I did pick up magic after a few years again.
Even with mulligans I still have incredibly bad luck to draw a proper mix out of spells and lands. (Yes I am the guy who manages to roll below 5 the entire evening during a DnD game.)
So I thought why not split the 60 cards into two decks. One decks containing at least 40 spells and the other one containing at least 20 lands.
Whenever you interact with a deck (like drawing a card or looking at the to X cards). A player can choose the one or the other deck.
What do you think of this. Good idea bad idea?
so combo deck never draw lands when they don't want to? Variance is important to the game
I think there's some weeb animu card game that has a system like this.
It's a good idea if your goal is to eliminate some of the random/rng factor of Magic and try to remove some of the "feel bad" from the game
To a lot of people, that random/rng factor of Magic is just part of it. It's considered part of the game and part of deckbuilding to find the perfect balance between spells and lands.
>>43774489
The game is called Force of Will. It does have a separate deck for "lands" from the rest of your cards and I think you have the ability to draw from the "land" deck every turn.
I know your trolling but I'll take the bait
>their are cards that interact with your deck in ways that this wouldn't work for so it can't ever be done with out removing many cards from the eternal formats some of witch have whole decks
>the fact that you can get mana screwed is part of the game theory behind magic
>draw spells now insanely more powerful
>the opponent can see if you draw a land or not giving them a lot of information based on you choosing that, deck only runs one four drop? You drew a land to go up from three that's alot of info that would make the game have a higher skill cap
>many other reasons
>>43774439
force of will exists and it's shit because it has no variance
most jtcg in general are shit because they are 99% deck construction 1% piloting because the decks are so low variance and nothing unique ever happens in an actual match, so it's just a question of how you build your deck
Actually not trolling at all... I realize that it take variety out of the game. But I simply don't have time anymore to delve into the full magic experience and figure out what the current best cards are to make a deck run more constant.
I just want some relaxing card flipping after a 40 h work week. Yes, I am a filthy casual. But my friends basically have the same problem. We all work and we want a relaxing time and played magic in some time in our life.
We can just go and play Axis and Allies or whatnot, but we all remembering Magic pretty fondly.
I am not sure what to think of EDH. It is called a casual format but it seems even more random and might be prone to produce boring matches.
I am open for any suggestion. So please teach me /tg/.
>>43774945
i mean you can just play with retarded butchered rules if you want lol who gives a shit, we're just saying that if you're complaining about randomness you don't actually understand the game because that is exactly what makes the game good
>>43774945
Based on what you are saying, you should try the Commander precons with your group.
The decks are designed to be roughly equivalent in power level out of the box. Think of it like a board game. The 100 card singleton format is meant to create a fresh experience after playing the deck through many games.
It sounds like it would give you the best 'canonical' magic experience.
>>43774986
You do realize that different people take different enjoyment out of different things.
You obviously like the randomness, but to be quite frank when the game would rely on randomness alone, then you could play Yahtzee and see little difference. You are simply selling the game short.
But since you are obviously pretty good at magic tell me which pre-constructed deck have a halfway constant mana draw without the addition of extra cards?
>>43775112
Ah ok, that indeed sounds really cool. I will check them out.
>>43775192
who said anything about relying on randomness alone? I'm trying to explain something relatively simple to you, which is that the randomness in the game is one of the core engines in how the entire game works together and is good. you could play yahtzee but that's a completely different game entirely so I have no idea why you even bring it up. you are selling the game short if you think its randomness is a bad thing rather than an essential piece in it, but then again I don't know why I'm even arguing with someone who understands nothing about what they are talking about.
and, literally all of them, they all run like 40 lands or something.
>>43775192
All lands/no lands is only guarantee, and everything else is abour Ana curve how about looking at good peoples lists presumably they succeed often enough to win right?
http://magic.wizards.com/en/content/deck-lists-magic-online-products-game-info
>>43775192
Jesus fuck, dude, take it easy.
Play a proper mana base. -Shuffle- your deck properly, make sure it's actually randomized, and take advantage of the new mulligan rules (scry 1 at the start of the game when you're down cards), or allow a friendly mulligan if you're just playing kitchen table. Sometimes you'll get shitty variance, but assuming everything is done correctly you shouldn't be getting screwed or flooding out terribly often at all. The fact that you probably tend to remember the frustrating games more readily than the good ones probably lends to the shittiness of your whole experience.
If you're playing EDH with a properly built deck, and using partial mulligans as is customary for the format, the chance that you start the game with an unplayable hand is very low.
Consistently bad luck isn't a real thing, stop being paranoid and build better decks.
>>43775268
oh yeah i forgot about that entirely, edh has a retarded mulligan rule (in addition to a free first mulligan) that makes it ludicrously hard to get mana screwed unless you fuck up your decision making royally
>>43774439
>Even with mulligans I still have incredibly bad luck to draw a proper mix out of spells and lands.
>40 spells
>20 lands
Post the decklist. Chances are more likely you're an idiot who doesn't understand deckbuilding.
Pro tip: the general rule is to start at 24 lands. Add or subtract based on needs.
>>43775576
Well, I played pre-constructed... Good to know that these decks now seem to suck hard, when the R&D isn't able to build a proper mana curve.
I played Sultai Schemers – Intro Pack Deck unmodified.
>>43774439
Learn to cheat.
Seriously. learn shuffle tricks and how to palm
>>43775742
>I played Sultai Schemers – Intro Pack Deck unmodified.
>Lands (26)
Yeah okay.
>>43774439
>So I thought why not split the 60 cards into two decks. One decks containing at least 40 spells and the other one containing at least 20 lands.
Because at I have better things to do with 4 mana.
>>43775742
It's not a great list, but 26 lands, some land search, and card draw to smooth it over? You should have no trouble.
>>43774439
36-38 spells, 22-24 land. 1 land of appropriate type per 2 mana symbols of a given color in the costs of spells. Roughly half the spells in your deck should cost 3 mana or less. Congratulations, you now know the basics of deck building theory.
>>43774439
There's a reason tournament matches are best 2 out of 3. It's the same reason poker players don't just bet everything on the first hand. A big skill in the game is minimizing the impact of luck on your deck. It should be pretty clear that pro players (in MtG and poker) don't just win due to luck.
If you're not drawing enough lands put more in your deck.
>>43778677
He;s running 26 lands. In a precon.
He probably just doesn't know how to shuffle.
