Mulligans

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
Are the current mulligan rules as good as they could be? Going from 7 to 6 cards can be crippling, and if you dont find a good hand after that shuffle you are screwed. Plus, you have the same chance of drawing into the exact same hand you just shuffled away, minus one card.

Why wouldn't the following mulligan be better:

"Each player may place any number of cards in their hand on the bottom of their library, draw that many cards, and then shuffle their library. This may be done only once"

- Cut down on the number of times you need to shuffle (max 1)
- Allow you to cycle away cards without drawing into them again
- Doesnt allow you to aggressively mulligan into a particular card
- Doesnt force the player to go down on cards just because they got an unlucky hand

Draw 6 lands? Put 3 back and get 3 new cards
Draw 1 land? Keep it, put the rest back, and likely dig into more lands

Would it be better for combo decks? Likely, but it would equally be better for every archetype, as you can shuffle away all the cards you drew that would be weak vs that particular combo
While I dont think the suggestion is necessarily bad, it is a different game than magic the gathering. Every single player will mulligan every game. Forget combo, this would fundamentally change deck construction for all archetypes and decks. Removing damage on the stack and manaburn would be nothing compared to how radically this would warp how every single game of magic would be played.
While I dont think the suggestion is necessarily bad, it is a different game than magic the gathering. Every single player will mulligan every game. Forget combo, this would fundamentally change deck construction for all archetypes and decks. Removing damage on the stack and manaburn would be nothing compared to how radically this would warp how every single game of magic would be played.

No, I don't see how the difference would be that huge really.

Could you explain please
Alright. First of all, every single game will begin with a difficult mulligan decision. This decision will be interesting, and skill intensive. You could say that with the new rule people would often not mulligan, but I disagree. People keep a lot of 7 card hands with the current rule because mulling to 6 is quite a risk, that often leads to a mull to 5 and quite high odds of losing. Now, you likely are going to mulligan cards out of all but the very best hands. This will slow the pace of play and lead to more matches going to time. Look at it this way, your mulligan rule is much much kinder than a 'free mulligan' rule. With a 'free mulligan', you would likely want to mull nearly half the time, as half the hands would be 'below average' (im cheating a bit when i say that but its not too far off). Now, with your partial mulligan rule, people will clearly be mulling much more than half the time, because they will be mulliganning all those times their hands were below average, and even if their hand is above average, they will still likely have cards they dont want or need unless they drew an absolutely perfect hand. Thus, a much greater than 50% of the time people would mulligan some number of cards with this rule. Look at versions of poker where people get to give some number of cards back to the dealer and get that number of cards. How often do they keep the starting 5? Id guess much less than 10%.

A lot of games begin with a difficult decision that will decide the outcome of the game. Take Settlers of Catan, for example. A large part of the game is decided simply by where you put your opening settlements. Now settlers is a popular game, so thats not necessarily a bad thing. Likewise, as I mentioned in my initial post, I actually like your proposed mulligan rule, I just think it significantly warps the game. 

Take limited for example. Right now there is a very real cost to put 7 drops in your draft decks. Games are fast. With your mulligan rules there is almost no downside. Draw the 7 drop in your opener? No problem, just mulligan it away.  

Everyone will have a better draw. This means the aggro decks will kill on turn 4 without disruption on turns 4 and 5. People will naturally run more agressive manabases to take advantage of this mulligan rule. 
OP: have you read the rules for "partial mulligans"? They are used a lot in Commander.

~ Tim 
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
OP: have you read the rules for "partial mulligans"? They are used a lot in Commander.

~ Tim 

Yeah, this is exactly like that but without the -1 card disadvantage.

I think partial mulligans would be more beneficial to competitive events than the current system.

mr.physics:

i think you overestimate how much better opening hands will become. This isn't "sculpt your entire opening hand from scratch" good, just
slightly better than the current system.
No, I don't see how the difference would be that huge really.

Could you explain please

He's basically saying that a partial mulligan system allows you much finer control over the initial contents of your hand than a full mulligan system, which radically changes how you go about mulliganning and potentially deckbuilding as well.

While I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as mr.physics, being able to selectively get rid of cards you don't want can definitely make a big impact on your opening hand. I've played with Commander's partial mulligan system many times, and it allows you to sculpt your hand fairly effectively, keeping early-game gas while getting rid of late-game clutter. With a smaller, more consistent deck, it's quite possible the effect would be stronger.

EDIT: *sighs* This is what I get for opening up a thread and then replying to it twelve hours later without checking for new posts.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

I believe there is a game where instead of losing a card due to mulliganing, the other player draws a card each time you do it.

Pokemon maybe?

Anyway, if we abolish the maximum hand size (which i am also advocating for) I think we could also change the mulligan system to do this.

e.g. You can mulligan a maximum of three times. After both players finish, your opponent gets to draw one additional card for each time you mulliganed (and vice versa)

That way no player have to go down to 5 or even 4 cards and risk losing the game entirely
Pokemon's mulligan system was you mulled by revealing that your hand had no basic pokemon in it. You did that until your hand had one. A deck with no basic pokemon auto-lost. The difference between 7 and 10 is just as big as 5 and 7.

Most mulligan changes I've heard of are fine for limited, but terrible for modern and beyond. Combo is a major part of modern and legacy, and it recieves the biggest benefit from any change. One thing you need to remember is that cards are built and balanced around the Paris rule.
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
Pokemon's mulligan system was you mulled by revealing that your hand had no basic pokemon in it. You did that until your hand had one. A deck with no basic pokemon auto-lost. The difference between 7 and 10 is just as big as 5 and 7.

Most mulligan changes I've heard of are fine for limited, but terrible for modern and beyond. Combo is a major part of modern and legacy, and it recieves the biggest benefit from any change. One thing you need to remember is that cards are built and balanced around the Paris rule.

That's a good point, combo is huge in all eternal formats, but I think the answer is just to print better combo-hate, not to warp all future game decisions around it.

Also, must be a different game I am thinking of that uses that mulligan system of having the opponent draw a card.
Pokemon's mulligan system is also based on the fact that you must start the game with a basic Pokemon in play or else you lose. Magic doesn't require you to have a land in play on your first turn.
Rules Advisor
Pokemon's mulligan system is also based on the fact that you must start the game with a basic Pokemon in play or else you lose. Magic doesn't require you to have a land in play on your first turn.

No but it greatly helps.

Im still standing by my original idea in the OP, and I think it could easily be tested, but its not too big of a deal if we leave it how it is as well.
I wouldn't mind an overhaul of the mulligan rule, though I prefer the more conservative current Commander mulligan over the proposal in the OP.
In my group we do one "free" mulligan. Your first you re-draw seven, but after that it your starting hand drops like normal. This tends to lead to better games, and a better willingness to mulligan a bad hand, at least in our table top games.
In my group we do one "free" mulligan. Your first you re-draw seven, but after that it your starting hand drops like normal. This tends to lead to better games, and a better willingness to mulligan a bad hand, at least in our table top games.



Combo decks are getting way better, you can shuffle away good hands because you have another shot at seven... I don't like that. It may work in a Casual setting, but I don't think it would in a competitive one.

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

One mulligan rule that I would like to see is the mutual mulligan. If all players decide to mulligan, they can choose to draw the same number of cards as their previous hand.
Rules Advisor
The main problem with mulligan is on MTGO:
24 lands: 4% chance of 0 lands in hand, 19% chance of 0 or 1 lands in hand and 5% chance of 5 lands in hand.

That's a 23% chance of getting the shaft.
In 21% of your games you won't get your fifth land by turn 10.
In 4% of your games you will have 7 lands and 5 nonlands by turn 5.

...
Basically, 23% of your games with 24 lands in a 60 card deck will cause you to have "card disavantage by redundance"; cards you cannot use.
In 40% of the games, at least one player will have this redundance card disadvantage.
Only in 5% of the cases will both players will have similar disadvantages.

...
"Card disadvantage by redundancy" comes on top of "the luck of the draw" randomness, meaning a whole lot of games are won or lost by the mulligan rules.

If you have "card disadvantage by redundancy", mulliganning to 6 is only ever viable if you have 0, 1, 5, 6 or 7 lands in a 24 land deck -- which is the 23% I used in this example.
Mulliganning to 6 means that you have a much greater chance of getting screwed on that second draw, but have to accept that disadvantage.

...
I think Wizards should do some serious research into how many times mulligans occur in tournaments, and then look at the results of people not taking a mulligan when they have mana flood or screw.

In my experience, a 1 land hand should always be mulliganned unless you play monocolored and have card draw in hand and go second.
A 5 land hand should too be mulliganned unless you play multicolored and have card draw in hand.

[/aimless rant]

...

But what could you possibly do?

A majority of the screws are land screws.
But floods are equally bad.

It's a REAL pickle...

I had an idea, but I have to reflect more on it, I realize.

The main problem with mulligan is on MTGO:
24 lands: 4% chance of 0 lands in hand, 19% chance of 0 or 1 lands in hand and 5% chance of 5 lands in hand.

That's a 23% chance of getting the shaft.
In 21% of your games you won't get your fifth land by turn 10.
In 4% of your games you will have 7 lands and 5 nonlands by turn 5.


1) Why would it be a bigger problem in MTGO? Players are supposed to be shuffling enough to make their decks random.
2) Your probabilities are wrong. From the Shuffler Thread:

Seven Cards (opening hand):                 





























































































# land drawn16/4017/4018/4023/6024/6025/60
01.86%01.31%00.91%02.67%02.16%01.74%
111.55%09.20%07.20%13.84%12.10%10.51%
227.36%24.55%21.61%28.56%26.94%25.22%
331.92%32.30%32.02%30.29%30.87%31.18%
419.76%22.61%25.28%17.82%19.64%21.44%
506.47%08.40%10.62%05.80%06.93%08.19%
601.03%01.53%02.19%00.97%01.25%01.60%
700.06%00.10%00.17%00.06%00.09%00.12%
2-585.50%87.85%89.52%82.46%84.39%86.02%



 

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
Ingame probabilites for 24 lands -- using the ingame statistics tab:
Less than 1 lands in opening hand (0 lands): 2% chance
Less than 2 lands in opening hand (0 or 1 lands): 11% chance (Chance of NOT having at least 2 lands)
At least 5 lands in opening hand (5, 6 or 7 lands): 11% chance (Chance of having AT LEAST 5 lands)
Chance of screw: 22% for 24 lands -- according to the ingame statistics tab.

What in the seven hells..?!?!?
...

Relogging...

Indeed.
Making a new 24 card deck -- my probabilites are up to 14% chance of NOT having at least 2 lands in opening hand and 8% chance of having at least 5 lands.

This is very very interesting.
What the heck is that probabilites tab doing, exactly..?!?!

Relogging and making a new 24 land deck:

Odds of not getting at least 2 lands: 15%.

And I concede.
Just ignore my statistics;
I used the lying ingame statistics sheet.

Now over to the ingame statistics tab:
Can anyone tell me WHY the ingame it changes between 12%, 14% and 15% chance of not having 2 lands on turn 1 for different 24 land 60 card decks??
This time around, it gave me a 3% chance of starting the game with 0 lands -- compared to 2 on the previous 24/60 deck.




Now over to the ingame statistics tab:
Can anyone tell me WHY the ingame it changes between 12%, 14% and 15% chance of not having 2 lands on turn 1 for different 24 land 60 card decks??
This time around, it gave me a 3% chance of starting the game with 0 lands -- compared to 2 on the previous 24/60 deck.



Report it as a bug?
Check out my cube!
Show
My sig was so awesome it broke Browsers, [url= http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29455423/For_some_reason...]I had to remove it.[/url] Support Magic Fiction! Or Bolas will eat you
57193048 wrote:
You should never explain layers to people unless one of the following is true: they're studying for a judge exam, you're both in a Ben Affleck movie and it's the only way to save the world, or you hate them.
56663526 wrote:
We try to maintain the illusion that Magic cards are written in English.
56333196 wrote:
69511863 wrote:
Hell, if they steal from us, we'd be honored.
oh my god, AWESOME! Then changing the Slivers was your idea! haha lol
56734518 wrote:
Occassionally when catering, I've been put the task of arranging Fruit and Cheese or Grilled Vegetable platters. More than once a high class buffet has started with the mark of Phyrexia upon it. Since i've got a good eye for color so it looks great to people who don't get the "joke" (it's a niceley divided circle after all: the outline gives you 4-6 "regions" to work with), this has actually got me put on platter design more often, resulting in Phyrexia's presence at more private and industry events.
I have 6917 Planeswalker points, that's probably more than you. [c=Hero's Resolve]"Destiny, chance, fate, fortune, mana screw; they're all just ways of claiming your successes without claiming your failures." Gerrard of the Weatherlight[/c]
Now over to the ingame statistics tab:
Can anyone tell me WHY the ingame stats tab changes between 12%, 14% and 15% chance of not having 2 lands on turn 1 for different 24 land 60 card decks??
This time around, it gave me a 3% chance of starting the game with 0 lands -- compared to 2 on the previous 24/60 deck.



Report it as a bug?



I think reporting it as a bug is rather fruitless this close to the release of Wide...
Others must have noticed this behavior and reported it befre, though. 
Now over to the ingame statistics tab:
Can anyone tell me WHY the ingame stats tab changes between 12%, 14% and 15% chance of not having 2 lands on turn 1 for different 24 land 60 card decks??
This time around, it gave me a 3% chance of starting the game with 0 lands -- compared to 2 on the previous 24/60 deck.



Report it as a bug?



I think reporting it as a bug is rather fruitless this close to the release of Wide...
Others must have noticed this behavior and reported it befre, though. 



I wouldn't assume that either of those is true.  You should at least post about it in the MtGO bug forum and see if others have encountered this.

community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/7584...
one change I would make to the mulligan rule is: instead of shuffling the hand back into the library, you just exile it face down. when you are done taking mulligans, shuffle the exiled cards into your library. 

it lessens the number of shuffles.
removes the "aw, the same cards again!" effect.
if you get very few lands, you have a greater chance to get more.

one change I would make to the mulligan rule is: instead of shuffling the hand back into the library, you just exile it face down. when you are done taking mulligans, shuffle the exiled cards into your library. 

it lessens the number of shuffles.
removes the "aw, the same cards again!" effect.
if you get very few lands, you have a greater chance to get more.


I agree. This, at the very least, is something they should do if nothing else for the "aw, same cards" factor
one change I would make to the mulligan rule is: instead of shuffling the hand back into the library, you just exile it face down. when you are done taking mulligans, shuffle the exiled cards into your library. 

it lessens the number of shuffles.
removes the "aw, the same cards again!" effect.
if you get very few lands, you have a greater chance to get more.




The downside is if you mulligan a 7-land hand, your second hand now will be much more likely to give you zero or 1 lands.
 
Hmm... how about letting it be optional? You may choose to exile each mulliganed hand and only shuffle them all into the library when done taking all mulligans. Since players taking a mulligan are already getting penalised by card disadvantage, give them a tiny little bit more control over it.
IMAGE(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l300/idiotic_puppy/MulliganPT-3.jpg)

This information came from featured matches across a number of Pro Tours. Mulling to 6 is not a huge disadvantage. This isn't a huge sample of data, but it shows a tendency of only a slight drop below 50% game wins on mulls to 6. If we count mulls overall, it drops more, but I digress.