Mana boost variation

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
One thing ive noticed about constructed formats such as legacy, modern, standard, and block are that they eventually become dominated by one, two, and three drop cards at most. This limits deck construction to the cheapest, most efficient cards in the cardpool. Why play more expensive cards when you can kill your opponent with lightning bolts, delver of secrets, and tarmogoyfs?

Therefore i propose a new idea: each player may start the game with up to 3 basic lands on the battlefield.

What does this do? It sets 3 drops as the base mana cost for your cards, eliminates early game mana screw, and lessens the advantage gained by the first player. It also makes it incredibly easy to run a multicolored deck, not that it is difficult in constructed formats in the first place.

But the first part is the most important. Do you run path to exile or unmake? Lightning bolt or flame javelin? Brainstorm or fact or fiction?

I think it might be cool, whaddaya guys say? 
worth a try, though i wonder if cards that cost 1-2 will be abusable since you can cast manyof them in a turn

also its possibleto run adeckwith no land, and justcards that cost 1-3 
Why play more expensive cards when you can kill your opponent with lightning bolts, delver of secrets, and tarmogoyfs?

How does opening the game with 3 lands solve this problem? I'd still rather cast 3 Lightning Bolt's on turn 1 than a single Char. Imagine a Burn deck packed with Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning and Lava Spike -  I can hit your for 9 on T1.
If anything, this would speed the game up.

And what's so good about expensive cards?


each player may start the game with up to 3 basic lands on the battlefield. 

I have an Affinity deck which can function on 1 Land, can function happily on 2 Lands, and can play anything on 3 Lands. Starting the game with 3 Lands on the battlefield would give some decks an immense advantage over others. 


And how do you determine what Lands you can play as part of your 3? Basic Lands only? No Utility Lands?

How to autocard: 

Show

[*c]CardName[/*c] (remove the *'s) to autocard!

or

[*deck]

4 x CardName

4 x CardName

[/*deck]

Remove the *'s to autodeck!

Why play more expensive cards when you can kill your opponent with lightning bolts, delver of secrets, and tarmogoyfs?

How does opening the game with 3 lands solve this problem? I'd still rather cast 3 Lightning Bolt's on turn 1 than a single Char. Imagine a Burn deck packed with Lightning Bolt, Chain Lightning and Lava Spike -  I can hit your for 9 on T1.
If anything, this would speed the game up.

And what's so good about expensive cards?


each player may start the game with up to 3 basic lands on the battlefield. 

I have an Affinity deck which can function on 1 Land, can function happily on 2 Lands, and can play anything on 3 Lands. Starting the game with 3 Lands on the battlefield would give some decks an immense advantage over others. 


And how do you determine what Lands you can play as part of your 3? Basic Lands only? No Utility Lands?




Basic lands only as stated in the OP.

The reason for the rule is to get cards that normally wouldn't see play due to their prohibitive mana costs to see play.

Affinity won't do as well when it only has basics to work with. It needs artifact lands.
Basic lands only as stated in the OP.

I must have missed that.

The reason for the rule is to get cards that normally wouldn't see play due to their prohibitive mana costs to see play.

But if you create a Format where :R: Burn (and stuff like it) is the best thing, then that's all that will get played.

I mean, realistically, you could build a :R: Burn deck with no lands (outside of the ones you start the game with) - how is that appropriate?

I still don't belive that this Format will encourage people to start playing High Cost stuff, just more Low Cost stuff.

Affinity won't do as well when it only has basics to work with. It needs artifact lands.

What about decks that run no Basic Lands and have no need of them?


I repeat - what's so good about expensive cards? Someone has to lose, and why is losing to an Insectile Aberration worse than losing to a Gisela, Blade Of GoldNight?

How to autocard: 

Show

[*c]CardName[/*c] (remove the *'s) to autocard!

or

[*deck]

4 x CardName

4 x CardName

[/*deck]

Remove the *'s to autodeck!

...why is losing to an Insectile Aberration worse than losing to a Gisela, Blade Of GoldNight?

Eh, to me it's demotivating to go to FNM and get wiped out by turn 4-6 with no way to stop it really. If I lost to Gisela, I'd probably give the player props for playing with her. Also our game probably would have lasted quite a while if he was able to play her, meaning I'd actually be able to do things taht could be considered 'fun or interesting'. I'm all for a competitive deck, but in standard there's no room for creativity because of Delver ATM... just my thoughts... anyway...

This format seems bad to me, it makes decks that revolve around ramp and fatties (ie the option to play Explosive Vegetation on turn 1) or cheap effective burn spells the most powerful. True a deck would have access to almost any counterspell (even Undermine) on turn zero., but... no... that's bad because if they can counter things straight off the bat then... no no, it's too much an advantage to all players, rather than an answer to help disadvantage of slow decks as intended.

My only suggestion is that you an your playgroup can create your own banned lists for casual play. This will solve the redundancy of your decks all using certain cheap and powerful 'staples'.

How to autocard:

Show
[c]Blaze[/c] = Blaze

you can also...

[deck]

38 Relentless Rats

22 Swamp

[/deck]

=

Uhhhh....this would impressively not work.  First turn Channel, Fireball.  You don't even need power 9 to do that with 3 lands in play.
Uhhhh....this would impressively not work.  First turn Channel, Fireball.  You don't even need power 9 to do that with 3 lands in play.



Channel would be abused in any format where it is legal. That has nothing to do with my proposed idea.

I disagree that burn would be the best deck. Burn is too easy to hate against for it to be the best deck. 
If you would want to do to this, I advise making everyone play with cards that have 3 or (4) mana and up. Don't let anyone have 1,2, or (3) cost mana cards.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

If you would want to do to this, I advise making everyone play with cards that have 3 or (4) mana and up. Don't let anyone have 1,2, or (3) cost mana cards.



I considered that but I think that implementing a restriction is unneccessary when you can create roughly the same effect by adding a positive rule.

Sure, I can force people to use Unmake over Path to Exile, but I would rather give them the choice instead and let them decide which would work better for them in the format.