Thoughts about the current HL-Situation

[Tiggupiru]

So, is this where we now stand if the spoils-mulligan gets removed from the format:


PROs:

- Simpler for the new players
- Less shuffling (very relevant in tournaments)
- Extra colors are a liability. Greedy manabases get much weaker now that you can be left with double caster on your hand with no appropriate mana. Two and monocolored decks become an actual thing
- Format slows down. More cards become playable
- Manabases require more thought
- Some problematic cards (Natural Order, Mana Drain) become weaker


CONs:

- You cannot just throw a deck together and expect it to perform well
- Mana screws & floods increase in numbers
- Five color aggro probably has no chance to survive this and even three-colored aggro is going to have to adapt massively


Could go either way:

- Five colored control/combo decks need to run bunch of signets and stuff to be viable, but I still think they are viable.
- Control decks become much better
- Combo gets slightly better, but are facing more control opponents




I probably missed a point or two, just inform me and I edit appropriately.

My opinion in a nutshell: This seems to have about the same effect as the fetchland ban, but is way more simpler and makes whole format less awkward to explain to new players. I currently find this very appealing solution.

Mana screws and floods are really annoying, but then again, so is opponent's perfect curve that just doesn't leave you any chance of coming back if you stumble even a little. Right now, unless both players are having mana problems, it's close to impossible to fight back.

[pyyhttu]

Reading both your and Bjoern's proposition from: http://www.magicplayer.org/forum/index.php?topic=882.msg8415#msg8415

I've been thinking this as well, as current spoils mulligan was devised before the format had 10 fetches. Currently we see Bant decks that are able to support Cryptic Command and Vedalken Shackles, and at the same time double ww and gg cards with ease.

But that second CON you listed (Mana screws & floods increase in numbers) is really nasty.

To alleviate that, what if the mulligan type was big deck mulligan?

If your starting hand has 0, 1, 6 or 7 lands in it, you can take a "big deck mulligan" for free; that is, you can get back a fresh hand of seven cards. After that, you'll have to Paris mulligan as normal if you don't like your hand. Note that if you take a "big deck mulligan," your opponent has the opportunity to take one too, for "free." Same goes for you if your opponent takes a "big deck mulligan."

Reviewing that and comparing to PROs/CONs list, I see it slightly better than abolishing mulligan altogether. After all, 100 card decks require some help.

[LasH]

Do u have to reveal your hand to your opponent? (Showing 0/1/6 or 7 lands?) Because that would be not pretty good.

Easiest way to fix the mulligan is a restriction to the spoil mulligan (only 2 cards may get put back) or simply a free 7 hand.

edit

Kinda missed Tiggus post. He said everything important, i join his statement.

[pyyhttu]

Do u have to reveal your hand to your opponent?

You would indeed. That would be a CON in my opinion, as part of the excitement "what am I playing against" is then lost.

I had a chance to try some highlander games today with a Bant and combo, and we decided out of curiosity not to apply the current spoils mulligan.

Main observation: games were more slow paced, and we kinda found out to enjoy the games more, as no hassle of spoils and shuffling was required. Didn't get to test against aggro though, but my initial hypothesis is that various multicolor low-CMC-aggros would be taking the most hit with the absence of mulligan as building the perfect curve would become harder.

[LasH]

Main observation: games were more slow paced, and we kinda found out to enjoy the games more, as no hassle of spoils and shuffling was required. Didn't get to test against aggro though, but my initial hypothesis is that various multicolor low-CMC-aggros would be taking the most hit with the absence of mulligan as building the perfect curve would become harder.

Thats exactly my point and my experience why i startded this thread. I really like that u actually test it. Most ppl write without testing and dont want any changes.
It would really bring new decks to shine without any changes to the banlist. It would probaly even solve most problematic cards i mentioned for a ban.

[ChristophO]

Please do not install a new "big mulligan", Dutch mulligan etc. I think the normal rules are just fine. At most, let each player have one free mulligan per match.

[Dreamer]

Just one thing on Tiggupiru's suggestion. Black Vise. That thing consists of pure unfun on those "stumbling draws" mentioned earlier in the page.

[Nastaboi]

Hands with Black Vise would become less common as red player can't any more keep hands with one land, Vise and five random cards.

I wouldn't miss spoils mulligan. Decks would need to add a couple of lands, manabases would become less greedy and starts less explosive. And no other special mulligan rule should be introduced.

[Maqi]

@Tiggupiru:

You make some bold statements here and you do so in a manner as if they were unquestionable truths. Do you have any proof for them, like actual testing? Or do base your statements on logic thinking?

Because, from a theoretical standpoint I'm inclined to disagree.

You said:

[...] More cards become playable

As I wrote earlier in this thread, my initial feeling is that this might not be the case. No spoils mulligan > more lands required > less slots for actual spells because of the "good stuff" problem (like, you won't cut that Stoneforge Mystic or that Knight of the Reliquary from your deck, but this Grand Abolisher your are toying around with is surely getting axed now, right...)

- Manabases require more thought

How is that? Sure, some parameters will change (Land count needs to be higher, multicolered decks would need to cut back on basics and employ more dual lands because the fetchland-density is reduced etc.). But again, the conclusion of how a "right" manabase has to look like will differ because the premises differ, but that is just a technical change. How is one thing "better" than the other?

Furthermore, look at Patrick Richter's GP deck. He ran only 28 lands (iirc). A bold move! This indicates that our HL community has not even fully explored the parameters of the current format...

- Some problematic cards (Natural Order, Mana Drain) become weaker

Why? Does their card text change all of a sudden? They might not appear as often because we lose some ability to filter cards without the spoils mulligan, but they are not getting "worse" by any means. Or are you implying that the cards become weaker because we lose the ability to "dig for a green creature, now that we have NO in hand" or "dig for a fat bomb, because I have Drain"? I really don't think that's what is causing those cards to be problematic.

Anyway... I think this discussion is running in circles. I will ask some of my friends to actually test a HL-Format without the spoils mulligan. Let's see if it is "better" or "more fun". I tend to believe that "screwing" and "flooding out" will be more common and the format therefore not as fun as right now, but I'm open to be convinced of the contrary.

[Tiggupiru]

Please do not install a new "big mulligan", Dutch mulligan etc. I think the normal rules are just fine. At most, let each player have one free mulligan per match.

I agree. The more elegant the solution, the better. I would also want to try to keep it the same as in official formats (aka. Just the Paris). If that is proven not to be enough, we can try something like a one free mulligan or the like. Big deck mulligan doesn't feel like fun (here's what I am playing, take a look) and it sure isn't elegant.

You make some bold statements here and you do so in a manner as if they were unquestionable truths. Do you have any proof for them, like actual testing? Or do base your statements on logic thinking?

Both.

[...] More cards become playable

As I wrote earlier in this thread, my initial feeling is that this might not be the case. No spoils mulligan > more lands required > less slots for actual spells because of the "good stuff" problem (like, you won't cut that Stoneforge Mystic or that Knight of the Reliquary from your deck, but this Grand Abolisher your are toying around with is surely getting axed now, right...)

In testing, the land counts have been largely okay. They aren't always the right colored lands, but there weren't many situations where you just had full-on flood or a screw. Naturally, if you still want to play greedy three colored deck, you need to up the land count, but just by making one color just a light splash, you can get away with about the same amount of lands you currently run.

That being said, if you have a pretty basic Bant-deck, you can take out some of the white cards, maybe even all the double costed ones and replace them with cards from either of the main colors. Let's assume (this is purely speculative, haven't gone toying with landbases yet in testing) that you need like three lands more to run semi-greedy three colored deck. You still probably want to get rid of Baneslayers, Elspeths ja Vedalken Shackles (+any random nonsense you have like Grand Abolishers etc.). This breaks about even in case of this deck and it's about the worst case scenario when it comes to new cards entering the format.

Now, aggressive decks take a hit and they lose ability to go five colors and that kills a few options (Matca Rioters and the like). You can still play your Woolly Thoctars and Dorans, but you need to keep it three colors and just accept the fact that these will not always hit the battlefield on turn three. On the other hand, any slow deck is going to get massively better. UB control becomes a deck, don't know how good of a deck, but that brings a whole lot of cards in the format alone. Some people prefer UW and some go for Esper, each have the possibility of adding 20+ new cards to the format.

Any kind of fringe-combo can start to see more play, bringing even more before unseen cards. This change makes a ton of cards more viable at first and I think it has some lasting effect in the long run, but that is something we cannot predict or test.

- Manabases require more thought

How is that? Sure, some parameters will change (Land count needs to be higher, multicolered decks would need to cut back on basics and employ more dual lands because the fetchland-density is reduced etc.). But again, the conclusion of how a "right" manabase has to look like will differ because the premises differ, but that is just a technical change. How is one thing "better" than the other?

I feel like in the current situation I can just throw the landbase together and never have to change it unless I want to have specific non-basics. The colors aren't an issue. Sure, my gut feeling is almost always somewhat off, but the spoils and fetches make that it's actually not that big of a deal. I guess, not everyone see this as a positive change, but I just hate the feeling that my four-color deck works like a charm with a landbase I threw together with my left hand when I was building the deck and have since changed twenty non-land cards.

Feels like you just should always go greedier and greedier and that isn't a good thing as you just cannot win if your opponent goes full-on best cards from four colors and hits the mana correctly. You kinda need to do the same thing or you have an uphill battle since your cards are just weaker. If both players take the greed-route, the game becomes less about skill and more about luck.

- Some problematic cards (Natural Order, Mana Drain) become weaker

Are you implying that the cards become weaker because we lose the ability to "dig for a green creature, now that we have NO in hand" or "dig for a fat bomb, because I have Drain"? I really don't think that's what is causing those cards to be problematic.

Yes. This is exactly what I am implying. NO is really problematic on turn three off a first turn green accelerant since most decks go for Primeval Titan. Prime Time is the best target at the moment because it's castable and extremely powerful on turns three and four. Now, you cannot just curve it out like a boss on turn three reliably as there are mana-issues and potentially missing green guy. Besides, counterspells are bound to get better when the format slows down, making NO way worse.

Same goes for Mana Drain. Countering a five drop with MD isn't a problem when opponent proceeds to use the mana on something like a top activation. Now you cannot set up a scenario with your mulligan where you can follow MD with something sick. And as you stated, these cards will appear less often without the mulligan. Mana Drain loses it's power as the game goes longer and late game Drain isn't potentially as devastating as an early one.

BTW, I don't see either of these cards worth of a ban, but for people who are sick and tired of these cards will probably appreciate them getting slightly weaker.

[Ball.Lightning]

@Tiggupiru
 I also disagree with greater part of your post. Most of points were pointed out by Maqi.


Our comunity in Prague played with old mulligen rule until last September. So if you count it is almost 5 years after new spoil mulligen rule has been established as the only valid mulligen rule. We played countless tournaments under this mulligan (even with 10 fetches). Metagame was not that different from what we see today. So you certainly cant solve issues like too much good stuff, with that. It was much harder to play themed deck though. And yes, card variability was lower, because you could not afford to play too many cc>4, because these cards were mostly dead as you drawn them against agresive deck.

The format was closer to legacy, where you have to play many interactive spells at lowest cost possible. In our HL, games last definetely longer than 3 turns, but decks are much more unstable in terms of how much lands you need to accually play your stuff. And you are not guaranteed to get to 3 lands after three turns. Some games were decided even before the game had started or were very one-sided. This can't be considered fun and we were often realy angry with beeing screwed like that.

When we switched to the new rule it certainly opened some possibilities for tuning of decks. And the screw factor has dropped (not waned, but we felt that as steady progress).


To shuffling issue: Yes, it takes some time. Nearly all decks play tutors and fetches or ramp spells, so there is no chance avoiding shuffling. If both players are reasonable, shuffling can be made through shortcutting. Someone on this forum (Maqi?) has already proposed that. But without further help and recommendations from HL council, it will not move anywhere. It migh be technicaly incorect magic guildline, but from practical point of view it may solve greater part of shuffling issue. It is propably more reasonable than hunt for banning fetchlands.

[ChristophO]

Maqi:
You should think some more about your responses  
You said:

[...] More cards become playable

Cards in all decks have different power level. Right now cards of lower power level are put away and strong ones are kept while loooking for curve at the same time or only/mostly mana is kept. Without spoils mulligan you will have to keep what your decks hands to you ...> you play with all cards in your deck. Also, a less tempo driven format might upen play space for a lot of newcard and/or deck types. The diversity is not created in a single deck but in the different choices people will make. UGw or GWu or UWg instead of Cryptic command + Garruk, Primal Hunter + Elspeth.dec.

- Manabases require more thought:
How is that? Sure, some parameters will change (Land count needs to be higher, multicolered decks would need to cut back on basics and employ more dual lands because the fetchland-density is reduced etc.). But again, the conclusion of how a "right" manabase has to look like will differ because the premises differ, but that is just a technical change. How is one thing "better" than the other?

Furthermore, look at Patrick Richter's GP deck. He ran only 28 lands (iirc). A bold move! This indicates that our HL community has not even fully explored the parameters of the current format...

Multicolor decks will need to make choices about which colors are actually important and fit their mana base to their choices. Patrick's deck is actually a perfect example why the current Spoils mulligan is terrible. It has been labeled as an UBGw deck but is actually playing a dozen or so white cards which is not a light splash at all.

Regarding power vs consistency (or flood vs screw) Patricks deck is also a prime example why the spoils mulligan is terrible. You claim that because of the spoils mulligan their is less flood/screw. I believe this to be incorrect. Instead the decks are greedier and play fewer lands trading potential consisteny for more power. Patrick's Deck proves this a very viable strategy. His deck is completely unplayable under normal magic rules. It has a converted mana cost of ~2.1-2.2 and a spell/land ratio of 2.57. Legacy RUG has a spell/land ratio of 2.33 which means it is running less spells for each land while every single card in the deck except Tarmogoyf costs one mana or has an alternative mana cost makeing the spell free (FoW; Daze) and is playing 8 cantrips to fix consistency. Patrick is running a singleton Brainstorm to fix. Ponder and Preordain are banned in Modern and Legacy staples but not good enough for Highlander? I think this clearly shows that people are not looking for consistency to win, they are looking for power (greedy builds). I would like to play a format where looking out for some consistency is both needed and awarded.
To be fair, in Legacy you also have to deal with 4 Wastelands but still I think the comparision is very telling about the influence of the spoils mulligan on the deck building process. The mulligan does not enable less screw it enables super greedy 4c decks that still get screwed especially if they face a wasteland because they really have a tough time topdecking more fitting lands. The mulligan does not enable playing fringe cards, it enables spoiling away fringe cards and 4c goodstuff decks playing only staple cards because players do not have to make (enough) tough choices.  

Anyway... I think this discussion is running in circles. I will ask some of my friends to actually test a HL-Format without the spoils mulligan. Let's see if it is "better" or "more fun". I tend to believe that "screwing" and "flooding out" will be more common and the format therefore not as fun as right now, but I'm open to be convinced of the contrary.

Please make sure to actually build viable decks with proper color identity and enough initial mana sources. Most Highlander decks mana bases are TERRIBLE because people never had to give a damn about it! Otherwise you will only realize how unplayable many current decks without spoiling are (applies more to some than others)

[Madsam]

what is not mentioned here:
If you cut the spoils mulligan, there won't be less shuffling.
You may add some lands to the decks, but never more than 2 or 3.
In case, the spoils mulligan saves shuffle-time, because ýou need to shuffle less than without it.
When you don't do it enough, the chance of being screwed or flooded is higher because the lands are not distributed well.
So when you are able to spoil, it doesn't matter if the deck is shuffled well or not. The chance of getting more lands in the mulligan is always higher than before.
So if I cant spoil, I will at least pile my deck three times and double the amount of riffle shuffles before each game (up from one pile and maybe 4 or 5 riffle-shuffles I usually do now) so I am sure to have the best possible distribution of cards.
Once, I played Super-Grow in Legacy, 6 or 7 years ago. The deck did only play 17-18 Lands so it was crucial to shuffle well. This will also apply for HL if you cut the spoils mulligan

Btw. is there another word for shuffle? If feel like I used the word in each sentence twice :p

[Tiggupiru]

Not shuffling well isn't a good thing in tournaments. I am totally fine if the time saving from the spoils-shuffle is lost to people maximizing the randomization of their decks. It should also be noted that spoils-mulligan allows players to see more fetches (best lands in their deck and all that nonsense) than without, creating more shuffles.

[Madsam]

but in tournaments I rarely see someone piling more than once, what is actually not quite enough for randomisation.
And it's not like you always spoil for more shuffle effects and if you fetch, you wont start piling your deck again, but riffle twice and give it to your opponent for a cut, which is enough for those actions.