So talking about the points system, if we have a 6k limit for example that would probably be a lot of math and/or spreadsheet work whenever you want to build a deck. Reminds me of when I played Warhammer from 2006-2009. TBH, I didn't think that system was very balanced so probably don't want to base it on that.
What if we assume a decent card is a 1? So for example,
Rampant Growth is worth 1 point. Would most green decks run it? Probably but not all. So then
Sakura-Tribe Elder might be worth 2 points, as it can be a Rampant Growth but it is easier to reuse and it can chump block for you.
Now cards that people think are garbage (like
One with Nothing) could be negative points, say -2. Cards that people don't like for example
Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite could be 4 or 5 points. Something that breaks the game could be 10-20, such as
Coalition Victory and if they really want to run
Black Lotus they can but that is also 20 or so points. Now if most everybody is running 100 point decks (cause that just seems to be symmetrical) you are going to have to run a lot of meh to crappy cards to fit that
Biorhythm into your deck, but you can. Now if you do a system where your typical deck is 6,000 points it is easier to make a difference between STE and
Wrath of God but it is also easier for people to make mistakes or just not want to go through all that.
Also, if most cards are 1 & 2s then that eliminates a lot of the "Well it should be worth 14 points cause Card X just got printed" type of bookkeeping for the vast majority of the cards. Cause let's face it, yes there are 20k unique cards now, but how many versions of
Gray Ogre are there? or The 3/1 for 1W draft chaff?
_________________
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."
J. R. R. Tolkien
Shabbaman wrote:
The usual answer is "the social contract", but I guess that is not what you are looking for. Try house rules.