Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London

@ajfirecracker Do you think Dredge would still run Serum Powder if you have to put the cards back prior to mulliganing?

@chubbyrain said in Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London:

@ajfirecracker Do you think Dredge would still run Serum Powder if you have to put the cards back prior to mulliganing?

Hard to say.

I think Powder is actually better with this rule but so are normal mulligans, so it's hard to say how that all cashes out. Note that the cards are put back on the bottom, so Powder is fully effective to dig, and you find Powder more often on more cards, and you can more often avoid exiling multiple Powder for a single effect. So we have 1 neutral factor, 2 positive factors for Powder, and 1 "negative" factor in that the effect is not as sorely needed.

More Powders does also mean more cards in hand on average when you find Bazaar, which is worth a lot when you have disruption elements you can cast from hand.

last edited by ajfirecracker

@chubbyrain said in Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London:

I think the rule has been misinterpreted

I can really only think of 2 ways this rule would be implemented based on this wording:

  1. Draw 7, dont like it. Draw 7, dont like it. Draw 7, like it, put 2 on the bottom.

  2. Draw 7, dont like it. draw 6. Dont like it. Draw 5. Like it, draw 2 more to come up to 7, put 2 on the bottom.

Is there another interpretation you are seeing?

@khahan Yes.

  1. Draw 7, don't like it, mulligan. Draw 7, put 1 back, don't like it, mulligan. Draw 7, put 2 back, don't like it, mulligan.

Serum Powder is worded so that it replaces the decision to mulligan. You would not exile 7 cards each time under this interpretation as you would have already put the cards back.

This is virtually equivalent to your option 1 (since you could just shortcut putting a card back) except it doesn't work as well with Serum Powder, which makes me wonder if Wizards was trying to word the rule to make Serum Powder worse.

It also could be an effort to eliminate the negative experience of saying "keep", then realizing that over the course of putting cards back that the hand isn't great. This way, you aren't locked into a mulligan until you put the cards back (I would assume).

Got to thinking about this rule a bit and was trying to figure out cards and things that can take advantage of this other than the obvious ones like powder and bazaar and had 2 thoughts.

1 - This mulligan does have some corner cases where it is not strictly better, and many that are. The one thing I can think of is that on the mull to 6 you technically see the same number of cards, but you have the option not to bottom one on a keep. Additionally if you put the scry on top you are protecting it from duress for a turn, where as in the new rule it has to be in your hand.

2 - Squadron Hawk seems very strong to me now. I know that sounds silly but because you get to choose to bottom the cards you don't want, you basically always get to put other copies of hawk back and ensure the copy you keep is a 2 mana 1/1 flying draw 3 (and not 2 copies of a 1/1 draw 1). Obviously the power of this card is more about Jace or brainstorming the other copies away but I could see it getting a real boost if this mulligan rule took effect.

Somehow I doubt Squadron Hawk would start seeing widespread Vintage play, but maybe it has an impact on Modern?

@protoaddct said in Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London:

Got to thinking about this rule a bit and was trying to figure out cards and things that can take advantage of this other than the obvious ones like powder and bazaar and had 2 thoughts.

1 - This mulligan does have some corner cases where it is not strictly better, and many that are. The one thing I can think of is that on the mull to 6 you technically see the same number of cards, but you have the option not to bottom one on a keep. Additionally if you put the scry on top you are protecting it from duress for a turn, where as in the new rule it has to be in your hand.

2 - Squadron Hawk seems very strong to me now. I know that sounds silly but because you get to choose to bottom the cards you don't want, you basically always get to put other copies of hawk back and ensure the copy you keep is a 2 mana 1/1 flying draw 3 (and not 2 copies of a 1/1 draw 1). Obviously the power of this card is more about Jace or brainstorming the other copies away but I could see it getting a real boost if this mulligan rule took effect.

What immediately comes to my mind is in those situation is Oath targets or big bots like Blightsteel Colossus. Being able to bottom them from your opening hand is pretty strong.

@ajfirecracker said in Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London:

Somehow I doubt Squadron Hawk would start seeing widespread Vintage play, but maybe it has an impact on Modern?

Stranger things have happened. If this rule comes to pass I may try and brew with it. For certain it will have impact in modern but I could also imagine Legacy seeing a huge pull towards them. It is a format where 4 brainstorm and 4 Jace is a deck still, and carry a Jitte is still a legit strategy.

@khahan said in Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London:

What immediately comes to my mind is in those situation is Oath targets or big bots like Blightsteel Colossus. Being able to bottom them from your opening hand is pretty strong.

No doubt, but my point was that this was also possible with the old mull rule as well if it was your 6th card. The functional difference I was pointing out is that no known card can be hidden on the top under this new mulligan rule.

I think its a good point that its not all positive with this rule. There are also the cases, where you draw 7 really good cards during the mulligan phase and you end up having to bottom some of them.

I wonder if we can construct hands that would be otherwise keepable except for having knowledge of what you have to put on the bottom. A situation where if you didn't have knowledge of what was going to the bottom you would keep but because you know you may not see the cards you put there this game it forces a shuffle?

I have to believe this would be in decks without fetches or other shuffle effects just because otherwise you would not have that fear?

@protoaddct said in Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London:

1 - This mulligan does have some corner cases where it is not strictly better, and many that are. The one thing I can think of is that on the mull to 6 you technically see the same number of cards, but you have the option not to bottom one on a keep. Additionally if you put the scry on top you are protecting it from duress for a turn, where as in the new rule it has to be in your hand.

Although you see the same number of cards on a Mull to 6 (Draw 6+ Scry vs Draw 7- Bottom 1), it is functionally different. On a mull to 6+ Scry, you have to determine you are keeping your hand based on only seeing 6 cards. The Draw 7-bottom 1 lets you see all 7 cards and keep the best 6.

The counter case to your Duress example of course is fetchlands. There have been a greater than zero number of times my opening hand of fetchlands have been pinned down due to the opening scry.

last edited by xXHazardXx
  • 49
    Posts
  • 5584
    Views