New Format Idea: Bad Magic (Better than Frontier)
The Kitchen Table forum
Posted on Dec. 12, 2016, 12:27 p.m. by landcaster
Bad Magic:
Bad Magic is a format that was created to solve many of the problems with modern, legacy/vintage, standard, and other formats that require more than $90 to play at a competitive level.
The rules of the format are rather simple. rule 1: decks may contain only cards that have been listed to be below one and one half US dollars ($1.50) in the past SEVEN days of play, by one of these listed sites: [http://www.mtgprice.com/, http://www.tcgplayer.com/, http://www.starcitygames.com/] This restriction is to prevent people from selling a card that has a value greater than 1.50 on one website they have control of to allow its usage that would be otherwise excluded
rule 2: decks may use a sideboard that contains no more than 12 cards
pros to using this format: The formats rules heavily restricts the usage of net decking, and forces the more overpowered decks to "rotate" out of the format. The format is extremely easy to get into for both new and experienced players alike. Provides a deck building challenge.still have access to powerful cards such as Seedtime, Shivan Dragon, and Dark Ritual
There are versions of this idea on MTGO - Heirloom and Penny Dreadful - but they have actual rotations; card legality is locked in based on their price at the beginning of the season until the next rotation (a few weeks after a new set comes out, usually), which means you don't have to constantly check that your deck is still legal and you can buy a deck and be confident that it'll last you at least until the next rotation.
December 12, 2016 3:01 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
I'm interested to know why restricting netdecking is listed as a "pro". Netdecking is not inherently bad.
But, to echo the above, you should look at a system that doesn't require constant price checks.
December 12, 2016 3:28 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #6
I think if the goal of the format is to reduce the entry level issues such as cost, then it wont do a very good job. Yes you spend less money on each card, but you will need to buy new cards every week in order to stay under that 1.50$ mark. I have legacy and modern decks that have not been needed to be changed in years, wheras even if you only needed to switch out one playset of cards a week in your format, you are still looking at over $300 a year. And unlike 'format staples' which have a good chance of maintaining or increasing in value, all the 'bad' cards you buy for this format will almost immediately drop to being worthless again after they become too expensive for legal play in the format.
December 12, 2016 3:33 p.m.
Dredge4life says... #7
Is there a ban list? Otherwise pauper delver just broke your format.
December 12, 2016 4:19 p.m.
All competitive gaming benefits from the existence of a meta. Harping on net-decking is short-sighted.
December 12, 2016 6:08 p.m.
landcaster says... #9
I'm not bashing on net decking, I am saying that the format will prevent people from playing the same deck. And if for example a bunch of people decided to build pauper delver for this, then the price of those cards would increase causing them to "rotate" out.
December 12, 2016 11:16 p.m.
Dredge4life says... #10
The problem I would have with this is that if things increase in price as you say they would, any popular deck would rotate out. But as soon as the card hits 1.51$, it would plummet in value again, thus making it a terrible investment long term. Why would I go through that process of building and tuning my own deck just to see it become illegal a few days later? What advantages does this format have over pauper, where I can build a deck without having to worry about it suddenly becoming too expensive? I could play rares and uncommons here, I guess, but that's the only thing that comes to mind immediately. Also, how would you check the legality of cards in tournaments? Would every player need to submit a decklist so the TO can run cross-checks on the price of every card, as well as its 7 day history? That seems unnecessarily complicated and nigh-impossible to do within a reasonable length of time. What happens if a card is 1.00$ on SCG but 1.60$ on TCGPlayer, or one printing is legal but one is not? If a card goes up in value mid-tournament, does that make it illegal? Of course all of this is just my opinion, and if I come off as terribly negative, I'm not trying to be. I'm not trying to rag on your idea, and please don't get me wrong, this format seems like it could be fun, and if you're playgroup is enjoying it, then I say go for it. It just has a few kinks to work out.
December 13, 2016 4:03 a.m.
Pinewoodboy0324 says... #11
lets all just forget every format and go casual and pauper
December 14, 2016 8:43 p.m.
Pinewoodboy0324 says... #13
hhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh... that is up to you
December 14, 2016 9:03 p.m.
Netdecking is bad, because it produces players, that ask for banning of Aura Hexproof, instead of putting Engineered Explosives, some black or white edict effect, or even Aura Barbs in their deck.
Tl;Dr it leads to entitled lazy idiots.
December 21, 2016 10:53 a.m.
Dredge4life says... #15
@Xica Um, no? Netdecking in itself does not add up to being a jerk, or entitled. It is just the neutral act of getting ideas or entire lists from the Internet. The fact that many entitled people also happen to be netdeckers is mere coincidence. Netdecking is not lazy, it's merely a different way to enjoy Magic, and faulting people for doing it is really just a waste of time and energy over something that's not worth the anguish.
December 21, 2016 4:02 p.m.
Yes they coincide, a bit too often to my taste.
10 minutes before i made my previous post did i just came across some salty person who wished the banning of aura hexproof decks - of all things - since they are "unfair".
And i have hard time coming up with a deck that cannot have some answers to it in main or sideboard.
Yes, most netdeckers are not jerks, but most jerks one comes across are netdeckers.
And in my opinion netdecking as an option is what allows players to not think, and feel they have the right to talk down to anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Based on the argument that if so many people agree then they must be right, some people hold very wide sweeping view, and since they don't have much rational in the way of supporting said beliefs, being dick to those who don't agree with them seems to be the way to go.
December 21, 2016 6:09 p.m.
Dredge4life says... #17
@Xica Again, all I am seeing here are references to jerks who also happen to be netdeckers. The two tend to coincide, but it's only one-way. If you find your average netdecker, then chances are they won't be a jerk. It just so happens that a lot of jerks are netdeckers. I don't see netdecking as a form of laziness, I see it as a way to get ideas I've never thought of before, and to then take those ideas and add my own flare and style to them. And even if they just want to take an exact 75 from the Internet, there's nothing wrong with wanting a tried-and-true formula that is guaranteed to work if piloted correctly. It would be the equivalent of buying a top-ranked computer instead of building one from scratch. They have assurance that it works, and calling them lazy because they didn't build it themselves just seems a little wrong to me.
December 21, 2016 8:19 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
Correlation ≠ Causation
If you have a problem with jerks, you have a problem with jerks. The observation (one might point out the anecdotal fallacy, or appeal from personal experience) that many jerks tend to be netdeckers is tangential to the problem.
Netdecking is an approach to playing the game, not an approach to social interactions. If you have some distaste for the way people play the game, be honest about your biases instead of inventing arguments to demonize others.
December 21, 2016 10:04 p.m.
I don't call anyone lazy only for netdecking. I call people lazy when after netdecking they make a problem out of the fact that even the holy 75 needs to change to follow the meta.
Netdecking is a valid way to play however attacking others for not sticking to the holy 75 seems problematic to me...
...but each to their own i guess, apparently some people like that.
December 22, 2016 4:22 p.m.
MorteCerta says... #20
Any particular reason for only 12 cards in sideboard? Just curious
aholder7 says... #2
the problem is that you have to check the price of your deck constantly as to make sure that it's still legal. this is somewhat tedious.
December 12, 2016 2:45 p.m.