leylines can win turn 1, but you need 5 leylines + opalescence + sanctum. (the leylines were in play before the game starts, so no summoning sickness.)
-rob
I don't know if you've never seen the deck; but you usually use Serra's Sanctum to cast Opal
I was talking shop at the local on Friday about this experiment (legacy players.) They are wary of the change, myself included. Seeing a full 7 again every time you mulligan gets very close to Serum Powder without having to waste slots in your deck. As it stands now if you mull to 6 you see 7 cards again, but each mulligan after that sees 1 card fewer.
So these are my thoughts on this experiment:
1) It seems tailor-made for reducing variance in limited formats, which in my experience have a ton of variance.
2) It signals that efficient dig spells will eventually become non-existent in new sets, as in not even something as good as Opt. Cantrips will become 2 mana at least, making card draw/library manipulation cost 2+ from here on out.
3) It won't extend to eternal formats (Modern, Legacy, Vintage) because those formats have better cantrips/library manipulation available. You have to build around it in the more powerful formats.
Just some thoughts/opinions. I honestly think they are trying to reduce variance in standard, making a level playing field moving forward so they don't have to even address the issue of non-blue deck manipulation. The other colors don't get it, and neither does blue. Everybody gets a mulligan rule that allows for lower variance.
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
I think this whole post ignores the fact that even under the new rule nobody actually *wants* to mulligan; you're making it sound like taking a London mull is like getting a free Preordain or something which is obviously way off
It just means that decks that already did mulligan a lot now get punished for it way less, which seems bad to me, because that alleviates a big handicap of the consistency of stupid turn 1 decks in eternal formats
Werll, it's been pointed out that this idea isn't even really new from Wizards: The article from 2015
Here is the most relevant part:
So, what's different now? I think the only real answer to be had, of course, is Arena. I think the aim is to make the mulligan process "feel" less "harsh" especially for newer players. What about the effect Constructed they cited above? Well, I think it's now, given the focus on Arena, it is seen as an acceptable side effect. We've already seen Oracle texted update on the fly for Arena consideration (Ajani's Pridemate) and I think this is no where near the last of what we will see by way of changes to the game with Arena "optimization" in mind.7-7-7 (Shuffle x Back)
This was attempting to do something similar to the scry mulligan we used at Pro Tour Magic Origins, but in a way that was more powerful. Basically, each time you mulligan you draw up to seven, but get rid of cards that you can't use (down to the appropriate smaller hand size per mulligan), thereby increasing the chances that you will have a reasonable hand.
What we liked: This seemed pretty close to right power level for Limited, but had some problems. You generally ended up shuffling your most expensive card back, but if it wasn't obvious, then the decision on which to shuffle back was pretty hard—and made this take a lot longer than a regular mulligan.
What we didn't like: This mulligan was way too strong in Constructed, and encouraged big changes in deck building. Perhaps the most notable thing was in Modern and Eternal formats, where sideboard hate got a lot stronger since you could shuffle extra copies back into your decks. Similarly, combo decks got a huge advantage since they could mulligan away possibly useless cards. In one of our biggest rules violations for changing the mulligan rule, it clearly changed the parameters for deck building, and would have a profound impact on how older formats played out.
There is going to be much pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth in Legacy and Vintage, but honestly, I'm actually looking forward to it. While I hate losing to Combo decks, I hate mulliganing even more. My hunch is that, specifically for Legacy, the card pool is so large, the "answers" to most things so robust that the symmetrical nature of this rule doesn't end up "breaking" anything.
What I think is likely to happen is that Combo decks gain in game 1 win percentage. Games 2 and 3, other decks likely win more if they are prepared, lose more if they are not. So, I think the overall effect is most probably a slight boost to combo, which hardly seems like the end of the world. It is going to change how we build, it is going to change the role of combo, and it will change the dynamics of the current metagame. But nothing precludes that different is specifically detrimental. In fact, it's plausible that the change might even be a better play experience overall.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
I agree. I don't want to assume anything, I doubt to many people who come here are stupid, but fuck does this help Stax and other such decks. Your focusing on the wrong thing.
Everyone is talking about how it helps combo, it helps Eldrazi the most.
I'd probably agree.
I like that they notice (even with limited testing) that it would probably change deckbuilding. I already pointed out that Fair decks would probably shave a land and combo decks would *maybe* shave a mana source. Fact is it rewards riskier deckbuilding; and Stompy decks are just that.
First of all helps the most "unfun" (=no game, "fun" is subjective and not an argument) deck building/play patterns which result highly compressed games, while I think the general consensus is this should be possible but not encouraged or predominant (and this doesnt mean you're locked/dead T1 - see DRS) and majority of the games should actually played = mid-long
I'm inclined to think the new mulligan rule will/would most help decks that rely on A+B plays. Chalice and double-land, Force and blue card, Show and Tell and big dude, or whatever else (just not Probe and Therapy—we can't have that!) will gain tremendously, so I think decks that rely most heavily on those plays will get much, much stronger. I also think decks that don't rely on those plays will take a proportionate hit. There's also the fact that postboard sideboard hate will be infinitely more accessible.
All in all, probably the last thing this format needs.
Last edited by Ronald Deuce; 02-25-2019 at 06:47 PM.
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
I agree. I wasn't deliberately ignoring this, I just assumed everyone would understand that a good 7 was obviously better than any mulligan. I was taking liberties, assuming the overall John/Jane Q. Source-member wouldn't need to be told that. I also brought up Serum Powder, and I again assumed that most folks would 'connect the dots' surrounding decks where mulligans are part of the deck's fundamental efficacy. That's why I compared it to Serum Powder.
I wasn't clear enough, on the other hand, about cantrips. I'm not comparing mullgans to cantrips or saying they are 'as good as a t1 preordain'. I'm saying Wotc might stop printing good cantrips because they aren't needed for standard anymore with a level field of everyone having the same mulligan opportunities. One of the most powerful things cantrips can do is allow mulligans to hurt less. With the new mulligan rule Wotc could take the opportunity to remove cantrips from the design of new sets. Library manipulation and/or draw spells have always been, at least in my opinion, the hardest thing to design appropriately without them getting out of hand.
EDIT: Maybe you were referring to point 3 where I mentioned it won't extend to eternal formats? I admit that is pretty close to comparing the new mulligan to a 'free' cantrip. I wasn't intending that, but that is definitely inferred. I didn't explain that the new mulligan rule alongside the cantrips is probably too strong for eternal formats, especially Legacy where 4x Brainstorm is legal.
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
I have been playing Lands online for about a week now, almost every time I go up against Reanimator or Storm the game is over in a flash. The mid-long games have mostly been Mono red doing nothing while I look for moon removal. Game two often is me looking for my hate and then the other guy digging for answers.
On the flip side I go up against Eldrazi and the guy quits. He sees Gamble and quits.
Welcome to Legacy, if your not having fun, well, your never going to. I miss the mid 2000s as well but that meta is dead.
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
Indeed, it certainly helps any deck that is largely dependent on accelerating out lock pieces. The question that isn't at all clear though is, how does this end up placing such decks in the meta? Does it mean that Force of Will becomes more necessary?
I still think that, given the highly symmetrical nature of the rule changes, that these decks don't end up with a much higher metagame presence than they do currently.
It might just be that the following dynamic emerges: if your deck has a weakness, it's more likely to get exploited. If you have answers, you are more likely to be able to employ them. What does that do to the meta? Well, it means you likely want to be playing a deck that isn't fragile to single cards and plays multiple flexible answers. Which likely means that Grixis is still the "best deck," but that will remain to be seen.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Well, there may be a couple of other interesting caveats:
* you may be more likely to run 1-of hate cards; such as Loam or Relic or Bog since *if* you mulligan you can get rid of them in bad MUs. These cards are most often crippling when you mull and hit them.
* runs better with SFM. Taking a mull to keep natural SoFaI out of your hand may be fine (or similar) simply on the basis that you're basically already out a card.
While I don't run aggressive mulligan decks, I would definitely start changing my mulling behavior and some minor deckbuilding choices.
____________
Do we know if they're keeping it or if it's still in evaluation?
Doh! Obvious statement is obvious. Sorry about that.
So what decks actively get better with this mulligan variant? Anything with A +B or decks that need t1 lock pieces? On the flip side (pun intended), Delver variants probably like the scry rule more, right?
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
I thought that Delver would like the scry rule more, but in my experience it's rarely impactful for them more than anyone else. Other than the ability to slightly smooth out their mana.
I honestly feel this helps everyone, the new rule, the issue is how strong the inequity is felt. Decks like DnT will not gain as much as a deck like SnT. That I feel is the issue.
The decks that gain the most are the decks that either need it least or, in the case of Stax, people would be happy to see less of. While I would argue that lock decks really do need this change I understand my own personal relationship with those decks is not mirrored by everyone. I also understand that the deck I love the most, Lands, is unable to abuse this to the same extent that others can.
So while this change will help minimise variance in opening plays, that effect is seen on the back of a format already built to do that very thing. The format needs are not the same as Limited's needs however, but due to our small size we are unlikely to have any ability to effect the coming discussion.
If this change is stopped, it will be Modern, not Legacy, that causes that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)