Thoughts about the current HL-Situation

[berlinballz]

this whole discussion has been quite interesting. if this was a democratic vote, the winner would be clear, but also most should be happy and seemingly half of the voters think, they might be happier with a new mulligan.
what i would definately like to do is thank the council members for their time and willingness to be council members. it's great to have a council.

last statement from my side to this is the following:
i'm open to trying a new mulligan, even though i think A works and makes the format great. if we try new, we can always go back.
if we do B though, i believe some critical things will happen:
- there will be a lot of mulligans, meaning more pile 100card shufflin and less time to play, each game
- there will be more frustration from having to go down to 6 or less
- each player will have to take out 5-7 nonland cards, meaning we will probably see less different cards (or more + less powerful ones if multicolor loses)
- high cmc spells will have to be reduced, likely helping aggro and likely reducing the number of playables and variety of cards in the meta

[ChristophO]

I would also thank everybody for the discussion. More importantly the councils most important job is de mediate between all players and keep the format strong.
I would very much like to try out option B, but I think it would be important to do a tutorial for cmc, curve, and land slots including a few deck examples so that people
do not have to start blind.

It might also be fun to do an online "deck auction" type tournament, where 8 different archetypes are prepared by interested people, followed by a quick best of 3 or 5 for the top spot.
Afterwards there should/could be a discussion about how the decks worked out etc. Might be fun.

My predictions:
- Since there wont be any spoil mulligans, game time will not decrease (you have to wait for the player on the draw finishing shuffling after the spoils mulligan).
- While less spells/more land will be played all spells played will acutally be used, whereas now some cards are never spoiled away and others always limiting card variety on the board.
- 4c decks without green fixing or artifact mana sources will be a thing of the past (Yes!).
- while curves will have to be adapted games will be less volatile and openings less powerful giving control decks more time to find answers resulting in slower paced games where player skill will have a bigger impact than it has now.   

[MMD]

Funny enough, alot of newer Trading Card Games use a system similar to the one you ironically suggested.
Simply because literally every Resource system is better than the one used in Magic.
You should try some other TCGs  in order to get a better understanding how TCGs work and which way they are actually fun
before you suggest Rule changes to the HL Format.
The spoils Mulligan improves the resource system of Magic, don`t get me wrong i love Magic ofc, but the game has it´s flaws and removing an obvious improvement is just a no go.

On a side note:

If you guys really just can`t be friends with the spoils Mulligan just go play Commander instead, it has your favorite mulligan so why you argue all the time?

I know. I played a lot of different TCG´s in my life and play Magic since nearly two decades now, so don´t tell me I should try before I suggest something. Also don´t tell me to play another format when I don´t like the spoils mulligan. Why don´t you play Spoils TCG, then? Is this the requested argument level? I don´t think so.

Also you simply argue from a wrong initial status. When we argue about any rule change we should always refer to the official rules of the game (certainly taking into account all other special rules also in effect). So in this case we should be very careful to balance changes done to the official mulligan rule and not to the Spoils mulligan because everything WotC does refers to the official mulligan as well (see Miracle mechanic for example).

Again, spoils mulligan goes over-the-top and degenerates the format where a Free Mulligan would (predominantly) improve it. Even if we use the official mulligan, the game itself cannot be worse than any other official magic format. But I agree there is something we could and should improve because I also think that the official mulligan rule is a weak spot in this game.

A majority of players is for the spoils mulligan simply because it's the right thing to do. Now accept it and move on. More crying won't make your statements more legit.

So you still don´t get it. Roughly 50% of the community would like to change our mulligan rule. I certainly cannot speak for them but I am quite sure most of them would better play with any other provided mulligan option than with the spoils mulligan. Also this is a decision of the council not of the majority of this poll. Don´t you think there are more HL players or wannabees out there which will not attend on this poll at all?

i'm open to trying a new mulligan, even though i think A works and makes the format great. if we try new, we can always go back.
if we do B though, i believe some critical things will happen:
- there will be a lot of mulligans, meaning more pile 100card shufflin and less time to play, each game
- there will be more frustration from having to go down to 6 or less
- each player will have to take out 5-7 nonland cards, meaning we will probably see less different cards (or more + less powerful ones if multicolor loses)
- high cmc spells will have to be reduced, likely helping aggro and likely reducing the number of playables and variety of cards in the meta

Thank you very much for your constructive post. I think we had to find a certain level before we could argue here. I really appreciate this and there is not sarcasm hidden in this sentence.

Initial feedback to your doubts regarding a Free mulligan:

Shuffling:
Please explain your doubts in more detail. Nearly everyone takes a Spoils mulligan nearly every time and has to shuffle afterwards. Not everybody will use the Free mulligan and can start to play immediately. IMO the chance that one or even both player don´t mull/shuffle is higher with the Free Mulligan rule.

Mulligan to 6:
If you increase your land count appropriately to the mulligan rule you should not take more "real mulligans" than with the Spoils mulligan. Also if you have to mull blindly to 6 you will have a higher chance to find enough lands to play the game.

Card diversity:
Ask yourself how often do you effectively play with your worst drop within each casting cost in your current deck. I am quite sure that when you draw it in your opener you quite often dismiss it because there is simply a better card in your hand for this CC and you want to get a better chance to hit more powerful spells with your Spoils. With Paris or Free mulligan mostly every non screw/flood hand will be accepted. So you will most likely keep a hand with two cards with the same CC and function but with  a different power level. So even if you have more spells in on your deck today I made the experience that the games are quite often played with the same cream of the crop cards. I have the strong feeling that the "perceived diversity" will be quite similar or even better with a Paris/Free mulligan rule.

Sure, you have to cut some spells, but you will see the "2nd row" spells more often because you have to keep a mediocre starting hand and/or because some people decide to run a 2C version instead a 3-4C one. I try to give an example: Probably Silverblade Paladin will  not be good enough for your Aggroish Bant deck (in this case it could be both, an overflowing CC3 slot and not enough mana fixing for three main colors without Spoils) but it is still a perfect card in a GW Maverick build which may become a new Tier1 deck. With Maverick seeing more play, perhaps cards like Scryb Ranger will see more play again which you will keep on your opener together with your Tarmogoyf because you have 3 lands on it. And so on...


Less high cmc spells, strengthening aggo:
Without Spoils it will be more difficult to curve out and play low land counts and this should at most benefit control, not aggro. If the game slows down you will have more time to play your high cmc spells. The only downside is that you cannot refuse these cards easily on your opener so you must take care to build a deck with a perfect mana curve to avoid double/high cms cards on your starting hand also because you certainly still want to curve out but without help of the Spoils. I have the impression that you have to take care about your amount of high cmc spells today as well because of the "perfect curve" aggro decks could have and you need to keep the pace with them. I doubt there will be less high cmc spells in our format with another mulligan rule, just a better mix inside of a deck.



Btw, interesting to see that NRW and BW is more or less the other way around in comparison to the discussion from 2007.

[Ball.Lightning]

Hello everyone,
I realy don't understand why is everyone so obcessed, by cheating land count, or lower land count, that should be present in the deck. First of all, lands are usually not the only one source of mana that is in the deck. I have never seen here, that artifact mana was counted, or mana "elves" were taken into acount. Also blue deck has some sort of early turns fixation, that enables smooth the draws.... Lands are important, but crying about less 2-3 lands in the deck is pointless.

We should be gratefull to accually be able to cast our stuff, not to constantly complain about it. Screw factor is possible no matter how many lands you play. Increased chance to accually be able enjoy the game is worth it - ie NOT regular mulligen.

Highlander IS NOT limited. I have the feeling, that there are some players, that would like to turn HL to that. We can play the broken / very powerfull cards. Constant complaining about that someone ocasionaly lost to this card or that card is just crying out of place. Opponent will not play cards that help you. You have to be ready for what can happen or loose. Magic is quite merciless game. There is accually no place for rules - players cant play any PW until turn 5. Or you can't reanimate Iona on turn 2... etc. 

On Good stuff - do you realy want to play bad cards(I mean bad stuff decks) and call it day? Of course not. HL council does not print new cards and has no powers over this. So we are very dependent on what wizards print. Powerfull cards will continue to be printed and it is not possible to ban them all. Complaing about the fact, that someone plays good cards is pointles. You can't force your oponent to play bad cards just for your convinience.

Good stuff cards can be replaced by less powerfull cards that produce synergy. But this is singleton format. It is not that easy to put together syngergistic deck (tribal deck, storm combo, hulk, high tide, oath...) There is high risk that opponent manages to break source of synergy and you get stuck with set of not that great cards and loose probably.

For those, who keeps complaining about number of colors that decks contains. Look at other formats? Are there realy that many monocolor decks around in other formats? There are not. So why should HL be any different? Unless there is strong oposition of nonbasic hate, there is not that big reason not to play more colors. You have to be still sincere with your manabase and do not to exagerate.

Our group played old variant of mulligen two years after spoiler mulligen was introduced. And gues what was the best deck around? 5c agro accelerated with mana dorks. It was the best deck even though there we had starting life 25 for some time. Second best deck of that era was Protean hulk (it was harder for opponent to interupt combo plan), next deck that had high percentage was some sort of 4c control. So not exactly what you call 1color or 2color decks.

Enjoy!

[W0lf]

@mmd
You say that 50% of the community wants to change the mulligan rule but can you give proof that, if given a choice, anyone that voted b or d would prefer option c over a? Can you give proof that anyone who voted d would prefer b over a?
Well i cannot and so do you.

There were 4 options to choose from and a mayority picked a, that's all. It does not neccesarily imply that everone who voted different wants the mulligan abolished by all means.

You said that you feel cheated on by players who drop their land count and use the spoils mulligan to improve they hands in a way that by your logic was never wanted.

Well if you feel cheated on this is your personal problem and not mine nor a problem of the community.

And i will say it again, if you really feel betrayed by your opponents and/or the game rules there are plenty other formats for you to choose from and play.

And your assumption everyone should feel cheated on just because you do, well you know, that's kinda narrow minded.

Anyway i would play in your testing tournament and see how it works out christophO.

[GoblinPiledriver]

Sure a few are unsatisfied by the Spoil-Mulligan. But I doubt that a change to a Free Mulligan would satisfy more people. The hard paris-muligan would only lead to uncontrollable hands and so to less interactive games. More lands and cheaper cards would be played to guarantee that at least something can be played from hand.

If the council thinks that the amount of heavy multicolored decks is too high, then it's neccesary to ban a few of this always played cards just because they dominate the Meta. And so there will be more space for underplayed cards. Even if this cards don't win on their own and could be hited by removal.

I think it's time to think about the ban of never before banned cards:
Eladamri's Call -- This card is ominpresent in all GW+XXl decks it's by far stronger than Worldly Tutor.
Tarmogoyf       -- This creature is the biggest creature for 2 mana. With it in the meta all decks are more likely to play green.
Natural Order   -- A card which brings another card onto the board is always dangerous, espescially if no cost limit is printed on it. NO brings usually Primeval Titan, which needs to be removed immediately, otherwise the game is seemly over.
Demonic Tutor   -- This card was always too cheap, with Demonic Tutor most searched cards can be played in the same turn.
Oath of Druids  -- The ultimative control card. Is it a good idea for a control deck to play a big creature which can be countered or removed? If the control deck plays Oath then it has plenty of mana for being reactive. The relation of spended mana and game impact is in this card just hillarious.
Mana Drain   --  Counter something and play a big spell in the next turn. This move was always crucial.

[EntenMagier]

As we lack of sideboarding, the spoiler mulligan is the best way to get rid of unnecessary cards in certain matchups, e.g. Back to Basics against WW or RDW. This is especially true for games 2 and 3.

If you want to use your spoiler mulligan for different strategies, e.g. reducing your land count, I am totally fine with that.

In fact I don't understand the problem anyway. Highlander IS a diverse format with lots of viable Deck Archetypes. You CAN play aggro, you CAN play midrange, you CAN play combo and even control is played to a significant amount.

I dislike the idea of using the banhammer on every "maybe-dominant-card" like Oath or Hermit Druid. IMO these are just engine cards which get a deck built around them. Those engine cards exist in other healthy formats like Modern (Pod)or Legacy (Dream Halls/ Omniscience or Ad Nauseam e.g.) so why ban this type of cards in Highlander? I can see no particular reason for banning all of them except: "I don't want to loose to engine cards (whining)!" In every constructed format you play sideboard cards against certain engines. You are capable of doing so in Highlander, too. Natural Order is weak against Shadow of Doubt or Aven Mindcensor, there are plenty of disenchant-like cards for Oath and Hermit Druid is a 1/1 creature and therefore vulnerable to every removal spell... I bet you can think of many more examples.

Spoiler Mulligans help finding those cards (Disenchant against Oath) or getting rid of them (Disenchant against RDW)

[berlinballz]

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.

[LasH]

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.

[W0lf]

You don't judge opinions?
What else did You just do to him ?

Start to make sense please.

[Nastaboi]

People who have argued against spoils mulligan have had thoughtful reasoning and well constructed arguments. People arguing for spoils mulligan have mostly had ad hominem arguments (you are just frustrated, noisy minority) or are just touting status quo (just because it is the right thing to do). There are pros in spoils mulligan, but you can definitely do better than tell the opposing side to shut up.

Removing spoils mulligan would push average casting cost to up, not down. See my UWb control deck for example. Right now I am forced to run all sorts of cheap stuff (Mana Tithe, Mental Misstep) just to keep up pace with other decks. I have total 3 five-drops and one six-drop in a dedicated control deck, as I need every other card to be alive until I hit my fifth land drop. Without spoils mulligan, decks won't have sick curve every game, and you can miss plays and still not fall too much behind.

Have you played Zendikar draft? There, if you missed either land drop or creature drop turn 2-6, you lost, plain and simple. Sounds familiar? It is widely considered as one of the worst limited enviroments ever.

With regular mulligan, you might go to six more often than now. But with spoils mulligan, if you spoil and fail to find your second land or second spell, going to random six against opponent's stacked seven is so much worse. With just regular mulligans, going to six is nowhere near end of the world like it's now.

And for the record, I'd take happily take change to free mulligan rather than keep the spoils. Free mulligan can even be better than just regular one, but both are in my books better than keeping spoils.

[phyrexianblackmetal]

Card diversity:
Ask yourself how often do you effectively play with your worst drop within each casting cost in your current deck. I am quite sure that when you draw it in your opener you quite often dismiss it because there is simply a better card in your hand for this CC and you want to get a better chance to hit more powerful spells with your Spoils. With Paris or Free mulligan mostly every non screw/flood hand will be accepted. So you will most likely keep a hand with two cards with the same CC and function but with  a different power level. So even if you have more spells in on your deck today I made the experience that the games are quite often played with the same cream of the crop cards. I have the strong feeling that the "perceived diversity" will be quite similar or even better with a Paris/Free mulligan rule.

Sure, you have to cut some spells, but you will see the "2nd row" spells more often because you have to keep a mediocre starting hand and/or because some people decide to run a 2C version instead a 3-4C one. I try to give an example: Probably Silverblade Paladin will  not be good enough for your Aggroish Bant deck (in this case it could be both, an overflowing CC3 slot and not enough mana fixing for three main colors without Spoils) but it is still a perfect card in a GW Maverick build which may become a new Tier1 deck. With Maverick seeing more play, perhaps cards like Scryb Ranger will see more play again which you will keep on your opener together with your Tarmogoyf because you have 3 lands on it. And so on...

I don't quite get this argument. Sure, you don't keep cards that are worse against the opponent you're playing against, but you don't always play against the same deck. For example, I play a Mono Black Aggro Deck. I have three 3-drops in my opening hand: Geralf's Messenger, Vampire Nighthawk and Lifebane Zombie. I only want to keep one, but which one I keep depends on the machup. Obviously I won't keep the Lifebane Zombie against RDW, in which case the Vampire Nighthawk would be the best option. Against a heavy white or green deck, I would keep the Zombie though. Against control, I keep the Messenger, as it has the highest damage potential and can survive removal. You see, it's not like one of these 3-drops is inherently better than the other two. It's not like I will always keep one of them above all the others. It's the same with other decks too. In a Highlander Deck, there are not really "second row" spells, instead each spell serves a distinct function. If your opponents keep playing the same cards against you, it's because they are best against your deck. However, against other decks they might keep other cards.

Also, why does nobody here acknowledge that spoiling some cards does not always make your hand better? It can actually make it worse. Spoil two spells that are ok but not strictly necessary at the beginning of the game - draw a land and a 6-drop. Spoil 3 spells that you can't play before turn 3 - draw 3 lands. Spoil a card that you can't play because you don't have the right color of mana necessary - draw a land of that color. The spoil mulligan does not prevent mediocre hands. It might make them less likely, but they still occur. I would even argue that in roughly 40% of the cases, the "perfect curve" that some people opposed to spoil-mulligan bring up time and time again does not happen, despite the spoil-mulligan.

It's also not like one player is allowed to use the spoil mulligan and the other isn't. If both players hit the "perfect curve", where is the problem? In that case, the game is still perfeclty competitive. Falling behind in these games does not necessarily mean that you will lose either. I have won many games in the past where I had technically fallen behind, yet managed to turn the game because I drew the right card at the right time or my opponent made a mistake. I also lost a lot of games where I was far ahead because of removal, a last-minute topdecked combo or a mistake on my behalf. The game is not only defined by your opening hand, player skill and luck still matter.

[MMD]

I don't quite get this argument. Sure, you don't keep cards that are worse against the opponent you're playing against, but you don't always play against the same deck. For example, I play a Mono Black Aggro Deck. I have three 3-drops in my opening hand: Geralf's Messenger, Vampire Nighthawk and Lifebane Zombie. I only want to keep one, but which one I keep depends on the machup. Obviously I won't keep the Lifebane Zombie against RDW, in which case the Vampire Nighthawk would be the best option. Against a heavy white or green deck, I would keep the Zombie though. Against control, I keep the Messenger, as it has the highest damage potential and can survive removal. You see, it's not like one of these 3-drops is inherently better than the other two. It's not like I will always keep one of them above all the others. It's the same with other decks too. In a Highlander Deck, there are not really "second row" spells, instead each spell serves a distinct function. If your opponents keep playing the same cards against you, it's because they are best against your deck. However, against other decks they might keep other cards.

Giving a general answer to the  three drop question is nearly impossible without knowing the rest of your hand, the expected metagame etc. but I try (based on my experiences). If you have no clue what kind of deck your opponent plays you should keep the most powerful card based on your own deck strategy, which will be Geralf's Messenger, then. Certainly, if you are on the draw in an aggro meta Vampire Nighthawk could be your bet...Nothing is written in stone, except there will ALWAYS be a best card, considering all available factors.

As soon as you know your opponents deck your decision will be easier and to be honest, you are nearly always aware of the deck you play against. At first we have G2(+3) but also many people spy on the tournaments to get an information advantage. When you know you are playing against Maverick, the best card in your hand is Lifebane Zombie and you will spoil away the other two. Nearly everybody spys for a good reason, such as I. The advantage you get from  knowing your opponents deck in G1 would be reduced with a new mulligan rule as well as you have less possibilities to sculp your starting 7. When you have these three cards on hand with a non-Spoil Mulligan (together with sufficient lands) you will most likely keep them all, so you will play with your Lifebane Zombie more often in your life than always dismissing it in favor of e.g. Geralf´s Messenger.

There are also a lot of cards in our decks which have the same purpose but have another power level. If you have both of them in your hand you will always choose the better one (e.g. Wild Nacatl/Savannah Lions) and dimiss the other. This will not be he case with a non-spoil mulligan in general.

Also, why does nobody here acknowledge that spoiling some cards does not always make your hand better? It can actually make it worse. Spoil two spells that are ok but not strictly necessary at the beginning of the game - draw a land and a 6-drop. Spoil 3 spells that you can't play before turn 3 - draw 3 lands. Spoil a card that you can't play because you don't have the right color of mana necessary - draw a land of that color. The spoil mulligan does not prevent mediocre hands. It might make them less likely, but they still occur. I would even argue that in roughly 40% of the cases, the "perfect curve" that some people opposed to spoil-mulligan bring up time and time again does not happen, despite the spoil-mulligan.

This is true. But I don´t understand this as an argument pro Spoils mulligan. IMO this is even more a problem of it. What happens if your Spoil worsens your starting 7 or you fail to build your own curve with it? You will most probably have a very hard time to answer the curve of your opponents because the probability the opponent will curve is increased with the Spoils mulligan. It gets even worser if you have to take a ,,blind 6" as already said.

It's also not like one player is allowed to use the spoil mulligan and the other isn't. If both players hit the "perfect curve", where is the problem? In that case, the game is still perfeclty competitive. Falling behind in these games does not necessarily mean that you will lose either. I have won many games in the past where I had technically fallen behind, yet managed to turn the game because I drew the right card at the right time or my opponent made a mistake. I also lost a lot of games where I was far ahead because of removal, a last-minute topdecked combo or a mistake on my behalf. The game is not only defined by your opening hand, player skill and luck still matter.

This is also true.  But it is just a question of  probability. With Spoils the chance is reduced to ,,fight back" if you do not answer the curve because it is more likely that you opponent will have one. There are certainly many situations where the game turned around due to different factors but it is simply less likely with the Spoils mulligan because the corridor is much smaller (see Zendikar example from Nastaboi).

[haju]

Has anybody tried out option B or C? Right now the only thing I see are theoretical(?) arguments based on the personal opinion regarding this topic. I personally think that the arguments for A are more important for a fun and healthy format but maybe I'm wrong because I haven't tested the other options.

Currently the situation seems to be in some kind of deadlock. Wouldn't it be way better to test what's better instead of writing walls of text here. Because I think right now it's not possible to convince anybody with arguments based on assumptions and personal opinion.

[W0lf]

I played with normal mulligan before the spoils mulligan was introduced. Decks like mono red and ww had been the strongest.
If you want to play rdw vs ww all day long, go for it.