Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London

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

If anyone is curious, the odds of failing to finding a 4-of in a 60 card deck with 6 mulligans (as 7 mulligans serves no point) is (1-0.40)^6 = 4.7%

You get seven shots at finding the Bazaar (keeping 7 cards, keeping 6, …, keeping 1), so the probability of failing to find it under the new rule is (1-.4)⁷ = 2.8%. I don’t know exactly how Serum Powders will work under the new rules, but if you just exile seven, I don’t think main deck Dredge hate will be good enough.

I simulated 1000000 games for each option (old/new rule, with/without Serum Powder). These are the percentages of getting T1 Bazaar:

Old rule without Powders: 86.6%
Old rule with Powders: 94.1%
New rule without Powders: 97.2%
New rule with Powders (exiling 7): 99.6%

@moorebrother1

Why do you think Mulligans aren't a problem? How many games are won/lost simply on having bad luck on your 1st/2nd mulligans? Shouldn't that be mitigated?

Reality is if this is going to be a spectator sport then there needs to be less games decided at the mulligan phase.

The coin flip phase is a bigger issue for eternal, but I don't think its that much of a problem for standard formats so we probably won't see much change there.

@vaughnbros this rule change makes it worse for eternal formats not better. Every good vintage deck will have certain hands that are almost unbeatable. That is vintage.

Magic is a card game. Variance is part of playing a card game. I lost to Oath while playing PO because I started with bad hands at SCG Con (mull to 5) but I had a turn one win against Shops and some crazy opens against other decks.

If we try to reduce variance in Vintage we are going to make the format all about hyper efficient mulligans not actually playing cards.

@moorebrother1

Variance is part of the fun, but not variance that players have 0 control over. If we just simply wanted to gamble then we would go to the casino. The fun of playing magic is that its a game of skill. Reducing the random variation is a good thing.

Every good vintage deck will have certain hands that are almost unbeatable. That is vintage.

If that's Vintage then why don't we love a rule change that will maximize what Vintage is?

Every good vintage deck will have certain hands that are almost unbeatable. That is vintage.

If that's Vintage then why don't we love a rule change that will maximize what Vintage is?

This argument could be made about any rule change with this kind of impact. For that reason, I find it very unconvincing.

I have never been a fan of this screwy "Scry 1" mulligan rule. At least this one seems more elegant than mulligan any number of times and still just Scry 1 - I would like to test it out before throwing it under the bus.

@themonadnomad I have played through 2 changes to mulligans and the current one is ok. If it were up to me I would do away with the scry for 1.

Each time the rules changed there was some apprehension from the community. "Paris" mulligan as it used to be called was created by players and this one makes sense. Throw your hand away and get a new one minus a card.

This new one developed by Wizards is scary to me. There are already too many games and too much of culture that assumes turn FOW if you are on blue. Dredge has to have turn one Bazaar and Shops has to have turn one threat or lock.

This rule just makes all of this worse. As a Xerox player, I can now sculpt my hand into FOW, Misstep, and blue card which is already oppressive. And Shops will pretty much always have a Workshop. How is this better?

last edited by moorebrother1

@moorebrother1

I think you are grossly overestimating the effect of this change. No one other than Dredge is going to mulligan to oblivion to find one card as you still lose a card every time you mulligan. The new rule just grants you potentially better card quality on your average card in hand than your opponent instead of a strict disadvantage of down cards AND same card quality on your average card.

This argument could be made about any rule change with this kind of impact. For that reason, I find it very >unconvincing.

No mana burn, no damage on the stack, and other rules changes that dumbed down the game still feel very un-Vintage to me so there's that.

Someone on Reddit helpfully noticed that they've already kicked around this idea: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/mulligans-2015-08-07

What we didn't like: This mulligan was way too strong in Constructed, and encouraged big changes in deck building. Perhaps the most notable thing was in Modern and Eternal formats, where sideboard hate got a lot stronger since you could shuffle extra copies back into your decks. Similarly, combo decks got a huge advantage since they could mulligan away possibly useless cards. In one of our biggest rules violations for changing the mulligan rule, it clearly changed the parameters for deck building, and would have a profound impact on how older formats played out.

Has anyone run the nymbers for Two Card Monte? This seems way more relevant there.

My suspicion is, at least in Vintage, that this rule would make mulliganing your average 7 correct. If you have 1-2 more lands than you might want or whatever that you’d probably keep now, this new rule encourages you to ship it instead. I don’t think that’s good.

The other issue I see is in paper, it will make it easier for bad actors to cheat during the mulligan process.

I think people are way too focused on dredge. What concerns me most is shops. This deck already mulligans incredibly well. A 5 card shops hand can still be rather devastating. Having to pick the best 5 of 7 just means its mulligans get even stronger.

My suspicion is, at least in Vintage, that this rule would make mulliganing your average 7 correct. If you have 1-2 more lands than you might want or whatever that you’d probably keep now, this new rule encourages you to ship it instead. I don’t think that’s good.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The impact might be muted somewhat due to the overall higher power level of the average card in Vintage compared to other formats, but I still think going down a card is a big enough drawback that it'll continue to be correct to keep marginal hands like the one you describe.

That idea sure brings a lot of talk!

It certainly makes the game more watchable and spectacular. It could give magic a bit of punch and would bring a wild west era. New strategies could emerge from that rule, which is always great for keeping the game lively.

I'll try it myself, it's the best way to know how it feels!

One thing I didn't think of is that you can avoid Powdering multiple Powders at once, so this rule actually interacts extremely well with Serum Powder. Odds of hitting Bazaar will be higher due to more efficient Powders, not just that you get more looks total.

last edited by ajfirecracker

I can't wait for this to catch on so bazaar and shop can get restricted. Then I can get a reasonably priced playset during the ensuing fire sale :).

@boerma You are correct. While you can't mulligan 7 times, you can certainly mulligan 0 times. The exponent should be 7.

I think the rule has been misinterpreted and that you are supposed to put the cards back before determining whether or not you would mulligan, so you would exile the remaining cards in your hand. In practice, it wouldn't matter as you could just declare you are mulliganing and shortcut the selection. But it would effect Serum Powder and makes me wonder if that was the basis for the rule. And it has interesting applications for Powder in Dredge as it would allow you to save certain Dread Return targets from exile (albeit putting it on the bottom of the deck).

It is interesting how the impact of Serum Powder is much less with the new rule, even if you exile/draw 7 cards. Serum Powder might still be worth it as it increases the number of cards in you opening hands, but that is an interesting debate.

last edited by Guest

Either they wanted to design around Serum Powder or they had to be careful of the phrase "opening hand" which legally allows stuff like Leylines or Chancellor triggers to be played.

@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
• 49
Posts
• 11539
Views