A deck like Grixis Control has ~25 instants and sorceries of which ~8 are counters, so only 18 of your 60 cards (30%) profitably trigger Kefnet. By contrast, you’ll almost always have a spell in your graveyard. It’s gonna take some effort to get more value out of this than you get from Kess. So if you have to spend cards like Brainstorm or Mystical to make Kefnet good, wouldn’t you rather play a card that’s good on its own?
If anyone is curious, the odds of failing to finding a 4-of in a 60 card deck with 6 mulligans (as 7 mulligans serves no point) is (1-0.40)^6 = 4.7%
You get seven shots at finding the Bazaar (keeping 7 cards, keeping 6, …, keeping 1), so the probability of failing to find it under the new rule is (1-.4)⁷ = 2.8%. I don’t know exactly how Serum Powders will work under the new rules, but if you just exile seven, I don’t think main deck Dredge hate will be good enough.
I simulated 1000000 games for each option (old/new rule, with/without Serum Powder). These are the percentages of getting T1 Bazaar:
Old rule without Powders: 86.6%
Old rule with Powders: 94.1%
New rule without Powders: 97.2%
New rule with Powders (exiling 7): 99.6%
Just curious but how much would this increase odds of Mox/crypt/lotus + Orchard + Oath turn 1? They are all 4+ ofs, can anyone do the math?
Assuming 4 Orchard, 4 Oath and 7 Mox/Lotus/Crypt and assuming you mulligan until you have T1 Oath, roughly 32% compared to 15% under the existing mulligan rule.
WotC seem to be wasting a lot of reprint equity with this set, and I’m wondering why they have decided they need to do so now, in the last quarter of the fiscal year. None of the reasons I can think of say particularly good things about the current health of the game.
I've been reading discussions on recent restrictions, Paradoxical Outcome, Workshop, etc. There has been a lot of talk on whether restricting, semi-restricting or unrestricting some cards would promote or kill a diverse meta.
What I don't see amidst all this discussion, although I think could be helpful for promoting a diverse and healthy meta, is a consideration of semi-semi-restricting cards, in addition to full restrictions and semi-restrictions. A semi-semi-restricted card would be allowed as a three-of or less in a deck.
Full semi-restriction is a bit extreme compared to non-restriction. There is quite a bit of difference in a card's influence over deck construction between when it is a 4-of and when it is a 2-of. When a deck has 4 of a certain card, that card has structural influence over the deck. When a deck has 2 of a certain card, that card does not have much of an influence over the structure and feel of the deck. Some of the semi-restricted cards, although powerful enough to break the game consistently when unrestricted, become just another card that might be useful to draw once in a while when semi-restricted. The decks that were centered around such cards when they were unrestricted become largely useless when they are semi-restricted.
Jokes aside, I don’t want the DCI to have to solve the metagame for us. If a card is problematic, they don’t have to figure out if it would maybe be fine as a two-of or three-of. Either the metagame can handle a card, in which case it’s allowed as a four-of, or it can’t, in which case is restricted. No micromanagement necessary.