MTG Salvation

Evening everyone! I thought I'd kick off a discussion on something that's been on my mind for quite some time now that's recently been exacerbated by Once Upon a Time. Part of what's caused me to lose interest in Magic over the past year is all of the changes to the mulligan system and how that's impacted multiplayer magic as a whole. I find myself playing the same games against the same openers far more often than I'd like to the point where I sometimes feel as though I'm palming the perfect 7 on my lap. After all, let's analyze what we have access to:

1. We draw our initial hand of 7 cards and see if it has enough of what we're looking for. We've seen 7 card.
2. If not, we ship it back and draw another hand of 7 at no penalty. Hooray for free multiplayer mulligan! We've seen 14 card.
3. Still not good enough? No problem! Just draw another 7 and put back the worst card. Let's say we keep. We've seen 21 card.
4. Game starts. Turn 1 we draw our card which you always do in multiplayer even if you're on the play. We've seen 22 card.
5. Before even playing our first land we cast Once Upon a Time. We've seen 27 card.

Congratulations! We're turn 1 into the game, on the play, we've spent 0 mana and we've seen upwards of 27 cards in our 6-7 card hand. Earlier I joked about how it feels like you're palming the perfect 7 but it's disturbingly close to being true. With this much control over your opening hands and draws there's no compelling reason to keep anything that isn't a busted 7 because if you want it you're going to get it the overwhelming # of the time. You have every reason to abuse broken lands like Gaea's Cradle, Cloudpost, Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx, Urza's Tower, Field of the Dead etc. and/or go for those busted 1 -> 3 openers via mana dorks. You know, Arboreal Grazer/Elvish Mystic/Llanowar Elves into Runic Armasaur/Elvish Rejuvenator/Llanowar Tribe.

Moreover, none of this even takes into consideration cards like Gemstone Caverns, Serum Powder and Leylines which further exacerbate the power of the recent mulligan changes. These are cards with (potentially) extremely powerful effects and I dislike how "free" they feel to add to your decks. Leyline of Abundance is particularly obnoxious when paired with Once Upon a Time because not only can you reliably find a mana dork to cast on turn 1 but OuaT can also help locate things like Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx which can enable completely absurd turn 3 wins off of things like turn 2 Nissa, Who Shakes the World and other nonsense. Even putting Abundance aside for the time being Gemstone Caverns is functionally a Mox Diamond that isn't a dead draw past the first copy and tends to be an auto 4-of in my lists as a result. Serum Powder can dial combo decks up to 11 because it all-but guarantees that you'll see your key card in your opening hand. So if I want to go turn 0 Gemstone Caverns, turn 1 Waste Not, turn 2 Dark Deal I can. The other Leylines are also pretty busted because not only are you getting a powerful spell for free but you're also getting permanents/devotion for things like Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx and Gray Merchant of Asphodel. And with Leyline of the Void I can even add Helm of Obedience to my deck which suddenly reads "5 mana, tap, kill target player" and that's just completely free if I want to include it. There's so many upsides and so few drawbacks.

I'm curious what everyone else's experiences have been with the changes to mulligans and/or the introduction of Once Upon a Time. I can't say that I'm a fan but at the same time I also don't think that anything is going to change anytime soon. My concern is that I'll stop playing 60 card Magic altogether if I'm replaying the same game with the exact same sequences over and over again because what am I even doing at that point? Is it still a game? Am I still making decisions? It sure doesn't feel like it sometimes.

Finally, while I acknowledge that I can choose to "not do something" the reality is that I never will. I'm aware that I can choose to not take free mulligans, there's no gun to my head, but if I think it's optimal then I'm going to do it. Same thing with Once Upon a Time. I'm not legally compelled to play 4 copies in all of my Green decks but if I think that it's optimal then I'm going to include them. That's the kind of person that I am. My argument is that these rules and cards make the game significantly worse, not better, and so I'm voicing my opinion that I'd like to see them changed or removed. But, as a competitive player, I'm going to play them if I feel as though they maximize my probability of winning.

Once upon a time is a bad design pure and simple. It may as well be a Demonic Tutor for anyone playing green or splashing green since odds are you want a land or creature anyways. That being said, when I play black I always run a demonic tutor and a vampiric tutor along with two other tutors. I recognize that you still have to pay for those but it's not like smoothing draws hasn't been around since the beginning of Magic. The problem with OUAT is that it is free, BEFORE you do anything.

I agree that changes to the mulligan rule are in an awkward state especially if you follow it to the letter in MP. Being able to see 1/3 - 1/2 of your deck BEFORE you play is obscene. That being said, all the mulligans in the world aren't always able to overcome variance and multiple opponents. After all, the same benefits apply to your opponents as well. The best sculpted hands still lose enough that this hasn't become an issue in our meta yet.

What it does do, is pigeon hold people into only playing 3 of the 5 colors of Magic (black, blue and green) because they are CLEARLY multiple steps up in terms of consistency, draw and power over red and white, that IMO opinion is the bigger problem. My personal meta doesn't run serum powder only one guy runs Once upon a timein one deck and we allow "even more" friendly mulligan rules if you show a hand with 1 or 6+ lands.

Is EDH really any different. Lots of tutors in that format, tons of redundancy too, with slightly different card choices. I am not a huge fan of tutors, but I recognize the power and consistency they bring to decks so I use them at times. If you are a brewer, there are certain cards that are pure staples and those same cards go in all your decks as you build them.

If you are thematic, sometimes you play less optimal choices for flavor, art of whatever. This gives you the option to play different cards (sometimes, not always) which is a good thing. As much as I want to win, I like to win in certain ways and with different cards.

The power creep in Magic cannot be understated either. OUAT is clearly part of the latest power surge, for better or worse

Quote from Cnatsepllrgiht »

That being said, all the mulligans in the world aren't always able to overcome variance and multiple opponents.

I want to quickly clarify that this has nothing to do with overall win % as far as I'm concerned. The fact that everyone gets to take advantage of these rules means that everyone more-or-less benefits equally. Player skill and deckbuilding come into play obviously but those aren't quantifiable variables. All told I don't think that this causes people to win more or less than they otherwise would/should.

What does bother me is when both Green players at the table open with turn 0 OuAT, turn 1 Elf, turn 2 three drop almost every single game. And I'm absolutely including myself in there so this isn't a "screw everyone else" complaint. I don't enjoy the fact that I have to build my decks that way but I'm still going to do it if it's optimal. When multiple people are making the exact same openers game after game it no longer feels like you're playing unique games of Magic. Rather, it feels like you're stuck playing the exact same game. That's what really bothers me about the free MP mulligan, the London mulligan and OuaT combined.

Quote from Prid3 »

Quote from Cnatsepllrgiht »

That being said, all the mulligans in the world aren't always able to overcome variance and multiple opponents.

What does bother me is when both Green players at the table open with turn 0 OuAT, turn 1 Elf, turn 2 three drop almost every single game. And I'm absolutely including myself in there so this isn't a "screw everyone else" complaint. I don't enjoy the fact that I have to build my decks that way but I'm still going to do it if it's optimal. When multiple people are making the exact same openers game after game it no longer feels like you're playing unique games of Magic. Rather, it feels like you're stuck playing the exact same game. That's what really bothers me about the free MP mulligan, the London mulligan and OuaT combined.

I actually find this interesting. You often propose green decks that are x4 Primeval Titan and x4 Sylvain Primordial as finishers. I assume when you do this it is because in the majority of your brews these are the optimal cards for those CMC costs unless another niche card is needed (like Avenger of Zendikar or Craterhoof behemoth in token decks). Realistically, if you want to play the optimal build each and every time, it is relatively few cards that make the cut. The only difference now as I see it, is you have to find 4 slots for Once upon a timein the majority of green decks because the card has become the defacto go to in the early game.

It is not lost on me or anyone else around here that you almost always showcase alternative options for those who have deck building restrictions, whether because of financial or playgroup rules. This is much appreciated. To go back to my point I made in a previous post, I think this is why some people like to build different types of decks, think Elves, Devotion, midrange stompy, ramp etc, so they can play different cards in those decks and not have to play the same cards over and over again.

I have friends who build like you, pure brewers and just take decks apart and move cards around. They love it and look to play optimal builds which frequently include the same cards with few variations. I have other friends who build a deck, tweak it if it under performs, if a new card released obsoletes a current one, or if a new card enhances a strategy.

Quote from Cnatsepllrgiht »

I assume when you do this it is because in the majority of your brews these are the optimal cards for those CMC costs unless another niche card is needed..

3 reasons:

Reason #1 is exactly what you said; they're typically optimal.

Reason #2 is because it's significantly easier to make good decks weaker than it is to make bad decks stronger. Starting with a solid base and dialing it back as needed is significantly easier for a newer players to figure out than starting with a weak base and trying to build it up. Good cards are also easy to trade/sell whereas bad cards are functionally worthless which makes moving into other decks easier.

Reason #3 is because 99% of your suggestions are completely ignored so it isn't worth your time to put a ton of time and effort into any one deck. As such I'll often default to basic curves like Cavaliers, Titans, Primordials and Forces because it's always going to be reasonably competitive regardless of the number of players involved and it's not going to expend much mental energy.

Once Upon a Time is not a good design, a card like this should have just been blue and look for land or non-creature spell, at least then, the usual whinging about blue would be expected........

I personally stopped using mana dorks because they were pinged too often, setting you back. By the time someone sweeps the board of all artifacts/enchantments the mana rocks and utopia sprawl have already done their work. Our meta plays enough removal for these types of cards, but some players just leave that type of ramp alone, preferring to remove the problematic enchantment or creature that follows, like a painful quandary. Smart players know better, but Magic is full of players who can't see the bigger picture. I personally punish dorks every chance I can because if you don't stifle them, they will KO you, a few turns later.

I agree, that the optimal line of play which includes OUAT, dork --> payoff is tough to compete against if you don't nut draw yourself. However, I do think that is where the politics of the table come into play. If you played that opener against me, I would immediately advise the table of what is going on and hope I can find support from other players. If no one steps up and the turn gets to me, then I will try to handle it. Our table is good at clipping fast starts who don't KO the table immediately.

So the card is gross, but it doesn't often go unpunished, which means it isn't too big of a problem YET.

Quote from TechnicolorMage »

Smart players know better...

I agree with most of what you said but take issue with this statement. I personally don't adhere to the "bolt the bird" mindset in multiplayer because it tends to be a losing/kingmaker line as opposed to being something that's actively good for you. Spot removal isn't very good in multiplayer due to the increased number of players which means that you're typically forced to play a small quantity of cheap + versatile removal spells to give you outs against oppressive bombs, combos, overpowered engines, etc. So if you use your one and only Swords to Plowshares to kill a Llanowar Elves then your shields are down, possibly for the rest of the game. That's a bad place to be and it's why I don't think that "bolting the bird" rings true in MP. Rather, the line that wins you the highest quantity of games on average will be to save it for that Crypt Ghast, Consecrated Sphinx or in response to that Splinter Twin on Deceiver Exarch.

Let me rephrase:

When I say punish that birds of paradise, I mean playing my bonecrusher Giant type of spot removal which you are going to do anyways

I agree, saving my Swords to plowshares for some sort of battlecruisers or combo card Bad Mike is the right line of play, I also assumed this was a given due to your expertise in the game.

EDIT for clarity