Gee. You really overestimate the London Mulligan. Relax, my friend. It will be FAR less worse than you imagine, if it it’s bad at all. They’ve tested it for 6 months. You can trust their judgment. The decision to implement the new rule wasn’t based on theories, but on data and experimentations.
First, no one will Mulligan more aggressively if they have a fine but not perfect 7 cards. The risk of trading that ok hand for a bad one with one less card is way too high.
Second, if the Combo player needs to Mulligan down to 6, under both the old and the new rules, he would see the same 7 cards. The combo is in these 7 cards, or it is not. The odds are no better under the new rules than they were before (except when card #7 is that needed land #2). It is only when Mulliganing down to 5 that the odds are now better of assembling the Combo and the mana to cast it. But, really : who will voluntarily and aggressively Mulligan down to 5 cards? The odds of drawing a very bad hand are about as high as having the perfect mix.
Finally, don’t underestimate the number of cards the fastest combos need to win. Abzan needs no less than 5 cards and 3 turns to Combo : 2 lands (or 1 Land and 1 Bird) + Druid + Vizier + Recruiter or Ballista. I’m ready to admit they may have 1% more chance of assembling the Combo now (because looting for 1 is better than scry 1). But that is *only* when Mulliganing down to 6 or 5. In the end, however, Magic isn’t played in a void. We, proud opponents of the hated Combos, don’t have any less chances of disrupting the Combo under the new rules than before. Quite the contrary, because the new rules may also benefit the player who’s trying to disrupt the Combo.
Who will mulligan down to 5? A deck that can function on a few key cards. Tron, for example, is happy to take a couple shots at searching for a Tron+fatty. The Grishoalbrand deck is happy to dig for the key pieces of the combo. It's not that they're going down to 5 to dig, but rather that they're taking a look at a different 7 in search of 4 or 5 key cards within them. There used to be risk to mulliganing that low, but now there's essentially no risk. As a Legacy Dredge player, being able to get more looks at 7s is huge because I can dig for Dredger+land+draw spell far easier when I keep looking at 7s.
Burn doesn't benefit in the same way. You can't afford to dig for combo killing cards, because you could just lose outright because of it. The mulligan disproportionately benefits "key card" decks versus "critical mass" decks (we're the latter). The part that makes it bad for Burn is that decks can more aggressively search for Burn hate and still end up with a playable 5 or 6, whereas they previously could have had a hand that does nothing for their own gameplan but has Leyline. It means that the ones who were foolishly digging for Leyline aren't as vulnerable as before.
It's a complicated discussion with many facets, but I don't see how this mulligan rule is good for aggressive decks.
Trust wotc judgement... Now I'm worried about your judgement my friend. I've been playing far too long now and I know that's the last thing you do. They make sooooo many mistakes and if youve played long enough you know what I mean. They make their judgement based on what will make us money just like any other company and that's the issue. Not to mention the. They try to make a conscience decision it ends poorly normally. Burn gains nothing but the land and the Mulligan does not help nearly, it's not even close, to as much as it helps 2 card combo decks, let alone so cards they need to stop us cold. Yes we can find our sb cards too but it's not the same. You'll see
It's a complicated discussion with many facets, but I don't see how this mulligan rule is good for aggressive decks.
Well, since we can now mull for SB cards more efficiently, maybe we'll benefit from a full set of destructive revelry in the SB. I could see gutteral response serving a purpose now.
What you don’t get is that Combo is not automatically rewarded by a Mulligan. First 7 cards are ok but not perfect and you risk a Mulligan down to 6? Be my guest. The odds of getting flood, short or screwed + down to 6 cards are as good as drawing the perfect hand. What I mean is that Combo or any other deck will not Mulligan more often under the new rule, but they’ll be more confortable at 6 cards than before if they really have to Mulligan.
As to trusting WOTC, I would say that I’ve been playing Magic since 1994, and they’ve made A LOT MORE good calls than bad ones over the years (and probably with a ratio of 1000 : 1 ). And with each mistakes, they’ve learned. Yes, I do trust them. They specifically said, in the announcement, that their « approach for all formats will be to allow players and metagames to adjust and to gather data and feedback before considering any banned and restricted list changes. » This means they’ll monitor what is going on, and will take steps to ban cards if a deck appears to be broken under the new rules. The moment they post plan A, they’re already prepared to activate plan B. Yes, I do trust them. And so should you. London Mulligan could well be a mistake in Modern, but it doesn’t feel like it to me. It feels like Magic will be a lot more fun to play, with more happy players that aren’t betrayed as often by their cards. The community’s lack of faith in the very people that create the game you love is very sad.
That being said, if I haven’t convinced you yet (and you obviously haven’t convinced me), then I suggest we should move on to other subjects... like talking about Burn decks under Horizon?
Yeah as much as we all want to agree that the new mull rule is not directly beneficial to us, I still think that it's not worth two pages of ranting about. Pretty sure we can do better than that.
It's a complicated discussion with many facets, but I don't see how this mulligan rule is good for aggressive decks.
Well, since we can now mull for SB cards more efficiently, maybe we'll benefit from a full set of destructive revelry in the SB. I could see gutteral response serving a purpose now.
As a critical mass deck, we can't "efficiently" mulligan. Every mulligan you take adds another card you need to draw in order to win the game. Critical mass decks can't aggressively mulligan. Think of something like LED Dredge: I don't care how many cards are in my opener as long as I have a dredger, a draw, and mana and a "draw 7, put 3 on the bottom" mulligan to 4 is not a problem for that deck. You're going to lose if you can't blow up leyline and you're going to lose if you don't have enough burn spells to win. Both are bad outcomes for Burn, and the mulligan rule doesn't really matter for Burn. You can end up with a slightly less bad 6, but it's still bad.
What's Guttural Response do for Burn? Blue instants aren't what we fear. If you play GR to counter a counter, they accomplished their goal anyway: you spent 2 cards to deal 3 damage and that means their counter gained them 3 life. It's no different from burn spell -> counter -> burn spell.
Burn isn't a deck that can mull for Stony Silence and afford to sit around for five turns. The only benefit to this is an increase in tron, which is already a good matchup. However, most other combo decks that I like facing are critical mass decks like storm and scapeshift. Those don't benefit from the rule either. Personally? I think this mulligan rule is just a push to allow WOTC to ban a whole bunch of stuff in eternal formats.
That last bit is the part that I am not looking forward to. I just don't think it's right to take a perfectly viable current deck and nuke it from orbit because it's suddenly broken as a result of a fundamental change in the rules of the game. One could argue that such a deck was probably on the edge of broken before the rule change, but banning a deck because you changed the rules of the game doesn't sit well with me (looking at you, Duel Commander, for banning a bunch of Burn cards because they went to 20 life "to make aggro better" and made aggro too good). Legacy is probably safe, with good enough answers to the powerful combo decks that exist there. I don't think Modern is safe because the answers aren't good enough and they haven't done a good job incrementally curating the format with bans, which allowed decks to get to the edge/cross it without getting banned.
The new mulligan allows for certain decks to sculpt openers, while not benefiting other decks as much. It creates an unhealthy format, and the only way to remedy it is bans.
What's Guttural Response do for Burn? Blue instants aren't what we fear. If you play GR to counter a counter, they accomplished their goal anyway: you spent 2 cards to deal 3 damage and that means their counter gained them 3 life. It's no different from burn spell -> counter -> burn spell.
I was thinking about the Neoform deck that can win on T1.
Seems like a bad idea to play a narrow card just to avoid getting curbstomped by fast combo (which is the kind of deck Burn can't handle, and if it's bonkers, I'd expect a ban). If they do something stupid and play Allosaurus Rider and pass, you can easily kill it. You can also Path Griselbrand or Skullcrack in response to the first activation.
Hex drinker seems terrible in burn. No haste and you're incentivised to put Mana into it instead of playing your burn spells
Well, being mana intensive doesn't autoexclude it in aggro decks. Grim Lavamancer is mana intensive. Figure of destiny is similar and it was even played in Legacy Burn when there weren't better 1 drops. In the worst case it's a Jackal Pup that could help against flooded situations. Creatures aren't what we usually want as topdeck, but it isn't a bad one. And it can be pump with Atarka's Command even under instant protection. I don't know if it's worth or not, but I find it interesting enough for testing.
The point is it doesn't do anything. Grim lavaman deals damage through it's ability. This doesn't. And figure isn't ran anymore bc there's better one drops so the same is true here. Feel free to try it bc I could be wrong but I personally don't think that's where you want to be. If you're flooding then you probably want to look at your Mana. I run 19 and literally can't remember the last time I flooded. Screwed, yes, but not flooded.
There are a lot of cards that were played before better alternatives came along, but that doesn't imply it's good enough today.
Hexdrinker is bad in Burn. It's better that Figure of Destiny, but it's still not good. Hexdrinker becomes a waste of a lot of mana when they Path it in response. Grim is pretty much guaranteed to deal damage to something if you untap with it, and it machine guns creature decks.
I think you're over estimating how many people will be running those lands and if they are they're probably not running them in a full playset. Right now there's only what three Decks that run Horizon canopy?
According to MTGGoldfish, Horizon Canopy is the 9th most played land in the format.
Bc there's no better alternative in the decks that do run it. Other decks don't need them like the decks that do run them. And those that run them won't be running enough of them for it to make that significant of a difference in how fast we can count to 20. If all the decks ran them as a 4 of along side fetches and what not then I'd agree but I see most decks that will use them using them as a 2 of or at best a 3 of. The only decks I see running them as a set are alrdy running a set of canopy and then possibly b/x/x shadow decks to help drop their life total. Otherwise Phoenix doesn't rly need them due to the fact that their deck is cantrips. Storm won't for same reason. Tron won't most likely. Humans might but they need the rainbow lands more. Control decks might but they've got better options to spend resources on to dig/manipulate/etc. Hardened scales probably won't bc they don't rly need it. I don't see infect needing them when they can now win on turn 2 thanks to scale up. B/g/x probably will as a 4 of. But pls feel free to enlighten me bc I don't know everything. This is just my thoughts on it.
Combo players never think "nah, that's enough card draw" until it starts to dilute their combo pieces. Storm will run a playset because it benefits them to be able to draw even one more card. The opportunity cost of running more than a couple basic lands is real. Plus, hell in the case of storm they were running shivan reef anyways in fetchless builds, so the damage taken is similar anyways.
Pittsburgh's SCG team open is the first big event for modern post-horizons release, and I can guarantee these things will be seeing a lot of play in every deck based in enemy color pairs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First, no one will Mulligan more aggressively if they have a fine but not perfect 7 cards. The risk of trading that ok hand for a bad one with one less card is way too high.
Second, if the Combo player needs to Mulligan down to 6, under both the old and the new rules, he would see the same 7 cards. The combo is in these 7 cards, or it is not. The odds are no better under the new rules than they were before (except when card #7 is that needed land #2). It is only when Mulliganing down to 5 that the odds are now better of assembling the Combo and the mana to cast it. But, really : who will voluntarily and aggressively Mulligan down to 5 cards? The odds of drawing a very bad hand are about as high as having the perfect mix.
Finally, don’t underestimate the number of cards the fastest combos need to win. Abzan needs no less than 5 cards and 3 turns to Combo : 2 lands (or 1 Land and 1 Bird) + Druid + Vizier + Recruiter or Ballista. I’m ready to admit they may have 1% more chance of assembling the Combo now (because looting for 1 is better than scry 1). But that is *only* when Mulliganing down to 6 or 5. In the end, however, Magic isn’t played in a void. We, proud opponents of the hated Combos, don’t have any less chances of disrupting the Combo under the new rules than before. Quite the contrary, because the new rules may also benefit the player who’s trying to disrupt the Combo.
1st, GP Toronto Sunday Super Series 2016 : Ally Company RWBG
Top 8, PPTQ Shadows over Innistrad : Boros Humans WR.
Use a hypergeometric calculator for your deckbuilding maths,
and use TopDecked to manage your decks and collection on your Apple or Android device.
Burn doesn't benefit in the same way. You can't afford to dig for combo killing cards, because you could just lose outright because of it. The mulligan disproportionately benefits "key card" decks versus "critical mass" decks (we're the latter). The part that makes it bad for Burn is that decks can more aggressively search for Burn hate and still end up with a playable 5 or 6, whereas they previously could have had a hand that does nothing for their own gameplan but has Leyline. It means that the ones who were foolishly digging for Leyline aren't as vulnerable as before.
It's a complicated discussion with many facets, but I don't see how this mulligan rule is good for aggressive decks.
Well, since we can now mull for SB cards more efficiently, maybe we'll benefit from a full set of destructive revelry in the SB. I could see gutteral response serving a purpose now.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
As to trusting WOTC, I would say that I’ve been playing Magic since 1994, and they’ve made A LOT MORE good calls than bad ones over the years (and probably with a ratio of 1000 : 1 ). And with each mistakes, they’ve learned. Yes, I do trust them. They specifically said, in the announcement, that their « approach for all formats will be to allow players and metagames to adjust and to gather data and feedback before considering any banned and restricted list changes. » This means they’ll monitor what is going on, and will take steps to ban cards if a deck appears to be broken under the new rules. The moment they post plan A, they’re already prepared to activate plan B. Yes, I do trust them. And so should you. London Mulligan could well be a mistake in Modern, but it doesn’t feel like it to me. It feels like Magic will be a lot more fun to play, with more happy players that aren’t betrayed as often by their cards. The community’s lack of faith in the very people that create the game you love is very sad.
That being said, if I haven’t convinced you yet (and you obviously haven’t convinced me), then I suggest we should move on to other subjects... like talking about Burn decks under Horizon?
1st, GP Toronto Sunday Super Series 2016 : Ally Company RWBG
Top 8, PPTQ Shadows over Innistrad : Boros Humans WR.
Use a hypergeometric calculator for your deckbuilding maths,
and use TopDecked to manage your decks and collection on your Apple or Android device.
As a critical mass deck, we can't "efficiently" mulligan. Every mulligan you take adds another card you need to draw in order to win the game. Critical mass decks can't aggressively mulligan. Think of something like LED Dredge: I don't care how many cards are in my opener as long as I have a dredger, a draw, and mana and a "draw 7, put 3 on the bottom" mulligan to 4 is not a problem for that deck. You're going to lose if you can't blow up leyline and you're going to lose if you don't have enough burn spells to win. Both are bad outcomes for Burn, and the mulligan rule doesn't really matter for Burn. You can end up with a slightly less bad 6, but it's still bad.
What's Guttural Response do for Burn? Blue instants aren't what we fear. If you play GR to counter a counter, they accomplished their goal anyway: you spent 2 cards to deal 3 damage and that means their counter gained them 3 life. It's no different from burn spell -> counter -> burn spell.
The new mulligan allows for certain decks to sculpt openers, while not benefiting other decks as much. It creates an unhealthy format, and the only way to remedy it is bans.
I was thinking about the Neoform deck that can win on T1.
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/1986223#paper
Well, being mana intensive doesn't autoexclude it in aggro decks. Grim Lavamancer is mana intensive. Figure of destiny is similar and it was even played in Legacy Burn when there weren't better 1 drops. In the worst case it's a Jackal Pup that could help against flooded situations. Creatures aren't what we usually want as topdeck, but it isn't a bad one. And it can be pump with Atarka's Command even under instant protection. I don't know if it's worth or not, but I find it interesting enough for testing.
Hexdrinker is bad in Burn. It's better that Figure of Destiny, but it's still not good. Hexdrinker becomes a waste of a lot of mana when they Path it in response. Grim is pretty much guaranteed to deal damage to something if you untap with it, and it machine guns creature decks.
According to MTGGoldfish, Horizon Canopy is the 9th most played land in the format.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/format-staples/modern
Island, Mountain, Forest, Flooded Strand, Bloodstained Mire, Field of Ruin, Wooded Foothills, Scalding Tarn, Horizon Canopy, Cavern of Souls.
3 Basics
4 fetches
Field of Ruin
Those are the only lands played more than Horizon Canopy.
Pittsburgh's SCG team open is the first big event for modern post-horizons release, and I can guarantee these things will be seeing a lot of play in every deck based in enemy color pairs.