Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London

@p3temangus said in Proposed New Mulligan Rule for Mythic Championship London:

Its probably easier to leave the mulligan rule as is for eternal formats than have to deal with multiple rounds of bannings/restrictions before they got this right.

While this might true, I think in the long run it's probably not a good thing if different formats follow different basic rules of MTG!

Just curious but how much would this increase odds of Mox/crypt/lotus + Orchard + Oath turn 1? They are all 4+ ofs, can anyone do the math?

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

I'm trying to find the MTG Arena angle that's almost certainly behind this, but I'm coming up blank so far.

It's because of the e-sports push. They took some criticism at whatever PT it was last year after LSV anticlimactically exited the top eight when he had to mull to four. Non-games like that are bad for the streaming numbers, which is what they're focusing on now.

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

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

I'm trying to find the MTG Arena angle that's almost certainly behind this, but I'm coming up blank so far.

It's because of the e-sports push. They took some criticism at whatever PT it was last year after LSV anticlimactically exited the top eight when he had to mull to four. Non-games like that are bad for the streaming numbers, which is what they're focusing on now.

Still, that is probably the only game I remember from that PT...

Dredge opponents can also mulligan to Leyline game 2. So I don’t think this would make Dredge oppressive. Better, sure, maybe better to the point of maindeck graveyard hate, but nothing that is restrictable.

last edited by vaughnbros

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

Just curious but how much would this increase odds of Mox/crypt/lotus + Orchard + Oath turn 1? They are all 4+ ofs, can anyone do the math?

Assuming 4 Orchard, 4 Oath and 7 Mox/Lotus/Crypt and assuming you mulligan until you have T1 Oath, roughly 32% compared to 15% under the existing mulligan rule.

last edited by boerma

What I find irritating about this rule is that no one asked for it. When the Paris mulligan was created in the 1990’s it was created by players to solve a real problem.

The original mulligan rule was not good and in Type 1 it could be abused by no land decks or very heavy land decks by getting free mulligans.

This new mulligan rule looks like a solution without a problem. Card games have variance and sometimes you lose to variance.

last edited by moorebrother1

@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?

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

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.

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

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.

  • 49
    Posts
  • 13898
    Views