New Mulligan Rule

[ReAnimator]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles...ins-2015-06-29

103.4. Each player draws a number of cards equal to his or her starting hand size, which is normally seven. (Some effects can modify a player’s starting hand size.) A player who is dissatisfied with his or her initial hand may take a mulligan. First, the starting player declares whether or not he or she will take a mulligan. Then each other player in turn order does the same. Once each player has made a declaration, all players who decided to take mulligans do so at the same time. To take a mulligan, a player shuffles his or her hand back into his or her library, then draws a new hand of one fewer cards than he or she had before. If a player kept his or her hand of cards, those cards become the player’s opening hand, and that player may not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no player takes a mulligan. (Note that if a player’s hand size reaches zero cards, that player must keep that hand.) Then, beginning with the starting player and proceeding in turn order, any player whose opening hand has fewer cards than his or her starting hand size may scry 1.

This is only for the PT for now, and then they will re-evaluate.

[Cire]

Rule isn't official YET. This rule change will be tested at PT: Origins. After that, it will be decided if they continue with it...

- Also multiple threads

[rufus]

Interesting, though I'd really prefer to see the scry happen before the re-mulligan decision.

I also wonder whether giving the player on the draw a scry 1 would help mitigate the 'on the play' advantage in a positive way.

I'm assuming this scry won't happen with leylines or Gemstone Caverns.

[H]

Interesting, though I'd really prefer to see the scry happen before the re-mulligan decision.

I also wonder whether giving the player on the draw a scry 1 would help mitigate the 'on the play' advantage in a positive way.

I'm assuming this scry won't happen with leylines or Gemstone Caverns.

I am assuming we'd get clarification if the rule starts to pertain to Eternal formats.

I'm really not sure what to think exactly about the change. At first blush though, I think it might be a good thing.

[Di]

This idea is awesome, really hope it sticks. I definitely see it help balancing a game if a player mulls into a oblivion. Everyone has been there and it sucks, so trying to level the playing field a bit and keeping the game somewhat fair is really nice.

I also assume that the scry is only applicable if a player mulligans, and doesn't take place if there's Leyline/Gemstone Cavern shenanigans involved.

[alphastryk]

This idea is awesome, really hope it sticks. I definitely see it help balancing a game if a player mulls into a oblivion. Everyone has been there and it sucks, so trying to level the playing field a bit and keeping the game somewhat fair is really nice.

I also assume that the scry is only applicable if a player mulligans, and doesn't take place if there's Leyline/Gemstone Cavern shenanigans involved.

Yep, only in effect if you start with less than 7 cards.

[danyul]

It seems like an elegant attempt at reducing variance. I like it.

[H]

I'm seeing some complaining elsewhere about this making Delver of Secrets better.

Thoughts? My initial reaction is that mulling is so detrimental to your chance of winning, that the marginal upside if you happen to have Delver in your deck and in that hand you mull to seems negligible.

[Varal]

I'm seeing some complaining elsewhere about this making Delver of Secrets better.

Thoughts? My initial reaction is that mulling is so detrimental to your chance of winning, that the marginal upside if you happen to have Delver in your deck and in that hand you mull to seems negligible.

Obviously some decks will be better with this change but combo was the first thing that came to mind and not Delver. I think this will be a great change. This will probably the number of mulligan to 6 but reduce the mulligan to 5 and 4.

[rufus]

I'm seeing some complaining elsewhere about this making Delver of Secrets better.

I don't understand. How are people casting delver before their first upkeep so that they can use the scry to improve the chance of flipping it?

[Di]

I don't understand. How are people casting delver before their first upkeep so that they can use the scry to improve the chance of flipping it?

If you mulligan and you are on the play, you scry, then play a land and Delver. #rocketscience

[iamajellydonut]

I don't understand. How are people casting delver before their first upkeep so that they can use the scry to improve the chance of flipping it?

On the play.

On a related note, how is a person on the play supposed to make use of that scry if their opening their opener relies on a fetchland?

[bruizar]

Very elegant approach! I like how they just added a card mechanic / keyword to the rules in this fashion.

[H]

On the play.

On a related note, how is a person on the play supposed to make use of that scry if their opening their opener relies on a fetchland?

Yeah, the chain of chance here is that:

You have to be on the Play.
You mull.
You have a Delver.
Plus a natural blue source.
Plus you opponent doesn't kill Delver.
Plus the the fact that you mulled to this situation doesn't cost you the game in the long run.

Seems like a solid plan...

[Lemnear]

game-machanic keyword for a pre-game action. I don't even see the need for that rule. Mulligans punish players for bad/greedy deckbuilding only

[Admiral_Arzar]

game-machanic keyword for a pre-game action. I don't even see the need for that rule. Mulligans punish players for bad/greedy deckbuilding only

You don't have to be a bad deckbuilder to open with the infamous zero-land seven.

[iamajellydonut]

Seems like a solid plan...

My question was a general one, and it was actually a serious one. The new mulligan rule is completely one-sided. And it's not your usual #legacyproblems. Even Standard is currently abusing the shit out of fetchlands and will continue doing so for a good while longer.

How is the opening player supposed to benefit from this new rule?

[Di]

Mulligans punish players for bad/greedy deckbuilding only

This has to be arguably the single most ignorant thing I have read in these forums over the last three years.

@JellyDonut's question:

They'd need to determine whether or not that draw is greater than the value of cracking the fetchland immediately. In Standard this will be of little issue given there aren't many viable turn one plays. In Legacy this will actually be an interesting dynamic.

[H]

My question was a general one, and it was actually a serious one. The new mulligan rule is completely one-sided. And it's not your usual #legacyproblems. Even Standard is currently abusing the shit out of fetchlands and will continue doing so for a good while longer.

How is the opening player supposed to benefit from this new rule?

I honestly don't understand what you mean.

One sided for who? Are you saying that the player who mulled and is on the play gets no benefit?

[MGB]

As a Stompy-deck player in Legacy, I heartily approve of this rule!

Mull to 6 card hand with Ancient Tomb -> Look at top card, it's a Chalice of the Void? Sure, i'll keep.