Moving from 60 to 100 cards per deck

[bruizar]

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.

[Fox]

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.

[mistercakes]

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.

[Megadeus]

Blue decks all start playing 4x preordain and probably something like impulse. Blue decks become even better than they already are. Murder me.

[Smuggo]

Just no.

[bruizar]

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?

[Megadeus]

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.

[Smuggo]

What problem is this supposed to be fixing?

[morgan_coke]

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.

[H]

I mean, Canadian Highlander already exists, so I doubt this is "needed."

[PirateKing]

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

[itslarryyo]

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

[bruizar]

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).

[H]

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 (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Constructed) but I don't think a truly "comprehensive" list exists.

[Smuggo]

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?

[bruizar]

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.

[Smuggo]

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.

[Fox]

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.

[non-inflammable]

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.



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...



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.



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.

[Qweerios]

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.

[Fallen_Empire]

You should check out Canadian Highlander.

[Wordslinger]

As a thought experiment, this is loosely interesting. Let's see...

Both the 3x rule and the 100 card minimum reduce consistency in pretty much every non blue deck. Blue decks also lose consistency, but not at the same rate because the next best cantrip is better than the next best threat at being next best.

They both also kill off all the decks that either rely on a 4x card to operate or are much worse decks without that card.

I'm not positive about this, id have to think about it more, but i believe this turns the whole format into midrange sludge city, right? the losers are:
- all tempo/delver strats- may survive on 3x format but 100 card delver sucks
- taxes is dead now for reasons that i think should be obvious
- storm combo blows now. Remember, git probe got banned and those decks took a minute to recover, this is way worse on either the 100 card front and the 3x limit.
- fast combo is all much worse in both cases. good luck drawing your belcher/spy/whatever, and there are way more options for hate (even flexible) than for threats.
- burn
winners are
- tribal strats (goblins, elves, maybe merfolk)
- midrange soup - this should be obvious
- control soup
- a + b combo - countermagic is less likely, there are a ton of to look up combo part x comparatively slowly, the format slows way down, etc.

so yeah. cool thought experiment.
As an actual format suggestion. this is a horrible idea. If the problem you are trying to solve is that the format is too Homogeneous, then killing a bunch of deck archetypes off to boost midrange strats is bad. If you're solving the "dumb combo" problem, then this doesn't do that at all. Dumb combo is unfavored vs quick pressure plus disruption, and this kills all that. If you want to make midrange soup go away, you don't do that by increasing the size of the bowl.

What both of these suggestions do is they try to increase the playable cardpool. Okay, but by doing that at this scale you increase variance by a lot. You don't get less variance by introducing variables most of the time, and in this case all of the variables that would reduce variance are already in the pool, otherwise this suggestion wouldn't be made in the first place. This doesn't just add additional variables, it also removes some that are already present and replaces them with less efficient ones.

We have two formats that exemplify these traits already, btw. One format that has a larger pool of playables is modern. One of the problems modern has is the "matchup lottery" issue. which is something high variance exacerbates.
The other format like this is vintage, which is this idea taken to the extreme, but in this case we wouldn't have the fun of any REALLY high powered stuff.

From the other direction, legacy works as a format largely because the conformity of enablers allows the format to be attacked effectively by a small group of cards. You may not know which variety of tempo you opponent is, but you know chalice is good against their cantrips. they might be show and tell or reanimator, but either way cage(grafdigger OR monkey) is good here. Basically if they do the same thing all the time, you can attack the same way each time, but you actually get an advantage because you can incorporate your angle of attack into a bunch of different strategies, while they can't usually incorporate different strategies into different strategies. This is what lets the format self regulate.

[schweinefettmann]

Waoah wait legacy is too homogenous? Maybe it’s cuz I mostly play in the local, but I don’t think it’s homogenous at all. If anything, my local legacy meta is more diverse than the typical edh meta (and I know nothing of modern, except I crush them every time when we play ‘eternal showdown’).

It could also be that the best fix for legacy is to just to have it evolve at its typical glacial pace like it used to do. There’s a lot to explore, and I bet there are archetypes that are still yet undiscovered, sorta like how nic fit came out after someone rediscovered veteran explorers.

On the other hand, if y’all are interested In a casual variant, eternal showdown is a fun one. Pitch any eternal-legal deck vs each other, and the rules that apply to whatever format applies to that player. So edh players start with 40 life and general on the side, old school can feature 4 lotuses, and so on. It’s good fun!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bruizar]

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.

Just to entertain this thought, perhaps people can offer some suggestions for a format name? Triad is the best I can come up with, it's self explanatory.

Banned List
Entire Legacy Banlist
Plus
Fetch Lands
Crop Rotation
Minus
Mind Twist

Rationale:
No fetchlands causes Brainstorm locks. Free shuffle effects and color pie violation shouldn't be in the format, so that we get to keep color identities without requiring rules like Commanders. Also reduces shuffle times per game, leaving more time for tournament play. I think it's fine to keep 3x Prismatic Vista around. That's a lot less problematic than 11+ fetchlands, and it forces the use of basics which are worse without fetch lands that can choose between basic or dual. I don't know, maybe Vista needs to go as well and Blood Moon might also need to get axed. At least Magus is easy to hate with only mountains (bolts), red doesn't have enough answers to Enchantments besides Chaos Warp, at which point it is better to run a few more basics.

In a format where 2 card combos are more difficult to assemble, tutors are degenerate. Gamble is fine, because of the random discard, but Crop Rotation is too efficient (Both for Dark Depths and Gaea's Cradle).



Waoah wait legacy is too homogenous? Maybe it’s cuz I mostly play in the local, but I don’t think it’s homogenous at all. If anything, my local legacy meta is more diverse than the typical edh meta (and I know nothing of modern, except I crush them every time when we play ‘eternal showdown’).

This is a fair point. My original argument hinged on the assumption that legacy homogenizes around the most frequently played cards. There has been analysis on this, courtesy of @janchu88. The way I interpret the chart is that there is indeed homogenization around a specific set of cards (Not necessarily decks, but cards and card clusters).
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?32897-Graphical-analysis-of-the-post-deathrite-meta
https://abload.de/img/previewl2kgy.png


Also, Sadistic Sacrament would become a better card. :)

[Smuggo]

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.

But doesn't this just make blue decks even better, because cantripping into the cards I need becomes more important, and blue will more consistently find what it is after.

Also, blue decks just have a lot of redundancy with many cards that do similar things that are easily replaced. So we use preordain (or some other cantrip) to replace the lost ponder and BS, we use more fluster/spell pierce/counterspell (or even the Modern Horizons blue Force) to replace the daze and force, replace a lightning bolt with a chain lighting and so on...

Wheras the cards that would actually benefit that were listed above (metalworker, City of Traitors, Aluren and so on...) don't actually have easy and obvious replacements and those decks will in fact become less consistent than they are now.

It seems to me that you would create a format with an even heavier blue/delver bias than Legacy has today. And of course, separating it into a completely new format does nothing to curb demand for Legacy playables and thus has no effect on pricing.

All in all this seems like a bad solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Legacy meta is pretty diverse right now. Yeah it is expensive, but it will always be expensive and people who want to play just need to deal with that fact as it's not going to change. I still see hundreds of people turn up to play Legacy at every GP so there are definitely enough players willing to bear the cost of buying in.

[Qweerios]

Even though tempering with the banlist is an attractive idea, I think the best approach is to keep things as similar as possible to legacy (AKA: preserve the same banlist) and make points in favor of a 3-of format. Everyone will have wildly different opinions if we start speculating on a new banlist. I think in a Triad/Trinity format, most archetypes happen to be preserved and diversified rather than shut down by the 3-of max rule. 100 cards decks is simply no fun and does kill any resemblance to consistency in any deck that requires a high level of focus, therefore I think we should leave 100 card decks to Commander players.

Here are some decks that remain focused and diversify in a 3-of format

Combo:

Show n Tell gets to add Through the Breach or Arcane Artisan while still playing 9 cantrips, 6 tombs, Petals, Simian Guides, Force of Will, Force of Negation, Spell Pierce. SnT might not be able to play 4 Grisel and 3 Emrakul anymore but you can always get creative and add a different 7th threat...

Reanimator still has at least 9 reanimation spells and up to 3 copies of Show and Tell to go with their 9 cantrips, more diverse threat suite (return of Gin Gitaxias?). The big hit would come from going down to 3 Entomb but the deck still has access to Looting and Careful Study.

Depths decks already have a huge array of tutor effects, discard spells, and enough enablers for the deck to remain relatively unaffected.

Storm is arguably the biggest loser here because nothing replaces LED but I think we would see some Grim Tutors appear and TES lists be more fun to play with less Delver, Wasteland, and Force around.

Keep in mind that while combo decks diversify their enablers, non-combo decks have their disruption diversified as well so they only have to contend with 3 Force of Will and 3 Wasteland for instance. I think such a change will likely result in less T1 wins and more branching out to other colors. I honestly believe T1 wins fall into the category of non-games and make the format less entertaining. Seriously, how much fun are you having when you opponent is on the play, reveals a Chancellor of the Annex and proceeds to Entomb + Reanimate a Griselbrand on T1? I don't want to take this away from Legacy because it is a part of what makes the format what it is, but I would sure enjoy a format where these things occur less. A 3 copies max format makes it so that you still have to contend with Entomb + Reanimate and T1 SnT, you just get to play it less frequently and can leverage other means of interaction better such as Thoughtseize and Spell Pierce.

Aggro:

DnT still has 6 Moms and 3 Vials with 3 Waste, 3 Port, 3 Karakas and their possibility for creatures are nearly endless. Big Thalia or Vryn Wingmare will complement small Thalia and the myriad of Tutor effects already availlable to the archetype will make it a solid choice.

Delver is still a great archetype notably because it won't have to contend with a full playset of CMC1 removal from, say, a strictly UW deck. There won't be a full playset of Strix there to stop you dead in your tracks every game. Delver decks already have so many tools to diversify in various color combinations that reducing everything by 1 copy still leaves the deck jam packed with staples. Check out this tentative classic RUG list:

Threats (14)
3 Delver of Secrets
3 Nimble Mongoose
3 Tarmogoyf
3 True-Name Nemesis
2 Wrenn and Six
Spells (28)
3 Lightning Bolt
2 Chain Lightning
2 Spell Snare
3 Stifle
3 Spell Pierce
3 Daze
3 Force of Will
9 Cantrips
Lands (18)
3 Wasteland
8 Fetch
3 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
1 Fiery Islet

The stompy aggro decks like Eldrazi will be the biggest losers here because they lose a lot of lands that make the deck able to cheat on mana. Chalice decks in general will lose percentage points from being less able to consistently T1 Chalice@2 (which is a miserable way to play magic btw). Stompy decks won't fall off the face of the earth but decks like Eldrazi that play over the curve because their lands add 2 mana will find their manabase less consistent at cheating spells over the curve without any real cost. The line of T1 Chalice into T2 TKS is much less likely in a 3-of format. To me that is a relief because I rarely enjoy a game of magic where my opponent starts by making more than half the cards in my hand and deck unplayable and then proceeds to remove the best playable one with their 5 turn clock.

Decks like Red stompy will still be widely playable because they still maintain a high number of lock pieces in the form of 6 Moon effects, 3 Chalice, 3 Trini, Bridges, etc. Their mana acceleration will take a hit by losing a tomb, city and guide but will be made up by 3 Petals and perhaps some clever Snow Land shenanigans with Arcum's Lab and Mox Opal? There is definitely room for spice here... Stompy enthousiasts will still have their pet deck while the rest of the field will have more avenues to wiggle through the maze.

Control:

Most control decks remain unchanged given that the decks already have a high amount of functionally similar cards that they already tend to diversify into such as
Terminus/Verdict splits and all the various planeswalkers we see already as 2-3ofs. Cards like Accumulated Knowledge will take a hit but that's nothing Miracle can't bounce back from...

Stoneblade decks will likely choose a complementary red or black color to complete their CMC1 removal suite and combo disruption suite such as Red for Bolts and Pyro, or Esper for Push and Thoughtseize.

IMHO, the big takeaway from a Triad/Trinity format is that everything broken about Legacy is still present but less oppressive, therefore we get to interact more in the same format we know and love and play against a wider variety of cards over the course of a match. I would gladly support such a project.

[Qweerios]

But doesn't this just make blue decks even better, because cantripping into the cards I need becomes more important, and blue will more consistently find what it is after.

Also, blue decks just have a lot of redundancy with many cards that do similar things that are easily replaced. So we use preordain (or some other cantrip) to replace the lost ponder and BS, we use more fluster/spell pierce/counterspell (or even the Modern Horizons blue Force) to replace the daze and force, replace a lightning bolt with a chain lighting and so on...

Wheras the cards that would actually benefit that were listed above (metalworker, City of Traitors, Aluren and so on...) don't actually have easy and obvious replacements and those decks will in fact become less consistent than they are now.

It seems to me that you would create a format with an even heavier blue/delver bias than Legacy has today. And of course, separating it into a completely new format does nothing to curb demand for Legacy playables and thus has no effect on pricing.

All in all this seems like a bad solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Legacy meta is pretty diverse right now. Yeah it is expensive, but it will always be expensive and people who want to play just need to deal with that fact as it's not going to change. I still see hundreds of people turn up to play Legacy at every GP so there are definitely enough players willing to bear the cost of buying in.

I think in hindsight you are correct that decks like Aluren and Food Chain find they take a hit. They have less chances to draw their "Oops button" while the other decks seemingly have the same amount of disruption. In the long run, however, I think those decks would thrive more in such a format because they can now interact better with their discard spells and therefore create more wiggle room for their slower strategy. Being able to sculpt such an environment with your midrange combo deck is the first step to creating a game where an "Oops button" is a real possibility. Cards like Academy Rector then become potential avenues.

I am not denying that there would winners and losers to this change. I do however believe that Legacy as I know it (classic 6ish combo decks, popular 8ish aggro decks, popular 5ish control decks) would largely benefit from this change. Obviously I am biased because I know exactly what makes a game of magic fun to me and it has always been interactive games. Games that offer a wide selection of choices and reward the better players and deckbuilders of the world are the ones that push magic forward. Rock, paper, scissors is a game that everybody knows but nobody enjoys as a hobby. Cantrips (manipulation or just draw attached to something) and tutors are core elements to both interactive games and synergistic decks that keep games flowing in a dynamic way. When you have an abundance of strategies that devolve the game into A+B=insurmountable obstacle, you stray away from choices and get ever closer to rock, paper, scissors gameplay. A 3-of format curbs those strategies in favor of more choices in both deckbuilding and play, and that's what I believe is a happy compromise between the Legacy we know and love, and format innovation.

[bruizar]

Even though tempering with the banlist is an attractive idea, I think the best approach is to keep things as similar as possible to legacy (AKA: preserve the same banlist) and make points in favor of a 3-of format. Everyone will have wildly different opinions if we start speculating on a new banlist. I think in a Triad/Trinity format, most archetypes happen to be preserved and diversified rather than shut down by the 3-of max rule. 100 cards decks is simply no fun and does kill any resemblance to consistency in any deck that requiw

You may well be correct. Some people don't want changes and it could alienate people who would otherwise enjoy a format like this. Trinity is a really nice name. It's closer to Legacy than Triad, and would make the rules instantly recognizable to new players (Trinity=3-off Legacy).



Check out this tentative classic RUG list:

Threats (14)
3 Delver of Secrets
3 Nimble Mongoose
3 Tarmogoyf
3 True-Name Nemesis
2 Wrenn and Six
Spells (28)
3 Lightning Bolt
2 Chain Lightning
2 Spell Snare
3 Stifle
3 Spell Pierce
3 Daze
3 Force of Will
9 Cantrips
Lands (18)
3 Wasteland
8 Fetch
3 Tropical Island
3 Volcanic Island
1 Fiery Islet


This list excites me. It looks competitive and very enjoyable. I'd be happy to see Mongoose, Stifle, Spell Snare and the others back in competitive play. It almost feels a bit nostalgic because I see cards that have been outclassed and pushed out of the format over the years. A blend of the old and the new.

[bruizar]

Here’s a test for Death n Taxes. I think Imperial Taxes and UW taxes become more viable options and there would be more diversity amongst dnt type deccks similar to how there are 4 different color variants of painter right now.

Death and Taxes

24 Land
3 Cavern of Souls
3 Wasteland
3 Rishadan Port
3 Ghost Quarter
2 Karakas
10 Plains

3 Aether Vial
3 Swords to Plowshares
3 Path to Exile
3 Mother of Runes
2 Giver of Runes
3 Thalia, Guardian of Thraben
3 Stoneforge Mystic
3 Flickerwisp
3 Recruiter of the Guard
3 Aven Mindcensor
1 Remorseful Cleric
1 Sanctum Prelate
1 Palace Jailer
1 Brimaz, King of Oreskos
1 Tomik, Distinguished Advokist
1 Umezawa’s Jitte
1 Sword of Fire and Ice

Some observations:
Ghost Quarter and Path to Exile really want Aven Mindcensor in play. Recruiter of the Guard becomes more important while Batterskull becomes a bit more of a liability with only 3 Stoneforge Mystic. The Recruiter toolbox can be downsized for other good cards but I don’t know which. Giver of Runes is interesting, it may not be good enough, but the positive side is that it protects against Eldrazi, Karnstructs, MUD creatures and manlands (you could theoretically block a pumped trampling Inkmoth Nexus with a Mesa Pegasus and assign all the trample damage to Pegasus, then give it protection from colorless hah! Banding rocks 😬) or just strip it instead. Cavern of Souls becomes more important because we only have 3 Aether Vials.


RG lands would also be preserved. The 2 slots from gamble and crop rotation could be replaced for expedition map, sylvan scrying or into the north, or even a Realms Uncharted (Petrified Field, Dark Depths, Thespian Stage, Tolaria West). Alternatively, it could use Mana Morphose to cancel the free slots at the cost of worse Loam dredging, and other decks can do the same with street wraith, which would make burn slightly better.

[bruizar]

I plugged the data to calculate the equilibrium price for the average value of a legacy card. The base value I used came from this article:
http://modernnexus.com/legacy-and-modern-deck-price-comparison/

Average Legacy deck price: $2729.36
Average Legacy card price: $33.61

The model assumes 500 copies of a single legacy card are sold per month. This is a big assumption because we do not know this value, and there is a difference between 500 LEDs or 500 Force of Will. It doesn't matter too much for the purpose of what I'm trying to show though.

In green, you will find the changes in supply increase and demand decrease. The average legacy card price would go from $33.6 to about $24.

https://i.imgur.com/kUApDSh.png

I also plugged the numbers for Supply Elasticity and Demand Elasticity with the assumption that cards are not as elastic in terms of Supply than as of Demand. 0.9 supply elasticity (supply doesn't matter as much) and -1.25 demand elasticity (the effects of demand translate directly to a price increase or decrease). With the elasticity changed, the equilibrium quantity would be 504 (instead of 480) from 500 and the equilibrium price would be $25 per card (instead of $24) from $33.6.

I was not able to calculate unidirectional Elasticity, to model that demand increase is elastic and demand decrease is inelastic. This is how Veblen Goods like Magic operate. Another weakness is that the average price per card will decrease (at least short term) because high value cards like Force of Will, Dual lands or Lion's Eye Diamond need to be replaced with cards that currently see no tournament play and are therefore cheaper, bringing the average down more. It is hard to calculate the impact of changes or make economic predictions when Wizards of the Coast does everything to keep their supply quantities hidden, but at least this is something..

Trinity's 3-of rule would affect the average price of legacy decks significantly which should make it more accessible to other players. Depending on how you would like to frame it:


TLDR: Legacy is 40% more expensive than Trinity.
((33.6/24)-1)*100

or

TLDR: Trinity is 28.5% cheaper than Legacy.
((33.6-24)/33.6)*100

Possible effects on the community:
This may translate to:

Better price support (same $ amount, better cards)
Deeper engagement and activity (more money to spend on actually going to tournaments)
More accessible eternal format to new players
Better on-ramp from Modern (Avg. card: $13.72) to Trinity ($24) than to Legacy ($33.6)
Could hit some reserved list speculators that have no connection with the game and scare them out of Magic. Especially those who are on credit, since interest rates will force them to liquidate their positions

[Qweerios]

This is all pretty interesting stuff. I am sure there is a lot to speculate about. Any ideas on how to start supporting the Trinity format? I think the best way to gain traction is to have coverage. I think a youtube channel has more weight than anything we could write. I'll definitely spread the word.

[bruizar]

The best way would be to try out a few games and maybe experimental game nights or small tournaments, and just keep talking about it. What works, what doesn't, does it actually create an exciting play environment, what assumptions are we wrong about. It would have to be carried by the players, not forced onto communities via social media influencers from the beginning, so organic growth and support. People won't have it if this is something that is pushed onto them, especially our demographic with so many older eternal players.

I think we should really view it as an experiment which may also fail (this is also ok! We want a better game, not a worst game!). If it becomes popular enough that people ask for it and organize themselves, then it has real value. Otherwise the value is in knowing that this is not the right direction for eternal play.

If there is sufficient interest and activity and we, as a community, feel that this is something we want to grow, we can easily get people on youtube to talk about it. I'd say Purp (he's oldschool), professor (he cares about inclusivity and affordable decks) and Rudy (Trinity is very interesting from a finance/economy perspective). In the meantime, I'll set up a simple Manifesto site where people can read about it.

[TsumiBand]

Maybe your math implicity covered this, I don't fully understand what it means tbh. I can't help but recall that every time a format has had a sizeable overlap of legal cardpool with Legacy, the community has generally lamented the eventual increase in demand as it just drives prices up. IOW if a player only needed 4 Underground Sea but suddenly they need to build a Commander deck, now they probably feel they need 5.

You can correctly argue that since most folks can only play one deck at a time that they could just remove a Sea from their Legacy deck, but the feeling I get from most players is that they prefer to keep their decks intact. So I'm wondering if this is a factor at all in this math, or if it even needs to be accounted for? Surely there are metrics for such things with cards that were format-defining across multiple Eternal formats like fetchlands or Jace the Mind Sculptor, if they did indeed see price spikes when they were found to have a place in several environments?

[bruizar]

Maybe your math implicity covered this, I don't fully understand what it means tbh. I can't help but recall that every time a format has had a sizeable overlap of legal cardpool with Legacy, the community has generally lamented the eventual increase in demand as it just drives prices up. IOW if a player only needed 4 Underground Sea but suddenly they need to build a Commander deck, now they probably feel they need 5.

You can correctly argue that since most folks can only play one deck at a time that they could just remove a Sea from their Legacy deck, but the feeling I get from most players is that they prefer to keep their decks intact. So I'm wondering if this is a factor at all in this math, or if it even needs to be accounted for? Surely there are metrics for such things with cards that were format-defining across multiple Eternal formats like fetchlands or Jace the Mind Sculptor, if they did indeed see price spikes when they were found to have a place in several environments?

As with all models, it is incomplete. It does not take into account the effect of people keeping decks sleeved for multiple formats simultaneously. However, I think this is not likely to occur. What I predict will happen is that the people that want to keep multiple decks sleeved at the same time will keep a "Trinity sideboard" in their Legacy decks, where they just swap out the fourth copy of every card and then replace it with the Trinity cards. This is because the deck archetypes are preserved. It may happen for entirely new decks though, but most those cards probably weren't played in the first place. This scenario occurs when Legacy and Trinity are played simultaneously by one player, which is how such format would begin. Eventually, depending on the success of the format, some people may decide to solely play Trinity due to more players, equal or more good Eternal experience, and a desrie to free up capital locked into MTG, for instance to help pay down student loans, mortgage, a wedding or kids (These are important topics for our demographic). I don't think many will expend new capital to own Candelabra's or LEDs 5, 6 and 7.

[bruizar]

I quickly put together a site on www.mtgtrinity.com. The is very minimalistic, and is intended for people to find and share the official rules, and if they want also to discuss it. I still need to make everything look nice and work on structuring the format thesis in a more organized fashion, but it’s a start. Feel free to contribute if you like.