CPA Voting Issues: Card Multiples

Discussion in 'CPA/WOTC Magic Issues' started by TomB, Dec 30, 2000.

  1. TomB Administrative Assistant

    I'll be posting this as a Voting Topic in a few weeks, so I thought I'd start a thread here to discuss it first. The question will be: Should 4 Be the Maximum Number of a Card Per Deck?, and what we're looking for here is your opinion on the 4 per deck rule, and whether the number should be increased or decreased.

    Let's talk about it! :D
  2. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Probably. I am acknowledging that there are good and bad sides to the issue, so I'll let other people post 'em.






    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .






    had you fooled for a second there


    There should be cards that are designed to be used in more than four copies or in less than four copies. There definitely should be a limit, but not necessarily just four, maybe five or six in some cases..
  3. K9Archmage He Might Be Giants

    I think that for every card, you were allowed a different amount in a deck. For example, really cheap cards should have a 3-card rule, while cards such as "mons goblin raiders" should have an infinite card rule.

    hoipa
  4. Purple_jester New Member

    Because Magic has placed values on the power of certain cards, I believe that any more than 4 cards is just asking for trouble. A 3-card rule, I can handle, being a veteran of L5R as well as Magic.

    Of course, the reason why the 4-card rule seems to be balanced here is that with a 60-card minimum in deck-building, then 4 cards would guarantee some degree of card turn-up. 3 cards only in 60-card decks would prevent most decks from revolving around a particular card.

    3-card limits would, on the other hand, increase deck diversity by forcing people to use cards with similar effects.
  5. ErinPuff Token Female

    I think the 4-card limit is reasonable. More or less would be.. too many or too few ;).. and it would be too confusing for the random scrub such as myself if each card had a different limit..
  6. Hetemti The Wide-Awake Nightmare

    Well...a three card limit wouldn't hurt...much...

    ...but I'd miss my 4 Rancors and my 4 Viashino Cuttroats...and my 4 Dragon Whelps...and my 4 Cloud o' Færies...and my 4 Snaps...
  7. Duel Has Less Posts Than Spiderman

    4 card rule is well designed. It allows SOME predictability, and redundancy, but prevents allowing you to get the same hand every time.

    BTW, we should DEFINATELY NOT make a different # for different cards. Can you imagine trying to remember them all?
  8. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Not for cards already printed, but it would be printed directly on the new cards. This would cause some confusion among people trying to build decks online or something, and errata would make it worse, I agree. It would only appear on a few cards anyway if it did.
  9. Cateran Emperor Passed On

    It's working fine right now, so don't fix what isn't broken.
  10. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Ditto Cateran Emperor.

    And furthermore...

    Under no circumstances should there be a different standard for different cards. If you want there to be, come up with your own variant to keep yourself entertained.

    Four cards is a good number for 60-card decks. If we were to go to three card limits, then we should also go to 40-card minimum decks.

    Forcing diversity by reducing the number of allowed copies of a card intrinsically increases the luck factor in the game by increasimg randomness (the main reason behind eliminating the restricted list, by the way).

    And allowing more than four copies of a card increases the probability of a deck becoming abusive, since decks would not have to rely so much on mediocre cards and search tools to make their killer decks function.
  11. Duel Has Less Posts Than Spiderman

    I dunno.... I think that more abusive decks are worth it to decrease randomness, but nonetheless, if you made 5 the limit you would A) be changing an intrinsic rule and B) make abusive dekcs moreso. IF it ain't broke, smash it and return it for a refund.
  12. Cateran Emperor Passed On

    Remember, if there are no limits, then let's go play with

    20 Black Lotus
    20 Lightning Bolt
    20 Ancestral Recall

    Or how about

    20 Black Lotus
    40 Wheel of Fortune

    It is kinda dumb when you think about it right? I'm fairly sure there was a reason in mind when they thought of only allowing 4 of a kind in a deck.
  13. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Cateran Emperor sez:
    There was, it was decks much like the ones you mentioned. It didn't take players long at all to figure out that a deck with something like...

    30 Lightning Bolt
    10 Fireball
    20 Mountain

    ...would beat the pants off of just about everything else.

    I guess they settled on four cards because they thought that would be the most fair configuration.
  14. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    duh, no limits would be bad.

    The point is "why 4?"
  15. Duel Has Less Posts Than Spiderman

    No limits deck:
    4 timetwister
    13 black lotus
    22 ancestral recalls
    21 lightning Bolts

    but 4 seems a good limit. Why not 4?
  16. Zadok001 CPA Founder, Greater Good

    (Excuse me while I act dumb and nitpick a deck that no one alive could possibly build. Duel, I'd run more than 13 Lotuses, there. Remember, when you sack a Lotus, you only get one color of mana, meaning you can't BOTH Bolt AND Recall off the same Lotus. May not seem like a big deal, but it is, since you'll sometimes stall for lack of a Lotus. Personally:

    10x Mox Sapphire
    5x Mox Ruby
    10x Black Lotus
    4x Lightning Bolt
    10x Time Twister
    20x Ancestral Recall
    5x Hurkyl's Recall

    THAT should work...)
  17. Namielus Phrexian Plaguelord

    Ok one more deck then we are all done ok?

    TIME KILLER
    20x Plateau
    20x Lightning Bolts
    20x Sharazads

    Ok... done now.

    think about it, 60 card decks, if you draw a single card you have a 6% chance of picking 1 of 4 copies of the same card, now instead draw 7 you have roughly a ~~45% chance of drawing that card. Now lets acompany for turns til used. This has been changing as of rescently with more meta game but lets say about 7 draws is what you would normally get. ~~90% chance of drawing 1 of the 4 copies of that card in your deck, so you can base a deck around a single card a draw it ~~90% of the time.

    If you change that to 3 your chances go low, very low fast, and if you you increase the numbers, the decks have little to no varitey in them, if the deck min size changed lower I could see 3 working about as well as four. More that 4 with all the different searchers etc, that would just stink to play against...
  18. Duel Has Less Posts Than Spiderman

    Difference is a turn 1 win, Namielus......

    Besides when in doubt, sac a lts for blue and recall or twister once. Then you shuold either have another lotus, or another recall or twister. Trust me. Try it out on apprentice.
  19. Apollo Bird Boy

    Namielus: I'm pretty sure it's ~39% chance when you draw 7 cards.

    To clarify: say you're talking about 4 Lightning Bolts. That 45 is the number of Lightning Bolts total you will draw in 100 games. But sometimes you will draw more than one. The chance of you having at least one Bolt in your opening hand is 39%.
  20. K9Archmage He Might Be Giants

    Ok, you've convinced me. I, too, think that the four card rule is fine. But... A FIVE card rule would be better...

    HOipa

Share This Page