Quote from eci4I really like this idea, and plan on testing it out some this week... I can post some decklists and how it went if you're interested...
Also... I think mill will be a viable strategy, but I don't think it will be the be all to end all in this format... cards like junktroller can be used to work with mill (in the glimpse idea) or against mill... I mean you will always have the draw of your choice if you do get your junktroller right?
Quote from pokerbob1but you could still do silly things with Junktroller so you can transmute for rares more often. And with transmute you can have 4 times the chance of pulling your game breaking rare. So there are ways to break the spirit of the format.
Also, time shifted cards. Do they count as the rarity they were originally printed as?
Quote from "Shin"" »Good idea.
In Pauper, the highest rarity of a card is used to determine its actual rarity. Forcing people to only pick their playset from one set rather than allowing a mix of printings is counter-productive to what you are trying to produce.
Since 50% of the casual players have trouble keeping decks to 60 cards, making the deck size 45 actually is a bad idea since it does even more to drive a wedge between good deck builders and poor ones. This also defeats the purpose of your intentions.
If you want to decrease the odds of mana screw, you need to come up with a better idea.
Another idea to force some diversity is to recall the old DCI rule that required a certain number of cards from each set. Concidering how many sets there are, I would say minimum of one card representing each set except Chrocles (since it was a reprint set) and core sets (same reason) accept the original (counting A/B and Unlimited as one set)
Quote from "technik4" »Do you find most games end with 15 or less cards in regular magic?
Because I don't. I mean, there is the occasional game that goes long and maybe we both get down to 20 cards. But having 15 less cards in the deck would do little more than involve a little more sweating and probably encourage defensive play.
Now, it is just the minimum and there is no inherent reason to play the least amount of cards you can, except by limiting the number of rares people will play the least to see their best cards most often. So, as the above poster points out, you're working against yourself.
Also, while this seems to be a budget friendly option, what is to stop someone from making a highly-efficient deck utilizing different bomb rares. OK, we can't have 4x Meloku, so we play a Morphling, Keiga, Meloku, and Mahamotti in their place.
Or maybe only 3 threats because the decks are smaller. The point is, since people can still play rares, they will, and if you have better cards you'll have better rares. If anything, by limiting the common element you are hurting budget players.
A format I'd like to see would simply be "No Rares".
Good ideas though
Quote from "gorckat" »Its definetly interesting. Have you built any decks or played any games?
What about rarity changes? Loxodon Warhammer was uncommon in Mirrodin, but was most recently released as a rare.
Quote from "Dr. Tom" »It seems like you're glad that milling is easier in this format. Considering most people don't like to lose that way (that's especially true of casual players, in my experience, and this is obv a casual format), why encourage milling decks?
Even with the 1-2-3 limits, there are plenty of milling cards out there, and with library size at -15 to normal, there seems little reason NOT to play that kind of strategy.
Also, while I'm certainly no probability expert, wouldn't the chances of drawing lands be about the same? 18:45 :: 24:60, after all. I mean, the odds might be slightly skewed one way or the other, but it doesn't seem like they would be to a statistically significant degree.
Quote from "pokerbob1" »the 1 rare rule kind of breaks down when you add in Transmute since it effectively means 4 rares (or potentially more depending on the rare you use and the available transmute cards).