Microdeck: Zoo

Oh yeah, skarrg the rage pits is a great utility land for this deck. Tap it, a green and a red to give target creature +1/+1 and trample. Also are there color restrictions based on the rares?

There are no other restrictions besides what i described.

theres no banlist and it is good for multiplayer

Yes, no mythic rares.

My first go with the format.

http://www.mtgvault.com/dainir/decks/microdeck-vampires/

i was playing a LOT of commander and yugioh when I designed the format

Question what if something was once a rare but is now a mythic

Since pauper allows uncommons as long as they were once common I'll allow mythic rares as long as it was once a rare.

Just an extension on that question. Lorwyn was when planeswalkers were introduced and at that time they were regular rares. Since then not a single planeswalker has been released as rare, even the reprints of those cards.

So are Jace, adjani, Garruk, Chandra, and Liliana allowed in their original forms?

Hmmmm, I'd prefer them in thier Lorwyn forms but if you dont have them I'd say use the originals. I only suggest when/if you post the decklist on here that you post the Lorwyn version but yeah, I've got Chandra myself, gonna make a microdeck with her in it. :D

I made another one. :)
http://www.mtgvault.com/ripshtick/decks/microdeck-ajani-hexproof/

Thanks for the input! :) Yeah, it does have a bit of a leaning towards those styles but I don't think it's a game breaker, like you said it's still fun and in my opinion having such limitations will force better deck building.

How far back does the format go? You said no ban list and commons/uncommons, can I use Counterspell? Red Elemental blast? or does it have a Modern-like sets limitation?

I'd say yes. However, keep in mind that it's supposed to be a budget format. I saw a common that's now a rare in a more recent printing that's like $22. I'm not going to ban the really expensive commons/uncommons (since the singleton thing makes it less likely to get that really powerful card) but just keep it in mind when building the decks. Not everyone working in this format will have those cards.

I understand what you're trying to do with that rule, but it doesn't work. You have to set hard and fast rules on the budget if you want people to keep their decks budget. Just include it in the format that it has to be less than say $30 or one card can't cost more than $15, or people will push the limit of what is budget to be as competitive as possible. Like for me, I don't like budget rules. Since I'm not building the deck in real life, I want to put every great card that's available in the deck and then try to break the format. You have to stop people like me, or we'll make the format less fun.

I like this guy. That being said, when these decks have all singleton cards, everybody is going to be looking for the most efficient cards and those cards tend to be expensive. See deathrite shamans. He broke modern before he got banned. So I agree about the budget thing. It is all up to you though simic. By the way congrats on the hot page feature.

For example, City of Brass was an uncommon in Arabian Nights. But although this format is intended to be budget, if it were made popular that already $60 card would be made even more valuable and sought after.

BTW here is a semi-competitive microdeck based on everybody's favorite card banned in modern. http://www.mtgvault.com/kmk888/decks/skullclamp-microdeck/. It uses your most updated rules, but is not really that budget friendly (at least compared to the ones that have been posted).

EDIT: Holy crap I forgot it was an uncommon. Need to find a new rare. Maybe Birthing Pod?

You should try a Bob microdeck. Dark confidant ftw

That was my second choice. But I've updated it with Recurring Nightmare, which ekes the most value out so far. TBH it's still all about Skullclamp.

Hmm. All good points. I'm just slightly worried about the complexity of it all, mainly for new players getting into the format, even if you do find the most fair solution.

Glad we could help.

Like how many?

In my personal opinion, poison counters are already too quick. I think keeping it at 10 would make Infect decks still viable, but not ridiculous compared to everything else.

Didn't think of that but thanks for bringing it up. I agree with Ryudhyn, besides, the rulings for poison counters is ten anyway, as my physics teacher said, the ruling of the card overrules the ruling of the actual rules. Since the card states ten poison counters then I won't change that.

Yes it would I think

I think so as well since he is allowing the lorwyn planeswalkers because they have a version that is rare. He said to post the deck with the original version, not the mythic version. (It is the comment above xynphos' comment.)

Yes, hawkblade is right

HORRAY I'M RIGHT :D

I agree with the first and the thrid

I agree with the first one and third one and with the idea of the second. Because you are starting out a 15 life, mulligan's can be sepecially damaging. Something I have thought about with this format is the fact that most of the mulligan's occur because of lack of lands, even when the hand is great. I don't know what y'all think about this but once per game at the beginning of the game starting with the turn player, they may pay two life, search out a basic land and put it on the battlefield (counting as a land drop) then next turn, any player who did so must pay one. mana or sac the land. The first suggestion of kmk888 could work, and then 1 life each subsequent 5 card mulligan. What do you guys think?

I don't know if I like that as a replacement. The problem with what you suggested is that it punishes people who try to play mill or lifegain or (probably not) Azor's Elecutors or something. Plus it gives you just as much access to resources as starting with a larger hand... with the added bonus of being abusable. People can play burn decks and only run 13-15 lands with the knowledge that they'll get another if they need it for free. No the reason I like scry or the first option is that it doesn't give you access to more resources than Simicmartin originally wanted, but allows people to sculpt their hand a little more so they won't just fail because they gambled on a keep.

I really like the third, being able to have knowledge of a 7 card hand, but only starting with 5 of them.

I think partial pairs, as with EDH, would work best for mulligan -ing.

i like the third option the most, but maybe a twist like you draw 7 but then need to put two cards on the bottom of the deck?

Or maybe even Draw 7, put two back, reshuffle.

And then Mulligan rules will be: First Mulligan, Draw 6, put one back, reshuffle. Second Mulligan, Draw 5 as normal.
This way, you can successfully mulligan twice while still keeping your 5 card hand.

rabbigta, that's even better than the third option but not necessarily too overpowered in my opinion. It does let you sculpt your hand a hell of a lot though. There's always going to be two cards you like less than the rest. The scrying doesn't actually let you change your current hand, just adapt the top of your deck to it.

Logazor, Partial Parises are pretty good when you start with 7 cards and a 100 card deck, but since you only start with 5 you would have to discard 40% of your hand to draw a card that you don't know for sure will fix the rest of the hand's problems. It also gives players a better chance of finding one specific card in their deck and keeping it around, and when there is a single rare in the deck (that could be a dark confidant or planeswalker) I don't like that ability. Since one of those cases is pretty harsh and the other isn't very fair, I actually think Partial Paris is pretty bad compared to the other options.

Ryudhyn, I like the mechanic of putting cards back and then reshuffling a little better than rabbitga's solution of putting them on the bottom, but 3 free mulligans is too much for my taste. This discussion is pretty great though!

Okay, rule suggestion: You get free mulligans however if you choose to mulligan than you must reveal a random card to each opponent for each time you mulligan. So say you mulligan twice then you must reveal two random cards to each opponent. Sound fair?

Yes it does

That means if you accept that your opponent knows what your hand looks like, you can mulligan forever... needs a cap.

Since the main problem with Mulligans will be getting enough lands, what if you had:
-Draw 5, you can free mulligan once, the rest are normal.
-After your one free mulligan, if you have 0 or 1 land, you may reveal your hand to your opponent, and then search your library for a basic land (reveal it), put it in your hand, and put one card from your hand back into your library and reshuffle.

With this, you still start with 5, and you can't just go overboard with free mulligans. Your opponent gets to see what you have, but they don't get to see what you put back in your deck, so they still don't know everything. And after that searching, you'll have 1 or 2 lands and 3-4 cards in your hand to play with.

I like that idea, if you still don't get the lands you need from the free mulligan then revealing your hand to get one and putting a card back does seem fair.

I second this. Just saying.

I just use modern cuz I like the visual ascetic better. Legacy cards are legal.

Relentless Rats' text ignores all deck restrictions, so you can have as many as you want, so long as your deck is total 40 cards (unless there becomes a restriction on the amount of uncommons, which I hope doesn't happen). Thrumming Stone can be used as your one rare, so you can use that. It will be far less reliable with only one copy of Thrumming, though.

I guess the lack of consistency makes that deck acceptable.

It's not like there aren't ways to get around it anyways. Remove the thrumming stone, use detention spheres, play boardwipes, play burn/mill