This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
One of the barriers to entry for the Oathbreaker format is that it is difficult to easily build new decks.
It is unlikely that any constructed format is conducive to a simple migration into Oathbreaker.
When I first heard of the format, my idea was to take one of my flagging commander decks, replace the commander and the Sol Ring, and shuffle it up.
The fact that there is a hard-enforced sixty-card limit does remove this option.
Is there a reason why the deck size couldn’t be (like most other constructed formats) “At least sixty cards, including Oathbreaker and Signature Spell?”
What is the rationale for prohibiting 100-card decks? Does it make Battle of Wits too powerful?
-
One of the challenges is having to figure out what to cut from your deck.
It helps to keep the format fast.
-
Has it been shown that running 60 cards is not the optimal deck size?
In all sanctioned constructed formats, 60 cards is commonplace because it’s the optimal minimum size. Wouldn’t decks tend towards 60 anyway?
-
from the faq:: https://oathbreakermtg.org/faq/
Why is the deck limit 60 cards?
This encourages focused deck building. It encourages themed deck-building. It forces players to make hard cuts. Wizards (usually) designs cards with a 60 card library in mind.
If you insist on playing with 100 cards, we won’t stop you. We encourage you to refer to such games as “Oathbreaker100”.
-
