Maximum Hand Size

[4eak]

I haven't played magic for as long as most people (started in Mirrodin), so perhaps I'm not understanding something obvious.

What are the reasons for a maximum hand size?

In what ways does this contribute to game balance or improve the ways in which skill is displayed in the game? Do you think they should or shouldn't remove or increase the maximum hand size? Why? What would be the impact of such changes in Legacy?

I recognize that a handful *;P* of cards are built around the size of your hand, but overall, I just don't see what this game rule/mechanic adds to the game. I see max handsize as possibly punishing two general archetypes: dedicated Control and some forms of combo (or CA-generating combos).

One could argue that max handsize forces players to make decisions about whether to play cards or pitch them (adding decisions often increases the amount of skill necessary to play), but I think this usually just translates into forcing people to just play their cards (because the loss of card advantage is that costly) and building decks that have evolved to never be punished by the rule. Instead of a general increase decision-making and deckbuilding, I think the max handsize is actually a limitation on the overall types of strategies available.

Generating more cards than you started with is not an easy task. I would think the risks required to do this task shouldn't have limit on the reward. By removing or raising the ceiling on handsize, I only see more gamestates becoming possible and more choices available.

In my opinion, WotC has been dumbing down the game (slightly) by changing the rules, with the intent of making those rules easier to learn/know/possess flavor. This usually entails a lower skill-cap (the point at which skill benefits you no longer) or atleast poorer scaling of skill with reward. Wouldn't removing the handsize 'fit the bill' as a rule change that makes the game generally easier to play overall, but at the same time would at least maintain the status quo (if not improve) the relationship between skill and reward?

I'm not saying there would be a huge difference, but I can think of many occasions where this rule mattered. More times than not, I thought the cap punished skilled play rather than rewarding it (which, in my mind, fails to promote game balance and fairness) or at the very least limited the difference of reward between skilled and unskilled play by a large margin.






peace,
4eak

[Skeggi]

A maximum handsize means you have to think what you keep.
It enables Ichorid a bit with a discard outlet.
No maximum handsize makes Landstill even less fun to play against.
A massive hand gives extra complications such as dexterity issues, which lead to people not able to read their entire hand in one view, which leads to longer games.
A massive hand means alot of possibilities, which leads to longer games.


In my opinion, WotC has been dumbing down the game (slightly) by changing the rules
The fact that the rules are easier to comprehend doesn't mean the game is easier to play. If you refer to the damage not on the stack anymore change; it actually asks more of the player than before: deal damage with your Qasali Pridemage, or kill that Artifact, can't do both.

[MMogg]

4eak, you're a control player, and you know the type of insanity that would come from EOT draw spells that have no drawback of hording counters.

Interesting question though... I don't know why Garfield originally set the hand size to 7.

Back when Nether-Go was Standard I was thankful for the max hand size, even as a control player, because when I was on the draw against aggro and had a Nether Spirit in hand, it was worth skipping the land drop to pitch the neverending blocker. :smile:

I'd never want to see that basic rule changed.

[Nihil Credo]

When Garfield first created the rules of Magic, maximum hand size was likely just something inherited from the majority of card games already in existence - I don't think there was a specific reason for it.

Over time, this opened up plenty of strategic opportunities, such as the ones Skeggi listed and several others, like using bounce without card disadvantage (5CC mirrors where the guy on the play resolves a turn 4 Command on a Vivid land were absolute slaughters). But, as I said, I don't believe this was intended from the start.

However, for precisely the same reason I mentioned at first (that max hand size rules exist in the vast majority of traditional card games), most players aren't surprised by this rule and may even expect it. This is the main difference from the mana burn rule, which a new player had to be specifically told about (and came up far less often).

I think that during the M10 brainstorming sessions, if the issue came up, R&D must have had had a similar thought process: that max hand size has a much better interest/annoyance ratio than mana burn and therefore was more deserving of staying. Nevertheless, if I were given the task of cutting a fixed number of rules from Magic, max-hand-size would most likely be on my shortlist.

[Nightmare]

Max hand size does two very important things:

1) Keeps control and combo players honest. There's no telling how much broken stuff could happen if there were, by the rules of the game, no max hand size. If you could Necro for 14, and keep them all. If you could crack Standstill whenever, for whatever reason. If you could draw half of your deck (however) and pass the turn with 15 counterspells up. It's not realistic to have to play through that kind of card advantage.

2) It introduces another constraint on resources, just like mana, or life totals. Along with the "one land per turn" rule, it's a sacred cow - but just like that rule, can be worked around and circumvented.

[4eak]

@ Skeggi


A maximum handsize means you have to think what you keep.

Having an increased or no maximum handsize means you have to think about the value of the undeveloped decks and strategies which would be poised to generate raw card advantage to the extent that they could have above 7 cards at the end of turn.

Maximum handsize forces strategies into a smaller box, and thus it requires less thought in deckbuilding and overall strategizing outside of any particular game. There are certainly more gamestates and choices to be made by removing the ceiling than by keeping it.


It enables Ichorid a bit with a discard outlet.

This is why I listed 'some' combos. On the other hand, there are graveyard based decks which would certainly benefit from having no cap. Loam would love to see that ceiling on handsize disappear.

If this was really an important reason, then why not just provide the option to discard to 7 or keep your hand? I wouldn't have a problem with that.


No maximum handsize makes Landstill even less fun to play against.

Hehe. =) I am biased, no doubt. I think control vs. control is the most elegant and skill-testing matchup in the game. I also think dedicated control decks are overall in a weakened state (spirally out of dedicated control into tempo-related control tactics) deserve to have artificial limitations lifted to increase their viability.

I don't think dedicated control decks would be the biggest winners (although, it would be a boost for them) of removing/increasing maximum hand size; rather mini and dedicated combo/synergy decks (like Loam) would probably have the most to gain as they would be the archetype most likely to pour resources into drawing so many cards in short periods of time.


A massive hand gives extra complications such as dexterity issues, which lead to people not able to read their entire hand in one view, which leads to longer games.

Dexterity isn't really much of a reason, imho. As for the increase in game length due to having to 'look at and hold' 8+ cards (as compared to 7 or less), I think this is largely overridden by the fact that such decks would actually have the honest/fair benefit of those resources, which may lead to their victory sooner rather than later. Games that would have been drawn out longer because those decks didn't get to use more than 7-card hands a turn may have seen the switch to the aggro role sooner as the tidal wave of card advantage could quickly overturn the game where a maximum handsize might not.


A massive hand means alot of possibilities, which leads to longer games.

Again, assuming handsize disappeared, I think in many cases, if combo and control decks were allowed to make full use of card drawing effects, then it would actually improve their matchups (making them shorter in the end), as they could use that tidal wave of CA to the fullest potential. Control vs. Control would be the only match that I can say would likely be longer (although, I'm not 100% sure, as snowballs would actually 'keep rolling' in those matches).


The fact that the rules are easier to comprehend doesn't mean the game is easier to play. If you refer to the damage not on the stack anymore change; it actually asks more of the player than before: deal damage with your Qasali Pridemage, or kill that Artifact, can't do both.

I think M10 combat asks a different question, but I disagree that it is 'more skill intensive' than the questions which we had to ask ourselves before.


@ Nightmare


Keeps control and combo players honest. There's no telling how much broken stuff could happen if there were, by the rules of the game, no max hand size. If you could Necro for 14, and keep them all. If you could crack Standstill whenever, for whatever reason. If you could draw half of your deck (however) and pass the turn with 15 counterspells up. It's not realistic to have to play through that kind of card advantage.

It's also not realistic to draw so many cards that you could pass the turn with 15 active counterspells up. I'm sure you are just exaggerating. Even bringing up 'necro' seems like a poor example (not many cards like this one), as I think WotC would be perfectly willing to errata that card in light of a removal of maximum handsize. The important issue is that the control/combo player had to do what it took to draw those cards in the first place. That isn't easy to do. In fact, it is so difficult to draw 'half your deck' that it shouldn't be realistic to be able to 'play through that kind of card advantage'.

What do you mean by 'honest'? Honestly, combo and dedicated control hover at roughly tier 1.5, Landstill/ANT being the peak performers, or worse in general. This 'honesty' prevents these archetypes/strategies from fairly reaping what they sow, acts as part of the barrier to their viability in the context of aggro-control decks which by happenstance stay below that 7-card max (as they use brainstorm/ponder filtering instead of raw CA generation) and inadvertently benefit from the 'smaller box' which I spoke of earlier, and limits the overall choices and methods by which skill (in deckbuilding and actual game play) is tested against your opponent's.


It introduces another constraint on resources, just like mana, or life totals. Along with the "one land per turn" rule, it's a sacred cow - but just like that rule, can be worked around and circumvented.

I think you have this very wrong. There is no cap on mana production or life total per end turn. "One-land per turn" is the same as "draw one card per turn", not "you have a maximum handsize of 7-cards at your end-step". You are comparing apples to oranges. Your 'circumvention' really is just being limited to generating CA in small amounts over time or using the GY, which are poor excuses for 'circumvention' and hardly parallel to the options of the other resources. In relation to "draw one card per turn", the circumvention which should be mentioned is simply the method by which you actually generate card advantage, with its parallel regarding other types of resources being: using mana acceleration or some lifegain cards/combo, which directly "circumvent" the original gamestate and the controlled gain in resources per turn. While all of these have starting gamestate rules and/or 'per turn generation' rules, none of the other resources have such artificial end turn limits, so I really don't see why holding cards in your hand should be artificially capped either. As I see it, even the removal of Mana burn points toward the idea that end turn/phase resources shouldn't be regulated (if possible).





peace,
4eak

[RoddyVR]

Why change this rule, when you can just print cards like reliquary tower and spellbook (or even library of lang)?
If your deck is gonna give you insane card draw and you want a hand of 24 cards, you can be expected to invest a card to get that effect.

[Mnemon]

Mayby the maximum hand size is just a flavor thing ?

The cards on your hand represent your mind and you can't have infinite
things going on inside your mind (normally). You will just stop thinking of some
of them and they will go to your memory (graveyard).

[Arctic_Slicer]

When I was kid playing crappy Timmy fat decks I always had a copy of Library of Leng in each of my decks so that I wouldn't have a discard phase and therefore not have to discard cards.

[F3lix]

Its just fine how it is

[Hanni]

Aggro Loam would be pretty busted if you didn't have a max hand size. They could draw 3 lands every turn, cycle them into spells, and have to discard nothing. Eventually they would have a hand so large and chockful of so many strong spells that it would be a busted deck and bannings or erata would ensue.

I see no point in changing the rule as is. It gives perfectly fair limitations to the game that forces players to abide by.

[Gui]

A massive hand gives extra complications such as dexterity issues, which lead to people not able to read their entire hand in one view, which leads to longer games.




Best reason ever! ^^