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.

Variance is a critical lifeblood for card games, as demonstrated by the commander companion mechanic debacle, as a key lesson that mtg r&d has known but occasionally forgets. But not only at casual levels but many levels, mtg can definitely have too much starting hand quality variance that starts to reduce fun. Tournament mulligan rules and mtg arena starting hand sampling algorithms point to this.

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.

> I personally suspect that aggro would completely dominate a separate land deck meta if pushed hard enough.

Agreed, I probably should have listed it first.

Even in the short term, look at when Arena ran their Treasure events where each upkeep that player would get a treasure token. By the end of the first day the event was dominated by “mono red” decks with 13 land and free splashes.

Fwiw, the amount of cards we have to play with is pretty limited to a few starter sets so very specialized decks don't really happen. I got rid of all of my cards from the 90s (still kicking myself there).

It's more that it keeps the game fun as he's just getting into it. You're guaranteed that both players are going to have playable draws.

For any setting with more advanced players there would definitely be side effects and a more polished set of rules in place for those special cards and circumstances.

It is actually the opposite. If you choose your pile then low cost decks are better because you can choose to spend fewer draws on land. Expensive cards are better if you get a draw from each pile each turn.

I did not order the list of effects by importance or impact, I ordered them by what came to mind while I was typing.

I touched on low to the ground aggro decks in the very next paragraph, and I agree that's probably the biggest issue.

However aggro decks becoming more powerful does not mean control decks cannot also become more powerful. Decks aren't a one dimensional plot of aggro to control with midrange in the middle. (though to be fair I did say "on the other end of the spectrum" in my initial post)

When I say higher mana value cards are more playable, I mean in the sense that they can be cast "on curve" much more often, because if you want to cast a 7 drop on turn 7 without ramp you can choose do so, while with a normal deck you might expect to hit 7 mana between turns 8 and 11. (Not a hard calc, just a gut check)

If you have to answer your opponents' threats 1-1 early you can refill with answers, and if you get ahead with 2-1s or 3-1s you can keep drawing land to play your expensive threat on curve.