New Mulligan Rule

[Kassow-Rossing]

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.

[Tabris]

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.

[Sturmgott]

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.

[Mythrandir]

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.

[Tiggupiru]

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.

[Nastaboi]

I never shuffle after spoiling in play test and casual games, if that accounts for something.

[Kristian]

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.

[Mythrandir]

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.

[pyyhttu]

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 in Turku.

Last 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.

[Nastaboi]

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.

[Kassow-Rossing]

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.

[Sturmgott]

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.

[Kassow-Rossing]

Case closed

Re-opens in a year or so;)