A.
Definitely.
And both of my HL-playing sons agree with me.
Although the arguments advanced in favor of the other options are mostly logical, I point out the following:
1. The current mulligan rule has been a defining characteristic of the game, and removing it will fundamentally change its identity.
2. Everybody who builds a deck understands the pros/cons of the mulligan, and can therefore choose and design his deck accordingly. In other words, the playing field is already level. (Example: if I am building a slow deck, and I understand that an aggro, or perhaps combo, deck might be too fast against me, I can choose to (a) try a different archetype, OR (b) select more cards that will keep me in the game until my deck starts to click.)
Definitely.
And both of my HL-playing sons agree with me.
Although the arguments advanced in favor of the other options are mostly logical, I point out the following:
1. The current mulligan rule has been a defining characteristic of the game, and removing it will fundamentally change its identity.
2. Everybody who builds a deck understands the pros/cons of the mulligan, and can therefore choose and design his deck accordingly. In other words, the playing field is already level. (Example: if I am building a slow deck, and I understand that an aggro, or perhaps combo, deck might be too fast against me, I can choose to (a) try a different archetype, OR (b) select more cards that will keep me in the game until my deck starts to click.)