[Community Discussion]: What format do you believe is designed best?
General forum
Posted on Feb. 3, 2014, 11:48 p.m. by Epochalyptik
In light of the recent Modern bans and Commander bans, I think it's appropriate to discuss formats.
This time, let's talk about format design. Which of the formats (Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Commander, Pauper) do you think is the best designed and maintained? Your answer does not necessarily have to be your favorite format. You can certainly like to play one format, yet respect the way another is built.
You should also explain why you like the format. Is it the ban list management, the legal sets, the environment, or something else?
As a follow-up question, which format would you play if you had the money and opportunity to play any deck? Often, players feel limited by the barrier to entry of older formats, so they may not be able to experience a part of the game they would otherwise try. Is there a format - or even a specific deck - that you'd like to pilot that you haven't been able to for some reason?
blackmarker90 says... #3
As ridiculous as it can get, I would love to play a Sneak and Show Legacy deck. I believe Legacy is the best format, because of the sheer power that is available to each player, but with that it also means a hefty investment and being able to obtain a lot of highly sought after cards.
February 3, 2014 11:58 p.m.
blackmarker90 says... #4
Actually Standard is where Wizards makes their money, i think that Modern is the baby that is slowly growing into the strong format that it needs to be. The DRS banning was a lot easier to see coming than people are realizing. It wasn't Jace, the Mind Sculptor bad but if it was given the time once RTR rotated out it would get there. Don't get me wrong Deathrite Shaman holds a ton of power for a T1 drop.
February 4, 2014 12:02 a.m.
crystalizeq says... #5
I feel like Standard is the best designed format, for a reason apart from that Wizards supports it the most. I like Standard because of the always rotating sets, allowing for many different strategies to shine. Although in the current standard, there are really 3 main decks, in many other standards there have been a great variety of decks. Standard also allows for cards that would otherwise not be used to be used. It also has a much slower game, meaning that your deck does not have to win on turn 3 or 4 or combo out in order to win the game. With rotation, you have to reconstruct your entire deck which allows for different variations in gameplay and having different assortments of decks and colors to shine.
February 4, 2014 12:13 a.m.
I would argue that Limited in general is the best designed format. It allows cards that could see play nowhere else to shine, and it's the reason most cards actually exist. I mean, let's face it, 80% of cards just aren't going to be competitive outside Limited. I think most of R&D's efforts are put into limited, not any constructed format. And if the limited format isn't fun to play, you aren't going to see nearly as many boosters sold.
February 4, 2014 12:14 a.m.
miracleHat says... #7
I think that standard is the best formatted. I would say edh, but that is still being figured out. I honestly hate standard, but it isn't to my playstyle. For those who love a format that always has changing cards and decklists (most of the time), standard is the way to go. You don't get much new stuff in legacy. In retrospect, each time a legendary creature is printed, you get a whole new decklist in edh. My favorite format by far is edh. I am trying to only solely play edh. That being said, acquiring 100 good cards takes me a long time. That is why i am so glad that they came out with the commander decklists. I got the Marath, Will of the Wild and it is a blast to play. People don't gang up on me like normal (i guess that playing kaalia and mono u angers people), and i get to have a fun time. Something that has been said in the past here about edh (and i will say again), edh is a social format. Sometimes, if i'm in a good mood, then i will play a fun commander. If i want to play to win, i will play a better commander. In conclusion, i agree mostly with crystalizeq about standard, though i hate it. My favorite format is edh, followed by legacy and 3rd draft.
February 4, 2014 12:22 a.m.
I agree with raithe000, Limited is probably the best designed format. There are no deck archetypes. You have to make due with what you pull. It's a lot more fun than most constructed formats, because you see cards that nobody else would look at twice. Of course, I might be wrong about this, I'm just starting to get into Limited, having only played Standard and EDH before.
February 4, 2014 1:19 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #9
@thePESSIMIST Archetypes are actually fundamental in Limited. Each set is built around a number of archetypes that are supported by a large percentage of the cards in the format. The best decks in any draft pool are likely to be the ones that grabbed the most solid hold on an archetype so that all of their cards come together towards one common goal.
The best maintained format, outside of Limited, is Standard. By rotating the format once a year, Wizards guarantees that no single decklist will become degenerate (for long). A finite number of powerful cards in the format severely limits the number of competitive strategies available to the players, giving RnD an easier time in balancing the power of each card. It's also much less likely that any two cards in Standard will have an unforseen power combo. Conversely, in formats like Legacy, a single new card can create a combo that spawns an entire deck / win condition.
February 4, 2014 1:42 a.m.
On the limited being the best thing, you are comparing apples to oranges.
The thread should have been best constructed and best limited formats, Standard, Modern, Legacy, or EDH, and Draft, Sealed, or Cube.
For constructed I say Standard since it doesn't require thousand dollar decks to have a fighting chance (Legacy specifically), it allows you to experiment as a budget player and still be able to win based on luck and skill without being locked down to a single archetype (Infect in Modern), and while EDH is a fun format it is too luck based to truly be stabilized as the best constructed format (1/99 chance to draw specific cards other than basic lands, Shadowborn Apostle , and Relentless Rats ).
For limited I say Cube since it's just the most relaxed and versatile format where Sealed and Draft are only limited to packs and pulls.
February 4, 2014 1:50 a.m.
Godfingerslash says... #11
Hmmm, best designed and maintained format, huh? Well for me, as far as this discussion is concerned, I think Pauper is an interesting one. In terms of design, it's good since you're restricted to using ONLY common cards which makes it fun in a challenging kind of way. No power rares, no mythic rares, no Planeswalker cards. Just plain old commons. In analogy, it's like two people doing a fist fight with both of them handcuffed. It's up to those two fighters whether they see those cuffs as a big disadvantage, or the opposite.
Maintenance-wise, MTG has has a HUGE pool of commons if you combine all of the blocks, so players actually have a lot of options to choose from, which is actually the fun and challenging part :)
And if I have the money and opportunity to play a certain card deck in a certain format, I think it would be either RDW or Jund in the Modern Format. I wanna experience those quick-turn kills on the opponent when using RDW or using those all-expensive power cards in Jund (coughTarmogoyfcough) lol :P
February 4, 2014 2:47 a.m.
I don't like Standard all that much. It feels really stagnant and forced. Wizards design cards to fit in the standard format, thus making certain strategies viable. Just see Theros, Nykthos and the various Devotion strategies. I find it boring.
I like Modern very much. It's a relatively expensive format to get in to, but Wizards do a fine job of enforcing their rules. With every new set, new cards get introduced to the format that potentially shake things up and change the viability of decks. (Thalia, Guardian of Thraben is a fine example)It's a fast format, with very powerful answers to pretty much everything. Path to Exile , Abrupt Decay and their likes keep degenerate strategies from dominating.
However, if a card is too powerful and starts to warp the meta around it, it gets a ban.I find it to be a sign of Wizards monitoring the format and constantly trying to keep it healthy.I understand most things on the banlist but also disagree with a few. Deathrite Shaman was too powerful and was used in way too many decks. Even some burn decks started playing him. I think that's a sign that a card is too powerful.
February 4, 2014 4:21 a.m.
As a matter of fact the top 3 most-played non-land cards of modern are/were:
48% Lightning Bolt 32% Snapcaster Mage 28,3 % Remand 28,1 % Deathrite Shaman
I don't quite understand, why Wizards doesn't give a damn about Snapcaster Mage . That guy warped a format - unlike DRS (strong card nonetheless but not format-warping)! New decks were born, solely because of him! Jund/k has existed before DRS. Banning him was a huge mistake. Mark my words, PT BNG will be flooded with R/U decks utilizing Bolt and Snapcaster. Not an attractive format anymore.
I think Standard is the best designed format (still the most expensive over time). I really like to brew new decks every few months and I think Standard is the best environment for that.
February 4, 2014 6:34 a.m.
The Top 5 most-played cards in Modern also speak a clear language:
- Lightning Bolt 48%
- Misty Rainforest 47,3%
- Scalding Tarn 38,2 %
- Steam Vents 36,7 %
- Snapcaster Mage 32,1 %
Red/Blue are way too strong, otherwhise these cards wouldn't see as much play. What's Wizards reasoning behind banning one of the value cards that make G/B a top-contender in Modern? You cannot replace DRS with Bitterblossom and are good to go. You'll die way too fast (especially against U/R Aggro Burn decks) because of the now lost lifegain from DRS.
February 4, 2014 6:45 a.m.
I'm with Deetoz...Standard is probably the worst format designed and maintained. It's dominated by a few decks and many of those feel forced. There's a lot of mirror matches, not to mention horrendous mechanics.
Specifically, Standard doesn't allow for much library manipulation to answer the opponent, decks play themselves on auto-pilot, and things quickly become non-interactive. A mulligan to five is 9 times out of 10 an automatic game loss. You get stuck in a top-deck war trying to draw an out to your opponent's army of dudes.
There's a reason I despise Standard and very rarely jump into it. This doesn't even factor in the long-term investment of needing to update and acquire a new deck every three to six months due to rotation.
Booster Draft is certainly the most thought-out of all formats each year. Even homemade cubes are great. It's one of those that really tests a person's card evaluation, deck building, and piloting skills. I don't think there's any other format that forces players to do all three the way Drafting does.
Vintage is hands-down the best designed Constructed format, especially in recent years when they've started to unrestrict cards (Burning Wish , Gush , and Regrowth all come to mind), not adding anything to the restricted list, and we've still seen people come up with new and interesting innovations over the years. Some of the archetypes go back as far as Alpha (for example, The Deck is still played, although now it's known as Grixis Control or 4CC), but the same is true across other formats. Sure, the cards from Innistrad/RtR Standard are different from RtR/Theros Standard, but R/G/x Midrange is still alive and well. It's not like we've seen anything completely new.
Compare that to how Vintage has people switching up sideboards to deal with Young Pyromancer and True-Name Nemesis . Or the way people come up with new plays to deal with unique situations (I know I'm excited to see how players react to Spirit of the Labyrinth turning off Jace, the Mind Sculptor ). Then there's the power...
Oh yes, the power! Having the Power Nine and each of the Five Pillars (Dark Ritual , Mishra's Workshop , Gush , Bazaar of Baghdad , and Null Rod ) available means you get to play decks that just aren't seen anywhere else. Four Color Humans made top eight at GenCon because Cavern of Souls -> Black Lotus -> Exava, Rakdos Blood Witch is a perfectly valid play.
Or Oath of Druids decks that grab a Rune-Scarred Demon to tutor for Time Walk each turn so they can loop it all together until they get three demons and swing for game.
Or Magus of the Unseen being played in the mainboard because it answers your opponent's Time Vault .
Or, speaking of Time Vault , Ral Zarek finding a home right away in Vintage because he can be played right along side Tezzeret the Seeker .
Or Spiketail Hatchling off of Mox Sapphire and Island turn one being one of the format's strongest openers for years.
The bottom line is that many things become viable when you can play them sooner or when they blow out specific power cards. After 20 years, the card pool is so large players still haven't figured out the meta the way they have in Standard after two weeks of a full spoiler.
February 4, 2014 7:35 a.m.
lord_of_the_snakes says... #16
commander is the best in my opinion, with a deck of singletons, you get more options, and have the ability to make weird interactions that you just can't make in normal constructed formats, and its slower and designed for multiplayer.
I would really like to get into edh because i enjoy playing edh, but my current deck, while fun to play, is less than amazing, due to lacke of budget, and with Anowon, the Ruin Sage leading a tribal vampire deck, i have little to do but aggro, which doesn't work well in commander.
February 4, 2014 8:20 a.m.
Before we go any further, I'd like some clarification. What exactly do we mean by designed and maintained? I thought it was about how Wizards designs cards and picks bans, but now I'm less sure. Are we talking about how we as players design decks? About how often new archetypes and competitive decks come into the format? About how much we enjoy a particular format? We are going all over the place. Epochalyptik, what exactly are we supposed to be focusing on? It's hard to share ideas if you don't have a common frame of reference.
February 4, 2014 8:53 a.m.
I think each has their charms and should appreciated that way.
Standard isn't a badly designed format, it's a good designed format. Yes it's expensive to maintain and does have less top decks, but that's the problem with a limited card pool. I like this, I like limiting to the last two years of blocks and latest core set.
I think limited is how magic sets should be played. To those of you who don't think limited doesn't have deck archetypes, play more limited. Limited is designed with this in mind. They are there. for example m14 archetypes, theros archetypes You can draft/play outside of these, but if you do, you have a smaller chance of winning because you go with less synergy. Constructed should and does just pick the best cards out of this to add/build decks with.
Modern is good, it's design allows for the most players to play, from old to new. This is why it's expensive. I'm a fan of modern.
Legacy is my personal favorite, it has the power, it has some of the best cards available to play with and just is what magic is to me. Quick games decided by a great play or misplay early on, with very little room to recover. I think it's design is overall the best, because it eliminates the power 9 and only bans a few cards that are just purely broken.
Vintage, what can I say, the most powerful and overall it has the best cards and is good for those who play it. The restricted list is awesome for the power level in this format.
EDH for me is the kitchen table in the lgs with a great view on casual play. It pushes fun over competitive and try's its best to make broken things harder to play. It's the epitome of fun in magic.
In short I like them all, but I like legacy the most and think each is designed perfectly.
To those bringing up the money factor in places, its on the demand of the cards for the number of players playing that format, mixed with the actual supply. Don't get made at economics, master them.
To those who complain that decks are limited or can't compete, there is a finite number of GOOD options available in any format. Get used to it, people like to play the best and like to win. Same goes with what you think is a bad format, it's not the format persay, but the players doing their best to break it. That's because players are that way.
Note to OP, When saying I'm a fan or like it. I like the format both as a player and someone looking at the design and how it's put together from a rules standpoint. Not just in how it plays and the state of the meta.
February 4, 2014 8:58 a.m.
One thing I missed, If a format doesn't play like another format, that's a good thing in my book. I don't think formats should mirror each other. This is to those saying standard sucks because it can't do the things legacy and modern can do with library manipulation and the like. Wanting that is then stifling the GAME. I sort of have an issue with competitive EDH because all it is is 'Vintage Lite'. Play vintage/legacy if you want that. Formats should not mirror each other in the way they are played with cards doing the same thing. They should and do have their own charms and meta's. When you start to force a deck, take mono-b devotion in modern, you really start to stale the GAME as it becomes a mirror of standard and so on.
February 4, 2014 9:04 a.m.
Servo_Token says... #20
Personally I feel that Pauper is one of the best formats on the competitive level. It isn't limited by "Who's been playing longer", or "Who had the most money to throw at Star City" like Legacy and Modern have started to become, literally anyone who has opened more than 2 booster packs can join in. Currently my competitive pauper deck costs $17.
There's also a huge pool of "the good cards", so that people aren't restricted by a restricted list, or an inability to find the means to acquire a playset of the best thing.
Sure, you could argue that Pauper is dominated by Delver and Affinity, but honestly, what format isnt? I feel that in this respect, Pauper is a great way to train for getting into modern / legacy.
As for decks that I would play if I had the means to, I would play pre-ban eggs in modern, because I love being 'that guy'. On a matter of cost though, i'd probably go with RUG Delver in Legacy. I've never actually even seen a real tarmogoyf, and the chance to play with one would be pretty sick.
February 4, 2014 9:18 a.m.
Personally, the cost is immaterial to the format afaic. The format isn't designed with cost of the singles in mind. Yes it becomes a factor when a player decides how much they are willing or able to spend on a hobby. But that has little to do with the design of the format. The formats are designed with the power of the available card pool in mind. The banned and restricted lists go to show that. If they banned on money, the ban lists for legacy/modern/standard would be much larger.
February 4, 2014 9:30 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #22
I think Legacy is the best designed format. I'm always hearing that it's too expensive, but aquiring a completely new deck every three sets or putting money into staples just to have them banned eventually isn't what I'd call economic. My Playset of Green Sun's Zenith for example costed me 20 Euros (something around 24$ back then) and has served me well in many different decks. It has kept it's value for a long time and will keep it for a long time in the future. The same is true for most of my other legacy cards. Legacy is actually going quite easy on your money if you pick your cards wisely.
Bans aren't used to manipulate the meta by nerfing certain archetypes as in modern, but only to exclude extremely overpowered cards.
Modern (and standard anyways) are putting too much of a limit on draw and search mechanisms, so the decks are often less consistent and more luck-dependent than they are in legacy. It's more satisfying to win or lose when you know that both decks have shown a good part of their potential before the game has been decided.
Legacy is the greatest playground for any johnny player, competitive or not. With every new set released, thousands of new opportunites open up, just waiting for someone to find them. That way, even the dominating archetypes are in a state of constant change. Legacy is one of the few formats where your cards keep gettting better instead of getting banned and rotated. If you think Legacy is stagnant, think again.
So much for Constructed. In limited, which I mostly play for fun, it's the sealed format that I like most, because it gives you the most choices on how you want to build your deck, and you can make the best from your cards without having to go through simulations to know the cards before you even open the booster. Draft and Cube might be more challenging, but not as much fun as sealed.
There's a difference between well-designed and well-maintained that is worth contemplating. Good maintenance is put into the formats that earn WotC the most money, and that are standard and the limited formats.
February 4, 2014 9:31 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #23
@raithe000: By "designed and maintained," I mean developed on the part of WOTC. Which formats show the most attention to balance, or offer the best mix of possibilities, or create the best atmosphere? You can certainly include an analysis of deckbuilding possibilities, but this CD focuses on the technical design of the format themselves rather than the decks within those formats.
February 4, 2014 11:45 a.m.
Best designed and maintained? I believe Standard gets that. As stated by others previously, I also like the rotating sets and how it allows new deck archetypes each block/season.
...But if I had the money, I would be playing two other formats:
A. Legacy - Having access to (almost) ALL cards ever printed and making super combos is INSANE!
B. Limited Sealed - I LOVE how you're forced to create a deck on-the-fly and use it. (i hate Draft chokepoints though)
February 4, 2014 1:57 p.m.
Nigeltastic says... #25
In regards to the actual question asked, I think the answer has to be either Limited or if we're talking purely constructed, Standard. The lack of need for regular bans, the relatively rapid turnover of cards and the limited number of cards allows for informed and intentional design decisions and the ability to shape and form the format into something fun and playable; these attributes define a well controlled format. I think that due to the huge card pool in Modern, and especially Legacy and Vintage, it is impossible to say they're the best designed, as unexpected card interactions are almost assured due to the huge card pool.
If I had the money and time, I would love to get into Modern, it has more room for innovation than Legacy but still has enough cards in the format that unexpected decks pop up and are viable. I would want to run either something delicious and G/B (possibly some Jund kind of list) or something hilarious and combo like Storm or Eggs.
February 4, 2014 3:57 p.m.
On the second question if I had the money and resources to get cards I need I would get into Legacy, even if its a turn 1/2 win format I think its interesting to try as a deck builder, and allows for the most insane and cheap combos to shine, when they would be shunned and banned in other formats.
February 4, 2014 4:01 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #27
There are more adjustments being made for standard, but more isn't always better. Limiting the possibilities in a format and controlling what kinds of decks and moves are played doesn't sound like format design to me. It is controlling, shaping by limiting, yes. But design is the opposite, a productive action. The way shaping and balancing standard is achieved contradicts the idea of a "Gathering", the basic intent of a collectible card game, which is collecting cards and play them. In Legacy a similar effect is achieved by simply putting a speed limit on mana development.
Design doesn't mean making decisions for the player and ruling out any unexpected interactions. When I write a storyline (more of sketching a storytree, actually) for a pen 'n' paper game, I can't expect the player to act like I have foreseen or planned it, because they never will, no matter how much easier that would be for me. Good design means that you are creating a situation where you are able to deal with all decisions a player will make, especially the unexpected ones.
I'm quite curious to hear why you think that modern has more room for innovation than legacy.
@ CW
There are actually a lot less t1/2 wins in legacy than you might expect. You usually aren't getting much trouble before turn 4, and the decks that are able to win on turn 1 or 2 are often quite inconsistent. Most of them demand that the players get the right cards in the starting hand and are severely crippled if they don't.
Turn 1 wins are more a Vintage thing, where you can pull moves like playing an artifact land, chaining 4 Sol Ring and casting any affinity card up to 9 mana right away.
February 4, 2014 4:52 p.m.
Shit sorry, I was getting the names mixed up, I meant Vintage, dat shit cray.
February 4, 2014 5:04 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #30
In my opinion, the best designed and maintained format is currently Modern. Standard always seems to revolve around a maximum of 3 Tier 1 decks and other strategies trying to beat them, and the near lack of a banlist for Standard (except in very special cases such as Caw-Blade) makes it so that the format gets old very quickly despite the fact that it's supposed to be the constantly-rotating and changing format. I feel that Legacy is maintained less consistently than Modern because most of the Tier 1 decks revolve around the same cards (for good reason, but nevertheless). It's fairly uncommon not to see at least 8-12 copies of Force of Will and Brainstorm in the top 8 of any given Legacy event, an indication that the format is not as diverse as it really should be. Combo and aggro/midrange strategies are far less represented in Legacy than they should be.
Modern is an extremely diverse, but at the same time consistently exciting and changing format. The power level is not so high as Legacy, which allows more interesting and niche archetypes to be strong. It's not so bland as Standard due to its wide cardpool and the plethora of mechanics and interactions available. With the new banlist, the format is set to change rapidly as new decks become powerful while the old archetypes still stick around and make the format very interesting to be a part of. Modern is my favorite format for exactly this reason, and makes it so that decks like Blitz Naya can be played in the same format as U/W/R control, Tron and Scapeshift .
February 4, 2014 5:18 p.m.
infinitemana says... #31
Legacy has such an incredible variety of decks that are all somewhat competitive. If you look at the top 64 of a given Legacy tournament, there can be 30+ different archetypes. There are some decks that are consistent winners, like Sneak and Show and RWU Delver, but there is still so much room for innovation. So it's my favorite.
February 4, 2014 6:15 p.m.
I think that the very best thing is that they did separate the game into several distinct formats like this instead of trying for a single "one size fits all" format.
Standard: good for keeping current - being able to vary things without worrying about interference from the past and getting into ruts
EDH: good social format with minimal restrictions since the social aspect of the game balances quite a lot of things out
Modern: good constructed use for older cards that is extremely interesting, varied and competitive without coming down to a question of who controls a few very powerful cards
Legacy: a format where the most broken and powerful stuff can still be played
2HG: a team is greater than the sum of its members, and is more fun when it is official
Limited: bring the power-level down and have some extra fun while you add to your collection
Pauper: taking the money out of the game for at least one format
February 4, 2014 6:32 p.m.
@gufymike: The issue with having less library manipulation and draw power in Standard is that you lose more games to variance. You can't recover or stabalize when you get stuck on one land after a mulligan to five.
Now, it's not like it's a walk in the park in other formats, but mulligans and mana screw/flood are more forgiving. Due to the speed of older formats, you can quickly recover from a one-land hand because your deck operates on just two lands. Or, you can aggressively mulligan until you get what your deck needs (such as Tron taking a mulligan until it finds an Urza piece).
You're still down on cards and tempo, but it's not as bad as Standard. With Standard, you're essentially relying on your opponent to make misplays or be just as mana screwed as you are. You get stuck in topdeck mode where you need to draw land, answer, then a threat in that specific order. But there's no Brainstorm or Dark Confidant to help facilitate that.
Nor is there the random power card there to help you get back into the game, which is why I like Vintage over Legacy in that regard. In Legacy, blowouts are more frequent and games are decided in a single turn with little room for players to recover. At that point, it can become non-interactive. Vintage, on the other hand, a player can get hit by multiple Duress and a Mana Drain , then draw Ancestral Recall off the top that they hid with Brainstorm to Force of Will whatever the opponent uses their mana from Mana Drain on. It's often one big play followed by another from both players, versus Legacy or Modern where it's a matter of who can make their big play first.
I don't view having more variance as being something a format should be proud of. The ability to recover from mulligans and variance is a fundamental part of the game, just like mana curve, tempo, or card advantage. Can you imagine if Standard had nothing but one and two drops for an entire block and eliminated mana curve for two years? The format would be terrible.
@Epochalyptik: Limited probably takes the cake and best maintained. No bans have occurred in the format in over 20 years. It's also the format WotC and R&D put the most effort into designing. For constructed, I'm partial to Vintage. The metagame is extremely healthy, with the credit going to the DCI for keeping up with the format. Their choices for what gets restricted and unrestricted have been met with universal agreement from the community.
The last restriction for a card in Vintage was in June, 2009 with Thirst for Knowledge because of Turbo Tezz taking over the format. But with it, they unrestricted Crop Rotation , Enlightened Tutor , Entomb , and Grim Monolith and the format still saw Tezz decks, but Maverick made a comeback. Since then, they've only unrestricted cards, and we've seen six to eight different decks in the top eight in every major event.
Legacy probably comes in second. Due to not having power in the format, introducing new cards has more impact on what raises the bar. Mental Misstep , for example, is absolutely broken in Legacy because there aren't any moxen to power out two-drops on turn one. True-Name Nemesis is another recent printing that has the potential to take over the format.
While it's great that new cards tend to see play right away in Legacy, the issue the format runs into is immediate bans due to how much they can warp the format. In this way, sometimes it feels like R&D doesn't take Legacy into consideration when they design cards. It's more like "If it's broken, we'll just ban it later," rather than "Maybe we should rethink the wording on this so it doesn't have such a negative impact on Legacy."
This isn't really a criticism of Legacy, just my two cents on what I feel R&D and the DCI's attitudes are for maintaining the format.
February 4, 2014 6:34 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #34
Yes, It's true that almost every blue legacy deck runs Brainstorm , almost every green deck runs Green Sun's Zenith and almost every artifact or enchantment deck runs Enlightened Tutor . And why not? When it comes to draw and search spells, there's not much sense in using an inferior one.
What the card gets you, that's important. The cards that players draw with the help of Brainstorm or search with Enlightened Tutor vary greatly from deck to deck. That's the great thing about legacy: You can use a generic card like Brainstorm or Green Sun's Zenith in countless different ways. Even if two decks both run such a generic card, they can be completely different.
February 4, 2014 6:43 p.m.
The only issue I have with any of the formats is that Modern and EDH make Wizards not want to print power creeps or "too strong" legendaries. I stopped playing standard after Innistrad's rotation because Theros hasn't printed anything strong enough that I feel like actually taking the effort to obtain. The card I have the most interest in from Theros block thus far would be Thassa, God of the Sea and Retraction Helix (I just love the way Helix works, don't know why). But the block itself hasn't brought anything that I think will stick around for modern or get replaced by something equally strong/stronger.
February 4, 2014 6:59 p.m.
I think that the EDH Rules Committee do a fantastic job of monitoring and regulating the ban list. Each of the cards on the list allow for fun and engaging game play, or if you're more competitive a serious and challenging environment.
But the best designed abs regulated by WotC is Standard. While older formats have the same song and dance for years, Standard brings new archetypes and decks with the regularity of the military.
February 4, 2014 7:16 p.m.
@Triforce-Finder and CW: Sol Ring is restricted, so you can't chain four of them together because you can only have one in your deck. The restricted list is there for a reason, which is to prevent non-interactive games decided by coinflips.
Turn one wins are much less frequent in Vintage than they are in Legacy just because of how many hate cards are in the format. Sure, you can go Island -> Mana Crypt -> Tinker -> Blightsteel Colossus on turn one...but then you get three-for-one'd by a Stingscourger .
Going for turn one kills are incredibly risky, high-risk, high-reward plays in Vintage. The Legacy turn one/two combo decks, like Belcher, don't always have to fight through Null Rod , Red Elemental Blast , Mental Misstep , etc. like the combo decks in Vintage do.
February 4, 2014 7:26 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #38
Lol, thanks for pointing out that it's restricted, I wasn't aware of that. I'm not really sure how risky turn one kills are in vintage, since I haven't played it more than three or four times, and only with borrowed decks. But I know that Legacy too has lots of bounce spells that can punish a prematurely called Blightsteel colossus. I'm a little bit confused about the four hate cards you tagged. Did you miss that those are all legacy legal or did you purposely tag legacy cards and were referring to other hate cards that are only legal in vintage?
February 4, 2014 8:20 p.m.
ChrisHansonBiomancin says... #39
I'm not well-versed enough in all formats to attempt to say which is the best designed and maintained, but I'll list some of the pros and cons of the format I am most familiar with which is Standard.
One thing I really enjoy about Standard is that the format is always evolving, with new archetypes born and destroyed as new sets are released and sets rotate out every year. Where mono Blue and Black were respectively unheard of and fringe during the Innistrad-RTR days, they became the dominant archetypes a mere month or so after Theros was released. With the release of BNG, it already appears that MUD will take a step back. Since it's a relatively slow format, many cards in each set can impact the meta and send it in a completely new direction.
Also, since it is a bit slower than other formats, home brews can be very competitive in Standard, and cards that would never see the light of day in other Constructed formats can be superstars (see: Thragtusk ), or at the very least be playable.
I hear many people both here and in real life complain about the cost of playing Standard due to the format constantly changing. To me, as long as you're somewhat adept at trading (not hard in the age of the internet), that should never be a problem. Decks tend to be relatively cheaper than in Modern and especially Legacy, so if you're the kind of person who enjoys changing decks from time to time, Standard seems like the ideal format since no deck will break the bank too bad, and due to its popularity there are always ample trade partners to help you redeem most of what you invested in a previous deck..
The biggest con of Standard would probably be the limited card pool to choose from. While it does prevent degenerative combos from happening, it also means that there is a finite number of strategies that you can pursue. However, since the bar for playability is set a bit lower, that does offset this problem a bit. Also, I somewhat agree with what others have said about the format being "forced" as Wizards promotes different mechanics. I would just add the caveat that they don't seem to choose winning archetypes but instead let players find those themselves. I think the fact that Gray Merchant of Asphodel is a freakin common is pretty good proof of this.
February 4, 2014 9:15 p.m.
iamacasual says... #40
Skulldrey the problem with unbanning Nacatl is that 3 years ago, more than half of the top 20-or-so decks at a major tournament were Zoo.
Granted, there are more options for removal now and what not, but I'm worried that UGR will be the new Jund.
February 4, 2014 9:36 p.m.
iamacasual says... #41
To answer the question, Legacy is the best designed IMO. There are something like 30 tier 1 archetypes, compared to the 5 or 6 in Modern and 3 or 4 in Standard.
And in Legacy, it doesn't matter if you're running a deck that won the latest GP--if you're up against someone who knows their deck better than you know your netdeck, you're going to lose. Not so much with Modern and even less so in Standard.
February 4, 2014 9:38 p.m.
I personally have the most fun with sealed because, unlike drafting, you keep all the cards from the packs you open, plus you don't have to compete with people trying to play the same sort of deck as you. It allows for more breathing room and you see more fun card interactions than you normally do in Standard.. Not a fan of drafting because I'm stingy and don't like opening a pack just to pass it around for a group of strangers to rummage through.
As for which format is designed the best? Since the cards are released in sets with themes, they seem more balanced than Modern where it's just a free-for-all. Most people at my local FNM skip Modern nights because the bar for entry is so high. Too many cards and decks to know about, too expensive. If you aren't playing Tron, U/R burn, or anything with green and black for Bobs and Goyfs, then you really don't have a chance. Just my personal experience from attending Modern nights at my local FNM.
February 4, 2014 9:45 p.m.
@Triforce-Finder: Legacy decks don't typically maindeck cards like Null Rod because they're dead cards in most of your matchups. In Vintage? A Null Rod can hose just about every deck in the format, especially Mishra's Workshop -based prison or control and decks relying on cheap artifact mana to power out expensive spells. You'll typically see decks run cards like Flusterstorm and Ancient Grudge in their mainboards to deal with the wide variety of broken plays available in the format.
In Legacy, a lot of these choices are sideboard cards. Wear / Tear or Stony Silence are obvious cards to leave out of your main in Legacy. In Vintage? Those are perfectly valid maindeck cards, and you'll see stuff like that crop up.
The point is that these cards are already meant to deal with the "fair" decks in the format. So not only does combo have to fight through cards like Daze , Force of Will , and Stifle like it does in Legacy, it also has to play around people maindecking Mindbreak Trap , Engineered Explosives , Flusterstorm , Grafdigger's Cage , Steel Sabotage , Red Elemental Blast , Ingot Chewer , Sphere of Resistance ...and a bazillion other silver bullets that people can play in their decks as singletons because of tutors and draw power not available in Legacy.
February 4, 2014 11:06 p.m.
Nigeltastic says... #44
Triforce-Finder To answer the second part of your reply first, while obviously Legacy has a significantly larger card base than Modern, the number of viable strategies is limited harshly by the incredible power of the decks already in the format. It is more difficult for a deck to break through in Legacy as there is such a powerful group already assembled. Also it is more costly to play Legacy than Modern, so taking the risk to innovate is potentially wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on no gain. If you are talking non-competitively, then of course, the more cards the better, but under that scope, Casual is the best, as anything can be brewed up.
To reply to your reply, I heavily disagree with your assessment of what design is, and I can only presume you do not work or study in the Engineering fields. I study Computer Science, so when I think design, I think of planning and sculpting; when I design a program or a piece of code, I don't want it to go crazy and set off into an infinite loop because I didn't think about how two functions went together! Unforeseen consequences are a sign of poor foresight and bad design.
Having a big card pool is not a design decision, that's a byproduct of time. Legacy, Modern, and Vintage have not really been designed but rather are reigned in and constrained by the banned/restricted list, and that's fine, but that's not a well designed format. To give an analogy, that is like saying a tree growing on the side of the road, one that has been maintained by roadside crews to keep it out of power lines, is better designed than a hand crafted wooden rocking chair. While one has more potential, it is not designed, it is loosely constrained; this may be more fun, but that is a matter of opinion. To say it is better designed when there has been no design whatsoever, that seems very flawed to me.
February 4, 2014 11:24 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #45
So it's the tutors that make those useful in vintage. Thanks for clearing that up, I'm really not very experienced with that format.
You'd be better off not making assumptions about my work and study. I'm not posting my profession because I don't want to garner false credit by implying a superior knowledge, but make my point through arguments alone.
In computer design, you don't have thousands of functions with similar uses. You wouldn't have "deal1Damage()" and "deal2Damage()", but a single "dealDamage( int amountOfDamage )" function. Software crashes when loops go infinite, MtG players call it a win condition. As you can see, Software Design and Game Design follow different goals in different ways.
Computer Design is different from Game Design because your main goal is functionality. Your software's inner working doesn't have to be interesting or fascinating, it only has to work. The main goal in Game Design is fun, and functionality is important, but only a part of that (even if fun is part of the word functionality). If you slim a game down like you do it with the code of a program, it becomes monotonous and predictable.
I do agree that there should be effort considering the way cards can be combined to eliminate game-breakers, but that is part of the card design, not the format design.
February 5, 2014 4:56 a.m.
aeonstoremyliver says... #46
I've skimmed through many of the well thought out comments. Excellent thus far.
The format I believe to be most thought out and maintained is Legacy with a nod to Vintage. The banned/restricted list rarely changes and the diversity of the format is quite large. I've seen budget and rogue lists do quite well in Legacy, which cannot always be said of Standard.
Legacy offers a large card pool, a healthy meta, and much more opportunity for rogue decks to be successful verses other formats (except maybe Modern...), which makes for interesting and challenging gameplay. Games are often shorter and more fast paced. Each decision is monumental and could lead to a win or loss. The same could be said of other formats, but I believe Legacy to be more so. Unfortunately, Legacy hasn't gotten the same love that Limited, Standard, and Modern has by Wizards. Vintage even less so.
The best designed format is Limited, and for good reason. Wizards sees profit by selling packs, thus a format that revolves around constructing decks around packs profits Wizards more so than other constructed formats. This has been evident from Gatecrash onward.
Because of the focus on the Limited format, Standard has been weakened, and as others have mentioned, is quite stale. Even 'junk rares' in the Scars or Zendikar block had more power and influence of the junk rares currently.
Modern is obviously Wizards pet, and they're quite interested in bringing new players in. It makes sense then to keep the format diverse and well rounded, in light of the recent un/bannings. I still think Green Sun's Zenith should be unbanned... :-)
To my knowledge, EDH tournaments are few, far, and in between. Thus a strict banned list seems unnecessary in more of a casual format. I don't play much EDH, and could be missing the mark, but I digress.
If I had unrestricted funds, I'd love to obtain many Legacy staples I lack such as Force of Will , Wasteland , duals, etc. Alongside that I'd love to obtain the Power Nine and other Vintage staples. Vintage is a format that eludes me due to the extreme cost. Interestingly enough, there are more Vintage players in Europe than in the US...
February 5, 2014 5:04 a.m.
sylvannos part of the game is luck. Variance is part of that, now does standard need some sort of manipulation, a little. But it shouldn't have Ponder , Brainstorm and the like to make it legacy lite either. Being skillful in how you mulligan is also part of the game and those better at it should have the advantage. If you can't build a consistent deck with whats available, you need to refine the deck or your skills (note this isn't an attack on you, just what I see as the facts). For the record I'm just not advocating the formats to mirror each other. Start doing that and the game gets stale.
February 5, 2014 8:50 a.m.
Modern has to be my favorite format and I think it could develop into what WOTC wants Modern to become very easily. I am quickly getting into playing EDH lots.
I can't think of any cards they banned in Standard so I doubt it really receives cannonballs from the famed "Ban Cannon" as much as any other format. So I don't view Standard as the most maintained although some could argue that it is. After all WOTC is always releasing new cards for this format and for others as well. I however do like the design of the new coming blocks and sets which have now become standard legal. Standard looks interesting I just don't think its the best.
I like modern due to the less amount of set and block restrictions. Although I am not the happiest when a card I like is banned. I also feel that I can express my combo playing creativity side there. I do want to make a Storm deck or some other type I am yet to find when I have the money. I like the challenge lastly, then again I like the challenge of just about everything.
If I had the money I would likely just build a deck that can win on your opponents upkeep just to be "HA! I JUST ONE UPPED YOUR DECK THAT TOTALLY STOMPED MINE!" However I couldn't really do that anywhere except my casual group. I think legacy would be fun to get into competitively as well as EDH.
February 5, 2014 11:16 a.m.
iamacasual says... #49
Mac97 The problem with Modern is that there are so few archetypes (no more than 6 tier 1), so if you're not running a tier 1 or 1.5 build, you really stand no chance. In Legacy, there are so many cards available that, as I mentioned before, there are around 30 tier 1 archetypes. THE DIVERSITY!
Skulldrey says... #2
I think - in a lot of ways - the Modern format fell into Wizards' lap. It's awesome. However, it is still growing and the banlist is still shaping itself. Deathrite being banned is a perfect example. Wizards wants strategies to flourish, and the B/G archetypes that dominated beforehand just got a little weaker.
As for what format is the most well-designed? The easy answer is Standard. It's where Wizards puts most of its time and money.
February 3, 2014 11:58 p.m.