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?
it's not about being mulligan free %100 of the time.
It's about having a % of 7-card keeps higher than the average player.
'luck' isn't a quantifiable thing. Stop addressing it as though it were.
Variance is the only word one can accurately use to describe the phenomena your reffering to when you incorrectly attribute the statistics of the game to 'luck'.
June 30, 2015 3:37 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #3
I'm not quantifying luck... You're grasping at schematics rather than applying logic.
June 30, 2015 3:42 p.m.
Have you ever been on the Pro Tour? Ever made Day 2 of a GP? I really don't see the point in bragging about your magical prowess. If your really that good we would know you already as a Pro Player. Assumedly, most people on the interwebs aren't pro's or else we'd have a fantastic group of players irl to pull from and practice with, and could cut back on the interwebs as a tool/resource to get better.
I'm sure there's hundreds of people here on TO with better lifetime points etc than you, who also aren't considered Pro, so why are you even posting that stuff? It's pointless. By the time you are of notoriety, we will know you from reputable sources, like SCG Top 8's etc.
Til then, your not bolstering your points by bringing up your magic resume.
June 30, 2015 3:48 p.m.
It's funny how the conversation steered itself into the discussion of Pro Players. I'd be interested what a handful of Pro Players think about this new rule, and not just the ones who shrug and say, doesn't seem bad..
I'd like to hear from Pro Player's who have actually sat down and thought about it. Because this effects them more than it will effect us, admittedly.
June 30, 2015 3:57 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #6
it's funny how the guy burying himself deeper keeps trying to climb out the giant hole he's dug... and i should know i used to be that guy
June 30, 2015 3:59 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #7
Well magic is a game of skill, randomness, and money. This new rule weakens the impact of randomness upon who wins. That's something all pro players should love.
June 30, 2015 4:03 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #8
Behgz no I'm not a pro, duh captain obvious... I'm just an above average player that competes at the local level. The only tourney I have traveled to is the RPTQ in Albuquerque. I also don't think you can misconstrue any of my comments as bragging. You don't have to get defensive or dismissive when somebody points out their level of play, it makes you look insecure. Lifetime points has nothing to do with skill level or whether one is a pro or not, Pro Points are actually tallied separately and I have 0.
Also I don't wish to be known as a great MtG player. Even though I'm a competitive person it's just a hobby that I enjoy, has a low risk factor, and provides some networking opportunities outside of the game.
June 30, 2015 4:05 p.m. Edited.
@tyforthevenom because I acknowledged that this rules change will likely catch on and become the norm I'm digging myself deeper? Really don't see what your trying to point out, if you don't like my opinion then offer one of your own that differs. Don't attack me for having an opinion.
June 30, 2015 4:12 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #11
Behgz do you need a pneumatic drill? your "opinion" is putting up poor arguments for something that will make a game of skill and luck more about skill and less about luck it's like a game lowering the power of critical strikes to enhance the skill needed rather than relying on the random number generator to say "sorry you rolled a 12 your crit chance is 13 you cannot have the thing you want"
June 30, 2015 4:49 p.m.
The appeal to authority argument is a logical fallacy.
Deckbuilding doesn't really come into high level magic. When you sit down to play T1 modern, for example, you're going to be playing an almost stock list that has little of your own flourishes. Even if it does it probably wont be more than 4 slots. Given this, natural variance rears its ugly head in a more significant manner at top tier play than it does in low tier play. If every decision you make is a sound one in a game then it's not the opponent that's going to screw you - it's a bad hand.
I don't really care about this crutch argument. Thats what wizards wants to do - make mulligans less punishing. Why? Because it makes magic more fun because, you know, being able to actually play the game is more fun than not. So this isn't a bad thing.
June 30, 2015 4:55 p.m.
GlistenerAgent says... #15
This was said on page 1 of this thread. Come on, people, calm the hell down.
June 30, 2015 5:55 p.m.
Well, I'm just plain happy for this. It's basically perfect for my Goryo's Vengeance deck, although I am worried that it will get banned now.
June 30, 2015 6:33 p.m.
I for one am excited for the change.
One thing to note: by the wording of the article, it sounds like they (wizards) have made up their minds that it will inevitably be enacted everywhere. I think the fact that they're demoing the new rule at PT Origins is just to get the community acclimated to the rule, rather than collect more data. It wouldn't be very effective on a large scale to just say "And now there's THIS rule. Deal with it."
To address the Delver of Secrets Flip concern: it DOES help, technically. But that case is so marginal, it's not worth denying the community a beneficial rule because ONE good card gets "1.47%" (I didn't check the math) better. If it becomes a serious issue to where you can't NOT play delver, then wizards will ban delver. No big deal.
I think the scry rule, along with the other changes the article mentions, will be an overall positive one for the magic community.
At the end of the day, Scry 1 after you keep with less than your maximum hand size isn't a very big deal. It doesn't break anything, but it DOES matter.
I can't tell you how many games I play that I mulligan to 6, and keep a very questionable hand because I know my odds are crap if I go to 5. Sure, the argument's there that I should play a more consistent deck and it's just the risk I take for not doing so. It still will be, but the scry will help.
Scenario:
I keep a 1 land hand at 6 with a couple 1 drops, a couple two drops, a 3 drop and 1 land in a mono color deck on the draw. I'm facing control. My opponent keeps 7, and If I mulligan to 5, there's no way I win. I just get out-resourced. So I keep my hand, I basically have to. I get two draw steps to hit a land, or else I don't get to play magic (realistically). I know with a scry, I basically get a 3rd chance to draw that land. I scry that 1 card, it's nonland and I ship it to the bottom. My 1st draw is nonland, ouch, okay. My second draw is a land, and suddenly I'm actually playing the game.
Through this, note, I'm still disadvantaged. I still am down a card, on the draw, against control. But at least I don't have to mulligan to 5, which is a death sentence.
I think this accurately portrays the intention for the new mulligan rule.
TL;DR: New mulligan rule not broken. Good.
July 2, 2015 11:25 a.m.
Well said Killkow, I can't tell you how many times I've played, even casually, where mine or my opponents starting hand is so bad that the rest of the game isn't fun.
More often than not, I'm hoping the opponent draws a land or whatever it is they need to actually play magic.
July 2, 2015 4:08 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #19
I agree. Winning a game due to an opponent's mana screwing is simply ungratifying. I'm not winning because of my skill; I'm winning because of dumb luck. Being on the opposing end is even worse - losing not because my opponent was a better player or had a better deck, but because or dumb luck. My favorite games of magic are the ones where both myself AND my opponent get to play a good fun interactive game. I always hope my opponent gets to play their deck to their fullest because that's much more fun. I happily accept a loss and that my opponent is simply better than me because that means I can still improve my deck and my own playing. With variance as the deciding factor, I want to leave the game because it's no longer fun. Variance is my biggest / only complaint about magic so I look forward to seeing the new rule come into play.
Yes, it makes mulligans more complicated for beginner players, but look at the other rules in the game such as the stack system and who has priority at what times and a slightly more complex mulligan seems fine. At the competitive level I think it solves lots of problems by reducing the effects of variance on land drops. For anyone who is hating on the rule for it being too generous to those that have to mulligan, I highly disagree. This rule is going to improve the game a lot.
July 2, 2015 7:40 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #20
The Mulligan rule seems quite fair to me. It slightly decreases the negative impacts of a bad initial draw, and anything that can make the game less about dumb luck and more about strategy and interaction is fine in my book.
The effect it has on delver decks (or any other) is not really game-changing anyway:
Putting away the top card eliminates 1/54th of the cards left in the deck. That doesn't make the chance to have the correct card type on top go from 0% to 33%. The chance would only increase by 1.85%, starting from 33%-ish, depending on the number of sorceries and instants you are running. So I'm fine with that, since the increase is marginal compared to the initial chance.
I wonder if the battlefield arrangement rules will evolve further than just "lands in the back" to deal with other camo tactics too. I'm also curious how the judges will rule on animated lands and land creatures. We obviously can't have a system that is as effective as Yu-Gi-Oh because it would also be horribly restrictive, too restrictive for MtG. But that first step is one that I can only welcome.
July 3, 2015 7:07 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #21
Triforce-Finder, your math is off.
Essentially, you're making the same mistake that people make when they look at the Monty Hall problem (three doors, two goats). You're right on what it does for the chances of that second card, but you're forgetting to add in the chances of that first card - if it's an instant or sorcery, you don't scry it away.
July 3, 2015 10:21 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #22
Yeah, I forgot that step.
I was calculating Xb instead of 1-((1-Xa)*(1-Xb)).
That happens when you're hasty, shame on me.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #1
Behgz I'm just trying to provide perspective. I know saying you're good on the internet means little. That's why on my profile page and tourney decks I provide my DCI# and links to decks with good finishes on StarcityGames.com. Look me up, my name is Trevor Hall.
My DCI
June 30, 2015 3:37 p.m. Edited.