If we take a step back from the 15-year tradition of the Paris mulligan (not part of the original game rules, by the way) and look at it objectively, does it really make sense for Limited? That is, is being -1 on cards a "fair" exchange for sending back an unplayable initial draw? I'm starting to think it's not. We all know that games decided by screw or flood result in no fun for either player. We also know that playing with one fewer card is a significant disadvantage--likely more so than was understood when the Paris system was invented. It seems like it'd be in the best interest of the game to change the system to reduce the number of games that are "not real games" while preserving a healthy amount of variance and rewarding skilled deck construction and mull decisions.
I think the harshness of the mulligan is well illustrated by the fact that free mulligans are almost a given when it comes to teaching new players. Obviously there's more than one reason for this, but it's clearly understood that a game decided by mana issues is unfun, not rewarding of skill (except in the silly case where a new player builds a 14-land deck or whatever), unlikely to make for a quality play experience for anybody, and not representative of what makes Magic such a brilliant, cerebral, intense game. Other than the inertia factor of "them's the rules," why don't we apply that same philosophy to contexts where we actually care about the outcome?
Note that I'm really just talking about Limited here. The Paris mulligan seems fine for Constructed, where decks are much better tuned to prevent mana/color screw and execute their gameplan consistently. And you also have to deal with the danger that a more generous mulligan system would be abuseable by combo decks, something that obviously isn't a concern for Limited.
Also note that the idea is not to eliminate, or even make particularly rare, games decided by screw or flood. That's part of the game, and nobody wants to move away from the mana system (okay, I'm sure some people do). I'm just saying that the current mulligan rule doesn't represent a fair tradeoff, and that a slightly less punishing system would increase the number of quality games--games decided by skill and deck construction rather than draws--without losing any of the variance and drama that the mana system brings.
So how to change it? Frankly, for Limited, I don't think a single free mulligan (7 -> 7 -> 6 -> 5 ...) would unbalance anything. A less drastic change would be the option to reveal a 1- or 6-land hand to draw a new 7 (note that revealing your hand is a penalty as well). Or maybe there's some super creative way to do it. Thoughts?
I do agree that mulligans (or more specifically unplayable opening hands) are a much bigger factor on the limited game than people think, and it's becoming pretty important in an age where limited is easily the most popular format on MTGO, as well as a major paper format.
Unfortunately, most of the alternatives to the paris mulligan rule only encourage players to be even riskier on their manabases, and more importantly, it would affect the development process that R&D uses to evaluate cards. If you think a rakdos cackler into deviant glee into dreg mangler is powerful, try designing a mulligan rule that doesn't encourage decks to move towards aggro strategies instead of control strategies. Also, keep in mind that any changes to the mulligan rule in limited will also affect MTGO cycles in which they do older block drafting or masters edition drafting.
Some percentage of bad hands are fully intended as a way to give everyone at lower skill levels the chance to win.
Better players still tend to do better on average.
All that said, I don't like the idea of a free mulligan because it means that nut aggro decks get twice the chance at looking for that unbeatable hand that wins on turn 4.
If changing the mulligan rule is required, I would rather start experimenting with deducting a number of draw steps, but still giving the player a 7-card hand.
The part of mulliganning I don't like is when you have a five-card 1-lander that would be perfectly fine if you knew you were going to draw into a single land in the next two turns. Instead, you get the full information of those 7 cards, but don't get to draw any new ones for a couple turns.
I have some sympathy for this argument, for for as long as WotC continue to print overpowered cards no amount of changing around the mulligan rules will help much.
A free mulligan is a great way to help with land problems, but suppose your opening seven is something like:
Under the current rules I'm pretty sure you have to keep that, but with a free mulligan it would probably be correct to throw it back in search of something a bit more powerful. As such, all your change achieves is to make the result of a Magic game even more dependent on mulligan skills. (You would, admittedly, succeed in reducing manascrew... but unless that's all you care about the game wouldn't be much improved.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I unfortunately had a quite brutal MTGO pre-release.
I had built a very strong Rakdos/Izzet deck with 4 on colour rares (including promo) and was very happy with my pull.
First match was a walk in the park, but then for the next 3 matches I suffered terribly with being stuck on 2/3 mana opening hands not changing until turn 14+.
So to put that into perspective, I had 6 games, with modo mana problems in a row.
Some would expect risky mana situations? Nope. 2 keyrunes (1 of each - very lucky) and 17 lands to back them up. Yet for 6 games I did not get to 4 mana. That's an entirety of 126 cards with a maximum of 18 being lands.... In a 40 card deck it was just unbelievable and almost laughable by the end of the final round.
So I believe it's an issue that wouldn't have changed with the "reveal if at 1< land or 6> land" but I do believe that's the best way to deal with it. My issue was due to just terrible luck (probably to make up for the lucky deck).
I'm not entirely sure the -1/6+ rule would affect the R&D building of the set because I don't think they can plan for people to attempt for a 6/7 land hand or a 0/1 land hand for the free muligan.... unless you're playing that terrible rare from DKA... Lost in the Woods
But either way, it'd be nice for a fix just in sealed/draft enviroments like there is in the EDH and multiplayer formats.
Shows just how bad I am at Magic that I would never even consider mulliganing that hand in limited.
No, that example is a perfectly keepable hand. Too many people go overboard on the principle that your opening hand has to have a self-contained gameplan, and totally ignores the odds of drawing more gas/more lands. That hand has 2 very good threats at 2cmc, as well as a psuedo-combat trick. Most non-land cards you draw in the next 4 turns are going to synergize decently with those cards, and the only real "punish" for keeping that hand is a string of 3+ lands off the top of your deck.
LSV actually articulates his mulligan strategy quite well in his draft videos, often quantifying the strength of his hand in terms of what it needs, what it can do, and what his opponent has to deal with in order to beat the hand.
Shows just how bad I am at Magic that I would never even consider mulliganing that hand in limited.
At the very least I think you should get 1 free mulligan for a 6-7 land or 0-1 land hand. Possibly infinite free mulligans for the 0 or 7 land case.
First, his point was that a perfectly acceptable hand would be thrown back for a shot at the nuts.
The bolded part would be insane with some decks. The problem is that sure getting stuck on land sucks but this would encourage people to run SUPER light on land if you're curve stops at 3. Now instead of running 16 you run 13 knowing you'll get a free mulligan if you come up light. The solution to a minor problem creates huge issues.
Taking a mulligan is never fun, but it is such an important part of the game, and a real skill tester. It took me a while to even feel comfortable mulliganning a hand. Then it took more play and experience before I realized that there are more reasons to mulligan than the number of lands in my hand. I still struggle with mulligan decisions, but I see them as a test of skill.
There is no way to take the random element out of the game. It is an important aspect of the game. While the mulligan rules may be inherently tougher on Limited than Constructed, they aren't terrible. I usually don't feel like the game is already over when I mulligan to 6. Mulligans to 5 are tough, but they can be won.
It's something to consider during deck building too. Do I have ways to gain card advantage? Do I have ways to survive a game if I get stuck on 3 mana? Can I recover if I get behind or if I have less cards than my opponent?
I guess I don't see a reason to change the system, mostly because I'm not sure there is a fundamentally better option.
At my last FNM draft, I ran into a perfect example of why some alternative solution is needed; game 1 I ended up mulling and mana screwed. Game 2, we both kept decent hands and had a well contested game. Game 3, I mulled and mana screwed again.
I was playing Selesnya with mostly 2/3 CMC spells, so it's not liked I needed much to fire off.
Earlier that same night, I 2-0ed a guy who screwed in successive games, despite mulling when appropriate. That was also not a fun game for either of us.
Limited decks just don't have the options available to deal with repeat cases of terrible hands. It makes the games a much poorer contest, and less fun for both players. There has to be a better way to deal with it without giving the advantage to aggro players.
Someone I play against suggested what sounded like a passable option. If you mulligan, you can search your deck for a single land and set it aside. You then draw 5 cards the first time, and add them to the card you set aside. This guarantees one land. If you still don't have a playable hand, you can repeat the process, drawing 3 cards and keeping 2 lands (i.e. mull to 5).
I don't think it would be at all appropriate for constructed, but it would probably facilitate better contested games in Limited.
I think I've won... twice, on a mulligan to four, in my life. I would give up the potential to mulligan to three and two and one for another shot at a five card hand.
An absolutely "free mulligan" at seven is a terrible idea, though. For one, it would add an obnoxious amount of time to each round. For two, don't like playing against mythics? What your opponent who opened Jace mulligan aggressively for it every game!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
The other issue to consider here is time. The amount of time it takes to shuffle, present, have your opponent shuffle/cut, draw your new hand then make a mulligan decision is not insignificant and can add up quickly.
I think the way it is now is the cleanest way to do it. I remember playing prior to the Paris mulligan and remember upping the land counts in all my decks when I played competetively so as to avoid land screw as much as possible. There is nothing worse than one player or another getting blown out because they can't do anything whether you were on the winning side or not, but if it was a competetive match then I definitely wanted to make damn sure I was on the winning side of that equation more often than not. We just made sure we had some sinks for that excess mana if we got flooded.
I think I've won... twice, on a mulligan to four, in my life. I would give up the potential to mulligan to three and two and one for another shot at a five card hand.
An absolutely "free mulligan" at seven is a terrible idea, though. For one, it would add an obnoxious amount of time to each round. For two, don't like playing against mythics? What your opponent who opened Jace mulligan aggressively for it every game!
I win frequently by mulling to 4 in my legacy deck. I can actually still pull the nuts with 4 cards. But that's an entirely different format. I don't know if I'd go down to 3 or less I've done it but it's never pretty.
Bad ideas:
- Free mulligans to 7 - there's very little incentive to not mulligan in search of a better hand - it doesn't cost you anything, so why not? A free mulligan to 7 would just mean more time spent shuffling. It would also make aggressive decks (which are somewhat combo-ish in that they want to draw a certain sequence of cards) more powerful.
- Free mulligans for a certain conditions (all land, no land, 1 land, etc.) - rules like that unecessarily complicated. Those situations are the exact reason the mullgan system exists in the first place - if you have a 0 or 7 lands in your opening hand, then just mulligan - that's why the option is there.
The motivation behind a new mulligan rule should not be "to give free mulligans for being unlucky" (i.e. free mull to 7 for 0 or 7 land hands), it should be "to reduce the number of games that are uninteractive/decided by mulligans". (games where you have bad hands on both 6 and 5 cards). Free mulligans to 7 don't specifically address the 2nd point of reducing uninteractive games, they just give everyone more oppurtunities to mulligan.
Something like a 7-6-6-5-5-4-4-etc. system would fulfill that goal while not being easy to abuse. You are still giving up a card if you mulligan from 7, but a free mulligan at 6 and 5 would provide a safety net to prevent you from "mulling into oblivion", which is the the real crux of the issue.
Shows just how bad I am at Magic that I would never even consider mulliganing that hand in limited.
No, shows just how bad you are at Magic that you would let someone's post on an internet forum make you question your evaluation of that hand. (your instinct is right - it's clearly a keep on 7, though not a perfect one). For the record, bateleur was saying that hand might be a mull if you got a free mull to 7.
We usually allow a mull to 7 in our casual limited group and it's great - but we still experience plenty of mana screw. The real issue is the top seven cards of your deck - not the cards in your hand.
I think the style of mulligan I'd like to see is one where you choose cards to place on the bottom of your deck and then draw an equal number to refill your hand. This requires the same kind of hand/deck evaluation needed in a Paris mulligan, but allows you to not leave the entire thing to chance.
I don't think that allowing free mulls on 0 or 7 would change deckbuilding strategy much at all. Such hands are pretty rare to begin with, and any deck build to "abuse" the free mull on 0 (in limited, obviously) is going to get burned with a one-land hand several times more often than they're going to get the super awesome advantage of getting to mull to seven with their 0. I don't think it's a stretch to say that allowing free mulls on 0 or 7 wouldn't change deckbuilding strategy even the slightest bit. (Again, in limited, and I guess excepting Battle of Wits decks.)
Mulling with 7 or 0 might be ok. But it would still change deck building. In limited if you've got a deck with a ton of big mana creatures, walls, life gain, etcll. in other words a stall deck. Then a 7 Land hand might be ok. Chances are the next few cards are going to be playable's. This is extreme but you never know.
I do not agree with allowing free mulls if you only have 1 land. If you've got a deck with cheap 1-3 CMC creatures then sometimes 1 land hands are keepable if you've got a couple 1 or 2 cmc plays in your hand. All you need to do is draw 2 more lands and 80% of your deck is good to go.
A neat but complicated method is drawing 9 cards and putting 2 back and shuffling your deck. If this doesn't fix then you can mull to 6-5-4 etc...
Free mulls or whatever also make going first even MORE enticing. Sometimes the advantage of going second is knowing that your getting that extra card. And you can build decks around that. In standard you obviously want to go first but in Limited you can make trick heavy decks where you just want more cards to fuel your plays.
Theres also a reason people play 17lands in Limited. Its because of getting bad draws. You start getting free mulls and all of a sudden people start playing 14 and 15 land decks.
Edit: They say that drafting is a good way for new players to get into the game but it really isn't. Nest thing for new players is to go buy a 10-12$ starter deck. Pretty cheap considering you get everything is set up and ready to play. Cheaper than a draft. Then maybe you buy an event deck and a few more boosters. Then you upgrade to drafts so you can pick your cards, raredraft, etc... play new people with your crappy deck, have some fun. You start drafting when you want to build your collection and increase your skill. You learn what types of cards are good, decks are always changing so its more about skill of playing than who got the better per-constructed cards.
I think I've won... twice, on a mulligan to four, in my life. I would give up the potential to mulligan to three and two and one for another shot at a five card hand.
An absolutely "free mulligan" at seven is a terrible idea, though. For one, it would add an obnoxious amount of time to each round. For two, don't like playing against mythics? What your opponent who opened Jace mulligan aggressively for it every game!
I think this has some appeal, but I'm not sure it would ever catch on since it's not entirely intuitive. EDIT: I don't know if it was clear from my statement the first time around, but I really like this idea. I just doubt it ever comes to fruition.
If you set aside the emotional impact of mana screw/flood (it literally makes the game less fun) there should always be a tradeoff in a game for getting a second crack at a random event. It should cost something.
I'm fine with the free mulligans in casual formats like EDH and 2HG, but in a limited contest with prizes involved I don't think a completely free mulligan is appropriate.
The variance in this game is really getting to me, in such a huge way that I just had a few weeks break. It just happens too often that you spend 20 minutes drafting and then get stuck on 2 lands or whatever else.
So, I'd be in favor of anything that reduces variance. This seems to be one way, so I'm supportive!
In summation.....Star Trek wins a prolonged naval battle against superior, yet less technologically advanced, numbers, with Picard leading the assault, while Kirk takes your soul by laying out Solo and probably his manservant Chewy as well, before impregnating and ditching your Princess.
I think the harshness of the mulligan is well illustrated by the fact that free mulligans are almost a given when it comes to teaching new players. Obviously there's more than one reason for this, but it's clearly understood that a game decided by mana issues is unfun, not rewarding of skill (except in the silly case where a new player builds a 14-land deck or whatever), unlikely to make for a quality play experience for anybody, and not representative of what makes Magic such a brilliant, cerebral, intense game. Other than the inertia factor of "them's the rules," why don't we apply that same philosophy to contexts where we actually care about the outcome?
Note that I'm really just talking about Limited here. The Paris mulligan seems fine for Constructed, where decks are much better tuned to prevent mana/color screw and execute their gameplan consistently. And you also have to deal with the danger that a more generous mulligan system would be abuseable by combo decks, something that obviously isn't a concern for Limited.
Also note that the idea is not to eliminate, or even make particularly rare, games decided by screw or flood. That's part of the game, and nobody wants to move away from the mana system (okay, I'm sure some people do). I'm just saying that the current mulligan rule doesn't represent a fair tradeoff, and that a slightly less punishing system would increase the number of quality games--games decided by skill and deck construction rather than draws--without losing any of the variance and drama that the mana system brings.
So how to change it? Frankly, for Limited, I don't think a single free mulligan (7 -> 7 -> 6 -> 5 ...) would unbalance anything. A less drastic change would be the option to reveal a 1- or 6-land hand to draw a new 7 (note that revealing your hand is a penalty as well). Or maybe there's some super creative way to do it. Thoughts?
Unfortunately, most of the alternatives to the paris mulligan rule only encourage players to be even riskier on their manabases, and more importantly, it would affect the development process that R&D uses to evaluate cards. If you think a rakdos cackler into deviant glee into dreg mangler is powerful, try designing a mulligan rule that doesn't encourage decks to move towards aggro strategies instead of control strategies. Also, keep in mind that any changes to the mulligan rule in limited will also affect MTGO cycles in which they do older block drafting or masters edition drafting.
Some percentage of bad hands are fully intended as a way to give everyone at lower skill levels the chance to win.
Better players still tend to do better on average.
All that said, I don't like the idea of a free mulligan because it means that nut aggro decks get twice the chance at looking for that unbeatable hand that wins on turn 4.
If changing the mulligan rule is required, I would rather start experimenting with deducting a number of draw steps, but still giving the player a 7-card hand.
The part of mulliganning I don't like is when you have a five-card 1-lander that would be perfectly fine if you knew you were going to draw into a single land in the next two turns. Instead, you get the full information of those 7 cards, but don't get to draw any new ones for a couple turns.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
A free mulligan is a great way to help with land problems, but suppose your opening seven is something like:
Swamp, Swamp, Mountain, Mountain, Gore-House Chainwalker, Thrill-Kill Assassin, Traitorous Instinct.
Under the current rules I'm pretty sure you have to keep that, but with a free mulligan it would probably be correct to throw it back in search of something a bit more powerful. As such, all your change achieves is to make the result of a Magic game even more dependent on mulligan skills. (You would, admittedly, succeed in reducing manascrew... but unless that's all you care about the game wouldn't be much improved.)
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I had built a very strong Rakdos/Izzet deck with 4 on colour rares (including promo) and was very happy with my pull.
First match was a walk in the park, but then for the next 3 matches I suffered terribly with being stuck on 2/3 mana opening hands not changing until turn 14+.
So to put that into perspective, I had 6 games, with modo mana problems in a row.
Some would expect risky mana situations? Nope. 2 keyrunes (1 of each - very lucky) and 17 lands to back them up. Yet for 6 games I did not get to 4 mana. That's an entirety of 126 cards with a maximum of 18 being lands.... In a 40 card deck it was just unbelievable and almost laughable by the end of the final round.
So I believe it's an issue that wouldn't have changed with the "reveal if at 1< land or 6> land" but I do believe that's the best way to deal with it. My issue was due to just terrible luck (probably to make up for the lucky deck).
I'm not entirely sure the -1/6+ rule would affect the R&D building of the set because I don't think they can plan for people to attempt for a 6/7 land hand or a 0/1 land hand for the free muligan.... unless you're playing that terrible rare from DKA... Lost in the Woods
But either way, it'd be nice for a fix just in sealed/draft enviroments like there is in the EDH and multiplayer formats.
Rav-Animate GB
Shows just how bad I am at Magic that I would never even consider mulliganing that hand in limited.
At the very least I think you should get 1 free mulligan for a 6-7 land or 0-1 land hand. Possibly infinite free mulligans for the 0 or 7 land case.
No, that example is a perfectly keepable hand. Too many people go overboard on the principle that your opening hand has to have a self-contained gameplan, and totally ignores the odds of drawing more gas/more lands. That hand has 2 very good threats at 2cmc, as well as a psuedo-combat trick. Most non-land cards you draw in the next 4 turns are going to synergize decently with those cards, and the only real "punish" for keeping that hand is a string of 3+ lands off the top of your deck.
LSV actually articulates his mulligan strategy quite well in his draft videos, often quantifying the strength of his hand in terms of what it needs, what it can do, and what his opponent has to deal with in order to beat the hand.
First, his point was that a perfectly acceptable hand would be thrown back for a shot at the nuts.
The bolded part would be insane with some decks. The problem is that sure getting stuck on land sucks but this would encourage people to run SUPER light on land if you're curve stops at 3. Now instead of running 16 you run 13 knowing you'll get a free mulligan if you come up light. The solution to a minor problem creates huge issues.
There is no way to take the random element out of the game. It is an important aspect of the game. While the mulligan rules may be inherently tougher on Limited than Constructed, they aren't terrible. I usually don't feel like the game is already over when I mulligan to 6. Mulligans to 5 are tough, but they can be won.
It's something to consider during deck building too. Do I have ways to gain card advantage? Do I have ways to survive a game if I get stuck on 3 mana? Can I recover if I get behind or if I have less cards than my opponent?
I guess I don't see a reason to change the system, mostly because I'm not sure there is a fundamentally better option.
I would be down with this rule only in limited and only once. The trade-off of information would worth the extra card IMO.
I was playing Selesnya with mostly 2/3 CMC spells, so it's not liked I needed much to fire off.
Earlier that same night, I 2-0ed a guy who screwed in successive games, despite mulling when appropriate. That was also not a fun game for either of us.
Limited decks just don't have the options available to deal with repeat cases of terrible hands. It makes the games a much poorer contest, and less fun for both players. There has to be a better way to deal with it without giving the advantage to aggro players.
Someone I play against suggested what sounded like a passable option. If you mulligan, you can search your deck for a single land and set it aside. You then draw 5 cards the first time, and add them to the card you set aside. This guarantees one land. If you still don't have a playable hand, you can repeat the process, drawing 3 cards and keeping 2 lands (i.e. mull to 5).
I don't think it would be at all appropriate for constructed, but it would probably facilitate better contested games in Limited.
7-6-5-5-Done over 7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0
I think I've won... twice, on a mulligan to four, in my life. I would give up the potential to mulligan to three and two and one for another shot at a five card hand.
An absolutely "free mulligan" at seven is a terrible idea, though. For one, it would add an obnoxious amount of time to each round. For two, don't like playing against mythics? What your opponent who opened Jace mulligan aggressively for it every game!
I think the way it is now is the cleanest way to do it. I remember playing prior to the Paris mulligan and remember upping the land counts in all my decks when I played competetively so as to avoid land screw as much as possible. There is nothing worse than one player or another getting blown out because they can't do anything whether you were on the winning side or not, but if it was a competetive match then I definitely wanted to make damn sure I was on the winning side of that equation more often than not. We just made sure we had some sinks for that excess mana if we got flooded.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
I win frequently by mulling to 4 in my legacy deck. I can actually still pull the nuts with 4 cards. But that's an entirely different format. I don't know if I'd go down to 3 or less I've done it but it's never pretty.
- Free mulligans to 7 - there's very little incentive to not mulligan in search of a better hand - it doesn't cost you anything, so why not? A free mulligan to 7 would just mean more time spent shuffling. It would also make aggressive decks (which are somewhat combo-ish in that they want to draw a certain sequence of cards) more powerful.
- Free mulligans for a certain conditions (all land, no land, 1 land, etc.) - rules like that unecessarily complicated. Those situations are the exact reason the mullgan system exists in the first place - if you have a 0 or 7 lands in your opening hand, then just mulligan - that's why the option is there.
The motivation behind a new mulligan rule should not be "to give free mulligans for being unlucky" (i.e. free mull to 7 for 0 or 7 land hands), it should be "to reduce the number of games that are uninteractive/decided by mulligans". (games where you have bad hands on both 6 and 5 cards). Free mulligans to 7 don't specifically address the 2nd point of reducing uninteractive games, they just give everyone more oppurtunities to mulligan.
Something like a 7-6-6-5-5-4-4-etc. system would fulfill that goal while not being easy to abuse. You are still giving up a card if you mulligan from 7, but a free mulligan at 6 and 5 would provide a safety net to prevent you from "mulling into oblivion", which is the the real crux of the issue.
No, shows just how bad you are at Magic that you would let someone's post on an internet forum make you question your evaluation of that hand. (your instinct is right - it's clearly a keep on 7, though not a perfect one). For the record, bateleur was saying that hand might be a mull if you got a free mull to 7.
Calculate your lifetime MTG match win percentage!: http://kavu.ru/
MTG draft simulator: http://drafts.in/
No, you can't mulligan that hand. It has turn 2-3 plays and ways to cast them, and that's half the battle out of rakdos anyways.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
I think the style of mulligan I'd like to see is one where you choose cards to place on the bottom of your deck and then draw an equal number to refill your hand. This requires the same kind of hand/deck evaluation needed in a Paris mulligan, but allows you to not leave the entire thing to chance.
It strikes me as a good balance; you're down a card for the mulligan, but you're not likely to get down to 5.
I do not agree with allowing free mulls if you only have 1 land. If you've got a deck with cheap 1-3 CMC creatures then sometimes 1 land hands are keepable if you've got a couple 1 or 2 cmc plays in your hand. All you need to do is draw 2 more lands and 80% of your deck is good to go.
A neat but complicated method is drawing 9 cards and putting 2 back and shuffling your deck. If this doesn't fix then you can mull to 6-5-4 etc...
Free mulls or whatever also make going first even MORE enticing. Sometimes the advantage of going second is knowing that your getting that extra card. And you can build decks around that. In standard you obviously want to go first but in Limited you can make trick heavy decks where you just want more cards to fuel your plays.
Theres also a reason people play 17lands in Limited. Its because of getting bad draws. You start getting free mulls and all of a sudden people start playing 14 and 15 land decks.
Edit: They say that drafting is a good way for new players to get into the game but it really isn't. Nest thing for new players is to go buy a 10-12$ starter deck. Pretty cheap considering you get everything is set up and ready to play. Cheaper than a draft. Then maybe you buy an event deck and a few more boosters. Then you upgrade to drafts so you can pick your cards, raredraft, etc... play new people with your crappy deck, have some fun. You start drafting when you want to build your collection and increase your skill. You learn what types of cards are good, decks are always changing so its more about skill of playing than who got the better per-constructed cards.
I think this has some appeal, but I'm not sure it would ever catch on since it's not entirely intuitive. EDIT: I don't know if it was clear from my statement the first time around, but I really like this idea. I just doubt it ever comes to fruition.
If you set aside the emotional impact of mana screw/flood (it literally makes the game less fun) there should always be a tradeoff in a game for getting a second crack at a random event. It should cost something.
I'm fine with the free mulligans in casual formats like EDH and 2HG, but in a limited contest with prizes involved I don't think a completely free mulligan is appropriate.
So, I'd be in favor of anything that reduces variance. This seems to be one way, so I'm supportive!
How you should approach every game of Magic.
Mod Helpdesk (defunct)
My Flawless Score MCC Card | My Other One | # Three!