Why not keep lands as is, but if you need to play a card from your hand as a resource, you can only do it during your end step or some such (meaning that you can't use it that turn to cast anything with). Lands would then still be useful as they can enter that turn untapped (unless otherwise specified).
Hm, this hasn't occurred to me yet. But since you expect to still play lands and tweak the rules to alleviate mana problems with normal decks, this new rule is more directed to the "Magic Wildcards" variant (see post #26) than to M2.0 itself. I'll mull it over, but right now I'm not sure if this rule is helpful, because if you get hit by mana screw, you would still lose the turn and only at the end of it you could play the channeled land - effectively making it the same as if you draw the needed land the next turn...
So I ran some cube days with Magic 2.0, and it did end up that almost all the decks were 3-5 colour good stuff decks and all the archetypes that are normally in the cube died.
Personally I like the variance of the existing mana system.
It does ruin 5-10% of games, but it also creates a lot of games that are interesting because one player has an advantage that is not insurmountable. Maybe one player hits 3 lands on turn 3 but doesn't hit 4 until turn 6; or someone that only wants to ever draw 4 lands gets 6. Those games are more common than the ones that are ruined by extreme flood or extreme mana shortages.
That said, if you want to experiment with a different way of handling multicoloured cards, take the symbol that appears first in their mana cost (so Watchwolf, which is printed GW, is considered ONLY able to become a Forest). For cards with no mana cost, use your existing rules for completely colorless cards. That balances things and stops multicolored cards being OP.
I just need to rebuild my bulk rare cube around this idea rather than taking my existing one and hoping it all works out. In many limited environments, the mana base is all that prevents a four or five colour good stuff deck from being the obviously best archetype. In Magic 2.0, that limitation is gone and it's very easy for the cube's archetypes to be run over by a table full of people just making four colour decks of the best cards of each pack and pick.
So I ran some cube days with Magic 2.0, and it did end up that almost all the decks were 3-5 colour good stuff decks and all the archetypes that are normally in the cube died.
If you don't mind my asking:
What kind of Cube was that?
Have you played with the updated rules where lands channeled out of a multicolored card (based on its color identity) enter play tapped?
From my perspective, you took the two-deck variant, and tried to simplify it by merging the two decks into one. So, before, you could just split your deck to land/nonland and start playing. Now, you need to split the deck, cleverly find a good ratio of cards to create two equally big decks, and sleeve them in two different colors.
For me, after months of testing and tuning M2.0, that seems like a step back. But I do encourage you to build some decks for your variant and test it in your community. Maybe you'll encounter less resistance than I did with M2.0.
Well sure, but was it the point to preserve the playset size or create this symmetry? Again, the point for me was to remove the mana screw and flood. I've learned, there are simpler ways to do it than to split the deck. I've also learned that trying to persuade others to play a Magic variant that is too divorced from the original gameplay (that is the decks for that variant are not compatible with decks casual players carry around) is almost the same as to persuade them to play a different game altogether.
That is not happening in my circles and therefore I'm aiming at simplicity and compatibility as much as I can. I wish you luck finding a few players for your two-deck variant but if losing to mana problems bothers you, also try out the wildcards, M2.0, or the universal decks with upside-down cards, as they might perhaps get better reception.
No, I mentioned that as another thing to point out the extra complexity of the variant. Anyway, please be sure to tell us how your community responded to ideas from this threat, including your own.
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?
So I'm mainly just throwing out possible ideas more so than being able to contribute too much to testing.
Another option, by the way, was brought up in GD a day or two ago. Something along the lines of:
"All colorless mana is Phyrexian mana" or
"Up to one colorless mana for each card is phyrexian mana." or
"All colored mana is phyrexian, except for the first mana of each color in a card's cost (so 2BBGGG would become 2BG:sympg::sympg:]"
or similar. Details are fuzzy, but just in general, the idea of making more things phyrexian-type mana as a solution to mana screw.
(Should pretty much keep decks the same as vanilla magic, except for possibly a little less dual lands being played, which makes things cheaper and is probably a means of ATTRACTING players to the format)
I understand but without testing, you can't truly evaluate your own ideas, yet you're compelled to defend them...
I suggest you build at least two decks that are largely different (for example, RG agro and WU control), on a tight budget (maybe entirely without rare cards) and test them over time and on occasion, before or after a tournament, etc.
I think I heard about this variant before but right from the start it seems problematic:
1) does not deal with mana flood at all
2) only provides temporary reprieve - you can maybe drop an early blocker on low mana but if you opp is able to deal with it and/or you're still forced to trade life for mana the next turn, you'll be quickly losing the damage race and most of the time just delaying the inevitable.
3) to phyrexianize some mana is quite compatible with M1.0 but not so much with chanelling cards into lands, so considering how limited options phy mana provides, it is quite unclear how would it sway players to later convert to a more comprehensive approach to mana issues, which is M2.0
Interesting idea nonetheless.
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?
Regarding broken gameplay: EDH has high starting life to slow down gameplay. Shared decks achieve that effect through variable card quality.
Any constructed fixed mana variant that doesn't have something to slow down the game will allow quicker victories, which some people won't like.
Cool, good to hear! Maybe I will try then to make it a little simpler re: some of the observations above, and then actually wheedle my friends into trying it out.
------------
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 expanding 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 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.
c) If you're searching your library (or any other zone for that matter) for a basic land card, 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.
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 try hard and 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 that 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.
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 to a deck as otherwise, any dedicated monocolored deck will overrun you easily.
---------
Check out the OP for other tweaks. And as always, feedback is welcome.
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 haven't really gone past the testing of constructed decks built of non-rare Modern cards and using 3-card playsets. Even with the latest changes to the rules which mainly balance the power level of multicolored cards (see the above post), it seems that Aggro has the upper hand due to its ability to get there more quickly and consistently.
However, the balancing of colorless and multicolored cards moved the M2.0 metagame closer to the M1.0 metagame, suggesting that the consistency in mana also favors midrange and control strategies.
If my time allows, I'll start posting decklists for you to consider. I've already got several weenie decks to test and I'll be now focusing on burn, stompy, monoB control and other significant archetypes.
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 has caused me to rethink that though. If I do a Commie Box with 6 shared libraries (one of each colour and one of gold, hybrid and artifacts) and then use M2.0, it gets rid of the dead draw if you get a gold card that isn't in your normal mana base. You can always just channel it away for a land and use that for colourless mana. Or it might suddenly open up a colour and you'll start drawing from that shared library.
As for milling where you reveal until you show so many lands, what about just doubling the number. So Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker hitting you means 8 cards go into your graveyard. As would being the target of Mind Funeral. I really like the M1.5 roll between libraries idea though.
However I end up doing things M2.0 cuts out part of the deck building phase when I want to do a cube with friends and have it be more like a board game where we jump right in.
That's a good idea - even though that way these cards might seem a little less efficient overall, on the other hand, you're milling away only the playables. I like the simplicity of the rule that mimics the original mechanic quite well.
The amount of deckbuilding really depends on the preferred drafting style, if you're even drafting the cards - drafting is not even necessary if you're playing the "trash" format with one or more common libraries as you've mentioned.
Anyway, you can draft just 3 boosters even with M2.0 - that way, you end up with 45 cards. If you then remove 5 worst cards and maybe replace a couple of others with basic lands so that you don't have to play 4 colors, for example, then you are done very quickly.
Or, you can draft 4 boosters and tune your deck some more, preferrably cutting the number of colors in the deck to 2.
Or, you can really get into it and split the drafted cards into two groups: "mostly spells" and "mostly lands". That way, you can employ your regular deck building skills to curve out the most efficient cards in the pool, then tune the remaining cards to get an adequate "land" pool. If you then put your "mostly lands" into your sleeves upside down, you'll be always reminded which cards were supposed to be the core of the deck and which were meant to be channelled most of the times. If a mana problem hits or you get into the topdeck mode, the roles of the cards might change so that you don't get stuck needlessly and can continue participating in the game.
M2.0 just works
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?
What I meant about the deck building is that I'm trying to get closer and closer to an MTG self contained board game style box with a cube inside that you just immediately dive into playing rather than first drafting and deckbuilding. M2.0 cuts out the phase of deckbuilding where you're counting mana symbols and figuring out ratios and whatnot and replaces it with just needing enough cards that you like casting that you're willing to turn some of them into land. So instead of going for a splash into a colour and hoping that 5 swamps is enough to get one before you'll need it, you instead will need enough black cards that you get two before you want to cast one.
And if it's pretty casual play where people tend to build mono coloured or two coloured decks with roughly equal numbers of colours, they can just jump right into playing without even thinking about the mana base.
It looks like M2.0 will support really strategic mana base building as well as casual "jump right in" play.
====================================================
Magic 2.0 Principle: Every card in a deck can be used as a source of mana.
2.0. New Special Action: Land Channel - Exile this card, replace it with a basic land card from outside the game producing a color within the exiled card color identity.
(The color identity of a card is made of its color plus any color of mana symbol in its text except in reminder text)
(Special Actions don't use the stack and thus cannot be responded to)
2.0.1. (From hand) Anytime you can play a land, you may Land Channel a card from your hand. You may then put that land on the battlefield. If the exiled card color identity is multicolored, that land enters the battlefield tapped. Using this special action counts as playing a land. (Even if you don't put the land into play)
(Reminder: You can only play lands on your turn when you have priority and the stack is empty: Sorcery speed)
2.0.2. (From library) When an effect searches your library for a basic land card, instead, choose a valid basic land type and reveal cards from the bottom of your library (or the part of library searched) until you reveal a card that can be Land Channeled for the searched basic land. You can Land Channel that card or end the search. (Exile that card and put the land where instructed)
(Then shuffle your library as usually instructed)
(Ending the search without finding a card simply ends the effect)
2.0.3. (Artifacts) When you Land Channel a card with a colorless color identity from your hand, you must also reveal a colored card from your hand. The revealed card is used for color identity purposes in place of the exiled card.
2.0.4. When an effect checks specifically for a “land card” or a “[basic land type]” on the top of a library, an opponent of the player controlling the effect (priority to the owner of the library) chooses whether each card is Land Channeled or not.
====================================================
Explanations:
2.0 Rule:
(…may then put that land…): This allows you to use the land for other purposes such as Retrace or Trade Routes.
(…multicolored, that land enters the battlefield tapped…): This is for balance purposes. Mana of multiple colors is easier to manage in 2.0 and multicolored cards giving more mana options was shifting the balance too far from usual Magic.
(…counts as playing a land…): Otherwise you could use it too many times.
2.0.1:
(…reveal cards from the bottom of your library…): This is to prevent people exiling the least useful card. Saves time. Up to debate if it messes with combo too much (might exile critical cards at time). I guess you can opt out and say you don’t find a land if it would exile a critical card.
(or the part of library searched): Aven Mindsensor and similar effects
2.0.2: This rule exists to make every card able to produce mana. Also makes artifacts a little better, opposite of multicolored cards.
2.0.3: To fix Mind Funeral and similar cards. Will probably still need bannings.
Note: Channeled lands enter the battlefield tapped only when played from hand immediately from channeling a multicolored card from hand or an artifact when a multicolored card is revealed.
I'm not sure about the wording to make every rule follow the same conditions without repeating myself. I should include the "Channel" term to this to make it clearer instead of "exiling a card for a land".
I tried to cover all bases concisely, so that nothing is ambiguous. Tell me what could be improved in this regard.
Edit 17 Feb 2014: Coined the term Land Channel to be more specific + Many clarifications for corner-cases in all rules to make choices more obvious.
Cool idea. Let me address some glitches I found in your write-up:
- Note: Not sure if the "You may then play that land." bit is necessary. You can mostly do anything you want with the land other than playing it. Come to think of it, if you were playing the wildcards, you could even cycle that land away for another card.
Reminder: Wildcards are a way to simulate M2.0 while playing with traditional M1.0 decks. You can either use the M2.0 rule if you need mana or, usually later in the game, you can cycle away a land card to draw another card. Only use one wildcard in this way per turn. Usually, there's a limited number of wildcards (3 for drafts, 5 for EDH) but you can also play unlimited number of wildcards, which is called the "M2.0 mode".
- Missing: The land channeled from a multicolored card only comes into play tapped if you play it the same turn you channeled it.
- Missing: To further balance multicolored cards with 3 or more colors in their identity, if you channel such a card, the basic land type is determined at random out of possible types for that card.
- ETA: Note: Just noticed the "Using this special action counts as playing a land." bit. That seems just confusing and unnecessary. Channeling a card is not the same as playing a land. You could channel a card, pass the turn, and in your next one play Summer Bloom, play an actual land card from your hand, then play the already-channeled land, and finally channel a card for a third land and play that one too. Or, you can cast Explore, channel two cards but not play any land that turn. So, the limit for playing a land is the same as the one for using the M2.0 rule but that's it.
- Error: With the recent update I made (also see the OP), you can no longer channel a colorless card into a basic land, unless you reveal a colored card. This is to prevent the existence of the Barry's land which is still outside the rules of Magic, and also to scale down the power level of colorless artifacts.
- Comment: Ha, you're thinking ahead, aren't you :)? I don't remember discussing or testing this. Worded like this though, wouldn't the rule just allow your opponent to deck you every time they are hit by the Avenging Druid, for example? The number of affected cards is very low, so my default position has always been to treat every (colored) card as a land for these checks if the alternative is the instant decking.
- Oh, here's the clarification. Again, I'm not sure if it is needed but there's a twist to it, read on
- Again, cards of 3 or more colors are not mentioned.
- Um, the purpose of the rule is to facilitate the gameplay. Specific deck strategies IMHO should not be a part of the comprehensive-rules kind of text. But as for the debate, I don't think combo decks need any kind of special protection in this regard. In fact, since there are no lands anymore, allowing you to dig through the deck more efficiently, I find it only fair to have the added risk, which even only applies if you're comboing AND ramping/manafixing. So, I say, either take the risk or limit the number of landsearching cards, and you should be fine. After all, combo is supposed to be risky, remember Demonic Consultation ;)?
- Since I've taken out the Barry's land loophole out of the rules, the power level of colorless artifacts has also gone down a little because you no longer can channel them without a colored card in your hand.
- Not necessarily, NathanIW recently proposed that if a card counts for a specific number of land cards to be revealed, the easiest way to handle them (without breaking or nerfing them) could be just double the number and reveal that number of cards of any type instead.
- And now the twist: one concern I've had was Landfall - seems quite broken in M2.0. Since using the lands in M2.0 is perfectly okay, I'd rather nerf the mechanic rather than to leave it broken. The same with Retrace actually - I once drafted Call the Skybreaker in an M2.0 draft. My opponents were not happy and understandably so, I might add. So my rationale is this: if you want to play a dedicated Landfall or Retrace strategy, invest in it by actually including some lands into your decks rather than abusing the M2.0 rule. Thus, the new rule:
The channeled lands (as a result of appliying the M2.0 rule) cannot be used for Landfall or Retrace. Only use the actual land cards to benefit from these mechanics.
Well, "Channel" already has its pseudo-keyword in Magic, so we should make it clear by defining it properly for the context of M2.0 as a shortcut.
Thanks!
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?
It's clunky to say "you can channel as many times as you can play lands" (actually I'm not sure whether you stance on this right now is this or "unlimited channels per turn" or "once per turn", both of which break certain cards like Explore and Trade Routes). So instead, I prefer to include the channeling action into the land playing action. Also makes it easier to keep track of which land ETB tapped since you have to play it immediately.
Also, I'm note sure that 3 color cards need to be nerfed further, there are not that many and they are color intensive. Color intensiveness makes them hard to cast in 2.0 because you usually don't have dual lands. I'm leaving them alone for now.
Seems you missed the point of 2.0.2, it's doing exactly what you are talking about. I'll edit it to make it clearer:
From:
to:
Meaning: you can exile colorless cards for lands, when you do, you can reveal a colored card. Otherwise, you channel wiffs because no land corresponds to colorless mana identity (so you don't do it, unless you really want to get rid of an artifact for a cornercase scenario)
2.0.3: Just don't play Avenging Druid. Or play it in a deck with Donate and Mindslaver. A few cards have the same problem but that just means they won't be played.
Exiling critical cards from the bottom of your library with land search: I'm talking about exiling the 1-of Aetherling when you flip the bottom card, making the game unwinnable. There are many cases like this that can be easily avoided by simply using the fact that you don't have to find a card when you search. If you flip Aetherling, you can opt to not channel it but the land search wiffs.
About Retrace and Landfall: these might get too good, but I suspect only a very small number of them (and not many card have that mechanic). Landfall is a bit counterbalanced by the fact that fetchlands are usually absent. I don't want mana flood to be a thing and forcing mana flood on people using Retrace and Landfall sucks. Call the Skybreaker is way too good obviously in 2.0 draft so I'd opt with only banning this one card instead of making a rule case.
I'm definitely a casual player and you're wording is communicating to me what I need to know in order to play this variant.
As I state in the OP: "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."
So, if you play Explore, your limit to play lands goes up by one and you can also channel two cards in that turn. But you can play lands you didn't channel for in that turn and you can also keep the channeled lands in your hand. I fail to see the clunkiness.
It's about universality. 3-color cards combine powers of 3 colors (charms, battlemages), thus being more powerful and/or universal. Therefore, there should be a trade-off to using them for mana, compared to 2-color cards. If there's no such trade-off, 3-color cards become more attractive for deckbuilding and certainly for drafting. To make M2.0 a viable alternative, I'm trying to keep the power level of individual cards as close as possible to what it is in M1.0 - in this case, 3-color cards are still more powerful but less viable for manafixing.
I just pointed out that "you may reveal a card" should be "you must reveal a colored card". Otherwise, you're either creating a Barry's Land, which doesn't work (see https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25 ), or a no-type colorless land, which doesn't exist. To me, allowing a channeling attempt that leads to a dead end is counter-intuitive, I'd rather stick the additional cost to it.
Which can be achieved just as well by nerfing those cards instead and prevent unexpected scenarios by allowing opponents to call land/nonland. Or do you have some particular justification for 2.0.3. got through testing or other research?
Well, there's no way constructed metagame in M2.0 would look anything like metagame in M1.0. So, I don't see a reason to accomodate scenarios from M1.0 (1-of AEtherling) to influence M2.0 rules. I see it as a balancing factor - on one hand, no mana screw/flood. On the other hand, if you search too much for lands, you might accidentally lose access to some cards. But it's ultimately your choice - if you want to search a lot, don't set up your strategy on winning through a 1-of.
However, allowing players to let their land search fizzle in exchange of not losing whatever card they flip seems like a reasonable trade-off because then it doesn't seem to be hand-tailored for combo decks only. Let's go with it.
Again, it's not about forcing anyone to do anything. It's a trade-off anyone can do. A landfall/retrace might be a reasonable winning strategy, especially in Limited. So if someone drafts 2-3 Windrider Eels, they might take the risk of a little flood by including some lands/fetches in exchange for a 4/4 flyer, which we know is very powerful in Zen drafts. The alternative is that landfall/retrace cards become close to broken in their respective drafts... Needless to say that this needs more testing so I'm leaving this an open question for now.
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 just prefer to combine it in the land-playing action. It's lighter on words easier to integrate to the rules. Also easier for lands that come into play tapped (multicolored cards). The only thing I (potentially) don't like about my version is that it might make cards like Exploration too good by channeling a multicolored card and playing it untapped as the second "play land" action. I don't mind this being counter-intuitive because that's bound to happen in MtG (Jace, the Mind Sculptor avoiding Lightning Bolt), but it might just be too good.
I have 2 objections here: first, I dislike random lands. It's against the spirit of M 2.0 in my opinion (less random). Second, when you compare 2 color cards to 3-4-5 color cards you must consider that 3-4-5 colored cards will be very hard to cast in 2.0 because the prevalence of basic lands makes casting cost very rigid. In 1.0, using fetches and shocklands allows you to play a T1 Wild Nacalt followed by 2 T2 Lightning Bolt and T3 Geist of Saint Traft. 3+ color cards naturally force you to get these 3 lands when you might also need multiple Plains for example. Basically, I haven't been able to test anything yet, but I would not initially suspect 3 color cards to be that good and needing more nerf then entering tapped. If the meta is full of 3 color cards because they are that good then I'll reconsider this.
Yeah, the possibility of fizzle was not needed, fixed.
What kind of nerf are you proposing? My nerf seems pretty full proof (though some cards that check for creatures/colors/other are still too probably too good). Since the controller is usually the one owning the card, if giving control to the opponent is dangerous you can just play other cards. This effectively bans problematic cards (I checked my list on page 2) by rendering them unplayable without the need of a banlist. Unexpected scenarios are bound to happen when you agree to play with other rules, people will figure out fast enough what not to play. (for draft I would recommend removing all these problematic cards from the pool)
Again, I don't want more randomness to mess up the game. This would have been a side-effect not present in 1.0 and I don't see why it should be added to 2.0. Glad you agree on this.
2 things to consider: Referring to the Retrace and Landfall mechanic in the rules feels like patchwork. Also, I'm sure many cards aren't broken, a short banlist should suffice.
Keep in mind that the idea with these rules is to make them as short and elegant as possible.
On an other topic, I keep talking about about 2.0 but I still haven't played it. I want to play it badly because of all the bad games where lands screw a player over (I feel like almost all best-of-3 have a game like that). Does anyone have experience with a system to know when others are available to play online on Cockatrice or something similar?
I almost forgot! I edited the concise rules a bit, and add the term Land Channel. This sounds very bad, I really need a term more resonant. Ideas?
From my perspective, the M2.0 rule is just something that is on top of normal rules - it defines the variant after all. Therefore, I see no need to merge it with existing rules too much. In fact, by saying that the landchanneling _counts_ as playing a land, you create confusion, as it is unclear whether the landchanneling itself takes from your limit for playing lands. It almost seems than the channeling replaces the land drop if it _counts_ as one... To make it clear, you should rephrase it to something like "channeling a card implies playing the resulting land". Then again, you mentioned that you wanted to keep the option not to play the land. Confusing...
Shouldn't work anyway. IMHO, Every multicolored card channeled into a land should come into play tapped if you play it the same turn you channeled it in.
If M2.0 has a spirit, it's definitely to remove mana screw and mana flood - something that you cannot influence when it happens. Channeling a 3-color card, while not knowing what land are you getting, falls under the category of color screw at best, something that existed in M2.0 the whole time, however diminished. Plus, you are still getting a land. This additional rule should only discourage you to use (3+)-colored cards for mana/color fixing, because such an ability combined with the power level of these cards would make them too good. See below.
In theory, you're talking a good talk but without testing it's just that - talk. I tested with gold cards and while building the decks, I eventually spammed with them like crazy - to the point that all the cards in the deck were multicolored. That's why I introduced the limitations for gold cards much later, after seeing the evidence. The point of testing is genuinely trying to break the rules you consider sound. Try it. You would be in a different situation though since you already accept the gold-channeled lands should enter tapped. I haven't had that...
As I've already mentioned - if an ability could deck someone instantly in M2.0 (Charbelcher, Avenging Druid), then the check would stop at the first colored card that could be channeled. Problem solved. Or we can go with NathanIW's proposal for all cards that mill until a land by just doubling the number and mill that amount instead.
That way, Avenging Druid, Goblin Charbelcher, or Balustrade Spy would always mill just two cards, rendering them okay, nerfed, or just fair, but not broken.
Your list is much broader though and contains cards that don't seem problematic at all. For example, Mirko and friends could just mill the fixed amount of cards as outlines above. Cards like Duskmantle Seer or Compulsive Research would just become somewhat worse under the existing M2.0 rules. Cards like Bloodline Shaman or Zoologist would just become somewhat better but that's why I proposed a smaller playset size of 3 cards for M2.0 Constructed to balance out some synergies and combos...
In effect, I see only a very limited number of truly problematic cards right now. Needless to say that Constructed isn't really the primary focus of M2.0. We can use all the testing we can get but without a good deal of M2.0 decks out there, some unforseen strategies aren't a dealbreaker for me. We are still talking a casual variant here after all.
Okay, let's try not to be too purist. The reality of M1.0 is that it has a very land-centric setup while M2.0 is very anti-land. That's just how things are. If the old game has a land-centric mechanic, I see no problem in singleing it out in a clearly anti-land rule framework.
It almost seems like a no-brainer to me now that having cheap access to landfall every turn in Zen drafts is simply unfair. And for the very reason that the amount of affected cards is very small, I'd rather nerf them all than make them chase cards (sometimes broken) in those drafts or even pondering which of them really warrants a ban and which does not. That would be patchwork in my book.
And in that also lies the danger of trying too hard to cling to purity, regardless of the real-world circumstances - check my sig
I don't play online in any form but to start testing, the best way is to have everything ready in advance. Put together some repacks for a draft (ZEN for landfall, SHA/EVE for retrace, ALA for 3-colored cards). Create a cube with no problematic cards in it. Build some constructed decks in advance for the testing. I'd suggest one aggro monocolored deck (RDW, WW), one guild midrange deck, and one gold-heavy control, for example Grixis. Universal builds for Commander decks, compatible with M1.0, M2.0, and wildcards, play very well too (see OP for more details).
Then just go out there to find players willing to try something new. It worked for me and still does.
We have landcycling, we can just as well have landchanneling. But I wouldn't worry too much about it - we can always ask some nice folks over at the Rules forum to help us out.
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?
If you have any comments, or notice any mistakes, please let me know.
Hm, this hasn't occurred to me yet. But since you expect to still play lands and tweak the rules to alleviate mana problems with normal decks, this new rule is more directed to the "Magic Wildcards" variant (see post #26) than to M2.0 itself. I'll mull it over, but right now I'm not sure if this rule is helpful, because if you get hit by mana screw, you would still lose the turn and only at the end of it you could play the channeled land - effectively making it the same as if you draw the needed land the next turn...
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?
It does ruin 5-10% of games, but it also creates a lot of games that are interesting because one player has an advantage that is not insurmountable. Maybe one player hits 3 lands on turn 3 but doesn't hit 4 until turn 6; or someone that only wants to ever draw 4 lands gets 6. Those games are more common than the ones that are ruined by extreme flood or extreme mana shortages.
That said, if you want to experiment with a different way of handling multicoloured cards, take the symbol that appears first in their mana cost (so Watchwolf, which is printed GW, is considered ONLY able to become a Forest). For cards with no mana cost, use your existing rules for completely colorless cards. That balances things and stops multicolored cards being OP.
If you don't mind my asking:
What kind of Cube was that?
Have you played with the updated rules where lands channeled out of a multicolored card (based on its color identity) enter play tapped?
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?