New League Idea - Standard Lite
General forum
Posted on March 24, 2017, 4:57 a.m. by Boza
Leagues are cool!
But leagues that begin with draft can be daunting for beginners because of difficulty; and leagues that are constructed can be daunting for beginners because of lack of a large collection. What is the solution? Combine them!
There was this very cool idea for a "starter Standard" League in my area:
"A 60 card Standard legal deck with no more than 2 mythics (only 1 copy each), no more than 8 rares (only 1 copy each), no more than 2 copies of each uncommon and any number of commons. Decks can have 15 card sideboard, but rarities in the decks must be maintained after sideboarding as well"
(I would consider the SB rule as an optional one, because it is very hard to enforce)
Example deck:
Standard League Tezzeret
Standard
SCORE: 2 | 7 COMMENTS | 128 VIEWS
This to me feels like a very good format to explore, but not in a league environment, where the idea is that your deck changes every week.
So, I thought how incorporate boosters into it to modify your deck. Here is the idea:
You start the league with a deck constructed as per the rules above.
Every week, you can boost your deck by purchasing 1 booster from a standard-legal set.
You have a "cheat sheet", which is kept by TO or the LGS, on which you list your intial deck, as well as each card you get in the booster every week.
You also use the list to denote changes you will make to the decklist after the booster pack by putting little + and - signs besides the cards on the list.
You can add any card to your decklist from the booster and decklists after "boosting" do NOT have to follow the rarity rules.
Example:
I make the deck Tezzeret deck above.
If I open a new Tezzeret the Schemer from my week 1 Aether Revolt booster pack, I simply add it to my deck and remove 1 other card.
On my cheat sheet, I will first list all the cards I opened from my booster. I mark Renegade Map with a minus and Tezzeret the Schemer from my week 1 booster list with a plus to denote the change.
So, what do you think about the idea:
- Is it beginner-friendly enough?
- Should sideboards be a thing?
- Does it sound like a good idea to combine the league format with constructed?
And most importantly:
- Do you think this will be fun?
- Would you play this format?
I think this format is pretty beginner friendly, but could be made more friendly. Not allowing people to jam in all the 'good' cards makes games much more evenly matched, and the limit on adding cards prevents more financially active players from running roughshod on the league. Though players having to count number of cards with rarity and counting the individual cards at each rarity may be a bit much. I would stick with just the rarity cap.
Sideboards, in my opinion, should be a thing in the format. Without a sideboard, you run into a position where some decks cannot compete against others because some cards that are only usable against that specific deck are not used in the format. And keeping sideboards in will help beginners get used to the idea and strategy of sideboards.
I think combining league and constructed is fine, so long as people keep track of the cards that are added to their pool.
I think a Standard-ish format without Mardu Vehichles/CopyCay/BG Snek would be a fun format to play in.
I would play this.
Question: So if this format were to start when Amonkhet were released, would I have time to acquire Amonkhet cards before the league starts?
A suggestion for the Sideboard: 1 Mythic Rare and 4 Rares, none of which can be the same as a card used in your deck.
March 24, 2017 9:25 a.m. Edited.
I find keeping people honest and tracking what everyone gets every week is daunting. Sealed Draft is quickly becoming popular, so combining the two ideas is feasible. Open three packs and see what youve got then draft 3 packs to finish your deck idea. I think limiting the # of mythics is a great idea, but with lands being rare, id have a hard time swallowing that pill.
March 24, 2017 9:27 a.m.
Well, the idea is that it should be self-regulating more or less (still relies on trust) - people will note how they change their decks every week, but there won't actually be someone to check legality every week. Also, the rarity rules are only in place for the initial deck. After you get your first booster, the deck no longer has to comply with the rarity rules (although, you can add cards you only get in boosters).
I agree on the sideboards and imposing rarity rules on that as well will help regulate that. Good call!
The launch of Amonkhet does not necessarily have to coincide with the launch of the league. It could be a bit later to allow people to make Amonkhet decks.
I realise that it could be a problem, but my idea is to frontload all the deck-check - all rarities will be checked at the beginning of the league, when you first constrct your deck. Afterwards, after you open your first booster and open a mythic Herald of Anguish and a foil Herald of Anguish mythic (like a lucksack), you can add them both to your deck, without worrying about the rarity rule. It will simply be noted on your "cheat sheet".
If you have any more ideas on how to do SBing in this format, it will be great!
March 24, 2017 9:46 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #6
Rather than limiting the total number of cards at a specific rarity, would instead limiting cards of specific names based on their rarity work? I would think it would be just as effective in terms of deck designing but much, much easier to keep track of and keep in mind when deckbuilding. Specifically, altering the playset number from 4 for any nonbasic card to 3 for uncommons, 2 for rares, and 1 for mythics seems to be ideal. Could you have a deck of all rares? Sure, but the consistency would be horrendous.
What do you think?
March 24, 2017 10:13 a.m.
MagicalHacker, while this is a feasible idea for some and easier to implement, it would go against the basic idea of the format - level the playing field by introducing an unknown meta.
Your idea would hardly limit players with vast collections and would not be a hindrance to many of the top decks. It would simply cause them to run less copies of certain cards, which is not that horrible, unless it is in conjuction with something else.
When you impose a limit on the quantity of rares (up to 8 total rares), you immediately elimate the top decks - Mardu Vehicles and 4C CopyCat - as the manabases become unfeasible for 3 and 4 color decks and additionally, only 1 copy of gideon and heart is not that oppressive, especially since you cannot run any other other mythics. Additionally, you have to strike a balance between mana fixing and multicolored rare/mythic bombs.
March 24, 2017 10:31 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #8
Hmmm you make good points. If instead the limits for the cad types was instead changed to only making all rares and mythics restricted, would that be better? I think 3 color decks would still have lots of trouble fixing their colors and the meta would shift quite a bit.
It would result in a different meta game as well, as it's like halfway between standard and pauper standard.
March 24, 2017 3:59 p.m.
Hardhitta7 says... #9
Made me think of the Magic Duels app, where you can only get 1x of each mythic, 2x of each rare, 3x uncommon, and 4x common.
Seems like a cool idea.
March 24, 2017 4:32 p.m.
I would definitively NOT like to make it like the Magic Duels app, since it still allows you to make a deck with only rares & mythics and that is opposite of the idea to create any kind of constraint on people with a head start in the game.
Once again, the idea is to present a riddle to every player, even those with larger collection, on how to approach this format.
While limiting just rares and mythics is OK, I think uncommons need to take a hit as well. There are various "mythic" level uncommons like Voltaic Brawler, Winding Constrictor, Ridgescale Tusker, Unlicensed Disintegration, various other removal spells that need to be curtailed or they can easily dominate the format.
There might very well be no need to restrict the uncommons as well, but that will only be apparent after an initial test of the format. I personally think it is safer to have more restrictions initially.
March 29, 2017 4:19 a.m. Edited.
MagicalHacker says... #11
Fair enough! The only reason to start off with fewer/simpler restrictons that I think is worth mentioning is to attract people to the format. If you have trouble getting people interested, my suggestion would be to go to the simple version of "all rares and mythics are restricted".
March 29, 2017 11:44 a.m.
We may want to look at the number of uncommons allowed for lands and whether or not rare lands count towards the rare count.
If I wanted to create a deck, my mana base can include only: 1 Canopy Vista, 1 Fortified Village, and 2 Tranquil Expanses (Also, would Tranquil Expanse count as uncommon because it was uncommon in OGW or common because it was in Ajani's planeswalker deck in AER?). So I can only have 4 dual lands in my deck, and subsequently can only have 6 more rares in the deck.
It seems like multi-colored decks are on the losing end of the rarity cap since they'll lose a lot of consistency to not gain all that much in power.
March 29, 2017 12:32 p.m.
@Ryjo
Well, TBH, you do not really need that much fixing in 2 color decks. Rarity is determined as the lowest rarity a card is in current standard. For example, while Grasp of Darkness was once a common, for this format it will be an uncommon and you are only allowed 2.
And you are forgetting Aether Hub, Spire of Industry, Crumbling Vestige (for a turn), Evolving Wilds, Holdout Settlement, Unknown Shores, not to mention Attune with Aether, Traverse the Ulvenwald, Sylvan Scrying, etc.
I have neglected to mention Prophetic Prism and other artifacts. Enchantments too.
The fixing is plentiful actually, you just have to look beyond the rares that are played in tables of today's standard.
Additionally, the best fixing is at rare, but stretching your rare count to include lands, means your deck will be more consistent but less powerful - that is tension in the deckbuilding that does not exist right now.
March 29, 2017 2:41 p.m. Edited.
Boza, some excellent points about mana-fixing.
Grasp of Darkness, is only in Standard ate one rarity from OGW. Tranquil Expanse is uncommon from a pack in OGW, while in the Ajani deck it's a common. Both are standard legal currently. I think it would be better to use the highest rarity for standard legal cards as they appear in a pack, that way we don't run into scenarios where a player can play 4 Tranquil Expanses while a player can only play 2 Highland Lakes. That would seem a bit unfair.
How are masterpieces accounted for? They are often not Standard legal, and replace a card in the pack. Would they become Standard legal for the league? Would the person opening the pack be down a card? Would they get to mulligan to another pack?
March 29, 2017 3:15 p.m.
Naturally, no masterpieces. They do not have a rarity and you do not want to run into decks with Ensnaring Bridge or Sol Ring under any circumstance. However, the gearhulks are still totally legal as mythics.
Boza says... #2
The idea is to iron out wrinkles in the idea and launch it for the release of Amonkhet, so ideally, in a couple of weeks, with your ideas this will be perfected!
March 24, 2017 5:04 a.m.