I'm accustomed to the classic mulligan of shuffling your hand back in your deck and drawing one less.
I have always disliked the partial mulligan. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but build better decks. Build more consistent decks. There was a great article about using roughly 33 lands and 11 forms of cheap ramp, such as signets, mana dorks, or rampant growth effects. Then you should have about 14 forms of card draw so you never run out of gas. Obviously this is more difficult to do in some colors than in others, and these numbers don't have to be exact. The core idea was that far too many players use far too little card draw, ramp and mana sources in general. As a result, they mulligan more often and run out of gas quickly. So, when i say "build better decks," that's what I mean.
Something that I do is shuffle my deck up, then start separating 7 card piles on my play mat and sorting out how many hands I would keep and how many hands I would mulligan. The mulligan hands get set aside and the rest get put into a big "keep" pile. Then i take a closer look at the mulligan hands and take note of WHY i would pitch that hand. Is it all lands? No lands? One land? Are the lands okay, but only high casting cost cards with no early game? I answer these questions and repeat this process a few times. I dedicate this time as part of the deck building process. I like to listen to MTG pod casts and what not while I'm doing this.
As a result, I almost never mulligan when it's time to play. Even if I do mulligan, I know that I probably won't have to a second time. Especially if we are using the free mulligan rule.
P.S. Starting with that base numerical shell is often enough to reduce the deck building times for me. 33lands-11ramp-14draw is a solid ratio that needs few modifications at best.
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
I have always disliked the partial mulligan. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but build better decks. Build more consistent decks. Especially if we are using the free mulligan rule.
I play highly tuned decks and solely use Partial Paris in two playgroups. It is as ubiquitous to EDH as Tarmogoyf is in Modern, Brainstorm in Legacy and Moxen in Vintage. I have play-sets if not more of the Vintage, Legacy, Modern and sprinkled in Standard cards. Rule of thumb, stating "I don't want to sound like a jerk" is like flagging your reader that the following statement(s) or the entire message will sound like that of a jerks.
I still like this "Vancouver Serum Powder" idea simply because of the time it saves, though. I think Cryogen's group has been doing something similar for a while now.
We've been doing this for a couple months (since the Vancouver mull was announced) and it's met with general approval. Exiling in between mulls definitely keeps things moving more quickly.
As for papa_funk's third criteria of abusability: The only scenario that sprang to mind was a case in which a game ended, and a player chooses to use the same deck for the next game. Typically players clump their lands, graveyard, and hand together, toss all of this into the library and shuffle. If a player wanted to, they could place cards they would want to see together (Karmic Guide and Reveillark, or Omniscience and Enter the Infinite as examples) and they would have a better chance of mulliganing to that card clump since they are digging deeper with the mulligans.
You really don't want to base mulligan rules around poor shuffling, though. If someone is digging for clumps of cards they know are together, that's an indication that they haven't properly randomized their deck. It's cheating. Someone doing that intentionally is already not following the rules, so you don't want to tailor the rules to them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
As for papa_funk's third criteria of abusability: The only scenario that sprang to mind was a case in which a game ended, and a player chooses to use the same deck for the next game. Typically players clump their lands, graveyard, and hand together, toss all of this into the library and shuffle. If a player wanted to, they could place cards they would want to see together (Karmic Guide and Reveillark, or Omniscience and Enter the Infinite as examples) and they would have a better chance of mulliganing to that card clump since they are digging deeper with the mulligans.
Lastly, should there be any clauses about mulling into 0-1 land hands when you are already down to 4-5 cards in your hand? In my playgroup at least, if you have this type of hand we allow people to reshuffle the exiled cards from the Partial Paris and draw a new 7, as we would rather so a player with a good opening hand than sit around because RNG hates them.
That's not really abusability though, that's called clipping and is cheating. But, hey, if you are trying to cheat in a social-casual format, you can probably go play in traffic anyway. If there aren't ways for players to abuse the rule without breaking rules themselves, then it is a sound mulligan rule.
I don't know that 0-1 or 6-7(4-5) land rules -need- to be put into the rule as that is something that can be house ruled based on need. If someone were to want to be greedy and mull deep for a card, I don't think they should be rewarded for potentially throwing away playable hands in order to reach for said card and then get another free mulligan at 5 or 6 cards when they mulled into no lands or flooded lands. Having a rule like this essentially leaves it open for abuse, even if it is less probable than it is now with PP.
I think the ideal solution is Vancouver mulls with a first one free and shuffling between drawing a new hand. Not having a guaranteed free hand for land exceptions written in would reduce the potential for abuse, as would having to shuffle between each mull. If groups don't have the risk for abuse and want to save time, exile then draw again mulls should be a house rule option for them, as should exceptions for being land screwed/flooded.
I think the ideal solution is Vancouver mulls with a first one free and shuffling between drawing a new hand. Not having a guaranteed free hand for land exceptions written in would reduce the potential for abuse, as would having to shuffle between each mull. If groups don't have the risk for abuse and want to save time, exile then draw again mulls should be a house rule option for them, as should exceptions for being land screwed/flooded.
I could support this. What you are proposing is that Commander simply employ the official multiplayer mulligan rule, and let playgroups houserule from there as necessary to accommodate their needs. Makes sense to me. Definitely the cleanest solution -- you wouldn't have to mention mulligans at all on the Commander rules page.
I think the ideal solution is Vancouver mulls with a first one free and shuffling between drawing a new hand. Not having a guaranteed free hand for land exceptions written in would reduce the potential for abuse, as would having to shuffle between each mull. If groups don't have the risk for abuse and want to save time, exile then draw again mulls should be a house rule option for them, as should exceptions for being land screwed/flooded.
I could support this. What you are proposing is that Commander simply employ the official multiplayer mulligan rule, and let playgroups houserule from there as necessary to accommodate their needs. Makes sense to me. Definitely the cleanest solution -- you wouldn't have to mention mulligans at all on the Commander rules page.
Agreed. Nice & simple.
@Sheldon and/or Papa is there any chance we could get an official decision before January? At least a statement along the lines of "We're leaning this way. Test it out let us know what you think."
I have always disliked the partial mulligan. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but build better decks. Build more consistent decks. Especially if we are using the free mulligan rule.
I play highly tuned decks and solely use Partial Paris in two playgroups. It is as ubiquitous to EDH as Tarmogoyf is in Modern, Brainstorm in Legacy and Moxen in Vintage. I have play-sets if not more of the Vintage, Legacy, Modern and sprinkled in Standard cards. Rule of thumb, stating "I don't want to sound like a jerk" is like flagging your reader that the following statement(s) or the entire message will sound like that of a jerks.
Keep brewing.
I know that full well. I know that when I say "build better decks" it sounds insulting, like you build bad decks. There is no other way to say it though. I almost never mulligan and when I do, I never mulligan twice. Also, the Partial Paris is not as common as you think. At least in the Northern California area it never really caught on while I was still living there, on magic workstation people just press CTRL+M to mulligan rather than using the partial Paris, and where I currently live people ask which mulligan system we would all like to use.
I always felt the Partial Paris was too strong and I hated it from the start. I refused to use it. I think mulligans are an important part of magic and I am glad that it was eventually adopted and modified, but the Partial Paris is over the top. I like the current mulligan and scry 1 idea. I think that is pretty great. I fully support making that the normal mulligan.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
I have always disliked the partial mulligan. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but build better decks. Build more consistent decks. Especially if we are using the free mulligan rule.
I play highly tuned decks and solely use Partial Paris in two playgroups. It is as ubiquitous to EDH as Tarmogoyf is in Modern, Brainstorm in Legacy and Moxen in Vintage. I have play-sets if not more of the Vintage, Legacy, Modern and sprinkled in Standard cards. Rule of thumb, stating "I don't want to sound like a jerk" is like flagging your reader that the following statement(s) or the entire message will sound like that of a jerks.
Keep brewing.
I know that full well. I know that when I say "build better decks" it sounds insulting, like you build bad decks. There is no other way to say it though. I almost never mulligan and when I do, I never mulligan twice. Also, the Partial Paris is not as common as you think. At least in the Northern California area it never really caught on while I was still living there, on magic workstation people just press CTRL+M to mulligan rather than using the partial Paris, and where I currently live people ask which mulligan system we would all like to use.
I always felt the Partial Paris was too strong and I hated it from the start. I refused to use it. I think mulligans are an important part of magic and I am glad that it was eventually adopted and modified, but the Partial Paris is over the top. I like the current mulligan and scry 1 idea. I think that is pretty great. I fully support making that the normal mulligan.
Can confirm PP is not common at all in NorCal. I've never seen someone use it once or even suggest it. There was a poll a few weeks back spurred from an argument I had on a separate thread because the player was running fewer lands simply because of PP; the poll found more than 60 percent use it, so it's pretty common despite us not seeing it. Any mulligan rule that lets you build a deck more greedy is never a good thing.
I have always disliked the partial mulligan. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but build better decks. Build more consistent decks. Especially if we are using the free mulligan rule.
I play highly tuned decks and solely use Partial Paris in two playgroups. It is as ubiquitous to EDH as Tarmogoyf is in Modern, Brainstorm in Legacy and Moxen in Vintage. I have play-sets if not more of the Vintage, Legacy, Modern and sprinkled in Standard cards. Rule of thumb, stating "I don't want to sound like a jerk" is like flagging your reader that the following statement(s) or the entire message will sound like that of a jerks.
Keep brewing.
I know that full well. I know that when I say "build better decks" it sounds insulting, like you build bad decks. There is no other way to say it though. I almost never mulligan and when I do, I never mulligan twice. Also, the Partial Paris is not as common as you think. At least in the Northern California area it never really caught on while I was still living there, on magic workstation people just press CTRL+M to mulligan rather than using the partial Paris, and where I currently live people ask which mulligan system we would all like to use.
I always felt the Partial Paris was too strong and I hated it from the start. I refused to use it. I think mulligans are an important part of magic and I am glad that it was eventually adopted and modified, but the Partial Paris is over the top. I like the current mulligan and scry 1 idea. I think that is pretty great. I fully support making that the normal mulligan.
Can confirm PP is not common at all in NorCal. I've never seen someone use it once or even suggest it. There was a poll a few weeks back spurred from an argument I had on a separate thread because the player was running fewer lands simply because of PP; the poll found more than 60 percent use it, so it's pretty common despite us not seeing it. Any mulligan rule that lets you build a deck more greedy is never a good thing.
Confirming that the PP mulligan really lets you cheat on lands.
With a 40-land deck with the multiplayer mulligan (no scry), you have:
An average of ~3.3 lands in your opening 7;
~91% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 6 cards;
~94% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 5 cards.
Using the Partial Paris as written:
An average of ~3.3 lands after one mull to 6, using a 33-land deck.
~91% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 6 cards, using a 39-land deck;
~94% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 5 cards, using a 34-land deck.
Both my play groups use partial paris and both are reasonably competitive, but not uber competitive. I think partial paris is more likely to ensure people don't have an extra poor start and/or have answers than give one person a winning opening hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
It is my sincere hope that getting rid of PP will have this effect. Now if we can just make something which allows people to be in the game from the start without fostering the T3 kill, we'll be golden. Vancouver+multiplayer might be it. The modified Gis mulligan might be it. Or it might just be in a fertile brain somewhere. We'll see.
How much rules baggage do you consider to be too much? Obviously you want something intuitive and easy to explain/grasp. But at the same time the whole reasoning behind Partial Paris was to help prevent mana screw in opening hands. How much are you willing to pursue a rule that may be more clunky if it can make for smoother opening hands?
I don't think easy and intuitive need to be huge concerns. After all, we're playing the format with probably the most elaborate and unintuitive board states Magic can create. Players who can't read and understand the mulligan rule should probably cash out and start playing Uno.
It is my sincere hope that getting rid of PP will have this effect. Now if we can just make something which allows people to be in the game from the start without fostering the T3 kill, we'll be golden. Vancouver+multiplayer might be it. The modified Gis mulligan might be it. Or it might just be in a fertile brain somewhere. We'll see.
How much rules baggage do you consider to be too much? Obviously you want something intuitive and easy to explain/grasp. But at the same time the whole reasoning behind Partial Paris was to help prevent mana screw in opening hands. How much are you willing to pursue a rule that may be more clunky if it can make for smoother opening hands?
I'm a little unclear as to what "Vancouver + Multiplayer" and "Modified Gis" mulligans are. I assume the "Vancouver + Multiplayer" means essentially Vancouver plus a Free mull with no shuffling maybe? I cannot even guess as to the meaning of "Modified Gis"...
I don't think easy and intuitive need to be huge concerns. After all, we're playing the format with probably the most elaborate and unintuitive board states Magic can create. Players who can't read and understand the mulligan rule should probably cash out and start playing Uno.
But remember the BaaC list was removed because it was additional rules baggage without much added benefit. So even if it's something that you explain once, the rule will still be better if you don't need to spend much time explaining it at all.
I think Cryogen is mostly on the right track. I'd just get rid of partial paris mulligans. I don't even think Mana Crypt needs to be banned. Get rid of hand sculpting before banning god hand exploits.
It is my sincere hope that getting rid of PP will have this effect. Now if we can just make something which allows people to be in the game from the start without fostering the T3 kill, we'll be golden. Vancouver+multiplayer might be it. The modified Gis mulligan might be it. Or it might just be in a fertile brain somewhere. We'll see.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I really spent a lot of time crunching the numbers to demonstrate that Partial Paris does not hold that much blame for busted starts from the cards-that-shall-not-be-named. I think we would be better off without Partial Paris, but not for this reason.
It is my sincere hope that getting rid of PP will have this effect. Now if we can just make something which allows people to be in the game from the start without fostering the T3 kill, we'll be golden. Vancouver+multiplayer might be it. The modified Gis mulligan might be it. Or it might just be in a fertile brain somewhere. We'll see.
How much rules baggage do you consider to be too much? Obviously you want something intuitive and easy to explain/grasp. But at the same time the whole reasoning behind Partial Paris was to help prevent mana screw in opening hands. How much are you willing to pursue a rule that may be more clunky if it can make for smoother opening hands?
A little. Like Toby said elsewhere, we don't want you to need a flowchart or visual aids to understand it. Magic players are reasonably smart, so it doesn't have to be too simplistic, although it has to be reasonably easy to write into a rule. I know I'm dreaming here, but I'd love to come up with something that doesn't involve a strategic decision (which is definitely what normal Magic mulligans are) so much as a playability decision. Honestly, that's probably way too idealistic.
I'm a little unclear as to what "Vancouver + Multiplayer" and "Modified Gis" mulligans are. I assume the "Vancouver + Multiplayer" means essentially Vancouver plus a Free mull with no shuffling maybe? I cannot even guess as to the meaning of "Modified Gis"...
You're correct on the first. The Gis mulligan, named after fellow Magic Judge Hall of Famer Gis Hoogendijk, is "if you can't play it, set it aside and draw seven more. Repeat until you get a playable hand. Then shuffle in everything you set aside. Don't abuse this." It's what the RC uses when we play together. Once I start hosting home games again, it'll be the one we use--but that's because I'm not friends with people I don't trust. The "Modified Gis" (also called the "3 Land Mulligan) is what we've used at Armada Games for years now. First one's free. After that, if you don't have at least three lands, reveal it (we had to add this after we found folks not being honest), exile the hand and draw seven more. Repeat until you get a hand with at least 3 lands. If you get a hand with 3 lands, you must keep it. Shuffle in the exiled cards. We found that, like with PP, some players shorting their land counts--to as low as 30--knowing they'd start with 3, although not to problematic levels, because most people are smarter than that.
I guess I'm still confused Sheldon. There's always going to be a degree of strategy involved in deciding whether or not to mulligan. Without scrutinizing too much, I suppose that exiling your hand when you mulligan is strategy (well this lands DOES have mediocre lands but it's got one of my combo pieces. If I mulligan I know I can't get that card AND a good hand), whereas shuffling in between is playability since there's a chance you could redraw any of your 99. Is this where your thinking is at also, or is the strategy you refer to the decision to drop a card each time you mulligan?
I would like to avoid shuffling in between as well. It's time-consuming. What I'm saying is that I'd like to foster some kind of move from "can I win faster with this hand?" to "can I be in the game from this hand?" I want to avoid hand sculpting while providing more chance for it to be playable. Again, I'm reasonably sure that's some kind of dream scenario.
I would like to avoid shuffling in between as well. It's time-consuming. What I'm saying is that I'd like to foster some kind of move from "can I win faster with this hand?" to "can I be in the game from this hand?" I want to avoid hand sculpting while providing more chance for it to be playable. Again, I'm reasonably sure that's some kind of dream scenario.
It may also be more of the same issue people have with the philosophy and ban list altogether. You say "here is our mulligan rule we use because games are fun when you actually get to play them", but there will be a group of players that see a rule and then try to figure how to best use it to their advantage.
I would like to avoid shuffling in between as well. It's time-consuming. What I'm saying is that I'd like to foster some kind of move from "can I win faster with this hand?" to "can I be in the game from this hand?" I want to avoid hand sculpting while providing more chance for it to be playable. Again, I'm reasonably sure that's some kind of dream scenario.
Avoid shuffling = Gis/Exile Hand (I prefer calling it Exile since it's more clear-cut to the general masses)
Avoid Hand Sculpting = Always Full, never partial. On top of that, it goes 7-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, so I can't just keep exiling my hand until I get 1 with Sol Ring in it "to win faster".
Playable = Vancouver/Scry 1. Sculpting Draws is vastly different from Sculpting hands at the start of the game, especially if it's only 1 card. It aids in keeping your hand/topdeck playable with minimal actual hand-sculpting involved.
Like cryo pointed out and you admitted, there's no dream scenario of "stop planning strategies at all" (other than no Mulligans, that is), the very decision of being able to exile your hand already provides strategy to some people, let alone the first-free one and the scry that comes with mulling to 6.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
My experience with alternative mulligan rules was that everyone gets one freebie and then -1 for each subsequent mull. Hands are set aside instead of shuffled in right away until a hand is kept to speed up the process & to help prevent hand sculpting.
Edit: This is also simple & intuitive so it is easy to adopt.
I like the idea of some of these alternative mulligans. Though at some point, straying from simplicity may go too far...
"To take a mulligan, a player that player exiles his or her hand face down. Then the player reveals a number of cards equal to the number of cards he or she exiled this way from the top of his or her library. An opponent separates those cards into two piles of at least one card each, if possible. The player then one pile into his or her hand and the other into his or her exile, then reveals cards from the top of his or her library equal to the difference between the number of cards he or she had in his or her hand at the beginning of this mulligan and the number of cards he or she currently has in his or her hand. The opponent again separates those cards into two piles of at least one card each, if possible. The player then repeats this process until he or she has one less card in his or her hand from the number of cards he or she had in his or her hand at the beginning of this mulligan. Once a player keeps an opening hand, that player shuffles all cards he or she exiled this way into his or her library. If a player kept his or her hand of cards, those cards become the player’s opening hand, and that player may not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no player takes a mulligan. (Note that if a player’s hand size reaches zero cards, that player must keep that hand.)"
I have always disliked the partial mulligan. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but build better decks. Build more consistent decks. There was a great article about using roughly 33 lands and 11 forms of cheap ramp, such as signets, mana dorks, or rampant growth effects. Then you should have about 14 forms of card draw so you never run out of gas. Obviously this is more difficult to do in some colors than in others, and these numbers don't have to be exact. The core idea was that far too many players use far too little card draw, ramp and mana sources in general. As a result, they mulligan more often and run out of gas quickly. So, when i say "build better decks," that's what I mean.
Something that I do is shuffle my deck up, then start separating 7 card piles on my play mat and sorting out how many hands I would keep and how many hands I would mulligan. The mulligan hands get set aside and the rest get put into a big "keep" pile. Then i take a closer look at the mulligan hands and take note of WHY i would pitch that hand. Is it all lands? No lands? One land? Are the lands okay, but only high casting cost cards with no early game? I answer these questions and repeat this process a few times. I dedicate this time as part of the deck building process. I like to listen to MTG pod casts and what not while I'm doing this.
As a result, I almost never mulligan when it's time to play. Even if I do mulligan, I know that I probably won't have to a second time. Especially if we are using the free mulligan rule.
P.S. Starting with that base numerical shell is often enough to reduce the deck building times for me. 33lands-11ramp-14draw is a solid ratio that needs few modifications at best.
I play highly tuned decks and solely use Partial Paris in two playgroups. It is as ubiquitous to EDH as Tarmogoyf is in Modern, Brainstorm in Legacy and Moxen in Vintage. I have play-sets if not more of the Vintage, Legacy, Modern and sprinkled in Standard cards. Rule of thumb, stating "I don't want to sound like a jerk" is like flagging your reader that the following statement(s) or the entire message will sound like that of a jerks.
Keep brewing.
You really don't want to base mulligan rules around poor shuffling, though. If someone is digging for clumps of cards they know are together, that's an indication that they haven't properly randomized their deck. It's cheating. Someone doing that intentionally is already not following the rules, so you don't want to tailor the rules to them.
That's not really abusability though, that's called clipping and is cheating. But, hey, if you are trying to cheat in a social-casual format, you can probably go play in traffic anyway. If there aren't ways for players to abuse the rule without breaking rules themselves, then it is a sound mulligan rule.
I don't know that 0-1 or 6-7(4-5) land rules -need- to be put into the rule as that is something that can be house ruled based on need. If someone were to want to be greedy and mull deep for a card, I don't think they should be rewarded for potentially throwing away playable hands in order to reach for said card and then get another free mulligan at 5 or 6 cards when they mulled into no lands or flooded lands. Having a rule like this essentially leaves it open for abuse, even if it is less probable than it is now with PP.
I think the ideal solution is Vancouver mulls with a first one free and shuffling between drawing a new hand. Not having a guaranteed free hand for land exceptions written in would reduce the potential for abuse, as would having to shuffle between each mull. If groups don't have the risk for abuse and want to save time, exile then draw again mulls should be a house rule option for them, as should exceptions for being land screwed/flooded.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
@Sheldon and/or Papa is there any chance we could get an official decision before January? At least a statement along the lines of "We're leaning this way. Test it out let us know what you think."
I know that full well. I know that when I say "build better decks" it sounds insulting, like you build bad decks. There is no other way to say it though. I almost never mulligan and when I do, I never mulligan twice. Also, the Partial Paris is not as common as you think. At least in the Northern California area it never really caught on while I was still living there, on magic workstation people just press CTRL+M to mulligan rather than using the partial Paris, and where I currently live people ask which mulligan system we would all like to use.
I always felt the Partial Paris was too strong and I hated it from the start. I refused to use it. I think mulligans are an important part of magic and I am glad that it was eventually adopted and modified, but the Partial Paris is over the top. I like the current mulligan and scry 1 idea. I think that is pretty great. I fully support making that the normal mulligan.
Can confirm PP is not common at all in NorCal. I've never seen someone use it once or even suggest it. There was a poll a few weeks back spurred from an argument I had on a separate thread because the player was running fewer lands simply because of PP; the poll found more than 60 percent use it, so it's pretty common despite us not seeing it. Any mulligan rule that lets you build a deck more greedy is never a good thing.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU
With a 40-land deck with the multiplayer mulligan (no scry), you have:
An average of ~3.3 lands in your opening 7;
~91% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 6 cards;
~94% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 5 cards.
Using the Partial Paris as written:
An average of ~3.3 lands after one mull to 6, using a 33-land deck.
~91% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 6 cards, using a 39-land deck;
~94% chance to get at least 3 lands in your hand by the time you mulligan to 5 cards, using a 34-land deck.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Both my play groups use partial paris and both are reasonably competitive, but not uber competitive. I think partial paris is more likely to ensure people don't have an extra poor start and/or have answers than give one person a winning opening hand.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
How much rules baggage do you consider to be too much? Obviously you want something intuitive and easy to explain/grasp. But at the same time the whole reasoning behind Partial Paris was to help prevent mana screw in opening hands. How much are you willing to pursue a rule that may be more clunky if it can make for smoother opening hands?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I'm a little unclear as to what "Vancouver + Multiplayer" and "Modified Gis" mulligans are. I assume the "Vancouver + Multiplayer" means essentially Vancouver plus a Free mull with no shuffling maybe? I cannot even guess as to the meaning of "Modified Gis"...
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
But remember the BaaC list was removed because it was additional rules baggage without much added benefit. So even if it's something that you explain once, the rule will still be better if you don't need to spend much time explaining it at all.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
- Backup Plan
- Serum Powder
- Flux
- Fact or Fiction
- Land Grant
EDIT:
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I really spent a lot of time crunching the numbers to demonstrate that Partial Paris does not hold that much blame for busted starts from the cards-that-shall-not-be-named. I think we would be better off without Partial Paris, but not for this reason.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
A little. Like Toby said elsewhere, we don't want you to need a flowchart or visual aids to understand it. Magic players are reasonably smart, so it doesn't have to be too simplistic, although it has to be reasonably easy to write into a rule. I know I'm dreaming here, but I'd love to come up with something that doesn't involve a strategic decision (which is definitely what normal Magic mulligans are) so much as a playability decision. Honestly, that's probably way too idealistic.
You're correct on the first. The Gis mulligan, named after fellow Magic Judge Hall of Famer Gis Hoogendijk, is "if you can't play it, set it aside and draw seven more. Repeat until you get a playable hand. Then shuffle in everything you set aside. Don't abuse this." It's what the RC uses when we play together. Once I start hosting home games again, it'll be the one we use--but that's because I'm not friends with people I don't trust. The "Modified Gis" (also called the "3 Land Mulligan) is what we've used at Armada Games for years now. First one's free. After that, if you don't have at least three lands, reveal it (we had to add this after we found folks not being honest), exile the hand and draw seven more. Repeat until you get a hand with at least 3 lands. If you get a hand with 3 lands, you must keep it. Shuffle in the exiled cards. We found that, like with PP, some players shorting their land counts--to as low as 30--knowing they'd start with 3, although not to problematic levels, because most people are smarter than that.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It may also be more of the same issue people have with the philosophy and ban list altogether. You say "here is our mulligan rule we use because games are fun when you actually get to play them", but there will be a group of players that see a rule and then try to figure how to best use it to their advantage.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Avoid shuffling = Gis/Exile Hand (I prefer calling it Exile since it's more clear-cut to the general masses)
Avoid Hand Sculpting = Always Full, never partial. On top of that, it goes 7-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, so I can't just keep exiling my hand until I get 1 with Sol Ring in it "to win faster".
Playable = Vancouver/Scry 1. Sculpting Draws is vastly different from Sculpting hands at the start of the game, especially if it's only 1 card. It aids in keeping your hand/topdeck playable with minimal actual hand-sculpting involved.
Like cryo pointed out and you admitted, there's no dream scenario of "stop planning strategies at all" (other than no Mulligans, that is), the very decision of being able to exile your hand already provides strategy to some people, let alone the first-free one and the scry that comes with mulling to 6.
Simple, you see a lot of cards for play-ability, no partial so hand sculpting is harder.
Papa_Funk, if you were a doughnut what kind would you be?
also, I agree that there is little benefit for this.
Edit: This is also simple & intuitive so it is easy to adopt.
Kamahl, Fist of Krosa | Korlash, Heir to Blackblade | Karador Apostles | Brago, King Eternal | Talrand the Sky Summoner | Mageta the Lion
I like the idea of some of these alternative mulligans. Though at some point, straying from simplicity may go too far...
"To take a mulligan, a player that player exiles his or her hand face down. Then the player reveals a number of cards equal to the number of cards he or she exiled this way from the top of his or her library. An opponent separates those cards into two piles of at least one card each, if possible. The player then one pile into his or her hand and the other into his or her exile, then reveals cards from the top of his or her library equal to the difference between the number of cards he or she had in his or her hand at the beginning of this mulligan and the number of cards he or she currently has in his or her hand. The opponent again separates those cards into two piles of at least one card each, if possible. The player then repeats this process until he or she has one less card in his or her hand from the number of cards he or she had in his or her hand at the beginning of this mulligan. Once a player keeps an opening hand, that player shuffles all cards he or she exiled this way into his or her library. If a player kept his or her hand of cards, those cards become the player’s opening hand, and that player may not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no player takes a mulligan. (Note that if a player’s hand size reaches zero cards, that player must keep that hand.)"