{"items": [{"author": "David", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114866247689691019800", "anchor": "gp-1342708018788", "service": "gp", "text": "Sounds like a variant on the sealed deck tournaments, which (along with booster draft) were always my favorite kind. \u00a0I was too lazy, and too cheap, to do the finely-tuned-prebuilt-deck tourneys.", "timestamp": 1342708018}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114866247689691019800", "anchor": "gp-1342708214942", "service": "gp", "text": "Also, Highlander M:tG is usually used to talk about a format where only one of each card (modulo basic lands) are allowed in a deck.", "timestamp": 1342708214}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1342708660627", "service": "gp", "text": "Huh, have I not pointed you towards \nhttp://www.infersys.com/~irilyth/play/mtg/box-o-magic.html\n before?\n
\n
\nThis could be fun. Are you actually going to try to put it together?\n
\n
\nHow many players do you think you'd need? Is four enough, or at least eight, or even more?", "timestamp": 1342708660}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1342708752619", "service": "gp", "text": "Huh, also, that page is out of date, because I totally added Coldsnap to my COALIA box. (was ALICE)", "timestamp": 1342708752}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1342709162611", "service": "gp", "text": "@David\n\u00a0Bother. \u00a0I've updated the post to link to the other variant.", "timestamp": 1342709162}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114866247689691019800", "anchor": "gp-1342709518383", "service": "gp", "text": "I \nknow\n I played a winner-takes-the-loser's-cards tournament before, too...don't remember the clever name for it, but it was booster draft, not sealed deck, so not quite the random card distribution you're looking for.", "timestamp": 1342709518}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1342709827963", "service": "gp", "text": "Names: I feel like the defining feature of this variant isn't that there can be only one, because in any tournament, there can be only one, right?\n
\n
\nI feel like the defining feature is that you get your opponent's powers when you kill them. What's the canonical example of that?\n
\n
\nZombie Magic, where you eat your opponent's brains? Nope, \nhttps://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/sf/165\n already uses that name for something else. (There's a whole bunch of variants listed there, scroll down.)", "timestamp": 1342709827}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114866247689691019800", "anchor": "gp-1342710586570", "service": "gp", "text": "Cannibal Magic? \u00a0Eat your opponent to gain his power?", "timestamp": 1342710586}, {"author": "BDan", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103775592027106438640", "anchor": "gp-1342715130938", "service": "gp", "text": "@Josh\n one of the major features of the Highlander universe is that when immortals fight the winner receives the loser's power (though it's mostly an excuse to have a lot of electrical discharge special effects every episode).\u00a0 \"There can be only one\" is the tagline, but not the salient feature here.", "timestamp": 1342715130}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1342715605842", "service": "gp", "text": "@BDan\n Aha, ok -- I think I might've seen the first movie once, a while ago, but it's been a while.", "timestamp": 1342715605}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1342716214939", "service": "gp", "text": "@David\n\u00a0I'm not too attached to random assignment vs drafting.", "timestamp": 1342716214}, {"author": "Forsythe", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=266994146738035", "anchor": "fb-266994146738035", "service": "fb", "text": "This sounds like fun. It might be advantageous to have a \"slightly better than random\" pool, i.e. start out with some random cards and also some cards that people already think are deck worthy, then make the big pool and pull from that randomly. I always feel like deck building is more fun if the percentage of \"good\" cards is high enough that you can dream up some silly combinations.", "timestamp": "1342718263"}, {"author": "Jonathan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=267005983403518", "anchor": "fb-267005983403518", "service": "fb", "text": "There was an old format called \"ante\" waaay back in the day that was a less extreme version of this. Basically, you would bet some cards on your victory, as would your opponent, and the victor took the cards. There were a few cards that even affected ante directly, forcing people to add or remove cards from the \"ante\" (searching the rules text \"ante\" on an MTG database will show you all of these). Both ideas are an expensive way to play, unless you do it entirely out of someone's personal pool of cards, and they get all the cards back at the end. That allows for the tactical and strategic innovations without being economically prohibitive.", "timestamp": "1342721476"}, {"author": "Adam Yie", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114873051319510815414", "anchor": "gp-1342725086901", "service": "gp", "text": "Essentially unrelated, but if you want to play casually anytime, you're welcome to anything in the pile of cards I've got lying around. =)", "timestamp": 1342725086}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=267087406728709", "anchor": "fb-267087406728709", "service": "fb", "text": "@Martin: I'm fine if the initial large pool is as rich as you want. The main thing is that contestants don't bring their own cards, and that you rebuild your deck between every round.", "timestamp": "1342746674"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/102416904694769227737", "anchor": "gp-1342747529621", "service": "gp", "text": "This sounds like a great idea in theory but kind of a nightmare for those of us who scramble for the entire 50 minute allotment you get to build a sealed deck ...\n
\n
\nUnless there's a 50 minute build time before each round, in which case it sounds like a nightmare for those of us who are old and like to go to bed sooner or later ;)", "timestamp": 1342747529}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1342748595502", "service": "gp", "text": "@Ruthan\n\u00a0I think you'd need substantial build time between rounds, possibly more as the rounds went on and you were looking through more additional cards. \u00a0Perhaps you choose your initial deck out of a pool of 200 cards? \u00a0Then if you have 32 players, by the final round the two contestants each have 16*200 cards to choose from.\u00a0Though time to build a deck is not linear in the number of cards, so it might not be too bad. \u00a0If you have half an hour between each round for deck building that seems like it might be good. \u00a0Not sure; haven't played that much in years and haven't built a deck in longer.", "timestamp": 1342748595}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1342749380123", "service": "gp", "text": "My intuition was to start with more like a hundred cards, and definitely not that many players... Among other things, the thirty-two player version you described would require sixty-four thousand cards to play, which seems like a lot.\n
\n
\nAnother possibility would be to do it as a round-a-week sort of thing, giving you the entire intervening week too build you're deck for the next round.", "timestamp": 1342749380}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1342750575268", "service": "gp", "text": "@Josh\n\u00a0sixty-four hundred, not sixty-four thousand.", "timestamp": 1342750575}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1342750736735", "service": "gp", "text": "Math is hard.\n
\n
\nThat's still a lot of cards...", "timestamp": 1342750736}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/102416904694769227737", "anchor": "gp-1342750878557", "service": "gp", "text": "Maybe draft is the way to go -- then: \u00a0\n
\n1. \u00a0everyone only starts with 45 cards, not counting lands\u00a0\n
\n2. \u00a0unless you get boosters from a bunch of different sets or something, there is a maximum number of different cards you can have. \u00a0\n
\n2a) \u00a0there are a maximum of (set size) number of different cards. \u00a0\n
\n2b) \u00a0finding two more of a card you are looking for in a pile of, say, 720 cards (16*45) is a lot easier than trying to figure out which ~23 out of of 720 cards would make the best deck.", "timestamp": 1342750878}, {"author": "Danner", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=267124640058319", "anchor": "fb-267124640058319", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, we'll be able to do this with my set of cards soon enough. Currently 32 built decks worth of good cards, with extra specifically for deck building. Alternate title: Borg magic. You will be assimilated.", "timestamp": "1342757713"}, {"author": "Adam Yie", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114873051319510815414", "anchor": "gp-1342799292079", "service": "gp", "text": "Also, in a nod to the fb comments, I can't decide if \n@Danner\n\u00a0's 32-decks worth of good cards terrifies me or if we just have radically different standards for \"good\".", "timestamp": 1342799292}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1342810683728", "service": "gp", "text": "I like \n@Danner\n's \"Borg Magic\" title, and it appears not to exist yet. \u00a0Retitled.", "timestamp": 1342810683}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1342811250799", "service": "gp", "text": "I haven't read the FB comments, but I personally think that it'd be fine if the initial rounds were with much rougher decks. It seems entirely reasonable to me to think that the quality of the decks will improve each round, and starting fairly low (100 cards to choose from) makes that even more visible.", "timestamp": 1342811250}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=2043928175711281", "anchor": "fb-2043928175711281", "service": "fb", "text": "Nathan Stephen", "timestamp": "1562897857"}, {"author": "Stephen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=2044799738957458", "anchor": "fb-2044799738957458", "service": "fb", "text": "That sounds pretty cool. Jeff Kaufman, this might be a great use for my EDH cube. It's (pretty much) all \"good\" cards.", "timestamp": "1562944653"}, {"author": "Stephen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=2044801322290633", "anchor": "fb-2044801322290633", "service": "fb", "text": "Danner. I forget, are your decks designed to fit a specific format/designed to play against one another?", "timestamp": "1562944721"}, {"author": "Danner", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=2044804258957006", "anchor": "fb-2044804258957006", "service": "fb", "text": "I have 22 legacy decks, and 11 EDH decks. 11 of the legacy decks are competition level, the others are rusty but are still fun to play against each other.", "timestamp": "1562944856"}, {"author": "Stephen", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=2044807028956729", "anchor": "fb-2044807028956729", "service": "fb", "text": "Whoa. Sounds super fun! Not much experience with Legacy, but I'm curious to learn more at some point.", "timestamp": "1562944986"}, {"author": "Danner", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/266949320075851?comment_id=2044813208956111", "anchor": "fb-2044813208956111", "service": "fb", "text": "It's expensive, but the decks are fun, and there's such a diverse top tier, it's astounding.
Check out the decks in the top 8 for tournament play - sooo many different strats, it's just who prepped for the meta better. https://www.mtggoldfish.com/tournaments/legacy#paper", "timestamp": "1562945291"}]}