You can absolutely change the game around playing like that and it works, its just VERY different kind of game, as many MANY cards change in nature and functionality.
Randomness in itself is a good and bad thing for magic.
If you want to eliminate randomness from lands entirely you would simply allow players to choose like 10 lands and play them at will from the sideboard, so you are guaranteed to have all the colors and quantity of mana you want.
However you need to errata a ton of cards and change the entire game around that fact, which is not something that is really "worth" doing these changes as the game functions pretty well as it is and the games you lose for being mana screwed give mechanics that fix and help with finding lands a much bigger appeal (like land-cycling, scry, fetchlands and so on).
----
Lands are also utility cards, which is a problem as they are not "just" mana sources.
If you want to make a deck full of lands, you would need to change the game to ensure they are actually only mana sources, or even go as far and only allow basic lands in them, so nobody can mess with it.
If you want utility lands, you have to play them as "spells", not in the land deck.
Simply having 2 decks to shuffle is also annoying, if you are able to tutor in both libraries its an extra level of handling them.
Always separating them would require like 2 different colors of sleeves or something, which is also a problem.
Many issues with the approach, but it CAN work.
In Limited for example , like a Draft playing like this is really great, as you can put basic lands in a land deck and ensure nobody is screwed over, they can always play lands, and if a set is designed to take that in account, it would be good (you cant really do stuff like "landfall" etc.).
----
With magics vast card pool radical changes to the games mechanics come at a pretty heavy cost, which is often the biggest argument against any changes, as they need to have tremendous upsides to counteract these costs.
MTG will never become a giant in the esports realm with mana flood and mana drought. Variance is fun and interesting, but being handcuffed by having mana in a the spell deck is counterproductive. Watching people lose games (like LSV in a grand finals) because of a design flaw is not fun or fair. Some card game is going to eventually going to fix those flaws while containing a deep gameplay experience. Many are looking to uproot MTG as is already known.
My first question for you is... Have you tried playing this way?
It's hard to say exactly what without trying myself, but I feel like there are a lot more pros and cons than what you listed there. This kind of major rules change would have a significant impact on how decks get built. You say it would encourage longer games with more interaction, but I could see the opposite happening. For example, you could build burn decks that don't get any dead draws because most of them don't need more than 3 lands to work.
Maybe if people start playing this way, it could become a new format, but I think I've seen people propose similar things in the past.
The same could be done with life gain, land destruction, discard, prevention, etc.
Having to first draw three lands means you aren't getting more spells until later. Burn and aggro have always been fast, but with this setup, they can't just throw their entire hand on the field in 1-2 turns (they have to first build a hand). It all depends on the match-up though. for example, say a mono red deck only needs two-three lands and they've chosen to draw one land and the next two turns draw spells. Having an established meta, players are going to be watching out for simple strategies like this and can easily counteract them with life gain attached to bodies. Either enter the battlefield creatures or lifelink works. A red player now has to think about what to use their limited resources on at this time (the opponent or their creatures/permanents. Two shocks is diminished by just playing a Kitchen Finks, Martyr of Sands, Teyo, the Shieldmage or even a creature deck with Auriok Champion. Three mana wouldn't help against a deck that has something like Tarmogoyf or a weenie deck with the same (or lower) curve. Mid-range just catches up in a hurry, especially if they're using ramp. At that point, it's a race. I like that type of interaction. A whole bunch of tradeoffs.
Say Wizards did use this setup, they can now add cards and design cards around it and remedy any issues that would come up.
Yes, I've been testing this out since 2016 with friends while still playing the normal way. The sacrifice above is the only thing that needs addressing. It's the primary way we play now when playing paper magic. I tried Arena for a couple of weeks and it's real fun (love the animations and sound effects), but I don't miss being handcuffed by my mana in the slightest.
Two randomized libraries. 60-card minimal spell library & 30-card minimal land library
Rules:
Both libraries are randomized.
Each player starts the game with only one spell from the top of their library. Every instance of "draw a card" has the player choose which library to draw from. Spells and lands are placed in their respective libraries if they are sent back to a library. Mill cards can only target the spell library. Only one mulligan (for one spell card) is allowed at the start.
Benefits:
Mana flood & mana drought are completely eliminated. Everyone gets to play the game every game.
No one starts off with card disadvantage.
Every strategy has to be developed a lot slower, which leads to more interaction. No more pre-determined outcomes based on hand size/quality.
The variance is increased by having two randomized libraries (90 cards worth).
A 60-card spell library means a lot more action cards to build upon.
The choice of spell or land is all up to the player.
A 30-card randomized land library means mono-color decks have the mana advantage they were always supposed to have (consistency).
Sacrifices:
Some cards will have to be banned because they were designed with lands and spells in the same library in mind ( like Warp World). There are hundreds of useless cards in mtg currently, so sacrificing some to create a better product is a great tradeoff, especially when cards get redesigned all the time.
Modern isn't a format where you can have fun in. It moves too fast and interaction is at an all-time low. I believe Wizards is going to replace the format because of how fast it is.
Anyway. You need to go on a heavy disruption route if you want any chance of getting that combo off. Zombies have disruption the bag. Make the deck a hybrid aggro/combo. Infraction issued for format bashing. --CavalryWolfPack
The two deck option (30 lands minimum deck and 60 spells minimum deck) would be the best way to eliminate the issue. There are less than 40 cards in the entire game it would be affected by the change and way less if we're talking about Standard. A player's turn
The format's in the state it's in because of how Wizard's didn't stick to the game's design structure. The best of every type of card in Modern cost between 1-3 mana. In a game where it's based on resources to cast spells, incremental mana development is almost useless in Modern. Who needs a four mana version of a card when a one mana version is far superior? Raw Power is easily accessed.
To balance the game. Without proper graveyard removal some decks and strategies would be too strong.
It's fine to have grave hate. It's that there should always be a back-n-forth counter-measure to any action so it's not just "game over" because of one simple action (that why we have the stack). The title of this thread isn't "Why is there graveyard removal", it's "Why is it so hard to protect the graveyard".
It's like too easy to disrupt a graveyard base deck. Even with mass creature/enchantment/artifact/land removal, you have options to interact with your opponent (indestructible, blink, recursion, etc.). For 0-1 mana, you can just wipe out all/any graveyard. What does a graveyard deck do against a [c]Tormod's Crypt[/c}?
It's the equivalent of the enchantment theme in Theros and they put freaking Back To Nature in the format.
I was going through the rules of card games that have been created throughout the years and it seems like most of them understood the inelegant way MTG's resource system was created and avoided it like the plague.
MTG is an absolutely amazing game that is only hindered by the variance of being able to play the game or not (Mana drought/flood). Variance is very important, but your resource management should be about decision-making and not something that just happens out of nowhere.
A player can't manage/dictate mana drought/flood, it just happens and usually at the wrong times. The variance should come from a deck with 60 spells which already have a four-card(playset) limit. It's more exciting to see a variance of spells than picking up valuable resources that you may never see or get too much of.
At the start of MTG, there should've been something like two decks: A spell deck and a land deck. Mana cost and abilities on Spells would be issued so that both the spell and land deck would need to be used throughout the entire match. Drawing only two lands and a spell deck full of one-drops wouldn't work if the mechanics were designed properly.
Richard Garfield himself has said that making the resources needed to play the game random in finding them was a subtraction to the game's overall fun.
There are many TCGs that take on the resource system in many different ways. I thought about the CCG My Little Pony (yep, I went there lol) that's very deep while using a resource system that isn't physical. Players have to constantly have build up "resources" because unlike lands they aren't always available.
The way they handle mana is by having both players gain from two to five (colorless) "action tokens" each turn, which can be saved, based upon whatever the leader's score is. Cards are divided into six colors, all of which require a set amount of mana to play (including a few 0's), and some also have a Requirement which must be met by having a certain amount of power of that color on the friends (read: creatures) you already have in play. In this manner, you have to build a deck with two forms of curve in mind; first, the traditional low-to-high mana curve, and second, a form of resource management; you need to have enough no-requirement cards to be able to build a power base which lets you play those that have requirements.
Granted, that game's mana curve is lower; on average, cards cap around 4 cost and 3 requirement, and the "big" costs or requirements are anything above that point. Further, the way you gain points is different and their "creatures" don't get removed from play as often. For these and other reasons, it's not a system that could be ported directly into magic - but it stands as an example of a game which has no "land" of any sort, but which includes a color system (in which any two-color combination is viable) which helps restrict cards and avoid Yu-Gi-Oh syndrome, and which still demands a similar sort of resource consideration with deckbuilding to fill requirements and manage a curve.
Everything in the game is always needed to further your plan. Like MTG, there are colors that have specific advantages. There are six colors, but unlike MTG, those advantages never drip into the other colors which leads to each color keeping it's value.
What are some TCGs and CCGs that have resource systems you find interesting?
MTG will never become a giant in the esports realm with mana flood and mana drought. Variance is fun and interesting, but being handcuffed by having mana in a the spell deck is counterproductive. Watching people lose games (like LSV in a grand finals) because of a design flaw is not fun or fair. Some card game is going to eventually going to fix those flaws while containing a deep gameplay experience. Many are looking to uproot MTG as is already known.
The same could be done with life gain, land destruction, discard, prevention, etc.
Having to first draw three lands means you aren't getting more spells until later. Burn and aggro have always been fast, but with this setup, they can't just throw their entire hand on the field in 1-2 turns (they have to first build a hand). It all depends on the match-up though. for example, say a mono red deck only needs two-three lands and they've chosen to draw one land and the next two turns draw spells. Having an established meta, players are going to be watching out for simple strategies like this and can easily counteract them with life gain attached to bodies. Either enter the battlefield creatures or lifelink works. A red player now has to think about what to use their limited resources on at this time (the opponent or their creatures/permanents. Two shocks is diminished by just playing a Kitchen Finks, Martyr of Sands, Teyo, the Shieldmage or even a creature deck with Auriok Champion. Three mana wouldn't help against a deck that has something like Tarmogoyf or a weenie deck with the same (or lower) curve. Mid-range just catches up in a hurry, especially if they're using ramp. At that point, it's a race. I like that type of interaction. A whole bunch of tradeoffs.
Say Wizards did use this setup, they can now add cards and design cards around it and remedy any issues that would come up.
Yes, I've been testing this out since 2016 with friends while still playing the normal way. The sacrifice above is the only thing that needs addressing. It's the primary way we play now when playing paper magic. I tried Arena for a couple of weeks and it's real fun (love the animations and sound effects), but I don't miss being handcuffed by my mana in the slightest.
Problems:
Mana flood & mana drought
Solution:
Two randomized libraries. 60-card minimal spell library & 30-card minimal land library
Rules:
Both libraries are randomized.
Each player starts the game with only one spell from the top of their library. Every instance of "draw a card" has the player choose which library to draw from. Spells and lands are placed in their respective libraries if they are sent back to a library. Mill cards can only target the spell library. Only one mulligan (for one spell card) is allowed at the start.
Benefits:
Mana flood & mana drought are completely eliminated. Everyone gets to play the game every game.
No one starts off with card disadvantage.
Every strategy has to be developed a lot slower, which leads to more interaction. No more pre-determined outcomes based on hand size/quality.
The variance is increased by having two randomized libraries (90 cards worth).
A 60-card spell library means a lot more action cards to build upon.
The choice of spell or land is all up to the player.
A 30-card randomized land library means mono-color decks have the mana advantage they were always supposed to have (consistency).
Sacrifices:
Some cards will have to be banned because they were designed with lands and spells in the same library in mind ( like Warp World). There are hundreds of useless cards in mtg currently, so sacrificing some to create a better product is a great tradeoff, especially when cards get redesigned all the time.
Anyway. You need to go on a heavy disruption route if you want any chance of getting that combo off. Zombies have disruption the bag. Make the deck a hybrid aggro/combo.
Infraction issued for format bashing. --CavalryWolfPack
Could you elaborate on that friend? I've never heard of this.
It's fine to have grave hate. It's that there should always be a back-n-forth counter-measure to any action so it's not just "game over" because of one simple action (that why we have the stack). The title of this thread isn't "Why is there graveyard removal", it's "Why is it so hard to protect the graveyard".
It's the equivalent of the enchantment theme in Theros and they put freaking Back To Nature in the format.
2. The destruction of the color wheel and "mono-color matters" to push dual lands as lottery tickets.
3. No exclusive Modern support to keep prices down.
4. 90% of standards sets consisting of Limited fodder and the rest are chased rares costing $30-$50.
5. No world-building in unified design/boring mechanics.
MTG is an absolutely amazing game that is only hindered by the variance of being able to play the game or not (Mana drought/flood). Variance is very important, but your resource management should be about decision-making and not something that just happens out of nowhere.
A player can't manage/dictate mana drought/flood, it just happens and usually at the wrong times. The variance should come from a deck with 60 spells which already have a four-card(playset) limit. It's more exciting to see a variance of spells than picking up valuable resources that you may never see or get too much of.
At the start of MTG, there should've been something like two decks: A spell deck and a land deck. Mana cost and abilities on Spells would be issued so that both the spell and land deck would need to be used throughout the entire match. Drawing only two lands and a spell deck full of one-drops wouldn't work if the mechanics were designed properly.
Richard Garfield himself has said that making the resources needed to play the game random in finding them was a subtraction to the game's overall fun.
There are many TCGs that take on the resource system in many different ways. I thought about the CCG My Little Pony (yep, I went there lol) that's very deep while using a resource system that isn't physical. Players have to constantly have build up "resources" because unlike lands they aren't always available.
The way they handle mana is by having both players gain from two to five (colorless) "action tokens" each turn, which can be saved, based upon whatever the leader's score is. Cards are divided into six colors, all of which require a set amount of mana to play (including a few 0's), and some also have a Requirement which must be met by having a certain amount of power of that color on the friends (read: creatures) you already have in play. In this manner, you have to build a deck with two forms of curve in mind; first, the traditional low-to-high mana curve, and second, a form of resource management; you need to have enough no-requirement cards to be able to build a power base which lets you play those that have requirements.
Granted, that game's mana curve is lower; on average, cards cap around 4 cost and 3 requirement, and the "big" costs or requirements are anything above that point. Further, the way you gain points is different and their "creatures" don't get removed from play as often. For these and other reasons, it's not a system that could be ported directly into magic - but it stands as an example of a game which has no "land" of any sort, but which includes a color system (in which any two-color combination is viable) which helps restrict cards and avoid Yu-Gi-Oh syndrome, and which still demands a similar sort of resource consideration with deckbuilding to fill requirements and manage a curve.
Everything in the game is always needed to further your plan. Like MTG, there are colors that have specific advantages. There are six colors, but unlike MTG, those advantages never drip into the other colors which leads to each color keeping it's value.
What are some TCGs and CCGs that have resource systems you find interesting?