here's a fun game mode i believe...
limit decks to only 1 per card....
that way, you dont get decks with 3 of (insert rare card here)
and you get more variety in the gameplay and cards being played.
just a thought...

I like the idea, but I think you might be better off making it something like only x rares per deck or both. I think it would actually be a huge advantage to the people with a lot of different rares otherwise and newer players might have a really hard time making a deck.

A lot of TCG's have a rating system for cards, such as 1 star, 4 stars, etc with stronger and rarer cards having more stars. The purpose is to limit the strength of decks. Most TCG's that use this system have versions where you can play with or without a star limit per deck.

Maybe you could make a limit of 4-5 rares and @ 6-10 uncommon.

You can make either of these with the scripting system.

Pauper and Singleton are different formats, and serve different purposes.

Restricting the numbers of Rares/Uncommons ("Pauper" or "Peasant" formats) helps even the playing ground between players with different resources. However, it doesn't prevent the building of very powerful decks, some of which can be very similar to regular competitive decks (like Sylvan Rush, or some DL variants).

Limiting decks to one of each card ("Singleton") has less to do with player resources. Here the point is crippling those dedicated decks that depend on specific cards to create unstoppable combinations. This allows decks that are more varied and less focused to thrive. Most competitive EC decks will be greatly hampered or transformed by this restriction (Think DL with just 1 Plasma, but also Sylvan Rush with just 1 of each creature - you can't make it as fast and as consistent as the rush decks we're used to seeing).

I'm not sure Pauper is really necessary in TFW, because some very good decks are really cheap to build, and don't rely on many Rares/Uncs. Pauper would be boring, because everyone would just play those decks (even I would tire of Sylvan Rush if everyone was playing it...).

Singleton, however, should make for some very interesting decks, all of which would be very different from the ones we usually play with.

yaron, the "singleton" mode was what i was thinking of.
i think it would add some more variety to games if we had that.

ok here it is: {Script,Highlander,129}

I was just thinking from a resource perspective. A newer player will be far more competitive in Pauper than singleton. If you ran Singleton tournaments, they'd be more lopsided than the current EC's.

Pauper will bring players closer together by making decks closer to the same "strength", whereas Singleton will separate players more. I know there are good commons/uncommons out there, but rarity also correlates with card strength.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Singleton would be a fun mode. More modes and options is a good thing. I was just trying to say that Singleton will probably be less competitive for newer players.

*cough*

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1548

*cough*

btw jed thanks for the Highlander, even in that version, will for sure test it asap!

I changed it so it wont even let you set an invalid deck.

GREAT job! now we only need invalid to include less than 60 cards as well =) (unless it's done already, of course)