Messages

Hi, I'd like to change my deck. if this is still possible this would be my new deck code:
16n9ee88

best regards and gl hf

q365h0jm

peddy_frostulat at cockatrice

HI,
(first i want to excuise if my english is not proper i'm not used to type in english and dont read the green since its offtopic)

I think we have to wait for at least another half year and start with the poll again for a main reason.

The Format hasn't settled yet. My argumentation here is mainly based on my expieriences playing highlander on cockatrice and my LGS and also from the commentary of people with whom i talk about stuff like "hey what do u think about the new highlander meta?" [Which sadly isnt my girlfreind ].
Over the past few month i played about an average of about 10-12 games a week often with recurring opponent over a certain time interval. It was shown (and not few people told so) that many players (including me) are still testing the Format and playing a new deck from week to week. since the community is not that big as it is in dci sanctioned formats it will take more time to evaluate the aftermath of mulligan change for the meta. I dont have exact numbers but it's clearly above 60% of the people I play with that haven't yet found a deck of which they would say it's good as it is right now and even can't say that about the archetype they are playing (that is only true for 0.002% of the RDW players;) ). Based on that I have to disagree with both angles of the discussion going on here. It's not possible to evaluate a restriction of the meta after looking at the last 3 big tounreys nor is it possible to talk about missions like cutting 4-5c aggro beeing accomplished. Neither of those arguments are stable to me.
What at least can be said about the new forming format is that mana issues are a bigger part of the pie as they where pre-mulligan-change. I again can only talk about my cockatrice and LGS expiriences. I imprecisley count the games in which mana issues at least play a significant role and strongly influence the outcome of the game. And from that I can say that the number of those games is about 30-35%. I don't no if its the inability of me building a reasonable mana base (which I think is the most challanging aspect of the formats change) but I can tell you that I'm not airy with manabases. And althought I try everything from 33-42 lands(and believe me in case of highlander 42 is not Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything), statistically proper color break down, copying and  adapting manabases from similar decks, Intuition, etc for almost each deck I want to play seriously it often ends up in the situation that either me or my opponent have those issues. In a Format with a best-of-3-system 30-35% is to much I think. And my Opinion about the Format right now is that althought it is a bit slower and therefore control is an option; and I think that is good, and althought there are the fundamentals of a more variety format with more viable strategies and angles to attack it is sure bit more "coin-flippier" as it was pre-free-mulligan.
If anybodies expirience differs absolutly from mine let me know. (...your secret)
I don't know how to rate this all and won't draw any conclusions hastly. 
I would rather please the Council to reconsider their decission to determine towards one or another mulligan and leave it on the watchlist for another banning season.

greetz
peddy

 

@christophO

Thanks for reply. I'm glad to see that posting in this forum is not for the birds.

1) In my opinion the "free" mulligan is not a valid way to avoid bad hands. You have 7% chance of drawing a specific card in your opening hand, assumed you play exactly 100 cards. Spoiling away cards from your hand while keeping a certain number of them directly increases your chance to add a keycard to your openening hand. For example I spoil away 4 cards I now have 11% chance of hitting a needed card in my opening hand. its like increasing your chance of having a better opening hand. While shipping away the whole hand just allows you to have the exact same chance since you shuffle inbetween and draw 7 out of 100 again.
I agree with you that it is more relevant to consider specific cardchoices addicted to the metagame, and that is not a bad thing by itself. But my argument was more about cards fitting the curve while beeing not as good in a vacuum or cards beeing better in the early game while mostly being dead in the late game. With less chances of having those cards in your opening hands or beeing cut from it there are less agruments of playing them. The adjustet mulligan in g2 and g3 I mentioned last post is something that will cease to exist almost entirely.

2) About the increasing and decreasing of Luck, I agree with you that longer games reduce the impact of flood or screw. But as it not that easy it favors strategies relying on card advantage in a greater extend than tempo based strategies. when games tend to take longer having a dead card in your hand is some kind of different problem if u wanna tempo your opponent out or if u want to have card advantage. While having more chances of hitting a good opening hand/ having a more consistent opening hand, sure makes the format faster overall but supports no game strategy explicit.

3) talking about making decks nearly unplayable is not talking about a disability to adapt decks to the new mulligan. I'm sure that i am able to change my deck in a way to fit but it will be a completly different deck. Off the record-tempo becomes midrange! I was playing a 4-color tempo based deck pre-changes. Of cause I had a greedy manabase (extremly greedy with 28 lands including dryad arbor which isn't really a land) since drawing a land turn 4 and 5 was something that could lose me the game quite easly. Spoils mulligan allowed me to play like this cause I could mull specificly to find lands and in fact I only mulled to find lands. adapting the land base means go from 28 to maybe 35 even in a aggressiv deck like rdw it is hard to go under 34 with new mulligan I think. As you said time will tell, but I'm suggesting thats the case. cutting like 7 times buisness for 7 times dead cards plus the off chance of having good opening hand almost kills the deck on the spot. Sry but thats how it is. From Tier to mere!

thanks for regard
bye
peddy

Hi, I'm ne here and just registered due to a big problem, namely the new Mulligan.
First i want to excuise my bad english. I'm not used to type in this language and hope that even with much of wrong grammer the contents of my post become clear.

  I'm totally upset about the mulligan change from spoils to 1-free-to-paris. I'm feeling like the call for a slower format (thats my only explanation for the changes) is justified but the new mulligan is blindfold. Slow down the format and make decks more inconsistent and cause a slow down accidently are to different things. One thing that bannings and rulings are good for is to regulate a format in the way that good luck or bad luck is minimized. In my opinion the spoils mulligan was mandatory for consitent decks and so for a healthy format in three different ways.
  1.First it replaced the lack of a sideboard while giving the ability to keep cards that are good for a certain matchup in g2 and g3. With the new mulligan you are only able to keep kind of randomly playable hand.
  2.Second the spoils mull was important for Deckconstruction, in the way that it allowed players to build a more focused deck including cards that support the gameplan even without "Value" printed on them. With the new Mulligan its hard to support a card which reads "dead in opening hand" or "I'm part of a toolbox". I claim that a more randomized hand shortens the number of playable cards equalizing shortens the formats variance.
  3.Third is about the gameplay itself. I'm one of those who have fun playing Magic when following case happens: "Awesome! my deck does what it is suppose to do". In a 100 crad singleton format the spoils mulligan was one of the main guarantors helping to achive that case.

Next is about killing all the decks. Highlander is a casual Format and therefore I disagree with a policy of making changes to the format in a way so drastically that certain archetypes become nearly unplayable.
  Decks like for example 5-color aggro or other decks which gameplan it is to cut off the opponent from the lategame are somewhat killed.
  Elves, combo,etc. to mention a few which rely on a good start are tend to be cut off the format. 
  And even "Big Dudes" are are nearly not maindeckable since they doing what a mull to 6 does, cutting a card from your hand. (maindeckalbe? oh yeah brings me to 1. again)Poeple, including me, investet much Money in a deck, which is only for casual gameplay and dont like to come to the conclusion that i investet several hundreds of euros in it for being unplayable now. Thats some kind of a subjective reason, but i don't care cause i'm kind of pissed of .
I'm aware of the fact that banning a single card, like Oath for example would kill an entire archetype too, but i think its a whole new ball game.

To release a Tolaian Academy to a situation like this is somewhat of a dicision i'm not able to reenact. Be consequent and unban jiite too then.

Last point is the Time. Even with the format as fast as it was pre-changes 60min a round was a short amount of time, even without UX-control crawling around everywhere. my prediction: Prepare for more mulligan time, since you will often take several ones. Conceding in a boardsitutaion where you are way behind and have card disadvantage too will become more popular then killing the opponent. Draw's or even 1:0 matches will become more regular in tournaments.

I hope the "council" will reconsider their decision and maybe come to a conclusion to withdraw.
Thanks for regard.
Bye
Peddy