No more mana burn?

[neocronx]

So I just read from:
 http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/17214_The_Magic_Show_134_All_That_Glitters_VIDEO_ADDED.html

that mana burn as a rule may be leaving the game.

The first thing that popped into my mind was, "Wow mana drain just got it better."

While that isn't too exciting, it will be nice to not have players accidentally taking burn during their second main phase, or new players being told they just took 3, learn to play better.

I know it is now harder to kill yourself in certain situations, and my old proteus staff deck running Pulse of the Fields just got a nice shot in the arm against decks that had to mana burn to turn that card off.

But it got me thinking, mana burn has been with magic since their was magic, and with vintages card pool there has got to be other possibly relevent cards that could be affected.

I would like this to be a discussion about places this occurs and any possible combo's that might have been enabled by this possible rule change.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Now a dragon player can actually say "I create a billion mana" and if you somehow disrupt the combo or they forgot their sink for infinite mana is gone they just go "oh well" instead of having to actually count their mana exactly so they don't just kill themselves. Removing mana burn just rewards bad playing and that is just wrong. I agree it is rare that mana burn actually does something during a game but it forces the player to keep their mind on what is going on because it actually can.

[nineisnoone]

Braid of Fire
Card type: Enchantment
Casting cost: 

Cumulative upkeep-Add R to your mana pool. (At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on this permanent, then sacrifice it unless you pay its upkeep cost for each age counter on it.)

[vassago]

As much as it seems like it is a gigantic impact, I see it as slightly irrelevant for the most part.  Yeah I know that people get to be sloppy witht their plays, and you can no longer get punished for lack of attention to detail, but it isnt all that horrible. If anything, it will open up more archetypes in our beloved type1 environment, hopefully anyway.  The only thing I do not like about this is the effect that it will have on mana drain. Don't get me wrong, I love playing blue cards, especially this one, but I do think it will make this card way better.  A little lopsided at best, but no more retribution for not being able to sink the acquired mana into a top or a relevant spell like FOF or Sundering Titan. 

I guess I will have to make due with the memories of when Eledamri's VIneyard was awesome against some decks post board because it killed people. Oh how type 2 was actually fun back in the day. 

[chrissss]

mana drain eretta:

Counter target spell. Add X to your mana pool during your next main phase, where X= the spells converted casting cost. If you do not use this  mana, you will losee 1 life for each one mana not lost.

[Troy_Costisick]

mana drain eretta:

Counter target spell. Add X to your mana pool during your next main phase, where X= the spells converted casting cost. If you do not use this  mana, you will losee 1 life for each one mana not lost.

Good grief, haven't we had enough of power level errata in this format already?  If they take out damage from Mana Burn, I see no reason at all they should have to errata any card to cause damage for unspent mana.  Otherwise, we'd end up slapping it on everything from Workshop to Metalworker to Scattering Stroke.

[Nehptis]

Now-a-days, anytime there is a mention about changes to the game rules the first thing I think of is On-line Magic.  I think anything WOTC can do to simplfy the design and maintainence of their on-line product will be done as long as it doesn't significantly affect Tournament Magic.

For example, single key-wording everything like In-play to Battlefield and RFG to Exile.  These changes make everything cleaner and simplier.  Regarding mana burn, I think it's the same thing.  In regular Magic this rule is complex and doesn't have a huge impact on MOST games.  And for Magic Online it must be a thorn in the side of the programmers to deal with such a complex rule.

I'm actually hoping that their solution is to remove mana burn entirely.  I think changing it in an effort to make it simplier is a mistake.  Get rid of it!  Since, I agree that it will open up more card design space.

[wiley]

How can it open up healthy design space though?  The rule is a drawback to infinite mana engines, to huge mana producers and to horrible math skills.  Not to mention that utility of things like rishadan port and other land tapping cards would be significantly decreased as it will never be the wrong choice to float mana.

The only possible design space that I can see this opening up is the mana pool matters mechanic on Glissa Sunseeker.  Quite frankly, that sucks.

[Purple Hat]

Now-a-days, anytime there is a mention about changes to the game rules the first thing I think of is On-line Magic.  I think anything WOTC can do to simplfy the design and maintainence of their on-line product will be done as long as it doesn't significantly affect Tournament Magic.

For example, single key-wording everything like In-play to Battlefield and RFG to Exile.  These changes make everything cleaner and simplier.  Regarding mana burn, I think it's the same thing.  In regular Magic this rule is complex and doesn't have a huge impact on MOST games.  And for Magic Online it must be a thorn in the side of the programmers to deal with such a complex rule.

I'm actually hoping that their solution is to remove mana burn entirely.  I think changing it in an effort to make it simplier is a mistake.  Get rid of it!  Since, I agree that it will open up more card design space.

I don't see how people can say this is unimportant.  Tournaments get won and lost based on mana burn, either in "I have to drain that and pray I can spend the mana" situations or the more simple cumulative effect of single points of burn from using things like workshops and mana crypts that don't always allow you to produce exactly the amount of mana you wanted to. 

[Nehptis]

How can it open up healthy design space though?

Some doors will close.  Others will open.  But, as a whole I think removing the rule provides greater flexibility in design than the rule allows for today.  An article by a Designer would be the best way to know if this is true.

In regular Magic this rule is complex and doesn't have a huge impact on MOST games.

I don't see how people can say this is unimportant.  Tournaments get won and lost based on mana burn,

Notice how I used the qualifier "MOST".  Some tourneys are won and lost on the Die Roll, some on mulligans, some on pure luck, the list goes on.  But, I think that if this rumor is true then perhaps WOTC recognizes that
the rule is not that impactful and just like with card templating/border changes after a few releases, it won't be missed by the majority of players.

[LordHomerCat]

That Magic Online thing you described makes no sense to me.  There are so many things that are so much more complicated in the game (Layers in every respect, for instance) than Mana Burn.  In fact, I don't think manaburn would be a difficult concept for programming at all.  It isn't complex, it isn't variable based on anything except if Upwelling is in play.

I like mana burn, and I like what it adds to vintage.  In standard and block and even extended, it doesn't really matter because nothing adds more than 1 mana at a time so it is extremely rare.  In vintage however, manaburn comes up in more games than not between Sol Ring, Workshop, Mana Crypt, Mana Drain, Academy, and even Black Lotus.  I think it will be an inconsequential change in Standard and similar formats (and even up to Legacy for the most part) and a rather big deal to Vintage where Shop players will no longer start every game on like 17 or so and Drain players will no longer kill themselves by playing badly.

[M.Solymossy]

Shit lets just get rid of mana, and make it type 4 while we're at it.

[Purple Hat]

In regular Magic this rule is complex and doesn't have a huge impact on MOST games.

I don't see how people can say this is unimportant.  Tournaments get won and lost based on mana burn,

Notice how I used the qualifier "MOST".  Some tourneys are won and lost on the Die Roll, some on mulligans, some on pure luck, the list goes on.  But, I think that if this rumor is true then perhaps WOTC recognizes that
the rule is not that impactful and just like with card templating/border changes after a few releases, it won't be missed by the majority of players.

It comes up in almost every vintage game not involving ichorid.  That doesn't seem like an occational thing to me.  It doesn't always effect the outcome of a tournament because people can frequently overcome it, but it does come up rather frequently in the vintage environment that you either have to sink mana into something like top or you have to take at least 1 burn.  How often do you drop lotus and blow it to cast a 2 mana spell on turn 1?  Turn 1 workshop-->sphere of resistence is not an uncommon play.  It comes up a lot. 

[wiley]

How can it open up healthy design space though?

Some doors will close.  Others will open.  But, as a whole I think removing the rule provides greater flexibility in design than the rule allows for today.  An article by a Designer would be the best way to know if this is true.

I think this is wrong. 

It will close just as many, if not more doors than it opens.  Designers can practically never again make anything that could be an infinite mana engine, even if it would be a crappy one (mana echoes, umbral mantle).  You can no longer let something through that could add a large amount of mana to your pool during later turns (altar of shadows).  You can no longer print cards that double the mana production of lands (mana flare, heartbeat of spring, cloud post, urza lands).  You can no longer print cards that punish people for having lands untapped (citadel of pain, power surge).  The cards that can tap down lands become less effective (rishadan port, ice, mistblind clique, chimeric idol).  You can no longer print cards that have a positive trigger for a player have all of their lands tapped at end of turn (well of discovery, well of life).

Instead you open up design space for things that trigger based on mana production, which is forever gimped.  I challenge any designer out there to come up with a more interesting mechanic than Glissa Sunseeker's that would now be viable, fun and even close to decent with the removal of mana burn and not without.

[GrandpaBelcher]

This seems silly, and frankly, I'll be surprised if any of this (mana burn, "battlefield," "exile" etc.) is implemented. No, mana burn is not a significant part of Magic, but it is a drawback for the mismanagement of resources, which is what the game is secretly all about.  It provides just as much design space as no mana burn and leads to some in-game decisions with sources of multiple mana (crack lotus for Ancestral, hope you get something good!).  I don't understand how mana burn makes Magic so hard to learn.  It's basic math and color matching; does Magic really have to be more accessible to people who aren't capable of those things?

[Clint_NZ]

I am all for changing the names of zones (Battlefield and Exile) but removing something like mana burn seems a little OTT.

What next? Removing the rule that states you lose if you can not draw a card from your library?

Mana Burn is not that complex. As it has been said before, it is BASIC mathematics. 4-3=1 , It is not that hard.
Even a 10 year old has the capability to work that out.

I am hoping that this never comes into effect.

[sundering jerk]

This change has a huge impact on the Stax match up!

Before you sack things to smoke stack or tap them to tangle wire you might as well add the mana to your mana pool during your upkeep and then hope to draw a good instant after floating the mana, and then you wont even burn.

But if what the article says might happen below
This is a quote from the article

"

and hopefully they get rid of that confusing mana-stays-from-upkeep-to-draw-step rule.

"

if they do get rid of this ability the stax match up will get tougher because you wont even have the option of hoping to use the mana off a good draw!

Some food for thought

[Nehptis]

In standard and block and even extended, it doesn't really matter because nothing adds more than 1 mana at a time so it is extremely rare. I think it will be an inconsequential change in Standard and similar formats (and even up to Legacy for the most part)

And IF this rumor is true then those are the formats which the decision wil be based upon, not on Vintage!  Sorry folks but our beloved format is not at the forefront of the WOTC decision tree.

I don't understand how mana burn makes Magic so hard to learn.  It's basic math and color matching; does Magic really have to be more accessible to people who aren't capable of those things?

Does investing have to be more accessible to justify a dumbed down version of itself via a show like Mad Money on MSNBC?  The answer to your question and mine is an unfortunate... YES.  Market your product to the lowest common denominator!

[Purple Hat]

In standard and block and even extended, it doesn't really matter because nothing adds more than 1 mana at a time so it is extremely rare. I think it will be an inconsequential change in Standard and similar formats (and even up to Legacy for the most part)

And IF this rumor is true then those are the formats which the decision wil be based upon, not on Vintage!  Sorry folks but our beloved format is not at the forefront of the WOTC decision tree.

except the point is that mana burn has no effect on those formats one way or the other, so it's easier not to change anything, and it's detrimental to legacy and vintage.  Contrary to popular belief WOTC does care about vintage, they don't spend as much time on it, but they do care.

[Diakonov]

except the point is that mana burn has no effect on those formats one way or the other, so it's easier not to change anything, and it's detrimental to legacy and vintage.  Contrary to popular belief WOTC does care about vintage, they don't spend as much time on it, but they do care.

Well, actually, if it is something that doesn't come up very often then that is exactly their reasoning for getting rid of it.  If you are learning how to play Vintage then it is imperative that you understand mana burn, but in Standard it usually doesn't matter, so why have an annoying extra rule for situations that rarely come up?  It could throw new players off in their first tournaments if they haven't dealt with it before (because it's unusual in those formats) and make them bitter if they randomly lose to it.  I'm not taking sides on this matter, but just trying to establish their point of view.

I'm also not prepared to take sides on how this will change design freedom.  You make some compelling points Wiley, but I'm sure we could do more to explore the other side.  The real bottom line is that it used to be a situational disadvantage to tap your lands down, so cards were printed that used that as a power balance (i.e. Chimeric Idol, and other such cards you mentioned).  Now the only disadvantage will be the fact that you can't do anything on your opponent's turn.  So, theoretically they could print cards that really punish the opponent for tapping down, since they will now be more likely to do so.  "Skip untap step" effects like Stasis or Winter Orb could be toyed with, or perhaps a red instant that deals damage equal to the number of tapped lands.  Also, I would be willing to bet that the importance of mana burn when designing cards like Mana Flare was probably not even considered when the card was made, and I think if anything they would be more apt to design something like that today because it will no longer result in that reportedly annoying "burn for 1" situation that they have supposedly been trying to avoid in Standard.  All in all, though, I think it will have a pretty minor effect on design in either direction.

BTW, can't wait for my first game against a next-gen player under the new terminologies:
"When Faceless Butcher comes into play, he removes a creature from the game."
"WTF does that mean?"

[Vegeta2711]

Designers can practically never again make anything that could be an infinite mana engine, even if it would be a crappy one (mana echoes, umbral mantle).  You can no longer let something through that could add a large amount of mana to your pool during later turns (altar of shadows).  You can no longer print cards that double the mana production of lands (mana flare, heartbeat of spring, cloud post, urza lands).  You can no longer print cards that punish people for having lands untapped (citadel of pain, power surge).  The cards that can tap down lands become less effective (rishadan port, ice, mistblind clique, chimeric idol).  You can no longer print cards that have a positive trigger for a player have all of their lands tapped at end of turn (well of discovery, well of life).

This entire piece makes absolutely no sense at all.

Why can they no longer print cards that add large amounts of mana to your pool? Like half the cards you list never saw play because they were god-awful and they don't get really any better if they dump mana burn in the ocean. Stuff like Tron gets slightly better because now if you have one or two left over mana, you aren't punished for it, but that's not exactly the worst thing to ever happen.

Basically half the stuff you mention is garbage before and after this rule change and the other half wasn't very good to begin with outside of combo, with the exception of stuff like Tron lands. Like Mistbind Clique somehow gets worse? Yeah right. It's still a Time Walk attached to a 4/4.

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/15109_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Dear_Santa_Rosewater.html

7 of 10 achieved.   3 to go. 

[IthilanorStPete]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/15109_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Dear_Santa_Rosewater.html

7 of 10 achieved.   3 to go. 

I count 4 left - Sharahzhad, Grim Monolith, Fact or Fiction, Un-3.

[vassago]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/15109_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Dear_Santa_Rosewater.html

7 of 10 achieved.   3 to go. 

You actually have five to go Stephen. Grim Monolith and FOF are still restricted. Shahrazad might stay banned in type1 due to confusing issues. As for the unset, and printing more playables, these should be words to live by, especially the playables.  

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/15109_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Dear_Santa_Rosewater.html

7 of 10 achieved.   3 to go. 

I count 4 left - Sharahzhad, Grim Monolith, Fact or Fiction, Un-3.

Yep, four left.  Getting there. 

[Nehptis]

Well, I'm glad that at least one other person also sees the benefits of eleminating mana burn.  Thanks for posting that link Smmenen.

I hope this is true and not just another MTG urban legend like the 6th color (purple)!

[reaperbong]

That's all fine and dandy... 

....so when can we have Chaos Orb back?

*reminisces actually playing Chaos Orb at Tournaments*

[nineisnoone]

I think this is wrong. 

It will close just as many, if not more doors than it opens.  Designers can practically never again make anything that could be an infinite mana engine, even if it would be a crappy one (mana echoes, umbral mantle).  You can no longer let something through that could add a large amount of mana to your pool during later turns (altar of shadows).  You can no longer print cards that double the mana production of lands (mana flare, heartbeat of spring, cloud post, urza lands).  You can no longer print cards that punish people for having lands untapped (citadel of pain, power surge).  The cards that can tap down lands become less effective (rishadan port, ice, mistblind clique, chimeric idol).  You can no longer print cards that have a positive trigger for a player have all of their lands tapped at end of turn (well of discovery, well of life).

Why can't you do all of those things?  All of those things you stated are being far from broken prior to the mana burn rule.  I don't see how they suddenly become problematic card post-removal of mana burn.

My honest bet is that most of the designers don't think about mana burn at all when they create cards.

[wiley]

Why can they no longer print cards that add large amounts of mana to your pool?

Because it only promotes combo.  Wizards has publically stated multiple times that it is against making tournament viable combo decks.

Like half the cards you list never saw play because they were god-awful and they don't get really any better if they dump mana burn in the ocean. Stuff like Tron gets slightly better because now if you have one or two left over mana, you aren't punished for it, but that's not exactly the worst thing to ever happen.

Even with the reduction in set size Wizards will still design the bulk of their sets for casual play (that is 2/3 of their targeted demographics after all).  While some of these cards and design spaces don't change a large amount, some only work or are only fair when mana burn exists (citadel of pain, the wells).  That is proof of design space being taken away.  Added to that is the marginal change to other design possibilities, of which my examples were certainly not the best, that causes a lot of them to be either worse even in casual or better to the point that designers will have to tread more carefully.

My contention is not that mana burn is bad for the game, or that it is too hard to explain to new players (Seriously?  It is one sentence at the end of explaining phases, if that.), or even that old cards will get better to the point of tournament viability.  My contention is that removing mana burn does not open up more design space than it closes off or restricts as so many have claimed.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

First, it simplifies the rules. Explaining mana burn to new players is like explaining herpes to teenagers… it’s just grating. The rules of Magic are already ridiculously complex. Teaching people how to play Magic is challenging enough. One less rule that isn’t intuitive is a good thing.

At the end of each step remove all the floating mana in your mana pool and you lose 1 life for each mana removed this way. What people honestly find that rule so mindboglingly complex that they are either turned away from magic by it or take more than 2-3 games to keep it in mind?

Second, it will save time. Players who don’t want to bluff and don’t want to worry about how they tap every last little bit of mana and can just float the whole of their available mana and then play out from there. I know many players won’t do this, but for those that will, the rule will save time. And in the long run, that will save time for everyone.

So bad players doing bad things makes magic better how? You still have to count all your mana and how much your spells cost. All this does is change tapping enough mana for each spell one at a time to tapping it all at once. Do you seriously think this is going to save such enormous amounts of time that people's lives will change based on the MAYBE 2 seconds per turn this saves once every few rounds?

Third, mana burn is a stupid way to win a game. In Magic, most cards have trade-offs, either by their presence for the cost for their benefit. For instance, City of Brass trades a point of life at each tap for the advantage of being able to get whatever color you want. Taking damage from City is something you incur because you want the benefit. Taking damage from mana burn – or worse, losing a game from mana burn – is awful. Mana Burn is one of the lamest ways to lose life.

Trying to draw 45 cards off your own Stroke when your library is only 44 is a stupid way to win a game. Casting Grim Tutor at 3 life is a stupid way to win a game. Topdecking Yawgmoth's Will is a stupid way to win a game. Vintage: where stupid things happen.

You add mana to your mana pool because you want the benefit of casting spells. Not casting spells and then blaming the rules is awful. Mana burn forces magic players to actually pay attention to the game state.

Fourth, it would improve Vintage. The two primary effects, in my view, would be this: First of all, Mana Drain gets better. You won’t have to worry about taking mana burn in your second mainphase or on your next main phase if you don’t use the mana. This won’t actually change the use of Drain that much. Part of the reason to get people to play Mana Drain in their second mainphase isn’t so that they’ll take mana burn but so that they’ll be bottlenecked and have to squander their additional mana. It won’t tactically change the timing so much as just remove a silly cost to the card. The second area in which mana burn comes up is in Workshop decks that play Spheres. When a Workshop deck has turn 1 Sphere of Resistance and turn 2 Sphere, it sometimes takes mana burn there. Workshops will get slightly stronger as a result. Then there are a number of smaller benefits that add up to a lot: Lion’s Eye Diamond becomes even better. If you are tapping all of your permanents down to a Tangle Wire or sacrificing them to a Smokestack on your upkeep, there will be no reason in your upkeep not to just tap the cards for and float the mana into your draw step. It would change Vintage, but only make it better. I’ve won Vintage matches because my opponent mana burned, especially with Mana Drain which they forgot about.

Well if mana burn from Mana Drain is such a huge issue running Counterspell is always an option, and if it isn't then there is no reason to use it as a point. Oh no the best unrestricted card in the format right now has a slight drawback, GASP. Changing an entire MTG rule because one deck type in one format is annoyed by it slightly is terrible. At best Workshops keep parity because now Tangle wire is reduced from "take 2-3 Time Walks" to "for the next 2-3 turns your opponent can only play topdecked instants". I would argue letting a person rip a Gifts or a TfK off the top is much worse than getting a hand of Shop+SoR+no 0cc or 1cc and losing a whole 1 life. Not to mention Stax decks already have a light clock mana burn probably helps significantly more than it hurts. Sure some Vintage matches are won because of 1-2 life loss off mana burn. So? More matches are won because your opponent makes play mistakes so should we replace people with computers? What about bluffing, match loss? Bad deck construction, ban non-netdecks? Poor sideboarding call/transofrmational boards, force all players to use 15 specific SB cards all the time? I hardly think dumbing down the format would make it better.

I think this is wrong. 

It will close just as many, if not more doors than it opens.  Designers can practically never again make anything that could be an infinite mana engine, even if it would be a crappy one (mana echoes, umbral mantle).  You can no longer let something through that could add a large amount of mana to your pool during later turns (altar of shadows).  You can no longer print cards that double the mana production of lands (mana flare, heartbeat of spring, cloud post, urza lands).  You can no longer print cards that punish people for having lands untapped (citadel of pain, power surge).  The cards that can tap down lands become less effective (rishadan port, ice, mistblind clique, chimeric idol).  You can no longer print cards that have a positive trigger for a player have all of their lands tapped at end of turn (well of discovery, well of life).

Why can't you do all of those things?  All of those things you stated are being far from broken prior to the mana burn rule.  I don't see how they suddenly become problematic card post-removal of mana burn.

My honest bet is that most of the designers don't think about mana burn at all when they create cards.

Any card that affects lands or mana creation in any way automatically has to take mana burn into account. I would be shocked to learn that the designers of the cards we play with don't think about the game rules when creating cards...

Edit: for those who think the flavor of this rule is the problem, what about losing the game when you can't draw any more cards? I can understand drawing energy(mana) off sources and then when you hold it too long (end of step) it releases itself (emptying mana pool) as pure energy and this hurts you (mana burn) because it is not channeled into something useful. On the other hand dying (losing the game) when your library (deck) runs out of books (cards) makes no sense at all. I mean you could make the same arguments for removing that rule as well. Anything that costs you removing your own library from the game becomes better and anything that removes your opponent's library from the game gets worse.

First, it simplifies the rules. Explaining decking to new players is like explaining herpes to teenagers… it’s just grating. The rules of Magic are already ridiculously complex. Teaching people how to play Magic is challenging enough. One less rule that isn’t intuitive is a good thing.

Just as "complex" as mana burn.

Second, it will save time. Rather than having players count the amount of cards left in their library people can just draw/mill/dredge all at once and go from there. I know many players will do this, and for those that will, the rule will save time. And in the long run, that will save time for everyone.

Saves way more time than tapping lands at different times.

Third, decking is a stupid way to win a game. In Magic, most cards have trade-offs, either by their presence for the cost for their benefit. For instance, City of Brass trades a point of life at each tap for the advantage of being able to get whatever color you want. Taking damage from City is something you incur because you want the benefit. Getting decked - or worse, decking yourself - is awful. Decking is one of the lamest ways to lose the game.

I put 60 cards in my deck because I want to draw what I want more often. It is unfair that every once in a while I won't just take damage but I'll lose an entire game because somebody abuses this.

Fourth, it would improve Vintage. The two primary effects, in my view, would be this: First of all, Dredging gets better. You won’t have to worry about decking yourself by over-dredging. This won’t actually change the use of Dredging that much. Part of the reason to get people dredging conservatively is because they don't want to lose the game accidentally. It won’t tactically change the strategy so much as just remove a silly cost to the mechanic. The second area in which Decking comes up is in Workshop decks. When a Workshop deck has the game locked out but no win condition, it sometimes decks itself there. Workshops will get slightly stronger as a result. Then there are a number of smaller benefits that add up to a lot: Oath of Druids becomes even better. If you are low on cards in your deck there will be no reason to just keep on casting draw spells. It would change Vintage, but only make it better. I’ve won Vintage matches because my opponent decked, especially with combos specifically designed to abuse this rule.

Self explanatory.

Once again this is a problem common to Vintage but rare in other formats. The rule has less flavor than mana burn while a significantly larger impact in games than 1-2life every once in a long LONG while. Why was losing the game when you can no longer draw cards from your library not opposed? All of the arguments you raised are at least as good at proving this if not significantly better or more relevant. Unplayed cards like Leveler get significantly better. (unlike mana burn which creates absolutely no new playables if removed) Sure a combo deck dies but you have a whole new format where your deck size no longer matters. Removing cards in your library as a cost becomes reasonable since it only costs you the option of tutoring into things it no longer costs you the game.

You could go on and on attacking every rule like this. What about deck size as another example? All mana burn does is make people pay attention it hardly matters on a scale such as deck size and decking. Minimum deck size makes no sense from a flavor point of view, it stops people from playing what they want to play, it wastes a ton of time trying to cram the right cards and balance into a decklist, etc. What about hand size? Why can't my mage hold 8 spells? What about starting hand? Why should I start with 7 why not 15 or 4? What about mulligans? Why does it cost me a card to see a fresh starting hand? Why not 2? What about life totals? Games would be way shorter and better with 5 starting life. It would save tons of time and be a lot simpler. Just have every TO pick whatever values they want for those rules. Better yet, have the players vote at the start of each event. Then the format would be so much better. You could even toss in damage multipliers. That way spells and attacks cause NX loss of life where N is what it says on the card and X is a number people chose at the start of the event or at the start of a match. That would be so cool.