First of all I wish to say: The mulligan rule works fine the way it is. I'm actually quite happy about it.
There is only one minr change I hope you'll consider.
Instead of "rejecting" any number of cards from one of the opening hands, drawing the same number of cards and finally shuffling the rejected cards back into the library I suggest the following:
For one of the (opening) hands during each game only, each player may "reject" any number of cards from his or her hand. They set these cards aside, draw the corresponding number of cards from their deck and, after that, put the set-aside cards on the bottom of their library in any order.
Reasons for the suggestion:
1. Will make game play faster
2a. Has no dis-advantages compared to the shuffling rule
2b. For some decks this new on-the-bottom rule has a few advantages compared to the shuffle-rule but it is - to my best opinion - not anything worth noticing because it will even out in the long run.
3. Even though the cards that would usually be shuffled away now can't be drawn during the first few turns (Variates), it still doesn't change the game. There are so many fetch-lands and other shuffle-effects around in this format, that this change will not have any effect at all after a few turns or less.
Overall speaking it will increase the fun of the format and it won't ruin anything. Will even give the players four-nine minutes (Depending if the game ends in 2-0 or in 2-1 to any of the players AND depending on the players spend two or three minutes shuffling each time) more playing time in the match. That is beneficial for all.
Patrick Kassow, Denmark
Jamie Hyneman declares this myth: plausible.
I often cut corners outside of tournaments by throwing the rejected cards in the middle of the deck, without shuffling. The format is pretty much shuffling from the start to finish, so it's definitely justifiable to make efforts in order to decrease time spent on waving your cards around. This is not very problematic in tournaments as one shuffle per game is not a huge deal, so this can go either way. But this makes casual gaming (or not-so-casual tournament testing) somewhat easier.
So that we can get the ball rolling, I say yes.
Well, IMO, i believe hands should be 100% random, defined by pure probabilies and deckbuilding. But as the mulligan stands right now i really can't see a huge difference between now and what you're suggesting. Since almost every deck packs fetchs, the deck is bound to be shuffled (early on).
Wouldn't complain if they made this little change.
As for casual play, you can simple shuffle them into to middle and cut the deck... no big deal.
Also lol at the Hyneman phrase ;D
When we introduced the mulligan we have spent some time on considering exactly this point. We decided that a player should not have any kind of information about the ordering of his library. That, plus the fact that you cannot draw these cards before you have played a shuffling effect would indeed change things. It might not seem like a big deal but on the other hand we don't think the time-saving effect of this is very relevant either.
I understand the fact that "once the game is started, the library should be randomized for the purpose of drawing unknown cards" or something like that..
But.. I think the game overall would benefit from the change still. Even though the library isn't randomized completely, it's still pretty unknown what you're drawing. All you know is the fact that you're not drawing your Akroma, Angel of Wrath in the first few turns because you've put it on bottom during the mulligan. I think it's fair game because getting that advantage of knowing that (and not drawing it) will not change the outcome of the game at all. And definetely not when both players get this tiny advantage.
The whole point of the "new rule" is to save some time to make the format more fun and to make the games more intense because it gives the players several more minutes of playing time per round. A bonus is worth mentioning too. It's what Mythrandir and Tiggupiru are talking about: If the change will be made, the casual games will be shuffled and mulligan'ed just as sufficiently as the tournament games. There will be no difference in the way people mulligan because putting cards on the bottom is even faster than putter them into the middle of the deck.
I absolutely see no reason not to make the change. I think it will benefit everybody. Tournament players and casual players alike. The tiny advantage of putting some cards temporarily away is really nothing to talk about compared to the minutes saved.
I think I'll UP this because this mulligan idea of mine is highly superior to the one we're using at the moment. I can't see a reason not to change the rules. And I've thought this through for months
I don't think that change in mulliganing should be introduced. The rules for sanctioned tournament clearly states that a deck must be sufficiently randomized when presenting it to the opponent for shuffling/cutting. You have to do that when you're playing competetative. Since the ultimate goal is to get Highlander sanctioned as a format, this rule can't be introduced.
Quote3.8 Card Shuffling
Decks must be randomized using some form of riffle and/or mash shuffle at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.
Once the deck is randomized, it must be presented to an opponent. By this action, players state that their decks are legal and randomized. The opponent may then shuffle it additionally. Cards and sleeves must not be in danger of being damaged during this process. If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge.
Taken from http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/MTG_MTR_1Apr10_EN.pdf.
To make matters clear here, we're not introducing or neglecting to introduce any rules because the DCI says we should, As stated, we see minor gains in terms of time in introducing Kassow-Rossings mulligan-tweak, but that is simply not at all enough to justify deviating from the position "players must not have any knowledge about card positions in any part of their deck before play begins".
Quote from: Sturmgott on 21-04-2010, 09:46:34 PM
To make matters clear here, we're not introducing or neglecting to introduce any rules because the DCI says we should, As stated, we see minor gains in terms of time in introducing Kassow-Rossings mulligan-tweak, but that is simply not at all enough to justify deviating from the position "players must not have any knowledge about card positions in any part of their deck before play begins".
Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?
Kristian's message would be enough for me to drop the case. Sturmgott just adds even more..
Suggestion dropped. Will retry in a year or two :)
Quote from: Kristian on 21-04-2010, 10:05:05 PM
Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?
Yes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also quite sure it'd be a loss in quality of maintenance of the format. E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.
I'm also unsure whether I really want to attract players because HL certainly becomes a "relevant" format. To be honest, I only want to attract those players who play HL because they feel it's the most fun, most diverse and overall best (and also the best-maintained ;) ) format.
And for players, this DCI-rule of sets becoming legal immediately from day one of sales is clearly disadvantageous. It aims at raising profits at the cost of players (who else?). We're not supporting that.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 21-04-2010, 10:19:08 PM
Quote from: Kristian on 21-04-2010, 10:05:05 PM
Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?
Yes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also quite sure it'd be a loss in quality of maintenance of the format. E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.
I'm also unsure whether I really want to attract players because HL certainly becomes a "relevant" format. To be honest, I only want to attract those players who play HL because they feel it's the most fun, most diverse and overall best (and also the best-maintained ;) ) format.
And for players, this DCI-rule of sets becoming legal immediately from day one of sales is clearly disadvantageous. It aims at raising profits at the cost of players (who else?). We're not supporting that.
I'm not disputing the rule itself, I don't mind it. I was just curious :)
Quote from: Sturmgott on 21-04-2010, 10:19:08 PM
Quote from: Kristian on 21-04-2010, 10:05:05 PM
Wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have to let the delayed date for making a new legal set go in case if/when Highlander becomes sanctioned?
Yes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also . E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.
well, i believe "unbearable" is a bit too strong, since the format survived without it. ;) hehe.
Although, it would be nice to have more (sanctioned) tournaments, which would be a consequence of making this an official format, they would probably make this less fun to play IMO, they would change a lot on the banning list, i believe...
This mulligan is hopefully not gonna be seen anywhere or anytime. Its my understanding of magic, that the game includes a random factor. This would be undermined by this procedere. The players SHOULD get the risk in getting the cards back they just "spoiled" away. Besides, the randomization "issue" is also a hard fact which sturmgott just quouted. So I hope we will never see this mulligan in the Highlander format. And ofc even cards which get spoiled away are filling a role in a deck, if a player do not want this card on the opening hand I say he/she have to bear this burden if it appears there. In the highlander format we are allways trying to get enough "answers" or simply good "allround" cards. So the price for this fact is, to get this cards even if you dont want to (e.g. B2B on the opening hand vs a monocoloured deck which gives you the win in some matchups and sometimes simply do nothing (maybe a pitch card for FoW or Misdirection))
so far ~
I'll open my mouth again even though I'm sure this won't have any effect on anything...
Change in mulligan is probably the only thing I'll ever agree with Kassow-Rossing and I too think this would be a solid improvement. Most of the games start with both players fetching a land or something so the decks are shuffled anyway and this could save a vital minute or two during a three game match. Only some monocolored decks would get bigger profit out of this but there aren't really relevant monocolored decks (yes, I think WW is bad and would be better with a splash...)
QuoteYes, but making WotC sanction HL is nothing I personally aim at. It might be a big gain in terms of popularity - but I'm also quite sure it'd be a loss in quality of maintenance of the format. E.g. I'd expect WotC to drop our Mulligan, which is unbearable.
WotC will never make HL sanctioned format either... Format can get WotC support even though they do not maintain it. Support doesn't mean sanctioning and support comes after popularity not vice versa. EDH has its own subforum in Wizards Community and I would really like to see that happen to this HL too. EDH also has different mulligan rule than regular formats so there is no reason why they would or wanted to change this. There are even EDH events organized during PTs and such. That's what I call support, but EDH is mostly a multiplayer format and I guess there would be a demand for a quite similar but more two player oriented format.
If DCI-rules tell something about randomization then so what? This is casual format and not sanctioned so the rules can be tuned to fit better for the format. One thing they would not accept though is the legality of CE and such but that is a totally other case.
QuoteI'm also unsure whether I really want to attract players because HL certainly becomes a "relevant" format. To be honest, I only want to attract those players who play HL because they feel it's the most fun, most diverse and overall best (and also the best-maintained Wink ) format.
And for players, this DCI-rule of sets becoming legal immediately from day one of sales is clearly disadvantageous. It aims at raising profits at the cost of players (who else?). We're not supporting that.
I find it awkward that there are stuff like duals, Library, Portal 3 stuff and Workshop legal and then you are worried about the release date because it would raise costs? It is really, really weird not to follow WotC policy in this since this has so little relevance in highlander. There are maybe a few good cards in a new set for a certain deck and getting a few cards is not very hard and your deck will probably do just fine without the new cards. This is a problem when you have to get 4 Baneslayer Angels for nationals starting the day after the release day, not when your deck might be a little bit better if you can get 1 random kavu or something...I would guess majority of players would just want to play with their new cards and not wait. Maybe a poll or something could be arranged?
Upsides:
1. More time for each player per game and round.
Downsides:
1. The mulligan is already far from a sanctioned mulligan but the "new" one will be even further away.
2. The random factor will be manipulated as long as players don't have a fetch land in the opening hand thus changing the game play.
3. A new rule has to be accepted by a whole lot of people and people will need time to adapt.
Anything else? The above is written in a hurry and I've spend months thinking about this rule. Maybe I'm forgetting something in this moment.
As far as I'm concerned I've dropped the case because the council does not approve of it.
Quote from: so_not on 22-04-2010, 03:20:58 PM
I find it awkward that there are stuff like duals, Library, Portal 3 stuff and Workshop legal and then you are worried about the release date because it would raise costs? It is really, really weird not to follow WotC policy in this since this has so little relevance in highlander. There are maybe a few good cards in a new set for a certain deck and getting a few cards is not very hard and your deck will probably do just fine without the new cards. This is a problem when you have to get 4 Baneslayer Angels for nationals starting the day after the release day, not when your deck might be a little bit better if you can get 1 random kavu or something...I would guess majority of players would just want to play with their new cards and not wait. Maybe a poll or something could be arranged?
I am on "so_not"´s side here. Would agree that most of the time the cards you want for your deck arent the "ZOMG need 4324 Billions copys of this single card" there are more like, Wall of Omens and stuff, which should be included the time wizards release them. A poll would be nice and I would also accept the results.
Since this is a rule we stick to for the players, I'd agree to have the players vote on it. It's just that I don't believe that those people regularly attending the forums are representative for the whole community. I know quite some players who would refrain from participating in a tournament because they don't "have the new cards yet".
Since I seem to be the only one who cares I'll gather some voices from offline players in the next months. If most people don't care or prefer the DCI-style ruling, I won't be in the way of dropping that.
Quote from: Sturmgott on 22-04-2010, 09:53:47 PM
Since this is a rule we stick to for the players, I'd agree to have the players vote on it. It's just that I don't believe that those people regularly attending the forums are representative for the whole community. I know quite some players who would refrain from participating in a tournament because they don't "have the new cards yet".
Since I seem to be the only one who cares I'll gather some voices from offline players in the next months. If most people don't care or prefer the DCI-style ruling, I won't be in the way of dropping that.
Well, i think the biggest downside is the confusion that it may cause from having two different dates, otherwise i'm perfectly fine, since for a long time, this was the previous policy.
In terms of HL when an expansion is out, you'll only get a couple of playable cards (perd deck type..) so, even if player A has access to those cards and player B doesn't, i really don't think it makes that difference, IMO.
I think either way is fine for me, the Wizards policy is obviously clearer and I want to play these cards as soon as possible so I guess I fall in slightly favor of changing it.
It's the TOs who ultimately decide when set "becomes" legal in their tournament, which can cause some confusion if their decision differ from the official date set by council. If Wizards official policy and council's were the same, the said minor confusion is avoided. This also gives the more creative deck builders a chance to shine before anyone else can spot the obvious little gems of the set.
On the other hand there is money issues, but the format itself takes care most of it quite nicely.
All in all, this debate seems a bit silly as I never saw this much of problem, but I guess things get a bit less complicated if the policy is mirrored with the official policy.
And regarding the actual topic: Is there a scenario that causes problems if players have access to the information of the bottom of their deck? I can't think of anything devastating. This information favors (ever so slightly, but still) the better player as well, which is not a bad thing IMO.
This is legimate point against not shuffling when mulliganing if there is a deck that can exploit this in a powerful way.
Whole "to shuffle or not to shuffle" - matter is a minor thing, but I've heard more people complaining about shuffling in this format than people complaining their rotten luck after losing a game. The nature of the decks in the format causes lot of shuffling and there is not much we can do about it, but taking out one per game might give my ears a well needed break from complaints. More time to actually play the game is also kinda cool.
I never shuffle after spoiling in play test and casual games, if that accounts for something.
Quote from: so_not on 22-04-2010, 03:20:58 PM
EDH also has different mulligan rule than regular formats so there is no reason why they would or wanted to change this.
I'd just like to point out that both EDH and Two-Headed Giant allows for 1 free mulligan per player. So there is precedence for alternate mulligan rules in sanctioned formats (compared to the standard paris-mulligan). This mulligan rule does not conflict with the rules about properly randomizing one's deck. A counterarguement could be that this was introduced for multiplayer formats only. But it comes down to what the judges decided to use for those sideevents where EDH has been played 1 on 1.
Quote from: Kristian on 25-04-2010, 02:25:34 PM
Quote from: so_not on 22-04-2010, 03:20:58 PM
EDH also has different mulligan rule than regular formats so there is no reason why they would or wanted to change this.
I'd just like to point out that both EDH and Two-Headed Giant allows for 1 free mulligan per player. So there is precedence for alternate mulligan rules in sanctioned formats (compared to the standard paris-mulligan). This mulligan rule does not conflict with the rules about properly randomizing one's deck. A counterarguement could be that this was introduced for multiplayer formats only. But it comes down to what the judges decided to use for those sideevents where EDH has been played 1 on 1.
This is my idea, of the "best" mulligan rule for HL. Full randomization of initial hand, don't have to show anything (older rule) and no manipulation of the deck (spoils mull). In terms of time, it's the same as the spoils-mull or even better, because probably you won't mull all games.
Just my opinion.
This is mainly a rebuttal for the Patrick's mulligan experiment, which was actually tested in a casual non-rated tournament roughly a week ago (http://vaihdetaan.kapsi.fi/forums/index.php/topic,61763.msg247639.html#msg247639) in Turku (http://hiki.pedia.ws/wiki/Turku).
Quote from: so notLast time we tried a change in the mulligan rule, in where the spoil (poker) mulliganed cards were put on the bottom of the deck instead of shuffling. No one found anything to complain about so I guess we'll continue with the experiment next time as well.
I applaud for the TOs in Turku to test the new mulligan, but there are few things that haven't been mentioned in this thread yet that I'd like to point out.
-Complexity: while the rule change is easy to understand from the players perspective, it raises a few awkward questions: Do I need to present the deck after the mulligan? What if my opponent demands to shuffle/cut my deck anyway? If yes, do all players notice when he cuts the bottom cards back on the top?
Nowadays in the regular level tournaments you have to at least cut your opponent's deck. The competitive level shuffling, on the other hand, is mandatory. While on the competitive level shuffling moots the new mulligan, the regular level cut option not so much. And most of the tournaments are those.
-Coherence: Floor rules and RELs are there for a reason, and I wouldn't personally want to see HL deviating from them any further. Takes us right back to Complexity. Next, see: Loop.
-Prone to cheating: There's a reason why people shouldn't have information of the order of their decks, especially of the bottom most card. As there is no sideboard, metagame card choices are implemented in the main deck, and mulliganing into/away from these cards is a standard tactics in nowaday's HL. Imagine your first thought after you've mulliganed Choke on the bottom and your opponent starts with an Island.
-Favoring certain deck types: Oath players (Patrick, you're an oath player, right?) would love to ensure not to draw into that Progenitus on the couple of first draws. And guys with Hermit Druid would be presented with new options.
Compared these factions to +Less shuffling --> Time save, feels to me irrelevant, especially now that round time was just increased by 10 minutes. But if the experiments turn out, (players like them, judges like them, TOs like them), then maybe. I'd love to try, but would be very cautious.
Fetchland, go. Answers most to these questions. To have an advantage, one has to draw the card he wishes to bottom in first place, which reduces potential advantage to a really marginal one. Also, fetchlands. If you don't shuffle you don't present, simple. Did I mention fechlands? In practice, there is no difference between these mulligan rules except some time save. The question is principal, not practical. I am not totally sold on the new proposed way in principle but in practice I see nothing against it.
Pyyhttu your questions were easily answered by Nastaboi. Your conspiracy theory is way off and a bit childish. The mulligan rule does not really favor any deck. In average it will be the same for everyone. A fetch land breaks all the wrong-ness. Besides fetch lands there are 20 other cards out there who see play all the time. There is no deck without any shuffling effect in Highlander today.
And: I do not play 5-colour Oath any longer. I still find the new mulligan rule way better. The reason not to change: 1. Gets Highlander further away from Wizards rules. 2. A change always takes time with the players.
Please note that this is a purely hypothetical discussion.
We have already decided that the improvement this offers is not big enough to justify a change in the rules here.
Pyythhu summed up alot of the reasons for this - the suggested change will not be introduced.
Case closed :)
Re-opens in a year or so;)