MYTHIC CHAMPIONSHIP London new mulligan rule test in Modern & Limited

[l33twash0r]

For Mythic Championship II in London, we're going to be trying out a new mulligan rule that we have been playtesting internally for some time. We believe the new rule smooths out opening hand decisions even more, though it certainly has some implications for formats like Modern.

The rule we'll be testing in London is as such: When you mulligan for the Nth time, you draw seven cards, then put N cards on the bottom of your library in any order.

So, for example, let's say you're taking your second mulligan of a game, what we often call a mulligan to five. You would draw seven cards, select two, and place those two on the bottom of your library in any order. Then you would decide whether to keep or mulligan again.

While we have been testing this mulligan rule internally for a while, we are treating this tournament as a test. Once our game designers have reviewed the tournament, spoken to players, and looked at the data, we'll decide whether to implement the mulligan rule wider.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/competitive-gaming/mythic-championship-ii-format-and-london-test-2019-02-21

What could go wrong with that rule :tongue:

[H]

What could go wrong with that rule :tongue:

:eek:

I don't know, you still are way low on resources, but this does make A+B combo "easier" to find.

[l33twash0r]

:eek:

I don't know, you still are way low on resources, but this does make A+B combo "easier" to find.

And also Force of Will + blue card will be easier to find.

[H]

And also Force of Will + blue card will be easier to find.

Naturally. It makes finding any disruption or sideboard cards easier. Which actually is a sort of nice change.

Could be that only Standard and Limited get this new rule ultimately though.

[l33twash0r]

Naturally. It makes finding any disruption or sideboard cards easier. Which actually is a sort of nice change.

Could be that only Standard and Limited get this new rule ultimately though.

If it happens it will be for all formats. https://twitter.com/hipstersmtg/status/1098709759610507264?s=21

Also they will look at cards that potentially will be broken https://twitter.com/hipstersmtg/status/1098709424439525376?s=21

[PirateKing]

Grenzo, Dungeon Warden is the only card I can think of that is a bottom of the library matters type of effect.

I thought Scry 1 did just fine though.

[Megadeus]

If it happens it will be for all formats. https://twitter.com/hipstersmtg/status/1098709759610507264?s=21

Also they will look at cards that potentially will be broken https://twitter.com/hipstersmtg/status/1098709424439525376?s=21
Maybe instead of looking at cards that would be broken, look at the Mulligan rule to maybe being broken?

[Tylert]

What could be broken?

I've a hard time finding things that would be.
Someone mentionned Dredge in a tweet, but dredge dredges from the graveyard to put cards from the TOP of the Library in the graveyard. Maybe it would be better cause you have a higher chance of finding a dredger but i don't see it as broken.

Grenzo? Not really broken to start with :) But yes the card would be better.

Maybe combos that need a card to be specifically in the Library to function? You could Mulligan to be sure to be able to put such card in the Library if it happens to be in your hand (Nahiri / emrakul perhaps, but how would it be broken?)

Help plz.

[kinda]

What could be broken?

I've a hard time finding things that would be.
Someone mentionned Dredge in a tweet, but dredge dredges from the graveyard to put cards from the TOP of the Library in the graveyard. Maybe it would be better cause you have a higher chance of finding a dredger but i don't see it as broken.

Grenzo? Not really broken to start with :) But yes the card would be better.

Maybe combos that need a card to be specifically in the Library to function? You could Mulligan to be sure to be able to put such card in the Library if it happens to be in your hand (Nahiri / emrakul perhaps, but how would it be broken?)

Help plz.

Dredge in vintage with bazaar. Reanimator would be much more consistent. Anything that can win turn one with the right 4 cards.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Dredge in vintage with bazaar. Reanimator would be much more consistent. Anything that can win turn one with the right 4 cards.
Makes finding Leylines easier, although it is also effectively making you mulligan to N+1.

[Tylert]

So we ill see more glass cannons decks in legacy and vintage? :)
I guess this will be fine for wizard who doesn't care too much about htese formats :)

[Poron]

It’s not an impact less change.

It helps combo a lot.

[Sloshthedark]

they ignore eternal completely or just never learn that pressure towards T1 powerplays is bad, inconsistency is a key balance feature of deckbuilding and card/strategy power balance, this exchanges some fo the feelsbad moments being screwed or flooded for much more consistent T1 hyper (un)interactive feels bad... this changes the game significatly and in case of our format for the worse in G1s, T1 CotV, T1 combo, A+B combo (BR especially), everybody's favourite, more consistenct FoW, but decks with FoW do not have the initiative to mull for it unlike the T1s, and the decks that do cant defend themselves are severly disadvantaged... the answers in G2s are easier to find but so is the counterplay with pressure to win both G2/G3 .. I hope this will be a massive fail in modern so it wont get wide adopted end be reserved to limited (where it seems reasonable)

[Matsu]

We had Combo Winter.

It is time to have Combo Summer. Welcome to the new metagame :cool:

[Smuggo]

I echo others, this would be a terrible mulligan rule in Legacy as it massively boosts T1 combo stuff which would make the format very boring. The current mulligan rule is fine in Legacy.

[mistercakes]

It does help for combo decks to find their pieces, but it also allows for hate cards to be found much more easily.

I think it really helps decks that are a bit land-light find more reasonable opening hands. Mulling to 5 and losing b/c you had to keep a 1 land hand and never draw another are so painful for non-blue decks.

I think this also helps out decks like elves, which really only has 14 lands in the deck that do something on turn 1.

To me it's clearly a benefit for most decks, and more importantly reduces a lot of the opening hand variance which is probably painful to watch for streaming. (Arena)

People grumbled a lot with the introduction to Paris mulligans too, but the opening card 7 all land or no land rule sucked in hindsight.

I wouldn't be opposed to testing it.

[Dice_Box]

On the flip side, this really helps Lock style decks too. The issue with trying to get a good lock down is that you mull to 5 a ton to get that explosive first turn. Once at 5 your mana is likely to be unstable, dependent upon City and a Mox for example.

With this rule you can mull until your mana is strong and just play what you draw. Almost every spell is a must answer, Chalice, 3ball, Bridge, Stax, Karn... That you only need to find a few of them. Starting with 4 cards knowing your mana is on point is almost all you need.

Also, night night Vintage Dredge. There is no way you survive this.

[bruizar]

I doubt bazaar gets the axe. They were already over 95% hitrate. This rule merely frees up 4 spots (serum powder). if anything, dredge decks will have to fight more consistent leylines

[Fox]

Looks like it's time to pick up Cellar Door! :eek:

In all seriousness though, this rule probably isn't the healthiest thing in legacy with Ancient Tomb. Everyone's openers get better, and mulligan games become more competitive, but you're going to have to deal with a lot more TurboMoons and Chalice and opening hands with Chancellor. Increasing odds of finding openers with post-board hate also seems not exactly healthy. The losers here would be Mox Diamond decks I guess, since there's nothing great about keeping ramp in a hand with decreased card amount?

[Matsu]

I expect most of the decks will get a boost here. It will smooth a lot of hands.
Especially for combo decks.

For me the biggest negative factor is cheat/abuse deck manipulation.

We saw plenty of magic trick last couple of years, but now with all the interaction before the game starts.
Pre Paris Mull
Shuffle +7
Shuffle +6

Paris Mull
Shuffle +7
Shuffle +6 +scry 1

London Mull
Shuffle +7
Shuffle +6 + select a card + take your deck + put it under.

It starts to be very sketchy

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

I expect most of the decks will get a boost here. It will smooth a lot of hands.
Especially for combo decks.

For me the biggest negative factor is cheat/abuse deck manipulation.

We saw plenty of magic trick last couple of years, but now with all the interaction before the game starts.
Pre Paris Mull
Shuffle +7
Shuffle +6

Paris Mull
Shuffle +7
Shuffle +6 +scry 1

London Mull
Shuffle +7
Shuffle +6 + select a card + take your deck + put it under.

It starts to be very sketchy
You're allowed to put the card back in any order, so really how different is it than the current mulligan when scrying to the bottom?

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Makes finding Leylines easier, although it is also effectively making you mulligan to N+1.

This "Leylines are a mulligan" trope needs to die. If it was a dead card it wouldn't be in my deck!

On topic: The new rule means it's safer to run multiple of them, and helps legendaries.

[H]

This "Leylines are a mulligan" trope needs to die. If it was a dead card it wouldn't be in my deck!

On topic: The new rule means it's safer to run multiple of them, and helps legendaries.

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.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

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.

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?

[Hanni]

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.

[Megadeus]

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

[H]

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?

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 (http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=29748)
Vintage Challenge 2/10/19 (http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=29695)
Vintage Challenge 2/3/19 (http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=29639)

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.

[ESG]

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

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.

[Kagehisa]

Don't forget Gemstone Caverns :D

[apple713]

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.

[bruizar]

Don't forget Gemstone Caverns :D

Bought a few already. Turn 0 interaction for modern.

[Barook]

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?

[schweinefettmann]

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

[rufus]

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.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

Winner: Tunnel Vision
Loser: Spoils of the vault

[kinda]

The benefits to unplayable chunderbucket pile would be incredible :smile:!

[tescrin]

It’s not an impact less change.

It helps combo a lot.


I echo others, this would be a terrible mulligan rule in Legacy as it massively boosts T1 combo stuff which would make the format very boring. The current mulligan rule is fine in Legacy.


We had Combo Winter.

It is time to have Combo Summer. Welcome to the new metagame :cool:

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

[bruizar]

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.

[Barook]

It also gives some added strength to leylines, gemstone caverns or that new sphinx.
It would be funny if the change made Leyline Opalescence more viable.

[mistercakes]

I was hoping for more Leylines deck! :)

[morgan_coke]

It would be funny if the change made Leyline Opalescence more viable.

Leylines + Nykthos + Ancient Tomb/City of Traitors = T2 win off of Opalescence?

[mistercakes]

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.)

[tescrin]

Leylines + Nykthos + Ancient Tomb/City of Traitors = T2 win off of Opalescence?

I don't know if you've never seen the deck; but you usually use Serra's Sanctum to cast Opal

[Mr. Safety]

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.

[kombatkiwi]

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.

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

[H]

Werll, it's been pointed out that this idea isn't even really new from Wizards: The article from 2015 (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/mulligans-2015-08-07)

Here is the most relevant part:


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.

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.

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.

[Dice_Box]

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.

[tescrin]

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.

[Sloshthedark]

Everyone is talking about how it helps combo, it helps Eldrazi the most.

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

[Ronald Deuce]

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.

[Mr. Safety]

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

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.

[Dice_Box]

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 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.

[Mr. Safety]

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 agree completely. I think Chalice decks lean on mulligans a lot more than cantrip-driven combo decks.

[H]

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.

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.

[tescrin]

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?

[Dice_Box]

It's going to be tested at the end of April.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

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

Fun may be subjective, but that doesn't make it "not an argument", Mr Molyneux.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

I agree completely. I think Chalice decks lean on mulligans a lot more than cantrip-driven combo decks.

Well chalice decks usually can't run cantrips, and cantrips smooth a deck out, so yeah.

[Mr. Safety]

Well chalice decks usually can't run cantrips, and cantrips smooth a deck out, so yeah.

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?

[Dice_Box]

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.

[H]

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.

Is this really true though? Like nearly anything, we are discussing matters of degree, but consider the following "general truths."

Delver decks are better when they have a threat turn one (or very early). Death and Taxes is generally better when having Turn 1 Vial. The additional looks certainly increase the chances of this.

Are these things more or less impactfully true than Show and Tell decks having their A+B more often? That's not clear at all. Nearly every deck will benefit from this, especially in post-board games.

So, Show and Tell likely gets to "do it's thing" more often, but it's opponent does too. Now, that definitely means that if you are relying on a combo deck to fail to it's own inherent variance, you would be less likely to win on that basis, but if you run some kind of hate, you are more likely to see that hate and therefor more likely to win.

There is a chance that this makes something like Thoughtseize (or whatever 1 mana discard) better in the meta, because combo decks will likely be mulling slightly more often and so be lower on protection/redundancy, while being higher on action. That means a turn 1 discard spell would seem more likely to snag an action spell rather than just a cantrip, generally speaking.

[Dice_Box]

Is this really true though? Like nearly anything, we are discussing matters of degree, but consider the following "general truths."
Yes. Because your pairing off the idea of a midrange or Tempo decks optimal start against the plan to just kill you.

I'll make you a trade, you get a turn one Vial and a turn two Thalia. I get a turn one Ponder and a turn two SnT. Dibs on the SnT.

[H]

Yes. Because your pairing off the idea of a midrange or Tempo decks optimal start against the plan to just kill you.

I'll make you a trade, you get a turn one Vial and a turn two Thalia. I get a turn one Ponder and a turn two SnT. Dibs on the SnT.

Why would I want the Vial in that case though? Why not use my extra looks to find Karakas and/or Revoker?

Now, if you are playing Omni, that would be different, I'd be after Thalia, or Prelate, or something else from my board.

The point of my earlier post being, of course, that combo decks do get more consistent. So does every other deck. Is that consistency equal? Likely not, but that doesn't preclude the effect would not be comparable to some degree in the long term, with regards to winning matches/tournaments.

[Dice_Box]

I agree, as I said it will help everyone. But the effect is naturally unbalanced. It assists those who seek to use powerful and inconsistent effects most, then those who seek powerful and consistent effects second with everyone else gaining the lest.

As for why that order. It's because your giving something to decks that don't have it (consistency to decks without it, thus increasing their power.) then helping those already playing broken strategies that's often can defend themselves. I don't feel this helps Opps for example more than it does ANT. Opps is going to run into that first Daze/Force while ANT will still strip your hand.

After that you have the decks that are made on their own forced consistency. Decks that try and repeat the same effect many times in different cards. Those like Delver or DnT. These decks gain the lest because everything more or less already does the same job. So it's impact is nullified not because some individual cards are without impact, but because at a whole the cards are not as powerful as the other strategies that have gained a boost.

[H]

I agree, as I said it will help everyone. But the effect is naturally unbalanced. It assists those who seek to use powerful and inconsistent effects most, then those who seek powerful and consistent effects second with everyone else gaining the lest.

As for why that order. It's because your giving something to decks that don't have it (consistency to decks without it, thus increasing their power.) then helping those already playing broken strategies that's often can defend themselves. I don't feel this helps Opps for example more than it does ANT. Opps is going to run into that first Daze/Force while ANT will still strip your hand.

The issue I see with this analysis though is that it presumes that in the final telling of Thing vs. Answer, the thing will always win out, regardless of how low it is mulliganed to. Going to 5 still seems likely to lose you the game versus an opponent who kept a decent 6, if their 6 had any answers. So, in the case of countermagic versus a Show and Tell, game 2, on the play, Daze is nearly as good as Force, giving the Delver deck 8 (or more, if Spell Pierce gets involved) to look for, versus Show and Tell looking for 4 (in the case of finding Show, Sneak attack is different, because it can't be accelerate out as quick). So, on average, the Delver deck is likely to have to mull less to interact than a Show and Tell deck would need to assemble A+B. Meaning that the redundant nature of "fair" decks is still an advantage, although, slightly less of one, in a given game, with the London Mulligan.


After that you have the decks that are made on their own forced consistency. Decks that try and repeat the same effect many times in different cards. Those like Delver or DnT. These decks gain the lest because everything more or less already does the same job. So it's impact is nullified not because some individual cards are without impact, but because at a whole the cards are not as powerful as the other strategies that have gained a boost.

The utility of many flexible things is still going to pay off in the long run, because you won't need to mulligan as often, leaving you higher on raw resources on average. And then you still get the option of mulliganing to specific answers if need be. Granted, being up in cards isn't any guarantee of success in any given game, but it is in the longer set of matches, mulliganing less is more likely to equate to more wins. Unless of course your deck is literally all Grizzly Bears, in which case you'll generally lose no matter what.

Again, I don't refute that combo decks and other turn 1 decks likely get more benefit from the London Mulligan. My point is just that is likely isn't some massive jump in win percentage, if the field is generally prepared for them.

[Dice_Box]

The issue I see with this analysis though is that it presumes that in the final telling of Thing vs. Answer, the thing will always win out, regardless of how low it is mulliganed to. Going to 5 still seems likely to lose you the game versus an opponent who kept a decent 6, if their 6 had any answers.
But in the right deck it will. If I am running a deck with 3Ball, Chalice, Moon and let's say Bridge in it, I have the questions you will likely lose to if you don't have an answer. But you need an answer now to not only the first thing I play, but the second too. Because I can mull to five and have decent mana, then cast the Ball or Karn I draw.

The issue with these decks is not that they can't win this way, they are fundamentally designed to do just that, it's been that going to 4 us so punishing you lose to yourself. Now I can go to 4, ditch 3 cards and have my mana work and my threat in hand. That's a titanic shift in power. Thing vs answer, I'm taking the thing. Because that first turn, my mana works and you lose two cards? Deal. You don't lose two cards? Thanks for playing.

It doesn't matter if I mull to four if that Chalice mulls you to four too.


The utility of many flexible things is still going to pay off in the long run, because you won't need to mulligan as often, leaving you higher on raw resources on average. And then you still get the option of mulliganing to specific answers if need be.
I will give you this. I think flexibly is already a core of deck building in the decks that have that ability (Decks not trying to blunt force consistency) and this let's those struggling with the ability to play and find limited numbers of high impact effect now have access.

[H]

But in the right deck it will. If I am running a deck with 3Ball, Chalice, Moon and let's say Bridge in it, I have the questions you will likely lose to if you don't have an answer. But you need an answer now to not only the first thing I play, but the second too. Because I can mull to five and have decent mana, then cast the Ball or Karn I draw.

The issue with these decks is not that they can't win this way, they are fundamentally designed to do just that, it's been that going to 4 us so punishing you lose to yourself. Now I can go to 4, ditch 3 cards and have my mana work and my threat in hand. That's a titanic shift in power. Thing vs answer, I'm taking the thing. Because that first turn, my mana works and you lose two cards? Deal. You don't lose two cards? Thanks for playing.

It doesn't matter if I mull to four if that Chalice mulls you to four too.

Well, that stands to our general understanding of Magic as of right now, but consider, that knowledge is built in with the premise of the current mulligan rule. I doesn't mean that the same intuition, or even general rule, will be born out over time with the London Mulligan.

I have zero doubt that this rule benefits combo, or fast lock strategies. And that it benefits these strategies more than it does generally "fair" strategies.

What isn't so clear, because we've never had such a situation before where opening hands were given so many looks to find specific elements, is if it amounts to a disproportionately greater win percentage. Again, it's not a question of if these "opening hand dependent" strategies get better, it's a question of asking do they get to the point of "better to the point of degeneracy." That is, so to speak, do they become so good that they preclude the notion of bothering to not play them?

The answer to that question is unclear, again, in no small part because the rule is symmetrical in effect, even if not in practice. So we can naturally presume that versus a gold-fish, you mull with Sneak and Show until you have A+B. But versus real opponents, with decks that are (often) generally designed to be able to interact and hinder the opponent, the question of approaching things from "A+B at any cost" might not be a winning one, even if sometimes it will be.

We can't really evaluate this from the standpoint of one game example either. It's a statistical probability across multiple iterations where the result of one iteration does not mean it stands in the next, because one iteration might answer Daze but not Force, might be weak the Chalice but strong to Blood Moon, might be weak on the Draw but strong on the Play. Not to mention the accompanying metagame shifts that can and will occur. So, it's hard to give a definitive answer to the question of, does this make strategies that benefit from the new rule overly powerful?

I think, Day 1, Tournament 1, yes, fast combo and lock decks have an advantage. Day 150, Tournament Who-Know-How-Many, likely they have only a much smaller advantage. But that's why we play the games and not just talk about them. Let's see where it takes us.


I will give you this. I think flexibly is already a core of deck building in the decks that have that ability (Decks not trying to blunt force consistency) and this let's those struggling with the ability to play and find limited numbers of high impact effect now have access.

Well, again, we need to look at this from the standpoint of iterations over time. Pretty much any Magic deck can beat another in a given instance. Like the time I lost a game to a deck that literally contained nothing but functional reprints of Grizzly Bears and a few removal spells, while I had a fairly "optimal" Delver deck. Of course, to no one's surprise, Hymn to Tourach, Force of Will and Tarmogyf beat that ass in the other two games, because that is what happens over iterations: more consistent strategies win more consistently.

I actually can't help but start to think of the London Mulligan as a stealth nerf to cantrips though. Because with the new rule, consistency (over game turns) is slightly minimized and interaction windows are truncated. Now, what that might mean is that Force of Will becomes even more essential in the meta, but I don't think that is deterministically true. It will remain to be seen. We'll all probably lose a bunch more games here and there to combo (and fast lock) decks, but I doubt if any sort of apocalypse will be visited upon us.

I await being proven wrong. Or maybe not. But I seriously doubt this rule was run out there without it being essentially certain to become a new universal one. It's branded as a "test" just in case something catastrophic happens, but I don't buy that as likely to happen.

[rufus]

...
I have zero doubt that this rule benefits combo, or fast lock strategies. And that it benefits these strategies more than it does generally "fair" strategies.
...


I think it benefits "value" plays over "tempo" plays. So something like Shardless bug or modern tron that's built around x-for-1 plays should benefit more than something like burn that's trading cards for damage in a more linear way.

Thinking in terms of "threat and answer" isn't really going to show that because the value of answers scales with the value of the threats they're dealing with.

[H]

I think it benefits "value" plays over "tempo" plays. So something like Shardless bug or modern tron that's built around x-for-1 plays should benefit more than something like burn that's trading cards for damage in a more linear way.

Thinking in terms of "threat and answer" isn't really going to show that because the value of answers scales with the value of the threats they're dealing with.

That is a fair point. I guess I wonder though if there isn't a sort of "second order" effect here that does help Tempo more than it seems at first blush. For example, if the opponent mulls to 5, how many lands are they keeping? Does it mean they likely have to do something like fetch for a dual land? Does that make a Tempo deck's Wastelands better? How likely are they to be able to play around Daze, especially if the Tempo deck started Land, Delver?

If they mulled to 5 and kept 3 lands, how badly does a Force of Will wreck them, since then they just have one dead card in hand? They are just working off hoping for a likely 3 of, off a top deck.

[rufus]

That is a fair point. I guess I wonder though if there isn't a sort of "second order" effect here that does help Tempo more than it seems at first blush. ...

Sure, but I'm not really talking about tempo on a 'deck strategy' scale. I'm talking more about someone deciding whether to slot in a Baleful Strix or a Tarmogoyf in a BUG deck.

In terms of existing decks, it seems pretty clear that decks which already mulligan aggressively are the ones that are best-positioned to exploit stronger mulligans, but I don't have the impression that there's a strong correlation in mulligan rates with the aggro / combo / control archetypes.

[H]

In terms of existing decks, it seems pretty clear that decks which already mulligan aggressively are the ones that are best-positioned to exploit stronger mulligans, but I don't have the impression that there's a strong correlation in mulligan rates with the aggro / combo / control archetypes.

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You mean, in how often each archetype generally mulligans (under current rules)?

[rufus]

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. You mean, in how often each archetype generally mulligans (under current rules)?

Yep. Decks that mulligan more benefit more from better mulligans.

[H]

Yep. Decks that mulligan more benefit more from better mulligans.

OK, yeah, that is definitely true.

What isn't as clear though is the following:

How detrimental is the card disadvantage, even if you can find specific elements?

There is little doubt, that the disadvantage of sheer resources, if your opponent is a functionally a goldfish. But most Legacy decks are purposely made to not be goldfish in the early turns.

So, we are back to unclear territory again, where the overall effect is not clear, even if it is trivially true that the London Mulligan benefits combo-style, opening hand "dependent," decks more so prima facie. We don't know how often a Delver deck might often London Mull versus a Combo deck London Mulling. My guess is "likely less" and therefor "more" likely to win, but that depends on numerous factors, not the least of which is 'number of relevant sideboard cards' and 'relative impact of said cards.'

[bruizar]

I think combo decks generally want a lot of cards in hands because it improves their brainstorms and thus the ability to sculpt their hands. Aggressive mulligans for combo decks will presumably end up being worst even with the london mulligan, then not mulliganing

[Zombie]

Elves will like London mulls for sure. They have a low initial source count, but tons of raw CA and high impact plays to dig themselves out of a hole. One of the worst parts of the deck is that it doesn't mulligan well.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

I think combo decks generally want a lot of cards in hands because it improves their brainstorms and thus the ability to sculpt their hands. Aggressive mulligans for combo decks will presumably end up being worst even with the london mulligan, then not mulliganing

If they like brainstorm, a draw seven brainstorm is probably something else they'd like. Of course it's worse than not mulliganing but no one is saying draw seven keep seven is worse than draw seven keep six.

[H]

Brian Braun-Duin's perspective. (http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=15154&writer=Brian+Braun-Duin&articledate=2-28-2019)


Frank Karsten wrote an article a few years ago (https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/magic-math-mulligans/), back when the data was still available, that took in bot-scraped games from Magic Online and, accounting for the Vancouver scry, determined that you had a 40% chance to win on six cards, 25-28% chance to win on five, and 13-15% chance to win on four cards. Saffron Olive also posted numbers from 85,000 games that provided similar results of 39%, 26% and 13%.

I personally think those numbers are lower than what they should be in a perfect world. Opening a hand and seeing no land immediately reduces your chance to win by 20%. Opening a second hand and seeing no land then immediately reduces your chances by another 30%. You're half as likely to win with five cards as you are on seven, barring any other information.


If this new system makes it so that a mulligan to six cards means you have a 45% chance to win, and a mulligan to five cards means you have a 35% chance to win, is that so bad? It doesn't seem bad to me. In fact it seems like a big improvement. I'm all for anything that reduces “non-games” and increases the chance that every game played involves both players having a chance.


But what if it ends up being way better than that? What if it makes certain decks too good? What if formats drastically shift toward decks that can better take advantage of this rule and the improved six- and five-card hands they would see?

Keep in mind though, those number are compiled with the old rules and so each successive mulligan gave one "less looks."


The easiest implication for this rule change is that decks that mulligan more often get a boost because they now will have access to better hands on six, five, and four cards. This means decks like Tron that often get clunky hands will be improved, as will various combo strategies like Dredge and other degeneracy.

That's level one. Level two is that decks that punish opposing decks for mulliganing will also get significantly better. So while your Tron opponent might be smug in the knowledge that their five-card hand can assemble Tron on turn three, your deck that casts Thoughtseize on turn one and strips them of the only relevant card in their hand can also be fairly pleased that they now have significantly fewer resources to work with. This benefits highly interactive decks like Grixis Death's Shadow.


The first is that mulligans are still a disadvantage. Even if this new rule improves your odds of winning on a mulligan, chances are you're still worse off than just by keeping seven cards. If going to five cards is now something that gives you, say, 35% chance to win instead of 25%, that's still way worse than keeping seven cards, and decks that more consistently keep seven cards will have a leg up in this regard, as they always have.

People greatly underestimate the value of raw resources. Sure, your five-card hand might be the “nuts,” but if your opponent plays two interactive spells, then you're completely out of gas and have no follow-up. Compare that to a seven-card hand where you might still have more plays to make afterward. Your four-card hand of Mountain, Simian Spirit Guide, Electrodominance, Restore Balance sounds like liquid-hot fire, but what if your opponent just casts Thoughtseize or wins the topdeck war? What if you can't find that combination of cards by your mull to four and you throw away the match because you're playing an incredibly inconsistent and easily disrupted combo deck?


It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and this rule change ends up being too good. I don't think I am, but I'm open to the idea. With that being said, I think the willingness to try out a rule like this is amazing. I love the fact that they are willing to take a big risk, because the current Vancouver scry simply isn't doing nearly enough in my book, and I love to see them push the envelope and see if they can't find something that more effectively balances out games of Magic and makes a higher percentage of games fun.

The biggest point to me, and the one where most people objecting to this lose me, is that I don't see the harm in trying. I don't see a problem with them trying out a new change that has the potential to be awesome, even if it carries some risk. While it is possible that it will be a rough Mythic Championship if this rule doesn't pan out, that will affect about 400 people, which is a small drop in the pond when it comes to Magic. I can understand people playing in that event, especially those playing in their first Premier Event, being upset about this. But I don't understand people who aren't affected being upset about something that might make Magic significantly better in the long run.


I also think that it will work out. I think that this rule will be fine and at the end of the day, decks that punish people trying to abuse this rule unsuccessfully will end up coming out on top over the decks that try to abuse it. Being down on resources, after all, is still a huge price to pay. Modern, year after year, has proven itself to be a format that can adapt to new emerging strategies and find ways to exploit them. I doubt decks that aren't already good will suddenly become good from this.

I think Brian makes some good points (and not just because they mostly agree with my own evaluation of things) but I do think he somewhat misleadingly construes the nature of Thing vs. Answer. That is, we already know, that almost always, it's better to do the Thing, rather than try to stop people doing the Thing. (The "biggest" example of this was the Affinity heydays, where you could build a deck to stop Affinity, but at the end of day, it was just better to play Affinity yourself.)

Ross Merriam mentioned this yesterday in SCG's stream (where he and Todd were playing some Legacy practice). What I think Ross gets further right though is that this is only first order analysis, so it would only explain things if the metagame was a fixed proposition. If we take what Patrick Chapin generally called "Next Level" analysis, where we build not into the meta shift itself, but to counter the shift itself, we can consider things beyond the second order effect. So, if those Thing decks are get an edge on Answer decks, where does the meta go? More Answers in Answer decks likely swings the pendulum, and so what then does the meta do against Answer decks? Now we have the third order effect as our metagame.

If anyone thinks they know what the third order effect will be, they are delusional. You can have a guess, you can have a hypothesis, you can have an informed, analytical analysis, but no one knows. It is nearly impossible to predict exactly the second order effect, let alone the third. Not to even speak of the fourth and so on.

[Ronald Deuce]

I found BBD's article to be insightful, but I think he's seriously underestimating the power of A+B combos and almost totally disregarding opening-hand effects. Chancellor of the Annex is going to become phenomenally stupid in T1 combo decks (EDIT: as will Leyline of the Void against things that care about it). If he thought losing the die roll was bad already...

[schweinefettmann]

I think at the end of the day, it’s a good mulligan rule for lower power formats, and possibly format warping for higher power formats.

Deck construction for say standard wouldn’t change; but it’d warp deck construction for legacy and vintage. If I were on delver, I’d drop down to maybe even 17, 16 lands, drop some number of cantrips and go more disruption heavy. Mulligan rules shouldn’t warp the game of magic, I think.

But this Is all conjecture. We’ll see what actually happens before at least I’ll go up in arms about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kinda]

I found BBD's article to be insightful, but I think he's seriously underestimating the power of A+B combos and almost totally disregarding opening-hand effects. Chancellor of the Annex is going to become phenomenally stupid in T1 combo decks (EDIT: as will Leyline of the Void against things that care about it). If he thought losing the die roll was bad already...

Yup agree 100%, buy into unplayable chunderbucket pile now or you'll be sorry once this rule is in effect :cool:.

[Watersaw]

Ya know, I was in a panic over this at first but now? Screw it, l'm in. What's the worst that could happen? New meta becomes Belcher and Storm vs. Chancellor and Leyline vs. Trinisphere? This actually sounds hilarious tbh. And if it somehow doesn't degenerate immediately into turn one wombo-combo then it sounds like a win.

[Ronald Deuce]

Ya know, I was in a panic over this at first but now? Screw it, l'm in. What's the worst that could happen? New meta becomes Belcher and Storm vs. Chancellor and Leyline vs. Trinisphere? This actually sounds hilarious tbh. And if it somehow doesn't degenerate immediately into turn one wombo-combo then it sounds like a win.

Seeing as I play all of those things except Trinisphere, I'd probably have a field day, too. And for once I'd be able to call a shot.

Seriously, why is nobody else playing Sphinx of Better-Than-Gitaxian-Probe?

[Barook]

Frank Karsten wrote an article with numbers regarding the new London mulligan (https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-london-mulligan-rule-mathematically-benefits-strategies-that-rely-on-specific-cards/?_ga=2.34278050.2043650259.1552539273-1383732903.1512614613)

Definitely worth a read.

[H]

Frank Karsten wrote an article with numbers regarding the new London mulligan (https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-london-mulligan-rule-mathematically-benefits-strategies-that-rely-on-specific-cards/?_ga=2.34278050.2043650259.1552539273-1383732903.1512614613)

Definitely worth a read.

Well, I think this analysis is pretty solid. Not much to argue about with the numbers. On the basis of what the "first order" effects are and how they enumerate out, I think he is likely right on. Combo decks certainly gain more so than "fair" decks and lower land counts are plausible.

What is still unknown though, of course, is the resultant "second order" effects. To use a relatively simplistic scenario, let us say that decks do cut 1-2 lands or more as a result of the new rule. Now, in Modern, there aren't many ways for decks to punish this, because land-destruction comes at such a high price (even if that RG deck with Stone Rains does OK sometimes). However, in Legacy, we have a general prevalence of Wastelands already, plus things like Port and Thalia. These things already do punish decks for lower land counts and reliance on cantrips, so what effect would people pushing harder in that direction mean for these cards in the meta? And if that means "larger presence" what does to mean for the direction of the meta?

The second order effects are not knowable, mainly because we can't know the full extent of the practical implications of the first order effects let alone what the meta will do in response. There could well be a new "static" level of combo decks that is both higher and not oppressive. What Frank's article does is very nicely describe, numerically, how aggressive mulliganing can benefit certain strategies. What it does not do, and importantly, does not purport to do is speak of how well that will lead to actually winning games, or even correlate to winning games. It doesn't take much to figure that a better chance to "do your thing" likely means more wins, but the issue at hand is not gold-fishing, it is actual competative games of Magic, which means there is always an opponent on the other side of the table with a deck trying to do it's thing, which may well be to specifically hinder you from doing yours.

So, hypermetric geometry can tell us that taking a mull to 4 gives you a significantly higher change to hit A+B, but it does not tell us if aggressively mulliganing to 4 is a good strategy to win games over time. Again, because the meta may evolve to play "higher" levels of disruption, and aggressively going to 4 might be significantly worse if many decks are running things along the lines of 8 targeted discard spells and/or other disruption. In fact, it could be the case that mulling to 4 is so detrimental to your chances of winning versus anyone except a gold-fish that you likely would only ever do it out of sheer necessity (for example you really are in a gold-fish scenario, like fast, non-disruptive combo vs. fast, non-disruptive combo).

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

So, hypermetric geometry can tell us that taking a mull to 4 gives you a significantly higher change to hit A+B, but it does not tell us if aggressively mulliganing to 4 is a good strategy to win games over time.

Except that is what it's saying because the deck has already defined winning as having A+B.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Except that is what it's saying because the deck has already defined winning as having A+B.
It's "Having A + B while navigating through or around your opponent's interaction".

That's usually what you are hoping cards 5, 6, and 7 help with.

[H]

Except that is what it's saying because the deck has already defined winning as having A+B.


It's "Having A + B while navigating through or around your opponent's interaction".

That's usually what you are hoping cards 5, 6, and 7 help with.

Right, again, this is why I qualify my statement, later in that paragraph, with the comment about cases where you are essentially goldfishing. I am not saying these situations don't happen, I am making the point that such games are relatively "rare" in Legacy. Most common Legacy decks are made to generally push some sort of interaction/disruption.

Even in the case of a combo deck going to 4 and a "fair" deck keeping 7, something as simple as Thoughseize or Force of Will can absolutely wreck the combo deck, which will then be at the mercy of the top of the deck, where the "fair" deck likely has 3-5 more "action" cards, or cantrips, at hand.

[taconaut]

Yeah, all the hand-wringing about the new mulligan is substantially overwrought.

People aren't going to be throwing away keepable sevens because their six might be the nuts, and going to five is still going to suck. Hopefully, it'll suck marginally less than it currently does, because at least with the London mulligan you might have a couple lands and a couple spells, instead of no lands or all lands and having to keep it because mulling to four (and let's be honest, even 5) is basically just conceding with extra steps a huge portion of the time.

[FourDogsinaHorseSuit]

It's "Having A + B while navigating through or around your opponent's interaction".

Nope!

[PirateKing]

It's not the end of Magic or anything, but there exists feelbad moments when a Burn player keeps an above average 7 and is watched his opponent mull from 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 and then sigh and say sure, then proceeds to Tomb Petal Show Emrakul. Those already happen and suck, but they're uncommon. The Burn player who has build his deck as a paragon for consistency wins in the long run because godhands do exist, but that's just how uniform distribution works. And all this is for those players is they gain practically nothing, and get to watch their opponents reap uncommon wins.

Every breakdown has been accurate, this change shifts the nature of the mulligan a few degrees. In Standard you take a few steps out, the line hasn't moved any. In Modern a few yards out, sure, the drift is a couple inches, noticeable but whatever. By the time our out to Vintage distances, you're miles from where you once were.

But as always different≠worse

[H]

Yeah, all the hand-wringing about the new mulligan is substantially overwrought.

People aren't going to be throwing away keepable sevens because their six might be the nuts, and going to five is still going to suck. Hopefully, it'll suck marginally less than it currently does, because at least with the London mulligan you might have a couple lands and a couple spells, instead of no lands or all lands and having to keep it because mulling to four (and let's be honest, even 5) is basically just conceding with extra steps a huge portion of the time.

Well, I think Frank shows that, mathematically speaking, mulliganing now does it need suck significantly less from the standpoint of "find a hand that can play a somewhat meaningful game of Magic" but indeed the qualitative analysis of translating that to actual win percentages is not really determinate and so can't really be computed in a simple probabilistic manner.

So, said simplistically, we can think of it in the follow manner: the London Mulligan gives you a significantly higher chance to find a functional hand and functional hands will have a significant higher chance of winning a game of Magic than do non-fuctional hands. So, therefore, it seems that clearly the London Mulligan should result in more wins. So, A leads to B and B leads to C, therefor A leads to C.

However, this sort of propositional logic does not accurately describe what goes on in many game of Magic. While it seems determinate that A would lead to C, that is A to C in isolation. The confounding factor is that, one, lower resources (cards in hand) leads to lower probability of winning. So, "functional hand" is really not a sufficient criteria to presuppose you win, when "functional hand" comes at a cost of resources. So, what any of these probabilistic models lack is accounting for the detrimental effect that lower resources can have on actually winning.

In Frank's example, you want A+B plus 2 lands. But in these cases, perhaps the combo costs 3 mana. So, now you need to factor in the chance of blind top deck, plus the confounding factor of any possible disruption the opponent may have.

Let's use something like, Sneak and Show vs some kind Grixis Delver, for example:
SnS aggressively mulls to Fetch, Ancient Tomb, Show and Tell, G-man.
Delver keeps Fetch, Wasteland, Daze, Delver.
(Note, I am not a mathematician, but both these hands seem roughly equally probabilistic to me.)

In any case, on the play or the draw, and excluding confounding top-decks (because that will enter in many different factors) are we really to say that the Delver deck is in terrible position? In fact, the Show and Tell player, while in a position to possibly win the game, if that Delver flips (probable) there is a good deal of pressure at hand. If they don't play Tomb and miss the land-drop, they are more playing directly to Daze, if they play the Tomb and get it Wastelanded, that also helps Daze's case. In either way, the Delver deck is not in terrible position.

We can complicate this freely if we consider Delver's range of "keepable" hands by adding even something like 1 mana discard spells from the sideboard (or perhaps some where in the main), in addition to Daze (I won't complicate it by considering Force). In this case, Land (19/60), Wasteland (4/60), Disputation (8/60) and Delver (4/60), will lead to some greater chance of finding a keepable hand in each successive mulligan, which means they likely need to mull less for a fuctional, disruptive hand. Where the SnS deck needs exactly Show and Tell in this case, since Sneak Attack needs even more mana to work (and so is more open to the Wasteland being even better). This might (again, I'm not a mathematician) lead to, over time, fair decks flatly need to mull less over time.

So, all I am trying to illustrate is that while this rule no doubt favors combo decks in general, that does not mean that "fair" decks will stand no chance. In fact, it's even plausible they will stand a better chance over time, because they can keep hands with higher potential resources that are still functional, because disruptive elements are more "universal" than specific discrete combo pieces.

All of this is to essentially say that considering just A+B as a flat win though is likely not a good indicator of how actual games of Magic will play out.

[rufus]

...
So, all I am trying to illustrate is that while this rule no doubt favors combo decks in general, that does not mean that "fair" decks will stand no chance. In fact, it's even plausible they will stand a better chance over time, because they can keep hands with higher potential resources that are still functional, because disruptive elements are more "universal" than specific discrete combo pieces.
...


When you talk about "delver" decks, are you talking about the "delver" archetype, or about "decks that run delver?" I really don't think that the delver archetype - which tends not to run wasteland - is well-positioned to make gains due to the changes.

[H]

When you talk about "delver" decks, are you talking about the "delver" archetype, or about "decks that run delver?" I really don't think that the delver archetype - which tends not to run wasteland - is well-positioned to make gains due to the changes.

Huh? Is it not a fact that most Delver decks run Wasteland? Which do not? All i can think of is UR Delver. Am I missing something here?

And, on your final point, my illustration above is only to point out that "fair" decks aren't necessarily at a vast disadvantage as a matter of fact under the London Mulligan, not specifically that Delver decks get explicitly better.

[bruizar]

Frank Karsten wrote an article with numbers regarding the new London mulligan (https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-london-mulligan-rule-mathematically-benefits-strategies-that-rely-on-specific-cards/?_ga=2.34278050.2043650259.1552539273-1383732903.1512614613)

Definitely worth a read.

I agree with everything except his analysis that bazaar should be restricted. That would be the most non-sensical thing to do, akin to banning brainstorm in legacy. He kind of botched the numbers in his analysis because he assumes that Nature's Claim is the only card you would need to draw. However, vintage dredge plays 5 sideboard manasources so it is a 3 card combo (bazaar+mana source+nature's claim), and then the numbers come out very much in favor of Leyline.

[H]

I agree with everything except his analysis that bazaar should be restricted. That would be the most non-sensical thing to do, akin to banning brainstorm in legacy. He kind of botched the numbers in his analysis because he assumes that Nature's Claim is the only card you would need to draw. However, vintage dredge plays 5 sideboard manasources so it is a 3 card combo (bazaar+mana source+nature's claim), and then the numbers come out very much in favor of Leyline.

Not to mention, the Leyline deck needs to not do anything else as well. Leyline + Misstep and any action could well be the game right there. Or Leyline + Sphere/Thorn/Trini.

As I mention above, the issue at hand is that this level of analysis is not really incorrect in it's evaluation, it's just incomplete.