Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

  1. #1
    bruizar
    Guest

    Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    What would happen if we change the official tournament rules such that the minimum deck size would be 100?

    My argument for this is that, as eternal formats mature, lists tend to homogenize around a few powerful cards and avenues for deck exploration and innovation become few and far between. Now obviously, War of the Spark and Modern Horizon completely broke eternal formats wide open, but it won’t be long before a more homogenous format would reappear, such is the nature of the beast.

    Commander is the exponent of heterogeneity in our format, due to the minimum deck size, color identity restrictions and of course the one card per deck restriction. The result is arguably the most widely enjoyed format.

    By taking only the 100 card decksize rule we would have more room to play our cards. On the other hand, cantrips might get even more important and shuffle times would increase, both of which are not necessarily good things for tournament play.

    It would give us more degrees of freedom which would in turn result in more cards from new sets to be worthy of tournament consideration. This would help MTG sales. On the other hand, onramping new players with 100 card decks would be a bit more difficult I think.
    Last edited by bruizar; 07-24-2019 at 05:54 AM.

  2. #2
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Shuffling 100 cards is a miserable experience, and a long one too. More forced creativity would simply be to drop 4x rule to 3x.

    The main cards holding back forced color identity are Fetchlands. I don’t think anyone really wants to put up with Fetch shuffles and 100 card stacks; you’d have to increase round time quite a bit in paper.

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    mistercakes's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2009
    Location

    Copenhagen
    Posts

    2,274

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    i played an 80 card maindeck UB reanimator, which ended up being a 4c reanimator with DRS and dack fayden. it was pretty fun.

    100 is a bit much for shuffling, especially with double sleeves.
    -rob

  4. #4
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Blue decks all start playing 4x preordain and probably something like impulse. Blue decks become even better than they already are. Murder me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  5. #5

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Just no.

  6. #6
    bruizar
    Guest

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    Shuffling 100 cards is a miserable experience, and a long one too. More forced creativity would simply be to drop 4x rule to 3x.

    The main cards holding back forced color identity are Fetchlands. I don’t think anyone really wants to put up with Fetch shuffles and 100 card stacks; you’d have to increase round time quite a bit in paper.
    You just said something quite ingenious. This is a totally elegant solution for an eternal format. By dropping the playset from 4 to 3, you solve a lot of problems in Eternal MTG. You get the same effects, and a few more, without the negatives.

    1) More room for new cards to enter the list of commonly played cards
    2) The fourth copy of every playset can go to a Commander deck, which boosts the Commander player base
    3) No logistical problems due to increased shuffling
    4) The demand for reserved cards is lowered due to the lower quantity of cards needed to play a competitive deck
    5) The reserved printings can support a larger, and thus healthier eternal player base
    6) It gives the format it's distinctiveness, which would mix too much with Commander if we were to up the card count to 100
    7) Mana bases are even more expensive with 100 card decks, which is not true for 60 card decks with 3-card play sets
    8) It reduces the power of Leylines which can be problematic from a design space point of view.
    9) It makes 2-card combo decks much less problematic, whether it's SNT, Sneak Attack, Reanimate, Painter Grindstone, Ancient Tomb-Chalice. You get more 'real games of magic' (loose and subjective term, I know.
    10) The biggest issue is that cantrips relatively gain in value, pushing blue even more.

    On color identity: I was always a proponent of banning fetchlands, even though I own shiny versions of them. The Prismatic Vista printing kind of made me give up on that idea ever happening though.

    By lowering the playset from 4 to 3, you're virtually increasing the print run of reserved list cards by 33% without violating the reserved list.

    What can we do to address the relative gain of blue cantrips other than banhammering?

  7. #7
    Land Destruction Enthusiast
    Megadeus's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2012
    Location

    Kennesaw, GA
    Posts

    5,572

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    You just said something quite ingenious. This is a totally elegant solution for an eternal format. By dropping the playset from 4 to 3, you solve a lot of problems in Eternal MTG. You get the same effects, and a few more, without the negatives.

    1) More room for new cards to enter the list of commonly played cards
    2) The fourth copy of every playset can go to a Commander deck, which boosts the Commander player base
    3) No logistical problems due to increased shuffling
    4) The demand for reserved cards is lowered due to the lower quantity of cards needed to play a competitive deck
    5) The reserved printings can support a larger, and thus healthier eternal player base
    6) It gives the format it's distinctiveness, which would mix too much with Commander if we were to up the card count to 100
    7) Mana bases are even more expensive with 100 card decks, which is not true for 60 card decks with 3-card play sets
    8) It reduces the power of Leylines which can be problematic from a design space point of view.
    9) It makes 2-card combo decks much less problematic, whether it's SNT, Sneak Attack, Reanimate, Painter Grindstone, Ancient Tomb-Chalice. You get more 'real games of magic' (loose and subjective term, I know.
    10) The biggest issue is that cantrips relatively gain in value, pushing blue even more.

    On color identity: I was always a proponent of banning fetchlands, even though I own shiny versions of them. The Prismatic Vista printing kind of made me give up on that idea ever happening though.

    By lowering the playset from 4 to 3, you're virtually increasing the print run of reserved list cards by 33% without violating the reserved list.

    What can we do to address the relative gain of blue cantrips other than banhammering?
    Just ban brainstorm and you can keep all the other (still but less) broken ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cheese View Post
    I've been taking shitty brews and tier 2 decks to tournaments and losing with them for years now. Welcome to the club. We meet for cocktails after round 6.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevestamopz View Post
    Top quality german restraint there.

    If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

  8. #8

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    What problem is this supposed to be fixing?

  9. #9

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    I saw the post title and assumed it was about going from 1v1 magic to Commander or Brawl or something.

    Instead it's some hilariously stupid nonsense about "what if we changed the format to something else?", like, again.

    Eh, at least it's keeping the posts coming.

  10. #10
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    I mean, Canadian Highlander already exists, so I doubt this is "needed."
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  11. #11
    A short, sturdy creature fond of drink and industry.
    PirateKing's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2011
    Location

    BEST JERSEY
    Posts

    1,730

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by H View Post
    I mean, Canadian Highlander already exists, so I doubt this is "needed."
    Is there a compendium of all the rando-formats beyond the sanctioned ones?
    I'll hear people talking about normal formats with seemingly arbitrary modifiers slapped in front of them like Scandinavian Commander or Iberian Modern or Gondwanaland Block Constructed.
    I'd be nice to see what everything is all in one place without having to dive into a bunch of enthusiast blog sites
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatWhale View Post
    Gross, other formats. I puked in my mouth a little.

  12. #12

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Multiply regular commander by .75 and boom, theres the canadian version

  13. #13
    bruizar
    Guest

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_coke View Post
    I saw the post title and assumed it was about going from 1v1 magic to Commander or Brawl or something.

    Instead it's some hilariously stupid nonsense about "what if we changed the format to something else?", like, again.

    Eh, at least it's keeping the posts coming.
    I'm sorry you can't appreciate the topic. It was more a thought experiment than an attempt at creating a new format. IMO too many different formats just fragments the player base and that's not good either. However, I do think that idea of reducing the size of play sets would benefit legacy a lot by making cards more available to buyers, and buyers requiring less copies (buyers=people that buy into the format).

  14. #14
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateKing View Post
    Is there a compendium of all the rando-formats beyond the sanctioned ones?
    I'll hear people talking about normal formats with seemingly arbitrary modifiers slapped in front of them like Scandinavian Commander or Iberian Modern or Gondwanaland Block Constructed.
    I'd be nice to see what everything is all in one place without having to dive into a bunch of enthusiast blog sites
    There is a half-decent list at the bottom of this page but I don't think a truly "comprehensive" list exists.
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  15. #15

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    I'm sorry you can't appreciate the topic. It was more a thought experiment than an attempt at creating a new format. IMO too many different formats just fragments the player base and that's not good either. However, I do think that idea of reducing the size of play sets would benefit legacy a lot by making cards more available to buyers, and buyers requiring less copies (buyers=people that buy into the format).
    In almost all cases the expensive reserve list cards that are in demand are dual lands and in most decks people don't play 4-ofs. Even U/R delver only typically plays 3 volcs. So I don't think it is opening up a whole lot. Are there any very expensive reserve list cards that are typically 4-ofs in legacy play?

  16. #16
    bruizar
    Guest

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    In almost all cases the expensive reserve list cards that are in demand are dual lands and in most decks people don't play 4-ofs. Even U/R delver only typically plays 3 volcs. So I don't think it is opening up a whole lot. Are there any very expensive reserve list cards that are typically 4-ofs in legacy play?
    City of traitors, lions eye diamond, grim monolith gaea’s cradles and candelabra are almost always played as a 4-off. I would have to think more deeply about it though.

  17. #17

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    City of traitors, lions eye diamond, grim monolith gaea’s cradles and candelabra are almost always played as a 4-off. I would have to think more deeply about it though.
    Ok, and how many of these get used in more than 1 or 2 different decks right now? I just don't see freeing up 1/4 of all these cards will make a whole lot of difference to the cost.

  18. #18
    Member

    Join Date

    May 2015
    Location

    PDX
    Posts

    2,477

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    A 3x rule probably doesn’t do much to RL prices. The main benefit would be would be different card choices in threat, answer, and lockpiece categories. You could of course look for the next worse version of the same thing (ex. Plow -> Path, Bolt -> Chain, BS -> Preordain), but there’s also more freedom to play cards with greater interactive potential (from previous list Blessed Alliance, Forked Bolt/Abrade, Portent). Excluding changes in mana bases, most legacy decks would need to make ~7-10 slot changes, and there’d be quite a bit of variety in how those decks could play, even in mirrors.

  19. #19
    Site Contributor

    Join Date

    Dec 2013
    Posts

    319

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Quote Originally Posted by Megadeus View Post
    Just ban brainstorm and you can keep all the other (still but less) broken ones.
    i was thinking it, damn glad you posted it... needs to be said every time.


    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    You just said something quite ingenious.
    By lowering the playset from 4 to 3, you're virtually increasing the print run of reserved list cards by 33% without violating the reserved list.
    seems legit...


    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Ok, and how many of these get used in more than 1 or 2 different decks right now? I just don't see freeing up 1/4 of all these cards will make a whole lot of difference to the cost.
    i would sell off a good chunk of my reserve list knowing i only need 3 ofs. i'm sure others would too and the perception that legacy is more accessible would be relevant; more cards in the pool and you only need 3 to optimize your list.


    Quote Originally Posted by bruizar View Post
    City of traitors, lions eye diamond, grim monolith gaea’s cradles and candelabra are almost always played as a 4-off. I would have to think more deeply about it though.
    mox diamond, academy rector, aluren, gaea's cradle, helm of obedience, intuition, metalworker


    the OP had a legit idea and if people here don't like it, that's fair but this would make legacy appear more accessible.

  20. #20
    Member
    Qweerios's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2010
    Location

    Montreal
    Posts

    1,024

    Re: Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

    Reducing max copies from 4 to 3 is a great idea that the format would greatly benefit from IMO. Cantrip suites would go from 4 Brainstorm 4 Ponder to 3 BS, 3 Ponder, 3 Preordain but we would get things like a maximum of 3 Delvers, 3 SnT, 3 Sneaks, max 9 reanimation spells, 3 Wish, 3 Tutors, diverse burn decks, max 3 Thalia, 3 Vial, 3 Wastes per decks, Max 3 Chalice and 6 Sol Lands + 3 Chalice. Overall I think the format would see much more variety while maintaining consistency.

    This rule would somewhat also decrease the barrier of entry by reducing some deck costs by requiring 3 copies of a staple rather than 4 and stimulate economic growth by creating new staples for the format.

    The main problem I see with this idea is calling it Legacy. Fragmenting into a different format would be more agreeable and wouldn't get the idea very far. I think the best way to make this a thing is to take the commander approach to create your own format and persist until it becomes a thing. This would make for a nice community project that enables cool things like a new and revised ban list.
    Do you know what assuming does? It makes an ass out of you and me.
    Get it...? Ass, u, me?

    ... ffs I was trying to be funny...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)