I've been playing Magic Duels: Origins on my iPhone and it been incredible how much more balanced and fun the game feels. I credit this to the 4/3/2/1 restriction imposed by the game.
In the game, you are not allow to have more than 3 copies of any uncommon, 2 copies of any rare, and 1 copy of any mythic rare. As a result, you can't just pack your deck with 4x copies each of the 10 most broken cards in the game along with 20 lands, unless all 10 cards happen to be commons. It made me ponder how legacy decks would look if they were likewise similarly restricted.
It would increase the randomness by too much, and be bad for actual competitive play.
Only having 1 coy of a bomb does not make it less broken, just more luck based when you win the game with it.
Besides which we have a cantrip problem and cantrips are commons. The only remotely competitive card selection engines? All rare.
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I wish there was a format where cards are weighted by points based on how many appear in top 8 decks (or some similar metric) with decks having a point limit, that way the meta would be self correcting.
An interesting idea. But in paper Magic, any such restriction would be too much at odds with WotC's interests to be implemented in any "officially supported" format. It would run contrary to the entire point of printing rares and mythic rares especially. If you look at Standard decks nowadays, often around 3/4 of the decklist is rares and mythics, and I'm sure WotC want to keep it that way.
Australian highlander (the actual name escapes me) works like that, iirc, there is no banlist but certain cards have points attached to them, and you can only have so many points in a deck
Edit: Found the link http://www.auseternal.com/7-point-highlander/
Dynamic Weapon Pricing sucked in CS:Source, and I can only imagine that such a concept would suck here as well. Either you would end up with a format that would just roll through three distinct metas, or the randomness of having to use what would otherwise be thoroughly obscure cards would prohibit any truly competitive play.
That format looks amazing. Check out some of the lists.
http://www.auseternal.com/forums/for...ament-reports/
You've got things like Pod, Zoo, and Mono-red aggro next to nearly-Vintage Restricted list control decks.
https://canadianhighlander.wordpress.com/
There is also Canadian Highlander with different point system.
"Everything is better topless"
I don't think so. I mean, look at Pauper. The dominant decks are Delver, Affinity, Goblins(=RDW), MGA, various flavours of classic UB control or MBC control-midrange (kinda like Shardless in Legacy). Most of those put up more results than Burn, and IMO stand to gain more from a strong infusion of uncommons and some rare bombs than Burn does. Before the bans, UR Cloudpost Control, monoG Infect, and both Grapeshot-oriented and Warrens-based Storm combo ruled the meta. Give rares to those and you'll be sitting pretty.
Hard to tell how the meta would unfold, though.
Originally Posted by Lemnear
Pauper doesn't have access to good fetchlands, though. With 2 of each fetch and actual duals, Blue decks could still herp-a-derp into the winning zone with Brainstorm, while Pauper only has access to to crappy duals and Terramorphic Expanse variants.
E.g. Grixis Delver would probably really good in that kind of format.
Yeah, absolutely. I was only commenting to say that Burn probably wouldn't rule the format because it's already not at the top in Pauper and other decks stand far more to gain from the inclusion of faster multicolor manabases and powerful bombs. Hell, UB Angler Delver is a deck already.
Originally Posted by Lemnear
I used this restriction even before to create casual decks (in my case: Ravinia Guild decks of both blocks).
Was a great decision!
But not so much for any competitive format. Especially in Legacy there's no relation between rarity and power.
Keep those ideas in casual, that's where they belong
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)