Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
Yea I was thinking scry 1 in addition to the scry 1 off a mulligan, scry 1 twice
The 3 life can really throw off damage math of a burn/aggro deck. It's a free lightning bolt counter. One and a half goblin guide attacks. It could also be a "free" fetch and shock to help recoup lost tempo for being on the draw
Hmm interesting, I'll propose it to some of the guys and see what they say, generally a group of magic players are pretty equipped to handle math and programming easily
I play at Mox Mania in Madison, WI
Sweet! I also play at Mox. Keep missing the 1k's though lol. We might be able to push for a test tournament of this system, but they probably wouldn't be able to run it as a sanctioned event, though. So we would need to convince the store to run it as a separate tournament. I can volunteer to write some software that can run the event.
Isn't the issue then what happens with people who want to be on the draw. Some decks like 8 rack and there's a guy at mox on tezz thopter combo that always choose to be on the draw. Would they still be given the option? Same goes for people suggesting an extra scry. Scry is probably worth 1/2 a card on the draw so if I play gemstone cavern t0 and get a scry to t1 cathartic reunion in dredge is that still fair?
Isn't the issue then what happens with people who want to be on the draw. Some decks like 8 rack and there's a guy at mox on tezz thopter combo that always choose to be on the draw. Would they still be given the option? Same goes for people suggesting an extra scry. Scry is probably worth 1/2 a card on the draw so if I play gemstone cavern t0 and get a scry to t1 cathartic reunion in dredge is that still fair?
It doesn't matter whether you want to be on the play or draw. The point is winning the die roll allows one player to choose, and the other player not to choose. This is still an unequal system favoring whoever won the roll.
Isn't the issue then what happens with people who want to be on the draw. Some decks like 8 rack and there's a guy at mox on tezz thopter combo that always choose to be on the draw. Would they still be given the option? Same goes for people suggesting an extra scry. Scry is probably worth 1/2 a card on the draw so if I play gemstone cavern t0 and get a scry to t1 cathartic reunion in dredge is that still fair?
It doesn't matter whether you want to be on the play or draw. The point is winning the die roll allows one player to choose, and the other player not to choose. This is still an unequal system favoring whoever won the roll.
Right my question is with the proposed idea of it saying p/d in matching system set in stone or does the player on the play get to choose to differ? Instead of it saying p/d it should be a *by the name of the player who gets the choice.
Decks that are want to be on the draw are few and far between. The point is to even things up so that whether you are on the play or the draw you're not hugely disadvantaged. The decks that already want to be on the draw will benefit more from it of course but none of those decks are so strong that I believe this will create problems.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
MTGO seems easy, just reduce the play by 5 minutes clock time. Now durdly decks want to be on the draw to not time outx aggro wants the play but is prone to timing out. Paper is probably unfixable, the changes people have suggested are too easy to game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pauper: UB Wight Phantasm RB Burn UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
MTGO seems easy, just reduce the play by 5 minutes clock time. Now durdly decks want to be on the draw to not time outx aggro wants the play but is prone to timing out. Paper is probably unfixable, the changes people have suggested are too easy to game.
Reducing the game time not only doesn't fix the problem of p/d advantage, but it hurts slow decks and makes them harder to play. This proposed change just makes Modern more linear and would do little to address the complaints in this thread.
The best solution would be a combination of predetermining p vs. d, as in chess, and a small boost to those on the draw (like Hearthstone's coin). A bonus scry 1 might work.
MTGO seems easy, just reduce the play by 5 minutes clock time. Now durdly decks want to be on the draw to not time outx aggro wants the play but is prone to timing out. Paper is probably unfixable, the changes people have suggested are too easy to game.
Reducing the game time not only doesn't fix the problem of p/d advantage, but it hurts slow decks and makes them harder to play. This proposed change just makes Modern more linear and would do little to address the complaints in this thread.
The best solution would be a combination of predetermining p vs. d, as in chess, and a small boost to those on the draw (like Hearthstone's coin). A bonus scry 1 might work.
So now every combo deck is going to see 15 cards at opening? Don't have a winning hand opening, mulligan + go second for scry 2 and a six card hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pauper: UB Wight Phantasm RB Burn UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
MTGO seems easy, just reduce the play by 5 minutes clock time. Now durdly decks want to be on the draw to not time outx aggro wants the play but is prone to timing out. Paper is probably unfixable, the changes people have suggested are too easy to game.
Reducing the game time not only doesn't fix the problem of p/d advantage, but it hurts slow decks and makes them harder to play. This proposed change just makes Modern more linear and would do little to address the complaints in this thread.
The best solution would be a combination of predetermining p vs. d, as in chess, and a small boost to those on the draw (like Hearthstone's coin). A bonus scry 1 might work.
So now every combo deck is going to see 15 cards at opening? Don't have a winning hand opening, mulligan + go second for scry 2 and a six card hand.
I doubt it would work out like you claim. Everyone was terrified the Paris mulligan rule would improve combo or Delver decks and break multiple formats. Didn't happen. Most of the time, these kinds of doomsaying predictions don't pan out because many other decks benefit from the change as well.
I'll also add that I just said "might work," not "would work." You could easily play around with the bonus (e.g. scry on the 7 but no bonus on subsequent mulligans).
MTGO seems easy, just reduce the play by 5 minutes clock time. Now durdly decks want to be on the draw to not time outx aggro wants the play but is prone to timing out. Paper is probably unfixable, the changes people have suggested are too easy to game.
Reducing the game time not only doesn't fix the problem of p/d advantage, but it hurts slow decks and makes them harder to play. This proposed change just makes Modern more linear and would do little to address the complaints in this thread.
The best solution would be a combination of predetermining p vs. d, as in chess, and a small boost to those on the draw (like Hearthstone's coin). A bonus scry 1 might work.
So now every combo deck is going to see 15 cards at opening? Don't have a winning hand opening, mulligan + go second for scry 2 and a six card hand.
I doubt it would work out like you claim. Everyone was terrified the Paris mulligan rule would improve combo or Delver decks and break multiple formats. Didn't happen. Most of the time, these kinds of doomsaying predictions don't pan out because many other decks benefit from the change as well.
I'll also add that I just said "might work," not "would work." You could easily play around with the bonus (e.g. scry on the 7 but no bonus on subsequent mulligans).
I don't have your mtg chops, but I am pretty sure the new rule did actually do just that.
The new rule came out, and infect immediately climbed the charts leading up to the gitaxian probe ban. Same month the new rules is implemented it went from tier 2 to tier 1 and quickly took over the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pauper: UB Wight Phantasm RB Burn UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
The new rule came out, and infect immediately climbed the charts leading up to the gitaxian probe ban. Same month the new rules is implemented it went from tier 2 to tier 1 and quickly took over the format.
I literally wrote that article and have no idea what you're trying to say here. Infect is a paltry 4.5% of the metagame in that update. It's not even close to taking over the format at that time. It ultimately does become huge, but that had very little to do with Paris mulligan, and everything to do with the format becoming dominated by Drege, DSZ, and big mana, all of which were easy Infect matchups. Blossoming Defense also helped, which entered the Modern card pool in October. Trying to attribute this rise to Paris mulligan is inaccurate, at best, and deliberately misleading, at worst.
Extra scry 1 for the player on the draw might get too confusing with already rewarding a scry for mulligans.
Best solution I can think of for fixing play/draw imbalance would be to not allow spells to be cast on the first turn of the game. That slightly slows down the tempo advantage of the first player and allows their first play (which would now be on turn 2) to be interacted with by the draw player, greatly increasing interaction across multiple formats
However, until then, I also support a non-randomized play/draw assignation to each player. I prefer assigning which player gets to draw rather than assigning which player gets to choose. Why? For the simple fact that it saves time. It is also currently a false choice, since 99% of the time you will choose to play anyway.
@dr pepper
sweet, what's your name btw? I'm Ricky, I usually play lantern or amulet at the fnms
yeah I was trying to push Paul this weekend a bit, he liked the idea but the issue with changing it for the 1k is that it becomes unsanctioned and it's also "halfway" through the season, locals wouldn't care but anyone who travels would immediately feel like they're being ripped off in some way. It might be easiest on things like the Sunday win-a-box where it's only about a dozen guys and the planeswalker points are minimal and there's never a rules discrepancy anyway.
Next time I see mike I'll run it by him to see what he thinks too but ultimately I think we need the judges to support it
Cam we enhance the benefit for being on the draw? Scry 1 before game starts, 3 extra life?
I already think a player that mulligans to six and gets a free scry is at advantage to a player who kept their initial seven. Letting them scry 2 would be too good.
The scry is definitely vastly more powerful on the draw than the play.
I wish there was an effective way to simulate this sometimes, but I suspect that giving an additional scry 1 to the player on the draw would be right about balanced to the point that draw v. play becomes an actual serious choice. But the only real way to know is to test it.
Allowing the player on the Draw to Scry 1 after the mulligan phase is over is probably the best way to help balance the play/draw disparity.
It allows the player on the draw to in a way have +1 cards in hand with concerns to opening information, without actually giving them an 8th card in their hand. Think of it this way.
You keep your 7 card hand, an Scry 1. If you put that card on the bottom, you have the information of knowing what card in on the bottom of your deck. This may effect your decision making for your first turn. "I don't want to fetch right now because X card is on the bottom and I don't want to draw it on my 2nd turn. So I'll wait until after I've drawn next turn to fetch."
Alternatively you Scry and keep the card on top. "Oh, I don't need to rush to find an answer to my opponent's turn 1 play, I am going to draw Y card next turn."
I think it adds enough without being too much
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
There's always the option of giving the person on the draw a scry on turn 0 as well. If they Mulligan, they may scry 2, or scry 1 twice. Would probably take some testing to ensure that it's fair.
Edit: Nevermind me, didn't read all the comments before I posted
Wizards has recently mentioned that certain decisions were made regarding the vintage banned list in part due to respecting the play v draw advantage of that format, which is why Thorn of Amethyst was recently restricted.
This does not necessarily mean that they are taking this into consideration in all formats, but I am sure they must at least realize its presence in all formats and unless something is changed there is little reason to take the draw in any possible magic format (vintage through draft) although certain draft formats lend themselves to being the closest thing to "draw first" that I have seen.
As someone who is more or less disinterested (but not uninterested) in this thread from a magic perspective, but interested because it has cross-format appeal to any game where play order matters (in particular, I'm thinking video games which alternate between double blind picks and counter-picks), I'm curious to hear posters' views. Note the scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.
What is the actual problem you're tying to solve?
A: Game advantage - You're trying to remove any gameplay advantage from going first (in any given single game). If this is the case, then the only solution is to change the game's rules, like scry 1 on the draw, lands enter tapped on the play, non-equal life totals, etc.
B: Tournament advantage - You're trying to remove long-term advantage on average (across say, a tournament or multiple tournaments). If this is your goal, the first thing to do is to recognise that a pure random method achieves this on average. What people are suggesting is methods of reducing variance (so the average is achieved more reliably). However, the problem with variance-reduction strategies is usually (in addition to logistics) that they merely shift the issue. Consider a tournament where each player is guaranteed to alternate exactly between play and draw. Even though both players get the same number of plays and draws, the person going first in the grand final gets an advantage compared to the person going first in round 1. The problem still exists, but in a different form.
Now to throw additional problems in the mix, consider the above circumstance, but where intentional draws are a thing: anyone who gets assigned to "draw" on the intentional draw round gets a long-run advantage by getting an extra "play" in the remaining games. It gets worse if you can actually manipulate the order of play vs draw by throwing games.
C: Set Advantage - You're trying to eliminate advantage across a given set (e.g. best of three). Here's where things get interesting in my opinion, and the problem with the above scenario becomes much more apparent: Should a Bo3 go:
random, looser picks, looser picks;
random, looser picks, random;
Play-draw-play (G1 randomly assigned);
Play-draw-draw (G1 randomly assigned);
random,random,random;
random,random,opposite if G1 and 2 are the same?
Once you consider sideboarding, things get more difficult again- the deck used in game 1 is not the same deck as the deck used in game 2, and if a player wins G1 and G2, there is no G3. Under 'looser picks', winning G1 guarantees the play in G3, which is an 'extra advantage' compared to winning G2. But G1 is a non-sideboarded game. Is winning without sideboarding (and importantly: without being subject to sideboard hate) worthy of this 'extra advantage'? Does this 'favour' decks prone to sideboard hate, like affinity and dredge?
As someone who is more or less disinterested (but not uninterested) in this thread from a magic perspective, but interested because it has cross-format appeal to any game where play order matters (in particular, I'm thinking video games which alternate between double blind picks and counter-picks), I'm curious to hear posters' views. Note the scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.
What is the actual problem you're tying to solve?
A: Game advantage - You're trying to remove any gameplay advantage from going first (in any given single game). If this is the case, then the only solution is to change the game's rules, like scry 1 on the draw, lands enter tapped on the play, non-equal life totals, etc.
B: Tournament advantage - You're trying to remove long-term advantage on average (across say, a tournament or multiple tournaments). If this is your goal, the first thing to do is to recognise that a pure random method achieves this on average. What people are suggesting is methods of reducing variance (so the average is achieved more reliably). However, the problem with variance-reduction strategies is usually (in addition to logistics) that they merely shift the issue. Consider a tournament where each player is guaranteed to alternate exactly between play and draw. Even though both players get the same number of plays and draws, the person going first in the grand final gets an advantage compared to the person going first in round 1. The problem still exists, but in a different form.
Now to throw additional problems in the mix, consider the above circumstance, but where intentional draws are a thing: anyone who gets assigned to "draw" on the intentional draw round gets a long-run advantage by getting an extra "play" in the remaining games. It gets worse if you can actually manipulate the order of play vs draw by throwing games.
C: Set Advantage - You're trying to eliminate advantage across a given set (e.g. best of three). Here's where things get interesting in my opinion, and the problem with the above scenario becomes much more apparent: Should a Bo3 go:
random, looser picks, looser picks;
random, looser picks, random;
Play-draw-play (G1 randomly assigned);
Play-draw-draw (G1 randomly assigned);
random,random,random;
random,random,opposite if G1 and 2 are the same?
Once you consider sideboarding, things get more difficult again- the deck used in game 1 is not the same deck as the deck used in game 2, and if a player wins G1 and G2, there is no G3. Under 'looser picks', winning G1 guarantees the play in G3, which is an 'extra advantage' compared to winning G2. But G1 is a non-sideboarded game. Is winning without sideboarding (and importantly: without being subject to sideboard hate) worthy of this 'extra advantage'? Does this 'favour' decks prone to sideboard hate, like affinity and dredge?
Excellent write up.
Alternating play/draw during a tournament does shift the issue, which is why I believe that steps must be made to ensure that there is no obvious advantage from play to draw. Alternation might still be a desirable system for higher levels of competition for appealing to perceived equity, but an actual equity will be achieved when the play order itself is closest to irrelevant.
@ktkenshinx: Am I missing something, or do you mean to say Vancouver mulligan when you're saying Paris mulligan?
As far as brainstorming solutions goes...what if the person on the draw was allowed to have a single zero-card/free mulligan before the hand size minus one clause kicks in? Would such a change be too much, or not enough?
It seems like any option that would be realistic should simply augment the rules that are already in place, like how the Vancouver/scry rule just added to what we have been using for years with the Paris mulligan. Anything else would likely be deemed too complicated or have too many side effects (different life totals, inability to cast spells on the first turn, and so on) to work well across multiple deck archetypes among all formats.
The fundamental gap we're trying to close is the one of tempo (play) versus card selection (draw). I don't think trying to give the draw player better tempo or the player on the play worse tempo is realistic for the reasons I mentioned previously. Allowing the player on the draw to get one "free" mulligan would help that player ensure the best chance of having the threats or answers they would like to see in time, giving them a slightly higher chance at being effective as early as possible (but still a turn behind).
An interesting result of this would be that if you were on the draw, and you did take your "free" mulligan, you would not be allowed to scry since your hand size wouldn't have decreased. This serves as a nice little safety valve so as not to get too much of an advantage. This change would also require only 1-2 sentences of rules text to happen and be straightforward to adopt in play.
I wonder if its too late in Magic's development to implement a hearthstone system to balance play/draw. The player to go second would be granted a Treasure Token at the start of the game.
Would it be unacceptable to take an idea like this directly from another game? I really don't think so, considering hearthstone appears itself to have taken much of its rules and mechanics from Magic in the first place.
In addition, would be it be too large of a rules change for the players to cope with? I don't think so, as much of the playerbase are relatively newer players which would have an easy time picking up a new rule.
Would it move the advantage too far into the opposite direction? I'm not sure, but this could be something that the Play Design can test and see, much like how the Vancouver scry rule was tested and approved
A free mulligan would cause a serious warp in combo decks. Some combo decks have nearly unbeatable hands (Grishoalbrand specifically has a few), and cards like Gemstone Mine and Serum Powder will exacerbate stuff like this. I expect you'd see some crazy stuff.
A free mulligan is a lot closer to scry 7 than it is to scry 1, essentially.
I'd expect most combo players would wind up selecting to draw as preferred mode which would be really weird. Non-combo players would not know whether to select draw or play because certain decks would have massive advantages on the draw. Really scary to me.
The 3 life can really throw off damage math of a burn/aggro deck. It's a free lightning bolt counter. One and a half goblin guide attacks. It could also be a "free" fetch and shock to help recoup lost tempo for being on the draw
Sweet! I also play at Mox. Keep missing the 1k's though lol. We might be able to push for a test tournament of this system, but they probably wouldn't be able to run it as a sanctioned event, though. So we would need to convince the store to run it as a separate tournament. I can volunteer to write some software that can run the event.
It doesn't matter whether you want to be on the play or draw. The point is winning the die roll allows one player to choose, and the other player not to choose. This is still an unequal system favoring whoever won the roll.
Right my question is with the proposed idea of it saying p/d in matching system set in stone or does the player on the play get to choose to differ? Instead of it saying p/d it should be a *by the name of the player who gets the choice.
UB Wight Phantasm
RB Burn
UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
Legacy:
R Burn
CG-Post
Reducing the game time not only doesn't fix the problem of p/d advantage, but it hurts slow decks and makes them harder to play. This proposed change just makes Modern more linear and would do little to address the complaints in this thread.
The best solution would be a combination of predetermining p vs. d, as in chess, and a small boost to those on the draw (like Hearthstone's coin). A bonus scry 1 might work.
So now every combo deck is going to see 15 cards at opening? Don't have a winning hand opening, mulligan + go second for scry 2 and a six card hand.
UB Wight Phantasm
RB Burn
UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
Legacy:
R Burn
CG-Post
I doubt it would work out like you claim. Everyone was terrified the Paris mulligan rule would improve combo or Delver decks and break multiple formats. Didn't happen. Most of the time, these kinds of doomsaying predictions don't pan out because many other decks benefit from the change as well.
I'll also add that I just said "might work," not "would work." You could easily play around with the bonus (e.g. scry on the 7 but no bonus on subsequent mulligans).
I don't have your mtg chops, but I am pretty sure the new rule did actually do just that.
http://modernnexus.com/modern-metagame-breakdown-91-930/
The new rule came out, and infect immediately climbed the charts leading up to the gitaxian probe ban. Same month the new rules is implemented it went from tier 2 to tier 1 and quickly took over the format.
UB Wight Phantasm
RB Burn
UR Faerie Rites of Initiation
Legacy:
R Burn
CG-Post
I literally wrote that article and have no idea what you're trying to say here. Infect is a paltry 4.5% of the metagame in that update. It's not even close to taking over the format at that time. It ultimately does become huge, but that had very little to do with Paris mulligan, and everything to do with the format becoming dominated by Drege, DSZ, and big mana, all of which were easy Infect matchups. Blossoming Defense also helped, which entered the Modern card pool in October. Trying to attribute this rise to Paris mulligan is inaccurate, at best, and deliberately misleading, at worst.
Best solution I can think of for fixing play/draw imbalance would be to not allow spells to be cast on the first turn of the game. That slightly slows down the tempo advantage of the first player and allows their first play (which would now be on turn 2) to be interacted with by the draw player, greatly increasing interaction across multiple formats
However, until then, I also support a non-randomized play/draw assignation to each player. I prefer assigning which player gets to draw rather than assigning which player gets to choose. Why? For the simple fact that it saves time. It is also currently a false choice, since 99% of the time you will choose to play anyway.
sweet, what's your name btw? I'm Ricky, I usually play lantern or amulet at the fnms
yeah I was trying to push Paul this weekend a bit, he liked the idea but the issue with changing it for the 1k is that it becomes unsanctioned and it's also "halfway" through the season, locals wouldn't care but anyone who travels would immediately feel like they're being ripped off in some way. It might be easiest on things like the Sunday win-a-box where it's only about a dozen guys and the planeswalker points are minimal and there's never a rules discrepancy anyway.
Next time I see mike I'll run it by him to see what he thinks too but ultimately I think we need the judges to support it
I already think a player that mulligans to six and gets a free scry is at advantage to a player who kept their initial seven. Letting them scry 2 would be too good.
I wish there was an effective way to simulate this sometimes, but I suspect that giving an additional scry 1 to the player on the draw would be right about balanced to the point that draw v. play becomes an actual serious choice. But the only real way to know is to test it.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
It allows the player on the draw to in a way have +1 cards in hand with concerns to opening information, without actually giving them an 8th card in their hand. Think of it this way.
You keep your 7 card hand, an Scry 1. If you put that card on the bottom, you have the information of knowing what card in on the bottom of your deck. This may effect your decision making for your first turn. "I don't want to fetch right now because X card is on the bottom and I don't want to draw it on my 2nd turn. So I'll wait until after I've drawn next turn to fetch."
Alternatively you Scry and keep the card on top. "Oh, I don't need to rush to find an answer to my opponent's turn 1 play, I am going to draw Y card next turn."
I think it adds enough without being too much
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Edit: Nevermind me, didn't read all the comments before I posted
Lantern Control
(with videos)
Uc Tron
Netdecking explained
Netdecking explained, Part 2
On speculators and counterfeits
On Interaction
Every single competitive deck in existence is designed to limit the opponent's ability to interact in a meaningful way.
Record number of exclamation points on SCG homepage: 71 (6 January, 2018)
"I don't want to believe, I want to know."
-Carl Sagan
This does not necessarily mean that they are taking this into consideration in all formats, but I am sure they must at least realize its presence in all formats and unless something is changed there is little reason to take the draw in any possible magic format (vintage through draft) although certain draft formats lend themselves to being the closest thing to "draw first" that I have seen.
What is the actual problem you're tying to solve?
A: Game advantage - You're trying to remove any gameplay advantage from going first (in any given single game). If this is the case, then the only solution is to change the game's rules, like scry 1 on the draw, lands enter tapped on the play, non-equal life totals, etc.
B: Tournament advantage - You're trying to remove long-term advantage on average (across say, a tournament or multiple tournaments). If this is your goal, the first thing to do is to recognise that a pure random method achieves this on average. What people are suggesting is methods of reducing variance (so the average is achieved more reliably). However, the problem with variance-reduction strategies is usually (in addition to logistics) that they merely shift the issue. Consider a tournament where each player is guaranteed to alternate exactly between play and draw. Even though both players get the same number of plays and draws, the person going first in the grand final gets an advantage compared to the person going first in round 1. The problem still exists, but in a different form.
Now to throw additional problems in the mix, consider the above circumstance, but where intentional draws are a thing: anyone who gets assigned to "draw" on the intentional draw round gets a long-run advantage by getting an extra "play" in the remaining games. It gets worse if you can actually manipulate the order of play vs draw by throwing games.
C: Set Advantage - You're trying to eliminate advantage across a given set (e.g. best of three). Here's where things get interesting in my opinion, and the problem with the above scenario becomes much more apparent: Should a Bo3 go:
random, looser picks, looser picks;
random, looser picks, random;
Play-draw-play (G1 randomly assigned);
Play-draw-draw (G1 randomly assigned);
random,random,random;
random,random,opposite if G1 and 2 are the same?
Once you consider sideboarding, things get more difficult again- the deck used in game 1 is not the same deck as the deck used in game 2, and if a player wins G1 and G2, there is no G3. Under 'looser picks', winning G1 guarantees the play in G3, which is an 'extra advantage' compared to winning G2. But G1 is a non-sideboarded game. Is winning without sideboarding (and importantly: without being subject to sideboard hate) worthy of this 'extra advantage'? Does this 'favour' decks prone to sideboard hate, like affinity and dredge?
Excellent write up.
Alternating play/draw during a tournament does shift the issue, which is why I believe that steps must be made to ensure that there is no obvious advantage from play to draw. Alternation might still be a desirable system for higher levels of competition for appealing to perceived equity, but an actual equity will be achieved when the play order itself is closest to irrelevant.
As far as brainstorming solutions goes...what if the person on the draw was allowed to have a single zero-card/free mulligan before the hand size minus one clause kicks in? Would such a change be too much, or not enough?
It seems like any option that would be realistic should simply augment the rules that are already in place, like how the Vancouver/scry rule just added to what we have been using for years with the Paris mulligan. Anything else would likely be deemed too complicated or have too many side effects (different life totals, inability to cast spells on the first turn, and so on) to work well across multiple deck archetypes among all formats.
The fundamental gap we're trying to close is the one of tempo (play) versus card selection (draw). I don't think trying to give the draw player better tempo or the player on the play worse tempo is realistic for the reasons I mentioned previously. Allowing the player on the draw to get one "free" mulligan would help that player ensure the best chance of having the threats or answers they would like to see in time, giving them a slightly higher chance at being effective as early as possible (but still a turn behind).
An interesting result of this would be that if you were on the draw, and you did take your "free" mulligan, you would not be allowed to scry since your hand size wouldn't have decreased. This serves as a nice little safety valve so as not to get too much of an advantage. This change would also require only 1-2 sentences of rules text to happen and be straightforward to adopt in play.
Would it be unacceptable to take an idea like this directly from another game? I really don't think so, considering hearthstone appears itself to have taken much of its rules and mechanics from Magic in the first place.
In addition, would be it be too large of a rules change for the players to cope with? I don't think so, as much of the playerbase are relatively newer players which would have an easy time picking up a new rule.
Would it move the advantage too far into the opposite direction? I'm not sure, but this could be something that the Play Design can test and see, much like how the Vancouver scry rule was tested and approved
A free mulligan is a lot closer to scry 7 than it is to scry 1, essentially.
I'd expect most combo players would wind up selecting to draw as preferred mode which would be really weird. Non-combo players would not know whether to select draw or play because certain decks would have massive advantages on the draw. Really scary to me.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall