What kind of mulligan would fix the nongames? I know in Canadian Highlander, they have a "second 6" rule" where your first mulligan drops you to six, but your second also puts you six, then five, five again, so on and so forth. Now, anyone who plays the format will tell you that the nature of their format is far different from Modern's, but it's at least food for thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
All card games have variance. If you don't like variance, there are a variety of games that do not exist with these, from chess to Street Fighter. That variance creates a level of excitement in the form of "you always have a chance to win," which also means the opposite holds true. If you think variance is a problem, then unbans should be targeted at anything that enables higher consistency:
1. Preordain
2. Ponder
3. Dig Through Time
4. Treasure Cruise
6. The good Jace
7. GSZ
8. Git Probed
Maybe you can argue BBE too, but that's really more about explosiveness than card advantage, in my opinion. Certainly though that opinion is up for debate.
Scry X, where X is the number of times you have mulligan-ed this game would be a nice addition
I find it odd that a mulligan to 5 gives you the same compensation as a mulligan to 6. Why not scale it based on the number of cards you are down?
This seems like a great idea until you realize it disproportionately adds consistency to the combo decks in the format. They can now mulligan aggressively (and sculpt accordingly) without significant penalty.
EDIT: It also adds consistency to the decks that really want a specific card in their opening hand, like any Eldrazi deck running Eldrazi Temple.
Playing millions of cards every turn... Slowly and systematically obliterating any chance my opponent has of winning... Clicking the multitude of locking mechanisms into place... Not even trying to win myself until turn 10+ once I have nigh absolute control... Watching my opponent desperately trying to navigate the labyrinthine prison that I've constructed... Seeing the light of hope fade and ultimately extinguished in an excruciatingly slow manner... THAT'S fun Magic.
We have 2-3 users that are dramatically making this thread incomprehensible and non-productive for anyone else to possibly join in the discussion. This needs to change.
Every time I see [ktkenshinx] post in here, I get the impression of a stern dad walking in on a bunch of kids trying to do something dumb and just shaking his head in disappointment.
Near Mint: The same as Slightly Played, but we threw some Altoids in the box we stored it in to cover up the scent of dead mice. Slightly Played: The base condition for all MTG cards. This card looks OK, but there’s one minor annoying ding in it that will always irritate and distract you whenever you draw it. Moderately Played: This card looks like it survived the Tet Offensive tucked inside the waistband of GI underwear. It may smell like it, too. Heavily Played: This card looks like the remains of Mohammed Atta’s passport after 9/11. It may be playable if you double-sleeve it to stop the chunks from falling out. The condition formerly known as "Washing Machine Grade" Damaged: This card is the unfortunate victim of a Mirrorweave/March of the Machines/Chaos Confetti/Mindslaver combo.
[M]aking counterfeit cards is the absolute height of dishonesty. Ask yourself this question: Since most people...are totally cool with the use of proxies...what purpose do [high] quality counterfeit cards serve?
Non-games suck, but I like Magic's variance. Variance reduces the importance of skill to an extent (you can make all the right decisions and still lose), but adds to the mix a different kind of skill: playing around variance.
The presence of variance increases the number of (or at least complicates) decisions. All card games have the variance of drawing random cards. This forces us to play around possible cards they could have. But sometimes you should ignore certain cards if you think you will end up in a better position by doing so. This also incorporates reading the opponent's plays to figure out why they are doing something to figure out what cards they could have.
The Mana system takes this to another level. You have to consider whether you (or your opponent will hit the next land drop). What is the right play if you do/don't? How likely are you to find the next land? Can you hedge?
Non-games are basically the worst, but I find that a lot of non-games from Mana issues are caused by greedy keeps (which are probably made for fear of bad mulligans leading to non-games). But that just leads to more interesting mulliganing decisions! Even when non-games occur, decisions were made up to that point, and decision making is basically what the game is about.
I definitely consider Magic's mana system a feature not a bug personally. Crafting beautiful manabases is a glorious thing. Making tradeoffs like squeezing in fastlands or filters or creature lands. This is especially so in modern where there're many different potential permutations of successful manabases.
But I do think mulliganning could do slightly more to shave nongames, and I do not think adding consistency to combo decks is a great way to go about that (additional scry, etc.). I also think the mulliganning system we have today is especially punishing in Modern where consistency tools are lacking overall, especially in non-blue decks.
I'm not sure exactly what the right balance is there but I think there's a lot of value in the discussion.
I am not against the mana system, and I think it has a lot of advantages - allowing players to finesse deckbuilding ala Turbo Xerox, and the like.
However, one of the biggest issues I've seen among people who play the game is that getting mana flooded or screwed leads to a lot of non-games, which is why a lot of casual players will mana weave, even if it's against the rules. People like being able to actually play the game, rather than mull to 4 in search of a hand with lands and still not get there.
The comment about Hearthstone and HEX being able to do things Magic can't as a result of them being digital games is a reference to the fact that each has taken an approach to avoid players getting mana screwed and flooded. I do not like the Hearthstone system, but then I don't like Hearthstone at all. But getting a resource every turn without having to draw it does limit the non-games that occur.
I don't think the problem is Magic being physical. Hearthstone's way could be done physically (simply add the applicable amount of mana each turn). The problem is that Magic has been built so around its mana system that it can't be fixed now without dramatically shifting the game, making a bunch of cards overpowered, and requiring a ton of errata. That'd be the case if it were physical or digital.
Personally I think the best version of Magic's mana system was done in Force of Will, where you have a separate lands deck and main deck. Without getting too much into the detail, once per turn you can put the top card of your lands deck into play, but doing so prevents your Ruler card from doing some things (your Ruler is pretty similar to a Commander, but abilities that only work while in the Ruler zone/command zone are much more common). So there's a disadvantage to simply getting one new land every turn. I think it's a great way to eliminate mana screw while still having some randomness as to which lands you get. Sure, color screw's around, but that's fine with me as that's an acceptable disadvantage to going into multiple colors.
Pokemon's energy system is sorta like Magic's land system in that you can only play one per turn, but it's harder to get "mana screwed" in the game (despite no choice in mulligans--you mulligan until you get a Basic Pokemon, and then you keep it, no matter how bad it is) because the filtering and tutor cards in the game are astoundingly good.
But those ruminations aside, my larger point was that the desire for a better mulligan rule really comes from a desire for a better mana system, and that's not really fixable at this point.
Here's an idea I haven't thought through very carefully:
If you would mulligan a four-card hand, you may instead search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, and set it aside. Shuffle one card from your hand back into your library. Add the basic land card to your hand. Normal 'scry 1' rules.
The idea is that 'games' of Magic aren't really games when one person is mulliganing to three cards, so why not set a 'floor' at a starting hand size of four with a guaranteed basic land. Maybe which of the four cards you shuffle back in is random, if this rule would potentially be too good for combo decks (seems questionable).
The idea is to keep the mana system intact while minimizing non-games. I think the mana system is actually quite brilliant; it leads to very interesting tensions in deckbuilding, and while it can certainly not work out, with proper deckbuilding it should be minimized over the long run -- especially in formats with fetchlands and other robust mana fixing options.
Legacy:UWR Miracles (MTGS Primer) || Modern:UWR Jeskai Control Commander:UBR Jeleva/Kess Storm, UR Mizzix Combo, U Rayne/Azami Wizards
An appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company, and irrepressibly drab and awful.
Here's an idea I haven't thought through very carefully:
If you would mulligan a four-card hand, you may instead search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, and set it aside. Shuffle one card from your hand back into your library. Add the basic land card to your hand. Normal 'scry 1' rules.
The idea is that 'games' of Magic aren't really games when one person is mulliganing to three cards, so why not set a 'floor' at a starting hand size of four with a guaranteed basic land. Maybe which of the four cards you shuffle back in is random, if this rule would potentially be too good for combo decks (seems questionable).
The idea is to keep the mana system intact while minimizing non-games. I think the mana system is actually quite brilliant; it leads to very interesting tensions in deckbuilding, and while it can certainly not work out, with proper deckbuilding it should be minimized over the long run -- especially in formats with fetchlands and other robust mana fixing options.
That's an interesting avenue to contemplate. Not a thoroughly researched idea, but maybe expand it to -- "select a basic land card from your deck; if you shuffle two random non-land cards into your library, place it in your opening hand." Significant downside in revealing your opening hand (to ensure the non-land) and going down a card.
In the Pokemon TCG, when a player has to mull (though in that game its forced, you can't choose whether or not to) the opponent has the choice to draw a card per mulligan.
They actually tested a 7-7-stop style before and found that it led to bigger blowouts, and a 7-7-7-stop style would likely lead to too many mulligans, which goes against their second stated goal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks
Modern: UWUW Control UBRGrixis Shadow URIzzet Phoenix
But those ruminations aside, my larger point was that the desire for a better mulligan rule really comes from a desire for a better mana system, and that's not really fixable at this point.
I disagree. I think the desire for a better mulligan rule stems from players not understanding how to properly deck build or mulligan. If players understood both of those then "mana screw" would happen MUCH less frequently than it does. So infrequently that it would become a moot point. Therefore the issue simply cannot lie with the mana system.
Many players bring "netdecks" to tournaments, so the point of deck building is likely lost on most people. But what net-deckers (and I'm one of them) often don't understand is that the deck that Person Y brought and showed up as #1 on mtgtop8 was likely tailored to that person. Perhaps that person knows they make riskier keeps than the majority and therefore shaved a land off what most players should actually run. Knowing your playstyle well and being able to identify someone else's playstyle based on their 75 are keys to bringing the correct 75 for you (i.e. deckbuilding).
And the playerbase in general makes abysmal mulligan decisions.
But those ruminations aside, my larger point was that the desire for a better mulligan rule really comes from a desire for a better mana system, and that's not really fixable at this point.
I disagree. I think the desire for a better mulligan rule stems from players not understanding how to properly deck build or mulligan. If players understood both of those then "mana screw" would happen MUCH less frequently than it does. So infrequently that it would become a moot point. Therefore the issue simply cannot lie with the mana system.
Many players bring "netdecks" to tournaments, so the point of deck building is likely lost on most people. But what net-deckers (and I'm one of them) often don't understand is that the deck that Person Y brought and showed up as #1 on mtgtop8 was likely tailored to that person. Perhaps that person knows they make riskier keeps than the majority and therefore shaved a land off what most players should actually run. Knowing your playstyle well and being able to identify someone else's playstyle based on their 75 are keys to bringing the correct 75 for you (i.e. deckbuilding).
And the playerbase in general makes abysmal mulligan decisions.
Actually this is a great point.
Making good mulligans are one of the more challenging parts of this game. I am a very conservative player when it comes to mulligans - I almost never choose to do it unless its absolutely necessary. Other players may mulligan more liberally. Sometimes I lose because of my stubbornness, but I think if I were more reckless I would also lose games due to the decreased hand size as well
But those ruminations aside, my larger point was that the desire for a better mulligan rule really comes from a desire for a better mana system, and that's not really fixable at this point.
I disagree. I think the desire for a better mulligan rule stems from players not understanding how to properly deck build or mulligan. If players understood both of those then "mana screw" would happen MUCH less frequently than it does. So infrequently that it would become a moot point. Therefore the issue simply cannot lie with the mana system.
Many players bring "netdecks" to tournaments, so the point of deck building is likely lost on most people. But what net-deckers (and I'm one of them) often don't understand is that the deck that Person Y brought and showed up as #1 on mtgtop8 was likely tailored to that person. Perhaps that person knows they make riskier keeps than the majority and therefore shaved a land off what most players should actually run. Knowing your playstyle well and being able to identify someone else's playstyle based on their 75 are keys to bringing the correct 75 for you (i.e. deckbuilding).
And the playerbase in general makes abysmal mulligan decisions.
Actually this is a great point.
Making good mulligans are one of the more challenging parts of this game. I am a very conservative player when it comes to mulligans - I almost never choose to do it unless its absolutely necessary. Other players may mulligan more liberally. Sometimes I lose because of my stubbornness, but I think if I were more reckless I would also lose games due to the decreased hand size as well
I would actually classify your decisions in the opposite manner. Making "loose keeps" is what I term the liberal approach, and choosing to mulligan the conservative approach. Of course, it very much depends on your deck's goals and construction. A deck that needs a critical mass of xyz likely mulligans poorly. A deck with a lot of built in consistency likely mulligans well. A deck that has the correct curve and land count for that curve likely mulligans well also. There are more considerations, those are just a few.
Making good mulligans are one of the more challenging parts of this game. I am a very conservative player when it comes to mulligans - I almost never choose to do it unless its absolutely necessary. Other players may mulligan more liberally. Sometimes I lose because of my stubbornness, but I think if I were more reckless I would also lose games due to the decreased hand size as well
I am a very results oriented person and this hampers me in Magic quite often. You can ask for me to clarify why, but it'll take a while.
I used to mulligan poor hands that were too risky. Then after shuffling for quite a bit (possibly overshuffling), I would draw 6 of the same cards, so I would have to mulligan again. Then, occasionally after shuffling a lot again, I would draw 5 of those cards. Basically after a keep, I would lose the game pretty handily, but have 2 more cards in my library that I am not trying to draw. I guess this happens a lot because I love playing decks with 4 ofs. But it influenced my mulligan decisions. And that's just being a bad player.
Mulligan decisions used to be probably my biggest weakness in Magic and it often would be covered up by what happened in the games. So, many of my opponents and friends did not know how bad I was. But I've gotten a LOT better. I believe watching Streams of how Pro Players and other popular players mulligan helped me improve. It's not always about mulliganing based on mana decisions. Sometimes you may have a hand that needs to draw a land in the first 2 turns, but otherwise you have all of the important cards in the matchup. If it's going to be tough to win without those cards, you probably keep. Maybe you never draw a land and lose. But if you had, you had all of the important tools. Sometimes you have the wrong part of the deck. You have a hand that's completely keepable in other matchups. But it won't win you the game in THIS matchup, despite having some (non-impactful) early plays. These are all things you have to consider. I am not going to say that I am super good at mulligan decisions, but I will say that I have improved greatly. And I have seen an improvement in results, despite not play testing enough to have every single matchup down like I used to when I had more time to play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
Step one for me is always to figure out if the hand is keepable. Can I cast my spells? Not just what's in my hand, but the ones I will draw. If I can cast enough spells to manage, but can't cast all of the cards in my deck, sometimes that is still a keep. I should specify that I mean having access to all my colours (not sufficient lands to cast my entire curve), or expecting to hit them with cantrips.
Step two is whether or not I should keep. Are these cards actually going to be good? This comes to mind whenever I see a few lands, a threat, and a bunch of Bolts. If Bolt is bad in the matchup, I'm gonna have a bad time. If Bolt is good, I'm in a great spot.
Step two is especially important postboard because you actually know what the opponent is on. In game one, polarized hands like the one above give me trouble because you have to evaluate the risk involved with little information. Once you know what the opponent is on, you can actually analyze how you want the game to go, and whether your cards are likely to line up favourably.
But those ruminations aside, my larger point was that the desire for a better mulligan rule really comes from a desire for a better mana system, and that's not really fixable at this point.
I disagree. I think the desire for a better mulligan rule stems from players not understanding how to properly deck build or mulligan. If players understood both of those then "mana screw" would happen MUCH less frequently than it does. So infrequently that it would become a moot point. Therefore the issue simply cannot lie with the mana system.
Many players bring "netdecks" to tournaments, so the point of deck building is likely lost on most people. But what net-deckers (and I'm one of them) often don't understand is that the deck that Person Y brought and showed up as #1 on mtgtop8 was likely tailored to that person. Perhaps that person knows they make riskier keeps than the majority and therefore shaved a land off what most players should actually run. Knowing your playstyle well and being able to identify someone else's playstyle based on their 75 are keys to bringing the correct 75 for you (i.e. deckbuilding).
And the playerbase in general makes abysmal mulligan decisions.
You make the claim "so infrequently it would become a moot point" but neglect to provide any definite data for that statement, which would seem required, rather than what amounts to little more than speculation. If you don't get enough lands, you don't get enough lands. And unlike the Pokemon TCG, you don't have free, super-efficient draw/tutor effects that increase the chance of you being able to get the stuff you need.
Sure, some cases of feel-bad mulligans come from bad decisions. But a lot--too many--are simply not getting lands (or ending up going down to a low number when you finally get lands) and no different sequence would have changed that.
1. Ban chalice of the void: it's unfair that big mana decks can invalidate so many decks with just 1 card.
2. Ban past in flames: not only does this deserve a ban already, but with chalice's ban it deserved it even more.
Again, Storm is a fine deck to have. It's more interactable with 8 creatures than it was with 4 creatures and an enchantment, and it does not break the turn 4 consistently. We don't even need the numbers for this, the main spell-win con of the deck is 3U, which with the cost reduction of Baral, Chief Of Compliance(if there is one on the battlefield) is being played at 2U cost, meaning on turn 3.
Storm is not getting banned; it's either Eldrazi Temple or no bans at all in 7 days.
Also, THIS TWEET from Aaron Forsythe tells me is eyeing Chalice as the police card of the format. They won't ban it, sadly(even if I hate it)
If not chalice, temple. But past is saying bbye, breaks the t3 rule too often even if with creatures.
1. Ban chalice of the void: it's unfair that big mana decks can invalidate so many decks with just 1 card.
2. Ban past in flames: not only does this deserve a ban already, but with chalice's ban it deserved it even more.
Again, Storm is a fine deck to have. It's more interactable with 8 creatures than it was with 4 creatures and an enchantment, and it does not break the turn 4 consistently. We don't even need the numbers for this, the main spell-win con of the deck is 3U, which with the cost reduction of Baral, Chief Of Compliance(if there is one on the battlefield) is being played at 2U cost, meaning on turn 3.
Storm is not getting banned; it's either Eldrazi Temple or no bans at all in 7 days.
Also, THIS TWEET from Aaron Forsythe tells me is eyeing Chalice as the police card of the format. They won't ban it, sadly(even if I hate it)
I don't think that's actually saying anything. Being interactable doesn't exclude the deck from being a problem. I believe Storm is fine, but a tweet from May doesn't tell me anything about what they currently believe about the card. We already know a lot can change at WotC in five months. Plus, it's not like many of the top strategies are actually trying to interact with you. Storm and Titanshift aren't. ETron, when you get down to it, isn't exactly doing much with you either. GDS does, but also has to compete with a Chalice deck. Most of the best interaction in the format is 1 cmc. Why would you try to go that route when the top deck is a Chalice deck? I like having Chalice in the format, but there's room to for me to believe that it's contributing to an issue here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
Again, Storm is a fine deck to have. It's more interactable with 8 creatures than it was with 4 creatures and an enchantment, and it does not break the turn 4 consistently. We don't even need the numbers for this, the main spell-win con of the deck is 3U, which with the cost reduction of Baral, Chief Of Compliance(if there is one on the battlefield) is being played at 2U cost, meaning on turn 3.
Storm is not getting banned; it's either Eldrazi Temple or no bans at all in 7 days.
Also, THIS TWEET from Aaron Forsythe tells me is eyeing Chalice as the police card of the format. They won't ban it, sadly(even if I hate it)
I agree that Storm is fine in its current form (more decks are able to slow it down now that it leans more heavily on creatures), and I also don't think Storm should be hit by a ban.
I really dislike your reasoning though. Saying that the deck doesn't win often before turn four due to Gifts Ungiven's Mana cost seems really unfair. The deck runs 8 rituals, and 4 manamorphose, which acts like a ritual with one of the cost reducers out. The deck can absolutely Gifts on turn 3 with mana left over to keep going. In fact, I usually default to assuming that if I don't interact with a cost reducer played on turn 2, I'm not going to survive their third turn.
Naturally, I don't know the numbers on how often they can Gifts and keep going on turn 3 (specifically with the reducer out- if they don't play the reducer on 2 and have it survive for them to start going off on 3, I agree that Storm is very unlikely to do anything THAT scary on their third turn), but saying that the we don't need the numbers for that reason just seems out of context of what the deck can do.
If some people(like Nyzzeh) keep insisting Storm is breaking the turn 4 rule, they have to present some data that confirm this.
Otherwise, it's just biased thinking or "hey, I just lost some games to Storm, thus I want it banned"
The only ones who have access to that actual data is WOTC themselves.
Also, why are we continuing to post these Challenge results again? How are they meaningful?
A single challenge isn't, but multiple? I mean these are large events, swiss format, competitive...what more do you want? How were MTGO leagues so much better? At some point, I can't help wondering if information is being ignored because it goes against the grain of this thread.
A single challenge isn't, but multiple? I mean these are large events, swiss format, competitive...what more do you want? How were MTGO leagues so much better? At some point, I can't help wondering if information is being ignored because it goes against the grain of this thread.
MTGO Leagues, as an aggregate of hundreds of lists a month, selected randomly, show what is winning consistently over a much larger sample size with a much more meaningful representation of the format. Challenge samples are too small, too few, too far between, and too variance-driven to pull any meaningful data out of. What really seems strange is posting them over and over with no additional context, commentary, or analysis (and in this case, posted as a DOUBLE after a previous content post). At that point, it's just spam. I mean, should we be posting local PPTQs too? FNM results?
1. Preordain
2. Ponder
3. Dig Through Time
4. Treasure Cruise
6. The good Jace
7. GSZ
8. Git Probed
Maybe you can argue BBE too, but that's really more about explosiveness than card advantage, in my opinion. Certainly though that opinion is up for debate.
I find it odd that a mulligan to 5 gives you the same compensation as a mulligan to 6. Why not scale it based on the number of cards you are down?
EDIT: It also adds consistency to the decks that really want a specific card in their opening hand, like any Eldrazi deck running Eldrazi Temple.
WUDeath&TaxesWG
Legacy
UBRGDredgeUBRG
UHigh TideU
URGLandsURG
WR Card Choice List
WUR American D&T
WUB Esper D&T
The Reserved List
Heat Maps
The presence of variance increases the number of (or at least complicates) decisions. All card games have the variance of drawing random cards. This forces us to play around possible cards they could have. But sometimes you should ignore certain cards if you think you will end up in a better position by doing so. This also incorporates reading the opponent's plays to figure out why they are doing something to figure out what cards they could have.
The Mana system takes this to another level. You have to consider whether you (or your opponent will hit the next land drop). What is the right play if you do/don't? How likely are you to find the next land? Can you hedge?
Non-games are basically the worst, but I find that a lot of non-games from Mana issues are caused by greedy keeps (which are probably made for fear of bad mulligans leading to non-games). But that just leads to more interesting mulliganing decisions! Even when non-games occur, decisions were made up to that point, and decision making is basically what the game is about.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
But I do think mulliganning could do slightly more to shave nongames, and I do not think adding consistency to combo decks is a great way to go about that (additional scry, etc.). I also think the mulliganning system we have today is especially punishing in Modern where consistency tools are lacking overall, especially in non-blue decks.
I'm not sure exactly what the right balance is there but I think there's a lot of value in the discussion.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Personally I think the best version of Magic's mana system was done in Force of Will, where you have a separate lands deck and main deck. Without getting too much into the detail, once per turn you can put the top card of your lands deck into play, but doing so prevents your Ruler card from doing some things (your Ruler is pretty similar to a Commander, but abilities that only work while in the Ruler zone/command zone are much more common). So there's a disadvantage to simply getting one new land every turn. I think it's a great way to eliminate mana screw while still having some randomness as to which lands you get. Sure, color screw's around, but that's fine with me as that's an acceptable disadvantage to going into multiple colors.
Pokemon's energy system is sorta like Magic's land system in that you can only play one per turn, but it's harder to get "mana screwed" in the game (despite no choice in mulligans--you mulligan until you get a Basic Pokemon, and then you keep it, no matter how bad it is) because the filtering and tutor cards in the game are astoundingly good.
But those ruminations aside, my larger point was that the desire for a better mulligan rule really comes from a desire for a better mana system, and that's not really fixable at this point.
If you would mulligan a four-card hand, you may instead search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, and set it aside. Shuffle one card from your hand back into your library. Add the basic land card to your hand. Normal 'scry 1' rules.
The idea is that 'games' of Magic aren't really games when one person is mulliganing to three cards, so why not set a 'floor' at a starting hand size of four with a guaranteed basic land. Maybe which of the four cards you shuffle back in is random, if this rule would potentially be too good for combo decks (seems questionable).
The idea is to keep the mana system intact while minimizing non-games. I think the mana system is actually quite brilliant; it leads to very interesting tensions in deckbuilding, and while it can certainly not work out, with proper deckbuilding it should be minimized over the long run -- especially in formats with fetchlands and other robust mana fixing options.
Commander: UBR Jeleva/Kess Storm, UR Mizzix Combo, U Rayne/Azami Wizards
An appallingly dull fellow, unimaginative, timid, lacking in initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company, and irrepressibly drab and awful.
That's an interesting avenue to contemplate. Not a thoroughly researched idea, but maybe expand it to -- "select a basic land card from your deck; if you shuffle two random non-land cards into your library, place it in your opening hand." Significant downside in revealing your opening hand (to ensure the non-land) and going down a card.
Having any player go down an entire card just because they didn't draw enough lands is just too imbalanced
They actually tested a 7-7-stop style before and found that it led to bigger blowouts, and a 7-7-7-stop style would likely lead to too many mulligans, which goes against their second stated goal.
Modern:
UWUW Control
UBRGrixis Shadow
URIzzet Phoenix
Many players bring "netdecks" to tournaments, so the point of deck building is likely lost on most people. But what net-deckers (and I'm one of them) often don't understand is that the deck that Person Y brought and showed up as #1 on mtgtop8 was likely tailored to that person. Perhaps that person knows they make riskier keeps than the majority and therefore shaved a land off what most players should actually run. Knowing your playstyle well and being able to identify someone else's playstyle based on their 75 are keys to bringing the correct 75 for you (i.e. deckbuilding).
And the playerbase in general makes abysmal mulligan decisions.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Actually this is a great point.
Making good mulligans are one of the more challenging parts of this game. I am a very conservative player when it comes to mulligans - I almost never choose to do it unless its absolutely necessary. Other players may mulligan more liberally. Sometimes I lose because of my stubbornness, but I think if I were more reckless I would also lose games due to the decreased hand size as well
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I am a very results oriented person and this hampers me in Magic quite often. You can ask for me to clarify why, but it'll take a while.
I used to mulligan poor hands that were too risky. Then after shuffling for quite a bit (possibly overshuffling), I would draw 6 of the same cards, so I would have to mulligan again. Then, occasionally after shuffling a lot again, I would draw 5 of those cards. Basically after a keep, I would lose the game pretty handily, but have 2 more cards in my library that I am not trying to draw. I guess this happens a lot because I love playing decks with 4 ofs. But it influenced my mulligan decisions. And that's just being a bad player.
Mulligan decisions used to be probably my biggest weakness in Magic and it often would be covered up by what happened in the games. So, many of my opponents and friends did not know how bad I was. But I've gotten a LOT better. I believe watching Streams of how Pro Players and other popular players mulligan helped me improve. It's not always about mulliganing based on mana decisions. Sometimes you may have a hand that needs to draw a land in the first 2 turns, but otherwise you have all of the important cards in the matchup. If it's going to be tough to win without those cards, you probably keep. Maybe you never draw a land and lose. But if you had, you had all of the important tools. Sometimes you have the wrong part of the deck. You have a hand that's completely keepable in other matchups. But it won't win you the game in THIS matchup, despite having some (non-impactful) early plays. These are all things you have to consider. I am not going to say that I am super good at mulligan decisions, but I will say that I have improved greatly. And I have seen an improvement in results, despite not play testing enough to have every single matchup down like I used to when I had more time to play.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Step one for me is always to figure out if the hand is keepable. Can I cast my spells? Not just what's in my hand, but the ones I will draw. If I can cast enough spells to manage, but can't cast all of the cards in my deck, sometimes that is still a keep. I should specify that I mean having access to all my colours (not sufficient lands to cast my entire curve), or expecting to hit them with cantrips.
Step two is whether or not I should keep. Are these cards actually going to be good? This comes to mind whenever I see a few lands, a threat, and a bunch of Bolts. If Bolt is bad in the matchup, I'm gonna have a bad time. If Bolt is good, I'm in a great spot.
Step two is especially important postboard because you actually know what the opponent is on. In game one, polarized hands like the one above give me trouble because you have to evaluate the risk involved with little information. Once you know what the opponent is on, you can actually analyze how you want the game to go, and whether your cards are likely to line up favourably.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
Sure, some cases of feel-bad mulligans come from bad decisions. But a lot--too many--are simply not getting lands (or ending up going down to a low number when you finally get lands) and no different sequence would have changed that.
1. Ban chalice of the void: it's unfair that big mana decks can invalidate so many decks with just 1 card.
2. Ban past in flames: not only does this deserve a ban already, but with chalice's ban it deserved it even more.
Unbans: depending on the resulting meta they could unban BBE/SFM.
If not chalice, temple. But past is saying bbye, breaks the t3 rule too often even if with creatures.
I don't think that's actually saying anything. Being interactable doesn't exclude the deck from being a problem. I believe Storm is fine, but a tweet from May doesn't tell me anything about what they currently believe about the card. We already know a lot can change at WotC in five months. Plus, it's not like many of the top strategies are actually trying to interact with you. Storm and Titanshift aren't. ETron, when you get down to it, isn't exactly doing much with you either. GDS does, but also has to compete with a Chalice deck. Most of the best interaction in the format is 1 cmc. Why would you try to go that route when the top deck is a Chalice deck? I like having Chalice in the format, but there's room to for me to believe that it's contributing to an issue here.
I agree that Storm is fine in its current form (more decks are able to slow it down now that it leans more heavily on creatures), and I also don't think Storm should be hit by a ban.
I really dislike your reasoning though. Saying that the deck doesn't win often before turn four due to Gifts Ungiven's Mana cost seems really unfair. The deck runs 8 rituals, and 4 manamorphose, which acts like a ritual with one of the cost reducers out. The deck can absolutely Gifts on turn 3 with mana left over to keep going. In fact, I usually default to assuming that if I don't interact with a cost reducer played on turn 2, I'm not going to survive their third turn.
Naturally, I don't know the numbers on how often they can Gifts and keep going on turn 3 (specifically with the reducer out- if they don't play the reducer on 2 and have it survive for them to start going off on 3, I agree that Storm is very unlikely to do anything THAT scary on their third turn), but saying that the we don't need the numbers for that reason just seems out of context of what the deck can do.
Interested in RUG (Temur) Delver in Modern? Find gameplay with live commentary at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8UcKe8jVh1e2N4CHbd3fhg
The only ones who have access to that actual data is WOTC themselves.
Also, why are we continuing to post these Challenge results again? How are they meaningful?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
A single challenge isn't, but multiple? I mean these are large events, swiss format, competitive...what more do you want? How were MTGO leagues so much better? At some point, I can't help wondering if information is being ignored because it goes against the grain of this thread.
MTGO Leagues, as an aggregate of hundreds of lists a month, selected randomly, show what is winning consistently over a much larger sample size with a much more meaningful representation of the format. Challenge samples are too small, too few, too far between, and too variance-driven to pull any meaningful data out of. What really seems strange is posting them over and over with no additional context, commentary, or analysis (and in this case, posted as a DOUBLE after a previous content post). At that point, it's just spam. I mean, should we be posting local PPTQs too? FNM results?
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate