What I like is that it makes the game, in theory, more playable, in the sense that it should increase the chances of a "meaningful" game. It also increases the impact of sideboard cards without changing their number, as you point out.
While I don't like combo decks, not playing them or playing against them, I think this change would be a net-benefit for the game of Magic as whole. Bazaar in Vintage aside (because that is a "one card combo") while this increases your chance of assembling A+B, you are still critically low on resources. Which means, if you opponent takes advantage of the same mulligan rule to assemble their A+B (A being the means to cast and B being sideboard hate card), the paradigm should still be largely the same.
While there is a chance to 'skimp' on things, taking advantage of the additional 'looks' from this rule, is that really going to, over time, lead to more wins than running more robust numbers? If it is true that being down some number of cards is a disadvantage, then I think the answer must be no.
Might this rule offer occasional advantage to a combo deck? Yes. Will this mean combo decks become disproportionately powerful in the meta? I am highly skeptical of that.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
I think this is more of a problem with vintage as a whole, because of their reserved list. When you can only run one copy of a card, and we accept the amazing power of restricted cards any rule that allows you to more consistently have your one-ofs is going to make your deck better. I think as far as vintage is concerned running t0 interaction is now mandatory. I don't play vintage, but I know there's mono-brown decks. Was it mandatory before?
This definitely benefits combo decks that can go off with a low amount of resources the most, like Reanimator and Show and Tell.
However, this also means fair decks will very rarely have to mulligan more than once. Fair decks, especially ones that require a critical mass like Burn, will benefit a lot as well. Does making combo better nullify the gains here? I suppose that would depend upon how the metagame would adapt.
I think cards that can single handedly take over a game Like Blood Moon or Ensnaring Bridge really gain some percentage. I don't think it's a good change, but we'll see what happens
You mean Restricted List. But, I've been out of the Vintage loop for a bit, because I still have all my stuff, but no one around here plays.
T0 was never mandatory, because answers don't need to be proactive to work effectively. The idea that you lose immediately to something like Dredge is vastly overblown.
For example:
Vintage Challenge 2/17/19
Vintage Challenge 2/10/19
Vintage Challenge 2/3/19
Does T0 interaction have merit? Sure. Can you win without it? Sure.
Is it better to have it than not? Unclear.
However, banking on a particular Restricted cards to have your deck work is generally a bad idea over time. It might be less so with the new rule, but probably not vastly so.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Yeah, I agree with this. This change would make Turn 1 Chalice much more likely. Since the logic against Chalice decks has historically been that they aren't consistent enough to be good choices at big/long tournaments, this would be a new era. I'm not saying this would be a bad change, but it seems like an unnecessary change, and I say that as someone who plays almost exclusively Chalice decks now.
Don't forget Gemstone Caverns :D
I'm an avid combo player. This is a really good change for decks that dont need the added consistency and really bad change for the format overall.
Decks like stacks who are super powerful but super inconsistent need the balance. Giving them more power at no cost is really bad. Not saying stax i going to take over the format but its not a healthy change because it disrupts the balance...like giving delver to blue...wtf wizards, yes im still complaining.
I know why wizards did what they did. It's because they cater to standard and modern players and those formats probably won't be able to abuse the rule as much as the eternal formats so its a non issue there, there is only upside. It does lead to more meaningful games because players can get reasonable hands consistently.
Who knows tho, Maybe the decks that are already consistent won't really be able to benefit from this rule. No one with a decent hand wants to mulligan it away and take a chance at a worse hand.
I dont find myself mulligaining that often. However, when I do it's usually a HUGE disadvantage. Maybe this will actually close the disadvantage gap.
Play 4 Card Blind!
Currently Playing
Legacy: Dark Depths
EDH: 5-Color Hermit Druid
Currently Brewing: [Deck] Sadistic Sacrament / Chalice NO Eldrazi
why cards are so expensive...hoarders
I'm not really a fan of this. Combo, especially A+B combo like Show and Tell, might be the biggest winner from that change. But we'll see if the sky is going to fall or not.
Between this mulligan rule and Sphinx of Foresight, how much consistency would Faerie Stompy get if that mulligan is here to stay?
I was thinking more like belcher, where you can go off on like 4 cards..
But combo is gonna be a lot more playable, especially those t1 combos like Spanish Inquisition even
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Legacy decks: mono U painter, strawberry shortcake, imperial painter, solidarity, burn
EDH decks: zedruu voltron, rakdos the defiler, persistent petitioners, blind seer
I wonder if there are any A+B hate piles like (Chancellor of the Spires/Archive Trap) + (Extirpate/Surgical Extraction) that make sense with the new mulligan.
Dredge is the canonical example of a deck that breaks traditional card economy, but there's other stuff like "pitch long", or decks that use Past In Flames or Ill-Gotten Gains that will too.
Winner: Tunnel Vision
Loser: Spoils of the vault
I just don't see it. They have a better chance of finding what they need, but midrange/delver has a better chance of finding Force, Leyline, Surgical, or w/e; and potentially multiples of it. Additionally it means less games where Fair decks mulling for hate end up with 0 lands or some such.
If they find their Moon more often but I find my Force more often, it seems to cancel out; but we'll be more likely to find enough lands to at least play the game. I hate when I or the opponent mull to nothing because RNG god decided we shouldn't find any lands in the first 3 hands.
I'd also point out that if this becomes the new norm; I would expect non-combo decks (and maybe combo?) to shave a land or so from basically all decklists; as you'll be more likely to get an opener with sufficient lands and mulligan to hands with sufficient lands. That's somewhat exciting really; because that means more gas/less dead draws (by a marginal percentage) for all decks. This seems all upside to me.
Lastly, and most importantly, it adds more meaningful choice to the game. The player is making more decisions and thus you lose less to RNG.
EDIT: I'd also mention that this probably "feels better" and if it messes with the meta-game that seems like a smaller deal (a less noticable problem) than people pointing out the same flaw the game has had for 25 years and it still feeling terrible. Much easier to keep "happy" players in the game
I like this change. A move into the right direction imo. More t1 blood moons means less ridiculous greedy mana bases. More t1 force of wills against combo. And it's inconsequential for bazaar because that was already at an over 94% hit rate. It actually hurts bazaar incredibly hard as it's much easier to hit leyline of the void now. It also gives some added strength to leylines, gemstone caverns or that new sphinx.
I was hoping for more Leylines deck! :)
-rob
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)