Old School players prefer to play with mana burn, even though that no longer exists in Magic.

@fsecco said in SMIP Podcast # 88 - The "London" Mulligan in Vintage:

@smmenen said in SMIP Podcast # 88 - The "London" Mulligan in Vintage:

I play Alpha40, which uses no mulligans at all, and the player who goes first draws on their first turn.

It’s not hard to remember.

Also, I have always hated the scry mulligan in Old School. I wouldn’t permit it at all.

I don’t consider any paticular mulligan to be a “core” magic mechanic.

Those are casual formats, Steve, it's way different than official, sanctioned formats. Differences between Limited and Constructed are so big that having 40/60 cards is inconsequential. That said, I also think that if it's necessary I wouldn't have issues with different mulligans for different formats, as long as it's a last resort only policy and that the formats with the different mulligan have something very distinct to remember which one(s) have it. For example, if it's only 1 format (like everyone gets Vancouver except Standard, or everyone gets London except Vintage) or if it's something like "all Eternal formats stay on Vancouver" - but just to show how confusing that could be, there are a LOT of players that think Modern is an Eternal format, so even that would be a problem hahaha

Magic tournament floor rules change regularly.

Players are expected to be up to date on countless areas of minutia, from errata to triggers to mulligan rules. I have lost games and received tournament penalties for applying out-dated rules in tournament contexts, because I was unaware of a relevant change, including the countless changes around triggers. I'm sure many players forget to 'scry' in Vintage games, especially old time players.

I'm not advocating that Vintage has it's own mulligan rule. But the idea that such an approach is too administratively cumbersome, inefficient, complex or challenging is not particularly convincing. Especially given the innumerable ways I've already listed in which formats differ or the innumerable rules changes over the years that players must adapt to.

While it's true that many rules changes are ostensibly universal across formats, the reality is that many rules have unequal effects across formats. The removal of interrupts from the game of magic basically only impacts Vintage and Legacy today.

Players already have to track numerous facets of game play. It's trivial for a judge to remind players at the beginning of a tournament what mulligan rule is in force, or whatnot. Just as they do about banned and restricted lists follow B&R changes.

The fact that there have been so many different mulligan rules in Magic - as covered in this podcast - illustrates that mulliganining is not a 'core' Magic mechanic.

People thought that separating the Type I and Type II B&R list was too administratively cumbersome, and it was done. Same with Type I and Type I.5. A separate Vintage or Legacy 'mulligan' rule is far less disruptive than, say, the removal of the stack during combat or changes in how optional triggers are handled.

I play Alpha40, which uses no mulligans at all, and the player who goes first draws on their first turn.

It’s not hard to remember.

Also, I have always hated the scry mulligan in Old School. I wouldn’t permit it at all.

I don’t consider any paticular mulligan to be a “core” magic mechanic.

I think Kevin shares your view, but think about all of the rules in Magic that are different between formats:

1. The minimum number of cards per deck (40 v. 60 v. 100)
2. the size of sideboards (limited allows more than 15)
3. the list of permissible sets
4. Banned and Restricted Lists
5. match structure (best of 1, best of 3, best of 5)

Why not mulligans?

Your point, about administrative efficiency and simplicity, was not good enough reason to require Type 1 and Type 2 to share the same Banned and Restricted list, and they were eventually unbuckled. Same with Type 1 and Type 1.5 (although slightly differently). Those, too, were unbuckled.

If different mulligan rules serve different formats, I see no reason that couldn't be accomplished for the same reason that different deck sizes, match structures or B&R lists do.

As you'll discover, when you all find time to listen, Kevin and I like the new mulligan proposal, and think it will help, not hurt, Vintage.

Our podcast went live Monday, but it's still not up on EC yet. @JACO

So as you don't have to wait another minute longer, you can listen on MTGCast.

http://www.mtgcast.com/podcasts/so-many-insane-plays/posts/episode-88-the-london-mulligan-6c46fa2c13

Kevin Cron and Steve Menendian analyze the London Mulligan for Vintage, including its impact on individual decks, pregame procedures, matchups, and the metagame.

Contact us at @ManyInsanePlays (https://twitter.com/manyinsaneplays) on Twitter or e-mail us at SoManyInsanePlaysPodcast@gmail.com.

0:01:00: Announcements
0:02:40: VSL Updates
0:25:40: The London Mulligan announcement and general impacts
0:58:00: Mathematics and specific impacts
1:51:15: Predictions and likelihood for implementation

Links:

• London Mulligan Announcement: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/competitive-gaming/mythic-championship-ii-format-and-london-test-2019-02-21
• 2015 Article on Mulligans: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/mulligans-2015-08-07
• Reddit Post on Mathematics: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/atgt2k/comment/eh10xfg

You should consider playing Eldrazi with 4 Null Rods.

Nice job Joe! You are the only regular vintage columnist these days. Keep up the good work and carry the torch!

@evouga said in Is anyone enjoying this new meta?:

One idea I've suggested in the past is testing Vintage tournaments where matches last more than three games (by adopting a best-of-five format, say). This is one way to combat the variance/"polarity" concern articulated in this thread. Individual games might still be blowouts but the outcome of the match would shift more towards deckbuilding and play skill than blind luck.

Just to be clear, matchup polarization & variance arent the same thing.

You can have extreme polarization with zero variance, as in rock, paper, scissors.

In fact, Turning matchups to best of five would actually heighten/increase/exacerbate polarization, because it would reduce the wins underdogs accrue through luck.

That doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea; just that it wouldn’t reduce polarization.

Thanks! This is really useful, so I'm sure I'll have more questions in the future

My main question though is just to clarify, that the overall match win % for archetypes is "Known OP Match Win %," correct?

Also, for your metagame breakdowns, are these complete breakdowns or just the top 32 decklists?