New Mulligan Rule

[Protoaddict]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/changes-starting-pro-tour-magic-origins-2015-06-29

103.4. Each player draws a number of cards equal to his or her starting hand size, which is normally seven. (Some effects can modify a player’s starting hand size.) A player who is dissatisfied with his or her initial hand may take a mulligan. First, the starting player declares whether or not he or she will take a mulligan. Then each other player in turn order does the same. Once each player has made a declaration, all players who decided to take mulligans do so at the same time. To take a mulligan, a player shuffles his or her hand back into his or her library, then draws a new hand of one fewer cards than he or she had before. 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.) Then, beginning with the starting player and proceeding in turn order, any player whose opening hand has fewer cards than his or her starting hand size may scry 1.


So can we talk about how monumental that rules change is. Right now it is not in effect for vintage as it is being tested at the pro tour, but there is a possibility that it could go into effect.

Here are the huge ramifications as I see it.
DELVER - On the play, having a free scry can let you know if you will have a flipped delver on turn 2, or alternately let you try to make it happen.
OATH - On the play, lets you make sure you do not draw your oath target turn 2.
DREDGE - If for whatever reason you mull down to 1 and do not see bazaar, this gives you yet another shot to get it. Also Dredge has so many cards it can live without drawing ever that this can only be good for it.

[wappla]

This is great for Shops

[Wagner]

This looks great for everyone. If you have to take 1 or 2 mulligans, the game can be completely unwinnable, this helps even it out a bit.

It also interacts with Fetchlands. On the play, if you leave the top card there and play a fetch land, you can shuffle that card away if needed supposing your opponent does something relevant on his turn 1.

[rikter]

I can understand wanting to cut down on the variance around mulligans, but I'm of the opinion that that's just how it goes sometimes, it's part of the game, and live with it.

That said, they'll probably do this. I'm not a fan, but I guess I'll learn to live with it.

[TheBrassMan]

Basically (and this is the whole point), it reduces the penalty for mulligans, which means it helps decks that mulligan more (e.g. combo, dredge, shops). It will give less of an edge to decks that are built with a eye towards consistency (e.g. delver, fish, grixis). Unfortunately, vintage has a history of opening-hand-centric decks which mulligan heavily and play high-variance games that take the player out of the equation.

It also makes scouting (very slightly) more important, which is unfortunate for me because I hate scouting (not that I'm morally opposed or anything, it's just a lot of work and stress in the early rounds of an event).

However, I doubt the effect is so dramatic that it will cause real problems, and it certainly could have the effect of reducing luck some of the time, even if it's a very slightly disproportionate effect. I'm guessing it's more upside than downside.

[Protoaddict]

I understand that they wanted to make the mulligan rule less impactful, but at the same time I think this has unintended side effects. The interactions with specific cards like fetch lands, delver, Serum Powder and the like, which in plenty of cases change the very nature of the cards. Fetches become less powerful on the play now, because what if you see a card on the top that you would rather keep? Your mulligan "bonus" just got turned off. Likewise a turn 1 delver just got better, which it honestly did not need in this format or legacy. I know in vintage it also sucks for burn now, since people can leave land on the top for a T1 goblin guide, but all of that is just to the same point that its a game state rule that affects specific cards differently than before.

I am just glad that they worded this in such a way that playing leylines does not also give you a free scry.

[Flash_Hulk]

I understand the desire to alleviate the frustration and effect on game play mulligans have, but this seems really broken in the eternal formats.

[Based]

Fetches become less powerful on the play now, because what if you see a card on the top that you would rather keep? Your mulligan "bonus" just got turned off.

Maybe I'm just being daft, but isn't it better to see a card you would rather keep than to not see it?  Now you have the choice.

[Protoaddict]

Yes but my point is that if you have to crack a fetch, yes you have more knowledge of what could have been but not what actually is. The bonus is to set up for a turn in the future, but you in effect lose that if you crack a fetch at the end of the turn. Likewise, and it is minor, if you scryed away a card and crack a fetch, you now have a non 0 chance of seeing that card on the top again.

[Wagner]

Yes but my point is that if you have to crack a fetch, yes you have more knowledge of what could have been but not what actually is. The bonus is to set up for a turn in the future, but you in effect lose that if you crack a fetch at the end of the turn. Likewise, and it is minor, if you scryed away a card and crack a fetch, you now have a non 0 chance of seeing that card on the top again.

I really still don't see how that's a downside. If it's really a card you want, you have the option of waiting a turn to crack the fetch or of playing a normal land first. If you crack the fetch, you just lost the bonus and it's annoying, but you're in no way worse than if you never saw the top card in the first place.

I understand the desire to alleviate the frustration and effect on game play mulligans have, but this seems really broken in the eternal formats.

You still have to take a mulligan for this to happen. Yes, some decks can recover better from a mulligan than others, but I can't think of a single deck that would rather scry 1 instead of having an extra card.

[Protoaddict]

I really still don't see how that's a downside. If it's really a card you want, you have the option of waiting a turn to crack the fetch or of playing a normal land first. If you crack the fetch, you just lost the bonus and it's annoying, but you're in no way worse than if you never saw the top card in the first place.

Not worse, but the point I am making is that it undoes any advantage you may have gotten for the mulligan.

Lets say the fix to the mulligan rule was instead of scry they said that if you took any mulls, on your first draw phase you drew and extra card. Obviously this is very strong and changes the whole dynamic of the mulligan, but it's not something that can be undone by normal play for the most part, it is not something you can lose, and it is also substantially less impactful with specific cards like delver, fetches, etc.

I am not saying I am even against it. I am just saying it will effect some decks and strategies unevenly.

[lizardking1545]

I understand the desire to alleviate the frustration and effect on game play mulligans have, but this seems really broken in the eternal formats.

I agree, I play Shops and this seems really unfair.

[rikter]

I understand the desire to alleviate the frustration and effect on game play mulligans have, but this seems really broken in the eternal formats.

I agree, I play Shops and this seems really unfair.

I am in the same boat as you. I think it favors the delver lists, given that they actually have turn one plays that benefit massively from a free scry.

When I'm playing Shops and have to mulligan, I am not keeping the kind of hands that are going to benefit from the scry until I hit 4 cards or fewer. Keeping a "1 card away" hand with Shops has been, in my experience, a disaster.

[Dice_Box]

First lesson I learnt with shops is "Don't depend on the top of your deck to save you, keep stable hands." Glad to know now I don't have to worry about this...

Not a fan. I hope it's not implemented but I fear it will be because the format Wizards cards about the most is the least likely to be able to abuse the effect. Legacy and Vintage though, I feel like this is asking for trouble.

[benrobnu]

I have two thoughts on this.
1) It seems like an unnecessary change. The mulligan rule didn't seem broken to me, so why fix it.
2) Wizards doesn't likely won't test legacy/vintage at all and certainly won't do it well. I think this heavily favors decks that mulligan somewhat aggressively to specific combinations or specific cards. A short list for vintage it will be, great for shops (because it needed help?), Dredge and Delver on the play loves it as previously mentioned.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I don't think this makes much difference overall. You still have to know how and when to mulligan, and having more cards in hand is universally better than having fewer. You might get a little more aggressive going from 7 to 6 or 6 to 5, but you still have to make those choices before scrying, so you still can't keep and hope that seeing one additional card will get you there.

[gkraigher]

I'm all for this rule.  I think it benefits everyone equally and increases the skill needed to win a tournament, as opposed to losing to bad luck.

people travel long distances to play in a magic tournament and invest time, money, and other resources (e.g. vacation days) to do so.   it's miserable when your deck lets you down and you don't get to play a game a magic.  And with the increase in tournament sizes, you are punished a lot more for a loss.  


It's brutal having to mulligan to 4-5 in some games.  There are a lot more potential keeps with 6 cards now.  

**This rule might not be in effect for eternal weekend, so don't jump to judgement yet.**


This also opens up deck design in that you can lean towards playing fewer lands in your deck.  

[vaughnbros]

Hooray for making the game more complicated with very minimal impact!

[Space_Stormy]

I dont see this as being overpowered other than knowing if your T1 delver will flip when going first so you know if you should play a normal land or fetch T1 or for scrying an Oath target to the bottom.  Relying on this in Dredge is foolish if anything.  Keep  a hand without Bazzaar hoping it is on top of your deck? No dredge player will do that, it is far too risky.  

Some people are reading it wrong from stuff  have been reading on other forums and twitter.  You don't scry until you keep the hand, not like you can keep scrying on every mulligan to bascially pull up hands that have 1 more card in them. I don't think people will cut lands or make different choices on their deckbuilding to rely on a mulligan mechanic.  It can be seen as an advantage in Delver but keep in mind, if they mulligan. I so rarely muligan hands in Delver since you get so much velocity from all your cantrips and low land count that you can fix your draws and a small push if you have to mulligan seems like it would be helpful for making games a little less luck based.

Basically, people won't be taking more mulligans so they can scry 1. They will be forced to mulligan due to their hand and be happy they smooth out their draw slightly.

[jamestosetti]

I think this sounds like a good idea. I pay quite a few games where I feel like the only reason I won is because of my opponents mulligan instead of the decisions I made. I also do not like getting mana screwed after a mulligan or two, especially after I have driven who knows how far to play. I am competitive when I play, but the only reason I play is for fun, and this will keep the fun coming! However, this may turn out to have some powerful influence on certain Vintage decks, but I am sure everything will get sorted out. I for one will try to use this rule with whoever else wants to while testing.

[diopter]

Vintage decks with 15 land will keep uncomfortable 5-card hands with 1 land a non-trivial amount of the time because, frankly, at that point card volume becomes an issue with Forces and whatnot. Is a four-card hand really gonna be any better?

This helps with that. Love the change. Don't see what's complicated about it.

[Islandswamp]

I wonder how many people will keep smaller hands that aren't quite what they need to be, just on the hopes that they can make the top card of their deck make the hand better. Will people try to cheat on lands even more?

I read the entire article, and the reason that they gave was that they don't want games on coverage to be uninteractive. Basically, too many games that were (or were planned to have been) shown on stream were lopsided games where one person couldn't really do anything.

From Wizard's standpoint, the Pro Tour and its coverage are a marketing vehicle. Tournaments sell the game, and coverage sells the tournaments. If they can't find enough interesting matches to show, then they're in trouble. Who wants to aspire to play in an event that can be lost due to bad variance such a high percentage of the time?

In Vintage and Legacy, we get Tutors, cantrips, and fetch-lands to make sure we hit the right amounts and types of cards and lands. Standard and Modern get Scry-lands and  Serum Visions  (yuck). They obviously have wanted for games to be interesting and won through skill for a long time, but it was decided that Modern and Standard shouldn't have the types of cards that can reliably assemble combos (Ponder and Preordain). They had to have something, so Scry was made evergreen, and Serum Visions got a nifty promo.

Like all decisions regarding Magic and organized play, decisions are made by only taking the formats that are heavily-supported into account. I guarantee you that Wizard's tested this new mulligan rule by implementing it in the FFL (Future Future League= Standard only).

So, if this new mulligan rule seems to be too good, or too bad to anyone, it's likely due to the fact that they just didn't even consider how it might affect you, because at the end of the day, it's the 5,000-player Grand Prix that they care about.

From what I gathered from the article, if this new rule doesn't work out, they will not implement it fully. I think that they said that it only applies to that particular Pro Tour as an experiment. On that note, is anyone here a Dinosaur like I am, and do you remember the experimental "Paris" mulligan implemented at Pro Tour Paris 1997? This eventually became the Mulligan rule, totally replacing the no-land/all-land mulligan. I'm sure that the Paris mulligan helped out the combo deck that won that event.

Whatever happens, it will seem as trivial as mana burn someday.

[Smmenen]

Super cool experiment. Love it. 

[Twiedel]

I personally would even go one step further and go with Scry X where X is the number of mulligans you've taken.

Overall I think this is great, and a lot better than any "free mulligan" stuff, because it can't really be abused too much.

My reasoning for even more scyring:
Mulligan 6 is sometimes bad, but mulligans below that are a real beating, and getting the chance to meaningfully fix your mana/spell ratio would feel fair to me. Could possibly lead to mulligan 4 being a real choice when your 5 are terrible as well...

[DuKeLiO]

I like your idea a lot, @Twiedel. Nobody would take mulligan to see extra cards and this helps a lot with variance.

[lizardking1545]

I bet Delver of Secrets will flip more now.  A delver on the play after a mulligan and scry seems busted.

[Wagner]

I bet Delver of Secrets will flip more now.  A delver on the play after a mulligan and scry seems busted.

I'd still rather face a turn 1 Delver that is 90% sure to flip with 6 cards than a turn 1 Delver that is 50% sure to flip with 7 cards.

[Protoaddict]

I think in the mirror yes, you would rather face a mulligan delver than not.

For not the mirror though, it's really devastating. Against shops a flipped delver is great offense and defense rolled into one. An opening grip after mulligan with an island, delver, random blue card and a force of will, is literally the ideal and not unreasonable opening in that deck for that match up, especially when you consider what is on top is likely either another draw spell or counter.

If Wotc makes the change I'll just adapt of course, not leaving the game over something like this, but I think you will see in eternal formats real advantage being given to players who go first. Should you have to mulligan, you can at least plan out your opening turn AND your next turn, which can really help you gain tempo, where as the player on the draw only gets to plan for turn one and will be drawing blind turn 2, plus does not have the tempo opportunity plus is not down a card, which is much worse when you do not have tempo.

[bactgudz]

The "nothing can be behind lands on camera" rule is a joke.  I'm going to totally boycott that.  Nobody tells me where to put my moxen unless they control the greatest thief in the multiverse.

[Flash_Hulk]

Finally, Adrian Sullivan can suck it.