I wrote about my experience with the London mulligan, looked at the available data from the trial period, and mentioned how WAR has shifted the format in the opposite direction from the trial metagame, so I really have no idea how the post-London metagame will look. Let me know what you think.
Agree that it will be difficult to predict the results, the changes from WAR, MH1, London Mulligan will all be mixed.
The most significant limitation of the trial is the duration. Metagames follow a typical process of innovation and adaptation, repeated until the metagame stabilizes with established tier one competitors.
I'll add that its not just limited in terms of duration, but also in terms of size. Unlike other formats, Vintage doesn't have a ton of players. I think there was only ~70 players that play in the leagues/challenges consistently, while that may seem like a lot, statistically that is not a very big number given the amount of variance in Magic deck-building / win %'s.
Turn 1 is pretty quick. I honestly don't know.
The thing is you can turn 1 Karn or Narset just as easily, so I'm not sure what powerful thing you should be doing on turn 1. Or how best to defend against asymmetrical hatewalkers (8 Forces, traps, Lavinias?)
This was a lot simpler when PO was clearly the most broken shell in the format.
With all due respect, why would the solution to [cards that prevent you from drawing cards and using artifacts] be a deck that wants to draw cards and use artifacts?
I get you want to do it all on turn one, and maybe the new mulligan rule aids that, but that strategy has been proven to be unreliable in the past.
Is interacting with the new planeswalkers really too much? Isn’t 2 for 1ing yourself to deal with something problematic just fine?
PO was clearly the winningest deck of the London Trial. It is equally clear that the post WAR metagame is hostile to PO. It is unclear to what degree these factors will compete. How the hell do you construe that as a proposed solution by any definition of the term?
And no, the answer to problematic cards is not two for one them. How did that work for mentor?
This article was informative. It was meant to convey data from the London trial and from the post WAR meta. I didn’t propose solutions to anything. I didn’t even make predictions. If you reached other conclusions, you need reread it.
Good analysis. Your draw seven deck has been one of my big "I wonder what the london mulligan rule will look like" questions as opposed to the kneejerk "we need to restrict workshop and bazaar"silliness. Narset and Karn are also big questions.
I think its going to take awhile for the format to balance itself out after MH.
I think Karn poses a problem for the fundamentals of vintage. In the past playing with more artifacts and lands gave the player a better chance to resolve spells against taxing effects. Karn stops the artifacts, so traditional methods are not likely to be successful on the same scale as Karn decks. If that isn't enough of a reason to take a serious look at Karn I don't know what is.
Something that concerns me is the length of time we play in a meta that is not suited for competitive play and eventually results in restrictions. It could be beneficial to analyze the length of time we play in "healthy" meta and the time we play in metas with cards like unrestricted Trinispheres and Monastery Mentors. That information could be used to determine if the restriction policies are working.
This will all end with a 'roll the dice' game... win the roll, win the game... How sad. This was a cool game.
The London mulligan in vintage Will change things deeply. Degenerate things are going to happen. All the time. Deck Building Will change. Draw 7 , draw 7, draw 7,draw 7 keep this 3 cards? With vintage cardpool? Yes baby, all day. Boom. Bombs everywhere. Will be war. Turn 1 like theres no tomorrow. Add these One sided PW add karn and narset. And so, at the end, Who goes first should win. This factor existed alredy but wasnt big as It Is now.
Chubby has seen just the top of the iceberg...