COMMANDER/EDH BANNED LIST ANNOUNCEMENT: January 2016
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 18, 2016, 11:39 a.m. by Ender666666
Summary:
- Commander-specific mulligan rules are removed
- Rule 4 (mana generation restriction) is removed
- Prophet of Kruphix is banned
Mulligans:
We promised in the last update that, with the advent of the Vancouver Mulligan, we'd be evaluating the mulligan process in Commander. This announcement is the culmination of that research. After examining several popular options, and coming up with a few of our own, we've concluded that the Vancouver Mulligan (with the standard first-one-free in multiplayer and a scry once you go to 6 or fewer) is the best option. The RC continues to use and recommend the Gis ("Mulligan 7s to a playable hand. Don't abuse this") for trusted playgroups, but that's not something that can go in the rules.
Ultimately, the goal of mulligans in Commander is to ensure that you start the game with enough lands to be a participant. With Commander games running an hour plus, it's unfortunate if you can't play anything because you miss land drops and get run over quickly.
We didn't want to solve the problems of Magic itself - mana screw and mana flood are part of the game - and players need to make a reasonable effort with their land counts, but we wanted a mulligan rule that tried to minimize unplayable opening hands. So, we brainstormed, and ran computer simulations. And what ultimately came out was... it didn't much matter. Nothing provided a clear enough upgrade to justify having additional rules for mulligans. For example, with 37 lands, Partial Paris was "successful" (which we defined as playing a 4th land on turn 4) 89% of the time versus Multiplayer Vancouver at 86%, but it came at a cost of about a fifth of a card on average. On the whole, 86% success is a rate that seems reasonable.
If you find yourself playing 1v1 (perhaps while waiting for a friend to show up), you should still use the free multiplayer mulligan. With a deck this size, variance is high enough to make not having the free mulligan potentially punishing - without the free mulligan you drop down to about 80% success rate, which, combined with being the only opponent to focus on, leads to too many unfortunate games.
Finally, its not an official rule, but we recommend setting aside the hands you're mulliganning away until you get a keeper. That saves shuffling time, and we're all for minimizing shuffling 100-card decks.
Rule 4:
We still love Rule 4. It's a nice piece of flavor and reinforces the idea that this format goes beyond simple mechanical restrictions into a deeper philosophical approach around color and mana symbols. Its effect on the game was pretty small, but that flavor message made it worthwhile to preserve.
However, the mana system of Magic is very complicated, and trying to insert an extra rule there has consequences in the corners. Harvest Mage. Celestial Dawn. Gauntlet of Power. And now, colorless-only mana costs.
Being able to generate colorless mana more easily in Commander wasn't going to break anything. But, it represented another "gotcha" moment for players, who were now likely to learn about Rule 4 when someone exploited the colorless loophole. We could paper over it (both "mana generated from off-color sources can only pay generic costs" and "you can't pay a cost outside your color identity" were considered), but a lot of the flavor would be lost in the transition, defeating the purpose. Without the resonant flavor, Rule 4 was increasingly looking like mana burn - a rule that didn't come up enough to justify it's existence.
We don't expect removing the rule to have a big impact. Some Sunburst and Converge cards might get a bit more of a look. Sen Triplets works more like you'd expect, as does Praetor's Grasp. The clone-and-steal deck, already one of the most popular archetypes, gets better, but less than you might think. It turns out there really aren't that many impactful non-blue activated abilities on cards that commonly get stolen in Commander. It's OK if you can regenerate that creature you just stole, and you'll need to work for it a bit anyway.
One side benefit to the removal of both the color production and mulligan rules is that, in terms of game play, Commander becomes a normal game of multiplayer Magic with a higher life total and a set of additive rules to bring a new piece (your Commander) into the game. That's good streamlining in terms of teaching people the format and reducing gotcha moments while still preserving the essential flavor of Commander.
Prophet of Kruphix:
This was challenging. Prophet is not a traditionally obvious problem card for Commander, so we chose to take a conservative approach and see if casual groups could adapt. In the past, we've seen unpopular cards generate a lot of outcry, but be handled reasonably well. Powerful cards existing is OK and exploring them responsibly is an essential part of Commander.
This didn't happen with Prophet. Casual groups haven't been able to work around it and problematic play has not dropped off in hoped-for ways. Instead, the primary approach has been to steal it, clone it, run it yourself, or get run over. Ultimately, it seems the card is too perfect - it does everything U/G Commander players want to be doing and it does it in a way that makes counterplay difficult. With traditional boogeymen such as Consecrated Sphinx, you're forced to expend a lot of your mana to cast it and will have a challenge protecting it as the turn goes around the table. With Prophet, it has virtual protection built in, negating that disadvantage almost immediately.
Prophet becomes only the second multicolored card on the banlist (after the structurally-problematic Coalition Victory). It's telling just how pervasive Prophet is despite such a restriction. Yes, U/G is the most popular color combination in Commander, but we've reached the point where Prophet is driving U/G deck choice, rather than vice-versa. That's centralizing in ways we can't ignore, so it's time for Prophet to take a break.
Whenever we decide to ban a card, we take a long look at the current list to see if any cards can come off, as we believe a casual format is better served by a minimalist banlist. After extensive discussion, however, we concluded that everything on the list served a purpose, so we won't be unbanning anything. It's been two years since the last (non-consolidation) card got banned, which is an acceptable growth rate!
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18057
There seems to be some confusion about what the removal of Commander Rule #4 means, so here is some clarification.
The normal Commander rules regarding Colour Identity still apply. You may only include Spells, Artifacts, Planeswalkers, Creatures and Lands in your deck that match your commander's Colour Identity. The ONLY exception is with cards where mana symbols show up in reminder text which explain a mechanic, for example, cards with the "Extort" mechanic. Crypt Ghast is an example of a card that is purely Black, even though there is a 
symbol in the reminder text that explains how the "Extort" mechanic works.
Your commander's Colour Identity is determined by each and every COLOUR of mana symbol, printed anywhere on it (Again, with the exception of reminder text).
Cards with the mechanic of "Devoid" are colourless, but still fall under the normal rules in Commander when determining its legality for your deck. Want to play Transgress the Mind, but your commander is Green? Sorry, you can't. Transgress the Mind may be colourless, but it has a Black Colour Identity when you are determining if you can legally include it in your deck because it has 
in its casting cost.
What the removal of Commander Rule #4 means is that lands like Forbidden Orchard, Mana Confluence, City of Brass, and cards like Birds of Paradise can now legally make you mana of ANY colour (
), regardless of your Commander's Colour Identity. In the past, if something caused a mana of a colour that wasn't part of your Commander's Colour Identity to be added to your mana pool, it INSTEAD added that many 
to your mana pool.
Oh, and IS NOT A COLOUR. Got it?
So what about Command Tower? Can it create any colour of mana now? NOPE. Because of the wording on Command Tower, it will still only create 1 mana of any colour IN YOUR COMMANDER'S COLOUR IDENTITY
I hope that this helps clarify things for anyone who might be confused.
I believe you missed the part where he said you REVEAL your hand before you mulligan it JuiceboxHero. To make sure that you legitimately need a mulligan and aren't just searching for combo pieces.
January 25, 2016 12:02 a.m.
I played a full day of commander today with groups of varying size with TONS of variety an deck. Overall a great day. From 11 am to about 9pm. During that time, we tried the Vancouver Mulligan. It fucking blows. I don't know about you guys and how competitive your decks get, but this thing cannot be healthy for high-level play. It fucking sucks...
My group's overall impression is that although explosive starts happen less frequently, when they do happen, they're backbreaking. If I'm allowed to sift through some cards and eliminate the utter crap away, chances are that I'm better equipped to deal with stuff like T1 Burgeoning. The amount of value you get to generate in those situations is INSANE. Normally, I could compete with that.
With the new mulligan, I was forced to play no accelerants at all, play a T3 Dack Fayden to loot for anything playable, and then have it die. I needed to cast Yawgmoth's Will T4 just to hit a land drop and be able to recast Dack. That's single-handedly the worst Yawgmoth's Will I've ever resolved. That's desperation right there.
Luckily my friend dropped a Cataclysm that same turn cycle and we all dropped back to reasonable levels, but damn was that an awful start. I actually managed to win that game, but it was largely because I was perceived as a non-threat for long enough for me to recover.
The situation I described above was fairly common that day. In a 5 player game, you could practically guarantee that someone would end up royally creamed compared to the rest of the table.
We were all laughing about the shenanigans that went down today. My group's going to ignore the mulligan change.
January 25, 2016 12:10 a.m.
Yes the new mulligan change may be enough to get me to quit playing competitive EDH. The RC is just terrible. Again, they do stuff that nobody asked for.
January 25, 2016 1:22 a.m.
iAzire - I feel like I have to stress again that you and your playgroup aren't the only magic players. People have been calling for Prophet's ban for years. It just wasn't anyone in your small circle of players.
January 25, 2016 1:26 a.m.
JWiley129 We are talking about the mulligan change.
My opinions think about tournament play. Only tournament play is REQUIRED to play by the rules and many playgroups pick and choose what they follow. Although that isn't what we were talking about, I felt like I had to repeat myself again.
January 25, 2016 1:30 a.m.
Yep, the new mulligan rule is by far the worst thing to come out of the update. It severely harms combo decks at a competitive level, while making certain non-combo decks that were already disgustingly strong like Zur and Derevi prison that much better.
At all levels of play, it makes the likelihood of getting fucked much, much higher.
January 25, 2016 1:34 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
We've dismissed this argument already.
Although it's generally true that tournament players are more likely to follow the written rules of the format, they aren't the only ones who do so. You need to indicate why the change itself is bad rather than relying on a tangentially-related argument that presupposes that the change is bad and that only tournament players must follow it.
January 25, 2016 1:35 a.m.
Why the change is bad as been stated by many others. I personally have yet to see a positive review of the mulligan change. It makes it extremely hard to get a good starting hand. If someone gets a Godhand, it is much harder for the other players to have answers because they must keep whatever hand has a decent mana spread.
The RC states above the rules that groups are encouraged to use Houserules. I'm not stating that ONLY tournament players will follow the rules, I'm stating that only tournament players are absolutely REQUIRED to follow the rules. There is no choice.
TheDevicer and NarejED both made posts on this page stating reasons why the mulligan change is bad.
Any playgroup can choose to use any mulligan methods they desire. Tournament players have no choice.
January 25, 2016 1:50 a.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #10
Trying to differentiate the subset of groups forced to obey the rules from the larger set of groups who obey the rules is an exercise in hairsplitting. Yes, it's a (mostly) factual observation, but you aren't actually proving anything by making it. It doesn't contribute meaningfully to the discussion. The fact is that the rules should be designed such that anybody who follows them, regardless of reason, should have a fair chance at actually playing and enjoying the game. The new mulligan rule represents the disadvantaging of all players, not the specific disenfranchisement of tournament players.
As for the change itself, I stand by what I said in post #315.
The change to the mulligan rules breaks something that wasn't broken. Now, the RC said they ran computer simulations, but I think they're missing the point of mulligans. It's not always about ensuring that you hit your fourth land drop exactly on turn four. It's about making sure that you can actually make plays in the beginning of the game.
The Partial Paris mulligan was traditionally applied in two capacities:
1. To pitch nonlands in the hopes of getting lands
2. To pitch expensive or non-early game cards in the hopes of getting early game cards.
While it may be statistically true (assuming for the sake of not splitting hairs that the RC's statistics are accurate) that the Vancouver mulligan and Partial Paris mulligan are close in achieving the former, it's not at all true that they're close in achieving the latter (something the RC appears not to have considered).
In my opinion, the main benefit of the Partial Paris over the Vancouver or any other traditional mulligan is that the Partial Paris allows you to keep relevant cards and only pitch the cards you don't want. This gives you some security compared to traditional mulls. You know that you at least have something workable, and you aren't punished as heavily for taking mulligans because you do have that security. In a format that openly encourages the inclusion of big spells, that security is important.
And providing that security doesn't really conflict with the need for players to exercise good judgment in deck construction. No reasonable mulligan rule will ever abolish the need for skill and discernment in deck construction.
Commander is heavily dependent upon the early game. Even if the game isn't ending inside of five turns, the lead(s) established in the early game directly affect who is able to actually play their deck and advance their game plan. And being stuck with a dead hand that you blindly mulled into or, practically speaking, were forced to keep flies in the face of the RC's proclaimed objective of making sure everyone is able to play and have fun, and it increases the likelihood of unplayable opening hands.
January 25, 2016 2 a.m.
Megalomania says... #11
My playgroup started playing using the new mulligan rules and I think it's ok. I do miss being able to dig for combo pieces but I haven't played a game where I felt the new mulligan rule screwed me up.
I read somewhere that mulligan rules were being changed and implemented with the goal of reducing the chances of a player getting mana screwed. It does in some way work against combo oriented decks but I still think focusing on better deck construction is much healthier than getting upset over the new mulligan rule.
January 25, 2016 2:02 a.m.
I can't disagree with you. The RC broke something that wasn't broken. What I see so far is that Mono hasn't really been hit hard by the change. Mono usually doesn't need to mulligan too much unless they are looking for specific cards, ramp, answers, or combo pieces.
Three+ color decks seem to be hit the hardest. With that said some of your top tier Commanders have become even more powerful because their opponents are less likely to have answers in their opening hands. Commanders like Zur the Enchanter and Narset, Enlightened Master only need mana and to hit the field.
SPECULATION: Top tier Commanders that actually benefit from this change could become so unbelievably powerful in casual groups that they earn themselves a ban from the RC. The RC doesn't factor how well a deck is constructed in casual groups to determine whether a card deserves a ban. The ability to respond has been significantly nerfed with the mulligan change.
The reason I used those two Commander examples is that they are probably the worst that absolutely require an answer in hand when they drop.
January 25, 2016 2:25 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
@Megalomania: There comes a point at which "build better" is not an appropriate response. Every deck will have cards that are unplayable or undesirable in an opening hand. Every deck will experience mana screw in one form or another. There's a practical limit to how well a deck can possibly open and to how much can be improved in that respect. You won't outbuild random chance, which is inherent in any draw or mull you make.
Further, the new rule fails to achieve a lower rate of mana screw. The RC's announcement itself stated that the rate of getting four consecutive land drops was roughly equivalent between the two mulligan methods, with greater chances coming from Partial Paris, not from Vancouver.
One thing I didn't mention earlier is that Partial Paris actually helps reduce flooding. But since the RC seems to think that's a bad thing and failed to account for it in their simulations, I guess it didn't positively influence the change.
January 25, 2016 2:33 a.m.
Megalomania says... #14
No question about that Epoch. But, if it gets to the point that you find yourself hating the mulligan change every other game, there is a big chance that deckbuilding is the one that is really at fault.
Forgive me for not having maths to back this up but I really feel the new mulligan is neither better nor worse for any archetype but gives a chance for good deckbuilding and some luck to have a larger effect on the game.
January 25, 2016 7:46 a.m.
Build better is no argument. If you want to handle narset you need a counterspell or arcane lighthouse. If you do not have one of them in your starting hand you should mulligan until you have at least an answer that makes sure you can avoid seeing that narset player play alone for 20 minutes until he can finish. You can on the one hand put more counterspells and draw engines in your deck but on the other hand your overall strategy suffers. This is a situation you mostly do not have with the good Paris partial mulligan. You can also put away the expensive cards you don't need in the beginning which usually makes people have a smoother start. My playgroup will not use the new mulligan rule because everyone thinks that it is bullshit. For duel commander I totally understand the new mulligan, but there decks are built for the 1vs1 situation including more lands (to absolutely avoid getting screwed) and way more removal and disruption. But this is not the format the RC wants to have for multiplayer. Some commanders simply need more pressure because they tend to go crazy by themselves. If you can not put that pressure on them with a little support by your mulligan you will even faster lose to a godhand
January 25, 2016 9:38 a.m.
does the change to rule 4 apply to casting costs as well? In other words, can we not add a creature with a 
casting cost to a mono red or mono white deck?
January 25, 2016 4:23 p.m.
@ Ender02 - You still cannot do that. Rule 4 only handled mana production based on color identity. I am not sure what rules specifies adding cards to a deck with colors outside the color identity but ti's a different rule that hasn't been changed.
January 25, 2016 4:26 p.m.
lemmingllama says... #18
@Ender02 No. You can generate red mana in a mono white deck, but you cannot include red cards in your mono white deck.
January 25, 2016 4:29 p.m.
This question would be a lot less common if people bothered reading rule 3.
January 25, 2016 4:40 p.m.
Megalomania says... #20
AlexoBn, Having some sort of disruption in your opening hand is good but the aim of the mulligan change was to lower the rate of mana screws, not to get better opening hands.
Epoch did say that PP was doing a better job and he has raises a good point about flooding. But then again, that puts everyone at equal disadvantage which I think is better than PP which gives mulling too big of an effect to the game. This brings me back to my initial point. The better you build your deck, the less chances you'll need to mull into a playable hand. You can't prevent random screws and flooding from happening but it is healthier than having people rely on mulling to play a decent game.
January 25, 2016 6:26 p.m.
Landdrops are not my problem. I usually have such a low curve (or play stax or death and taxes like decks) so that 3 mana are sufficient (you'll draw more nonetheless). My problem is that certain problematic commanders need certain cards as answers. If you do not have them you'll most likely lose. You can hardly get around narsets hexproof so you need to stop it before anything can hit the field. Thats my problem. I don't really care if the RC tries to make people draw enough lands, I care if I can handle my opponent in the early game and due to that the PP mulligan is absolutely better...
January 25, 2016 7:08 p.m.
Megalomania says... #22
Too bad the ruling wasn't based on what you needed.
January 25, 2016 7:27 p.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #23
I think of the things missing from the discussion is that fact that effective mulligans are an act of skill. There seems to be an assumption by some that just because you can Partial mulligan that you will always know how to do so effectively, and that you can somehow control the results, and--most absurdly--that you can just mulligan into a combo with any consistency. Successfully initiating a combo requires a lot more than just having a few cards that make up a combo being in your hand. With Partial mulligans, I frequently pitched cards that were essential combo pieces, because they were useless until I actually set up the mana and protection to achieve to combo.
The other piece is that there's a huge difference between theory and practice. It's easy to look at statistics for isolated and/or theoretical mulligans. But if I can Partial, then you can too. If I'm trying to mulligan into a particular card, then you can mulligan into your particular card, or mulligan into a means of answering threats or protecting yourself or bringing forth your own threats. If everyone has the same mulligan, and one that asks for some amount of decision and skill, then isn't that playing field level to begin with?
If Partial mulligans are lopsided, that's because of chance. But Vancouver mulligans offer only binary decision-making, which arguably leaves them even more to chance.
Truly though, the simplest and I think truest argument is the first one Epochalyptik made: Partial mulligan wasn't broken to begin with. Even in the RC's announcement of the change, they seem pretty blase about the actual implications. They don't really dwell on any issues with Partial that needed addressing; they basically just say that since the advent of Vancouver, they looked at it and decided it was "good enough" based on some statistics regarding lands and lands alone. It seems like they just kind of made a half-ass decision without really delving too deeply into the implications.
In short, I considered Partial to be a part of the game itself, with its own skill set. I don't like to forward anecdote as a universal, but I don't think I ever considered that I would try to mulligan into any particular card that would let me "combo off" or "roll out". And if you even wanted to somehow dig, Partial immediately reduced your starting cards. Sure, I can dig for Leyline of the Void against a graveyard deck, but if they kept a decent hand and I lost 2-3 cards to find it, that still feels fair to me.
January 25, 2016 7:39 p.m.
I really liked partial paris. To me it fit commander well because of increased variability coming from the 'one-of' rule. The chance of drawing an irrelevant hand is much higher in commander. It was more about dumping things that would sit in your hand 7 turns or more and less about cheatyfacing combos.
I had to add 3-4 additional lands to adjust for the increased probability of not hitting my 5 or 6 cmc commander curve fast enough to use my commander. I resent the reduction in deck design space and feel no consolation in making the game less distinct.
However, I don't have enough passion about it to keep my attention - essentially, I just shrug and make necessary cuts.
January 25, 2016 7:57 p.m.
Megalomania says... #25
@DiamondFlavor - I actually had that taken into consideration but, to me, whether or not it is a skill is beside the point. One can argue that mulling is part of the game but I would like to think that it isn't. The original idea for introducing mulligans is to reduce instances of people getting mana screwed which is especially unfun in a multiplayer game. Unfortunately, this measure evolved into a game within the game where people use mulls to help them gain some sort of advantage in the game.
The new mulligan rule accomplishes, at least to almost an equal extent as PP, its goal to reduce instances of mana screws and at the same time deter players from focusing too much on the mulligan to help them win/not lose games. It is, in this respect and in my opinion, better than PP.
January 25, 2016 8:38 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #26
I don't think the differentiation you're making is valid. Avoiding mana screw is a completely legitimate way to gain advantage in a game. Trying to frame mulls as though they were some benign practice that was perverted over the course of time misrepresents how mulls actually work.
It's fair to argue that perhaps more emphasis is placed on mulligans in Commander, but whether that amount of emphasis is too much is a different discussion entirely. As several of us have said, the 99-card singleton nature of Commander and the fact that it's billed as an environment in which we can explore battlecruiser-style cards and play means that, if you build how most players build, you're at an inherent risk of having a good number of unplayable cards in your opening hand. Now, I don't mean to imply that everyone should start out with absolutely no dead cards ever. Rather, I'm pointing out that a mulligan rule that allows players to more selectively determine their starting hand would be beneficial if your goal is to maintain the kind of play environment that the format currently enjoys (and I think it's fair to say that this is a stated goal of the RC).
By moving to the Vancouver mulligan, we lose the security that our starting hands, while not perfect, won't be so bad. When you take a Partial Paris mull, you keep a known quantity of usable cards and treat the spots taken by undesirable cards like reels on a slot machine. You're taking a chance that you'll get better cards, but you at least know that some of your cards are usable. When you perform any variation of the traditional mulligan (pitch your entire hand and draw one fewer card), you're spinning all of your reels and hoping—rather than knowing—that whatever new permutation of cards you draw has some reasonable number of usable cards.
That may be fine in 60-card, where you can build with playsets and mitigate some of the chance of getting undesirable cards by controlling the ratios of such cards to openers in your deck as a whole, but Commander decks don't enjoy that granularity of control, and there's a much lower chance of drawing a card from a set of desirable openers than there is in regular formats. It's for this reason that I think a nontraditional mulligan is appropriate for Commander.
Further, you're free to mull until you find combo pieces and such, but doing so is inadvisable and betrays a lack of understanding of how to play the game. I never want to see a combo piece in my opening hand. It's utterly useless to me in the first three turns of the game.
January 25, 2016 8:54 p.m.
Megalomania says... #27
I would have to respectfully disagree. The original mulligan rule applied only if a player had seven lands or no lands in his/her opening hand. Furthermore, the option to mulligan can only be done once.
IMO this shows the original intention of the mulligan. It was not to "gain advantage" per se, but to reduce the instances of mana screws in one's opening hand. Nothing more, nothing less.
January 25, 2016 9:47 p.m.
@ Epochalyptik: Addressing the very last point you made in your last post.
Keep in mind that you play a control deck with a combo finisher. That is by no means the only type of combo deck in existence.
Fast combo decks operate rather differently. Decks like Scion Druid and Prossh are all too happy to see Hermit Druid or Food Chain respectively in their opening hands, and will consistently dig either for said piece or a tutor for them so as to combo out on turn 1-4.
Assuming Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition's strategy is the only valid play style in EDH, in your words, "Betrays a lack of understanding of how to play the game".
January 25, 2016 9:47 p.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #29
NarejED he didn't say anything to suggest that he assumes that.
Furthermore, if the deck really needs just the Hermit Druid, aren't the odds of finding any one card the same no matter which type of mulligan you use? Because if you're that dependent on fetching the Druid or a tutor, you would benefit more from doing full mulligans until you found it or a way to tutor it.
Also, I believe that Hermit Druid combo works in 1v1 EDH, but I have a hard time believing that in multi-player a known Hermit Druid deck works very consistently. If the argument is that Partial was "too good" for finding the Druid, then doesn't it stand that opposing decks can Partial mulligan into a useable answer? Like any spot removal or counterspell?
Then, with Food Chain, you don't need just Food Chain, but the mana to cast Food Chain, and Prossh, and another card to feed off the loop to produce a winning effect. It's not like you just mulligan into Food Chain and win. And, as with the Druid, if you really just needed Food Chain, then you have the some luck pitching full hands Vancouver-style until you find it as you do trying to dig it up Partial-style. And, again, your opponents can also Partial into answers to your shenanigans.
January 25, 2016 10:07 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
@Megalomania: And it has been a very, very long time since that rule was in effect. Mulligan rules have long since been aimed at allowing players to try for more advantageous opening hands; making the argument that the mulligan system should be weakened on the basis of an (at this point) archaic philosophy about the purpose of the mulligan is nonsensical. Even if you disagree that the Partial Paris is the most appropriate mulligan system, you need to contextualize your argument within the current philosophy or propose that a new one would be better.
@NarejED: Show me where I assumed as much.
Even in decks like Hermit Druid, it's better to start out with tutors and counterspells than it is to start with two or more combo pieces in hand and absolutely no way to guarantee their protection.
Everything is contextual; it would be unwise to keep a combo piece in your opening hand if the rest of your hand doesn't facilitate the kind of explosive opening that would enable you to get value from already having the combo piece in hand. It's exactly that kind of mentality that I'm disputing, actually. There's a difference between mulling for the late game and mulling for the early game, and focusing solely on the former usually results in defeat.
January 25, 2016 10:22 p.m.
Megalomania says... #31
@ Epochalyptik, I believe my posts were very much in context with the current philosophy. Let me cite part of RCs original post.
"Ultimately, the goal of mulligans in Commander is to ensure that you start the game with enough lands to be a participant. With Commander games running an hour plus, it's unfortunate if you can't play anything because you miss land drops and get run over quickly.
We didn't want to solve the problems of Magic itself - mana screw and mana flood are part of the game - and players need to make a reasonable effort with their land counts, but we wanted a mulligan rule that tried to minimize unplayable opening hands."
I guess this pretty much sums up what I have been trying to say the entire time. Also shows the "archaic philosophy" is not as "nonsensical" as you think it is. In fact, it is the very basis for the new ruling. It moves us closer to the original intent of mulligans which was to ensure players get enough lands to start the game.
January 25, 2016 11:28 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #32
Except the Vancouver mull is no more effective at ensuring land drops than the Partial Paris is. Land assurance isn't a legitimate reason for the change because the Vancouver mull does not offer anything that the Partial Paris didn't already provide on that respect.
Further, you are, exactly like the RC, utterly disregarding the other implications of mulligans—implications that, given the negligible difference in land assurance between the methods, are critical to understanding why one is preferable.
January 25, 2016 11:38 p.m.
Megalomania says... #33
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I grew up playing with the "archaic" Philosophy about mulligans and still believe it is how things should be. Being a combo player myself, I loved using Partial Paris but never lost sight of the fact that it was just wrong considering what mulligans were originally supposed to accomplish.
January 26, 2016 12:02 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
I've never been a fan of the agree to disagree resignation.
I ascribe no value to tradition. I look at what is useful and what is justifiable. No convincing argument has been adduced here for the selection of Vancouver over Partial Paris. The fact that the former doesn't align in practice with the primitive concepts of mulligans from the game's earliest days is not relevant to the discussion about which is better for the format now. The old philosophy doesn't govern mulligans anymore, nor should it.
January 26, 2016 12:13 a.m.
Megalomania says... #35
I think the bone of contention here lies in what mulligans are supposed to accomplish. If you insist that the original intention of the mulligan had and should not have any influence over Partial Paris and can be dismissed to be nothing but tradition, then the same can be said of the Vancouver mulligan replacing Partial Paris.
What is good for the format now is highly subjective. IMO, Partial Paris is not just bad for the format but is also bad for the game. Remember, when Partial Paris was first introduced, people quickly saw how easily it could be abused. It became part of tradition and now people even think "strategic mulligans" is part of the game.
I'll say it one last time. Mulligans weren't supposed to give you a playable hand. Nothing more, nothing less. Partial Paris made it "strategic". Fine. Now it's gone. Let's go back to playing the game the way it was supposed to instead of relying on mulligans to tweak our opening hand.
January 26, 2016 12:40 a.m.
Megalomania says... #36
Mulligans were supposed to give you a playable hand. Nothing more, nothing less.*
January 26, 2016 12:41 a.m.
My friend runs a Sen Triplets deck and was very happy to see rule 4 removed, after some recent play testing the deck is godlike and for more brutal to play against than one person with a Prophet.
January 26, 2016 12:53 a.m.
PookandPie says... #38
Strategic mulligans have been a part of the game since its infancy, and currently exists all throughout 60 card games of Magic everywhere. Have you ever mulliganed to Leyline of the Void against Dredge, Leyline of Sanctity against Burn, or for Force of Will to answer Goblin Charbelcher on the first turn? (Speaking in terms of Legacy/Vintage here). If so, then you've used a strategic mulligan that's always been part of the game: There are tons of times when accepting 5-6 cards that more adequately answer your opponent's game plan so you don't lose immediately is more important than getting 7 so-so cards that would work against most other decks.
The singleton nature of Commander, its allowance of higher cost cards alongside a sheer lack of consistency, means we should approach the format from a different perspective. What Epocalyptik and NarejED are saying is akin to the Sol Ring blowout arguments that erupt all over the Internet in reference to Commander: Addressing really good openers of your opponents is now much harder with the new mulligan rule. They're not saying mull to combo: They're saying that against a super linear deck like Zur or Arcum, you want t1 or t2 removal to stop that trash before it wrecks the whole table- it is how harder to address those early ball-buster plays while keeping something playable in your hand, is what they're saying.
(as an aside, though, I've been loving the mulligan change with the Zur build I've been toying with, and my Arcum deck. People curse themselves when they toss hands with t1 removal to get better t1-3 plays, and are helpless when I lock them using either of the above Commanders. Arcum, Zur, etc., got a lot better with this change, lol, so I'm ambivalent towards it. I just hear a lot of complaining because of my decks).
I directly disagree with the notion that mulligans are merely to give you a playable hand- I find that notion to be sophomoric, and really only applicable in the most casual of casual playgroups... or, like, Standard or something. Do you not agree? That's fine. Not everyone has to agree on the Internet and, while I certainly see where Epok and Narej are coming from, I see from where your comments stem, as well.
January 26, 2016 1:26 a.m.
Megalomania says... #39
If you only started playing the game post 1997, then I would understand why you think the old mulligan rule and the new Vancouver rule is just "sophomoric" and "applicable only to casual playgroups". Those who were playing long before the Partial Paris mulligan will most likely understand where I am coming from.
People were much more comfortable playing with whatever hand they were dealt with back then. Frequent bad opening hands were a sign of bad deckbuilding. Commander might be a singleton format but considering how vast the card selections are today, i'm pretty sure we have enough redundancies to make a deck as consistent as it needs to be.
January 26, 2016 2:17 a.m.
PookandPie says... #40
It is not Partial Paris vs Vancouver mulligan that I find sophomoric: It's your idea that mulligans can't be used for strategic purposes. The sentence was laid out plainly (the noun, notion, was the one modified by sophomoric. What notion? Your notion on mulligans: That they can't be strategic in nature), so I'm certain that your misinterpretation of it was done on purpose because the whole paragraph is is illogical, otherwise.
If you don't think strategic mulliganing was a thing when ProsBloom gained steam after Long won a Pro Tour with it... then more power to you. You're not correct, but more power to you all the same. Similarly, "People were much more comfortable playing with whatever hand they were dealt with back then" is completely irrelevant as well, and has no benefits to the discussion of current day Commander (because you can't compare Homelands-level decks with modern day Commander decks. Period- completely different format, different power levels, different times). Hell, even if you could compare them, I'm positive the introduction of the Paris mulligan, which occurred in 97 at Pro Tour LA (before Long won PT Paris), would have been used to have better starts during combo winter: Both for, and against, ProsBloom, Academy, etc..
I'm suspecting that you see and understand the points of the people above, but you're being obtuse because you like to argue on the Internet. Maybe that's something players from pre-1997 like doing, or something, but I think I explained their points well enough and will now move on. You already completely misinterpreted what I said (and I'm supposing it was done purposefully) and then gave me two red herrings in response, so I'm pretty sure this is going to go nowhere should I reply. Feel free to get the last word in (10 points if you go even more overwhelmingly condescending and irrelevant in the next one), but I'm good on speaking to you further regarding this subject.
January 26, 2016 2:57 a.m.
Megalomania says... #41
It can't and it shouldn't are two different things. My position was mulligan was being overused (strategy), and it shouldn't. Why? Go read post #376 and all my succeeding posts.
Epoch understood me better when he said I saw mulligan as a "... practice that was perverted through the course of time". This is exactly how I feel. My concept of how mulligans should be are not my own btw. It was being used for a good number of years and recent changes (Vanc mulligan) lean more toward that direction that it does to PP.
I was in no mood for condescending talk until someone called my notion of how things should be "sophomoric".
January 26, 2016 3:15 a.m.
PookandPie says... #42
It most assuredly is two different things. Mulligans have been used for strategy ever since Paris was implemented, and saying that mulligans exist for the purpose of, "Playable hands, nothing more, nothing less" is incredibly reductionist and, as mentioned before, sophomoric (note: Saying I find flaw in your argument does not mean an attack on your person. Stop that). I view it as such because you're stating that your view is the only acceptable one when pro players view mulligans as one of the more important play skills of Magic the Gathering. This, for example, was among the first pieces I read when entering competitive MtG: Art of the Mulligan. The, "Perversion" of the mulligan practice has apparently existed since just a few short years after the introduction of the Paris mulligan rule. Therefore, I find this, "perverted through time" explanation to also be incorrect when applied in such a reductionist way, as that article was relevant back in 2003, and is still relevant today.
Calling what I find your opinions to be is no attack on you as a person, therefore replying back with ignorant and irrelevant information such as, "I've been playing before 1997" serves no purpose in the conversation as it furthers discussion exactly 0. A person can have played since 1993 and not understand some of the strategic intricacies of Magic the Gathering. Time played does not aid your mulligan discussion at all, referencing the oldest mulligan rule doesn't address the current state and welfare of Magic the Gathering, either.
You said, and I quote:
"Remember, when Partial Paris was first introduced, people quickly saw how easily it could be abused. It became part of tradition and now people even think "strategic mulligans" is part of the game.
I'll say it one last time. Mulligans weren't supposed to give you a playable hand. Nothing more, nothing less. Partial Paris made it "strategic". Fine. Now it's gone"
These are the statements with which I disagree, because Partial Paris existed a great deal later than Paris did. Strategic mulliganing has existed since the time Paris mulliganing was introduced at Pro Tour LA in 1997, then apparently "perverted" by as early as 2003 and been viewed as strategy ever since (and probably before, I can find some small articles from here or there in 2001 but none so big as StarCityGame's). Players already had plenty of cause to believe that, "Strategic mulligans" were part of the game due to mulliganing being viewed as an important play skill in Magic even outside of Commander.
January 26, 2016 3:58 a.m.
Megalomania says... #43
Oh please. Don't tell me it wasn't an attack on me because saying my arguments are laughable and saying I am laughable both elicits laughter at my expense.
And forgive me for lumping Paris and Partial Paris together. I know they are not one and the same but they both make mulligan a game within the game which I dislike. To me, and correct me if I am wrong, Paris mulligan was where the idea of "strategic mulligans" began ultimately progressing to PP which IMo is nothing short of degenerate.
Dropping the 1997 date was necessary since I was trying to hint on the fact that it was the year Paris mulligan was introduced/became popular. Prior to that, everyone was using the mulligan which I preferred. It was not considered "sophomoric" back then. It was the norm and it served its purpose. Most importantly, the 1997 reference was to show that my position wasn't being made out of ignorance of how mulling can be used as a strategy. I was basically saying I have been here for quite some time, have seen the changes and prefer one type of mulligan over another as opposed to what the first part your post (#387) seems to suggest.
Lastly, Vanc mulligan is still quite similar to the Paris mulligan but is a step away from the direction PP was going. This is what I find good about it. It brings the game back to a place where mulligans are not as important as it has become today.
January 26, 2016 5:07 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #44
Dismissing the validity of your ideas is wholly different from dismissing your validity or your competence as a person. Stop conflating the two.
Saying you had to have played before 1997 (the game came out in 1993 and it's currently 2016) smacks of either elitism or nostalgic denial. If you're depending on mulligan rules that existed back before we even had a consistent and cogent articulation of the games rules and that were so easily and quickly "perverted," then your argument is weak. It has no bearing on the reality of the game today and is stuck in a primitive era of the game's history. You continue to assume that because the original intent of mulligans was to stop land screw that this is the only legitimate purpose for mulligans. That's akin to saying that because the game started with ante we should all be gambling cards or that because mana burn used to exist playing without it is blasphemy.
You can reference tradition to show the progression of ideas or to indicate intent, but you make a dishonest argument if you flatly ignore all development since the period of reference and maintain a needlessly purist view on something that clearly adds value to the game.
You've yet to provide one legitimate and complete reason why the Vancouver mulligan and the traditional mulligan philosophy should be preferred. The only reason you've offered so far is that putting the emphasis on mulligans as a part of the game and its strategy is somehow bad, but your not justifications for this opinion are "its not traditional" and "I don't like it." This argument is easily countered by pointing out that mulligans require a degree of skill and are as much a test of the player's discernment as they are a way to allow decks to better do what they are supposed to do in the face of unfavorable chance.
January 26, 2016 8:09 a.m.
Megalomania says... #45
I give up. It's better than having to keep repeating myself so this is going to be the last time i'll respond to this topic.
I prefer the "traditional" mulligan and today's Vancouver Mulligan over Partial Paris because I am against the idea of mulligans being used to "sculpt" opening hands. Reducing mulligans to a measure that deals with all mana or no mana opening hands seems a lot more reasonable because mulligans were never part of the original game design. Call me a purist but I simply don't like the fact that probably more than 90% of the games played today involves players mulling. It takes too much out of deckbuilding and reduces the luck aspect of the game which to me is part of what makes it exciting.
I am aware strategic use of mulligans have been a thing for close to a decade now and i've made use of it myself. However, I cannot help but wish to have games that start normally instead of watching everyone, including me, attempt to "outskill" each other via mulligan.
That's it for me. Wether you agree or not, most of us will need to make do with the current ruling the same way I have with PP. Night, guys!
January 26, 2016 10:19 a.m.
You know what takes the luck aspect out of the game? Having a commander, able to be cast on any turn you can pay for it, with intrinsic abilities that can instantly win you the game.
Know what was nice? Suspending luck on your end just enough to respond, so games don't end up being a contest of who combos off first.
But since this RC didn't understand the importance of tuck, this will probably be lost on them too.
January 26, 2016 12:27 p.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #47
Megalomania I feel where you're coming from, even if I disagree. It's fine to have a "traditional" understanding of mulligan philosophy.
But things change.
And, crucially to this discussion, the Commander format itself is a dramatic skew on the "traditional" notions of Magic. In a 99 card singleton format, the way mulligans of any style function are dramatically different.
January 26, 2016 12:31 p.m.
simondiamond2012 says... #48
My 2 cents...
New Mulligan Rule: Not a fan of it personally, notwithstanding the following argument: "Partial Paris was "successful" (which we defined as playing a 4th land on turn 4) 89% of the time versus Multiplayer Vancouver at 86%, but it came at a cost of about a fifth of a card on average. On the whole, 86% success is a rate that seems reasonable." Since statistical significance happens at 10% or higher typically, I see no need for the mulligan rule change.
Prophet Ban: This is understandable, although kinda sad. Prophet did go to the way of Primeval Titan with the extensive card advantage garnered as well as the built in protection it offered. That said, this can be walked around with cards like Seedborn Muse, etc., as well as a flash mechanic.
Removal of Rule #4: Expect to see Sen Triplets see more play. She was a pain with Mycosynth Lattice before, and now she doesn't need it. Kinda iffy about it, but probably not a big deal given the fact that colorless Eldrazi decks can no longer abuse the system.
January 27, 2016 5:31 a.m.
Lol Prophet of Kruphix gets banned for being "hard to work around" but Narset, Enlightened Master is juuuuust fine. Sounds like someone on the Council got a little booty hurt about it.
January 27, 2016 10:37 p.m. Edited.
@ Kilrane:
In the the RC's defense, they did indirectly severely nerf Narset by removing partial Paris. She's no longer able to consistently resolve turn 2-3. In fact, combo Narset may no longer even be the most viable build for her.
GreenGhost says... #1
That's why it says for trusted playgroups.
January 24, 2016 11:48 p.m. Edited.