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