If you use overly generous mulligan rules and players are even remotely competitive, the result isn't less mana screw, it's people running less lands, and seeing their most broken cards more often. More games ruined by Sol Ring, especially.
How many of you would be interested in an article (or series of articles) on how playgroup mulligan rules can affect deckbuilding? It would primarily focus on manabases, land count, that sort of thing. Common sense says that more lenient mulligans allow you to run fewer lands, but I think it would be interesting to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes:
1. How do the different mulligan rules (Partial Paris, "Big Deck", infinite mulligans) compare to each other?
2. If you reduce the number of lands in your deck, how does that affect you over the course of the game?
2a. Even better: what about over the lifetime of the deck?
3. What are some general deckbuilding and mulliganing tips we can glean to improve our experience overall?
It would be a math-heavy article but ideally bring us to some practical conclusions. It would also take up a good chunk of my free time, so I don't want to do it if no one cares. So, any takers? Any suggestions?
I would love reading this sort of stuff if done well. I would love to see a variety of levels of competition in decks tested in this though as well. Its one of those type of things that I think its important to give sort of a baseline of a high end vs a midrange vs a casual style of deck testing.
Supplying the decklists of the decks you would be testing would be useful as well just as a reference for the readers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Combo decks seem to benefit the most from generous mulliganing.
I wonder how true that is. Being able to mulligan into a tutor or combo piece is an obvious advantage, but another deck could also be mulliganing into an answer.
I know that I never keep a hand against a Kaalia deck that doesn't have a counterspell or kill spell.
I said no, and then read what you meant and after it was clarified this would be something interesting. Obviously only on a competitive level and not really a casual basis.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Decks:
Modern
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Legacy
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
I answered with an emphatic yes. If people are abusing the Partial Paris mulligan, then that playgroup needs to essentially discontinue the practice and go back to a normal Paris mulligan rule.
When the argument about how Sol Ring and Mana Crypt were ruining all sorts of games came up in the Ban List thread, one of the arguments that came up was how certain people would aggressively mulligan to them. I posted this about how often Sol Ring and Mana Crypt would actually show up in games even taking mulligans into consideration.
Sol Ring will only show up in your opening hand 7% of the time (not counting mulligans). If you run both, the chances of having one in your opening hand is 13.7% (again, not counting mulligans). If you are willing to fully mulligan down to five cards (using Partial Paris method, exiling all 7 of the opener and all 6 of the next hand), these numbers only go up to 18.2% for one and 33.2% if you run both. There is no way that these cards are "ruining" hundreds of games. Even if someone is willing to mull that aggressively to get to Sol Ring or Mana Crypt, that doesn't mean they have sufficient colored mana or good enough other spells to make the hand worth keeping. This is all worth noting because the primary reason for wanting to ban these cards is because of how good they are on the first two turns of the game. I don't think anyone disagrees that they can provide for explosive starts, but to say that they are ruining all of your games seems like a huge overstatement of the problem and hyperbole for hyperbole's sake .
I would love for someone to take the time to expand on this issue and provide some objective analysis on how Partial Paris mulligans have no real place in a competitive environment.
i think as interesting and/or as well written the article would be, the actual target audience that the article SHOULD reach aren't generally the type that would wanna hear any of it. i mean if one would, for lack of a better word, cheat his/her way to sculpting a god-hand and simultaneously increase the topdeck quality, then i dunno... it doesn't seem like he/she'd take the time to read the article.
which is why i'd only apply our generous mulligan rules to our private semi-closed group meta.
I would love reading this sort of stuff if done well. I would love to see a variety of levels of competition in decks tested in this though as well. Its one of those type of things that I think its important to give sort of a baseline of a high end vs a midrange vs a casual style of deck testing.
Supplying the decklists of the decks you would be testing would be useful as well just as a reference for the readers.
I don't think I will be able to devote the time to gathering enough empirical information to be meaningful. It will be spreadsheet-driven with lots of number crunching. That said, I will plan to illustrate a "case study" with one of my own decks at the end showing how I put my findings to use (if there are any meaningful findings).
Also, due to the nature of this sort of article, it will probably appeal most to those wishing to improve at the game, which more often than not is the competitive crowd. Still, even casual and semi-casual players can benefit from a better manabase!
i think as interesting and/or as well written the article would be, the actual target audience that the article SHOULD reach aren't generally the type that would wanna hear any of it. i mean if one would, for lack of a better word, cheat his/her way to sculpting a god-hand and simultaneously increase the topdeck quality, then i dunno... it doesn't seem like he/she'd take the time to read the article.
You may be right, but in the end I guess it's not really my problem. I bet you and I and everyone else in this thread will learn something that we can put to use in either deckbuilding, in-game mulligan decisions, and playgroup-level mulligan rulings.
Preliminary findings: The difference in effectiveness of digging for lands with the Partial Paris mulligan versus regular mulligans is astonishing. Like, after one mulligan to 6 with a 37-land deck, the average land count in your opening hand is basically doubled. The discrepancy is magnified as you reduce your land count, and it diminishes as you increase your land count.
Hmm like most things in magic it's not the simple.. The difference it makes in a combo deck packed full of tutors draw 7s rituals etc is much more abusuve with this kind if mulligan system where with a control deck cutting lands is much more difficult. For instance if my plan is to luke out mox Diamond sol ring mana crypt etc and then use my first tutor to refill off a draw 7 I can much more easily abuse this system than a controlling or slower ramping deck infact the draw 7 not only cheats me ahead but negates the benefits of the mulligan process to my opponents I played a game last week where theyet me free partial then partial THEN scry 2 and I open sol ring into top into spin see crypt turn 2 natures lorn Etherium scuptor mana crypt time twister . Not only was a grossly ahead but I just pooped all over thier mulligan. Since I was on the play even the blue mages who had parsed into cmc 2 counters were helpless to stop me. Ah and yes I'm interested in you writing something everything you do seems to be a good source of information.
To whomever is reading: I am steadily making progress on the research but I ran into a hiccup. The LGS in my town uses a sort of Partial Paris, but requires shuffling the pitched cards back before drawing again. This is a minor change from the official Partial Paris so it doesn't seem like a big deal, but the computations for this system are not trivial. I can't think of any clever shortcuts to make the math simpler.
If any computer science majors want to lend a hand, please reply or send me a PM because I can use the help.
The LGS in my town uses a sort of Partial Paris, but requires shuffling the pitched cards back before drawing again.
That seems annoying. Isn't the whole reason the Paris mulligan was adopted into EDH so that you would only have to shuffle once during the whole mulliganing process? Taking all that time to shuffle over and over seems to defeat the whole purpose.
What is the normal method that only requires 1 shuffle?
The way we have always done it is. You shuffle at the start, then draw your 7 and do partial mulligans. Then after all mulliganing is done we shuffle the cards you set aside back in to our decks so we shuffle twice at most.
I answered with an emphatic yes. If people are abusing the Partial Paris mulligan, then that playgroup needs to essentially discontinue the practice and go back to a normal Paris mulligan rule.
When the argument about how Sol Ring and Mana Crypt were ruining all sorts of games came up in the Ban List thread, one of the arguments that came up was how certain people would aggressively mulligan to them. I posted this about how often Sol Ring and Mana Crypt would actually show up in games even taking mulligans into consideration.
Sol Ring will only show up in your opening hand 7% of the time (not counting mulligans). If you run both, the chances of having one in your opening hand is 13.7% (again, not counting mulligans). If you are willing to fully mulligan down to five cards (using Partial Paris method, exiling all 7 of the opener and all 6 of the next hand), these numbers only go up to 18.2% for one and 33.2% if you run both. There is no way that these cards are "ruining" hundreds of games. Even if someone is willing to mull that aggressively to get to Sol Ring or Mana Crypt, that doesn't mean they have sufficient colored mana or good enough other spells to make the hand worth keeping. This is all worth noting because the primary reason for wanting to ban these cards is because of how good they are on the first two turns of the game. I don't think anyone disagrees that they can provide for explosive starts, but to say that they are ruining all of your games seems like a huge overstatement of the problem and hyperbole for hyperbole's sake .
I would love for someone to take the time to expand on this issue and provide some objective analysis on how Partial Paris mulligans have no real place in a competitive environment.
It's not that the cards come up all that often, it's that they are so disruptive when they do show up. Either they are immediately answered, or super-swingy spells get thrown around on turns 2 and 3.
It's not that I'd abuse Partial Paris rules to find a Sol Ring, it's that I'd use them to sculpt a hand that naturally drew a Sol Ring into something that can best use it. For instance, if I naturally draw Sol Ring and a high impact 5 mana card (let's say Jace 3.0) in a deck that runs nine 2cc mana rocks, you can bet I'd abuse PP to try to find one of those rocks, because very few starts can compete with T1 Land-Sol Ring-Simic Signet, T2 Land-Jace 3.
That's what I mean by games 'ruined by' Sol Ring - games where the Ring presents an overwhelming early threat.
What is the normal method that only requires 1 shuffle?
The way we have always done it is. You shuffle at the start, then draw your 7 and do partial mulligans. Then after all mulliganing is done we shuffle the cards you set aside back in to our decks so we shuffle twice at most.
I meant shuffling once during the mulligan process. I wasn't counting the initial shuffle at the start of the game. Whereas the way they apparently have it, anyone doing more than one mulligan will shuffle again every time.
Yup, I'd read it. While I am not super-competitive, I enjoy deckbuilding and find theorycrafting always interesting to read
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
X Hope of Ghirapur Swordpile W Ghosty Blinky Anafenza U Nezahal- Big, Blue and HERE! B Gonti Can Afford It R Etali, Primal 'Whatjusthappened?' G Polukranos Wants More Mana WU The Exalted Vizier Temmet WB Home, Athreos WR Basandra, Recursive Aggression WG Karametra, Momma of Lands UB Wrexial Eats Your Brains UR Arjun, the Mad Flame UG The Fable of Prime Speaker BR Hellbent, Malfegor Style BG Jarad, Death is Served RG Running Thromok WUB Varina and ALL the Zombies WUBYennett, the Odd Pain-Train WUR Zedruu the Furyhearted WUG Arcades' Strategy, Shmategy, Sausage and Spam WBR A Case of Mathas' Persistent F*ckery WBRLicia's League of Legendary Lifegain Layabouts WBG The Karador Advantage PackageWRG Gahiji Rattlesnake Collection UBR Jeleva... does... things UBG Damia's Just Deserts URG Yasova's Has More Power Than Sense BRG Wasitora, Bad Kitty WUBRBreya, Eggs, Breya'd Eggs WUBG Tymna and Kydele, Extended Borrowing WURG Kynaios and Tiro, Landfall Impersonations WBRG Saskia Pet Card EnchantressUBRG Yidris of the Chi-Ting Corporation WUBRG Tazri's Amazing Allies
The LGS in my town uses a sort of Partial Paris, but requires shuffling the pitched cards back before drawing again.
That seems annoying. Isn't the whole reason the Paris mulligan was adopted into EDH so that you would only have to shuffle once during the whole mulliganing process? Taking all that time to shuffle over and over seems to defeat the whole purpose.
I think the reasons for doing it this way are:
1. Some folks misinterpreted the official rules to begin with and everyone else went along with it;
2. When I brought it to their attention they didn't like how drawing without replacement helped combo decks.
One benefit that may come from this article is determining if the extra shuffling really helps the matter at all. If not, maybe I can talk them into changing. If it does help, this rule might be a "best of both worlds" scenario, except it won't save any time over normal mulligans.
The LGS in my town uses a sort of Partial Paris, but requires shuffling the pitched cards back before drawing again.
That seems annoying. Isn't the whole reason the Paris mulligan was adopted into EDH so that you would only have to shuffle once during the whole mulliganing process? Taking all that time to shuffle over and over seems to defeat the whole purpose.
I think the reasons for doing it this way are:
1. Some folks misinterpreted the official rules to begin with and everyone else went along with it;
2. When I brought it to their attention they didn't like how drawing without replacement helped combo decks.
One benefit that may come from this article is determining if the extra shuffling really helps the matter at all. If not, maybe I can talk them into changing. If it does help, this rule might be a "best of both worlds" scenario, except it won't save any time over normal mulligans.
Except that with normal mulligans, people are more likely to just keep their hand, since pitching your whole hand can be very risky.
I'd totally read this btw. I love probabilities and statistics.
I second this. And I was probably the one who brought up the link between mulligans and T1 Sol Ring in the multiplayer banlist discussions. Absolutely will read.
If this article is successful, I hope it will shed some light on how loose our current mulligan rule is, and to an extent our banlist. EDH has become a recognized format for 2 years in, yet it's funny that the glues holding the community together are in bits and pieces.
The signs of fracture between competitive and casual, the loose banlist and mulligan rule, the breakaway of Duel Commander... More discussions on them will be good for all of us.
I'd read it! I would love some stats and percentages to bring up at my semi-competitive playgroup. We do partial mulligan, and I'm getting wary of how often those 1cc rocks pop out.
Except that with normal mulligans, people are more likely to just keep their hand, since pitching your whole hand can be very risky.
I'd totally read this btw. I love probabilities and statistics.
Eh, honestly you could argue that either way. The other side of the coin is that, if the player decides to mulligan, it might take more iterations to get an acceptable hand.
Also, I realized my model for the regular partial paris is inaccurate as well. I've got some friends helping me calculate these numbers using a Monte Carlo simulation... aka, brute forcing it with millions of trials.
Except that with normal mulligans, people are more likely to just keep their hand, since pitching your whole hand can be very risky.
I'd totally read this btw. I love probabilities and statistics.
Eh, honestly you could argue that either way. The other side of the coin is that, if the player decides to mulligan, it might take more iterations to get an acceptable hand.
Also, I realized my model for the regular partial paris is inaccurate as well. I've got some friends helping me calculate these numbers using a Monte Carlo simulation... aka, brute forcing it with millions of trials.
Possibly. That would be an interesting thing to see.
And sweet! I did some Monte Carlo stuff last year for my AI course. It's a rather hilarious method.
How many of you would be interested in an article (or series of articles) on how playgroup mulligan rules can affect deckbuilding? It would primarily focus on manabases, land count, that sort of thing. Common sense says that more lenient mulligans allow you to run fewer lands, but I think it would be interesting to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes:
1. How do the different mulligan rules (Partial Paris, "Big Deck", infinite mulligans) compare to each other?
2. If you reduce the number of lands in your deck, how does that affect you over the course of the game?
2a. Even better: what about over the lifetime of the deck?
3. What are some general deckbuilding and mulliganing tips we can glean to improve our experience overall?
It would be a math-heavy article but ideally bring us to some practical conclusions. It would also take up a good chunk of my free time, so I don't want to do it if no one cares. So, any takers? Any suggestions?
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Supplying the decklists of the decks you would be testing would be useful as well just as a reference for the readers.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Combo decks seem to benefit the most from generous mulliganing.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
I wonder how true that is. Being able to mulligan into a tutor or combo piece is an obvious advantage, but another deck could also be mulliganing into an answer.
I know that I never keep a hand against a Kaalia deck that doesn't have a counterspell or kill spell.
Modern Warp / UR Control / UR Storm / Naya Breachshift / ElectroBalance
Solidarity / Lands / Sneak and Show / Grixis Delver / Reanimator / Belcher / Storm / Dredge
When the argument about how Sol Ring and Mana Crypt were ruining all sorts of games came up in the Ban List thread, one of the arguments that came up was how certain people would aggressively mulligan to them. I posted this about how often Sol Ring and Mana Crypt would actually show up in games even taking mulligans into consideration.
I would love for someone to take the time to expand on this issue and provide some objective analysis on how Partial Paris mulligans have no real place in a competitive environment.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
which is why i'd only apply our generous mulligan rules to our private semi-closed group meta.
that being said, i'd read it!
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
I don't think I will be able to devote the time to gathering enough empirical information to be meaningful. It will be spreadsheet-driven with lots of number crunching. That said, I will plan to illustrate a "case study" with one of my own decks at the end showing how I put my findings to use (if there are any meaningful findings).
Also, due to the nature of this sort of article, it will probably appeal most to those wishing to improve at the game, which more often than not is the competitive crowd. Still, even casual and semi-casual players can benefit from a better manabase!
You may be right, but in the end I guess it's not really my problem. I bet you and I and everyone else in this thread will learn something that we can put to use in either deckbuilding, in-game mulligan decisions, and playgroup-level mulligan rulings.
Preliminary findings: The difference in effectiveness of digging for lands with the Partial Paris mulligan versus regular mulligans is astonishing. Like, after one mulligan to 6 with a 37-land deck, the average land count in your opening hand is basically doubled. The discrepancy is magnified as you reduce your land count, and it diminishes as you increase your land count.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
To whomever is reading: I am steadily making progress on the research but I ran into a hiccup. The LGS in my town uses a sort of Partial Paris, but requires shuffling the pitched cards back before drawing again. This is a minor change from the official Partial Paris so it doesn't seem like a big deal, but the computations for this system are not trivial. I can't think of any clever shortcuts to make the math simpler.
If any computer science majors want to lend a hand, please reply or send me a PM because I can use the help.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
That seems annoying. Isn't the whole reason the Paris mulligan was adopted into EDH so that you would only have to shuffle once during the whole mulliganing process? Taking all that time to shuffle over and over seems to defeat the whole purpose.
The way we have always done it is. You shuffle at the start, then draw your 7 and do partial mulligans. Then after all mulliganing is done we shuffle the cards you set aside back in to our decks so we shuffle twice at most.
It's not that the cards come up all that often, it's that they are so disruptive when they do show up. Either they are immediately answered, or super-swingy spells get thrown around on turns 2 and 3.
It's not that I'd abuse Partial Paris rules to find a Sol Ring, it's that I'd use them to sculpt a hand that naturally drew a Sol Ring into something that can best use it. For instance, if I naturally draw Sol Ring and a high impact 5 mana card (let's say Jace 3.0) in a deck that runs nine 2cc mana rocks, you can bet I'd abuse PP to try to find one of those rocks, because very few starts can compete with T1 Land-Sol Ring-Simic Signet, T2 Land-Jace 3.
That's what I mean by games 'ruined by' Sol Ring - games where the Ring presents an overwhelming early threat.
On the article: Yes, I'd definitely read it.
I meant shuffling once during the mulligan process. I wasn't counting the initial shuffle at the start of the game. Whereas the way they apparently have it, anyone doing more than one mulligan will shuffle again every time.
I think the reasons for doing it this way are:
1. Some folks misinterpreted the official rules to begin with and everyone else went along with it;
2. When I brought it to their attention they didn't like how drawing without replacement helped combo decks.
One benefit that may come from this article is determining if the extra shuffling really helps the matter at all. If not, maybe I can talk them into changing. If it does help, this rule might be a "best of both worlds" scenario, except it won't save any time over normal mulligans.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Except that with normal mulligans, people are more likely to just keep their hand, since pitching your whole hand can be very risky.
I'd totally read this btw. I love probabilities and statistics.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR Tajic, Wrath of the Manlands RW
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR Mogis, God of Slaughter RB
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW
If this article is successful, I hope it will shed some light on how loose our current mulligan rule is, and to an extent our banlist. EDH has become a recognized format for 2 years in, yet it's funny that the glues holding the community together are in bits and pieces.
The signs of fracture between competitive and casual, the loose banlist and mulligan rule, the breakaway of Duel Commander... More discussions on them will be good for all of us.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
It's a good way for everyone to learn things deeper.
EDH DECKS
[to be updated
OTHER DECKS
Eh, honestly you could argue that either way. The other side of the coin is that, if the player decides to mulligan, it might take more iterations to get an acceptable hand.
Also, I realized my model for the regular partial paris is inaccurate as well. I've got some friends helping me calculate these numbers using a Monte Carlo simulation... aka, brute forcing it with millions of trials.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Possibly. That would be an interesting thing to see.
And sweet! I did some Monte Carlo stuff last year for my AI course. It's a rather hilarious method.
BBB Two Hundred Zombies BBB
Duel Commander
WR Tajic, Wrath of the Manlands RW
BGW Doran Destruction WGB
Commander
GUB Mimeoplasm, Screw Politics BUG
BR Mogis, God of Slaughter RB
RGW Marath, Ramp and Removal WGR
WUBRG Karona, Jank God GRBUW