Messages

Finally my Video coverage of the 3rd MGM MetaGameMasters 3 Highlander Turnier: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLr33YHDPHkd64X3hQUFByBDh8pt80E51N

Thx for the coverage.

Unfortunately we see the most boring and one sided final game ever (at least in highlander format).

Basicly running a game one-sided from min 3:30 to the end is a clear signal to me that i dont wanna watch such games neither i wanna play against such a deck.

[4 colored deck]

In my opinion the free mulligan didnt change the meta very successful.

Spoil Mulligan:
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/3232#42112
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/3096#40256
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/4985#66036
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/7490#103336
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/11692#162873 (Finally Land count on a 4 colored deck was down to 31 lands)

Free Mulligan

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/15482#216790
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/18160#256484
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/18746#263935
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/19676#278298

How exactly do you not see any changes to the meta? According to the last tournaments with > 70 players there is a clear shift to sucessfully played 3 color based decks and the comeback of 2 colored based decks - UR- and UW(b) control. That was exactly the reason for the mulligan change. There is now the possibility to play those decks again. These decks were not competive in spoil mulligan meta.

We still have a huge playerbase playing 4c blood (goodstuff) but there are more viable competive control decks these days.

[I'm still not sure whether it was a good decision to change the mulligan, but unlike before I now tend more to "yes" than to "no".]

Doks and I were able to test some hours last weekend. We played UWr-Midrange vs. Creatureless-Esper. Both decks were adjusted to work with the new mulligan. At least we thought that we adjusted our decks

My personal conclusion after the play testing is:

• One thing I really liked was that the variability of the cards was greater as one was not able to spoil useless or semi-useless cards.
• Also there were way more comebacks. As there was just one game in which one of us was able to play the perfect curve, it's easier to win a game even if the opponent has pressure early on. Thus games were not decided in early turns (which is possibly due to the matchup).
• Screw and flood. It happens and it happens more often than with the spoils mulligan. Right now I'm not sure whether it's due to a bad/imperfect adjusting (which I think and hope) or is owed to the new mulligan.
• Games felt more interactive.

I'm still not sure whether it was a good decision to change the mulligan, but unlike before I now tend more to "yes" than to "no".

If u keep adjusting your lists these points will become more viable with each game. I have as much fun with the new mulligan as i didnt have since firesgeddon left the competive area and i would never want the spoil mulligan back.

Especially your last sentence is very important because your first impression was rather bad on the new mulligan. Most ppl who are upset right now didnt even play alot or did adjust their deck wrong. No1 can exspect to build the perfect list in 4 days. A bad deckbuilder has big problems with the new mulligan esp because there are no online lists right now. But if you take your time, play - rebuild, play - rebuild you will have the best time in this format.

I also claim that the skill lvl gets much more important with this mulligan. Everybody can play the perfectly outcurved 5c Aggro but if you have to make decisions you can make faults. Longer games more decisions more fun

i am not unhappy with my list. i am unhappy with the outlook of a more boring metagame. i have made a low curve naya list that looks very good and i don't see how control strategies are supposed to keep up with aggressive low and midrange strategies. i have stated everything before, so i am not gonna repaet it. meta bores me already though. congrats to the council on giving hl a severe push towards 60 card deck ratios and eliminating a good portion of archetypes and playables.

And you figured all that after 2 days. You alrdy know how the metagame will evolve with 0 tournaments played, new season not even started.

What do u know what we dont know?

For me it's not so much the price. For me, it's just the goodstuff. Average card power is rising so fast that actual engine/synergy decks (the type I enjoy playing the most) become harder and harder to build. At some point you just have to ask why are you not casting Karn or playing some relatively narrow, dull Emralolol/Griseltard deck.

I got "frustrated" to the format bc of goodstuff decks too. The new mulligan rule is the best way to make this archetype worse. I started the thread about the mulligan to nerf this archetype. Maybe give the format another try right now.
The toolbox-goodstuff deck will suffer from the new mulligan as most, because u wont be able to shuffle your unneeded toolbox effects simply away. The greedy manabases wont work at all anymore. Goodstuff cards do usually have a very good manacost/effect. The format will be slower by the new mulligan which makes "fun/effect"-cards at higher cc slots much more playable.

[too many high-cost cards]

http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Mulligan

The cost for your spells is also an important factor to consider when performing a mulligan, as a card that costs 2 colored mana can probably not be played by turn 2 unless you have those two lands in your hand, and too many high-cost cards means you won't have much of an opening presence.

If your deck's mana curve focuses more on 2 than 3 or higher, it may be worth the risk to accept a 1-land hand but even that can be a risky proposition should you not get the second land when you need it. You'll also need to be more aggressive with your mulligans when you are taking the first turn, because you won't have as much time to get the lands you need.

---

If we dont have these drawbacks from the regular mulligan we see what happens. Aggro dominating meta, Greedy manabases.....................................................

btw. personally I've never gone down to 5 before taking spoils - ever tried free mulligan?

I never had to go to 5 in my testgames with free mulligan so far. Since the game is slower anyway you r kinda not even lost by going down to 6.

Perfect spoil mulligan curve for player A vs a failed spoil mulligan down to 6. Guess who wins the match.

Hoffmann / Dennis / Germany / via board (meeting point or pm)

I'm going to do some testing in the near future with the free mulligan rule and tell you what I think of it.

I think this is very hard to do. It was much easier to try out the spoil mulligan 2007 than the other way around. Pretty all lists are designed with spoil mulligan in mind and you have to do major changes not only adding lands. Futhermore i think its hard to find opponents who run lists designed for the new mulligan.

Can you explain how you gonna run your testings?

Can you give us some decklists so other ppl dont need to build a proper list and can instantly run testings too?

(I did test decklists from 2005-2007 - http://www.magicplayer.org/?id=decks - adapted them to better slots from today and tested with them and it felt pretty good but these decks are surely no tier decks today anymore so im curious how you gonna proceed)

[or]

i really agree with wolf and entenmagier here. as i said, there is a very vocal minority, seemingly frustrated, screaming for change. you guys are using many, many words, amounting to very long posts, without being very convincing. just feels uncalled for and endless.

You ask ppl here to explain their reason for a change, now you judge them for doing so because they take the time to explain it to _you_ since you are the only one who doesnt even get the reasons behind. Not convincing? 50% dont like the spoil mulligan otherwise they would vote for it or would vote A or B like the majority did with option B and C. And all ppl against the spoil mulligan have the same thoughts and they ARE reasonable.

50% is no minority. Mathematics is not your strength. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrheit Read this to understand the meaning of the word.

I dont see any1 scream here everybody writes his opinion and thats what this forum is about. Maybe its time for you to simply accept other opinions and let it go. Im totally fine that half of the ppl do like the spoil mulligan. I have no problem if we keep that mulligan. I dont judge their opinions like you do. Think about how you speak about the guys for a change like their voice has no value. Even _IF_ it would be a minority they have all rights in this world to state their opinion.

No doubt you agree with wolf.

[werden verschiedene Deck mehr als andere davon beeinflusst und gepushed]

Firestarter

QUINTESSENZ:
verschiedene Deck profitieren unterschiedlich vom neuen Mulligan. gehen wir mal einfach nur auf den wichtigsten vorteil der verschiedenen decks ein:

Aggrodecks legen konstant die curve.

aggrocontrolldecks legen ein tier in runde 1-2 und protecten dieses mit countern

Stax legt immer curve und hat häufiger armageddon oder dicken carddraw

Controlle schafft es sein mana zu fixen. (Immerhin!)

TPS schafft ein gesundes Verhältnis von Combopieces und manaacceleration. tötet konstanter denn je runde 4 (erfahrungswerte vom singleplayerspielen auf MWS)

Also, kommt der Spoilsmulligan, werden verschiedene Deck mehr als andere davon beeinflusst und gepushed. Ich hoffe inständig, dass ihr euch das mit diesem Fremdkörper im Magic nochmal überlegt.

Well done Firestarter. And this with only 50 games.

[carefully]

Well there is a world outside of berlin believe it or not. And Berlin is for sure not more or less important for the meta than ANY other city.

I dont see where i wrote that decks only run 27-29 lands. Reread.

I dont see where i wrote that control doesnt exist anymore, futhermore i posted even links to the most recently played lists. Reread.

Your statement about miracle spells is ridiculous. Recheck the lists i posted, recheck rdw, play these cards again, reread my statement carefully respond here again.

[Some cards are simply not designed for a spoil mulligan.]

3) ,,A simplified mulligan rule will slow down games." – HOW?

The format would be even better without the stupid spoils mulligan which neglects proper deckbuilding. Look, achieving results is always a question of risk & reward. Playing many powerful cards (with a similiar aim) is the reward in MTG terms. Not being able to cast them ist the risk (because you play to few lands or too many colors). The spoils mulligan gets rid of many many problems on the risk side of magic shifting people even further towards the reward side to stay ahead of the competition.

This is the main argument for me. With the spoil mulligan you maniplualte this aspect of magic to much in my opinion.

For Example: You choose to run natural order + progenitus or miracle cards (Very strong, very rewarding if you pull it off but a huge disadvantage on your starthand). The spoil mulligan even improves these cards since you denie their greatest disadvantage. Without the spoil mulligan you are FORCED to play more cards like "brainstorm, scroll rack, Lat-Nam's Legacy etc to avoid their disadvantage. Actually you only consider brainstorm and jace 2.0 because the % to draw them after you spoiled them away is extremly low. Some cards are simply not designed for a spoil mulligan. Everybody knows how annoying a miracle card on starthand would be or if it is your first draw. Thats how they got designed! Great reward, high risk. I could name a ton other cards which get even better just because of this mulligan and the mulligan denies their designed disadvantage.

I also agree that magic should not be about starting with 6 or less cards because you did not have a land. But seriously if you only run 27-29 lands thats the price to pay. If you run 35-37 lands you rarely have to mulligan to 6 because of no land. But option B) would perfect fit even this issue. For me its just about not manipulating your starthand with a mulligan by putting x away.

Another point i want to mention: I dont see how you can run "more cards" because of a lower landcount.

First of all control decks CANT abuse the low landcount:

We got PW-Control, 2x UW-Control, Captain America

http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/13213#185327
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/13118#184171
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/12976#182142 (2 artifact lands->35)
http://www.mtgpulse.com/event/13102#183937

So about that argumentation the greedy 3-5c aggro versions profit from the argument of playing more cards. I dont think we need a mulligan that even pushes these builds.

Lets sum it up:

1) The land count gets exploited by aggro decks to run more cards, control decks cant play more cards.
2) 3-5c decks are superior to other color combinations because they never have to fear color screw. They can run superior card quality, while the main advantage of a 2 color decks would be the constancy but the spoil mulligan makes this advantage available for 3-5 colors decks.
3) Perfect curves for aggro/aggro control each game (how many times do YOU miss a 1 drop playing these decks?)
4) Some cards lose their designed disadvantage on the starthand

C) No more cheating for land count, aggro decks no longer have - or need to have - perfect curve every game.

This and what i wrote in my thread.

After more thinking, i think B) is the best solution. B > C > A.

I think we need to avoid "no land" punishments from C and avoid a cheated land count/perfect curve from A.

My favorite card of the set for highlander is Obzedat's Aid

I totally like to reanimate planeswalkers or stuff like decree of silence.

I agree on blood baron i think he is aweseome, finally a nice creature with the best protections in this format. Only flametongue kavu is his real enemy atm.

Just some short statements regarding your points Lash:

The mentioning of "I had never a t2 oath" is not an argument for anything I just wanted to show (as I already said) that my deck is a heavy control deck which CAN win w/o Oath and the card alone is not the only thing which helped me win the tournament. If I remember correctly every T8 participant made a mistake which lead to a loss (since the UW and Bant players are friends of mine, they told me what tend to their losses) also my opponents in QF and SF did make some mistakes which lead to their defeat (well one could argue that the BBE decission was not a mistake but more a high risk/high reward play).

I dont see the relation of this post and my statement. Who said your deck can only win with oath? Which oath list cannot win without oath? Why is this matter important at all? (Many questions but i dont get it right now)

Besides that, Patrick played a huge variance of decks. At the DM he played a Bant Ramp deck with Upheaval + Sorveigns of lost Alara before that he had a 4c Toolbox deck since the last GP he choose an aggro control deck, so saying hes playing the same deck over and over is not true. He switched from midrange to ramp to aggro control and back again (sure they all have a 4c greed mana base + some pet cards but they differ in many ways and their approachs)

http://www.mtgpulse.com/search#[byplayer=Patrick%20Richter]

Thats for 2 years. The concept does not change. Cards always change in time, splashing does change in time. What he does is adapting his deck to the meta (very efficient). I doubt he would ever run UW control on a GP. Hope this helps you to understand my purpose of this example. Btw it was not a negative statement about patrick. It shows his skill to reanimate his deck perfectly for each meta but thats what goodstuff is about, isnt it? And he does it tight.

I would rather see a statement from you about the important parts of my post.