So basically it's a slight nerf to fetches? Thx WotC.
I'm really not keen on the whole is Delver broken or not debate. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe this rule makes it over the top broken, I don't know and I don't do math, so someone else can figure out the probabilities as to how often it will be relevant. All I said was that it requires a fairly long chain of chances.
I mean, if feels unfair when a lot of things happen, like I get turn 1 stormed, or turn 1 Chaliced turn 2 Chaliced, Punishing Fire locked, CounterTop locked, etc, etc. Turn 1 Delver naturally flipped is just another thing and to me, even less oppressive than the others. If my opponent has Magical Christmas Land mulligan hand on the play, well, shit, next game. Shit, I've had Magic Christmas Land mulligan hands too (4 cards on the draw versus Reanimator) if my opponent gets one, good for him or her.
I like the idea of at least some mitigation of variance. If it gets Delver banned, whatever, I play enough different decks that I don't care.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Or. . . conversely a boost to non-fetch lands .
Additionally, probably not in legacy, but the scry does give out some player information that could be used against them. For example - thought scour, if you are on the draw, and the opponent mulliganed and decided to keep it, you know they need or want the card on top. Getting rid of it could be an apt move. Again, I doubt that it will be a tactic used in legacy, but this does boost mill cards. Obviously you still want mill cards that are useful, such as the aforementioned thought scour (for delve through time), but now they have another purpose, they didn't before.
I give this change a thumbs-up. The change regarding board organization I'm less thrilled about, but I don't anticipate being on camera often at Professional REL while playing something weird like Dredge.
Check out my Legacy UBTezz Primer. Chalice of the Void: Keeping Magic Fair.
-----
Playing since '96. Brief forced break '02-04. Former/Idle Judge since '05. Told Smmenen to play faster at Vintage Worlds.
-----
Most of the 'Ban brainstorm!' arguments are based on the logic that 'more different cards should get played in Legacy', as though the success or health of the format can be measured by the portion of cards that are available and see play. This is an idiotic metric.
Really? I see a lot of dredge players grow their graveyard horizontally behind their lands. I even did the same with Aggro Loam. According to the article "nothing can be behind lands", but I guess we'll have to see how that plays out in official wording and practice. Maybe nothing on the battlefield can be behind lands? Maybe they don't care because it really doesn't apply to Standard or Modern without graveyard order being important.
Personally I think they should just design a big table or playmat to use for video coverage, and have labeled zones. At least we're starting to see some movement on the sucky, inaccessible coverage aspect of the game.
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
I don't think it benefits delver decks any more than it benefits everyone else. Would Storm love a free a scry after having lost a card to a mull? Hell yes. Would a deck like maverick or D&T that doesn't get to play 12 blue card manipulation spells to smooth everything out love to scry after being forced to keep a shacky 1-2 land hand? Yup! Would miracles love to prevent itself from drawing that awkward turn 1 entreat miracle? You bet.
(Not directed at just finn) Everytime ANYTHING changes in magic legacy players always throw a fit, but honestly this sounds like a pretty awesome change and will make games more fun and skill based.
Me too, not that I'll ever be on the coverage but I'm there's no way they touch my lands...
...the major problem of Mtg viewership is how inatractive it is, people don't understand what's going on unless they know Mtg rules and the format, and even if they think they do, they very likely don't... this can be hardly changed
It only really effects the top tables at the Pro Tour or at Worlds.
Seriously, that change will only effect about .0001% of the users on this site while every single new player to the game watching the pro level coverage will benefit by having an easier time understanding what is already a really complex game. New players are good for magic, regardless of what format you play or where you put your lands/creatures.
That's gonna make mulliganing a lot more time investing. Double the decisions to make at each mulligan.
I can appreciate the idea of the new rule but believe it is poorly contrived.
Lengthy analysis incoming...
1) On the surface the new rule appears the same as one free mulligan. If no players mulligan, you see 7 cards on the play and 8 cards on the draw on your respective turn 1. With one mulligan, you still see 7 cards on the play and can see up to 8 on the draw. Starting with the second mulligan, the number of cards you can see matches the first mulligan under current rules. This is a great counter to purely variance based awful draws, but eliminates one punishment for greedy deck building (however, this itself could be construed as a positive as it technically opens more design space). Additionally, it changes the metric for what are great/good/ok/keepable hands. A free mulligan immediately reduces the category that previous hands fell into as you may actually do better than good/great hands with a mulligan (I personally see no reason to ever stay with just a keepable or even ok hand again, call me greedy). Again, introducing a new level of complexity as some players like myself may become more likely to throw perfectly good hands away to do better, which could come back to bite us.
2) This is where things start to really fall apart. Other recent rule changes and game design make it clear that Wizards is trying to make the game more accommodating to new players, and it looks like this change was intended to be in that vein. But, the reality is the new rule favors better players. Any time you add decisions to a game, the better player is favored. Under existing rules, 1 less card in hand vs. 1 less card in hand (both players mull) is an even event regardless of skill level (disregarding hand and matchup analysis/understanding). But when you're seeing 1.5 cards via scrying, the better player will make better choices and effect the outcome of the game before it even begins. This is the biggest flaw to me, as they are testing the new rules at a PT, with high level players where you will see minimal effect in this regard. But, go to FNM and I bet you will see less experienced players accumulate even more losses in the long run. It's because of this point that point (1) is actually more significant than 1 free mulligan.
As eternal players, most of us would consider ourselves better than many, and probably would prefer the rule based on this analysis. But considering the game as a whole and from Wizards perspective, I think it'll be more detrimental than beneficial.
I think the rule could be improved in any of the following ways:
- Amend the rule for Limited (variance is higher, and specific deck knowledge does not exist), but maintain current rules for Constructed.
- Don't add the scry effect until you mulligan to 5 or lower. Games with 6 are very winnable, and it eliminates most complexities of point (1).
- The simplest, least confounding way of doing it would be "you get one free mulligan". This makes the most sense to me...
id like to see scry X, where X is the number of mulligans you took. also it would be fair to draw 8 cards on the draw and skip your first draw phase.
Got tired of Legacy and you like drafts? Try my Paupercube What?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)