| It’s good for teaching younger players who still have temper problems, but there’s only so much of the game you can experience this way. And don’t expect to get to advanced or expert strategies without the game balance falling apart. One knock on effect I’d predict is higher mana value cards would be substantially more playable. I expect a deck of walls + counterspells + removal + big finishers like the Eldrazi or even just Baneslayer Angel to be much more effective than it is now. On the other end of the spectrum super low to the ground aggro strategies also get a huge bonus by simply never having to draw a land again. Probably Storm (play a bunch of cheap spells, typically with a discount or with effects that give you mana when you cast a spell) gets a huge boost as well as they can ensure they never fizzle out. Once the engine is going they’ll always win unless they get countered. What lose out here are all the decks in the middle. The midrange, “fair” decks that are just trying to curve out with the best play each turn. And all that’s not counting the rules headache with cards like Oracle of Mul-Daya, Fact or Fiction, Treasure Hunt, or Dark Confidant. Which pile does my Maze of Ith go in? Cultivate? Sol Ring? Faceless Haven? With that said it’s also my personal opinion that variance just makes the game more enjoyable and widens the group of players you can compete against, as long as you have the emotional capacity to not take losses personally. |
I personally suspect that aggro would completely dominate a separate land deck meta if pushed hard enough. But I'm all on board for an alternative game design that invents new interesting questions to ponder, addresses a pain point of mtg design, and most of all makes it more fun for a kid.