Easily the worst thing that happens to me when I go on tilt is I start making really bad keeps.
+1 for this
Way too many people view mulliganing to 6 as a death sentence, especially in draft. But once you start thinking about your bad 7-card hands as virtual mulligans -- due to missing a color, having a ton of uncastable late-drops, or having situational cards that are unlikely to be of use -- it's a lot easier to see how going to 6 cards + a scry is likely to substantially improve your winrate. It only takes one solid 2-for-1 to get you back to card parity on a mulligan, and your opponents stumble on development with some frequency as well.
Mulling to 5 feels like a death sentence every time I do it
Yeah mulligan to 5 feels bad, especially because at that point I have a 2 land hand which is maybe what I threw away in the original 7 card hand.
I almost feel like you should get one free mulligan or one partial mulligan. I can't imagine that would break the game but it would make your opening a little more consistent which I think is the biggest problem with mana screw.
One idea that I've seen floated is actually really good. Since the Vancuever mulligan was introduced, there's actually a way to do a "partial" mulligan that I think would help with the nightmare mulligan scenarios without giving anything away or making people build worse manabases or anything like that.
I don't see why "Draw 7 cards. You may set aside any number of cards and draw back up to 7, then shuffle the set aside cards into your library" wouldn't work awesome.
Or maybe like "You may set aside any two cards face down, search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, add it to your hand, and then shuffle the set aside cards into your library." I could see trading 2 lands 5 spells into 3 lands 3 spells pretty regularly. Or you could fix mana a little by trading in two superfluous land (or one land + spell, whatever) for the one you need.
That would change the game a ton. Aggro and combo would become way stronger and modern, legacy, and vintage would become super degenerate. Even standard would start seeing turn 4 kills on the regular. It would not go well.
+4
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Okay, i did a draft.
Gruul Carnival
Cut picks
Syndicate Messenger
Rakdos Trumpeter
Boxious Groodion
Clear the Stage
Spear Spewer
Act of Treason
Burn Bright
Burning-Tree Vandal
Rubble Reading
Spikewheel Acrobat
Flames of the Raze-Boar
Root Snare
Mammoth Spider
Macabre Mockery
Rubblebelt Runner
Sphinx of the Guildpact
Rakdos Guildgate
Rationale behind cutting Flames of the Raze-Boar and Clear the Stage: I don't have enough creatures with 4+ Power. Breaks my heart that i didn't manage to get more power but i thought utility was a better value.
Easily the worst thing that happens to me when I go on tilt is I start making really bad keeps.
+1 for this
Way too many people view mulliganing to 6 as a death sentence, especially in draft. But once you start thinking about your bad 7-card hands as virtual mulligans -- due to missing a color, having a ton of uncastable late-drops, or having situational cards that are unlikely to be of use -- it's a lot easier to see how going to 6 cards + a scry is likely to substantially improve your winrate. It only takes one solid 2-for-1 to get you back to card parity on a mulligan, and your opponents stumble on development with some frequency as well.
Mulling to 5 feels like a death sentence every time I do it
Yeah mulligan to 5 feels bad, especially because at that point I have a 2 land hand which is maybe what I threw away in the original 7 card hand.
I almost feel like you should get one free mulligan or one partial mulligan. I can't imagine that would break the game but it would make your opening a little more consistent which I think is the biggest problem with mana screw.
One idea that I've seen floated is actually really good. Since the Vancuever mulligan was introduced, there's actually a way to do a "partial" mulligan that I think would help with the nightmare mulligan scenarios without giving anything away or making people build worse manabases or anything like that.
I don't see why "Draw 7 cards. You may set aside any number of cards and draw back up to 7, then shuffle the set aside cards into your library" wouldn't work awesome.
Or maybe like "You may set aside any two cards face down, search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, add it to your hand, and then shuffle the set aside cards into your library." I could see trading 2 lands 5 spells into 3 lands 3 spells pretty regularly. Or you could fix mana a little by trading in two superfluous land (or one land + spell, whatever) for the one you need.
That would change the game a ton. Aggro and combo would become way stronger and modern, legacy, and vintage would become super degenerate. Even standard would start seeing turn 4 kills on the regular. It would not go well.
Yeah, any free mulligan is unworkable as it lets you simply search for combo or T3 kills in aggro too easily. The second suggestion is not as degenerate, but it doesn't help you when you draw a 5-lander, so it's not really an option, and, if you offer both a normal mulligan and this, you're giving folks a lot of choice in their opening hand again.
I do see the point that even my suggestion of alternating losing the scry could also be a bit too much, but at least it forces you to pay something each time you mulligan.
Syndicate Messenger
Rakdos Trumpeter
Boxious Groodion
Clear the Stage
Spear Spewer
Act of Treason
Burn Bright
Burning-Tree Vandal
Rubble Reading
Spikewheel Acrobat
Flames of the Raze-Boar
Root Snare
Mammoth Spider
Macabre Mockery
Rubblebelt Runner
Sphinx of the Guildpact
Rakdos Guildgate
Rationale behind cutting Flames of the Raze-Boar and Clear the Stage: I don't have enough creatures with 4+ Power. Breaks my heart that i didn't manage to get more power but i thought utility was a better value.
What did I do wrong? :razz:
This deck would be a lot more consistent if you cut down the black splash to the higher-impact cards. I'd cut Trumpeter, Groodion, and Dead Revels for Burning-Tree Vandal (this card is very good), Mammoth Spider, and Rubblebelt Runner. I'd probably also cut Spear Spewer for Flames of the Raze-Boar -- you're right that it's not amazing in your deck, but even if the "good" mode is only on 20% of the time it's still a playable removal spell, and Spear Spewer is a low-impact card that's atrocious when you're behind.
Even if you were to stick with the current configuration, I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd leave a Rakdos Guildgate in the board. I'd bring it in over a Mountain in any case.
Easily the worst thing that happens to me when I go on tilt is I start making really bad keeps.
+1 for this
Way too many people view mulliganing to 6 as a death sentence, especially in draft. But once you start thinking about your bad 7-card hands as virtual mulligans -- due to missing a color, having a ton of uncastable late-drops, or having situational cards that are unlikely to be of use -- it's a lot easier to see how going to 6 cards + a scry is likely to substantially improve your winrate. It only takes one solid 2-for-1 to get you back to card parity on a mulligan, and your opponents stumble on development with some frequency as well.
Mulling to 5 feels like a death sentence every time I do it
Yeah mulligan to 5 feels bad, especially because at that point I have a 2 land hand which is maybe what I threw away in the original 7 card hand.
I almost feel like you should get one free mulligan or one partial mulligan. I can't imagine that would break the game but it would make your opening a little more consistent which I think is the biggest problem with mana screw.
One idea that I've seen floated is actually really good. Since the Vancuever mulligan was introduced, there's actually a way to do a "partial" mulligan that I think would help with the nightmare mulligan scenarios without giving anything away or making people build worse manabases or anything like that.
I don't see why "Draw 7 cards. You may set aside any number of cards and draw back up to 7, then shuffle the set aside cards into your library" wouldn't work awesome.
Or maybe like "You may set aside any two cards face down, search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, add it to your hand, and then shuffle the set aside cards into your library." I could see trading 2 lands 5 spells into 3 lands 3 spells pretty regularly. Or you could fix mana a little by trading in two superfluous land (or one land + spell, whatever) for the one you need.
That would change the game a ton. Aggro and combo would become way stronger and modern, legacy, and vintage would become super degenerate. Even standard would start seeing turn 4 kills on the regular. It would not go well.
Modern, legacy, and vintage are already pretty degenerate and maybe this is me being selfish but I also couldn't give a shit about those formats considering they cost texas$ money.
Also aggro is already pretty strong, those are the decks that only like three mana to cast their entire deck anyways. I'm also unconvinced that a rising tide of consistency doesn't lift all boats. I feel like in my midrangey and control matchups I auto lose against aggro if I don't have the removal or early plays so I feel like I'd be helped just as much.
Edit: What I'm saying is their deck is full of questions so if they just optimize those questions it doesn't matter I'll die anyways if I don't have answers. Me digging for absorb or moment of craving is probably more impactful then them getting their third direct damage spell or whatever the hell.
ChaosHat on
0
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Syndicate Messenger
Rakdos Trumpeter
Boxious Groodion
Clear the Stage
Spear Spewer
Act of Treason
Burn Bright
Burning-Tree Vandal
Rubble Reading
Spikewheel Acrobat
Flames of the Raze-Boar
Root Snare
Mammoth Spider
Macabre Mockery
Rubblebelt Runner
Sphinx of the Guildpact
Rakdos Guildgate
Rationale behind cutting Flames of the Raze-Boar and Clear the Stage: I don't have enough creatures with 4+ Power. Breaks my heart that i didn't manage to get more power but i thought utility was a better value.
What did I do wrong? :razz:
This deck would be a lot more consistent if you cut down the black splash to the higher-impact cards. I'd cut Trumpeter, Groodion, and Dead Revels for Burning-Tree Vandal (this card is very good), Mammoth Spider, and Rubblebelt Runner. I'd probably also cut Spear Spewer for Flames of the Raze-Boar -- you're right that it's not amazing in your deck, but even if the "good" mode is only on 20% of the time it's still a playable removal spell, and Spear Spewer is a low-impact card that's atrocious when you're behind.
Even if you were to stick with the current configuration, I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd leave a Rakdos Guildgate in the board. I'd bring it in over a Mountain in any case.
EDIT edit: FWIW I think this deck is strong.
That'll jinx it.
EDIT: Also isn't 6 mana for 4 damage to a creature a bit expensive? I feel like Flames is atrocious without a 4-Power in play...
Syndicate Messenger
Rakdos Trumpeter
Boxious Groodion
Clear the Stage
Spear Spewer
Act of Treason
Burn Bright
Burning-Tree Vandal
Rubble Reading
Spikewheel Acrobat
Flames of the Raze-Boar
Root Snare
Mammoth Spider
Macabre Mockery
Rubblebelt Runner
Sphinx of the Guildpact
Rakdos Guildgate
Rationale behind cutting Flames of the Raze-Boar and Clear the Stage: I don't have enough creatures with 4+ Power. Breaks my heart that i didn't manage to get more power but i thought utility was a better value.
What did I do wrong? :razz:
This deck would be a lot more consistent if you cut down the black splash to the higher-impact cards. I'd cut Trumpeter, Groodion, and Dead Revels for Burning-Tree Vandal (this card is very good), Mammoth Spider, and Rubblebelt Runner. I'd probably also cut Spear Spewer for Flames of the Raze-Boar -- you're right that it's not amazing in your deck, but even if the "good" mode is only on 20% of the time it's still a playable removal spell, and Spear Spewer is a low-impact card that's atrocious when you're behind.
Even if you were to stick with the current configuration, I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd leave a Rakdos Guildgate in the board. I'd bring it in over a Mountain in any case.
EDIT edit: FWIW I think this deck is strong.
That'll jinx it.
EDIT: Also isn't 6 mana for 4 damage to a creature a bit expensive? I feel like Flames is atrocious without a 4-Power in play...
I'm not super stoked about running it, but the front half is roughly as good/bad as Consign to the Pit -- it kills slightly fewer things and has no incidental damage, but it's an instant. I think the fact that the sweeper mode will be active a nonzero % of the time (you have 3 fatties + Sauroform Hybrid to turn it on) brings the average case up enough to make it worth running.
If you disagree, I'd still look for something to bring in over Spear Spewer (maybe Sphinx, or even Spikewheel Acrobat.)
Syndicate Messenger
Rakdos Trumpeter
Boxious Groodion
Clear the Stage
Spear Spewer
Act of Treason
Burn Bright
Burning-Tree Vandal
Rubble Reading
Spikewheel Acrobat
Flames of the Raze-Boar
Root Snare
Mammoth Spider
Macabre Mockery
Rubblebelt Runner
Sphinx of the Guildpact
Rakdos Guildgate
Rationale behind cutting Flames of the Raze-Boar and Clear the Stage: I don't have enough creatures with 4+ Power. Breaks my heart that i didn't manage to get more power but i thought utility was a better value.
What did I do wrong? :razz:
This deck would be a lot more consistent if you cut down the black splash to the higher-impact cards. I'd cut Trumpeter, Groodion, and Dead Revels for Burning-Tree Vandal (this card is very good), Mammoth Spider, and Rubblebelt Runner. I'd probably also cut Spear Spewer for Flames of the Raze-Boar -- you're right that it's not amazing in your deck, but even if the "good" mode is only on 20% of the time it's still a playable removal spell, and Spear Spewer is a low-impact card that's atrocious when you're behind.
Even if you were to stick with the current configuration, I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd leave a Rakdos Guildgate in the board. I'd bring it in over a Mountain in any case.
EDIT edit: FWIW I think this deck is strong.
That'll jinx it.
EDIT: Also isn't 6 mana for 4 damage to a creature a bit expensive? I feel like Flames is atrocious without a 4-Power in play...
I'm not super stoked about running it, but the front half is roughly as good/bad as Consign to the Pit -- it kills slightly fewer things and has no incidental damage, but it's an instant. I think the fact that the sweeper mode will be active a nonzero % of the time (you have 3 fatties + Sauroform Hybrid to turn it on) brings the average case up enough to make it worth running.
If you disagree, I'd still look for something to bring in over Spear Spewer (maybe Sphinx, or even Spikewheel Acrobat.)
Easily the worst thing that happens to me when I go on tilt is I start making really bad keeps.
+1 for this
Way too many people view mulliganing to 6 as a death sentence, especially in draft. But once you start thinking about your bad 7-card hands as virtual mulligans -- due to missing a color, having a ton of uncastable late-drops, or having situational cards that are unlikely to be of use -- it's a lot easier to see how going to 6 cards + a scry is likely to substantially improve your winrate. It only takes one solid 2-for-1 to get you back to card parity on a mulligan, and your opponents stumble on development with some frequency as well.
Mulling to 5 feels like a death sentence every time I do it
Yeah mulligan to 5 feels bad, especially because at that point I have a 2 land hand which is maybe what I threw away in the original 7 card hand.
I almost feel like you should get one free mulligan or one partial mulligan. I can't imagine that would break the game but it would make your opening a little more consistent which I think is the biggest problem with mana screw.
One idea that I've seen floated is actually really good. Since the Vancuever mulligan was introduced, there's actually a way to do a "partial" mulligan that I think would help with the nightmare mulligan scenarios without giving anything away or making people build worse manabases or anything like that.
I don't see why "Draw 7 cards. You may set aside any number of cards and draw back up to 7, then shuffle the set aside cards into your library" wouldn't work awesome.
Or maybe like "You may set aside any two cards face down, search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, add it to your hand, and then shuffle the set aside cards into your library." I could see trading 2 lands 5 spells into 3 lands 3 spells pretty regularly. Or you could fix mana a little by trading in two superfluous land (or one land + spell, whatever) for the one you need.
That would change the game a ton. Aggro and combo would become way stronger and modern, legacy, and vintage would become super degenerate. Even standard would start seeing turn 4 kills on the regular. It would not go well.
Yeah, any free mulligan is unworkable as it lets you simply search for combo or T3 kills in aggro too easily. The second suggestion is not as degenerate, but it doesn't help you when you draw a 5-lander, so it's not really an option, and, if you offer both a normal mulligan and this, you're giving folks a lot of choice in their opening hand again.
I do see the point that even my suggestion of alternating losing the scry could also be a bit too much, but at least it forces you to pay something each time you mulligan.
My favorite alternate mulligan rule is, mulligan N number of times (up to 7), each time drawing one fewer card.
Then scry N
Easily the worst thing that happens to me when I go on tilt is I start making really bad keeps.
+1 for this
Way too many people view mulliganing to 6 as a death sentence, especially in draft. But once you start thinking about your bad 7-card hands as virtual mulligans -- due to missing a color, having a ton of uncastable late-drops, or having situational cards that are unlikely to be of use -- it's a lot easier to see how going to 6 cards + a scry is likely to substantially improve your winrate. It only takes one solid 2-for-1 to get you back to card parity on a mulligan, and your opponents stumble on development with some frequency as well.
Mulling to 5 feels like a death sentence every time I do it
Yeah mulligan to 5 feels bad, especially because at that point I have a 2 land hand which is maybe what I threw away in the original 7 card hand.
I almost feel like you should get one free mulligan or one partial mulligan. I can't imagine that would break the game but it would make your opening a little more consistent which I think is the biggest problem with mana screw.
One idea that I've seen floated is actually really good. Since the Vancuever mulligan was introduced, there's actually a way to do a "partial" mulligan that I think would help with the nightmare mulligan scenarios without giving anything away or making people build worse manabases or anything like that.
I don't see why "Draw 7 cards. You may set aside any number of cards and draw back up to 7, then shuffle the set aside cards into your library" wouldn't work awesome.
Or maybe like "You may set aside any two cards face down, search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, add it to your hand, and then shuffle the set aside cards into your library." I could see trading 2 lands 5 spells into 3 lands 3 spells pretty regularly. Or you could fix mana a little by trading in two superfluous land (or one land + spell, whatever) for the one you need.
That would change the game a ton. Aggro and combo would become way stronger and modern, legacy, and vintage would become super degenerate. Even standard would start seeing turn 4 kills on the regular. It would not go well.
Modern, legacy, and vintage are already pretty degenerate and maybe this is me being selfish but I also couldn't give a shit about those formats considering they cost texas$ money.
Also aggro is already pretty strong, those are the decks that only like three mana to cast their entire deck anyways. I'm also unconvinced that a rising tide of consistency doesn't lift all boats. I feel like in my midrangey and control matchups I auto lose against aggro if I don't have the removal or early plays so I feel like I'd be helped just as much.
Edit: What I'm saying is their deck is full of questions so if they just optimize those questions it doesn't matter I'll die anyways if I don't have answers. Me digging for absorb or moment of craving is probably more impactful then them getting their third direct damage spell or whatever the hell.
Modern is pretty popular, maybe not as popular as standard ATM but I think it was more popular during Kaladesh so I don't think they would jeopardize it.
Hearthstone style mulligans would have a bigger impact than you are thinking. Take those aggro decks you are thinking about, with hearthstone style mulligans they could go down to 15 or so lands and probably be fine, maybe even fewer, and have a higher ratio of burn cards. Combo style decks like gate nexus would pitch everything that wasn't growth spiral, wilderness, or gate and have a good shot at going infinite on turn 4. There would be no point in playing midrange or control because one of the big benefits of midrange and control is increased consistency.
Easily the worst thing that happens to me when I go on tilt is I start making really bad keeps.
+1 for this
Way too many people view mulliganing to 6 as a death sentence, especially in draft. But once you start thinking about your bad 7-card hands as virtual mulligans -- due to missing a color, having a ton of uncastable late-drops, or having situational cards that are unlikely to be of use -- it's a lot easier to see how going to 6 cards + a scry is likely to substantially improve your winrate. It only takes one solid 2-for-1 to get you back to card parity on a mulligan, and your opponents stumble on development with some frequency as well.
Mulling to 5 feels like a death sentence every time I do it
Yeah mulligan to 5 feels bad, especially because at that point I have a 2 land hand which is maybe what I threw away in the original 7 card hand.
I almost feel like you should get one free mulligan or one partial mulligan. I can't imagine that would break the game but it would make your opening a little more consistent which I think is the biggest problem with mana screw.
One idea that I've seen floated is actually really good. Since the Vancuever mulligan was introduced, there's actually a way to do a "partial" mulligan that I think would help with the nightmare mulligan scenarios without giving anything away or making people build worse manabases or anything like that.
I don't see why "Draw 7 cards. You may set aside any number of cards and draw back up to 7, then shuffle the set aside cards into your library" wouldn't work awesome.
Or maybe like "You may set aside any two cards face down, search your library for a basic land card, reveal it, add it to your hand, and then shuffle the set aside cards into your library." I could see trading 2 lands 5 spells into 3 lands 3 spells pretty regularly. Or you could fix mana a little by trading in two superfluous land (or one land + spell, whatever) for the one you need.
That would change the game a ton. Aggro and combo would become way stronger and modern, legacy, and vintage would become super degenerate. Even standard would start seeing turn 4 kills on the regular. It would not go well.
Modern, legacy, and vintage are already pretty degenerate and maybe this is me being selfish but I also couldn't give a shit about those formats considering they cost texas$ money.
Also aggro is already pretty strong, those are the decks that only like three mana to cast their entire deck anyways. I'm also unconvinced that a rising tide of consistency doesn't lift all boats. I feel like in my midrangey and control matchups I auto lose against aggro if I don't have the removal or early plays so I feel like I'd be helped just as much.
Edit: What I'm saying is their deck is full of questions so if they just optimize those questions it doesn't matter I'll die anyways if I don't have answers. Me digging for absorb or moment of craving is probably more impactful then them getting their third direct damage spell or whatever the hell.
Modern is pretty popular, maybe not as popular as standard ATM but I think it was more popular during Kaladesh so I don't think they would jeopardize it.
Hearthstone style mulligans would have a bigger impact than you are thinking. Take those aggro decks you are thinking about, with hearthstone style mulligans they could go down to 15 or so lands and probably be fine, maybe even fewer, and have a higher ratio of burn cards. Combo style decks like gate nexus would pitch everything that wasn't growth spiral, wilderness, or gate and have a good shot at going infinite on turn 4. There would be no point in playing midrange or control because one of the big benefits of midrange and control is increased consistency.
Again I'm not convinced that it doesn't just help the other decks just as much. This seems to imply that there is a maximum consistency or a diminishing return on consistency that the control decks or midrange ones wouldn't benefit from as much. I suppose there is a maximum consistency where you order your library but this is still very far from that.
There's absolutely diminishing returns on consistency and different benefits for consistency, yes. A consistent combo deck just straight wins games, a consistent control deck just has good answers lined up.
There's a huge difference between "I have T4 Wilderness Reclamation with Azcanta and 5 lands on the board and spell pierce + frilled mystic backup" and "I have good land, a cheap counter, two absorbs, a sweeper, and Teferi"
Again I'm not convinced that it doesn't just help the other decks just as much. This seems to imply that there is a maximum consistency or a diminishing return on consistency that the control decks or midrange ones wouldn't benefit from as much. I suppose there is a maximum consistency where you order your library but this is still very far from that.
Consistency is at a premium in MtG, that's one of the two primary consequences of the land system (that and the color wheel).
Think of it this way. Let's say you were allowed to stack your deck, all 60 cards, every game. Decks which tried to just have good efficient answers would be worthless in the face of combo decks and quick overwhelming ones.
Obviously replacement mulligan is not the same as stacking your entire deck, but it does move you closer along the spectrum. As a result, some decks will benefit disproportionately, since some decks rely on specific draws less than others. Decks which rely on specific draws will always benefit most from a replacement mulligan system.
In MTG I feel like such a system would drastically move the needle. It would also hugely cheapen things like land fixing spells.
+1
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
There's absolutely diminishing returns on consistency and different benefits for consistency, yes. A consistent combo deck just straight wins games, a consistent control deck just has good answers lined up.
There's a huge difference between "I have T4 Wilderness Reclamation with Azcanta and 5 lands on the board and spell pierce + frilled mystic backup" and "I have good land, a cheap counter, two absorbs, a sweeper, and Teferi"
So they have a 9 card starting hand? The hand you've listed for control is a two lander and I would argue probably not great. You're still not going to guarantee that you have everything that you need out of seven cards and that still adds plenty of variance on your remaining draws. I think it would just help reduce non games.
Nexus is also a hard deck to discuss like this because your standard control answers don't deal with the combo unless you have syncopate. Usually just countering the combo pieces works.
0
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Again I'm not convinced that it doesn't just help the other decks just as much. This seems to imply that there is a maximum consistency or a diminishing return on consistency that the control decks or midrange ones wouldn't benefit from as much. I suppose there is a maximum consistency where you order your library but this is still very far from that.
Consistency is at a premium in MtG, that's one of the two primary consequences of the land system (that and the color wheel).
Think of it this way. Let's say you were allowed to stack your deck, all 60 cards, every game. Decks which tried to just have good efficient answers would be worthless in the face of combo decks and quick overwhelming ones.
Obviously replacement mulligan is not the same as stacking your entire deck, but it does move you closer along the spectrum. As a result, some decks will benefit disproportionately, since some decks rely on specific draws less than others. Decks which rely on specific draws will always benefit most from a replacement mulligan system.
In MTG I feel like such a system would drastically move the needle. It would also hugely cheapen things like land fixing spells.
This makes sense in a bo1 blind system sure, but what happens when I side in and then order my library to be unmoored ego and countermagic? Or four copies of unmoored ego and 3 lands? If the nexus deck also stacks up all countermagic then we're back onto equal footing of it just being all random again anyways.
And against aggro just side in moments of craving and absorbs and stack it up. If we spend our hands and I have 10+ life I feel pretty good about the rest of that game.
There's absolutely diminishing returns on consistency and different benefits for consistency, yes. A consistent combo deck just straight wins games, a consistent control deck just has good answers lined up.
There's a huge difference between "I have T4 Wilderness Reclamation with Azcanta and 5 lands on the board and spell pierce + frilled mystic backup" and "I have good land, a cheap counter, two absorbs, a sweeper, and Teferi"
So they have a 9 card starting hand? The hand you've listed for control is a two lander and I would argue probably not great. You're still not going to guarantee that you have everything that you need out of seven cards and that still adds plenty of variance on your remaining draws. I think it would just help reduce non games.
Nexus is also a hard deck to discuss like this because your standard control answers don't deal with the combo unless you have syncopate. Usually just countering the combo pieces works.
It was a general point about consistency, not an explicit opening hand; the closer you get to an "optimal" stacked deck the better it looks for combo. Also, I didn't even say it was a Nexus deck, and gave it options to protect the actual combo engine, Wilderness Reclamation.
Aggro is at a weird part on the curve where their cards are all very, very redundant, so you want more consistency to throw away excess lands but you don't need perfect consistency or benefit from the last little bit of it. That is, aggro is running twelve bolts; it doesn't really matter which bolts they have, just that they have them.
I ate an engineer
+1
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
There's absolutely diminishing returns on consistency and different benefits for consistency, yes. A consistent combo deck just straight wins games, a consistent control deck just has good answers lined up.
There's a huge difference between "I have T4 Wilderness Reclamation with Azcanta and 5 lands on the board and spell pierce + frilled mystic backup" and "I have good land, a cheap counter, two absorbs, a sweeper, and Teferi"
So they have a 9 card starting hand? The hand you've listed for control is a two lander and I would argue probably not great. You're still not going to guarantee that you have everything that you need out of seven cards and that still adds plenty of variance on your remaining draws. I think it would just help reduce non games.
Nexus is also a hard deck to discuss like this because your standard control answers don't deal with the combo unless you have syncopate. Usually just countering the combo pieces works.
It was a general point about consistency, not an explicit opening hand; the closer you get to an "optimal" stacked deck the better it looks for combo. Also, I didn't even say it was a Nexus deck, and gave it options to protect the actual combo engine, Wilderness Reclamation.
I can't think of another good combo deck in standard right now, so that's where my thoughts went as far as Nexus. The legacy formats could just have different mulligan rules if need be. And again, I don't see how the control deck doesn't just have answers to stop combo in a near optimal hand scenario. This is like saying control decks don't win the game they just have to hope their opponent doesn't. Control decks lose because they don't have answers. Optimizing my hand to have those answers early and to pitch the shit I don't need in this matchup/until later in the game just helps the control deck reach that late game where they win. Similarly the midrange deck could go for a more aggro footing or a more control footing depending on the matchup or the cards presented in their hand.
Again I'm not convinced that it doesn't just help the other decks just as much. This seems to imply that there is a maximum consistency or a diminishing return on consistency that the control decks or midrange ones wouldn't benefit from as much. I suppose there is a maximum consistency where you order your library but this is still very far from that.
Consistency is at a premium in MtG, that's one of the two primary consequences of the land system (that and the color wheel).
Think of it this way. Let's say you were allowed to stack your deck, all 60 cards, every game. Decks which tried to just have good efficient answers would be worthless in the face of combo decks and quick overwhelming ones.
Obviously replacement mulligan is not the same as stacking your entire deck, but it does move you closer along the spectrum. As a result, some decks will benefit disproportionately, since some decks rely on specific draws less than others. Decks which rely on specific draws will always benefit most from a replacement mulligan system.
In MTG I feel like such a system would drastically move the needle. It would also hugely cheapen things like land fixing spells.
This makes sense in a bo1 blind system sure, but what happens when I side in and then order my library to be unmoored ego and countermagic? Or four copies of unmoored ego and 3 lands? If the nexus deck also stacks up all countermagic then we're back onto equal footing of it just being all random again anyways.
And against aggro just side in moments of craving and absorbs and stack it up. If we spend our hands and I have 10+ life I feel pretty good about the rest of that game.
You can't take the "order your library" example to its logical conclusion, it's an extreme example to illustrate the direction that the game shifts when you make a change like that.
The point is, some deck archetypes benefit disproportionately from replacement style mulligan and other rules like it, not that, if you had the chance to order your library however you wanted, there would be decks that wouldn't benefit.
+1
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Again I'm not convinced that it doesn't just help the other decks just as much. This seems to imply that there is a maximum consistency or a diminishing return on consistency that the control decks or midrange ones wouldn't benefit from as much. I suppose there is a maximum consistency where you order your library but this is still very far from that.
Consistency is at a premium in MtG, that's one of the two primary consequences of the land system (that and the color wheel).
Think of it this way. Let's say you were allowed to stack your deck, all 60 cards, every game. Decks which tried to just have good efficient answers would be worthless in the face of combo decks and quick overwhelming ones.
Obviously replacement mulligan is not the same as stacking your entire deck, but it does move you closer along the spectrum. As a result, some decks will benefit disproportionately, since some decks rely on specific draws less than others. Decks which rely on specific draws will always benefit most from a replacement mulligan system.
In MTG I feel like such a system would drastically move the needle. It would also hugely cheapen things like land fixing spells.
This makes sense in a bo1 blind system sure, but what happens when I side in and then order my library to be unmoored ego and countermagic? Or four copies of unmoored ego and 3 lands? If the nexus deck also stacks up all countermagic then we're back onto equal footing of it just being all random again anyways.
And against aggro just side in moments of craving and absorbs and stack it up. If we spend our hands and I have 10+ life I feel pretty good about the rest of that game.
You can't take the "order your library" example to its logical conclusion, it's an extreme example to illustrate the direction that the game shifts when you make a change like that.
The point is, some deck archetypes benefit disproportionately from replacement style mulligan and other rules like it, not that, if you had the chance to order your library however you wanted, there would be decks that wouldn't benefit.
Sure but what I'm saying is if they're balanced at the current level of consistency, and balanced at the extreme end of consistency, they're probably balanced at most points on that spectrum. If anything, the other end (zero consistency) benefits something like aggro more. If I can't draw any answers then any one of your creatures will eventually win.
Again I'm not convinced that it doesn't just help the other decks just as much. This seems to imply that there is a maximum consistency or a diminishing return on consistency that the control decks or midrange ones wouldn't benefit from as much. I suppose there is a maximum consistency where you order your library but this is still very far from that.
Consistency is at a premium in MtG, that's one of the two primary consequences of the land system (that and the color wheel).
Think of it this way. Let's say you were allowed to stack your deck, all 60 cards, every game. Decks which tried to just have good efficient answers would be worthless in the face of combo decks and quick overwhelming ones.
Obviously replacement mulligan is not the same as stacking your entire deck, but it does move you closer along the spectrum. As a result, some decks will benefit disproportionately, since some decks rely on specific draws less than others. Decks which rely on specific draws will always benefit most from a replacement mulligan system.
In MTG I feel like such a system would drastically move the needle. It would also hugely cheapen things like land fixing spells.
This makes sense in a bo1 blind system sure, but what happens when I side in and then order my library to be unmoored ego and countermagic? Or four copies of unmoored ego and 3 lands? If the nexus deck also stacks up all countermagic then we're back onto equal footing of it just being all random again anyways.
And against aggro just side in moments of craving and absorbs and stack it up. If we spend our hands and I have 10+ life I feel pretty good about the rest of that game.
You can't take the "order your library" example to its logical conclusion, it's an extreme example to illustrate the direction that the game shifts when you make a change like that.
The point is, some deck archetypes benefit disproportionately from replacement style mulligan and other rules like it, not that, if you had the chance to order your library however you wanted, there would be decks that wouldn't benefit.
Sure but what I'm saying is if they're balanced at the current level of consistency, and balanced at the extreme end of consistency, they're probably balanced at most points on that spectrum. If anything, the other end (zero consistency) benefits something like aggro more. If I can't draw any answers then any one of your creatures will eventually win.
I disagree with the assertion that each deck archetype is balanced at the extreme end of consistency.
I think that, under the assumption they're already willing to split the ban list between Bo1 Arena and everywhere else, banning Nexus is a possible solution, albeit a worse one than actually making infinite loops with no wincon detectable and punishable in game. I don't like that split, though, and legitimately saw as much salt about Teferi pre-Nexus so I'm not a fan of bans based mostly on community anger.
I definitely don't enjoy going up against Nexus decks, but I would prefer they enforced the loop rules or added a timer or something to MTGA rather than banning it. But if they do ban it, I won't be particularly upset.
I think banning in Bo1 arena and nowhere else would be pretty weird. I like Arena because it's the same as paper magic without as much cost or having to show up at events that may or may not be staffed properly. Also, rules enforcement so there's no way to cheat with shuffling (which is rampant in paper magic) or forget triggers and whatnot. If they make changes to arena that aren't present in paper or vice versa, they split from being the same game which is part of the reason I like Arena so much. But then again now that you can play ranked BO3 I'm pretty much only doing that except for limited where I can play more BO1 for cheaper.
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Just ban the damn card and be done with it.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
For those who aren't aware in paper Nexus has its own unique issue since it was only available as a buy a box promo, a special thing where if you bought a box of boosters, which cost about $100, you got a foil Nexus. This was the only way to obtain it which was a bit of a shitstorm once it became obvious the card was good. WotC says they printed more Nexus then any other mythic though.
It's also an issue because foil cards can be distinguished from nonfoil cards from the back, which means at a high level tournament players usually play all foils or no. This means that judges will let you play with a proxy for Nexus, basically a land card with the words Nexus of Fate written on it.
Discord Integration: Challenge friends over discord!
If you have Game Activity enabled, Discord Rich Presence will provide more detailed status information to your friends—whether you're deck building, choosing your pack 1, pick 1 in Draft, or climbing the ladder in Ranked Play. In-game, the Direct Challenge blade will feature a Discord Challenge option, making it easier for you to play against your friends or members of your Discord servers.
Deck builder updates
The Deck Builder now supports multiple views and zooming options, an improved deck details page, changes to adding lands, and you can now sort your decks by format (Standard, Singleton, Pauper, etc.).
There's also a new "Crafting Mode," which allows you to quickly see uncollected cards you can redeem your Wildcards on.
Other QOL improvements
With this update, notables include improvements to our timer system, a "Resolve All" option for repeating triggers on the stack, and the ability tomass-select attackers and blockers. Full patch notes will be available once the update is live next week.
+4
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Heh, but the person you're challenging still can't see what mode you're selecting (or even that you're challenging), so you can potentially get stuck challenging each other forever unless you talk outside the game.
Which leads to:
For those who aren't aware in paper Nexus has its own unique issue since it was only available as a buy a box promo, a special thing where if you bought a box of boosters, which cost about $100, you got a foil Nexus. This was the only way to obtain it which was a bit of a shitstorm once it became obvious the card was good. WotC says they printed more Nexus then any other mythic though.
It's also an issue because foil cards can be distinguished from nonfoil cards from the back, which means at a high level tournament players usually play all foils or no. This means that judges will let you play with a proxy for Nexus, basically a land card with the words Nexus of Fate written on it.
The thing people bring up here, is that buying a box guaranteed a Nexus, but did not guarantee any other mythic, and thus if every box came with a Nexus (which it did not, though they may have printed enough Nexus of Fates so that one could be sold with every box) there would be far more Nexus in the pool than any other Mythic. Thing is, stores opened boxes to sell boosters. Any boxes opened to sell SINGLES would also have donated a Nexus, so they weren't quite as rare as most people thought they were.
There may even have been oodles of Nexuses that just got opened whenever a store put a new booster box by the counter for sale. I could do some digging, but... don't want to. Enh.
So is anyone else using mtgarena.pro? My tracker has just started crashing and not uploading anything. I found an alternative that didn't seem to grab as much info the way I wanted it too, so hoping I can get this fixed.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
So is anyone else using mtgarena.pro? My tracker has just started crashing and not uploading anything. I found an alternative that didn't seem to grab as much info the way I wanted it too, so hoping I can get this fixed.
They were getting DDOSed and it hard crashed their database server. Last update says they expect to be down for at least another six hours.
Posts
That would change the game a ton. Aggro and combo would become way stronger and modern, legacy, and vintage would become super degenerate. Even standard would start seeing turn 4 kills on the regular. It would not go well.
Gruul Carnival
Cut picks
Rakdos Trumpeter
Boxious Groodion
Clear the Stage
Spear Spewer
Act of Treason
Burn Bright
Burning-Tree Vandal
Rubble Reading
Spikewheel Acrobat
Flames of the Raze-Boar
Root Snare
Mammoth Spider
Macabre Mockery
Rubblebelt Runner
Sphinx of the Guildpact
Rakdos Guildgate
Rationale behind cutting Flames of the Raze-Boar and Clear the Stage: I don't have enough creatures with 4+ Power. Breaks my heart that i didn't manage to get more power but i thought utility was a better value.
What did I do wrong? :razz:
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Yeah, any free mulligan is unworkable as it lets you simply search for combo or T3 kills in aggro too easily. The second suggestion is not as degenerate, but it doesn't help you when you draw a 5-lander, so it's not really an option, and, if you offer both a normal mulligan and this, you're giving folks a lot of choice in their opening hand again.
I do see the point that even my suggestion of alternating losing the scry could also be a bit too much, but at least it forces you to pay something each time you mulligan.
This deck would be a lot more consistent if you cut down the black splash to the higher-impact cards. I'd cut Trumpeter, Groodion, and Dead Revels for Burning-Tree Vandal (this card is very good), Mammoth Spider, and Rubblebelt Runner. I'd probably also cut Spear Spewer for Flames of the Raze-Boar -- you're right that it's not amazing in your deck, but even if the "good" mode is only on 20% of the time it's still a playable removal spell, and Spear Spewer is a low-impact card that's atrocious when you're behind.
Even if you were to stick with the current configuration, I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd leave a Rakdos Guildgate in the board. I'd bring it in over a Mountain in any case.
EDIT edit: FWIW I think this deck is strong.
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
Modern, legacy, and vintage are already pretty degenerate and maybe this is me being selfish but I also couldn't give a shit about those formats considering they cost texas$ money.
Also aggro is already pretty strong, those are the decks that only like three mana to cast their entire deck anyways. I'm also unconvinced that a rising tide of consistency doesn't lift all boats. I feel like in my midrangey and control matchups I auto lose against aggro if I don't have the removal or early plays so I feel like I'd be helped just as much.
Edit: What I'm saying is their deck is full of questions so if they just optimize those questions it doesn't matter I'll die anyways if I don't have answers. Me digging for absorb or moment of craving is probably more impactful then them getting their third direct damage spell or whatever the hell.
That'll jinx it.
EDIT: Also isn't 6 mana for 4 damage to a creature a bit expensive? I feel like Flames is atrocious without a 4-Power in play...
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I'm not super stoked about running it, but the front half is roughly as good/bad as Consign to the Pit -- it kills slightly fewer things and has no incidental damage, but it's an instant. I think the fact that the sweeper mode will be active a nonzero % of the time (you have 3 fatties + Sauroform Hybrid to turn it on) brings the average case up enough to make it worth running.
If you disagree, I'd still look for something to bring in over Spear Spewer (maybe Sphinx, or even Spikewheel Acrobat.)
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
It’s also Instant speed (I think), which is huge.
My favorite alternate mulligan rule is, mulligan N number of times (up to 7), each time drawing one fewer card.
Then scry N
Modern is pretty popular, maybe not as popular as standard ATM but I think it was more popular during Kaladesh so I don't think they would jeopardize it.
Hearthstone style mulligans would have a bigger impact than you are thinking. Take those aggro decks you are thinking about, with hearthstone style mulligans they could go down to 15 or so lands and probably be fine, maybe even fewer, and have a higher ratio of burn cards. Combo style decks like gate nexus would pitch everything that wasn't growth spiral, wilderness, or gate and have a good shot at going infinite on turn 4. There would be no point in playing midrange or control because one of the big benefits of midrange and control is increased consistency.
Again I'm not convinced that it doesn't just help the other decks just as much. This seems to imply that there is a maximum consistency or a diminishing return on consistency that the control decks or midrange ones wouldn't benefit from as much. I suppose there is a maximum consistency where you order your library but this is still very far from that.
There's a huge difference between "I have T4 Wilderness Reclamation with Azcanta and 5 lands on the board and spell pierce + frilled mystic backup" and "I have good land, a cheap counter, two absorbs, a sweeper, and Teferi"
Consistency is at a premium in MtG, that's one of the two primary consequences of the land system (that and the color wheel).
Think of it this way. Let's say you were allowed to stack your deck, all 60 cards, every game. Decks which tried to just have good efficient answers would be worthless in the face of combo decks and quick overwhelming ones.
Obviously replacement mulligan is not the same as stacking your entire deck, but it does move you closer along the spectrum. As a result, some decks will benefit disproportionately, since some decks rely on specific draws less than others. Decks which rely on specific draws will always benefit most from a replacement mulligan system.
In MTG I feel like such a system would drastically move the needle. It would also hugely cheapen things like land fixing spells.
So they have a 9 card starting hand? The hand you've listed for control is a two lander and I would argue probably not great. You're still not going to guarantee that you have everything that you need out of seven cards and that still adds plenty of variance on your remaining draws. I think it would just help reduce non games.
Nexus is also a hard deck to discuss like this because your standard control answers don't deal with the combo unless you have syncopate. Usually just countering the combo pieces works.
This makes sense in a bo1 blind system sure, but what happens when I side in and then order my library to be unmoored ego and countermagic? Or four copies of unmoored ego and 3 lands? If the nexus deck also stacks up all countermagic then we're back onto equal footing of it just being all random again anyways.
And against aggro just side in moments of craving and absorbs and stack it up. If we spend our hands and I have 10+ life I feel pretty good about the rest of that game.
It was a general point about consistency, not an explicit opening hand; the closer you get to an "optimal" stacked deck the better it looks for combo. Also, I didn't even say it was a Nexus deck, and gave it options to protect the actual combo engine, Wilderness Reclamation.
I can't think of another good combo deck in standard right now, so that's where my thoughts went as far as Nexus. The legacy formats could just have different mulligan rules if need be. And again, I don't see how the control deck doesn't just have answers to stop combo in a near optimal hand scenario. This is like saying control decks don't win the game they just have to hope their opponent doesn't. Control decks lose because they don't have answers. Optimizing my hand to have those answers early and to pitch the shit I don't need in this matchup/until later in the game just helps the control deck reach that late game where they win. Similarly the midrange deck could go for a more aggro footing or a more control footing depending on the matchup or the cards presented in their hand.
You can't take the "order your library" example to its logical conclusion, it's an extreme example to illustrate the direction that the game shifts when you make a change like that.
The point is, some deck archetypes benefit disproportionately from replacement style mulligan and other rules like it, not that, if you had the chance to order your library however you wanted, there would be decks that wouldn't benefit.
Gosh DARN it....
5 wins with that run.
thanks for helping me out.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Sure but what I'm saying is if they're balanced at the current level of consistency, and balanced at the extreme end of consistency, they're probably balanced at most points on that spectrum. If anything, the other end (zero consistency) benefits something like aggro more. If I can't draw any answers then any one of your creatures will eventually win.
sorry for the jinx, mate
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
I disagree with the assertion that each deck archetype is balanced at the extreme end of consistency.
Thank you Magic Gods! That was an easy 7 wins. One game I cast Ravager Wurm a total of 3 times!
Handmade Jewelry by me on EtsyGames for sale
Me on Twitch!
This felt easier this time around, best of 3 is the best.
Bo3 is the best way to rank in constructed after Gold if you've got a decent win-rate.
I agree with their analysis pretty much 100%. I'm interested to see what actually happens
Path of Exile: snowcrash7
MTG Arena: Snow_Crash#34179
Battle.net: Snowcrash#1873
I think banning in Bo1 arena and nowhere else would be pretty weird. I like Arena because it's the same as paper magic without as much cost or having to show up at events that may or may not be staffed properly. Also, rules enforcement so there's no way to cheat with shuffling (which is rampant in paper magic) or forget triggers and whatnot. If they make changes to arena that aren't present in paper or vice versa, they split from being the same game which is part of the reason I like Arena so much. But then again now that you can play ranked BO3 I'm pretty much only doing that except for limited where I can play more BO1 for cheaper.
It's also an issue because foil cards can be distinguished from nonfoil cards from the back, which means at a high level tournament players usually play all foils or no. This means that judges will let you play with a proxy for Nexus, basically a land card with the words Nexus of Fate written on it.
New Update coming the 14th.
Direct Challenge Best of 3!
Discord Integration: Challenge friends over discord!
Deck builder updates
Other QOL improvements
Heh, but the person you're challenging still can't see what mode you're selecting (or even that you're challenging), so you can potentially get stuck challenging each other forever unless you talk outside the game.
Which leads to:
The thing people bring up here, is that buying a box guaranteed a Nexus, but did not guarantee any other mythic, and thus if every box came with a Nexus (which it did not, though they may have printed enough Nexus of Fates so that one could be sold with every box) there would be far more Nexus in the pool than any other Mythic. Thing is, stores opened boxes to sell boosters. Any boxes opened to sell SINGLES would also have donated a Nexus, so they weren't quite as rare as most people thought they were.
There may even have been oodles of Nexuses that just got opened whenever a store put a new booster box by the counter for sale. I could do some digging, but... don't want to. Enh.
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
They were getting DDOSed and it hard crashed their database server. Last update says they expect to be down for at least another six hours.