Main Menu

Minor proposal regarding mulligan

Started by Tiggupiru, 14-03-2012, 12:37:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tiggupiru

I've been wondering the reason why the mulligan only allows one "spoils" mulligan (probably better known as "poker mulligan" in Finland) per game? Is it because the game it was borrowed from had this exact system, or is there a specific reason for this rule?

In any case, I would like to rise a debate if this is the optimal procedure. I hate when games go "leave birds and SDT in hand, mulligan five to look for a single land after which I am golden" into draw five spells and forced mulligan to crappy six. In my experience, starting the game with one less card already puts you into a big disadvantage in this format. No need to make those six completely random assortment of cards just to add insult to the injury.

My proposed solution would be: Just allow people to spoil even if they failed that with their seven cards and had to paris to six (or even lower). I've been experimenting with this in some test games and it makes the games go much more reasonable. This would also be more simpler rule and easier to explain to new players.

I also can't think of anything negative about this change. I doubt the time issues would be too much. Nobody wants to start the game with six cards, so this should still happen only occasionally. Only thing I could think of would be the fact that it could give an edge to some decks, but I really can't think of any degenerate decks that would work significantly better just because they can be bit more risky with their mulligan. And even if someone managed to build a sick Goblin Charbelcher deck that can work only because they can mulligan a bit more freely, you can congratulate them and then proceed to ban the key piece. As for the decktype that would benefit this rules change the most, I am not sure. In any case, I think it would only be a minor boost and shouldn't really count too much.

Is there something I am just not seeing, or would this change be worth of considering?

Nastaboi

Maybe this: now if you draw bomb or insane curve with no lands, you have to either gamble on drawing two lands on 4-5 cards or mull to six and accept weaker but more stable draw spoiling from there. With proposed change, there is no punishment if you deside to take the gambit, so you should always take it. You are not supposed to both eat a cake and keep it.
Quote0:13:51 [Nastaboi] Nastaboi plays Invincible Hymn from Hand
0:14:25 [Nastaboi] Nastaboi's life total is now 221 (+213)

Tiggupiru

Quote from: Nastaboi on 14-03-2012, 05:09:05 PM
Maybe this: now if you draw bomb or insane curve with no lands, you have to either gamble on drawing two lands on 4-5 cards or mull to six and accept weaker but more stable draw spoiling from there. With proposed change, there is no punishment if you deside to take the gambit, so you should always take it. You are not supposed to both eat a cake and keep it.

Sure, but then again, some players will go for that and fail. This results very boring and uneventful game and while the competitive aspect is important, having interesting game states is the selling point for me.

Also, if your deck has a specifical weakness that "a bomb" can exploit very effeciently, you kinda need to reconsider your configuration or accept losses from the card and it's kin. I don't mind if those kind of cards become slightly better.

But, yeah. This is a downside, but I still find the proposed change better. Any opinions, anyone?

DarkLight

I am happy with the previous mulligan :) thats all what I could say
Formerly known as With-FuLL-Force.

Mythrandir

Quote from: Nastaboi on 14-03-2012, 05:09:05 PM
Maybe this: now if you draw bomb or insane curve with no lands, you have to either gamble on drawing two lands on 4-5 cards or mull to six and accept weaker but more stable draw spoiling from there. With proposed change, there is no punishment if you deside to take the gambit, so you should always take it. You are not supposed to both eat a cake and keep it.

This!

Manipulation of the starting hand, should be as little as possible.

Syras

I also agree with Nastaboi.

I want to add that in my opinion it is not THAT big of a disadvantage to start with 6 cards. Therefore it is always an option to consider a normal mulligan to 6 and then use the special highlander mulligan.

Tiggupiru

Allright, fair enough. Seems I was alone with this one. It's not like I think the current system is bad, so I am fine either way =)

Just out of curiosity, it would be nice to hear if somebody knows the origins of this rule.

MarcMagic

Quote from: Tiggupiru on 21-03-2012, 07:35:04 PM
Allright, fair enough. Seems I was alone with this one. It's not like I think the current system is bad, so I am fine either way =)

Just out of curiosity, it would be nice to hear if somebody knows the origins of this rule.
Well the origin is, as you already stated before, the game "Spoils". There you are allowed to put away any number of cards in your starting hand and draw the exact amount. This is only allowed once and there are no other additional mulligan rules. Giving the fact that there are already specific mulligan rules in magic, adding the spoils mulligan as a one-time thing in HL is still a big thing. In "Spoils" you start the first turn with some resource already in play. The difference to MtG is that spells in Spoils require a specific amount of resource in play AND still got "mana cost". This number does not need to be the same though. So it's not that easy to compare both games, but the addition of the Spoils mulligan to the HL standard Magic mulligan had and has pros and cons. And maximizing output by minimizing the changes should always be a goal to achieve : ).

Adding another way to mulligan your hand is already a big change so I think the combination of spoils and magic mulligan would be too much of interfering with the original game. I hope I could help question even if I do not fully know whether my answer is correct in it's conclusion.

Kassow-Rossing

You should not be able to pass 7 cards to draw 7 cards and then mulligan to 6 where you could pass 6 cards to draw 6 cards.

That's just out of the question.

Also the players who do not know how to mulligan correct, should learn to do so. This is my advice, take it or leave it:
Having a starting hand with 7 non-land cards should not make you pass only 5 cards because you wish to draw 2 lands in those 5 cards. That's unlikely and it will cost you the game if you fail.

So having 7 non-land cards in your hand should make you think: Either I'll keep the absolute best card (Demonic Tutor, Stoneforge Mystic, Birds of Paradise) and pass 6 cards or I'll mulligan down to 6 cards before I use my special Highlander mulligan. That's what I always do and it works for me. If someone has any advice for me regarding my mulligan theory, I'll be happy to hear them :)

Thx, Patrick

Nastaboi

Seven or six non-lands is always a paris to six and spoil from there, unless I'm playing Hypergenesis or some other bad combo deck. Won't keep Demonic/Stoneforge/Top as my only card with no lands. With Top I usually keep my only land + Top and take five, but all other one-land sevens are parised.
Quote0:13:51 [Nastaboi] Nastaboi plays Invincible Hymn from Hand
0:14:25 [Nastaboi] Nastaboi's life total is now 221 (+213)

Kassow-Rossing

I've had much succes with a Highlander mulligan when I keep either:

Price of Progress and pass 6 cards
Stoneforge Mystic and pass 6 cards
Oath of Druids and pass 6 cards
Demonic Tutor and pass 6 cards
Tainted Pact and pass 6 cards

Perhaps I should put the list down to
Stoneforge, Oath and Demonic and you should try and test the above?