Again, I don't know what are you talking about. I only played Blue (in all forms, Delver, Shadow, hard Control, Counterburn, Combo) since Modern's inception, and London's Mulligan has helped a lot with consistency issues. It isn't one sided, man.
No, its not one sided, but I still believe it leans towards helping decks that I would rather not see helped. I dont feel as a non-UW Blue player that I even HAVE inconsistency issues. I mean yes as Dave mentions sometimes if you aggressively mull for something, you get punished. Them's the breaks.
Essentially if a rule change in any way helps the Tron's of the world, I dont want it implemented, and this does.
Wizards said they see from data that there isn't much difference in the mw%, so I don't know how it can be said that it would be a disaster. They also said that if there will be a problem bans could address it.
One can complain about this policy, but surely it won't make modern fall.
I personally like the change for what is worth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks played: Modern:
0 Affinity;
URG Delver
URGW Countercats
(Here you can find some video contents about Countercats and Temur Delver decks)
Very happy to see this change. MTGO was more fun with it. My cube group has been using it and it really helps avoid the games where you kill to 5 and just lose because of it.
I will say, though, the time from the Ironworks ban, through the rise of the Looting decks, to the rise of the 3 mana planeswalkers, to the addition of Horizons and lots of new cards, and now this, I'm ready for things to settle down for a bit. Let's have a boring Core Set.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I'm not sure how I feel about London Mulligan right now. With people having more of a reason to mulligan, thoughtseize seems really good but fair decks seem weaker now
i'm not sure i see how the london mull will particularly favor unfair decks. sure it makes it easier to find their combo pieces if they mull aggressively, but it also makes it easier to find their silver-bullets in games 2 & 3.
and honestly, even if this IS a bump to unfair decks, i think i can live with that so long as it's addressed in the long term. it's a fair price to pay for such a powerful tool that will help seriously mitigate the number of games lost to bad opening hands.
for me looking at the london mulligan rule comes down to a simple question: is it a better system for determining opening hands than what we had? probably id say. it reads better at least imo, and by many accounts ive read it has gotten a positive reception.
the thing is that the rules set the foundation for the game. wizards cant or shouldnt be constrained on iterations and improvements to them because of specific decks or cards. it would just be short sighted to do so. forward progress for the game, even if it means it exposes flaws in some areas, is still forward progress.
i mean just look at what wizards is trying to address; they want to make consecutive mulliganning due to variance less punishing and reduce the number of 'non-games'. from a top-down perspective of the game itself there isnt any argument that i can think of where accomplishing this isnt an improvement.
yeah i have my reservations about what it might do for modern, the decks i personally play or would like to see more of across the table, and the decks to put it frankly i wish were less prominently featured. if the format shifts more towards a direction that i personally think isnt good gameplay, for my own enjoyment or what i think constitutes a healthy/engaging format (ie longevity), then yeah ill be annoyed. any grievances are and would be aimed at the decks and the texture of the gameplay itself, which is a function of the card pool.
for instance if 'unfair' decks gain more, and thus rise up further, thus making interplay and decisions within games seem less important to the outcome; then that is a strike against the responsive tools in the format that inject more decision points, slow down games, and or force more resource exchanges. the london mulligan would just be indirectly causing these flaws to surface. i know this because if it does happen im not going to be wishing the rule change was reversed but instead wish cards were banned, unbanned, or newly designed - just as i always have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: UWGSnow-Bant Control BURGrixis Death's Shadow GWBCoCo Elves WCDeath and Taxes (sold)
Ah, so London Mulligan is implemented now? Sorry, too dizzy to read all the posts in previous page.
Yes, as of the Core 2020 prerelease.
I see. thanks for the info.
Wondering if combo decks would get stronger with this?
Maybe wotc added Force of Negation and fluster to modern, as a pre-emptive measure against combo decks getting better with the new rule.
Ah, so London Mulligan is implemented now? Sorry, too dizzy to read all the posts in previous page.
Yes, as of the Core 2020 prerelease.
I see. thanks for the info.
Wondering if combo decks would get stronger with this?
Maybe wotc added Force of Negation and fluster to modern, as a pre-emptive measure against combo decks getting better with the new rule.
Maybe, though the force cycle would still be useful under the Vancouver Mulligan.
What does the mulligan fix, and why is it better than the old way? The point of playing a card game is dealing with what life gives you, for better or worse. The more something detracts from that aspect, the less card game like the game gets. To me, it sounds like wizards is giving in to the idea of letting people pick the starting hand with minimal repercussions.
The change isn't going to discourage cheating on the competitive circuit, so I'm really wondering what the long term plan is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Wondering if combo decks would get stronger with this?
Maybe wotc added Force of Negation and fluster to modern, as a pre-emptive measure against combo decks getting better with the new rule.
If I was a betting man, I would say it was done because of LSV mulling to death in the PT Final. It had a lot of viewers, and a lot of bad feels for what was a great run of a fan favorite.
I dont believe its anything more complicated than 'we want a bit less variance at the start, so people can at least get to play the game' unlike LSV, who just lost that one.
What does the mulligan fix, and why is it better than the old way?
Because people hate, hate, hate mana screw. It's possibly the single most disliked thing about Magic. And they especially hate getting mana screwed so hard they have to mulligan down to 5 or less and effectively lose the game before it's begun. It's why susbsequent TCGs have either eliminated the possibility of mana screw entirely (e.g. Hearthstone) or at least made it dramatically harder to occur (Pokemon TCG). I saw Richard Garfield say in a lecture he was giving that he regrets the way the mana system created mana screw.
Not only is it not fun to be the player, it's not particularly fun to watch someone on coverage lose a game due to having to mulligan repeatedly.
Unfortunately, the mana system is so engrained in the game you can't truly fix mana screw. Ideas like giving people guaranteed lands don't work because unlike Hearthstone, the game's balance is based around not being guaranteed to make all your land drops. But they can at least try to make it feel less punishing and not "well, I lost the game before my turn even started", which this mulligan rule is trying to do.
What does the mulligan fix, and why is it better than the old way? The point of playing a card game is dealing with what life gives you, for better or worse. The more something detracts from that aspect, the less card game like the game gets. To me, it sounds like wizards is giving in to the idea of letting people pick the starting hand with minimal repercussions.
The change isn't going to discourage cheating on the competitive circuit, so I'm really wondering what the long term plan is.
This is silly. There is nothing pure and noble about staring at your no land 5-er and considerig if you go to 4 or just scoop once you identify their deck.
I don't know anyone who's played a lot with the London mulligan that dislikes it. Many of us on mtgo were skeptical that it'd be too much a boon for the combo decks, but what I found is that I was able to go to 5 and still win games with a fair deck. It was lovely, and I've been waiting with bated breath for the change to come permanently.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
Wondering if combo decks would get stronger with this?
Maybe wotc added Force of Negation and fluster to modern, as a pre-emptive measure against combo decks getting better with the new rule.
If I was a betting man, I would say it was done because of LSV mulling to death in the PT Final. It had a lot of viewers, and a lot of bad feels for what was a great run of a fan favorite.
I dont believe its anything more complicated than 'we want a bit less variance at the start, so people can at least get to play the game' unlike LSV, who just lost that one.
I will never understand the appeal of LSV or any of those CFB type dudes. Whatever, one more mystery of life.
Yes, MtG is trying to gain popularity, and that was the first mythic championship following the explosion of MtG Arena. WOTC probably at least suspects that a significant chunk of viewers either just downloaded Arena or were curious about the game, as opposed to previous streams that they assumed were existing and entrenched players and fans. LoL does the same thing occasionally - if a big championship appears boring because it is so easy to snowball off an early advantage, some champions and items get nerfed or the rift changes to allow somewhat easier comebacks. Magic can't be changed quite like that on the fly, so they settled for a mulligan change.
I've never really cared about a tron ban, since I mostly play decks that wreck it on a consistent basis. That being said, I do believe this will lead to a B&R announcement of Tron is banned by the end of 2019. Just a straight up "tronlands are banned, its oppressive to the meta in general" announcement. It would not shake up the format. That decision would be a 9.0 richter scale earthquake leaving the metagame cracked in its wake, unleashing mole people or dinosaurs or zombies...but I digress. Usually I would say that things like burn, infect and storm go under tron while allowing midrange and control decks to prey on those fast but fragile combos. However, humans dominates those decks and is as popular as tron.
I will never understand the appeal of LSV or any of those CFB type dudes. Whatever, one more mystery of life.
Its no different from being invested in a sports team, or a particular deck in Magic. People enjoy things more when personally invested in what they are watching, and the literally billions invested/spent in Sports is proof of that. That's all this is.
Anyway, its no conspiracy around the London Mull. They want a more consistent opening hand for people. Fine.
The "conspiracy" is just that Wizards and Hasbro want MtG to become a spectator sport and be competitive in the eGame industry. There's nothing fun about watching a match and knowing a player has lost from their opening hand. They want to keep games exciting for viewers. Yes, they also want casual/FNM players to feel like they have a fighting chance, but it's mostly about the spectators getting a good show.
I mostly agree with the land destruction points. Modern could handle some better land destruction. I am mildly excited by pillage. We do have smallpox, which I use alot. It certainly is a build around card, but it has several synergies and I think it's under played. I don't think we need wasteland, but sinkhole may be doable. It's a bad late game top deck, requires BB and so many decks have such low mana curves that one land destruction spell might not make a huge difference. But alternatively, it is high enough early game impact against several multicolor decks and fights man-lands so well that it would certainly see play. It also sees very little legacy play.
The format doesn't need or want two-mana unconditional land destruction, as it would invalidate many decks and create way more feel-bads in play patterns (similar reasons to why Hymn to Tourach should never be Modern legal).
It could use some more versatile three-mana land destruction, though. Pillage was a fine start, along with the white Beast Within, but Vindicate and/or similar would be very welcome.
Its a fundamentally fair card, and 3 mana is too much for the format. Its cool though, the new Bridge from Below deck looks mighty fair, and should fit right in with Tron, Phoenix, Affinity, and Dredge.
Hymn should be in Modern too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
UW Spirits
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, its not one sided, but I still believe it leans towards helping decks that I would rather not see helped. I dont feel as a non-UW Blue player that I even HAVE inconsistency issues. I mean yes as Dave mentions sometimes if you aggressively mull for something, you get punished. Them's the breaks.
Essentially if a rule change in any way helps the Tron's of the world, I dont want it implemented, and this does.
Spirits
One can complain about this policy, but surely it won't make modern fall.
I personally like the change for what is worth.
Modern:
Let's just hope there will be a good place to discuss all these changes once the meta forms
I will say, though, the time from the Ironworks ban, through the rise of the Looting decks, to the rise of the 3 mana planeswalkers, to the addition of Horizons and lots of new cards, and now this, I'm ready for things to settle down for a bit. Let's have a boring Core Set.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Yes, as of the Core 2020 prerelease.
and honestly, even if this IS a bump to unfair decks, i think i can live with that so long as it's addressed in the long term. it's a fair price to pay for such a powerful tool that will help seriously mitigate the number of games lost to bad opening hands.
the thing is that the rules set the foundation for the game. wizards cant or shouldnt be constrained on iterations and improvements to them because of specific decks or cards. it would just be short sighted to do so. forward progress for the game, even if it means it exposes flaws in some areas, is still forward progress.
i mean just look at what wizards is trying to address; they want to make consecutive mulliganning due to variance less punishing and reduce the number of 'non-games'. from a top-down perspective of the game itself there isnt any argument that i can think of where accomplishing this isnt an improvement.
yeah i have my reservations about what it might do for modern, the decks i personally play or would like to see more of across the table, and the decks to put it frankly i wish were less prominently featured. if the format shifts more towards a direction that i personally think isnt good gameplay, for my own enjoyment or what i think constitutes a healthy/engaging format (ie longevity), then yeah ill be annoyed. any grievances are and would be aimed at the decks and the texture of the gameplay itself, which is a function of the card pool.
for instance if 'unfair' decks gain more, and thus rise up further, thus making interplay and decisions within games seem less important to the outcome; then that is a strike against the responsive tools in the format that inject more decision points, slow down games, and or force more resource exchanges. the london mulligan would just be indirectly causing these flaws to surface. i know this because if it does happen im not going to be wishing the rule change was reversed but instead wish cards were banned, unbanned, or newly designed - just as i always have.
UWGSnow-Bant Control
BURGrixis Death's Shadow
GWBCoCo Elves
WCDeath and Taxes(sold)I see. thanks for the info.
Wondering if combo decks would get stronger with this?
Maybe wotc added Force of Negation and fluster to modern, as a pre-emptive measure against combo decks getting better with the new rule.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
Maybe, though the force cycle would still be useful under the Vancouver Mulligan.
The change isn't going to discourage cheating on the competitive circuit, so I'm really wondering what the long term plan is.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
If I was a betting man, I would say it was done because of LSV mulling to death in the PT Final. It had a lot of viewers, and a lot of bad feels for what was a great run of a fan favorite.
I dont believe its anything more complicated than 'we want a bit less variance at the start, so people can at least get to play the game' unlike LSV, who just lost that one.
Spirits
Not only is it not fun to be the player, it's not particularly fun to watch someone on coverage lose a game due to having to mulligan repeatedly.
Unfortunately, the mana system is so engrained in the game you can't truly fix mana screw. Ideas like giving people guaranteed lands don't work because unlike Hearthstone, the game's balance is based around not being guaranteed to make all your land drops. But they can at least try to make it feel less punishing and not "well, I lost the game before my turn even started", which this mulligan rule is trying to do.
This is silly. There is nothing pure and noble about staring at your no land 5-er and considerig if you go to 4 or just scoop once you identify their deck.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I will never understand the appeal of LSV or any of those CFB type dudes. Whatever, one more mystery of life.
Yes, MtG is trying to gain popularity, and that was the first mythic championship following the explosion of MtG Arena. WOTC probably at least suspects that a significant chunk of viewers either just downloaded Arena or were curious about the game, as opposed to previous streams that they assumed were existing and entrenched players and fans. LoL does the same thing occasionally - if a big championship appears boring because it is so easy to snowball off an early advantage, some champions and items get nerfed or the rift changes to allow somewhat easier comebacks. Magic can't be changed quite like that on the fly, so they settled for a mulligan change.
I've never really cared about a tron ban, since I mostly play decks that wreck it on a consistent basis. That being said, I do believe this will lead to a B&R announcement of Tron is banned by the end of 2019. Just a straight up "tronlands are banned, its oppressive to the meta in general" announcement. It would not shake up the format. That decision would be a 9.0 richter scale earthquake leaving the metagame cracked in its wake, unleashing mole people or dinosaurs or zombies...but I digress. Usually I would say that things like burn, infect and storm go under tron while allowing midrange and control decks to prey on those fast but fragile combos. However, humans dominates those decks and is as popular as tron.
Its no different from being invested in a sports team, or a particular deck in Magic. People enjoy things more when personally invested in what they are watching, and the literally billions invested/spent in Sports is proof of that. That's all this is.
Anyway, its no conspiracy around the London Mull. They want a more consistent opening hand for people. Fine.
Spirits
GWUBRDraft my Old Border Nostalgia Cube! and/or The Little Pauper Cube That Could!RBUWG
Modern:WDeath & TaxesW | RUGRUG DelverRUG
Spirits
It could use some more versatile three-mana land destruction, though. Pillage was a fine start, along with the white Beast Within, but Vindicate and/or similar would be very welcome.
Hymn should be in Modern too.
Spirits