New Mulligan Rules
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on June 29, 2015, 11:42 a.m. by Putrefy
Just read it here.
Only for the upcoming PT for now, but what do you guys think?
WovenNebula says... #2
@Putrefy I understand that, I should of made it clearer. I'm looking at the grand scheme of things, it will slowly change some players layout at Lower levels over time, although I wish it was uniform across all levels of competitive play. It's a start though.
June 29, 2015 5:37 p.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #3
Here's why, MagicalHacker. Imagine what would happen to the secondary market if Deathrite Shaman or Thopter Foundry, or anything else that's a rare or mythic was Temp-unbanned. The price would hike up immediately due to speculation, and people would complain if the card remained banned -- especially pros who got to play the card and those who feel it shouldn't be banned.
June 29, 2015 5:48 p.m.
MagicalHacker - They wouldn't do that because these changes are rules based, not card based. Rules are flexible and can be adjusted easily. Card bannings are not as flexible and shouldn't be toyed with like that. There are tons of other threads where it was discussed whether "Unban all the cards for like 5 months" is a good idea or not (it's not).
June 29, 2015 5:56 p.m.
@Putrefy The article found here goes on to Encourage the placement of lands and spells be uniform among all players, regardless of whether they are on camera or not.
It also goes on to say that placing cards upside down is now officially frowned upon.
For those of you still out there who think your opponent will need to read your cards at some point during a game, then let that interaction happen, your only being a pretentious snob by playing all your cards backwards so your opponent can read them easier. It actually makes the game state more confusing than it needs to be having half the game state represented by cards that are flip-flopped depending on which side of the table your viewing the game. If everyone plays their cards facing the same direction, with their lands in the correct area, it will lend to less confusion overall among the player base as a whole.
Anyone who still wishes to deviate from the standard rules of tournament play is just doing it to be pretentious, I've been playing since lands in front were the norm, no one cares. Try winning with actual skill instead of trying to misrepresent the board state to prove some pathetic point that you've been playing the game longer than others. If you've really been playing the game longer than others then prove it by winning a clean game.
The new scry rule remains to be seen. Personally, I feel that if you build your deck correctly, you will win against those who have misbuilt or incorrectly built their decks. They are likely mulliganing because of a bad spell to land ratio. In this case, a well-built deck will punish the misbuilt deck for stumbling early on, think mono-red versus abzan midrange.
There are times that VARIANCE rears it's ugly head, but those times are part of the game. When someone is experiencing Bad Variance a proportionately greater amount than others, it's likely due to having misbuilt their deck in question.
I don't see the merit in extending a handicap to the pilot of a misbuilt deck, if anything, they should be punished by the players with the arguably best decks in the room that are in fact, Not Misbuilt. It's kinda like saying, the smartest person in the room will win. In this case, the person with the most correct decklist will be rewarded for taking into account the subtleties of the inner workings of their own deck and the most correct spell to land ratio for that deck. Deck building is a huge part of the game and part of what makes the game so great. 100 people can register Esper Dragons, and every single one of those list's can differ by a few cards. Arguably some will be More correct than others, and those deck builders can/should be rewarded for coming to the table with a well-tuned deck ready to do battle.
Again, I'm uncertain of this new mulligan+scry rule. Not that it will enable any kind of advantage to certain archetypes, but that it will extend a handicap to misbuilt decks and their subsequent pilots.
June 29, 2015 7:03 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #7
From a competitive stand point it reduces variance. That means skill has a greater impact overall. Better player wins.
From a beginner stand point it reduces apprehension when mulliganing. You only get better at something by doing it and now people will be more inclined.
It's a slam dunk to me.
June 29, 2015 7:24 p.m. Edited.
Feel like certain decks may get a chance to abuse it but I like the idea
June 29, 2015 7:37 p.m.
From a competitive standpoint, for players of aggressive strategies like mono-red, one of the edges one can have in any given match is getting to keep your starting 7, as a direct result of proper deck building, and as a result, gaining an advantage from having your opponent mulligan down to 6 or lower, likely due to having to some degree, a misbuilt deck, I.E. land to spell ratio isn't as ideal as it could be, by design of the pilot, and that's their mistake to make.
By giving those who mulligan a free scry, your cutting in to the edge gained by the player who kept their initial 7.
As far as new players go, they aren't as much of a concern as they likely won't be placing at an event, and if they do, it's time to upgrade their status from 'new' to something else. In other words, the intricacies involved with the mulligan+scry have far greater implications when the players involved are of a competitive level. Beginner players will like have their hands full just trying to be cognizant of all the spells currently legal in the format at hand, rather than the implications of a free scry after mulling to 6 or lower.
The Mulligan rule has been around for a long time, and came about as a direct result of the Game's inherent flaws that are produced when Variance appears. The game is dependant on lands to play spells, and when there is a clear lack in that resource there isn't a game to be played, hence the mulligan rule was adopted.
The fact that we even Get to mulligan is enough, IMO.
Don't change what aint broke, try re-evaluating your deck composition.
Even with this mull+scry, Variance will still rear it's ugly head.
June 29, 2015 7:48 p.m.
It's s slippery slope, next year it will be scry 2! Screw it, just mulligan back up to 7 til you have a god hand. Why stop there, just punch your opponent in the face and take his wallet/her purse.
*see what I did there, gender equality ftw.
June 29, 2015 8 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #11
what about this? Mull to 7 but for each time you mull you must exile a card before the first untap step and cards exiled this way can not be used in any way (see Pull from Eternity)
June 29, 2015 8:07 p.m.
SimicPower says... #13
tyforthevenom: So you mean put it into the "absolutely-removed-from-the-freaking-game-forever" zone?
June 29, 2015 8:10 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #14
that works differently, you exile the cards if it's in your hand this you pick and choose what to exile and unlike Serum Powder you can't use things like Pull from Eternity or similar cards to take advantage of them being exiled you would still be behind on cards but you choose which cards you get to keep from the 7
June 29, 2015 8:12 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #15
SimicPower if you want to dumb it down to the point that a barbarian could understand then yes
June 29, 2015 8:12 p.m.
HolyFalcon says... #16
"But you know what I love even more? The precedent that permanent rule changes can be implemented temporarily in a pro tour! They NEED to use this for banlist decision making. For example, let's say WotC is considering banning Storm Crow in modern. Instead of outright ban it and upset tons of players that use it, they can temp-ban it for a pro tour and see if it does what they want."
You my good sir, are a genius.
June 29, 2015 8:13 p.m.
I think I nailed it when I said, "The fact that we even Get to mulligan is enough, IMO"
Adding new rules around How we mulligan is just going to make things needlessly complicated, that and might as well just punch em in the face and take their shit. If I start losing games because this over-corrects variance, I will be losing money on potential prizes, so my logic is sound. Just punch them in the face and take their shit.
June 29, 2015 8:33 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #18
i have no problem with the current state of mulligans etc... then again i own 6 $800+ decks and am building a $1200+ deck, i'm by no means rich i merely have no better place to put my money
June 29, 2015 8:41 p.m.
I'm not being nasty, you wouldn't like me when I'm nasty salient
*edit: you'll know when I'm being nasty.
June 29, 2015 8:44 p.m. Edited.
tyforthevenom says... #21
June 29, 2015 8:45 p.m. Edited.
you wouldn't like me when I'm nasty salient
Ugh, if only I had a dollar for every creep who said that to me.
Whatever. I have no interest in getting into a fight. Unsubscribing. G'bye.
June 29, 2015 8:50 p.m.
Why are you even here? I wasn't being nasty, and you came here just to proclaim that, salient. If we're keeping score, and we are, you've been nasty and I'd appreciate it if you kept your comments about me to yourself.
June 29, 2015 8:58 p.m.
golffore297 says... #25
I think that the new rule will do mostly positive things for the community. I can remember my days as a new player of not allowing myself to mulligan because I hated having fewer cards in my hand than my opponent. While this doesn't fix that entirely, it will make new players more confident in taking a mull knowing that they won't get blown out when an opponent has a fuller grip of cards.
Also as stated earlier, it keeps high level tournaments from ending less in luck and more on skill. Seeing a professional player on camera losing simply because they had to mull to 4 or 5 also makes new players afraid to do the same.
However, it's something that they will have a clearer idea on whether it is a good idea or not after the protour.
June 29, 2015 9:31 p.m.
Cripes, apparently unsubscribing doesn't stop notifications if someone mentions you by name.
Saying "Just punch them in the face and take their shit" repeatedly is... obnoxious.
Is that better? If you prefer some other negative adjective in place of 'nasty' or 'obnoxious' -- crude, troglodytian, uncouth, violent, sociopathic, whatever -- pretend I said that instead. OK? OK. Bye.
June 29, 2015 9:45 p.m.
Some people on this site jfc...
Anyways, I'm interested to see how this pans out at the Pro Tour.
June 29, 2015 9:59 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #29
I like it. I've actually thought that they could do something similar to help balance the play/draw disparity. (except it would be that the player on the draw could look at the top card before deciding to mull). Don't imagine that would have ever happened though.
Realistically, so long as it affects everybody equally, it's a pretty non issue - just something different to get used to.
June 29, 2015 10:30 p.m.
Behgz In my opinion, I think you're missing the point of the rules change. It isn't for the matches where there is one player with a well built deck and one player with a poorly built deck, the rules change is for the matches where both decks are well built and one player gets smacked in the face by variance. In that situation, the game becomes less about each player's deck building skill, and deck piloting skill, and more about if the player who's mana screwed/flooded has his luck turn around. In that particular situation, this new rule will help reduce the games that are won completely off of variance, and not off the actual playing of the game. And sure, it may also help those situations in your example, but, one would expect, in a match where one player has a poorly built deck and one player has a well built deck, the one with the better built deck wins anyways, because of experience and superior deck building.
As for your other point about how new player's aren't as much of a concern, I'd disagree completely. Sure, at this point new players won't even get to try out this new rules change, because it's only being instated at a hyper competitive level, but I feel like this narrow application is really just a testing ground. If Wizards decides to go this route with this rule change, they will almost certainly be thinking of the less competitive group of players, because they, without a doubt, make up a majority of the players of this game. And lowering the huge risks of mulligans also helps new players go through with it. I know at least for myself and my group, when we first started playing, we rarely mulliganed because we were weary of dropping down one card and possibly getting an even worse hand than we had, and that honestly separated us greatly from those players who wouldn't hesitate to mulligan a bad hand. I think this sort of change will help new players with making that crucial decision of when to mulligan.
June 29, 2015 10:40 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #32
TheAnnihilator I know i got imtg I see the card often
June 30, 2015 3:15 a.m.
Scrying instead of just drawing makes only a tiny difference by the way. I just did some maths for someone:
Maybe my maths is really shaky but I didn't get that outcome when I calculated the scenario, in fact the outcome I got suggested almost no effect of scrying. Could you help me out?
I assumed (using a hypergeometric calculator):
You have a population size of 54 (54 cards in deck).You have 24 'hits' (lands) in that population, and 30 'misses' (nonlands).
If you sample just one card (as if you just drew the top card) then the chance of it being a land is 44%.
Now lets say you scry1 instead of just drawing. You look at the top card and it's not a land so you send it to the bottom. What you've just done is you've decreased your population of 54 cards to 53 cards. Previously there were 54 cards that top card MAY have been. After scrying you can say with certainty that it is not 1 of those cards, and therefore there are only 53 cards it could be.
You have a population size of 53 cards (you know 1 card the top cannot be - leaves only 53 left it could be). You have 24 'hits' (lands) and 29 'misses' (nonlands; number goes from 30 to 29 because one is on the bottom so you know with certainty you won't draw that particular card).
If you sample just one card (as if you drew that top card) then the chance of it being a land is 45%.
So according to this scrying instead of drawing when you have a 6 card hand and 24 lands in a deck makes you 1% more likely to draw a land.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
June 30, 2015 5:35 a.m.
Actually I retract that, there's a huge difference.
If you don't mulligan your chance of drawing a land is 44%.
If you do mulligan your chance is actually 69%. You get the initial 44% when you scry that top card (could be a land, but may not be) then you get ANOTHER chance when you look at the next card. You get .44+(.56x.45) which is equal to around 69%. What that maths says is that if you want a particular card and you mulligan you get one chance to get it when you scry (.44) then you get another chance when you sample the next card along (.56x.45) assuming that the top card you scried away was not what you wanted.
Remember you don't get that advantage OVER the opponent. The opponent gets two chances too - they just get the first chance (card number 7) in their hand whereas the guy that mulligans has to choose. You get that advantage over a guy who mulligans that doesn't scry.
TL;DR: the maths says that scrying after you mulligan makes a HUGE difference over not scrying but the guy that doesn't mulligan still has card advantage.
June 30, 2015 6:56 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #35
That's it, ChiefBell. Scrying after a mull makes a big difference, especially for faster decks, but (except for certain, very specific cases) it's still an issue of being 'less worse' than keeping a good hand versus how it was before.
June 30, 2015 8:08 a.m.
I can't count the number of times, in Standard, I see a player keep a 1 land hand because the one land is a Scry land... only to proceed to get mana screwed (as should be expected when keeping a 1-lander).
This may end up encouraging people to (after the first mulligan) keep a bad hand, because they 'like their chances' at getting what they need to make it okay. - I really think this rule could be detrimental to new/inexperienced players.
This is one of the reasons why I think that Behgz is off on his analysis. - If the players deck is 'improperly built' it is because they have less experience building decks. This is not going to be a bonus for them, but rather a crutch. - They will need to learn not to rely on this, or they will end up continuing to make bad decks, and continuing to mulligan when they may otherwise not need to.
June 30, 2015 10:21 a.m.
Welllllll the maths does say that you have massively improved odds of you drawing what you want (between land or nonland) if you get to scry.
You also need to learn your deck. Would I keep a 1 lander after scrying in delver? Hell yeah.
Would I keep it with Jund? Lol no.
June 30, 2015 10:24 a.m.
@ChiefBell you are aware, that you have to keep before scrying?
June 30, 2015 11:18 a.m.
Yes I am. When I said 'after scrying' I meant 'after the scry rule change is in effect'.
BS and AS - before scry and after scry. It's a new timeline.
June 30, 2015 11:24 a.m. Edited.
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be amending rules to give out 'crutches'. I was a new player once and I did just fine with the way the mulligan rules have always been. I'll say it again, I think the fact that we even Get to mulligan is more than enough. I really don't see why new players keeps sifting to the forefront of who this new mulligan rule impacts the greatest, as I also stated, the implications of a free scry after taking a mulligan are far more impactful in the hands of experienced players, which imo this rule makes the most real change to how we will be playing going forward. I really don't care if my round one scrub opponent gets a free scry. I won't be very happy when the player I face in the finals at my local FNM gets to keep a 1-land 6er and curves out like a Boss because of the free scry, when I should have had a natural advantage just by keeping my initial 7. Which is what brings me back to the point about being rewarded for better deck building.
June 30, 2015 1:45 p.m. Edited.
Any advantage you can give to the player getting the free scry comes at the expense of the player who kept they're initial 7. They have an advantage by staying at 7, in order to give a 'crutch' to the player who mulligans, you have to cut into the other players natural 7-card advantage. It doesn't come from nowhere, and the scry isn't free. Imo, I don't feel like extending a bonus scry at the expense of would-be percentage points in my favor of the match at hand.
To be fair though, I have access to that same scry feature if and when I do end up mulliganing due to variance. I just feel I have the ability to design decks that are less likely to face down the barrel of variance compared to others. And/or I don't feel like I need this new scry feature and would rather not let anyone have it, if you don't see yourself using it as much, then it's not a benefit at all and more of a strict handicap being extended, which I don't like the sound of.
June 30, 2015 1:57 p.m.
"My opponents decks are SO good, and they NEVER mulligan, so I should get a free scry.."
I don't agree with that logic.
June 30, 2015 2:24 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #43
i play affinity, affinity is one of the most consistent aggressive decks in modern but it requires specific types of hands i.e. payoff card 1/2 mana sources and a bunch of cards you can dump by turn 2... taking a mulligan on affinity which is a good deck is a bad thing, you get really punished for it, you're saying my needing to take a mulligan is bad deck building?
June 30, 2015 2:33 p.m.
Wizards isn't doing this to allow for compensation when someone build a mana base improperly. - It's being put in place to allow for the many times where 2 equally well-built decks have 1 deck get a 0 or 1 lander repeatedly... this WILL and DOES happen regularly.
Assume 2 decks playing against each other are running the exact same deck list. - Deck 1 draws 7 and gets 0 land, while Deck 2 gets a keepable hand. - Deck 1 now gets a disadvantage... the reasoning for -1 card is not intended to penalize the player using deck 1, but rather to prevent people from mulling repeatedly until they get the 'ultimate 7-cards'.
- This used to happen a lot. The original Mulligan rule was that after drawing your initial 7, if you had no land or all land, you could reveal your hand, shuffle it back in, and draw a new 7... people made landless decks, and were able to always ensure they have a perfect hand.
This Scry 1 is intended to help offset a disadvantage which was ONLY put in place to prevent a degenerate exploitation. - You however, are claiming that they should not get an 'advantage'... even though they are not getting one.
People have been complaining about the randomness of initial draws since 1994. - I can play the same deck one week and have to mulligan to 5 every game... the next week I can play the exact same deck list and I'm able to keep my initial 7 every hand. - Wizards has noticed that games where people mulligan become highly non-interactive, and are trying to do something about the issue. - The game is supposed to be about skill with a little luck, not a complete luck of the draw.
Complaining about this rules change and claiming that Wizards is giving an advantage where there is no advantage makes you sound like you simply want Wizards to tailor the rules to your advantage.
June 30, 2015 2:36 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #45
Behgz that is not the logic being applied. I'm widely considered the best Standard player at my LGS (whoopee right?) and this change will help me more than the average or new players because it reduces variance. If your win % does not go up due to this change then I purport you are not nearly as good of a player and deck builder as you claim to be. Being able to utilize basic Magic skills more effectively than your opponent is what makes a player better than another. The rule change is symmetrical across the table. I am already better at making mulligan decisions than the average player and I will continue making better decisions. Any perceived loss of edge you claim is really just loss of luck.
June 30, 2015 2:46 p.m.
@Rasta_Viking29 Not really, I plan on keeping the same number of 7-card hands, above average based on superior deck building. Everyone around me now has the ability to scry with their mull to 6, as far as I'm concerned, everyone else is being extended a handicap.
You can't quantify 'luck', a loss of it or otherwise. So that isn't an actual point you make there at the end of your post.
The loss of percentage points due to my opponent getting a free scry in the face of my kept 7 is very real, however.
June 30, 2015 2:56 p.m.
golffore297 says... #47
Even the world's best deck-builders lose games due to variance, it's an unavoidable part of a game that is based part on luck and part on skill. Sometimes the Scry 1 is going to make your opponent feel better about their 6- and sometimes it's not going to make a difference at all. That's part of the game that we play.
June 30, 2015 3:16 p.m.
For the sake of argument tyforthevenom, affinity is the type of deck to be on the short end of the stick in this whole debate. You likely WILL keep most 7's because affinity is a well-built established archetype. Your more likely to be watching your opponents take those mull+scry than be the one scrying yourself, when piloting affinity.
In that exact scenario, would it not benefit you, the affinity pilot, to just not have this new feature available to either player?
@Rayenous it sounds like your just hashing out the inherent flaws in the game. Needing a specific ratio of lands to spells every game where the randomization process can deal you an inadequate proportion of said resources is an inherent flaw that the 'Mulligan' attempts to correct.
In my opinion, I think this new scry feature is over-correcting the problem. And/or I think that if the inherent flaw in the game is so detrimental then perhaps a complete revamp of the core mechanics and structure of the game should be addressed. I have no idea how or where to start, but personally I don't like the idea of this scry feature being included in all mulligans. Strictly due to the loss of percentage points from a spike perspective as I described in my previous posts.
I'm all for hearing new idea's, and this one was pretty close to getting there, but from my perspective, I don't like the idea of giving away percentage points so that my opponents have some control over the variance they are facing as a result of the 75 card list they chose to register, which is likely directly related to the amount they are actually mulliganing, quite possibly due to inadequate deck building.
IF two players are paired with near perfect lists, and they are of near equal skill, then the inherent flaws of the game take over, and if one of them gets flooded or screwed, then thats the game. Not all matches have to be played evenly. Sometimes you ROFL stomp your opponent, it's been a part of the game since day 1.
But whatevs, %90 of the people I've seen polled on this new rule have said they either don't care or loosely see it as a positive, so unless a bunch of people manage to cause judge calls by looking at too many cards or something or other, I don't see this being shunned after it's trial run and I expect this to become the norm after PT Origins.
That being said, I don't think it killed anyone to listen to my opinion on the matter.
Oh, and Rasta_Viking29 being widely considered the best player at your LGS is hardly worth mentioning here on the internet. Just sayin.
June 30, 2015 3:31 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #49
Behgz it's perfectly acceptable and correct to attribute the impact of an unknown card at the time of mulliganing to luck/variance. The scry happens after all other decisions are made. If you are banking on the opponent fading their first draw in order to win then yes you are relying on luck.
Mana bases are my specialty. I'm curious to see a list that is mulligan proof and can cast it's spells 100% of the time. Care to indulge me?
June 30, 2015 3:31 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #50
Behgz let's list some other decks that are or have been top tier in the last 2 years that need to mulligan hard to win
storm
bogles
amulet bloom
Dredge (legacy)
Miracles (standard)
anyone else want to add to the list?
MagicalHacker says... #1
I love the battlefield arrangement rules.
I love the mulligan scry rules. (I think it'd still be balanced if instead of scry 1, it was scry X instead, where X is the number of cards less than seven you have.)
But you know what I love even more? The precedent that permanent rule changes can be implemented temporarily in a pro tour! They NEED to use this for banlist decision making. For example, let's say WotC is considering banning Storm Crow in modern. Instead of outright ban it and upset tons of players that use it, they can temp-ban it for a pro tour and see if it does what they want.
I may be missing a totally obvious reason why they shouldn't do that, but I'd like this more than just reflex bans.
June 29, 2015 5:14 p.m. Edited.