New Mulligan Rule

[Kassow-Rossing]

First of all I wish to say: The mulligan rule works fine the way it is. I'm actually quite happy about it.

There is only one minr change I hope you'll consider.

Instead of "rejecting" any number of cards from one of the opening hands, drawing the same number of cards and finally shuffling the rejected cards back into the library I suggest the following:

For one of the (opening) hands during each game only, each player may "reject" any number of cards from his or her hand. They set these cards aside, draw the corresponding number of cards from their deck and, after that, put the set-aside cards on the bottom of their library in any order.



Reasons for the suggestion:
1. Will make game play faster
2a. Has no dis-advantages compared to the shuffling rule
2b. For some decks this new on-the-bottom rule has a few advantages compared to the shuffle-rule but it is - to my best opinion - not anything worth noticing because it will even out in the long run.
3. Even though the cards that would usually be shuffled away now can't be drawn during the first few turns (Variates), it still doesn't change the game. There are so many fetch-lands and other shuffle-effects around in this format, that this change will not have any effect at all after a few turns or less.

Overall speaking it will increase the fun of the format and it won't ruin anything. Will even give the players four-nine minutes (Depending if the game ends in 2-0 or in 2-1 to any of the players AND depending on the players spend two or three minutes shuffling each time) more playing time in the match. That is beneficial for all.

Patrick Kassow, Denmark

[Tiggupiru]

Jamie Hyneman declares this myth: plausible.

I often cut corners outside of tournaments by throwing the rejected cards in the middle of the deck, without shuffling. The format is pretty much shuffling from the start to finish, so it's definitely justifiable to make efforts in order to decrease time spent on waving your cards around. This is not very problematic in tournaments as one shuffle per game is not a huge deal, so this can go either way. But this makes casual gaming (or not-so-casual tournament testing) somewhat easier.

So that we can get the ball rolling, I say yes.

[Mythrandir]

Well, IMO, i believe hands should be 100% random, defined by pure probabilies and deckbuilding. But as the mulligan stands right now i really can't see a huge difference between now and what you're suggesting. Since almost every deck packs fetchs, the deck is bound to be shuffled (early on).
Wouldn't complain if they made this little change.

As for casual play, you can simple shuffle them into to middle and cut the deck... no big deal.

Also lol at the Hyneman phrase 

[Sturmgott]

When we introduced the mulligan we have spent some time on considering exactly this point. We decided that a player should not have any kind of information about the ordering of his library. That, plus the fact that you cannot draw these cards before you have played a shuffling effect would indeed change things. It might not seem like a big deal but on the other hand we don't think the time-saving effect of this is very relevant either.

[Kassow-Rossing]

I understand the fact that "once the game is started, the library should be randomized for the purpose of drawing unknown cards" or something like that..

But.. I think the game overall would benefit from the change still. Even though the library isn't randomized completely, it's still pretty unknown what you're drawing. All you know is the fact that you're not drawing your Akroma, Angel of Wrath in the first few turns because you've put it on bottom during the mulligan. I think it's fair game because getting that advantage of knowing that (and not drawing it) will not change the outcome of the game at all. And definetely not when both players get this tiny advantage.

The whole point of the "new rule" is to save some time to make the format more fun and to make the games more intense because it gives the players several more minutes of playing time per round. A bonus is worth mentioning too. It's what Mythrandir and Tiggupiru are talking about: If the change will be made, the casual games will be shuffled and mulligan'ed just as sufficiently as the tournament games. There will be no difference in the way people mulligan because putting cards on the bottom is even faster than putter them into the middle of the deck.

I absolutely see no reason not to make the change. I think it will benefit everybody. Tournament players and casual players alike. The tiny advantage of putting some cards temporarily away is really nothing to talk about compared to the minutes saved.

[Kassow-Rossing]

I think I'll UP this because this mulligan idea of mine is highly superior to the one we're using at the moment. I can't see a reason not to change the rules. And I've thought this through for months

[Kristian]

I don't think that change in mulliganing should be introduced. The rules for sanctioned tournament clearly states that a deck must be sufficiently randomized when presenting it to the opponent for shuffling/cutting. You have to do that when you're playing competetative. Since the ultimate goal is to get Highlander sanctioned as a format, this rule can't be introduced.

3.8 Card Shuffling
Decks must be randomized using some form of riffle and/or mash shuffle at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.
Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge.

Taken from http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/MTG_MTR_1Apr10_EN.pdf.

[Sturmgott]

To make matters clear here, we're not introducing or neglecting to introduce any rules because the DCI says we should, As stated, we see minor gains in terms of time in introducing Kassow-Rossings mulligan-tweak, but that is simply not at all enough to justify deviating from the position "players must not have any knowledge about card positions in any part of their deck before play begins".

[Kristian]

To make matters clear here, we're not introducing or neglecting to introduce any rules because the DCI says we should, As stated, we see minor gains in terms of time in introducing Kassow-Rossings mulligan-tweak, but that is simply not at all enough to justify deviating from the position "players must not have any knowledge about card positions in any part of their deck before play begins".

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?

[Kassow-Rossing]

Kristian's message would be enough for me to drop the case. Sturmgott just adds even more..

Suggestion dropped. Will retry in a year or two

[Sturmgott]

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?

Yes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also quite sure it'd be a loss in quality of maintenance of the format. E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.

I'm also unsure whether I really want to attract players because HL certainly becomes a "relevant" format. To be honest, I only want to attract those players who play HL because they feel it's the most fun, most diverse and overall best (and also the best-maintained ) format.

And for players, this DCI-rule of sets becoming legal immediately from day one of sales is clearly disadvantageous. It aims at raising profits at the cost of players (who else?). We're not supporting that.

[Kristian]

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?

Yes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also quite sure it'd be a loss in quality of maintenance of the format. E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.

I'm also unsure whether I really want to attract players because HL certainly becomes a "relevant" format. To be honest, I only want to attract those players who play HL because they feel it's the most fun, most diverse and overall best (and also the best-maintained ) format.

And for players, this DCI-rule of sets becoming legal immediately from day one of sales is clearly disadvantageous. It aims at raising profits at the cost of players (who else?). We're not supporting that.

I'm not disputing the rule itself, I don't mind it. I was just curious

[Mythrandir]

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?

Yes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also . E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.

well, i believe "unbearable" is a bit too strong, since the format survived without it. hehe.

Although, it would be nice to have more (sanctioned) tournaments, which would be a consequence of making this an official format, they would probably make this less fun to play IMO, they would change a lot on the banning list, i believe...

[Tabris]

This mulligan is hopefully not gonna be seen anywhere or anytime. Its my understanding of magic, that the game includes a random factor. This would be undermined by this procedere. The players SHOULD get the risk in getting the cards back they just "spoiled" away. Besides, the randomization "issue" is also a hard fact which sturmgott just quouted. So I hope we will never see this mulligan in the Highlander format. And ofc even cards which get spoiled away are filling a role in a deck, if a player do not want this card on the opening hand I say he/she have to bear this burden if it appears there. In the highlander format we are allways trying to get enough "answers" or simply good "allround" cards. So the price for this fact is, to get this cards even if you dont want to (e.g. B2B on the opening hand vs a monocoloured deck which gives you the win in some matchups and sometimes simply do nothing (maybe a pitch card for FoW or Misdirection))

so far ~

[so_not]

I'll open my mouth again even though I'm sure this won't have any effect on anything...

Change in mulligan is probably the only thing I'll ever agree with Kassow-Rossing and I too think this would be a solid improvement. Most of the games start with both players fetching a land or something so the decks are shuffled anyway and this could save a vital minute or two during a three game match. Only some monocolored decks would get bigger profit out of this but there aren't really relevant monocolored decks (yes, I think WW is bad and would be better with a splash...)

Yes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also quite sure it'd be a loss in quality of maintenance of the format. E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.

WotC will never make HL sanctioned format either... Format can get WotC support even though they do not maintain it. Support doesn't mean sanctioning and support comes after popularity not vice versa. EDH has its own subforum in Wizards Community and I would really like to see that happen to this HL too. EDH also has different mulligan rule than regular formats so there is no reason why they would or wanted to change this. There are even EDH events organized during PTs and such. That's what I call support, but EDH is mostly a multiplayer format and I guess there would be a demand for a quite similar but more two player oriented format.

If DCI-rules tell something about randomization then so what? This is casual format and not sanctioned so the rules can be tuned to fit better for the format. One thing they would not accept though is the legality of CE and such but that is a totally other case.

I'm also unsure whether I really want to attract players because HL certainly becomes a "relevant" format. To be honest, I only want to attract those players who play HL because they feel it's the most fun, most diverse and overall best (and also the best-maintained Wink ) format.

And for players, this DCI-rule of sets becoming legal immediately from day one of sales is clearly disadvantageous. It aims at raising profits at the cost of players (who else?). We're not supporting that.

I find it awkward that there are stuff like duals, Library, Portal 3 stuff and Workshop legal and then you are worried about the release date because it would raise costs? It is really, really weird not to follow WotC policy in this since this has so little relevance in highlander. There are maybe a few good cards in a new set for a certain deck and getting a few cards is not very hard and your deck will probably do just fine without the new cards. This is a problem when you have to get 4 Baneslayer Angels for nationals starting the day after the release day, not when your deck might be a little bit better if you can get 1 random kavu or something...I would guess majority of players would just want to play with their new cards and not wait. Maybe a poll or something could be arranged?