Would Magic be a better game if it adopted the 4/3/2/1 restrictions from Magic Duels?

[Clark Kant]

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.

[sjmcc13]

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.

[Zombie]

Besides which we have a cantrip problem and cantrips are commons. The only remotely competitive card selection engines? All rare.

[phonics]

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.

[DLifshitz]

I've been playing Magic Duels: Origins on my iPhone [...] 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.

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.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

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.

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/

[rufus]

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.

You could play some kind of claiming format - anyone who enters has to sell their deck for $1000 at the end of the event.

[iamajellydonut]

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.

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.

[Dice_Box]

Australian highlander (the actual name escapes me)

We honestly just call it Highlander.

[GoblinSettler]

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/

That format looks amazing. Check out some of the lists.
http://www.auseternal.com/forums/forum/tournament-reports/

You've got things like Pod, Zoo, and Mono-red aggro next to nearly-Vintage Restricted list control decks.

[Dice_Box]

Do you guys want me to do a full write up on it and give it a thread?

[GoblinSettler]

Do you guys want me to do a full write up on it and give it a thread?

Yes, please!

[Chatto]

Do you guys want me to do a full write up on it and give it a thread?

Jup, sounds like a fun format!

[l33twash0r]

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/

https://canadianhighlander.wordpress.com/
There is also Canadian Highlander with different point system.

[Barook]

Besides which we have a cantrip problem and cantrips are commons. The only remotely competitive card selection engines? All rare.
I agree with the Cantrip problem. The format would need alot of work.

You could ban ALL the quality cantrips to even out the playing field, though.

Edit: Would Burn just be incredibly strong due to high redunancy, even at lower rarities?

[Zombie]

I agree with the Cantrip problem. The format would need alot of work.

You could ban ALL the quality cantrips to even out the playing field, though.

Edit: Would Burn just be incredibly strong due to high redunancy, even at lower rarities?

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.

[Barook]

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.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

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.

Agreed, and D&T has to cut half the deck!

[Zombie]

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.

[» Arcanis «]

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

[Megadeus]

You could always play a different game if you don't like the way this game is set up

[bruizar]

It would definitely bring down prices of rares and mythics.

[HdH_Cthulhu]

It would definitely bring down prices of rares and mythics.

I doubt that. Maybe a tiny bit but not very much...

[TsumiBand]

7 Point looks like a helluva thing. I like the concept, I think moreso than the idea of a restricted list. If Highlander formats have taught me anything it's that consistency and power are not tied to redundancy alone.

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

I doubt that. Maybe a tiny bit but not very much...

Needing only two coursers or one jace would have an impact on prices, suddenly 2000 Jaces are 2000 play sets as opposed to 500, etc

[sjmcc13]

I doubt that. Maybe a tiny bit but not very much... EDH and Casual rares would not be hit by much, but constructed played rares and mythics would take a price hit

It comes down to how much of the demand for each card comes from the 2 categories, but allot of cards probably be would be closer to their post-rotation prices while in Standard.

[Cartesian]

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/

Well done. I have always wanted a format like this, but without the Highlander restriction. I think there is room for it somewhere between Vintage and Legacy. The beauty of the points-restricted list is that one can play with any card, so it would be a true Eternal format, just not all the powerful cards in the same deck. And if someone owns, say, a single Mox, he can play with it, and not worry about not having full power. And people without power are compensated by getting access to other powerful, but less expensive cards.

[jrsthethird]

Commander was a player-created and sanctioned format that gained support from Wizards due to its popularity. An interesting community-developed format gaining official recognition and support is not unprecedented.

[Quasim0ff]

This sounds incredibly boring.

[Cire]

This sounds incredibly boring.

It sounds pretty cool to me

[lordofthepit]

This sounds incredibly boring.

Agreed. Arbitrary card restrictions based on rarity don't make any sense. At least bans/restrictions are ostensibly done for power level reasons, and Pauper/Peasant formats do it for budget reasons.

[jrsthethird]

This sounds incredibly boring.


It sounds pretty cool to me

I think the thread moved on to the point-based Australian Highlander format, which is cool and has some merit to it.