Main Menu

HL Bannings - Community Thread

Started by Wasser, 24-09-2013, 05:59:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TaZi

@Maqi: I allways think again just the opposite: Magic should adopt the free Mulligan =).

I'm fine with the current Mulligan. I think it was a huge upside of the old Version, that it needed quite some skill to Mulligan correctly, but nowadays the games are a bit slower and you have more games you really play.

MMD

@Maqi:

IMO mana availability is a flaw of the original game and Spoils reduces this flaw much better than Paris can ever do. Also the strategic approach of the game will be improved which is a thing I like. I don´t get your argument regarding differentiation in context with allowing gold bordered cards.

However, I get the point of "games feeling the same" in a non-evolving format. I remember playing with some cards more seldomly as I have always rejected them from my initial hand, but I don´t see that is a problem but part of a stragic card game.

My current opinion is that the Commander mulligan might be better then the above mentioned. At least you get punished for your greediness.



@ LasH:

The Meta as changed from 4-5 to 3-4 coloured good stuff which is not a big improvement to me as well. There might be some decks which are now playable but there is no huge shift towards two coloured decks which some people have predicted. Izzet and Gruul were good decks also before the mulligan change.




Feel free to browse through my MKM account:

http://www.magickartenmarkt.de/index.php?mainPage=showSellerChart&idInfoUser=13199

I also have a huge amount of chinese and japanese foil HL staples not listed yet,  which I would like to downgrade to english foil. Just let me know!

Payron

Just wanted to give also my opinion, because I am pretty quite in all the diskussion in this forum.

I think there are so much possibiltys right now. So much decks could be played. Before the mulligan change, I felt that only aggro and tempo decks. Control was just a non aggressiv midrange build. Now I play a creatureless control deck which is a new archtyp. I buildes around with an ramp deck which also workes pretty well and I have the feeling that I need to fear every single trash build. Isn t that waht we wanted? A colorful meta. A lot of people stay to there pet decks and adopt to the new meta, other players try to break the meta ans a differnet part also netdecks. In our format we feel also this netdecks because people go to bigger tournements to win, therefore they copy succesfull decks and in such a small formt you can feel that. So for me it is no wonder we see also alot of the same decks.

I think the worst part about spoils is that you have and outloss if you go to an unspoiled 6 hand and I didnt realy wanted to play this games.


Maqi

Quote from: MMD on 15-06-2015, 07:21:21 AM
IMO mana availability is a flaw of the original game and Spoils reduces this flaw much better than Paris can ever do.

I was of the same opinion not too long ago (you can re-read older posts of me defending the spoils mulligan in several places on this forum). I have come to embrace the Free Mulligan in the meantime. That being said, our argument has to go down one level because our premisses are different. You say: the Mana system is a flaw. I say: It is a boon. Here are some quotes from the second Rosewater podcast I posted previously:

Quote[...] And the mana system's important because you need things to go wrong. You need things, you know, I know people look at mana screw as always being a bad thing, but you know the times in which it doesn't quite work out but you have to scramble to make it work. That's—there's a lot of fun in the scrambling.
QuoteI think if you think back to the most awesome games you ever played of Magic, they were not games in which everything went perfectly. Like it's not like "Oh, I made my turn one drop, then I made my turn two drop, then I made my turn three drop, and I just beat him." That's not the most memorable games. The most memorable game is, "I got my first drop, then I didn't get my second drop. Or I got my second drop on turn three but then I didn't get my third drop until turn seven! I had to last for seven turns with two mana!" "So did you lose?" "No, I won!" Those are the amazing games.
QuoteThat's another very common thing that happens when people go "I'm going to make a better game! I'm getting rid of the mana system!" What they find is, "Oh, well you don't have mana screw, but then the best players always win." And that might be great for the best players, and maybe that small subset's really happy, but you are—as a game designer, you have to make the game not just for your winners but for everybody who plays. If losing your game is not fun, you are in trouble. Because people will stop playing. And then the people who like to win don't have anybody to play, and then your game fails. Okay? You need—it is important that everybody have a chance to win.

In general, arguing about what mulligan to use, essentially means arguing which degree of variance we want in the game. I am of the opinion that the level of variance we use should be the same amount of variance that is typically used in Magic: The Gathering. Not more and not less.

carte_blanche

@Maqi and variance: I agree with you that we should not reduce the variance too much in order to make sure that everyone has a fair chance to win a game. However, we play a format that has intrinsicly more variance than the 'usual' magic (4 copies of the key cards + 60 card decks) simply because it's a 1off-format and the decks are larger.

You were addressing the mana system only, but I think this ignores the fact that we do have a lot more variance in the power level of the cards we play with the mana. Discussing the mulligan issue has to take this into account as well - especially if we argue with the variance of opening hands/ topdecks. The 'usual' magic, the mana system and the mulligan rule are tailored toward 60 card decks with 4offs. We opted to consciously get rid of the 4off/60 cards rule to allow more variance in the stuff we cast with the mana.

I think what we did with the alternative mulligan rules in this particular format is: Shifting the variance from the manabase to the cards we cast with the mana. Less variance in the manabase, more variance in the cards played.

I personally like this manabase -> spell variance shift... I hate losing because of screw/flood. It feels like not playing a game. Losing because my opponent has better cards / played better... that's ok for me. At least we played the same game. ;)

Bottom line @ mulligan: I like the free mulligan a lot. With the spoils mulligan the pre-game hand shaping felt quite absurd. I played cards I should not have considered playing... but with the spoils I was sure to (almost) never have them in my opening 7.
The normal mulligen... I personally don't like it in this format.

-----

Another argument I read now and then: "We should try to be as close to the 'usual' magic as possible. That's why we should use the Paris mulligan.'

I disagree and, honestly, I don't quite understand the logic behind this. @Paris mulligan: See text above....

@we should be as close to 'usual' magic as possible: This would imply to not allow cards with gold borders and IE / CE if we are consequent here. The format is already very expansive... why should we increase the price to play a successful deck even more if we want to attract new players? The vintage community nowadays depends on allowing to play proxies because nobody can afford the card prices. I personally think that's where this line of thought would lead us.

This format will never even feel like 'usual' magic. So why bother? This way we are in complete control what happens to our ban lists, mulligan rules and so on... just like we do in this thread.  :) I appreciate this. Why hand the power to shape our format over to WotC? (Because this would be the ultimate goal if we follow the 'as close to usual magic as possible' road.)

My 2 cents. I hope the text is not too confusing to read.

Vazdru

Quote from: carte_blanche on 16-06-2015, 11:30:27 AM
@Maqi and variance: I agree with you that we should not reduce the variance too much in order to make sure that everyone has a fair chance to win a game. However, we play a format that has intrinsicly more variance than the 'usual' magic (4 copies of the key cards + 60 card decks) simply because it's a 1off-format and the decks are larger.

You were addressing the mana system only, but I think this ignores the fact that we do have a lot more variance in the power level of the cards we play with the mana. Discussing the mulligan issue has to take this into account as well - especially if we argue with the variance of opening hands/ topdecks. The 'usual' magic, the mana system and the mulligan rule are tailored toward 60 card decks with 4offs. We opted to consciously get rid of the 4off/60 cards rule to allow more variance in the stuff we cast with the mana.

I think what we did with the alternative mulligan rules in this particular format is: Shifting the variance from the manabase to the cards we cast with the mana. Less variance in the manabase, more variance in the cards played.

I personally like this manabase -> spell variance shift... I hate losing because of screw/flood. It feels like not playing a game. Losing because my opponent has better cards / played better... that's ok for me. At least we played the same game. ;)

Bottom line @ mulligan: I like the free mulligan a lot. With the spoils mulligan the pre-game hand shaping felt quite absurd. I played cards I should not have considered playing... but with the spoils I was sure to (almost) never have them in my opening 7.
The normal mulligen... I personally don't like it in this format.

-----

+1
Far below the earth
Where the demons hunt the souls of those that sleep
In the city of the Vazdru and the Drin
Where the black flame burns inside the palace fountain.

Vazdru

Far below the earth
Where the demons hunt the souls of those that sleep
In the city of the Vazdru and the Drin
Where the black flame burns inside the palace fountain.

Kenshin

@Vazdru: I would love to try that.

Also funny that they implemented the "Chapin rule" and the "Sullivan rule" where the first one enables video evidence to the judges on the biggest tournaments and the second one forces players to adhere to a uniform set up of their side of the table.

Promole

I think that this muligan is fine option to reduce variance and I really like the idea. If WOtC changes the rule after the PT, we should adopt that in addition to the free muligan.

Maqi

I encourage all the local playgroups to test this new ruling and to post their impressions here.

Dalibor

Hello,
I am new to this forum, so I will start slowly - just 1 topic - to not make too much mess at once.  ;)

Quote from: Maqi on 30-06-2015, 10:24:56 AM
I encourage all the local playgroups to test this new ruling and to post their impressions here.
Last 2 weeks, we tested this option in Bratislava and even that we had just a few games each under this rule, I believe it is a step forward.
Due to free mulligan, you mulligan in HL to 6 or less a lot less times, but you are still grateful for any help, when you go down to 6 or less.
But that is expected I believe. :)
I myself have gone down to 6 cards 3 times in those games and once I have chosen to put the card down, the other 2 times I kept.
My opponents went to 6 2 times and once kept, once put down. 1 time they went to 5 and kept the card that time.
I think the only question to test is, whether it can be used to some unfair advantage, so we will see people go down to 6 a lot more then before, so here is my analysis on that:
Just to clarify - it doesn't make something all the times - the biggest effect it has is when you put the card down. You more or less draw a half card (typical scry effect). That's exactly when you should be happy for that rule :)
When you keep, the only time you can somehow work with it is when you go first and keep the card since you don't draw a card for the turn - you have time until your 2nd turn to fetch or not fetch for example - that's the only time it interacts with the game itself. But - ussually when you keep it, you want it, so ...
Other times it just gives you that small option to keep or not - which of course makes people at least feel better after going to 6.

So, all in all I believe it makes people only happier without giving them something really great - just a small crutch after he got hit with some bad luck (mostly).
So I don't see any way to abuse it and therefore I like it :)

Maqi

#71
Appreciate your feedback! I have similar feeling regarding the Scry-Mulligan so far.

Aside: Welcome to our forum! It was nice playing you at the recent HL Cup.

Demppa

Wasteland.

It has been discussed earlier and said that winning with Wasteland recursion is slow and disruptable.
Thing is, not all "Random Wasteland Wins" are wins by recursion. In fact, only a vast minority of them are. LftL/Crucible combos are only a small part of the format, at least over here.
Wasteland is just an oppressive "oops I won" card that I don't think is good for the format. It's an auto-include in literally every deck. It's a good toolbox component, but even then we have good and fair stand-ins in Tectonic Edge, Ghostly Quarter and even Enroaching Wastes.

Wasteland is similar to Oath of Druids in that it can just outright win the game out of the blue. It makes the luck component of the game even more conspicuous. Blood Moon and other such NBL hate is in my opinion good and necessary for the format, but they are easier to play around and more importantly can be answered to. I think Wasteland overall makes the format significantly more un-fun.

Tabris

I could be nice here and try not to be a dick but that is one of the worst posts I ve ever read (and I saw some amount of 4chan posts). I am not sure if that is some kind of trolling or not. But the part about "Wasteland is like Oath-a random win" is highly indicating that you cant be serious and therefore I dont try to explain to you on how many level you are wrong.

Demppa

Quote from: Tabris on 09-08-2015, 08:16:14 PM
I could be nice here and try not to be a dick but that is one of the worst posts I ve ever read (and I saw some amount of 4chan posts). I am not sure if that is some kind of trolling or not. But the part about "Wasteland is like Oath-a random win" is highly indicating that you cant be serious and therefore I dont try to explain to you on how many level you are wrong.
Thank you for your courteous and well-argued response. It makes me feel very welcome to try and discuss the format in the appropriate place.

My point is, against a known Oath opponent you know you should mulligan for an answer against a T2/3/4 Oath if you're planning on playing creatures. That's not unreasonable and while Oath is a top-tier combo archetype I've never felt it's too oppressive to keep tossed around on the watchlist. Against Wasteland, you can fetch basics (not a reasonable option most of the time) or just hope your opponent doesn't have it or you don't have to indicate by missing a land drop. Every single deck in the format plays Wasteland so you can always expect the possibility if you absolutely have to play around it. I understand fixing is one of the problems you agree to when you decide to run a greedy manabase, but the fact that uneven mana is one of the major complaints against Magic as a game isn't remedied well with resource denial literally every deck runs. It never feels good or rewarding to either win with or to lose to a Wasteland on T2/3/4 because a lot of the time it happens because you're setting up the game in a way that you can actually play the game.