London Mulligan starting with M20 release

[WWolfe]

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/london-mulligan-2019-06-03

[MonteTribal]

Oh look at those prices in the coming months!

^ Tron
^ Narset Cannon
^ Dredge
^ Leylines
^ Serum Powder
^ combo/storm probably

[Soren841]

That's pretty false. Idk if you read up on the results of the event (idk what kind of event it was.. stupid rebranding), tron/combo didn't suddenly destroy everything. Basically fuck you Reddit I was right and the Modern subreddit needs to take hella chill pills

[Morganator 2.0]

Previously on Deckstats...

I'm not sure how I feel about this but won't know until I've tried it.

Though not as extreme, I see this having the same issue as the Partial Paris mulligan; it favors combo decks, and combo decks don't need to be favored.

With my Grenzo deeck, I'd mulligan down 3 to put my best creatures on the bottom all day long.

They may have to add on a "shuffle at the end" clause to prevent such shenanigans.

I suspect that if the formal mulligan rule for Magic is changed to London, that EDH will adopt it.  At least at first.  If it causes problems, they may change it later.

I assume that in multi-player the first mulligan would still be "free".

It won't really be relevant in casual EDH so they'll use it.

It's said by critics MtG got Problems with consistent mana flow. London Mulligan could fix this problem a bit imo.
I agree with "shuffle at the end".

It is going to be interesting to see if the rule is 1st implemented at first into other formats and interesting to see how it is implemented in EDH. I do like the premise and idea though behind this mulligan, sculpting your hand so you at least can play something.

I think it should mostly just be used for competitive events, as that way it becomes less about luck and more about skill, which is important when playing for thousands of dollars.

But at FNM, your just playing for packs. So it's fine if there's a bit more chance involved with that.

[WWolfe]

My EDH playgroup had planned on trying this out once but we didn't end up doing so. Maybe we'll try this weekend.

[ApothecaryGeist]

I will definitely be building Grenzo and abusing the crap out of the mulligan  ... until they hopefully fix that loophole.

[Red_Wyrm]

Previously on Deckstats...

I'm not sure how I feel about this but won't know until I've tried it.

Though not as extreme, I see this having the same issue as the Partial Paris mulligan; it favors combo decks, and combo decks don't need to be favored.

With my Grenzo deeck, I'd mulligan down 3 to put my best creatures on the bottom all day long.

They may have to add on a "shuffle at the end" clause to prevent such shenanigans.

I suspect that if the formal mulligan rule for Magic is changed to London, that EDH will adopt it.  At least at first.  If it causes problems, they may change it later.

I assume that in multi-player the first mulligan would still be "free".

It won't really be relevant in casual EDH so they'll use it.

It's said by critics MtG got Problems with consistent mana flow. London Mulligan could fix this problem a bit imo.
I agree with "shuffle at the end".

It is going to be interesting to see if the rule is 1st implemented at first into other formats and interesting to see how it is implemented in EDH. I do like the premise and idea though behind this mulligan, sculpting your hand so you at least can play something.

I think it should mostly just be used for competitive events, as that way it becomes less about luck and more about skill, which is important when playing for thousands of dollars.

But at FNM, your just playing for packs. So it's fine if there's a bit more chance involved with that.

Someone has too much time if they went and fished out all those comments.

BUT LOOK AT THAT SIGNATURE LINE! IT'S AMAZING! You're a smart ass, but I love it.

[WWolfe]

I will definitely be building Grenzo and abusing the crap out of the mulligan  ... until they hopefully fix that loophole.

I can see this being a problem for sure. That should be addressed.

[robort]

I did say "to see" and from what I am seeing I don't like it especially the reasoning behind it.

Quote "The goal of this new "London" mulligan is to make games where one or more players mulligan more competitive, especially in cases where players mulligan an unequal number of times. In particular, greater selection of the starting hand will reduce the number of "non-games" where a player's deck is unable to function due to not having a reasonable mix of lands and spells."
Here we go again with competitive stuff but I will get to that later on.
However unable to function? Apparently they have never heard of this thing called "Variance". It is in every card game and in every card game players learn to adapt to variance. With variance X is supposed to happen only a certain percentage of the time. Variance includes mathematics which is hardly ever talked about. Yet the mathematical part is accepted for example the 60 card deck has 24 lands and the 40 card deck has 17 lands. That is the normal for lands but do people know why? besides they are told that is the normal. I would go on but don't want to long of a ramble on this part lol.

We, as designers, strive not only to provide new card content but also to continue to update the game's rules and systems to provide the most enjoyable and competitive experiences we can. I'd like to share some insight as to why we're making this change and what we expect the results will be.
There is that word again "competitive". What you expect or what you desire is entirely 2 different things.

the goal of each change has been to give players a better chance of having a reasonable opening draw leading to a competitive game where either player might win. Again the word competitive rears its head.

As more and more games of Magic are being played these days across both tabletop and digital platforms, we've gathered data that shows that even the current Vancouver mulligan isn't doing as good of a job as it could be in providing a competitive starting point for both players.
I wonder how incomplete the data is and again the word competitive comes back into play. But this sentence also brings back variance and apparently they don't like variance and completely understand the concept variance brings into a card game.

A player who mulligans once against an opponent who keeps seven cards, in general, is at more of a disadvantage than we're comfortable with
First it is an entire Magic community and not just the "we" aspect. Again not comfortable with variance? Do they again know what it is?

We also dislike that some of those games play out in uninteresting ways where it's clear that the game was nearly over before it began based on starting hands alone. Again it is variance, you are going to have uninteresting games and you are going to have very interesting games. You are going to have blow out games and non blow out games. Again this is called variance and it is going to be part of any card game.

We've tested the new London mulligan internally for more than six months and are pleased with how it closes the gap between a player who mulligans and an opponent who doesn't, and also how it greatly reduces the number of games where a player's deck and strategy simply don't function at all.
Is there something about variance you just don't like??

We still want mulliganing to be something a player prefers not to do if they have a reasonable hand, we just want it to be a little less punishing when a mulligan is necessary.
Again this is part of variance, some games will be punishing while other games it will not.

The question is whether the metagame will adapt to those changes and come to a new, healthy equilibrium. So far, all signs point to yes, including for Modern. So the meta aspect not the entire Magic as a whole.

We expect the London mulligan to be almost all upside for Standard and Limited. In those formats being down a card in the starting hand is enough of a penalty that we don't anticipate players mulliganing much more aggressively than under the current Vancouver mulligan. It'll just make for more enjoyable games when mulligans do need to happen. Now I will get my boots on because the shite is getting deep with this paragraph. Enjoyable?? Thought you were aiming for competitive, so don't drop enjoyable now into the equation when you have been constantly spouting competitive.

Our approach for all formats will be to allow players and metagames to adjust and to gather data and feedback before considering any banned and restricted list changes. Didn't you just say you gathered data already?? So admitting you have incomplete data and it is just your way of trying to control this thing called variance??
But why should the metagame and players gather data for you? Since when does it become their job?

But in the end, the goal of this change is to make Magic more fun, and we have confidence that it will!
Stop tossing the shite around again, you said competitive so stop trying to say it is to make it fun when the clear intention is competitive

[burn your face]

My impression is that one of the goals of the london mulligan is to help give players more autonomy. I think the londan mulligan will do a good job of this, and make games more fun and more competitive at the same time.

 Variance is a good thing and an important part of the game. That said though, saying that a mulligan rule is going to control variance to a problematic degree doesn't seem possible. What would really be problematic is if everyone got to stack there deck, or manaweave or something.

I think the london mulligan it overall a positive change to standard, limited, and even modern. It might just be me, but I like playing something like a dredge mirror and having both players start with a leyline.

[Morganator 2.0]

Do you know what my favorite thing about Deckstats is? The stats.



So let's talk about variance. Specifically, within-group variance and between-group variance, and which one the London mulligan is trying to affect. I'm going to try to simplify this, so nobody ask what sums of squares are.

For MTG, we can consider within-group to be one deck. Every possible outcome of starting hands that deck has makes up the population, and each deck will have variation between hands. What we choose to define as the mean doesn't really matter, but let's go with "number of lands" (although, "playable hands" is more appropriate, but harder to explain). When you draw a hand,  sometimes you get 1 land, sometimes 6, but you (usually) hope that the average is 2 or 3. Whatever the outcome, your deck will have a set variance. The goal of deck-building is to make that within-group variance low, so that your deck's game plan will go through more often than not. Decks with really convoluted combos tend not to work so well for this reason; the number of playable hands is too low, and there are too many situations where something goes wrong.

Between-group variance is when the population becomes 2 or more decks. Now we are comparing the variance that both decks will have playable hands. If you want to have a fair game, the between group variance should be low. Otherwise, the game becomes too much about getting lucky. If you ever play with no mulligans, you more-or-less maximize the between-group variance.

The point of all mulligans (London mulligan included) is to decrease between-group variance. This is why mulligans are a good thing: it makes your starting hand less dependent on luck. Luck will always be a factor (as it is with most games) but I would rather play a game that comes down to my skill versus my opponent's skill. What you want to avoid with a mulligan, is one that affects within-group variance, because then people will be able to stack their deck. This was the problem with the Partial Paris in commander; it allowed combo decks to have lower within-group variance.

The London mulligan was tested in Modern, which I think has a good combination of different deck types. Does anyone know where I can find the results of this event?

[WWolfe]

Has top decks anyway...

https://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gplon18

[Loggiu]

playing mtg it's probably funnier with standard mulligan...this is a rule for tournament to give more chance to the stronger decks and that's right!!

[Red_Wyrm]

Do you know what my favorite thing about Deckstats is? The stats.

 Should be your signature line 😝 but I like the one you have now.

The partial pairs. Is that the French mulligan? Where you shuffle however many cards you choose away, and draw that many so you can keep 4 lands, and get rid of the 5th land in your hand, for example?

Everyone mulligans for that perfect hand, they have to decide if the loss of a cars is worth a potentially better hand than what they have.

Have any of you tried playing where the entire table chooses their perfect starting hand? I've done that, and I've found that there isnt usually a perfect starting hand, well for non combo decks) because if I'm playing against breya, stoney silence shouldnbe in my hand. But if im playing against superfriends, a The Immortal sun might be helpful. And drawing your hand, hoping for good cards is part of the fun. Nothing better than seeing the dude who spends way too much money kn cards get mana screwed or flooded.

I'm sure in a more competitive environment, where people win by combo this might not end to well. Itll probably whomever combos off last as everyone is going to have 1 or 2 answers for their opponents who combo first.

We've also started with our commanders on the field, which I advocated against as it is totally stupid. It completely negates the cost of a commander and dismisses the advantage of a 2 or 3 mana commander. Regardless, the ur dragon was held at bay because he didnt wanna open himself up to gisath, but that only lasted 1 turn because I have "such an attachable face." Then dinosaurs got too far ahead after 1 swing with a double cleave.

[WWolfe]

playing mtg it's probably funnier with standard mulligan...this is a rule for tournament to give more chance to the stronger decks and that's right!!

More fun or funnier?